Thread: real world vs. dream world

Reality is also a developed sense. If you were to take a human baby, and raise them on some imaginary planet or such, with completely different laws of physics, animals, social structures, etc.. then his perception of reality is going to be widely different than that of someone on Earth.
Just the same if you were to somehow make a person spend the majority of his life in an endless dreamworld, and then finally wake him up and say "Surprise! Welcome to Reality!" Sadly, a reality with rather finite possibilities.

Hm, recorded cases aren't existant, but you can take as an example the people who get cross-like injuries because they are truly religious, unless people consider them a miracle, wich would open the possibility, and it being mental would still open it <.<

Originally Posted by Kreature

no no no no no.... You can't quote and break down what I'm saying individually, because it takes things out of context and then kinda ruins the whole idea.

Dude, what you said is a trick to wiggle out of replying, because you can't argue those points, simple as that.
Then you twist things around again and try to force your way of discussion on me: repeating the same things again and again, ignoring what another person has said about them. That never makes people win arguments, it just shows that they have nothing to back themselves up with. But if you're arguing for the sake of winning, then sure, you can bore me to death by repetitions, I'll leave, and you'll proudly consider the argument "won".

Perception defines Reality.

I disproved it with a riding train example, please prove that I'm wrong first.

Now, I am not changing the definition of Real at all.

Yes you do, by ignoring what I say about it and repeating your own definition as if it was 100% true.

In fact, I am trying to help DEFINE what is real.

No you don't, be honest with yourself please, you have a definition already and you're trying to force it on me by repeating it.

P.S.

Like I said, consider why for a moment, we consider everything in our dreams to be perfectly normal, no matter how bizzar they seem at the time.

Not all parts of brain are active during sleep, that's why rational thought doesn't work. It can't be used to prove that perception in dreams is more "normal" than in reality, unless you state first that you consider rational thought a distortion of perception.

IWANTTOCHANGE, you're proving their point by aguing what you think reality is. right at this instant how can you tell this is real? like you said about dreaming and how some parts of your brain aren't working, how can you tell that all the parts of your brain are working right now?
i understand your point, but try and be a little more open minded because you can't possibly know more about "reality" than anyone else, myself included.

p.s. i don't know if you've ever read THE STAND by stephen king, but you remind me of the character harold lauder

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

Dude, what you said is a trick to wiggle out of replying, because you can't argue those points, simple as that.
Then you twist things around again and try to force your way of discussion on me: repeating the same things again and again, ignoring what another person has said about them. That never makes people win arguments, it just shows that they have nothing to back themselves up with. But if you're arguing for the sake of winning, then sure, you can bore me to death by repetitions, I'll leave, and you'll proudly consider the argument "won".


I disproved it with a riding train example, please prove that I'm wrong first.


Yes you do, by ignoring what I say about it and repeating your own definition as if it was 100% true.


No you don't, be honest with yourself please, you have a definition already and you're trying to force it on me by repeating it.

P.S.

Not all parts of brain are active during sleep, that's why rational thought doesn't work. It can't be used to prove that perception in dreams is more "normal" than in reality, unless you state first that you consider rational thought a distortion of perception.

The reason I didn't answer all your questions, was not because I couldn't, but rather, because its all a matter of perspective. But if it'll suit you, I'll answer your train question:

All you have to do to find out is try to stop a riding train with the force of your will to learn that the train is real and thus independent from your evaluation of its realness.

What if, with my perception if Reality, I see the train stop when I try to stop it with my will? What If I truly perceive the train as stopping? Like I was saying above, Reality is what you make of it.

Not all parts of brain are active during sleep, that's why rational thought doesn't work. It can't be used to prove that perception in dreams is more "normal" than in reality, unless you state first that you consider rational thought a distortion of perception.

In your Lucid Dreams (where your Rational Thought portion of the brain is active), are you always able to control everything, and make everything make sense? Even when your fully conscious and aware of what is going on in your dreams, they still can make little sense, and offer 0 control. To that end, MANY people also lose lucidity because they start to accept the dream as real again.

