Dream and Fantasy Morals

Printable View

08-04-2015, 03:08 AM
Occipitalred

Dream and Fantasy Morals

Hello Dreamviews community!

I went off the radar during my final exam period and then I was enjoying my summer vacations but I thought I might try to stay a bit more active :)

So, I was wondering what you had to say about morals in dreams/lucid dreams or in fantasies/daydreams vs in real life.

I think most of us think that morals are relative and not a simple matter but they are part of everyone's lives (or almost). And when I talk about morals, I don't mean is a person a good or a bad person for doing something in a dream, I just mean, is it morally healthy to do this or that in a dream or fantasy vs real life.

Obviously, there are not consequences in dreams and fantasies but there remains the issue of integrity.
08-04-2015, 05:40 AM
cooleymd

In non lucid dreams my DCs are down right hostile, so I figure Lucidity is a chance to get even :) death to virtual morals, death to the DCs. Yesterday I was attacked by a heard of Racoon/Deer/Dogs, when I get lucid I'm gonna hunt down the whole pack with a light saber :)
08-04-2015, 10:26 AM
splodeymissile

I've always seen lucid dreams as an escape from reality, including the morals that usually guide us through it. Unparrellelled freedom and all that. Its not really in my nature to do anything particularly vindictive, though, so, I rarely exercise this freedom to its highest degree. As for integrity, I judge actions based on how much they hurt others. Because DCs are non-sentient, they don't count as others in my eyes, so, morality is less nonexistent and more inapplicable.
08-04-2015, 05:56 PM
snoop

It is my first nature to be amoral, but I've worked very hard in my life to make it my second nature to be very moral. When you naturally are cold and have no regard for authority or respecting others' rights, unless you plan on being an antisocial criminal your whole life, you have to take steps to change this about you. I have to make a conscious effort to be moral in social situations because otherwise I would be nothing more than a sociopathic dick. In a lot of ways, I really am. However, I model my behavior after values like loyalty, integrity, respect, honor, and honesty because I feel that people who don't are not only immature and a lot of times trashy, but are a detriment to society and really have no purpose for living other than to breathe others' air, eat others' food, fill up others' shelter, and generally be a worthless nuisance to everybody. Someone more trouble than they are intrinsically worth as a human being. So, in a way I force myself to behave morally out of hatred for those with no self-control and who are supremely lazy and unintelligent.

That being said, this is how I force myself to act in society, but when it comes to fantasy like dreams or video games, all that flies out the window. I'm pretty much just a cold, calculating, arrogant, self-centered hedon. I let my natural personality show through and I do what I want because not only does it feel liberating at times, sometimes it's really funny and very rewarding (in the short term). I turn into a thrill-seeking hunter of sorts--with a penchant for doing things for sport and turning things into a game.
08-04-2015, 08:29 PM
Zoth

If you perceive moral as a constructed code of conduct designed for the social aspect of existence (interaction between living beings), then you could argue that moral has no place in lucid dreams. And I say lucid dreams, because you surely cannot apply or judge moral conduct of ordinary dreams, given the fact that you're not in control of your actions.

Regarding lucid dreams, we have the integration of the self with a constructed reality derived from a brain-simulation: if you consider your thoughts and the substrate of dreaming as something different from the physical matter, or in simpler terms, if you assume that people are people and dream people are not people, then a sense of morality seems largely irrelevant in this perspective of interaction with the other.
On the other hand, some people still perceive dream characters as entities, maybe even independent or sentient ones. In that sense, while it wouldn't be particular problematic if you threw trash into the ground in a lucid dream (given the frailty of the duration of the experience) maybe crashing a plane into a city, even without provoking injuries or casualties, could be consider immoral by eliciting negative psychological responses on those dream characters, such as anxiety, stress, etc.

In my personal view, dream characters don't seem anything else that interesting (sometimes amazing) constructs, a sensory representation of an agglomerate of unconscious processes that seem to model external input (a kind of bottom-up view in neuroscience terms I'd guess), not necessarily with a purpose, but forcibly with a degree of realism that influences your experience but is ultimately originated by you. Given that, I am extremely amoral in my lucid dreams, and the only reason why I'm not sometimes able to perform what we could consider "immoral" actions is because I start thinking about what it would be like if I got caught doing it in real life and even start to wondering if I'm really dreaming (guess it seems like an unconscious response that kicks in when I'm minimally conflicted 0o).
08-06-2015, 01:54 AM
Occipitalred

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoop

So, in a way I force myself to behave morally out of hatred for those with no self-control and who are supremely lazy and unintelligent.

Haha, I find that comment comical and ironic. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooleymd

In non lucid dreams my DCs are down right hostile, so I figure Lucidity is a chance to get even :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

I've always seen lucid dreams as an escape from reality, including the morals that usually guide us through it. Unparrellelled freedom and all that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoop

That being said, this is how I force myself to act in society, but when it comes to fantasy like dreams or video games, all that flies out the window. I'm pretty much just a cold, calculating, arrogant, self-centered hedon. I let my natural personality show through and I do what I want because not only does it feel liberating at times, sometimes it's really funny and very rewarding (in the short term). I turn into a thrill-seeking hunter of sorts--with a penchant for doing things for sport and turning things into a game.

I am seeing a pattern here which reminds me of the Freudian model of the id and superego. In dreams, your id is free and no longer needs to participate in its never-ending battle with the superego. This does sound very refreshing and pleasant. I wonder if there could ever be an experience where the superego is free from the ego and can have its own nirvana.

Seeing this pattern is very interesting to me because, personally, I don't relate with the superego and id model. I do not experience my moral struggle as a battle between my personal desires and my healthy integration in society. Well, I guess a bit, but not primarily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

I judge actions based on how much they hurt others. Because DCs are non-sentient, they don't count as others in my eyes, so, morality is less nonexistent and more inapplicable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoth

If you perceive moral as a constructed code of conduct designed for the social aspect of existence (interaction between living beings), then you could argue that moral has no place in lucid dreams. And I say lucid dreams, because you surely cannot apply or judge moral conduct of ordinary dreams, given the fact that you're not in control of your actions.

It is also my assumption that my dream characters are not sentient and so no social morals would be necessary. The thing is I do believe I have a responsibility to myself (not others) to nurture wise, loving, and generally healthy thoughts and emotions (not just actions that will have impacts on others).

Also, even assuming that dream people are not people, are they not a representation of the people in real life. So wouldn't doing ill upon dream characters reflect in real life or is this a matter of being aware of which reality you are in, being aware that these people are not people and these people are people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoop

It is my first nature to be amoral, but I've worked very hard in my life to make it my second nature to be very moral.

