How do you know you're not dreaming right now?

[christine77]

Sometimes my dreams are so mundane that they seem exactly like my life, so when I am awake, sometimes I'm not sure if I dreamed something or it really happened. However, other times I have such bizarre dreams, such as flying through space, that I'm absolutely positive the dream is not my real life.

Sometimes when I am dreaming, I am aware that it is a dream, however, in other cases, I am so caught up in the dream, that until I wake up, I feel it is real.

I have heard that there are two kinds of dream sleep: one is REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, where it is like you are watching a movie, (because your eyes are moving all over the place, but your body cannot move), and a second type of dreaming, which takes place in deep sleep, and is more like real life; you are in effect reliving your day. This theory makes sense to me and how I experience dreaming.

People that have sleep and mental disorders, or are deprived of dreams, often do have hallucinations and are in fact dreaming while they are awake. Therefore I would say, some people are literally living in a dream world.

I wonder what people think about prophetic dreaming? In the Bible there are many cases of it. Personally, I have not experienced it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wonder what people think about prophetic dreaming? In the Bible there are many cases of it. Personally, I have not experienced it

St Bosco and his schools and youth clubs were inspired by his dreams IIRC.

http://www.amazon.com/Forty-Dreams-St-John-Bosco/dp/0895555972http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/years_abc/corpus_christi-2.htm

 

[Elioenai26]

I know I am not dreaming because I am awake.

 

[Gadarene]

I know I am not dreaming because I am awake.

Unless it's a dream within a dream.

cue inception memes etc.

 

[WonderBeat]

I suppose that reflection on the qualitativeness of a dream would convince one that it is only a dream, and thus induce a awake state within the dream, that it is only a dream. However, one would have to reflectively do this in the dream. As long as one does not, he or she is unawares of any reality other than in the dream. And how is that distinguishable from what we are experiencing now? Not that there are flying cars or such, but that things feel "regular." Not because we reflect on them but in the moment.

 

[Elioenai26]

Unless it's a dream within a dream.

cue inception memes etc.

I have no good reason to maintain that having a dream within a dream is even possible, leave alone that I am actually in a dream within a dream.

I know the stuff that dreams are made of, and I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that I am not dreaming.

Only in a philosophical discussion would this even be an entertainable idea. I.e. that I might be typing replies in this forum while dreaming....

 

[Eudaimonist]

Only in a philosophical discussion would this even be an entertainable idea. I.e. that I might be typing replies in this forum while dreaming....

Why wouldn't one dream about typing replies in a messageboard?

Though actually, in my experience, that is an excellent test. I do not remember a single dream where I could read coherent, re-readable text.

I remember several times as a teen while waking up in the morning while I was dreaming and discovering that while just barely conscious I could still dream and control what I saw during that dream. It was a form of lucid dreaming.

So, I experimented with reading a dream newspaper. I found that the dream-making power of my brain could not produce coherent English text. Instead, I saw random letters strung together in "words" and "sentences". And when I re-read what I had just read, the letters would be different. The dream-making power could not faithfully reproduce the text even though I had tried a few times.

I don't recall ever seeing coherent text in a regular (non-lucid) dream, and I doubt that I ever have. Just posting and reading at message boards is an excellent (though unneeded, IMJ) proof that I am awake.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

I have no good reason to maintain that having a dream within a dream is even possible, leave alone that I am actually in a dream within a dream.

I know the stuff that dreams are made of, and I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that I am not dreaming.

Only in a philosophical discussion would this even be an entertainable idea. I.e. that I might be typing replies in this forum while dreaming....

Maybe this layer of dreaming is just more convincing.

Sure, it's an assertion, as are most of the claims that come with these sorts of debates.

 

[Elioenai26]

Long before movies such as Vanilla Sky and Inception became references to what is entailed in dreaming, specifically lucid dreaming, I was a student of various trains and schools of thought regarding astral projection and lucid dreaming. Isaac Bruce's work on astral projection was my most cherished book and I failed not to read it intently every night, hoping by some way to be able to become a master at controlling not only my dreams but astral projecting my immaterial self at will whenever and wherever I so desired.

