Just Living In A Dream...

[ComradeRed]

I was out with my friends the other day, and one of my friends asked the question "Who thought that we were just living in a dream?"

I thought that it was Heidegger, but with my distate for philosophy I don't really know. None of my friends knew either, but now it's driving me insane; which philosopher(s) thought we were living in a dream?

Also is there any one book that it is in, or is it just some general concept?

[Monty Cantsin]

George Berkeley.

Descartes demons was a similar concept.

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

Morpheus from The Matrix.

[bezdomni]

^ Haha.

I'd say Descartes' "demons" was very similar. I'd credit him with the popularization of the concept.

Although it was probably some obscure Greek skeptic who actually thought of it first.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, it is an idea put about by anyone who has forgotten what the word 'dream' means -- and perhaps thinks it means something like a house or a flat (which you can live in)

[Hit The North]

I think the earliest precursor to this kind of thinking is to be found in the Chinese Daoist tradition, in the book Zhuangzi named after the alleged author, in the section "On Arranging Things". This section, which is usually called "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly", relates that one night Zhuangzi dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly flying happily. After he woke up, he wondered how he could determine whether he was Zhuangzi who had just finished dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly who had just started dreaming he was Zhuangzi.

By the way, isn't this:


Red, it is an idea put about by anyone who has forgotten what the word 'dream' means -- and perhaps thinks it means something like a house or a flat (which you can live in)

just annoying pedantry dressed up as insight? (Obviously I use the phrase 'dressed up' advisedly, realising that an attitude cannot wear clothes. Duh.)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Yes, the deceiving demon was, as far as I know the first popular version, although I agree with CPA that it was probably some old-school skeptic first.

Rosa, during a dream you are alive, it is just that your sensations do not reflect reality at all. Reality is the place and position/time etc in which you have gone to sleep, but as we fundamentally rely upon our sensations for verification, it is hard to tell at times whether or not you are dreaming. Some people never experience this, but others will experience dreams that are indistinguishable from life, apart from with hind-sight. Even then double-dreams can make this difficult.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:15 AM
^ Haha.

I'd say Descartes' "demons" was very similar. I'd credit him with the popularization of the concept.

Although it was probably some obscure Greek skeptic who actually thought of it first.
Descartes demons led him to the famous "I think, therefore I am" so he discarded this theory that we are controlled. I think.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


just annoying pedantry dressed up as insight?

Well, if someone uses words sloppily, and I point it out, how can that be pedantry?

This is how I deal with this pathetic response at my site:


And to those who think that this sort "pedantry" can be ignored it is worth noting that this is the only way they can excuse their own sloppy thought, and the only way they can make their ideas appear to work. This attitude would not be tolerated for one second in the sciences, or in any other branch of knowledge. Can you imagine someone arguing that it does not matter what the Magna Carta said, or when the Battle of the Nile was fought, or what the Declaration of Independence contained, or what the wording of Newton's Second Law was, or whether "G", the Gravitational Constant, was 6.6742 or 7.6642 x 10-11 M m2 kg-2, or something else, or what the exact wording of a contract in law was, or that it did not matter precisely what Marx meant by "variable capital" -- or who cares if there were serious errors in that policeman's evidence against those strikers? Or if they retorted "So what if there are a few serious errors in this or that mathematical proof, or if there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass in Physics; what are you, a pedant?" You can be sure such 'non-pedants' will be looking at these Essays with finely-tuned eyes, nit-picking with the best. They already have.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Changed on edit: Heg, thanks for that; at least you know how to construct an argument!


Rosa, during a dream you are alive, it is just that your sensations do not reflect reality at all. Reality is the place and position/time etc in which you have gone to sleep, but as we fundamentally rely upon our sensations for verification, it is hard to tell at times whether or not you are dreaming. Some people never experience this, but others will experience dreams that are indistinguishable from life, apart from with hind-sight. Even then double-dreams can make this difficult.


I deny you can use the word reality in this context (i.e., philosophically) -- it is an empty word.