That's interesting. I would say I have a type of opposite experience to this (not saying that I am moral.) But what I mean is, some of my daydreams are quite... amoral, but because I am trying to explore outside of my generally moral self rather than taking a break from it. I feel a lot of stress to the simple idea that someone may feel uncomfortable. So I have been daydreaming about hurting people (while still feeling love and compassion for them). I am trying to feel more comfortable with the idea of hurting others.
08-08-2015, 09:54 AM
splodeymissile

Quote:

It is also my assumption that my dream characters are not sentient and so no social morals would be necessary. The thing is I do believe I have a responsibility to myself (not others) to nurture wise, loving, and generally healthy thoughts and emotions (not just actions that will have impacts on others).

One thing I think we need to bear in mind is the idea of catharsis. Having difficulty in real life? Take it out on something that can't feel pain, but gives off a convincing illusion. Negative thoughts in a dream aren't necessarily bad, since they can prevent those same thoughts from occuring in real life, where they can do far more damage.

Quote:

Also, even assuming that dream people are not people, are they not a representation of the people in real life. So wouldn't doing ill upon dream characters reflect in real life or is this a matter of being aware of which reality you are in, being aware that these people are not people and these people are people?

They share the same appearence and, once in a blue moon, a similar personality quirk, but its often just a shell. Even if they near perfectly reflect real people, I'm aware that they're not the real person and, so, I'm free to treat them however I want. I should probably point out that as amoral as I sound here, I often don't actually treat them as utterly disposable. Some real life morals will involuntarily slip through.
08-08-2015, 01:28 PM
Raen

Two quotes to live by:

"The mind is everything. What you think, you become" ~ Attributed to the Buddha but some dispute that

"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny" ~ Lao Tzu

I think there's a lot of sense in these quotes because there is no need for anything that is truly immoral to take place in your dreams or in reality. Once it becomes customary in one reality, who's to say it's not going to impact the other? Our waking life habits affect our dreams, why shouldn't our dream habits affect our waking life?
08-08-2015, 02:42 PM
ThreeCat

I would agree with Araishu. The dream state is probably one of the best training grounds we have for morality (probably THE best one) and one of the swiftest ways to change negative habits, simply because of its immersive and realistic qualities. If we follow studies that have suggested the correlation between mental actions and mental rewards (gamers playing WoW, for example) research has shown that the brain does not differentiate between rewards gained in a virtual environment versus a physical environment (both will stimulate the reward centers of the brain, and both will release dopamine). For addicts, these rewards will be greater than what they feel they receive from a physical environment.

If you are getting your dopamine shots from killing DCs, then your brain is learning from that, whether you want it to or not, and I don't think it knows the difference. You might know the difference, but you are not the totality of your working brain. The brain is a mechanistic organ and is going to operate based on a series of habits or grooves built for it. It may not be enough to make you a killer in waking life (and probably won't, for the majority of us feel societal penalties outweigh any joy we could get from breaking laws in waking life), but you are still building a set of standards on which your brain is going to operate in the future. I think this is one of the reason many religions have stressed mind training as foundational. The Buddha of course, but many other Eastern religions. Christ discusses it in the Sermon on the Mount, and it is one of the points of perfection.

I also think it is telling that the moment we realize "this isn't real," we respond amorally to the situation, which suggests that the ego feels these things (killing, raping DCs, and so forth) will bring pleasure or an escape. For snoop this is perhaps obvious, but for others it might not be, especially if we are using "it's just a dream" as an excuse to indulge in violence.
08-08-2015, 03:16 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

If we follow studies that have suggested the correlation between mental actions and mental rewards (gamers playing WoW, for example) research has shown that the brain does not differentiate between rewards gained in a virtual environment versus a physical environment (both will stimulate the reward centers of the brain, and both will release dopamine). For addicts, these rewards will be greater than what they feel they receive from a physical environment.

Could you give a link to some, please?

Quote:

If you are getting your dopamine shots from killing DCs, then your brain is learning from that, whether you want it to or not, and I don't think it knows the difference. You might know the difference, but you are not the totality of your working brain. The brain is a mechanistic organ and is going to operate based on a series of habits or grooves built for it.

I agree, but the inverse is true. Subconscious desires don't make up the totality of us either.

Quote:

It may not be enough to make you a killer in waking life (and probably won't, for the majority of us feel societal penalties outweigh any joy we could get from breaking laws in waking life), but you are still building a set of standards on which your brain is going to operate in the future.

As you pretty much said here.

Quote:

I also think it is telling that the moment we realize "this isn't real," we respond amorally to the situation, which suggests that the ego feels these things (killing, raping DCs, and so forth) will bring pleasure or an escape. For snoop this is perhaps obvious, but for others it might not be, especially if we are using "it's just a dream" as an excuse to indulge in violence.

Presumably, you're against violence in any form of media, especially video games? I apologise if I've missed the point.
I think what we need to ask is if we should behave morally in a fantasy. I may have killed god knows how many in video games, but I literally can't bring myself to hurt so much as an insect in reality. Moral judgements, to me, need some weight or sense of permanence to make sense. Obviously, in video games and other forms of interactive media, we treat the fantasy as real and, so, act morally as we like to think we would if the scenario presented itself in real life. On repeat playthroughs (or even the first) we can recognise it as a fantasy and act against our nature without actually changing our nature. Its the same for lucid dreaming, I feel. I suppose I think that "its just a dream" is actually a decent excuse for anything in a dream really. And if it does affect us in real life, it doesn't seem to be by a massive amount.
08-08-2015, 07:43 PM
ThreeCat

Quote:

Could you give a link to some, please?

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ma...reward&f=false

Quote:

I agree, but the inverse is true. Subconscious desires don't make up the totality of us either.

Could you expand on what you are getting at? I'm not making the connection.

I'm not against violence in games or films, as some of my favorites involve violence. I think it is interesting that I take pleasure in some fantastic depictions of violence, however, and it's certainly worth investigating and asking why. If one is trying to perfect oneself, or lead a more perfect life morally (which may or may not be the case for anyone here) then I don't think taking pleasure in violence helps. If anyone can suggest how it does, I would be interested to hear it.

The problem with lucid dreaming, splodeymissile, is that we as dreamers do not have a perfect understanding of the dream state. While we are awake we think we do, but in the dream it is a different story. We often slip back and forth between lucidity. One can read numerous examples of dream journals depicting dreamers beating dream characters in frustration and rage, even though they "know it's not real." Really? That sounds like the brain is having an incredibly negative experience, and one that is creating new (and not positive) neural pathways on how to respond to similar situations.

Also, about not changing our nature. I think that is inherently untrue--consciousness is changing all of the time. It experiences, and as it does it learns and integrates. Every thing we choose to do changes us in some way. To say video games (for example) have no effect on consciousness, and have no effect on brain waves and thought patterns (because that is what it would mean to not change our nature) seems to suggest that these activities happen in a vacuum where consciousness is safe from contextual influence. Which I think is incorrect.
08-08-2015, 08:35 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

Could you expand on what you are getting at? I'm not making the connection.

