If I told you I had a dream last night and you responded by saying you don't believe me, the conversation stops right there. — L'éléphant

Good point, and along these lines we see that 'logic' is part of a larger form of life in which some claims are just taken for granted as too boring or offensive to question.

"Twins" (I know from having 2 sets of uncles who are 'identical') are not the same. "Mind twins" would (could) not be the same either. You, my friend, are not the same you that you were yesterday, a decade ago or as a child. — 180 Proof

You breaked my toy! :cry:

And why should one proof dreams?

That's what I'm saying -- my justification for the truth of my dream is your own experience, and vice versa. Are you not seeing the issue with this? There is no group of anti-dreams who calls us out on our bullshit dreams. No one. — L'éléphant

Probably because whether you dream or not has very little impact on yours and other's lives. I stir my coffee clockwise with a spoon. There aren't any "anti-clockwise" people at my door asking me to stop because it affects no one.

Why can't belief in god work the same way? Many people claim they have experienced the divinity or holy ghost. But we do not readily accept their account. — L'éléphant

Because such a belief has a fundamental way of altering that person, and other people's lives. Internally, we feel a lot of things as human beings that cause us to make mistakes and do actions that are harmful to us and other people. While belief in a God has caused people to do great things, it has also caused people to live irrationally, and justify some terrible decisions.

When you believe God told you to do something, there is no possibility of you being wrong anymore. Every action should always be open to being "wrong" in hindsight. Its the only way we learn and grow as people. When you have divine guidance, there is no possibility of thinking, amending, or improving. If "Gays are evil" for example, you can't have a rational discussion with that person, as they feel like they are divinely correct, thus your mortal arguments are against God, ignorant, and sinful. This stunts people's growth and makes them emotional animals. Satisfying for the person, but can potentially be terrible for themselves and society.

But lets get out of that for a second. If you notice, I've mentioned evidence of such things existing beyond the experience of the personal account. In other words, there is more than just the personal experience, there are physical and external results of such experiences.

Communication with God should light up the brain, which it does by the way. Here's a great study on the neuroscience of it, which every believer should read. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539#:~:text=The%20researcher%2C%20who%20literally%20%E2%80%9Cwrote,frontal%20lobes%20of%20the%20brain.

I myself am not anti-God or anti-religion. The only thing I honestly am completely against, is the belief in immortality or life after death. That to me, is complete and utter evil.

This is not a proof. Doctors could only infer from our reports of pain -- but there's no thing that is called pain. It's not like a tumor, where there is concrete evidence of it. Medications work on pain, through trials and studies of subjects who report which pain medication eases their pain the best. Evidence is what you're thinking of. Trial and error is not proof. And so on. — L'éléphant

I'm going to disagree with you here. Trial and error to figure out what works is also evidence, its just evidence and proof obtained the hard way. If you don't agree that's fine, we'll just have to accept each other's view points here.

What we can't really show the floaters to others. Only accounts of people who've experienced them. — L'éléphant

The reason this caught my attention is that I was at my optometrist this week and the aide checking my eyes said (in effect) "Hey, I see you've got a floater there".

Of course no one walks around with the kind of equipment needed to spot floaters :wink: - and - this does not affect your larger point.

Perhaps this (existential-cosmological) uniqueness is each one's "soul" or "daimon" ... — 180 Proof

I rather like that conception of soul. Intelligible without departing massively from the already existing concept, such as it is.

And why should one proof dreams? — EugeneW

I did not even imply that in any of my posts. Back at ya -- why should I prove to you that I'm awake?

Because showing to be awake stands on the same level as showing to have dreamt. You simply can't proof the both.

But I'm asking you, what's the logic of your asking if I'm awake? There are things we could ask and doubt, but you asking me if I'm awake is not one of those. Why ask me at all if you're doubting my state of awakeness? You sound like the atheists who continue to request for proof, after making a claim that god does not exist.

You sound like the atheists who continue to request for proof, after making a claim that god does not exist. — L'éléphant

That's it! There is no scientific evidence of what goes on inside of matter. Science can describe the outside but not the inside.

Probably because whether you dream or not has very little impact on yours and other's lives. — Philosophim

This mirrors @lll explanation as to why belief in god is special and unlike dreams and pains and all other things we claim without requiring proof. And again, I ask, why is the experience of god -- sensation of the holy ghost, or whatever it is one experiences with god --as a private sensation like dream or pain, something to be proven? Our dear lll said because belief in god had led to war, deaths and whatnot. Then, I say are we not misplacing the problem here?

Because such a belief has a fundamental way of altering that person, and other people's lives. — Philosophim

And you repeated it here.

When you have divine guidance, there is no possibility of thinking, amending, or improving. If "Gays are evil" for example, you can't have a rational discussion with that person, as they feel like they are divinely correct, thus your mortal arguments are against God, ignorant, and sinful. This stunts people's growth and makes them emotional animals. Satisfying for the person, but can potentially be terrible for themselves and society. — Philosophim

I never said that belief in god frees one from responsibility. Hate against a group because god told you so is a responsibility that one has to answer to. The same way a person would act on a dream of end of the world -- this person has to answer to some authority if he acted badly.

The illegality of one's action is not excused because he is allowed a belief in god. And if I may say so, what would you gain by asking a person, who acted badly based on belief in god, to produce proof of his god. Does that lessen his irrational behavior if he could somehow produce proof of god?

Of course no one walks around with the kind of equipment needed to spot floaters :wink: - and - this does not affect your larger point. — EricH

:up:

Hate against a group because god told you so is a responsibility that one has to answer to. The same way a person would act on a dream of end of the world -- this person has to answer to some authority if he acted badly. — L'éléphant

That's why atheists want proof. Because belief in god can never be treated like how we treat self-evident pain, fear, and dreams. — L'éléphant

Well said ! In the bad old days, folks were tortured for mouthing the wrong words.