You go to sleep in a bed, room, cave or cardboard box if you want, but not oin 'reality' (whatever it is it is not a container).

And I do not rely on any sensations to tell me I am awake; I allege that you do not either.

[To tell if something is a 'sensation' or not you have to be awake. So if you want to use that word, it concedes the point at issue.]

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 01:13 PM
CZ:


just annoying pedantry dressed up as insight?

Well, if someone uses words sloppily, and I point it out, how can that be pedantry?

This is how I deal with this pathetic response at my site:


And to those who think that this sort "pedantry" can be ignored it is worth noting that this is the only way they can excuse their own sloppy thought, and the only way they can make their ideas appear to work. This attitude would not be tolerated for one second in the sciences, or in any other branch of knowledge. Can you imagine someone arguing that it does not matter what the Magna Carta said, or when the Battle of the Nile was fought, or what the Declaration of Independence contained, or what the wording of Newton's Second Law was, or whether "G", the Gravitational Constant, was 6.6742 or 7.6642 x 10-11 M m2 kg-2, or something else, or what the exact wording of a contract in law was, or that it did not matter precisely what Marx meant by "variable capital" -- or who cares if there were serious errors in that policeman's evidence against those strikers? Or if they retorted "So what if there are a few serious errors in this or that mathematical proof, or if there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass in Physics; what are you, a pedant?" You can be sure such 'non-pedants' will be looking at these Essays with finely-tuned eyes, nit-picking with the best. They already have.]
Sure, but your trick always seems to be to reduce a word's meaning to its most elementary meaning and discount the creativity of language and the multiple secondary meanings words may have. The result is you flatten language. I bet you're a pain in the arse at poetry readings. :D

Anyway, can one truly argue that a person 'lives' in a flat and doesn't just reside there?

I suppose it depends on how often they go out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Sure, but your trick always seems to be to reduce a word's meaning to its most elementary meaning and discount the creativity of language and the multiple secondary meanings words may have. The result is you flatten language. I bet you're a pain in the arse at poetry readings

If you want to write fiction, or poetry, fine; make stuff up. I have no quarrel with that. [I avoid poetry readings since I tend to meet sloppy characters like you.]

If you want to do philosophy, traditional philosophy, make stuff up too.

But then do not expect other words whose meaning you take for granted to stay the same. If you can live in a dream, perhaps 'live' means 'drink cola' -- how do you know?

Once you begin to screw around with material language, all meaning starts to slide (as even Hegel would have agreed).

So, as I noted, if you want to use language sloppily, that is up to you, but don't expect nature to take any notice -- it does not have to answer to our linguistic profligacy.

So any 'conclusions' you draw are either worthless, or merely poetical.

And that is why, after 2400 years, no progress at all has been made in Philosophy (except the invention of more empty jargon).

And, next time the doc tells you you have flu, tell him/her that his/her lack of imagination in the use of words is the only thing wrong with you.

In science, and in every other serious discipline, this sort of sloppy approach to details is not tolerated.

In poetry and fiction on the other hand, it is.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 12:17 PM
CPA, thanks for that; at least you know how to construct an argument!


Rosa, during a dream you are alive, it is just that your sensations do not reflect reality at all. Reality is the place and position/time etc in which you have gone to sleep, but as we fundamentally rely upon our sensations for verification, it is hard to tell at times whether or not you are dreaming. Some people never experience this, but others will experience dreams that are indistinguishable from life, apart from with hind-sight. Even then double-dreams can make this difficult.


I deny you can use the word reality in this context (i.e., philosophically) -- it is an empty word.

You go to sleep in a bed, room, cave or cardboard box if you want, but not oin 'reality' (whatever it is it is not a container).

And I do not rely on any sensations to tell me I am awake; I allege that you do not either.

[To tell if something is a 'sensation' or not you have to be awake. So if you want to use that word, it concedes the point at issue.]
Twasn't me, but thanks for the kind words anyway. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry CPA, I am obviously living in a dream...er, sh*t!