I'm really just reiterating your point about how its probably not enough to make us into serial killers, if only because we consciously (key word) weigh up whether an action is worth it or not. We're neither dominated by the conscious nor the subconscious. In short, I'm agreeing with you mostly on that front.

Quote:

I think it is interesting that I take pleasure in some fantastic depictions of violence, however, and it's certainly worth investigating and asking why.

I absolutely agree.

Quote:

If one is trying to perfect oneself, or lead a more perfect life morally (which may or may not be the case for anyone here) then I don't think taking pleasure in violence helps.

Probably not, but, while I'm all for self-improving, perfection seems both unattainable and overrated. That aside, obviously not everyone is going to use the dream state for self-improvement. Some just want to live out fantasies. And I think my catharsis idea still holds up. Feel like you're about to punch your boss? Take out a dream version instead. Could stop you from doing so in real life where it has real repercussions. It'd be best if in this situation he could let go of his rage, but that's not always possible. And in those situations, perhaps taking the lesser of two evils counts as a step towards perfect morality where the only real alternative is to commit it in real life.

Quote:

While we are awake we think we do, but in the dream it is a different story.

Only the truly arrogant feel this way. I certaintly know that as I am, awake (I think), I do not have perfect understanding of dreaming or anything related to it.

Quote:

We often slip back and forth between lucidity. One can read numerous examples of dream journals depicting dreamers beating dream characters in frustration and rage, even though they "know it's not real."

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here, but this seems to suggest that there are greater underlying psychological issues that would require a professional to sort out. If we slip out of lucidity and then perform these actions, though, can we say to have chosen to perform them at all? Dreams follow their own logic and when we're not lucid (and sometimes when we are) we have to obey those rules. To put it another way, if you commit an immoral action without knowing its immoral, can you say to have acted immorally? I would personally say no.

Quote:

Really? That sounds like the brain is having an incredibly negative experience, and one that is creating new (and not positive) neural pathways on how to respond to similar situations.

Its entirely possible that it happens, but I don't recall any crimes or atrocities being caused because something acted up a bit in a lucid dream, so, I'm going to have to say it's a bit of a non-issue. Also, perhaps "only do this in a lucid" comes alongside these new neurons, which, to me, would make it neither a negative or positive connection in terms of morality.

Quote:

Also, about not changing our nature. I think that is inherently untrue--consciousness is changing all of the time. It experiences, and as it does it learns and integrates. Every thing we choose to do changes us in some way. To say video games (for example) have no effect on consciousness, and have no effect on brain waves and thought patterns (because that is what it would mean to not change our nature) seems to suggest that these activities happen in a vacuum where consciousness is safe from contextual influence. Which I think is incorrect.

I'll concede this slightly by changing my statement to a limited effect on our nature, as opposed to no effect. At least in terms of morality. But context is key and I'm afraid I still don't see how killing in a video game for fun and killing in a lucid dream for fun is going to make you meaningfully more likely to kill in real life. The fantastical context is still there and most will see the difference from a real life context. I'll freely admit that some will be pushed over the deep end through this enjoyment, but I imagine they're the exception rather than the rule. I'll give that link a peruse, as well.
08-09-2015, 05:51 PM
ThreeCat

Unfortunately, most (some would say all) decisions are not made consciously. They are made based on a series of pre-established patterns developed by our culture, our society, our family life, and so on. The brain chooses these patterns and we react to situations based on which pattern seems to fit any given situation. We largely do this entirely unconsciously, without even being aware of what we are doing. If this seems a bit far out, simple mental exercises can be done to demonstrate the truth of this to the self.

If one commits a crime in a non-lucid dream, they are still committing the crime. They are simply doing it based on a new (and fantastic) context, and without societal repercussion. In this context, certain barriers are removed, new plot lines are constructed, and we react based on them. This is the essence of non-lucidity and is fundamentally how the majority of people live their lives, both awake and asleep. This sort of goes back to the argument as to whether or not the non-lucid you is the "real" you. Placing aside the question of what the "real" you even means, lucid dreaming makes it fairly clear that the mind at work in a dream is the mind at work in waking life, merely with different context. I think one of the benefits of lucid dreaming is that it allows us to remember ourselves in the dream context, to take advantage of working with the mind at a much deeper level than is possible during waking life, and possibly to find some benefit outside of escapism, which is essentially not escaping at all, but continuing to engage in the same thought patterns that leave us frustrated in waking life. Punching dream boss neither eliminates the problem of waking life boss, nor does it make it easier to deal with waking life boss. In a sense, it's just a further avoidance of the problem. If we teach ourselves in dream that dream boss is not really the problem, and rather dream me needs to ascertain some of the thought patterns that are leading to wanting to punch dream boss, then that will be much more productive--for waking life and the dream.

Concerning the fact that you've never heard of lucid dreaming being linked to a crime, I think the relatively small number of dedicated lucid dreamers, coupled with the fact that lucid dreaming is still a fringe area and not one likely to be taken seriously at all by anyone except proponents and detractors (who are also going to be few in number) I don't find it surprising at all. There have been links observed between observing violent media and committing acts of violence. I think any neural connections made in the dream state are going to as powerful as those formed in waking life, especially if it is "us" committing the act of violence. But, I'm not really trying to argue that point. What I am suggesting is that lucid dreaming could be used in more beneficial and positive ways, but rarely is in the west.

How can perfection be overrated if we've never experienced it?
08-09-2015, 06:45 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

Unfortunately, most (some would say all) decisions are not made consciously. They are made based on a series of pre-established patterns developed by our culture, our society, our family life, and so on. The brain chooses these patterns and we react to situations based on which pattern seems to fit any given situation. We largely do this entirely unconsciously, without even being aware of what we are doing. If this seems a bit far out, simple mental exercises can be done to demonstrate the truth of this to the self.

I mostly agree, although I still think the conscious mind still has more significence in life than you seem to be implying.

Quote:

If one commits a crime in a non-lucid dream, they are still committing the crime. They are simply doing it based on a new (and fantastic) context, and without societal repercussion. In this context, certain barriers are removed, new plot lines are constructed, and we react based on them.

I disagree with this, though. You're probably getting sick of the video game analogies, but its the best way I know to express my point, so, hopefully, you'll endure. If I kill someone in a game, I'm not committing a crime. Nor am I doing so, if I kill someone in a dream, lucid or not. And, again, if its an immoral action, but you're unaware thats its immoral, can you be said to have acted immorally. Would you say an incredibly young child, mostly unaware of the very concept of death and certainly unaware of how dangerous certain items can be, who winds up killing someone, is blameworthy? And if fantastical crime is still counted as a crime, then because of the unreal nature of who's getting affected, it seems victimless to me and, therefore, not morally significent. Finally, (for this point), you mention how contexts are removed when we dream. I agree. But surely they are brought back when we wake? If so, aren't we basically nullifying any potential negative change? Maybe not completely, but enough to make it barely worth mentioning.