I am not trying to put out there what Reality really is, nor am I trying to force my definition on anyone.

What I am trying to do, is to get YOU to tell me what YOU believe makes something real.

To better understand what I'm trying to do, lets play a small game. Finish this sentence in your next post:

"Ok, this world is the real world. I believe it is real because ________ ".

I want to know, in your own words, what makes the world real to you.

Originally Posted by Kreature

What if, with my perception if Reality, I see the train stop when I try to stop it with my will? What If I truly perceive the train as stopping? Like I was saying above, Reality is what you make of it.

But CAN you see the train stop? If you tried to do it, you wouldn't see it stop. We can even modify the example a little, like making you stand in front of the riding train, then even IF you have a super-ability to produce and control hallucinations fully replacing real objects , you wouldn't be able to survive, thus proving that the train was real.

Let me ask you, are you talking to yourself now and it's you who imagines all the words you see now? Well, me, I don't exist externally, reality is what you imagine...

In your Lucid Dreams (where your Rational Thought portion of the brain is active), are you always able to control everything, and make everything make sense?

It's never fully active in dreams.

What I am trying to do, is to get YOU to tell me what YOU believe makes something real.

I don't know if those were not rhetorical questions, but they sounded like that. Because you asked what reality is and then answered on your own

What makes the world real to me is the opposite of your idea, which is why we're arguing here I believe that the world around exists and that it wasn't me who created it (and so it's of external, and not of internal origin). For this very reason I do not believe that the external world can be controlled by my own perception. I couldn't shoot myself and remain intact if I wanted to, because there are physics laws that I can't change and the world works the way it does, no matter what I desire. If I hallucinate or dream, then what I see is my internal world produced with such force that I may take it for external, but inability to tell reality from fantasy (or internal from external) is a sign of mental illness, or of a few important brain parts being inactive in dreaming.

Originally Posted by ForgottenDream

IWANTTOCHANGE, you're proving their point by aguing what you think reality is.

I've been discussing Kreature's words and whether they were logical or not, not forcing my own definition by stating my own definition (until the last post) and repeating it.

As for your question about brain parts, it's easy to answer, all needed to know which parts of brain are working now is an experiment that can show results. Theoretically you can of course say anything you want, even that you have no brain and think with your right thumb, but that wouldn't make it true or real no matter what you wish. People used to be unaware of human anatomy in early middle ages, too, but it doesn't mean that what they imagined about it was as true as what we know nowadays

I'm not sure about you, but Kreature argues that you can imagine anything you want and it's going to be true and real. You cannot reduce this claim to "true and real in imagination", because Kreature openly stated:

""Realness of external objects" is subject to each experience."

Notice external, not internal! What Kreature is talking about is not an idea of thinking with your thumb instead of you heart, but that if you imagine yourself thinking with your thumb, then it's your thumb doing the thinking!
The same about shooting yourself: Kreature thinks that bullets will do zero damage if you imagine it like that.

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

I'm not sure about you, but Kreature argues that you can imagine anything you want and it's going to be true and real. You cannot reduce this claim to "true and real in imagination"

well i'm open to the possibility no matter how unlikely. i'm leaning towards your argument because it can be proven by science, but you never truly know even with "proof". for example when in a dream you do a reality check and for whatever reason you decide that it isn't a dream because whatever you tried to do (for example turn on a light) it passed the test. then you wake up kicking yourself because it was so obvious that it was a dream even if your reality check didn't work.
i don't know if this is a good example or not of what i'm trying to get across, but my only point is there is always a possibility no matter how unlikely. and maybe just maybe you really do indeed think with your right thumb and a device isn't invented yet that proves this. and people without a right thumb think with their left big toe . yeah i'm joking about the thumb/toe thing, but the simple truth is we just don't know ANYTHING for certain. but that doesn't necessarily mean i truly believe everything i hear is true (quiet the opposite), or that i can make things appear using my mind (i wish).

i wish i could live in the lucid world , my real life is fine , but god dam if u had full control in your dreams its beautiful

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

What makes the world real to me is the opposite of your idea, which is why we're arguing here I believe that the world around exists and that it wasn't me who created it (and so it's of external, and not of internal origin). For this very reason I do not believe that the external world can be controlled by my own perception. I couldn't shoot myself and remain intact if I wanted to, because there are physics laws that I can't change and the world works the way it does, no matter what I desire. If I hallucinate or dream, then what I see is my internal world produced with such force that I may take it for external, but inability to tell reality from fantasy (or internal from external) is a sign of mental illness, or of a few important brain parts being inactive in dreaming.