During this time I was taught some of the basic practices entailed in this subject such as dream recall and periodic "reality checks" or rc's. I was taught that immediately upon waking that I should write down all that I could remember of the preceding dreams I had. This would enhance my ability to remember my dreams more clearly, for I was taught that most people when they say they do not dream, actually do have dreams but just simply forget them upon waking.

I was taught to look for signs like jumbled and scrambled incoherent written language, clocks without numbers and or hands, and various other things that are "out of place" or "abnormal". All of these would signal to me that I was indeed dreaming and would lead me to "awaken" within my dreams, and then consciously seek to maintain that fine line of balance between the dream world and reality.

I said all of that to say this. Personally, I have come to know through practice, that my dreams have a marked quality about them which enables me to distinguish them from reality. I know I am not dreaming now, because in a dream, I would not be able to do what I am doing now. The sentiment is echoed by Eudaimonist when he elaborates on the aspect of the existence of unintelligible language in dreams.

There are certain qualities about dreams that make them dreams. Just as there are certain qualities about reality that makes it reality. In my dreams, one of my favorite past times is flying. I love to fly around like a bird. If I were to attempt to run down my street right now and take off flying, I would not fly, but rather fall to the ground and get hurt, maybe seriously. How do I know this? I know this because I know I am awake. How do I know this? Because I simply look around, I observe my surroundings. I come to the right conclusion that I am awake because I know what it is to be awake and to be asleep.

I know this post was intended to be more philosophically abstract, but why pretend that reality is not distinguishable from dreams? The average person who lives today does not walk around wandering if they are dreaming or not. Neither should we spend too much time on debating the issue.

 

[Gadarene]

I know this post was intended to be more philosophically abstract, but why pretend that reality is not distinguishable from dreams? The average person who lives today does not walk around wandering if they are dreaming or not. Neither should we spend too much time on debating the issue.

The point is that you don't know for sure whether this reality is real, or a convincing illusion.

But glad to know we can just dismiss such longstanding philosophical dilemmas just because someone says we should.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The point is that you don't know for sure whether this reality is real, or a convincing illusion.

Why not? How do you know this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Why not? How do you know this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

No-one knows for sure. That's the entire point. Anything from there is a working assumption, but people invariably end up operating on the assumption that "reality" is so.

 

[Elioenai26]

The point is that you don't know for sure whether this reality is real, or a convincing illusion.

But glad to know we can just dismiss such longstanding philosophical dilemmas just because someone says we should.

I understand your sentiment. But you have made a statement, and forgive and correct me if I am wrong, that appears to be one which you would have me to accept as being authoritative and worthy of acceptance when you say, and I quote: " You don't know for sure whether this reality is real, or a convincing illusion".

On what grounds or basis should I accept your assertion about reality? Do you have some convincing argument or "proof" you would like to supply me to convince me to discard my own properly basic belief about the nature of reality in favor of your view?

Are you dreaming right now Gadarene? How do you know you are not? If you are not able to confidently assert you are not dreaming, then why should I regard anything you say as credible?

Or are you just being argumentative because this is a philosophy forum? If so, what do you profit by being argumentative?

 

[Eudaimonist]

No-one knows for sure.

No one knows for sure that one should be so skeptical that reality is merely an illusion.

So why worry about that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

No one knows for sure that one should be so skeptical that reality is merely an illusion.

So why worry about that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I concur with this....

 

[Gadarene]

I understand your sentiment. But you have made a statement, and forgive and correct me if I am wrong, that appears to be one which you would have me to accept as being authoritative and worthy of acceptance when you say, and I quote: " You don't know for sure whether this reality is real, or a convincing illusion".

