What I’m saying is that for example, dreams are not real, and yet they can and often are indistinguishable from reality, many even have dreams where they are aware they are dreaming and can control them the same way we can control what we do while awake.
I think to adopt that argument you have to be operating on some preconceived assumptions.
Dreams are “real”, in the sense that they are propagated by measurable physical phenomena. Just because some people can experience an amount of choice in their dreams, does not mean they are interacting with “reality”.
This is only possible because we have bodily systems for producing experiences
Again… Experiences needs to be defined. There are a lot of theories about how we engage with the world around us in both a physical and metaphysical way.
Dreaming is perception unconstrained by sensory input
That’s not really true… Dreaming is a cognitive function that is still limited by how we engage with our surroundings normally. Congeniality Blind people do not see in their dreams, and deaf people do not hear.
Reality is dreaming constrained by sensory input
Imo that is a bit of a narcissistic way to view reality. Reality is shared, and not defined by an individual person’s sensory input. There are natural laws that persist even if there is no way for a person to perceive them.
People blind at birth dream of perceiving hearing unconstrained by sensory input so yes it is true still even for people blind from birth. I have a friend who is this case actually.
There is nothing narcissistic about it because it only proves that we are individuals with individual experience, something that everyone has been aware of for a long time, we still all operate on the substrate that is outside of our body with its brain and sensory organs.
People blind at birth dream of perceiving hearing unconstrained by sensory input so yes it is true still even for people blind from birth. I have a friend who is this case actually.
Right, but your original claim was that it was unconstrained by sensory input. The fact that they lack the ability to dream up sensory information they have no previous sensory input for is proof this claim is not true.
My point is that you are making an unfounded delineation between sensory input and the brain. That the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system should be viewed as a whole system reliant on each other, rather than a computer with sensory attachments.
There is nothing narcissistic about it because it only proves that we are individuals with individual experience, something that everyone has been aware of for a long time, we still all operate on the substrate that is outside of our body with its brain and sensory organs.
People having “individual experience” does not preclude people having shared experiences, and shared experiences do not preclude individuality. Your claim is only supported by an underdeveloped preconceived notion of perception and it’s effects on cognition.
What you are arguing is similar to Solipsism, which basically boils down to “I can only prove to myself that I process consciousness, and everyone else’s experiences are just subjective observations”. Which means if all observations are subjective in nature, then a person can only really prove that they themselves posses “real” consciousness.
Now that might not have been your original point, but it is the natural conclusion of the argument. And others have thought it out and argued against it for a long time. It’s known as the The Problem With Other Minds.
No it is proof that it is true because a system that does not have the data to create an experience cannot create the experience.
I am 100% saying the body is a computer with sensory attachments I have no idea where you got the things about peripheral and central nervous system from.
Nowhere am I claiming that we can’t have shared experiences in fact I have been telling you the opposite.
What I am claiming is a quote coming from the researcher that made lucid dreaming well known from a lab setting, Stephen laberge.
I am in no way saying the only experience we have as individuals is only our own, since detecting outside information with sensory organs means we are detecting information outside of us which is coming from other people or objects for example.
I think what this is suggesting in its furthest extent is that what makes us function is far from being understood and that the reality is something we aren’t capable of understanding because it exists outside of our set of sensory input unless we can use tools to collapse information to within our range of sensory input.
Your link suggests you have no idea what point I have been making this whole time.
The point I am closest to making is the same one that the Tibetan buddhists are suggesting which is the non dual reality of experiencing things through the lens of perception.
No it is proof that it is true because a system that does not have the data to create an experience cannot create the experience.
You claimed that dreams were unconstrained by sensory input… A limitation caused by the lack of sensory input is a natural constraint.
am 100% saying the body is a computer with sensory attachments I have no idea where you go the things about peripheral and central nervous system from.
Cognitive science? The brain and peripheral nervous system develop and act together. You cannot have one without the other, and if you damage one you damage the other. There is no natural or logical delineation from sensory input organs and the brain. A lot of the processing, especially from reactive functions don’t even require the brain, and are handled by just the spinal cord.
The idea that the body is a computer with sensory attachments is outdated. Our metal and physical development is a reaction of us engaging with our environment on a physical level.
reality is something we aren’t capable of understanding because it exists outside of our set of sensory input unless we can use tools to collapse information to within our range of sensory input.
I would say that reality consisist of what we can engage with in either a physical or metaphysical way. If it’s simply something that we can’t either mentally or physically interact with, then it is definitionally unimportant.
Tibetan buddhists are suggesting which is the non dual reality of experiencing things through the lens of perception.