I should, of course, have addressed these comments to Heg!!

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 12:17 PM
I deny you can use the word reality in this context (i.e., philosophically) -- it is an empty word.






If there is no "reality" as such (if it is an empty term), then where do we discriminate between dreams and actual world existence? I tried to define what was implied by "reality" in the context that I intended to use it first, but I realise I may not have been very successful.


You go to sleep in a bed, room, cave or cardboard box if you want, but not oin 'reality' (whatever it is it is not a container).
OK, forget reality as such, take our "actual surroundings/condition" as an attempt at a less flimsy term...


And I do not rely on any sensations to tell me I am awake; I allege that you do not either.No, whenever I question this I assume that because I questioned I am awake. Although I have had a few double dreams in which I thought I had woken up from a dream that I remembered, only to wake up again feeling fuzzy headed and uncertain of my state of consciousness.


[To tell if something is a 'sensation' or not you have to be awake. So if you want to use that word, it concedes the point at issue.]
I agree completely, but if our sensations function within a dream, how exactly do we verify our awakeness?

Of course this shouldn't be taken to the level of solipsism, but I do think there is legitimate room for doubt at least.

On a side note; does anyone else find talking about perception and doubt very difficult because of the language barriers that exist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Heg:


If there is no "reality" as such (if it is an empty term), then where do we discriminate between dreams and actual world existence?

Well I think you mistake my purpose; I am not denying our experience of the world, just the inappropriate words people (but mainly philosophers) use.

The word 'real' features as a qualfying word, as in real money (as opposed to counterfiet), real friend (as opposed to a false one), real antique (as opposed to a fake). Extending it and using it to talk about 'reality' as such (as if it names something) alters its syntax in a way that makes it either misleading or vacuous.



Now, if someone cannot tell the difference between dreaming and being awake, they are in no position to understand any argument you might produce to help them regain their sanity. [This is to adopt Wittgenstein's tactic in 'On Certainty'.]

Throwing into this confused mix an ill-advised word ('reality') will not help, but will if anything make things worse.

Now you replace the container with the [i]blanket:


OK, forget reality as such, take our "actual surroundings/condition" as an attempt at a less flimsy term...

Heg, give up the search for the 'magic bullet/formula' that will solve this 'problem'. It isn't one, except for those who have forgotten what our words mean, or who are feigning insanity.


Although I have had a few double dreams in which I thought I had woken up from a dream that I remembered, only to wake up again feeling fuzzy headed and uncertain of my state of consciousness.

Well there is nothing intrinsically threatening about error (so long as we can distinguish it from its opposite, etc.); it is indeed as common as mud. But, that should not prompt you to wave goodbye to your good sense, and allow this 'nonproblem' to worry you. [Unless you think you are going mad -- which in your case I would think highly unlikely :P ].


but if our sensations function within a dream, how exactly do we verify our awakeness?

Well, your senses do, but what 'sensations' were you thinking about?

[As soon as you are aware of them as sensations, I suggest to you that would be sufficient grounds for saying you were awake -- or alternatively for denying you are aware of them.]

Again, if you cannot tell you are awake, you will not know what a 'verification' is.


On a side note; does anyone else find talking about perception and doubt very difficult because of the language barriers that exist?

There are no such barriers; it is only because of our incredibly rich language that you/we can talk about such things to begin with. Far from being barriers they are freeways/motorways in comparison.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 6 2006, 03:47 PM
Now, if someone cannot tell the difference between dreaming and being awake, they are in no position to understand any argument you might produce to help them regain their sanity. [This is to adopt Wittgenstein's tactic in 'On Certainty'.]

To be honest, differntiating between the states of sleep and consciousness are not really necessary. Even if there is room for doubt, we should still act the same in our dreams (insofar as we have control over them) as we do whilst awake. Unless you are aware that you are asleep (rare), then this is really a non-issue.