You still didn't answer the question. You believe the world around you exists. But why? What makes you believe that the world your experiencing, is real? This isn't a rhetorical question.

What about this world, makes it real to you? Is it the fact that you can't change anything? If thats the case, I could argue that the only reason you think that way, is because you've spent most of your time in the "real world" and so believe that is how things are suppose to be.

If you spent most of your time in the Dream World, and only 8 hours a day in the waking world (basically a reversal of sleep habits), and done that since birth, then would the dream world not seem like the real world, and this one, merely a dream?

Just because its different than the Dream World, doesn't prove its the real world. The Dream world is different than the Real World. Does that prove its the real one?

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

I've been discussing Kreature's words and whether they were logical or not, not forcing my own definition by stating my own definition (until the last post) and repeating it.

As for your question about brain parts, it's easy to answer, all needed to know which parts of brain are working now is an experiment that can show results. Theoretically you can of course say anything you want, even that you have no brain and think with your right thumb, but that wouldn't make it true or real no matter what you wish. People used to be unaware of human anatomy in early middle ages, too, but it doesn't mean that what they imagined about it was as true as what we know nowadays

I'm not sure about you, but Kreature argues that you can imagine anything you want and it's going to be true and real. You cannot reduce this claim to "true and real in imagination", because Kreature openly stated:

Notice external, not internal! What Kreature is talking about is not an idea of thinking with your thumb instead of you heart, but that if you imagine yourself thinking with your thumb, then it's your thumb doing the thinking!
The same about shooting yourself: Kreature thinks that bullets will do zero damage if you imagine it like that.

No, what I am talking about, is PERCEPTION. If Perception defines reality, then you can perceive the bullet as doing no damage to yourself. Will it? Sure. But will you see it do the damage, or feel it? No. So how do we know it really happened? Do we believe what everyone else says? Do we go by their perception instead of our own?

As I demonstrated in my Religion analogy, you can't always go with what the Masses say is true.

So next you could say: "If the bullet hits you in a lethal spot, and you die in the real world, that means its the real world.", but now ask yourself: "What happens when we die?". No one knows that answer. For all we know, when we die, we just simply shift to the "other world" known as the Dream World, and live there.

So to say that "Death defines Reality" is faulty due to the fact that we don't know what happens when we die. What happens after death is debatable by religions,science, and theories, and so again, you can't just say "Well, everyone says this happens, so it does.".


In short:

It is Perception that defines what is real. You believe this world is real, because you perceive your experiences in this world is being real according to the laws of this world.

If I was to say: "I believe the DREAM world is real, because I perceive my experiences in the dream world as being real according to the laws of the dream world."

That is no different than the definition of the Real World.

That is why I'm trying to get you to define, in more detail, what makes the real world real to you. You say you didn't create it, and that makes it real. Who's to say you created the Dream World? Who's to say that the Dream World, isn't created on an entirely separate plane of existence? That plane of existence had to be created by something right? does that then mean the dream world is real?


The point I'm hoping to get across is, you can't judge what is true based on "Logic" alone, because your only trying to use the logic of one world, to define the other.

The Dream World Logic doesn't work with the Real World, and vice-versa. So you can't use one to say the other is real or fake.

nicely put Kreature

life is but a dream.

Originally Posted by Kreature

You still didn't answer the question. You believe the world around you exists. But why? What makes you believe that the world your experiencing, is real?