On what grounds or basis should I accept your assertion about reality? Do you have some convincing argument or "proof" you would like to supply me to convince me to discard my own properly basic belief about the nature of reality in favor of your view?

In my experience, people who use the term "properly basic belief" aren't all that keen on proof, so I'm not about to waste my time.

Are you dreaming right now Gadarene? How do you know you are not? If you are not able to confidently assert you are not dreaming, then why should I regard anything you say as credible?

Or are you just being argumentative because this is a philosophy forum? If so, what do you profit by being argumentative?

Again - the point is the most anyone can do is assert, and one assertion is no more valuable than another. I'm not saying reality definitely is an illusion.

At these point, we're basically having an assumption-waving contest, and I'm pointing out that this particular one is entirely irresolvable.

 

[Gadarene]

No one knows for sure that one should be so skeptical that reality is merely an illusion.

So why worry about that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Who said I'm worried? I'm just pointing out that we don't know either way for absolutely certain. One can keep asking "are you sure", and asserting multiple levels of dream reality to reestablish the problem, which is hardly solved by assertions like Elioenai's, who seems to think he define reality by asserting it.

This doesn't mean that both options (dream/reality) are equally likely, of course, just that we haven't been able to peer outside reality or really be sure of what reality "is". Think of my response as analogous to weak atheism. It's a very tacit, nominal admission that we don't know enough to say that god definitively does not exist, but that said there is no reason to think that god does not exist and no reason to act as if he did. Just because I make the admission that it's possible doesn't say anything about whether I actually think it's probable.

If you think my response is over-the-top, then you've hit on why I'm increasingly starting to dislike identifying as a weak atheist such clarifications are only necessary with people determined to be tedious nitpickers

 

[Elioenai26]

In my experience, people who use the term "properly basic belief" aren't all that keen on proof, so I'm not about to waste my time.



Again - the point is the most anyone can do is assert, and one assertion is no more valuable than another. I'm not saying reality definitely is an illusion.

At these point, we're basically having an assumption-waving contest, and I'm pointing out that this particular is entirely irresolvable.

I am most certainly glad that "wasting time" is not something you are too keen on. In this you and I agree. This was exactly what I argued for in the last two sentences of my post dated 7:51am today. On this we agree.

However I disagree with you completely when you say, and I quote: "one assertion is no more valuble than another"....

This is clearly false. In doing this, you make an assertion to be by necessity, synonymous with an unprovable, opinion. This leap simply is not justifiable. You do this to support your view, but in doing so, you have not shot yourself in the foot, but in the head.

Why? Because your whole argument is an "assertion", and a most unqualified assertion at that!

Value of assertion is determined by how close an assertion corresponds to truth. Now.... only one of two possibilities is applicable here....

1. Either we are all dreaming right now.

or...

2. We are not.

I assert we are not dreaming. I also assert that my assertion is of more value than its negation. I have already supplied various reasons to support my assertion and I still await your presentation of any undercutting or rebutting defeater of my assertion.....

In conclusion......

In the absence of some undercutting defeater, we are to maintain that we are indeed conscious and awake, not unconscious and abiding in some "dream state". The burden of proof is on you to convince us that we should doubt our conscious awareness of the world around us.

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe this layer of dreaming is just more convincing.

If there's more than one layer of dreaming and each has distinct and unique properties not present in the other, it's not fair to equivocate and call them both dreaming.

 

[Gadarene]

If there's more than one layer of dreaming and each has distinct and unique properties not present in the other, it's not fair to equivocate and call them both dreaming.

Point taken. But that doesn't resolve the problem of whether reality is really real (urgh) or is just another layer stacked on top of another.

Then again, maybe all this belabouring the point does is show the limits of "real"/"reality" as a label.

I'm not seeing what all the fuss here is about. This is basically akin to the argument of solipsism, and I've stated my workaround to that plenty of times on this board, but it'd still be technically incorrect to say we know for absolutely sure that what we perceive as reality is definitely reality although there aren't any compelling reasons to doubt it either.