Quote:

This sort of goes back to the argument as to whether or not the non-lucid you is the "real" you. Placing aside the question of what the "real" you even means, lucid dreaming makes it fairly clear that the mind at work in a dream is the mind at work in waking life, merely with different context.

It is an interesting question. Personally, I feel that the real us would be how we act in real life, if only because it is the only plane that everyone can agree on having both existence and significence. Thr true us, however, would be how we react to no expercience; prior, present or otherwise. Our personality (as it is now) would remain, but it would seemingly have no origin. Because dreaming, both lucid and non, takes away certain experiences (memory, presumption of what is currently real etc.) it is closer, perhaps, to the true self than anything we could do in waking life. Obviously, by itself, its not going to get us to this true state. We still have to put some effort in.

Heading towards something a bit more relevent, while they obviously remain the same mind, the difference in context is enough to make it seem wrong to judge the dreaming mind by the laws of the waking world and vice versa.

Quote:

I think one of the benefits of lucid dreaming is that it allows us to remember ourselves in the dream context, to take advantage of working with the mind at a much deeper level than is possible during waking life, and possibly to find some benefit outside of escapism, which is essentially not escaping at all, but continuing to engage in the same thought patterns that leave us frustrated in waking life.

Perhaps you're not implying the opposite at all, and I'm just jumping the gun here, but they're different levels of lucidity we can experience, which can range from near on absolute (what you just mentioned) to merely having awareness of the dream state but no real memory from waking life. God knows how many times I've reached lucidity but have forgotten dream goals. So, again, I don't think its fair to judge one by the laws of the other. And what would true escapism be, anyway? I mean, punching boss was just an example I gave. One of the dream tasks we've got now, is to jump into a black hole. I don't think a desire to see what your mind can conjure on the other side necessarily speaks about real life frustrations. And, who knows? Maybe a desire to improve yourself through dreams is escapism, as well. After all, why would you improve yourself if there wasn't some suspicion that you're not as good now, as you could be?
08-09-2015, 07:13 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

Punching dream boss neither eliminates the problem of waking life boss

Agreed

Quote:

nor does it make it easier to deal with waking life boss. In a sense, it's just a further avoidance of the problem. If we teach ourselves in dream that dream boss is not really the problem, and rather dream me needs to ascertain some of the thought patterns that are leading to wanting to punch dream boss, then that will be much more productive--for waking life and the dream.

I think it can, in some way, help. Taking out a bit of anger in a fantasy can stop you from exploding in real life, which can then give you more time to actually seek help. Maybe not the best solution, but it can sometimes be effective. The last part of this, I agree with in principle, but it easily can be seen as victim blaming. If we change the boss into being a bully, then a desire to punch him, while I'd caution against it, seems understandable. Not every problem can be solved simply through your own mind and used improperly this can lead to becoming a pacifistic doormat, conditined to abuse.

Quote:

There have been links observed between observing violent media and committing acts of violence.

There have also been studies supporting my catharsis view, that suggest that fantasy violence mat have some beneficial purposes. I'll link you a few, if you're interested.

Quote:

I think any neural connections made in the dream state are going to as powerful as those formed in waking life, especially if it is "us" committing the act of violence.

The added context of fantasy might be just as powerful, though. Also, why do you think this? Looking at your example of someone lashing out at rage I'd imagine they experience a lapse in lucidity. In this case, they wouldn't quite be...."them".

Quote:

But, I'm not really trying to argue that point. What I am suggesting is that lucid dreaming could be used in more beneficial and positive ways, but rarely is in the west.

Agree, although it seems a bit presumptuous to suggest the large distinction between easterners and westerners. I imagine many easterners "waste" their lucidity on escapism, as well.

Quote:

How can perfection be overrated if we've never experienced it?

How can we consider worth attaining if we don't the first thing about it? Going on to actually answer your question, I find myself wondering what we should do once we achieve perfection? Seems like a full stop to me. Then again, I don't believe perfection exists in any meaningful sense to begin with nor do I think that, even if it did, we could attain it, no matter how much effort, natural talent and time we have. Self-improve by all means, but don't expect an end point. As a final thought, how do you know that your current method has a remote chance of even reaching perfection? Maybe we need a full range of experiences to achieve perfection and that could involve going lower before we go higher.
08-13-2015, 07:44 PM
mzungu

Most of the discussion on this thread is predicated on the idea that DCs are non-sentient, which I'm not sure is at all the case. After all they simulate sentience, and who is to say that the simulation is not the thing itself? Just because we are responsible for creating DCs does not at all mean we are not responsible for their well-being. It's the old AI question. Do we have the responsibility to treat other intelligences with respect, even if we create them? I would say yes.

It's also interesting that we are only asking this question in a lucid context. The reason is because the question has already been answered in the non-lucid context. I suppose we bring our own morality into non-lucid dreams hence why, as someone mentioned, they would stop doing a particular action in a dream because they were unsure of whether they were dreaming or not. It is only when we become lucid that we question this morality. Becoming lucid is, in a sense, becoming a god with reality warping powers. If your average human were to gain reality warping power suddenly, I wonder if she too would begin to see her fellow humans as non-moral characters? "With great power comes great responsibility," said Spider Man. It may be that our very lucidness has clouded our minds to the sentience of DCs.
08-13-2015, 08:34 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

After all they simulate sentience, and who is to say that the simulation is not the thing itself?

The problem I have with this is that our own consciousness and sentience is very much tied to the physical structure of our brain. Chop a part off and a part of us goes. DCs don't have a brain in terms of physical structure and, at best, only represent an aspect of our consciousness. Because of this, I can't see them having sentience or indeed any sense of a complete being. They're basically us, just slightly fragmented and wearing interesting clothes.

Quote:

Do we have the responsibility to treat other intelligences with respect, even if we create them? I would say yes.

I agree, but I don't think this is a good comparison. For one, AIs and potential aliens can be relatively easily tested for intelligence. Secondly, they're not likely to fade from existence, as soon as we open our eyes, unlike DCs, who are inevitably going to "die" by our hand. Finally, even if they do possess sentience, how do we know that the moral rules we follow in the waking world remotely apply in our dreams? For all we know, doing a kindness to a DC could feel like the worst torture. Logic is out to lunch. Even if AIs and aliens have they're own different moral codes, they at least follow the laws of the universe. What actually is a moral action in the dream world, especially since it all fades when we wake?

Quote:

Becoming lucid is, in a sense, becoming a god with reality warping powers. If your average human were to gain reality warping power suddenly, I wonder if she too would begin to see her fellow humans as non-moral characters?