At first I wrote what I think are qualities of the real world, but deleted them, because I think there's only one thing to be said. All others are from a "first person perception" and I feel that they can't define reality fully, because reality is external. You can't define an external object by how you perceive it, you should define it from an external perspective, but it isn't possible for us. So I'd say the primary quality of reality is just that: presence of external objects. UNLIKE dreams which are internal... I think that presence or absence of external objects is one major difference between reality and unreality.
The only thing you need to do to disprove that such a difference exists is to prove that the dream world is not internal and contains external objects. But nobody has managed that yet.

Originally Posted by Kreature

What about this world, makes it real to you? Is it the fact that you can't change anything? If thats the case, I could argue that the only reason you think that way, is because you've spent most of your time in the "real world" and so believe that is how things are suppose to be.

That's logical from a philosophical point of view, I agree with you!
But tell me what are dreams and what do they consist of? They consist of nothing but our images of non-dream life, our thoughts about it, our scenarios.
So the question here is: if the non-dream world didn't exist, would the dream-world exist? It's very likely the answer is no, because there'd be no stuff to make it from. That doesn't make it sound real, too, because even the existence of it depends on the existence of real-world.

If you spent most of your time in the Dream World, and only 8 hours a day in the waking world

It isn't possible is it?! We think in different ways, you think in a philosophical way without caring what is actually true (I think), you just want to create theories, and I think in a more practical way. If you cannot do something, than to me it's useless to discuss it, because it can't be true.
But if we suppose that it's possible, than even then the dream-world would be a reflection of the non-dream world, sleeping more wouldn't change the nature of sleep.

No, what I am talking about, is PERCEPTION. If Perception defines reality, then you can perceive the bullet as doing no damage to yourself. Will it? Sure. But will you see it do the damage, or feel it? No.

No?

So to say that "Death defines Reality" is faulty due to the fact that we don't know what happens when we die.

But we DO die, don't we? I can't see where it's faulty.
Anyway, I don't think it's to the point, because as you said we don't know what happens when we die. We may have different ideas, but it's just that: ideas.

That is why I'm trying to get you to define, in more detail, what makes the real world real to you. You say you didn't create it, and that makes it real. Who's to say you created the Dream World? Who's to say that the Dream World, isn't created on an entirely separate plane of existence? That plane of existence had to be created by something right? does that then mean the dream world is real?

If you want to discuss things like that, throwing in wild ideas that cannot be proven, it won't be a discussion, we'd better stop it altogether then.

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

At first I wrote what I think are qualities of the real world, but deleted them, because I think there's only one thing to be said. All others are from a "first person perception" and I feel that they can't define reality fully, because reality is external. You can't define an external object by how you perceive it, you should define it from an external perspective, but it isn't possible for us. So I'd say the primary quality of reality is just that: presence of external objects. UNLIKE dreams which are internal... I think that presence or absence of external objects is one major difference between reality and unreality.
The only thing you need to do to disprove that such a difference exists is to prove that the dream world is not internal and contains external objects. But nobody has managed that yet.

But you see, your using a pre-formed idea of Logic to prove your point. Think about this:

Theres been quite a few experiences, some documented, of people having "Psychic Visions" in dreams of the future, people sharing dreams with others, and dreams having an adverse effect on peoples bodies themselves. Those experiences alone can help prove that Dream Experiences aren't entirely internal, but have some external connection.

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

That's logical from a philosophical point of view, I agree with you!
But tell me what are dreams and what do they consist of? They consist of nothing but our images of non-dream life, our thoughts about it, our scenarios.
So the question here is: if the non-dream world didn't exist, would the dream-world exist? It's very likely the answer is no, because there'd be no stuff to make it from. That doesn't make it sound real, too, because even the existence of it depends on the existence of real-world.

No one really knows what dreams are, nor what they consist of. As I've pointed out above, theres experiences that would contradict those thoughts. The Existence of the Dream World is only dependent on the Real World, if you can prove the Dream World is nothing more than a state of mind. But, as said above, theres experiences that would contradict that.

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

It isn't possible is it?! We think in different ways, you think in a philosophical way without caring what is actually true (I think), you just want to create theories, and I think in a more practical way. If you cannot do something, than to me it's useless to discuss it, because it can't be true.
But if we suppose that it's possible, than even then the dream-world would be a reflection of the non-dream world, sleeping more wouldn't change the nature of sleep.

