Thread: Access to the subconscious??

This viewpoint always fascinates me, especially when it comes up amongst lucid dreamers. One thing I concretely have learned from lucid dreaming, is that my dreams are completely created by my imagination. This is obvious when I can sit in the dream world and consciously force something to happen. It is also obvious when I lie down to WILD, and can witness first hand my thoughts becoming more and more vivid. When I can watch myself get so involved in my imagination, that it takes over as a full blown hallucination.

Even from a non-lucid standpoint, it is easy to see that dreams are imagination. Why do they always relate to what you did earlier in the day? Why are the plots, characters, and storylines always remnants from the things you were thinking about all day? Reading through a dream on any given day, it is easy to see where it all comes from. Do you really think that having a dream about Transformers means you are somehow communicating with an alternate dimension where Transformers are real? Isn't a more simple and logical explanation that you just watched the Transformers movie, so the subject matter is still tumbling around in your brain?

I don't see how anyone can argue this point if they have any experience with dreams, especially lucid dreams. We know that dreams arise in our imagination. Not to put words into anyone's mouth, but I think what gigaschatten is postulating, is that our imaginations are real. Without getting too esoteric, I think we need to look at the definition of the term 'real'. Saying that one's imagination is real completely redefines the meaning of the term 'real'. The imagination is most definitely not real. In fact, imaginary is the direct opposite of real. If you start saying that everything you think is real, then reality loses all meaning. I'm fine with that, but it sort of makes the whole discussion moot. You might as well just say, "I don't believe in a distinction between real and imaginary." Thats fine, too, but in doing so, you sort or remove yourself from the whole point of the discussion.


Boy this thread got hijacked hard. Does the OP want me to split it off to its own thread?

Edit: Coincidentally, I was just discussing the evidence for dreams being all imaginary with Moonbeam. She just recommended a book, The Conscious Exploration of Dreaming" by Janice Brooks and Jay Vogelsong. Apparently, it has a lot of good material that shows how dreams relate to waking life in a very boring and direct way. Studies and examples and such. Maybe we should all read it.

This is why dreams are so fascinating and strange (to me). They occur in our subconcious so you would wonder exactly what in your dream is really your subconcious, or just what your subconsious has created for you as far as the "world" or "people" around you. But isn't that strange? that you can be conciously thinking and experiencing, yet another part of your mind is creating things that your concious thoughts can be amazed or confused by. It's like a complete different part of you... I don't really think this is making any sense at all. I don't know how to explain it well, it's just kind of a weird subject when you really think about it. When you're in a lucid dream, you're in your mind yet your thoughts can still be surprised by what you see

anyway, I would also like to mention the whole debate between baseballmk92 and gigaschatten... I think both of you are right to some extent. You guys are trying to use science and the perceptions of others who could experience that same dream with you as proof that the dream is or isn't real. On baseball's side, if you want to know the truth dreams really are thoughts and imaginings created by your mind. That's all it is. It's not like you've entered a different world or something, and there's been studies and science and research to prove it.

however

Just because something is experienced in your mind rather than a world where others can experience it too doesn't mean that it's not real. It's as real as anything else you can experience. When it comes right down to it, sure your physical body may be asleep in bed, but if everything you've ever experienced in life only matters to you based off of your perception, then if you're conciously controlling your actions and experiencing and perceiving things within a lucid dream, then to you, it can be just as real as anything else you've experienced. It doesn't have to be experienced in the physical world, your mental world is good enough... but only for you and that's as far as it can go.


oh and...

Originally Posted by Dizko

Apparently, it has a lot of good material that shows how dreams relate to waking life in a very boring and direct way. Studies and examples and such. Maybe we should all read it.

LOL I'll have to actually have one to contribute to this debate. There's no doubt though, that even ordinary dreams can be incredibly powerful and affect you and your mood in reality, so lord knows (well, I suppose some of you do, too) the effect a lucid dream could have.

I see you've attempted to dissect every aspect of my message, respond to them, point out the inaccuracies, and further prove your point. I don't know how to pull out multiple, individual quotes from the messages, so I'll just copy and paste.

I said: And, for the sake of argument, in order for dreams to be anything but our imaginations, they would have to take place somewhere other than on Earth. And every dream's setting is completely different.

You responded: Ah, come on. That's made up out of thin air.