It's a terrifying thought to consider. Especially if the universe follows her mind and her desires, with little imput on her part. (Dr. Doom had this problem when he stole the Beyonder's powers, which is why he refused to sleep). Considering how the first thing many people do when they first become lucid id have sex with whoever they want (though this may due to seeing them as insentient), I think very few could actually wield this power without turning some into sex slaves and playthings and making it hell for the rest of us. And if you feel the slightest twinge of guilt, you've literally got the power to remove the very concept from your mind.
08-13-2015, 10:13 PM
mzungu

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

The problem I have with this is that our own consciousness and sentience is very much tied to the physical structure of our brain. Chop a part off and a part of us goes. DCs don't have a brain in terms of physical structure and, at best, only represent an aspect of our consciousness. Because of this, I can't see them having sentience or indeed any sense of a complete being. They're basically us, just slightly fragmented and wearing interesting clothes.

I don't see how common origin has any relation to the question of morality. We assume because we are the egos that get to experience waking life and dreaming life that we are primary, that somehow we make up the entirety of the human form in which we inhabit. Perhaps there is more to our being that we perceive. Perhaps the human brain has the ability to create many different egos. We know that this is in part true, at least in the dream world. Any DC can become lucid and attain lucid powers. We don't really know enough about the mind to say that our waking minds completely encompass our brain's capacities, and that other egos aren't floating around somewhere down the rabbit's hole.

Quote:

I agree, but I don't think this is a good comparison. For one, AIs and potential aliens can be relatively easily tested for intelligence. Secondly, they're not likely to fade from existence, as soon as we open our eyes, unlike DCs, who are inevitably going to "die" by our hand. Finally, even if they do possess sentience, how do we know that the moral rules we follow in the waking world remotely apply in our dreams? For all we know, doing a kindness to a DC could feel like the worst torture. Logic is out to lunch. Even if AIs and aliens have they're own different moral codes, they at least follow the laws of the universe. What actually is a moral action in the dream world, especially since it all fades when we wake?

We assume that the dream world disappears when we wake up, but that assumption may not be correct. The dream world is a realm of infinite creativity, and we can access that creativity even in the waking world through our thoughts and imagination. So the dream world, in some sense, is still functioning. As the DCs may be. And you can also turn this question of fading from existence on its head. Don't we also fade from existence when we fall into a deep dreamless sleep? And can't we also be said to fade from the dream world whenever we wake up?

As for morality, well I think the best test would be to ask DCs themselves whether they feel pain, like being raped, having their faces beaten in, or having their stuff stolen. After all, morality always arises from a moral consensus arrived at through the interactions of several different individuals. And, if you want to go deeper, you can make them lucid and then ask them whether they are a separate entity from yourself or the same, and want their rights to be respected. Or, again to turn this around, what would you say about morality in the dream world if one of your DCs became lucid, stripped you of your powers and raped and tortured you every night, whether you were lucid or not, until you are absolutely terrified of falling asleep?

I think the point I want to get across is that we don't know enough about the relationship between our dreams, our waking life, our mind and our brain to make a valid conclusion about the sentience of DCs one way or the other. So shouldn't we err on the side of sentience?

BTW the term sentience refers to being able to feel pain. So if DCs are able to feel pain, the requirement for sentiency is fulfilled.
08-13-2015, 11:39 PM
Sageous

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzungu

BTW the term sentience refers to being able to feel pain.

It does?
08-13-2015, 11:48 PM
mzungu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sageous

It does?

Yes Sageous. From the wiki:

Quote:

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

If we are to answer the question of whether DCs deserve moral consideration, the first thing we must establish is whether DCs can suffer. If they can suffer then the argument for consideration grows stronger. Sentience often gets conflated with the word intelligence, but at its root it only refers to the ability to suffer. The intelligence of DCs is another question... but I would say that they exhibit sufficient intelligence for us to consider then an intelligence similar to our own.
08-13-2015, 11:53 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

I don't see how common origin has any relation to the question of morality. We assume because we are the egos that get to experience waking life and dreaming life that we are primary, that somehow we make up the entirety of the human form in which we inhabit. Perhaps there is more to our being that we perceive. Perhaps the human brain has the ability to create many different egos. We know that this is in part true, at least in the dream world. Any DC can become lucid and attain lucid powers. We don't really know enough about the mind to say that our waking minds completely encompass our brain's capacities, and that other egos aren't floating around somewhere down the rabbit's hole.

Perhaps I'm being closed-minded, but I also thought possessing multiple egos was a sign of split personality disorder. I wouldn't say we know for a fact that DCs are different egos. Its possible, but, as far I'm aware, there's no proof, so, it seems like an assumption on my part. And are DCs becoming lucid or are they acting as we expect them to (subconsciously or not) when faced with this realisation? I know that the waking mind doesn't encompass the entire brain's functions, but the rest is the subconscious and automatic responses, like breathing. Other egos could be down there, but there's no real proof, so, I'm going to assume that I'm the only one in my head.

Quote:

We assume that the dream world disappears when we wake up, but that assumption may not be correct. The dream world is a realm of infinite creativity, and we can access that creativity even in the waking world through our thoughts and imagination. So the dream world, in some sense, is still functioning. As the DCs may be. And you can also turn this question of fading from existence on its head. Don't we also fade from existence when we fall into a deep dreamless sleep? And can't we also be said to fade from the dream world whenever we wake up?

I wouldn't say its infinite. Immensely large, but still limited by the individual whose mind it is. Speaking of limitations, the dream world and imagination, while definitely linked, seem to me to be based on perception. In that, unlike reality, they disappear when unobserved. Even in dreamless sleep, we still possess some (mostly automatic) mental functions. In terms of the actual consciousness, though, I agree. I don't think we completely fade from the dream world, if only because we can still use our imagination and daydream. However, this is probably going to be our main source of disagreement. You seem to be implying that the dream world is sort of like an independent plane, existing alongside ours, with sleep being akin to a portal between realms. Why, then, do Dream characters seem unable to enter our world and, if they have entered, are they able to "lucid reality"? If I'm completely wrong, I apologise. My own personal view is that the dream world is just a sophisticated hallucination, created so we have some stimulation whilst the body sleeps. This is the reason I have such a lax attitude towards morality in dreams. Its about as real to me as fiction.

Quote:

As for morality, well I think the best test would be to ask DCs themselves whether they feel pain, like being raped, having their faces beaten in, or having their stuff stolen. After all, morality always arises from a moral consensus arrived at through the interactions of several different individuals. And, if you want to go deeper, you can make them lucid and then ask them whether they are a separate entity from yourself or the same, and want their rights to be respected. Or, again to turn this around, what would you say about morality in the dream world if one of your DCs became lucid, stripped you of your powers and raped and tortured you every night, whether you were lucid or not, until you are absolutely terrified of falling asleep?

Again, it comes down to how I see the dream world, but like with supposed lucidity, I think the DCs would just be acting as we expect them to act. Considering how DCs act differently in terms of sheer logic sometimes and often are barely self consistent themselves, its going to be difficult to arrive at anything remotely resembling a consensus view of dream morality. Because of this, unless you want to painstakingly ask every dream character (sometimes multiple times because they may completely ignore you or even change their answers) whether a proprosed actions is good or bad in their book, you're never going to be sure whether you've ever done good whilst dreaming. And DCs will act immoral. Numerous people suffer from nightmares where DCs abuse them. If they do not care for morality in their own world, why should we? We could strive to be the better person, but because of the problems already outlined, its going to be difficult and make lucid dreaming seem more like work.