The point I was making with my post regarding this, is that your choosing the Real World as being Real, due to spending most of your time in this world. Your pre-disposed to believing that this world and all of its logic, is true. Just think about it for a moment: If you spent 16 hours a day in the Dream World, since birth, and spent the remaining hours between "sleep" and being in this world, then in your mind, the Dream World would be the Dominant world. The Real World would just be a short distraction to you, much like you consider dreams.

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

No?

Not sure what you were responding with or getting at...

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

But we DO die, don't we? I can't see where it's faulty.
Anyway, I don't think it's to the point, because as you said we don't know what happens when we die. We may have different ideas, but it's just that: ideas.

Like I said, we DO die, but to say that this world is the real world because of death is faulty because we don't know what happens at death.

Originally Posted by IWantToChange

If you want to discuss things like that, throwing in wild ideas that cannot be proven, it won't be a discussion, we'd better stop it altogether then.

The idea isn't to throw in Wild ideas that can't be proven. The idea is to open your mind to the possibility of an existence outside of this world. This is how theories and experiments start out. With a wild idea, then discussion, then testing. We probably will never test these ideas, but refusal to discuss any of it on the basis that it can't be proven, is a bad way to go about things.

I'm not sure if your religious or not, but many people are, and they believe and discuss things that can't be proven, to the point where they Worship something that can't be proven as real.


But, if you really want to, I can make a good point here with 1 small exercise that I'd like you to answer:

You and another person are standing in a pitch-black room. In the center of the room, is a table. You hear a voice over a speaker that says "When the lights come on, tell me what you see ontop of the table.". A few seconds later, the lights come on. As your vision begins to focus, you see a plant.
The other person remarks that there is nothing on the table.


Given the above situation, how do we decide who is right if both 100&#37; believe they are correct?

Originally Posted by Kreature

If you spent 16 hours a day in the Dream World, since birth, and spent the remaining hours between "sleep" and being in this world, then in your mind, the Dream World would be the Dominant world. The Real World would just be a short distraction to you, much like you consider dreams.

If nothing would be changed apart from the amount of hours, then I wouldn't even remember those 16 hours per day, just like now I can remember only a few dreams per one night. Dreaming is mostly an unconscious process and would remain the same, and the real world would proceed to be a dominating force.

Those experiences alone can help prove that Dream Experiences aren't entirely internal, but have some external connection.

Only if you believe that they happened! People say many things, some experience god talking to them, it's your choice to believe such experiences to be real or not.

The Existence of the Dream World is only dependent on the Real World, if you can prove the Dream World is nothing more than a state of mind.

It's like when atheists say there's no proof that god exists, and Christians say: no, god exists until you've proven that he doesn't

Like I said, we DO die, but to say that this world is the real world because of death is faulty because we don't know what happens at death.

I can't understand the logic. Death happens in reality and can't happen in dreams, it isn't important what happens after it, only the fact that a physical body's death can't be caused by a dream object.

Given the above situation, how do we decide who is right if both 100% believe they are correct?

We ask others to look at the table and say what they see, and we try to experiment to see if something really is there. In the end it's possible to find out who hallucinated.

I want to offer a question, too:
When you're dreaming, you're lying in your bed, with parts of your brain turned off, unconscious, and seeing pictures like in a daydreaming process.
If what you see in your dreams is external, does it mean that daydreaming images you see in the real world are also external objects, and not internal images produced by your thinking effort?

We probably will never test these ideas, but refusal to discuss any of it on the basis that it can't be proven, is a bad way to go about things.

I don't agree that it's a bad way to go... If we cannot test things and only discuss them, we're not having a real discussion, we're merely trying to convince each other that our believes are better. It's impossible to discuss believes productively, because they're just that... believes.

The idea is to open your mind to the possibility of an existence outside of this world.

Out of curiosity, why are you intent upon thinking that dreams must be a way outside of this world? I can picture that something normally unperceivable exists, but an ability to detect it doesn't have to be connected to sleeping.