Because dream events are not are not actually “real” in the sense of being interactions with the outside world. In my dream I might be able to fly, or jump over skyscrapers, or be chased by monsters. I may encounter people I know, yet these encounters are not actually part of my shared history with those people. If I dream I am at work, nothing I do is actually done in reality and I cannot expect wages for it.
Dreams do not have a consistent history and events in them do not require action like they do in the real world.
I’m not sure I know what you mean by “dismiss them from consideration,” but I do not regard them as actual interactions with the real world. And I can easily explain where my dreams come from: they come from my brain. My hopes, concerns, fears, desires; things that are on my mind to some degree or another. I believe dreams have value for introspection as well as for “fun.”
Malachi, as I said, I present no theory; as far as I’m concerned we haven’t moved past the definitions phase yet. And no, I’m not defining the word “real” in such a way that it excludes dreams. I think my definition is pretty clear.
[quoteuser=“Josh”]
I’m pretty good at knowing when I’m getting real world sensory data or just imagining or dreaming something.
[/quote]
How do you know?
[quoteuser=“Josh”]
the discovery that it (snake antidote) worked can’t be said to really have happened until real world results went as predicted.
[/quote]
Fair enough, but does it seem rational to consider this a coincidence? Of all the thousands of plant species in this one man’s immediate enviroment?
[quoteuser=“Josh”]
And a stopped clock is right twice a day.
[/quote]
If the shaman had the same record, he’d probably be out of a job real quick!
you just described a few things that dreams are not. There are an infinite number of things that dreams are not. Can you tell me what dreams are? Failing that, can you give me a positive reason to dismiss the dream world from consideration? I could easily say that “the real world is not relevant because the real world is not an eggnog milkshake.” why would your dreams of being at work have to count as hours on the time clock for them to be significant?
its hard for me to see how you can make such broad and far-reaching claims. For example, what consistency do you expect, in order to observe a lack thereof? Perhaps you are not interpreting the dreams correctly. Conceptually, you have been consistent throughout your posts, but you used different words each time. Could I then claim that your posts did not exhibit consistency?
this is more what I was looking for. How can you judge that the origins of the dreams are confined to your brain?
this definition references a theory of cause and effect. Data is judged to be “real” if it is reliable when computed through your understanding of cause and effect. I suggest that if your theory of the universe is not 100% complete or accurate, and if you eliminate data based on its conformity to your theory of the universe, then you put yourself in an echo chamber where everything that your theory accounts for is seen as evidence to support your theory, and everything that your theory does not account for is seen as irrelevant.
“what we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So, you get what we had here last night, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it! And I don’t like it any more than you men.”
My definition is not a theory, nor does it “reference” a theory. It simply specifies a set of sensations that we feel a certain way about and NAMES them. I’m not sure how to make this any clearer.
How is this not a direct reference to your theory of cause and effect? “we believe they give us reliable guidance” surely you do not claim to KNOW that your belief is correct. That means it is a theory. If you dont believe certain data give you reliable guidance, and so you label that data as “not real,” you have excluded data based on its correspondence of your theory of cause and effect. “It simply specifies a set of sensations that we feel a certain way about and NAMES them.” “feel a certain way about” would be a reference to your prior assumptions.
The definition mentions a feeling that people may have, and although that feeling may be the result of each person’s own theory of cause and effect (or just their unreasoned feelings), no such theory is proposed by the definition. The definition only points to sensations, only names them, only gives a key for the readers to understand the terms used in the upcoming discussion. I am making a point about word usage, not a theory. We need to define terms BEFORE moving into the theory phase, and this exchange is a perfect example of why.