Quote:

So shouldn't we err on the side of sentience?

Even if we do, morality is still tricky there. So, would it reasonably change our attitudes? You can't prove a negative, but if there's no evidence for the positive, it really falls to personal preference on how we should act. Personally, and perhaps I'm slightly evil, I still see DCs as not real. So, unless I'm following the dream narrative for fun, I see no reason to treat them as such.

Quote:

BTW the term sentience refers to being able to feel pain.

Not quite. It refers to the capacity to feel, perceive and experience subjectivly. This would mean emotions, opinions and how our other senses see the world. A DC might react appropriately about a painful response, but this doesn't mean it actually "felt" it.
08-13-2015, 11:58 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

If we are to answer the question of whether DCs deserve moral consideration, the first thing we must establish is whether DCs can suffer. If they can suffer then the argument for consideration grows stronger. Sentience often gets conflated with the word intelligence, but at its root it only refers to the ability to suffer. The intelligence of DCs is another question... but I would say that they exhibit sufficient intelligence for us to consider then an intelligence similar to our own.

Bold 1: No. The capacity to suffer pain is a branch of the whole concept, but not the whole tree. If I stripped you of all pain receptors and removed the capacity for emotional pain, you would still be sentient because you can experience stuff like light, sound and other emotions.

Bold 2: Why? How do you know they're not putting on a convincing show?
08-14-2015, 02:35 AM
Sageous

^^ I couldn't have said it better myself...

Mzungi, I don't believe you can list a long "wiki" definition of sentience (which surprisingly is a fairly decent definition, even though it omitted sentience's key aspect of self-awareness) and then pick out a couple of words from it and decide that is what sentience means. Yes, sentient beings have the perhaps unique ability to understand their pain, but that understanding is a product of sentience, and not its reason for being. Sentience involves a whole lot of other things, and non-sentient beings are more than able to feel pain, even if they do cannot metaphysically grasp what they are feeling. So I guess DC's could potentially feel pain without being sentient, even if they cannot comprehend their suffering.

And yes: why couldn't DC's simply be excellent unconscious constructs that are "putting on a convincing show" of sentience? That doesn't seem too farfetched, given the creative capacities of our dreaming minds, and our conscious expectations of how DC's ought to behave.
08-14-2015, 11:42 AM
AnotherDreamer

DCs may not be sentient independent of us, but we are sentient and we create the DCs. I think that DCs may have some semblance of sentience through us, because they are not separate from us. They are built from our experiences, our thoughts, and our expectations, the same as everything is both inside and outside of our dreams. However, there isn’t the element of external reality tied into our dreams like it is in waking life. I think that interacting with DCs is interacting with ourselves, whether we are conscious of that or not. So there is no real moral dilemma as to whether we harm other people in our dreams, but I do think that we can still harm ourselves, even if only psychologically or spiritually.
08-14-2015, 12:01 PM
splodeymissile

I agree with pretty much everything you said, dreamer.

Quote:

but I do think that we can still harm ourselves, even if only psychologically or spiritually.

Except for this bit. I see the DCs as mere projections (thank you, Inception) of our mind and not the thing itself. Because of this, the potential for harm to ourselves is pretty insigificant, comparable to viewing violent media. If you're close to the deep end already, maybe it'll push you over the edge, but for most of us, I don't think we're going to be any worse for wear, regardless of what we do, morally or otherwise.
08-14-2015, 01:38 PM
mzungu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ I couldn't have said it better myself...

Mzungi, I don't believe you can list a long "wiki" definition of sentience (which surprisingly is a fairly decent definition, even though it omitted sentience's key aspect of self-awareness) and then pick out a couple of words from it and decide that is what sentience means. Yes, sentient beings have the perhaps unique ability to understand their pain, but that understanding is a product of sentience, and not its reason for being. Sentience involves a whole lot of other things, and non-sentient beings are more than able to feel pain, even if they do cannot metaphysically grasp what they are feeling. So I guess DC's could potentially feel pain without being sentient, even if they cannot comprehend their suffering.

And yes: why couldn't DC's simply be excellent unconscious constructs that are "putting on a convincing show" of sentience? That doesn't seem too farfetched, given the creative capacities of our dreaming minds, and our conscious expectations of how DC's ought to behave.

Feeling, perception and subjectivity are all summed up in the ability to suffer, that's why I said that the ability to suffer was the primary meaning of sentience. First, obviously, you need to be able to feel. Then, of course, you need to be able to perceive your sensory information, which is pain or the lack of pain. Then you must experience yourself subjectively... this is your pain, not somebody else's, and maybe by running away from the bee hive you can cause that pain to stop. You are confusing sentience with intelligence. Non-human animals have sentience because they can feel, perceive and experience subjectively. They cannot, however, reason (except maybe dolphins) which is why eighteen century philosophers made a distinction between sentience and reason. Humans, therefore, have the ability to suffer in more intense ways than non-human animals, mainly because of our ability to expect pain before it comes and also our experience of emotional pain. But the requirements of sentience is met in non-human animals as much as in humans, and saying that sentience involves a perception of human consciousness is really being too loose with the word.

And you could say that any human's exhibition of intelligence is just "putting on a convincing show" as is any human's exhibition of pain. We can't really be sure that other humans are intelligent, or that they really do feel pain when we stab them in the arm with a needle. However enough humans have experience of pain that we have agreed that pain is a thing experienced by all humans, and therefore even though we can never measure pain, or intelligence for that matter, subjectively, we treat it objectively as something possessed by all humans. I don't see how DCs are any different.
08-14-2015, 02:16 PM
splodeymissile

"sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer" quoted from the wiki. This sentence would seem to imply that sentience precedes pain, but pain is not the entirety of sentience and it seems incredibly limiting to make the definition of one of the most complex concepts so seemingly simple.

Quote:

They cannot, however, reason (except maybe dolphins) which is why eighteen century philosophers made a distinction between sentience and reason.

Can they not? How do you know?

Looking at the wiki definition, reason consists of "consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information." Well, I'd argue that animals can consciously make sense of the world (even if it is as rudimentary as "This is dangerous. Better avoid this"), apply logic ("This hurt me once. It'll probably hurt me again, if I touch it") and change beliefs ("owner chased me away, maybe peeing in the corner wasn't quite a clever idea" or, for a darker example, "Owner hurt me. Maybe he's not really benevolent"). Establishing and verifying facts is a bit trickier to prove, but they may do so in a different way to us. I'd argue animals can experience emotional pain (elephants will always pay respects and hold their version of funerals for fallen friends and relatives) and they can expect pain. Its a horrible example, but if you whip a creature often, it'll begin to work out what's coming when you raise it again.