While I accept a dualistic version of reality, I propose that perception alone is not what determines reality. I think embodied cognition gives us a much more accurate depiction of reality we engage with.
For example, without a body what is a bicycle? Through just pure observation alone, it is nothing but a chunk of odly shaped metal and plastic. It is our physical interaction with the bicycle that gives it its true meaning.
Reality is not just what we observe, it is what we interact with on a physical level.
I think to adopt that argument you have to be operating on some preconceived assumptions.
Dreams are “real”, in the sense that they are propagated by measurable physical phenomena. Just because some people can experience an amount of choice in their dreams, does not mean they are interacting with “reality”.
Again… Experiences needs to be defined. There are a lot of theories about how we engage with the world around us in both a physical and metaphysical way.
Dreaming is perception unconstrained by sensory input
Reality is dreaming constrained by sensory input
That’s not really true… Dreaming is a cognitive function that is still limited by how we engage with our surroundings normally. Congeniality Blind people do not see in their dreams, and deaf people do not hear.
Imo that is a bit of a narcissistic way to view reality. Reality is shared, and not defined by an individual person’s sensory input. There are natural laws that persist even if there is no way for a person to perceive them.
People blind at birth dream of perceiving hearing unconstrained by sensory input so yes it is true still even for people blind from birth. I have a friend who is this case actually.
There is nothing narcissistic about it because it only proves that we are individuals with individual experience, something that everyone has been aware of for a long time, we still all operate on the substrate that is outside of our body with its brain and sensory organs.
Right, but your original claim was that it was unconstrained by sensory input. The fact that they lack the ability to dream up sensory information they have no previous sensory input for is proof this claim is not true.
My point is that you are making an unfounded delineation between sensory input and the brain. That the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system should be viewed as a whole system reliant on each other, rather than a computer with sensory attachments.
People having “individual experience” does not preclude people having shared experiences, and shared experiences do not preclude individuality. Your claim is only supported by an underdeveloped preconceived notion of perception and it’s effects on cognition.
What you are arguing is similar to Solipsism, which basically boils down to “I can only prove to myself that I process consciousness, and everyone else’s experiences are just subjective observations”. Which means if all observations are subjective in nature, then a person can only really prove that they themselves posses “real” consciousness.
Now that might not have been your original point, but it is the natural conclusion of the argument. And others have thought it out and argued against it for a long time. It’s known as the The Problem With Other Minds.
No it is proof that it is true because a system that does not have the data to create an experience cannot create the experience.
I am 100% saying the body is a computer with sensory attachments I have no idea where you got the things about peripheral and central nervous system from.
Nowhere am I claiming that we can’t have shared experiences in fact I have been telling you the opposite.
What I am claiming is a quote coming from the researcher that made lucid dreaming well known from a lab setting, Stephen laberge.
I am in no way saying the only experience we have as individuals is only our own, since detecting outside information with sensory organs means we are detecting information outside of us which is coming from other people or objects for example.
I think what this is suggesting in its furthest extent is that what makes us function is far from being understood and that the reality is something we aren’t capable of understanding because it exists outside of our set of sensory input unless we can use tools to collapse information to within our range of sensory input.
Your link suggests you have no idea what point I have been making this whole time.
The point I am closest to making is the same one that the Tibetan buddhists are suggesting which is the non dual reality of experiencing things through the lens of perception.
You claimed that dreams were unconstrained by sensory input… A limitation caused by the lack of sensory input is a natural constraint.
Cognitive science? The brain and peripheral nervous system develop and act together. You cannot have one without the other, and if you damage one you damage the other. There is no natural or logical delineation from sensory input organs and the brain. A lot of the processing, especially from reactive functions don’t even require the brain, and are handled by just the spinal cord.
The idea that the body is a computer with sensory attachments is outdated. Our metal and physical development is a reaction of us engaging with our environment on a physical level.
I would say that reality consisist of what we can engage with in either a physical or metaphysical way. If it’s simply something that we can’t either mentally or physically interact with, then it is definitionally unimportant.
While I accept a dualistic version of reality, I propose that perception alone is not what determines reality. I think embodied cognition gives us a much more accurate depiction of reality we engage with.
For example, without a body what is a bicycle? Through just pure observation alone, it is nothing but a chunk of odly shaped metal and plastic. It is our physical interaction with the bicycle that gives it its true meaning.
Reality is not just what we observe, it is what we interact with on a physical level.
Good luck trying to understood this
Great rebuttal…really proves you know what you’re trying to talk about!