For example, if Winston believes that the jagged line on his visual field is a crack in his window (meaning that he will, for instance, want to avoid bumping into it), he will call it real, and if he believes it’s a trick of the light, he won’t call it real (since he doesn’t believe it means anything for his actions). The is the definition I’m proposing, again, in simpler terms: Real sensations = sensations the speaker believes provide reliable guidance for his actions.
that feeling is necessarily the result of a theory of cause and effect. Your definition of “real” presupposes several things. It presupposes a real/unreal distinction, and it presupposes a theory of cause and effect. My point is (and has been from the beginning) that your decision to eliminate certain data as “not real” has the tendency to put you in an echo chamber where everything that reinforces your theory of cause and effect is valid data, and everything that suggests a different theory is invalid data. “no such theory is proposed by the definition” you should have said “no specific theory” which would make my point more clear. My problem is with dogmatic exclusion of evidence based on any theory.
And note how convenient the upcoming discussion would be for you if you were able to beg the question in this manner. I reject the real/unreal distinction. Things are real insofar as they are sensed or thought of. Interpretation starts when the senses are filtered into percepts. This interpretation relies on theory. I reject the dogmatic dismissal of sense data.
If he believes it to be a trick of the light he should call it a real trick of the light, instead of creating a mental category that makes no sense. This is exactly what I am talking about. And, you did it again. “Real sensations = sensations the speaker believes provide reliable guidance for his actions” when viewed through the lens of causal relationships. Meaning anything defined as “unreal” is divorced from cause/effect, and therefore meaningless, and cold not possibly suggest modification to his theory of cause/effect.
How long had they lived in that environment? All of their lives, for generations stretching back who knows how far? I would imagine there were a great many unsuccessful attempts to treat snake envenomation for a very long time before this particular shaman tried this plant in an way that worked.
If a shaman’s visions were right twice a day, I think he would be extraordinarily popular.
Because my nightcap has a tin-foil liner and they can’t be beamed in. Seriously though, I have simply found no compelling reason to believe that dream events are taking place anywhere besides the brain of the dreamer. If people can be shown to communicate with one another in dreamed experiences (and If such a thing were possible, I think it would be easily demonstrable), I would immediately change my mind.
Malachi, you’re not recognizing the difference between a definition of a term, and statement using a term interpreted with YOUR definition. You keep substituting your own definition of “real” into my definition and then interpreting it like a proposition. I say “Let’s define real sense data as X” and you see instead “X are the real (“valid”) sense data.” It’s easy to tell you’re doing this because you say things like “I reject the real/unreal distinction.” You’re not reading. I’m not using your definition and then making a statement; I’m proposing my own definition and making NO statement with it at all. I’m not rejecting any sense data as “invalid” (whatever that even means). You might even be surprised that we’re in agreement about sense data, since as of now you have no way of knowing what I thin k about them since I’ve said zero about that so far.
Your act of proposing a definition is a statement. That definition refers to a theory, and implies a distinction I am not willing to make. By saying that some sense data are real, you make a statement about sense data, even if you expand the set of real sense data to include all sense data (as I do). Taking my position just makes your statement trivial.
Well at least you try to keep an open mind. It’s not easily demonstrable when you grow up immersed in a culture full of propaganda that derides anything outside of a narrow band of materialistic interests. Lucid dreaming is way more lame than dirtbikes, bro
[quoteuser=“Josh”]
Unless I am The Solipsist, I know.
[/quote]
This does not answer the question, “how do you know?”.
So, I’m assuming here that you think the shaman tried it out first, then told everyone he had discovered it in a dream. In other words, he’s full of it. Why to you consider that conclusion superior?
You mean you’re reading into my definition more than is there, assuming I’m making it with some ulterior motive, like perhaps that I want to dismiss certain sensory data. Well I’m not doing that. I’m simply trying to make a clear definition. I have no agenda, no theory to propose. I don’t even think this is a field where it makes sense to have a theory or a position, even though it is fashionable in philosophy to do so. As far as I’m concerned it’s solely a matter of clarifying the language.
“we use the term “retard” to refer to human beings who are so foolish or stupid that they do not deserve to live. Bear in mind I have not identified any specific retards, nor do I claim that any actual retards exist. Furthermore, I do not propose a standard by which to evaluate the qualities that might make someone a retard. I am simply defining terms here. It is a matter of language and not theory”