Either way they are sentient. Therefore, should we not treat them as you propose we treat DCs? No more killing for meat etc.

Quote:

And you could say that any human's exhibition of intelligence is just "putting on a convincing show" as is any human's exhibition of pain. We can't really be sure that other humans are intelligent, or that they really do feel pain when we stab them in the arm with a needle.

Absolutely. The only difference is that, illusion or not, other humans seem to have a brain that offers an explanation of how they may be able to be sentient. Doesn't prove it, but they've got a better argument than DCs.

Quote:

I don't see how DCs are any different.

Not all DCs look or even act like humans, for starters. Even if they do posses some measure of sentience, so what? There's no guarantee that they're intelligant and they're degree of sentience may be sub-insect, for all we know. Treat them as well as you would humans if you wish, but I feel you should elevate all creatures to the same level.
08-14-2015, 02:46 PM
mzungu

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

Perhaps I'm being closed-minded, but I also thought possessing multiple egos was a sign of split personality disorder. I wouldn't say we know for a fact that DCs are different egos. Its possible, but, as far I'm aware, there's no proof, so, it seems like an assumption on my part. And are DCs becoming lucid or are they acting as we expect them to (subconsciously or not) when faced with this realisation? I know that the waking mind doesn't encompass the entire brain's functions, but the rest is the subconscious and automatic responses, like breathing. Other egos could be down there, but there's no real proof, so, I'm going to assume that I'm the only one in my head.

I'm not really assuming that DCs have egos, just listing possibilities. We assume other humans have egos like us, just because they exhibit characteristics of intelligence and self-concern similar to ours. But we can never be sure it is actually an ego. The same holds true for DCs. They sure seems to have egos, but we can't really be sure. We tend to err on the side of saying humans have egos, just because the experience of our own. Then why not DCs? Even if these egos our not different from our own, I don't see why that should give us leave to do whatever we want with them. Just because they are in some mysterious sense us, why should they deserve any less moral consideration if they can suffer, and have preferences not to suffer? These two things alone should merit ethical treatment. We can never be sure whether anything we experience, waking or dreaming, is actually being done or whether it is our brain's own expectations. That is the nature of consciousness- our mind creates everything by which we experience both worlds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

I wouldn't say its infinite. Immensely large, but still limited by the individual whose mind it is. Speaking of limitations, the dream world and imagination, while definitely linked, seem to me to be based on perception. In that, unlike reality, they disappear when unobserved. Even in dreamless sleep, we still possess some (mostly automatic) mental functions. In terms of the actual consciousness, though, I agree. I don't think we completely fade from the dream world, if only because we can still use our imagination and daydream. However, this is probably going to be our main source of disagreement. You seem to be implying that the dream world is sort of like an independent plane, existing alongside ours, with sleep being akin to a portal between realms. Why, then, do Dream characters seem unable to enter our world and, if they have entered, are they able to "lucid reality"? If I'm completely wrong, I apologise. My own personal view is that the dream world is just a sophisticated hallucination, created so we have some stimulation whilst the body sleeps. This is the reason I have such a lax attitude towards morality in dreams. Its about as real to me as fiction.

Yes, reality does tend to have a permanence that the dream world does not, doesn't it? But it is just as likely to be a simulation, or hallucination, as the dreamworld is. Except reality is shared with billions of other egos. And so when you disconnect from reality, all those other egos are still there to simulate it. It's the difference between an enclosed environment in a single-player RPG and a persistent world in an MMORPG. Or, if you wished to talk in phenomenological terms:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Heidegger

“Adding on value-predicates cannot tell us anything at all new about the Being of goods, but would merely presuppose again that goods have pure presence-at-hand as their kind of Being. Values would then be determinate characteristics which a thing possesses, and they would be present-at-hand”(Being and Time 21: 132).

Meaning that we think things in the world are separate from us because we have stripped away all the relations that thing has with other things in the universe and see it as having its own essence, separate from us. This is what Heidegger calls present-at-hand consciousness. But as he says later, we are really in ready-at-hand relationship with the things in this world and the world itself, which means that there is essentially no distinction between us and the world, as we are both caught up in a ontologically priory verbal framework that encompasses all reality. We are all caught up in the same activity- living, consciousness, perceiving, whatever you want to term it.

Maybe if we ever figure out how to share dreams, like in Inception, we'll learn how this process of environment-creation works. It is the very number of people, and non-people too, that are involved in simulating reality that creates the various laws of nature that we are familiar with. I guess that if we ever end up sharing dreams, the same thing would happen. The radical subversion of natural laws in dream realities would be subdued as more and more people need things to be more permanent and reliable.

But to get back to your original point, even if DCs end up being impermanent, living only during that time we engage with them, that still is not a very good argument for their moral neutral-ness. If babies were born already talking and already grown up, but lived only a number of hours, we would still grant those people rights because they exhibit sentience and intelligence. The shortness of DCs existence, if it exists as such, makes the moments while they are alive that much more meaningful. It's like contracting an entire life in the span of one or two hours.

So the dream world is not a separate plane. Like the real world, it is something our minds create, and our Being dwells proximally alongside in a ready-at-hand relationship. The thing is, however, that dream creations are limited to the realm in which they are created. They cannot cross over to the waking world because they do not share Being with the real world. Hence a DC couldn't "wake up" in the real world, because he does not shared the verbal framework of that world from which existence of that world is predicated. The dream world is an entirely different form of verbal being, with only inconsequential links to the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

Again, it comes down to how I see the dream world, but like with supposed lucidity, I think the DCs would just be acting as we expect them to act. Considering how DCs act differently in terms of sheer logic sometimes and often are barely self consistent themselves, its going to be difficult to arrive at anything remotely resembling a consensus view of dream morality. Because of this, unless you want to painstakingly ask every dream character (sometimes multiple times because they may completely ignore you or even change their answers) whether a proposed actions is good or bad in their book, you're never going to be sure whether you've ever done good whilst dreaming. And DCs will act immoral. Numerous people suffer from nightmares where DCs abuse them. If they do not care for morality in their own world, why should we? We could strive to be the better person, but because of the problems already outlined, its going to be difficult and make lucid dreaming seem more like work.

RL people are different in terms of logic, and often aren't self consistent. That's no reason not to have a moral consensus. We do, in fact, have one despite these things and despite our different cultures our moral consensi are very similar to each other. RL people also act immoral. That's no reason to throw out the ethics textbook. Perhaps we should try asking them if they care about morality? If they care when children are killed by serial murderers. If they care when there stuff is taken. DCs exhibit individuality just like RL people do. That's no reason not to try. It would be a huge task, too, to establish a moral consensus in our world if socialization and millennial of history had not already done it for us. In the real world, we have these two things helping us. In the dream world, we don't. However DCs could be created with simulated moral frameworks, and by using our time in the dream world to ask what these moral frameworks are, even among multiple dreams, I think we can get an idea of what DCs think is good behavior and what they think is bad behavior. And, of course, sometimes you don't even have to ask them. Just pay attention to how they act. That can tell us a lot about their underlying morality alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

Even if we do, morality is still tricky there. So, would it reasonably change our attitudes? You can't prove a negative, but if there's no evidence for the positive, it really falls to personal preference on how we should act. Personally, and perhaps I'm slightly evil, I still see DCs as not real. So, unless I'm following the dream narrative for fun, I see no reason to treat them as such.

