One significant difference is the "dreamt about".
I'm not "the me in your dream".

I wonder about the nature of personal identity in dreams. The 'me' in dreams may be different from waking aspects of meaning. It may be about a more wider perspective of 'self', or a more fragmentary experience of understanding. Dreams may contain fragments of conscious memory and reflection. On the other hand, they could be seen as having a wider understanding of the basics of human consciousness and personal identity.

, oh.

I just meant to note that in dreams (and hallucinations and such), the perception and the perceived are the same, which isn't the case for anything extra-self.

For example, I'm not (identical to) your dream-me. (No need to apologize if you slap me in a dream, I wasn't harmed. :smile:)

Actually, I think you already noted that:

but different from — Jack Cummins

If we were to deny the difference, then we'd converge on solipsism.

There is the question of what is a hallucination. It may seem obvious to some but not necessarily. In particular, I do have some retinal problems which lead me to see differently. For example, I see images when asleep and in dark. These may be related to qualia and the limitations of the human body and nervous system. On the other hand it may point to the limita of sensory experiences and the nervous system as a definitive guide to human perception and knowledge.

Here's some from Nietzsche on that... From Beyond Good and Evil:

We never see a tree exactly and completely, with regard to its leaves, branches, colour,
shape: it is so much easier for us to dream up something approximating a tree. Even in the middle of our strangest experiences, we still do the same thing: we fabricate the greatest portion of the experience and can barely be forced not to observe any one event as its 'inventor' . All of this is to say that we are from time immemorial fundamentally-accustomed to living. Or, to put it more virtuously and hypocritically, more pleasantly in short: we are all artists much more than we realize. When holding a lively conversation, I often see the face of my conversation partner in terms of the thought that he is expressing, or that I believe I have called forth in him, with a degree of clarity and precision that goes far beyond the power of my visual faculty–the detailed movement of muscles and expression of the eye must have been added by my imagination. The person was p robably making a completely different face, or none at all.

193
Quidquid luce juil, tenebris agit:* but also the reverse. In the last analysis, what we experience in our dreams, assuming that we experience it often, is as much a part of the overall economy of our soul as anything that we 'really' experience. We are richer or poorer because of it, have one need the more or the less, and ultimately, in broad daylight and even in the brightest moments of our waking consciousness, we are a little like toddlers, led along by the habits of our dreams. Take a person who has often dreamt that he was flying, and finally, each time he dreams, feels that he possesses the power and skill to fly as if it were his prerogative and his own most enviable state of happiness : this person, who thinks that he is able to realize any kind of loop or angle with his slightest impulse, who has felt a certain divine light-headedness, an 'upwards' without tension or pressure, a 'downwards' without condescension or humiliation-without gravity!-how could a person with dream experiences and dream habits like these but find the word 'happiness' defined and coloured differently during his waking hours as well! How could he but-crave happiness differently? 'Soaring', as poets describe it, when held against this other 'flying', must seem to him too earthly, too muscular, too violent, indeed too
'heavy'. — Nietzsche

as seeing mind as more 'real' than conscious understanding, in the form of reason. — Jack Cummins

Isn't dream also a type of perception? You see things and hear sounds in dreams. But when you wake up, you realise and confirm there is no real objects or the sound in the real world.

Hence could we infer that we can see things when there are no objects? Also could we infer that visual perception is possible with no visual sense organs i.e. sights?

We need to ask, then where do the objects we see the dream come from.

Yes, I was interested in the idea of dream as perception and how different it is to absence of material objects and happenings. For this reason, dream 'reality' is often dismissed. Freud saw dreams as a form of psychosis in sleep. It involves fantasised projections in a far more clear way to daily waking consciousness. However, dreams are an important part of mental processes. Both dreams and the 'rest' from consciousness may be important aspects of lived experiences.

I too, am interested in dream and its connection with consciousness. The fact that in dreams we see objects and have surreal experience but without real objects is interesting.

My first question to you is, if the dream experience could be regarded as a type of perception, or should it be something totally different type of mental experience, which is not sense perception. If so, in what respect, and under what ground? If not, why not.

The issue may be how dream experiences can be reconciled with the waking ones. It is a form of perception and understanding, so different from sensory perception.

In the context of twentieth first century philosophy, there is so much emphasis on realism and the validity of sensory experiences. Of course, these are important but it is questionable whether they provide the fullest picture. I am also interested in the metaphysical imagination and its nature in relation to quantum physics. So much is speculative, and I query a perspective of philosophy which is concrete in thinking.

I come from the angle of an interest in Jung's writings about symbolic aspects of experience. With a view to your idea of grounds of understanding, not on sense perception alone, there is the idea of the brain as a reductive, filtering experience, such as in the ideas of Henri Bergson and Aldous Huxley. This is so opposed to the materialist perspectives of 'qualia' and what is seen as 'out there' metaphysically.