My response: Yes, out of thin air, but true. What I said was very non-specific and out of nowhere, but, true at the same time. I'm aware that something "not on Earth" doesn't necessarily make that thing impossible, but if dreams "took place" anywhere in the physical universe, Earth wouldn't be that place. Any non-physical place, not in our universe, would just be a guess.


I said: If you're going to say you believe they are real, you should really support that with something. It's a completely radical idea.

You responded: No, it isn't. And it's not a new idea. It may be radical for most westerners though, but we have been cut off from our spiritual roots anyway. We're materialists and being that, we are very poor people.

My response: My original point still holds true, here. OK, maybe it's only radical depending on who you are. But it's still just a guess. Though scientific evidence about sleeping and about hallucinations could be questioned by anyone, on the basis that so much of what we know to be science is likely wrong, there isn't evidence for the opposing P.O.V. either. But I'm not going to just throw science out the window. Yes, you may go on to tell me that science itself is just a guess on some level, but I've been along this route in debates before, and they take such a philosophical, impractical turn that we'd might as well be debating whether sheep can fly, if you know what I mean. Once you question science, and everything we've come to know, then I question why we're having this debate. Then, as far as I know, neither you nor I exist. All I'm saying is that if you're going to take nothing for granted on this extreme level (science --> nothing), then nobody's ideas are 'right'.


I said: Where, if not on Earth, do dreams take place?

You responded: Where? When? Does space even exist? Scientists today have accessed maybe 0.05 percent of what may be in our universe. The rest is not perceivable, not even with instruments. And that's what scientists say themselves. So basically we know next to nothing.

I don't know how the universe works, but I'm sure it works a lot different than we think it does today.

My reponse: Once again, I have to point out that when you question everything, suddenly no ideas can be correct, and your ideas, and your arguments, are suddenly no more or less valid than mine. I really want you to think about this...no matter who's right in this debate (and we may never know), we have to debate off of SOMETHING. By questioning everything we've accepted, there can't be a debate, because suddenly, our accepted, factual arguments have been dubbed "uncertain", along with everything else... so, I'd really prefer you didn't use that argument. Yeah, it might be right, and I won't deny that. But if it is, we have no right, ability, or knowledge to be having this debate, because suddenly everything, including this debate, means nothing, or something other than what we thought.


I said: How is WILD'ing, transitioning from the waking state to a lucid dream without any lapse in consciousness, possible, if dreams take place in some other 'place'? Something, like a soul, within us would need to leave our bodies.

You responded: I don't know, but what if the spirit does not need time to reach places (assuming space exists) as the body does? Or is the body simply too restricted so it cannot perceive the layers of reality that exist at the same place and time? Read this: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ It won't answer your question, but it'll show what I mean. A classic read.

My response: Again, this is just a guess. You wouldn't be wrong to say I'm guessing on some level as well, but again, I've got to refer to my previous responses. When you get this deep, and start theorizing things like this without the evidence, the debate isn't any longer working with things we know. We may not 'know' science, but it's established enough that I will feel confident right now saying that it isn't entirely wrong, either. It's the only thing either of us truly have as a basis for this debate, honestly.


I said: but I don't see why it should be suspected, or why it should be possible.

You responded: And I don't see why it should not be suspected or why it should be impossible. We both don't know and we both can neither prove nor disprove it.

My response: Well, I still view your ideas as fairly out of the blue, while typical ideas about dreams are backed up by science, for good or for bad. On some level, human ideas about science, for the most part, are probably right. It's just that there's probably a ton more to it than we could imagine right now.
I do see why it should be suspected, unless you truly do intend to undermine all scientific research conducted by humans...ever. As I said, science is probably accurate, at the least, on some shallow level. The science of sleep and of dreaming wouldn't be 100% incorrect. If anything, it's just telling the very shallow part of the story of what's really going on in our brains in this vast, undiscovered universe. I do feel that I'm speaking objectively by saying that your ideas (I don't have anything personally against your ideas, I'm just saying) are more of guesses than mine, right now. Don't respond philisophically to this - from all we can tell, that is just the case. And if you do want to accuse science of being entirely wrong, then I'll accuse you of being able to breathe fire, which should be impossible. Debates like this do have their limitations. At a certain point, you can't have an objective debate if too much is in question. With that in mind, I'm making my statement that your ideas do, at least to me, seem more guess-like than mine, and that is why I'm questioning why you would, anyway, suspect what you do believe.