Heg, give up the search for the 'magic bullet/formula' that will solve this 'problem'. It isn't one, except for those who have forgotten what our words mean, or who are feigning insanity.I know that, but getting closer to the ideas I am trying to express is more of a linguistic exercise than a philosophical one.


Well there is nothing intrinsically threatening about error (so long as we can distinguish it from its opposite, etc.); it is indeed as common as mud.
I agree 100%, and this is something that idealists need to realise.


Well, your senses do, but what 'sensations' were you thinking about?Hah, good question :P This is the problem with phenomenology in my oppinion, the inability to reduce the thing merely to the sensations that allow us to be aware of its existence.


But, that should not prompt you to wave goodbye to your good sense, and allow this 'nonproblem' to worry you. [Unless you think you are going mad -- which in your case I would think highly unlikely :P ].
I know I am going mad, but that doesnt mean I am abandoning my good sense ;) But yes, as I said above this (as with most skeptical problems) can more or less be ignored. I suppose that getting your mind into some of these positions can be fun to understand an opponent, or as a sort of parlour game, but in itself such thought solves no great problems.


[As soon as you are aware of them as sensations, I suggest to you that would be sufficient grounds for saying you were awake -- or alternatively for denying you are aware of them.]

Again, if you cannot tell you are awake, you will not know what a 'verification' is.
In double dreams do you not "verify" your awakeness, only to find your self asleep again?


There are no such barriers; it is only because of our incredibly rich language that you/we can talk about such things to begin with. Far from being barriers they are freeways/motorways in comparison.
There are many pitfalls, and the vague nature of a lot of our words means that the "meaning" at times is more dependant on context than on the words in use. There are concepts out there that are hard to express because of a slightly limited language. We create new language all the time to allow for this, but when you are talking about (largely meaningless) abstract concepts, the language we have is lacking in a way. In a discussion with someone that tries to defend/explain an abstract position, unless you are aware of the particular way in which they are twisting ordinary language, you can never understand them at enough of a level to educate/debate them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Heg, thankyou for those comments:


This is the problem with phenomenology in my oppinion, the inability to reduce the thing merely to the sensations that allow us to be aware of its existence.

Well, when I asked this I wasn't intending it in this sense, but in the sense that I deny that you/I/anyone has all that many 'sensations' -- which is a vague and incohate term-of-art (inherited from the pseudo-scientists of the 17th century (for example Locke)) we would do well to drop, or at the least treat with circumspection.

In ordinary language we have countless numbers of words to describe the way we interface with the world.

[Check out Peter Hacker's book: 'Appearance and Reality' on this.]

So my question was really aimed at asking when you would normally use that word.

[For example, we do not use it to tell if we are awake (although a doctor might). In fact, I doubt that many of us (outside specialist areas of the medical world) use it more than a few dozen times a year, if that -- except, perhaps, when doing 'traditional philosophy'.]


I suppose that getting your mind into some of these positions can be fun to understand an opponent, or as a sort of parlour game, but in itself such thought solves no great problems.

Once again, there is nothing there to understand (unless you are using the word 'understand' in an odd way), any more than there is anything to 'understand' in the Jabberwocky example I keep using.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with whiling away the hours using empty words and phrases (but you can just get drunk to do that!), but, speaking for myself, I'd rather watch my toenails grow -- or get drunk.

Now if you have to do this for college etc., that is a different matter (but you should get paid to have this linguistic pain inflicted upon you!).


In double dreams do you not "verify" your awakeness, only to find your self asleep again?

Well, I do not know what you mean by a 'double dream' -- do you mean you dream twice, or dream of your identical twin, or dream of a large whiskey....???


There are many pitfalls, and the vague nature of a lot of our words means that the "meaning" at times is more dependant on context than on the words in use.

True, but this is a contingent problem that can be worked around -- much of the best philosophy of mind since WW2 has indeed done this -- Anthony Kenny's work comes to mind here, as does Ryle's.

The rest of what you say I cannot disagree with, but see my comment earlier.