I am certainly not wishing to suggest that the world of dream is more 'real' than the perspective of realism. It may be about composite aspects of knowledge and understanding. If nothing else, such a perspective may challenge the grounds of realism of sensory experiences and the most definitive ones.

Dreams may be be disregarded as a form of 'illusion', or even 'delusion'. But, it is questionable whether such an outlook presents a full perspective of the nature of 'reality' as opposed to the partiality of human perception, as evident in the philosophy of realism. I am sure that many may dismiss going beyond realism and the evidence for and against realism is rather spurious, especially as human experience is subjective.

The issue may be how dream experiences can be reconciled with the waking ones. It is a form of perception and understanding, so different from sensory perception. — Jack Cummins

I agree with your point, that dream is a form of perception and understanding. But as you pointed out, it is not in the real material world. It is in one's mental world, which is private and immaterial.

It seems to imply that our experience does not confine in just material world, but extends into the mental world, which is interesting in that it doesn't need our sensory organ to experience the images and sounds of the material world which are totally sensory organ bound, by contrast which are sometimes unexperienced contents such as going to places that you have never been before, meeting folks you have never met in real life, which is not based on sensory experience.

I don't agree with the idea that dreams are just illusion or delusion. Dream can be further studied and investigated along with the other mental events and experiences, which will give us substantial interesting knowledge on human mind and consciousness.

As you pointed out, Jung and Freud seems to be good place to start if we want to learn more about dream and consciousness. From my recollection of reading, Freud talked about dream as undisclosed part of our consciousness which are hidden deep inside our subconsciousness.

Jung seemed to have viewed dreams as connecting our mind with the past lives, myths and legends as well as religious symbols which are all connected between past present and future, and the universe. This is an interesting topic which is rich and deep.

The issue may be how dream experiences can be reconciled with the waking ones. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps "dreaming" is offline experience (of defragging and consolidation of memories (i.e. narrative-fragments, or symbols) during sleep) and "consciousness" is online experience (of perceptions (i.e. interpretive drafts) of "the world" while awake) such that they are entangled "yinyang"-like complementaries – neither is predominant but are functional consequences (or entailments) of one another – "reconciled" in story (verbally and/or nonverbally).

In the context of twentieth first century philosophy, there is so much emphasis on realism and the validity of sensory experiences — Jack Cummins

If dream is a form of perception, then where does the images and contents of the dreams which have no connection to the real world, or past memories come from? Is it a type of imagination? Imagination requires will to imagine something. If you want to imagine a dragon, you must conjure up an image of the dragon from what you have seen on the TV or books. Things don't just come up into mind without this process.

But in dreams, how do you end up in a town where you have never been, meeting folks you never met, and sometimes having conversation about something which has never happened in real life?

The issue may be how dream experiences can be reconciled with the waking ones. It is a form of perception and understanding, so different from sensory perception.

In the context of twentieth first century philosophy, there is so much emphasis on realism and the validity of sensory experiences. Of course, these are important but it is questionable whether they provide the fullest picture. — Jack Cummins

I think I'd be careful here, to not run a few different things together.

You're right - dreams are another type of perception - non sensory. That's cool, and it's great that humans have this.

And you're right that the biggest issue is not just that they cannot be reconciled with waking life, but that they are entirely private experiences which cannot be true, false, right wrong or anything else. They are private, and all that can happen is that you feel some way about them, if you remember them (imo, of course).

Is it a type of imagination? — Corvus

At risk of tihs being a dick move, what other source is there? Senses or imagination, or...?? Not a gotcha, just wondering what you would suggest if you rejec those two for dreams.

Personally, it seems pretty clear to me that it's imagination as a result of having had sensory experiences in waking life. I don't see an issue with this. Imagination isn't always willful - we often imagine outcomes out of necessity, for instance. I don't want, or try, to imagine my walk across the road going wrong but i cannot help but go over that potentiality. There may be much more to be said here, and I am oddly willing to accept a retort that basically says "no, that's not it". My response, then, would be well dreaming isn't waking life. They do not operate the same. You aren't generally capable of controlling your will while sleeping, but dream all the same. The problem seems to be one of finding out how, not explaining how not.

At risk of tihs being a dick move, — AmadeusD

It is a risk of being crude language which is highly informal, vulgar and not philosophical at all.

Not a gotcha, just wondering what you would suggest if you rejec those two for dreams. — AmadeusD

We are here to investigate and explore the issues hoping agreements or conclusions are found or reached. For that, we must try to be clearest on the writings for expressing the points, and be formal, rational and logical as much as we can. Clouding the points by using informal expressions, derogatory words are not going to be welcome and helpful in learning or coming to agreement or conclusions.

My point was the perceptive nature of dreaming is not from imagination. Because it happens without will power, and sometimes with no experience from the past. But this need to be investigated for its credibility.