I said: Just because dreams seem as real as life does not mean they really are real.

You responded: Well, but that's more evidence for their realness than against it, correct?

My response: Well, by default, the existence of dreaming could not count against the possibility that they are real. That's a given.


I do have one more question, assuming you'll probably respond to most of the other things I said...I still don't know why you DO believe in what you think. Why DO you think dreams are real, and not what science has led us to believe, after all? Believing that to be true is more than just saying it's possible. It's possible I might grow wings and fly to school tomorrow. Physically, there is a non-zero chance of that happening. Except, it's like a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance. So, why do you think dreams are real, and that the common belief that they're in your head is wrong?

Oh wow there have been a lot of responses recently that I hadn't seen when I posted my last response. Yeah. My last message was responding to gigaschatten. I don't know what to say. I've never seen a thread with so many long messages in it.

Originally Posted by baseballmk92

I've never seen a thread with so many long messages in it.

you serious? ... haha noob!

...

I kid, I kid

I'd like to point out that there is some evidence that dreams are just a part of one's imagination.

Deep in the middle of the frontal lobe is tissue called white matter (because the neural pathways are covered with a white fatty coat). Damage to this area actually results in a cessation of dreams.

There is also a surgical procedure which is practiced upon the same area called prefrontal leukotomy. Essentially, it is severing nerve fibers in the brain, particularly at this area. The surgery was used on schizophrenic patients in order to stop their hallucinations.

This data draws a connection between dreams, hallucinations, and the imagination. Of course, you could draw the conclusion that this part of the brain serves as some connection to some other place. This would need to be supported and does not correlate well with other data about hallucinations and whatnot.

I understand that this may not be the most compelling evidence depending on your beliefs but it is evidence in favor of the link between dreams and imagination; thus, it is not so wholly unsupported as some in this topic seem to think it is.

Someone in this thread reminds me of my son when he argues!
He argues in circles, trying to derail and confuse, and never gives
a definitive answer.

Robot Butler, I'm with you in your thinking, and with anyone who
can draw a line in between reality, dreams and fantasy. Which is
just about everyone!

I read the advanced tasks of ppl asking themselves why they dream,
and some of the answers were truly awesome!

Originally Posted by Dreamer_Kyo

I'd like to point out that there is some evidence that dreams are just a part of one's imagination.

Deep in the middle of the frontal lobe is tissue called white matter (because the neural pathways are covered with a white fatty coat). Damage to this area actually results in a cessation of dreams.

That's no evidence at all. Put a bullet through your head and the brain damage causes the cessation of waking life, usually called death. Does that mean waking life is just an imagination in the brain? Yes, probably it does.

Reality is reality, dreams are dreams, imagination is imagination......period!
Imagination is what makes us creative and thoughtful, it also is a gateway
for dreaming. Someone who sees the world differently then I do will have
altogether different dreams then I do. The thoughts that invade our own
minds, also invade our own dreams......I mean, to me that goes without saying.
Dreams are not reality, that's why they're called dreams.
Do you realize that most people who can't seem to differentiate between
reality, dreams and imagination are usually considered to be.......'not quite right'.

Your lack of argumentation does not limit your use of words.

Gigaschatten - have you read my message? I know it looks really long, but a lot of it is just me quoting you quoting me, if that makes sense. I didn't know how to multi-quote your message, so I ended up copying+pasting the things we'd said so that it was apparent what I was responding to. And, if nothing else, I'd still like a response to the last paragraph in that long message of mine.

Originally Posted by baseballmk92

Gigaschatten - have you read my message? I know it looks really long, but a lot of it is just me quoting you quoting me, if that makes sense. I didn't know how to multi-quote your message, so I ended up copying+pasting the things we'd said so that it was apparent what I was responding to. And, if nothing else, I'd still like a response to the last paragraph in that long message of mine.

Yes, I've read it but wanted to let it stand as it does, because I've pointed out my opinion already.

You want an answer to why I think that dreams are real?

First, what is meant by "real"? That you can see things, touch things, hear, smell and so on? That is true for dreams and several other states of consciousness.

Or is it that for things to be real they must additionally exist outside of our perception. But how would we ever know that?

You see, we cannot even define the word "real" in an universal way that excludes dreams and other states. Therefore it is illogical to say that something is less real than something else or not real at all.