No, we can't prove a negative. But we must decide something, as we do in the real world, because we must interact with these beings. In the real world, deciding in the negative has many negative consequences. In the dream world, it doesn't. I think it is the lack of consequences that creates the opinion that DCs are not real. Many of us would do the same in the real world if we could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

Not quite. It refers to the capacity to feel, perceive and experience subjectivly. This would mean emotions, opinions and how our other senses see the world. A DC might react appropriately about a painful response, but this doesn't mean it actually "felt" it.

And yet we can't even be sure whether the person we just stabbed in the arm felt that too.
08-14-2015, 03:43 PM
splodeymissile

Quote:

The same holds true for DCs.

Does it, though? Even if they possess egos, because of the often nonsensical nature of the dream world, its unlikely its anything resembling our own egos. We can reasonably assume that other humans have egos like ourselves because, through observing them, we can see that they see the world in a similar fashion (broadly speaking, anyways). Even if we don't agree, we can often understand the other's point of view and sometimes see how they got to that conclusion. As you said, they exhibit similarities with us. What similarities do we share with DCs? Their version of intelligence and logic are often so dissimilar to our own, that a Lovecraft creation has more in common with us. At least with other humans, we have some common frame of reference. That's not to say we treat them immorally because of their differences, but when weighing up whether something has consciousness, those more similar to you have a more convincing argument.

Quote:

Just because they are in some mysterious sense us, why should they deserve any less moral consideration if they can suffer, and have preferences not to suffer?

Depends on how you see morality. My view has always been whether it causes suffering to others. Self-inflicted suffering, while not a good idea, seems morally neutral. You're not intruding on anyone if the only one who can suffer is yourself. So, if DCs are literally ourselves and we see no downsides in waking life from doing as we wish with them, then, not only is morality inapplicable to it, but whether its sensible is hardly relevent. If you chop off your arm, you haven't committed an evil act. If you then set fire to your severed arm, you're still not evil. I don't see how a fragmented mental state is any different to a physical state.

Quote:

our mind creates everything by which we experience both worlds.

Which is why you can never be sure whether your sense of morality truly works in any world. My mind perceives the dream world as being as real as fiction. Therefore, I treat it as such. We both see the real world as real, therefore, we treat it as such. Whether its wrong or right can never be proven, and, so, you're left with preference.

Quote:

It's the difference between an enclosed environment in a single-player RPG and a persistent world in an MMORPG.

Which just illustrates my point. Except when caught in the narrative and deliberately made to feel, no one cares about NPCs, whether they're enemies or not. Countless goombas have been killed, but we don't call video games players immoral. MMOs are not unreal in moral terms, but simply less real than reality. In that, immoral actions in an MMO can have consequences (making a fellow plater upset), but they are less important (there's probably a better word for it), than reality. If I stab the real you, I'll rightly get labelled as evil. If I stab your avatar, I don't think anyone's going to throw that word around. With shared dreaming unproven, I suppose I see dreaming as a single player RPG. The only real person is me and even then, I'm using an avatar. If shared dreaming is proven and used regularly, I would consider abusing other people's DCs to be immoral, but not your own.
08-14-2015, 04:58 PM
splodeymissile

I'll have to read up more on Heidegger.

Quote:

But to get back to your original point, even if DCs end up being impermanent, living only during that time we engage with them, that still is not a very good argument for their moral neutral-ness. If babies were born already talking and already grown up, but lived only a number of hours, we would still grant those people rights because they exhibit sentience and intelligence. The shortness of DCs existence, if it exists as such, makes the moments while they are alive that much more meaningful. It's like contracting an entire life in the span of one or two hours.

It's still a big if, though, and one that hasn't yet convinced me that DCs have a real existence, as such. And even if they do possess an existence, it doesn't mean they personally consider it meaningful. Why should we, if they don't? If they are both sentient and consider their existence to be meaningful, then we should treat them with respect. If it isn't the case, then the seemingly impermanent nature of the dream world just makes our actions consequence free and morally irrelevent.

Quote:

RL people are different in terms of logic, and often aren't self consistent.

I'd argue they have a greater degree of consistency than DCs.

Quote:

We do, in fact, have one despite these things and despite our different cultures our moral consensi are very similar to each other.

Among western and some eastern cultures, perhaps. But what's considered morally right in North Korea may not be so elsewhere. Which culture is more "right" in universal morality terms? And if there isn't a universal code of ethics, then how can you be sure that you're more right than me?

Quote:

That's no reason to throw out the ethics textbook.

When dealing with others, keep the textbook. But I'd argue that when you deliberately perform an immoral act, you waive away your right to not have the same act committed against you.

Quote:

DCs exhibit individuality just like RL people do

Or do they just act as you expect them to?

Quote:

That's no reason not to try. It would be a huge task, too, to establish a moral consensus in our world if socialization and millennial of history had not already done it for us. In the real world, we have these two things helping us. In the dream world, we don't.

Despite lucid dreaming being around since fairly early in mankind's history. If the dream world is shared, then the consensus would seem to have been already made and would apparently be anything goes. If each dream world is individual, then its morality can only ever be based on that of its creator. And if the creator only created the world for the purpose of fun, then, regardless of what form it takes, having fun would be the only "good" actions

Quote:

However DCs could be created with simulated moral frameworks, and by using our time in the dream world to ask what these moral frameworks are, even among multiple dreams, I think we can get an idea of what DCs think is good behavior and what they think is bad behavior.

But new DCs are created with every dream and could have new frameworks for every dream. It still doesn't solve the issue. If you're lucky, you'll get a consensus for one dream, but that doesn't mean it'll apply for the next, so, you'll be back to square one the next night.

Quote:

I think it is the lack of consequences that creates the opinion that DCs are not real. Many of us would do the same in the real world if we could.

Can the unreal have any consequences? And if there are no consequences to anything, why would morality matter? I do agree that if someone suddenly had a "lucid reality" and some subsequent reality warping powers, any pretense of this being real and actually being of consequence would go out the window and they'd just do what they feel like.

Quote:

And yet we can't even be sure whether the person we just stabbed in the arm felt that too.

No, we can't. And if you can't be sure whether the people of this world are sentient, why assume that a seemingly less real world would possess people with sentience? As you said, we're a product of our minds and mine says, correctly or no, that this world is real and the other isn't. There's no guarantee that disagreement with this intuition is any closer to the truth.