And again, I ask, why is the experience of god -- sensation of the holy ghost, or whatever it is one experiences with god --as a private sensation like dream or pain, something to be proven? — L'éléphant

There's the old idea that 'God is a spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.' Also some have said 'God is love.' The nice thing about the God-is-feeling idea, as long as it remains vague, is that it's flexible enough to let others find their own words and thoughts for this 'oceanic feeling.' It's as if the problem is a congealing of a feeling into a system with teeth that can't tolerate a hearse of a different color.

Our dear lll — L'éléphant

Your kindness is appreciated.

Your kindness is appreciated. — lll

:smile:

It's as if the problem is a congealing of a feeling into a system with teeth that can't tolerate a hearse of a different color. — lll

I like a black hearse, myself. Consider me a traditionalist.

I like a black hearse, myself — Tom Storm

Scientologists are beginning to insist on a transparent or a Clear hearse. I might ask for a rehearse.

You must be a hearse whisperer...

You must be a hearse whisperer... — Tom Storm

The young ladies I always end up accidentally dialing refer to me as a hoarse whisperer.

It's a relief to me that someone groks the 'uselessness' of qualia I'm trying to sketch. It's so 'obvious' eventually and yet so absurd on the face of it. — lll

It's great to know I'm not the only one who reads him this way! Little is more seemingly absurd than "it's not a Something, but not a Nothing either!"

The later Wittgenstein only seems boring to those who aren't ready. What say you? — lll

Definitely. Back to the rough ground!

Definitely. Back to the rough ground! — Luke

Joyce focused on the ordinary, leaving the exception to the journalists. His big message was something like 'the ordinary is fucking wild, ya'll.' I think that Wittgenstein 'rough ground' is also wild, and that maybe there's a 'immanent' or 'earthy' personality type that's more likely to want to grok what he's saying. W's journey is itself instructive, the evolution of his style. But this is a tangent, so...

What do you know exists? Knowledge always relies on perception. When you think about it, the only way to gain knowledge is to perceive (If you include thinking and feeling in your definition of perception). It might seem odd to ask but how do we know perception exists? If perception is the only way of achieving knowledge and it didn't exist, we couldn't know anything. This also includes not knowing whether or not perception exists. However, if we don't know whether or not perception doesn't exist, that means it must be possible that perception exist. That of course contradicts the assumption that perception doesn't exist and thus, perception must exist. I believe that everything that is perceived exists in some form. For example, even if I lived in a simulated world, a matrix, what I observe is still an image of reality - in this case ones and zeros on a computer. So, to to get back to your initial question:
I might not be able to know whether or not I dream, what I can know however, is that I think that I am dreaming.

That's it! There is no scientific evidence of what goes on inside of matter. Science can describe the outside but not the inside. — EugeneW

Science/Medicine has limits, it's fair to say. Dreams could run as long as an hour. If one could make a film of the dream while the subject is sleeping, then that's the proof of dreams. And we can't do that.

It might seem odd to ask but how do we know perception exists? — Carlikoff

Good to bring this up. As with any definition of perception, which you've already handled well, how do we know perception exists? Because to argue against it, or to even doubt it, is perception itself. In other words, we can't talk our way out of our own mind and say it doesn't exist. That's the logical double bind for ya. Cartesian.

Science/Medicine has limits, it's fair to say. Dreams could run as long as an hour. If one could make a film of the dream while the subject is sleeping, then that's the proof of dreams. And we can't do that. — L'éléphant

It can be shown though that the mouse has a visual of a checkboard. A 1 hour dream lasts 5 minutes. REM. Seems good enough proof. A dog barking. Ýou talking in your sleep. Proof!

If one could make a film of the dream while the subject is sleeping, then that's the proof of dreams. And we can't do that. — L'éléphant

Is this an empirical statement or a statement about grammar ? Or is it hard to say?

A 1 hour dream lasts 5 minutes. REM. Seems good enough proof. A dog barking. Ýou talking in your sleep. Proof! — EugeneW

That's not proof.

Is this an empirical statement or a statement about grammar ? Or is it hard to say? — lll

Empirical statement.

If you would make a catalogue of the brain processes of the human experiences while awake, you could compare them with the processes seen when you suspect someone's dreaming. If there is resemblance, only the neurons firing faster, the person has dreamt. Without the person even telling you.

That's not proof. — L'éléphant

Why else should your dog bark in his sleep?

As with any definition of perception, which you've already handled well, how do we know perception exists? Because to argue against it, or to even doubt it, is perception itself. In other words, we can't talk our way out of our own mind and say it doesn't exist. That's the logical double bind for ya. Cartesian. — L'éléphant

That's no proof your perception exists. For all I know you don't have a perception of reality. How can you proof to me you see the world?

I have already explained somewhere in this thread what evidence are and what a proof is. For example, just because I see a person with sweaty palms, rapid heart beat, and deep breathing -- do I conclude that this person is at the moment fearful? No. That's not proof of fear even though those qualities may be present in someone fearful. Those aren't proof of the fear the person is experiencing. The only true reason why we know a person is fearful is because he says so.

Same with dreams -- the qualities you mentioned aren't proof. They are, maybe, evidence suggesting one is dreaming, but they're not proof. We only believe that person dreaming because he says so.

And let's go back to the big bang. There is no proof that the big bang happened. They could only point to evidential qualities present in the universe that the big bang is a very plausible theory, but no one in Physics community had claimed it is proof.

That's no proof your perception exists. For all I know you don't have a perception of reality. How can you proof to me you see the world? — EugeneW

Then I could say the same thing with you -- all the things you post here are just your illusion and I'm under no obligation to respond to an illusion or delusion.