You could try to go another way and say that dreams are illusions and imaginations. But what about waking life? Most of what we see is considered to be created by our brain, not the eye. That is what scientists tell us at the time. Personally I'd go a few steps further though. We can not even know that the brain or our own personality is not an illusion.

There is no way to assert that reality is actually real and not imagination. On the other side there is much evidence (optical illusions, global scaling, etc.) suggesting that what we have learned to consider "real" is an illusion.

So the question should not be why I think dreams are real, the question is why you think waking life is real.

Originally Posted by gigaschatten

That's no evidence at all. Put a bullet through your head and the brain damage causes the cessation of waking life, usually called death. Does that mean waking life is just an imagination in the brain? Yes, probably it does.

I see the philosophical standpoint, or at least one that can be drawn. Reality is simply what we perceive; therefore, dreams are reality much like the waking world.

Scientifically speaking, however, this is not so. The problem with your argument is that you do not support your side and instead challenge others to prove their side.

The scenario you depict is not the same as what I have depicted. The difference between the two is we can confirm, absolutely, that a person has stopped dreaming. On your side, we can only speculate that there is some other world to which the person now belongs.

All you did was take the evidence I provided and turned it backwards without any real support to justify it.

Originally Posted by Dreamer_Kyo

All you did was take the evidence I provided and turned it backwards without any real support to justify it.

Exactly. So what does that tell you about the evidence?

Originally Posted by gigaschatten

Yes, I've read it but wanted to let it stand as it does, because I've pointed out my opinion already.

You want an answer to why I think that dreams are real?

First, what is meant by "real"? That you can see things, touch things, hear, smell and so on? That is true for dreams and several other states of consciousness.

Or is it that for things to be real they must additionally exist outside of our perception. But how would we ever know that?

You see, we cannot even define the word "real" in an universal way that excludes dreams and other states. Therefore it is illogical to say that something is less real than something else or not real at all.

You could try to go another way and say that dreams are illusions and imaginations. But what about waking life? Most of what we see is considered to be created by our brain, not the eye. That is what scientists tell us at the time. Personally I'd go a few steps further though. We can not even know that the brain or our own personality is not an illusion.

There is no way to assert that reality is actually real and not imagination. On the other side there is much evidence (optical illusions, global scaling, etc.) suggesting that what we have learned to consider "real" is an illusion.

So the question should not be why I think dreams are real, the question is why you think waking life is real.

Well...if that is really your question for me, then that works as well on why you think dreams are real, to what ever extent "real" means, too.

This is another example of why getting too deep into debates, and questioning this much, really just nullifies them. You're not wrong to speculate about what is "real" and what we're just perceiving, but still, questioning this much about what we normally just accept to be reality makes everything, including this debate, unreal and just pure guesswork.

Originally Posted by gigaschatten

Exactly. So what does that tell you about the evidence?

Did you thoroughly read what you quoted? =P

I agree with your idea to an extent. Like I said, the way we "see" the universe is based exclusively on our perceptions. A person with congenital blindness does not know how things are supposed to look, so, to him, the visual aspect does not exist.

Aside from making some unfounded assumption that this is the matrix or something like that, we know at least that this universe exists in some way whether we perceive it correctly or not. What can we look to if not our perceptions? That is easy: scientific instruments. Unless defective or used erroneously, they cannot lie. You could say that we might read these measurements and whatnot wrong because our eyes deceive us, but you would have to prove such an outstanding assertion that the entire world (or at least the scientific community) is reading these things wrong.

These instruments tell us that dreams are just that - dreams.

Originally Posted by baseballmk92

[...], but still, questioning this much about what we normally just accept to be reality makes everything, including this debate, unreal and just pure guesswork.

I'm refusing to accept things just because others do.

Originally Posted by Dreamer_Kyo

Did you thoroughly read what you quoted? =P

Yes.

Originally Posted by Dreamer_Kyo

Aside from making some unfounded assumption that this is the matrix or something like that, we know at least that this universe exists in some way whether we perceive it correctly or not.

We do know that? How?

Originally Posted by Dreamer_Kyo

What can we look to if not our perceptions? That is easy: scientific instruments.

And those "scientific instruments", whatever you mean by that, are not part of our perception?

Originally Posted by Dreamer_Kyo

These instruments tell us that dreams are just that - dreams.

Instruments don't tell anything by themselves. They behave (mostly) in the way they were created and what they display is a matter of interpretation. From one and the same reading you can easily derive thousands of interpretations.

Apart from that there is technology in dreams too. You can even write computer programs in dreams that behave accordingly. Some people run full-blown scientific experiments in lucid dreams to test their design.

Last but not least, I'm not arguing against dreams being dreams. What I'm saying is, that there is no indication for dreams being less meaningful than waking reality, therefore moral standards should be applied as well.

Originally Posted by gigaschatten

Yes.

Somehow I doubt that...

We do know that? How?

I thought it would be obvious. If reality is nothing but perception, then we can deduce that this universe is, if nothing else, at least perceived in some way, making it real.

And those "scientific instruments", whatever you mean by that, are not part of our perception?

We make them to be independent of our individual perception, thus, everyone can use it and it stops faulty data.

Instruments don't tell anything by themselves. They behave (mostly) in the way they were created and what they display is a matter of interpretation. From one and the same reading you can easily derive thousands of interpretations.

Indeed, they behave in the way they were created, otherwise it would be random and inconclusive, no?

We may operate them, but we cannot control the results unless tampering with the instruments or experiments. You are also wrong with the statement that these readings can derive thousands of interpretations. There is at least one concrete thing in all universes and worlds, and that is math. These scientific projects all use it, and thus an experiment will not derive thousands of possibilities. Through the use of math, we can solidify it to one meaningful conclusion.

Apart from that there is technology in dreams too. You can even write computer programs in dreams that behave accordingly. Some people run full-blown scientific experiments in lucid dreams to test their design.

Your dreams sound like a wonderful world.

For the rest of us, these bits of technology, programs, and experiments do not operate even remotely close to how you describe. I know of no one that has conducted a legitimate experiment with the use of dreams. I have heard of epiphanies and experiments conducted on dreams (never within).

The problem with conducting experiments in dreams is that it often do not operate the way we wish them to operate. We flip a light switch and the light does not turn on. The same can happen with computers. "Programs" within dreams are made up and will likely follow preexisting conceptions. If you are lucid you will control nearly every aspect based on expectation alone. The use of math? Well, tallying numbers to even use for the formulas would be near impossible (at least for most), in that written characters generally change. If they do not change, you would be controlling it, therefore, it would be useless.

Last but not least, I'm not arguing against dreams being dreams. What I'm saying is, that there is no indication for dreams being less meaningful than waking reality, therefore moral standards should be applied as well.

I see.

Through this topic you have tried to identify dreams not being just imagination and that it is no less real than the waking world. That sounds to me like you were trying to argue that dreams are not dreams. This change nearly renders my previous arguments, as well as some of yours, completely worthless

I disagree that dreams should hold the same standards and values as we hold with the waking world. I think there might be some personal values that should persist even in dreams, but definitely not all of them.

Obviously, different moral standards should be applied. Once, I "stole" something in an LD. A DC tried to convince me that I stole it. I ignored him because, in my opinion, it is my dream and my possession. I cannot steal within a dream because I already own everything.

Likewise, one can argue that he owns all the characters as well, and can thus do anything he wishes to those characters. Honestly, I don't have a problem with this; however, there are some acts against the characters that I would deem awful. Unfortunately, I have done just about everything to DCs, even rape. For the record, my efforts were purely experimental (not that that makes it much better) and I wasn't even nearly 100% lucid (probably more like 10% or 20% at best).

This topic got horribly hijacked, LOL.

I will leave you and this maimed topic with this: we all perceive reality differently. Because of this, one cannot really convince another of a different reality. To me, and I would think the majority of people here, the waking reality is the true reality which we share with others. The dream world is a fictional reality where we control our very perceptions. To many of us, the dream world is a figment of our mind, perhaps of the elusive subconscious. As we control our perceptions and beliefs within these dreams, so too do we control the standards and views that should be upheld within those dreams.

Originally Posted by Dreamer_Kyo

I will leave you and this maimed topic with this: we all perceive reality differently. Because of this, one cannot really convince another of a different reality. To me, and I would think the majority of people here, the waking reality is the true reality which we share with others. The dream world is a fictional reality where we control our very perceptions. To many of us, the dream world is a figment of our mind, perhaps of the elusive subconscious. As we control our perceptions and beliefs within these dreams, so too do we control the standards and views that should be upheld within those dreams.

Gigaschatten has turned this debate so philisophical and theoretical that he could counter everything we say, and philisophically, would not be wrong.

But, for now, I'm going to put the purely theoretical and philisophical stuff entirely aside, and say:

I'm going to just use common sense, here. Yes, I know, that's a very bold statement, considering where this debate has gone. I'm just going to use my common sense. I live in the universe. I can't prove it, not even in theory. All I know is I perceive myself in this universe, where certain scientific laws apply, no matter what philisophy says theoretically about science. The life I live is real. The people I interact with in my life perceive reality, as I do. Maybe not the same perception, but like I perceive myself in my own body, others perceive themselves in their bodies. Can I prove it? No. Again, that can't even be proven in theory. But I'm just going to use what we call "common sense", whether it's philisophically right or not.

In my dreams, I see other people. But they're not real. Those people have no physical bodies, no physical brains, no physical feelings, other than the ones my brain gives them. And even those are not real. Dream characters are just a bunch of visual, auditory, and tactile input jumbled together by my brain while I'm sleeping.

When I read Gigaschatten saying he believes in moral standards in dreams, that was basically when I gave up on the philisophical part of this debate. Personally, I might feel bad if I killed a dream character. I haven't done it yet, though I don't have vivid lucid dreams very often. But I might feel bad about it. But without talking about anything other than what we all know, personally, to be the world, I'm going to say that our dreams are nothing more than a bunch of sensory input given to us in the form of hallucinations by our brains, so any moral standards we wish to apply to our dreams are solely our personal choices, but will harm nobody if they are not obeyed.

My bottom line: The lives we live are "real", in that our interactions with other life forms do affect another being's feelings, like others can affect our own. Our dreams are not "real", in that our interactions with other "life forms" in dreams have no affect on the feelings of anything or anyone that has its own perception of reality, because, after all, I'm stating that dreams are nothing more than dreams, and dream characters are nothing more than bundles of hallucinatory input by our brains. That's common sense. No, I can't prove it. Philisophically, nobody can prove anything. At all. So what's the point?

I no longer wish to engage in this debate if it continues philisophically. After all, the philisophical portions of this debate are definitely not the practical portions of this debate. Life is life. I can interact with people with their own perceptions of reality, just like myself. Therefore moral standards apply, because my actions affect the perceptions of others like myself. Dreams are dreams. I interact with nothing with its own perception of reality, hurt nothing along the way. Therefore moral standards are personal.

If the paragraph above is to be countered and written off as inaccurate, then it's going too deep for me again. Right now, I just feel like going with what we CAN perceive. Through the day we die, our perceptions apply, and, by definition, nothing else. We live our perceptions. Not theory and philosophy.

And, yes, this thread has definitely been hijacked.

Last night, at Thanksgiving dinner.....I brought up this subject and explained
to them that some people believe dreams might be real and that waking life
could also be nothing more then our own imaginations. All 9 of them laughed
their asses off! Not one of them (all adults) said that they believed there
was a point to this supposition. The topic was dropped almost immediately
and wasn't even worth more discussion to any of them.
(one guy did point out though, that if life is how he perceives it, then he
must be a total madman and also totally unimaginative)

Originally Posted by gigaschatten

Yes, I've read it but wanted to let it stand as it does, because I've pointed out my opinion already.

You want an answer to why I think that dreams are real?

First, what is meant by "real"? That you can see things, touch things, hear, smell and so on? That is true for dreams and several other states of consciousness.

Or is it that for things to be real they must additionally exist outside of our perception. But how would we ever know that?

You see, we cannot even define the word "real" in an universal way that excludes dreams and other states. Therefore it is illogical to say that something is less real than something else or not real at all.

You could try to go another way and say that dreams are illusions and imaginations. But what about waking life? Most of what we see is considered to be created by our brain, not the eye. That is what scientists tell us at the time. Personally I'd go a few steps further though. We can not even know that the brain or our own personality is not an illusion.

There is no way to assert that reality is actually real and not imagination. On the other side there is much evidence (optical illusions, global scaling, etc.) suggesting that what we have learned to consider "real" is an illusion

So the question should not be why I think dreams are real, the question is why you think waking life is real.

Sorry for bumping my own thread but eventhough the topic really changed I find this discussion really interesting....I want to know if you could give me some articles that support your view, specially that support the part that it's bolded...thanks!