cognition

[Dale]

if the brain creates a cognitive function from sensory perception of the
environment and we have experience of the environment from the cognitive
function

and

the brain creates cognitive functions from dreams, etc.

so

are dreams, etc., just as real as the environment within the brain, and
are there little realities that exist within our brain?

is the body just a part of the environment?

I'm starting to believe I am a dualist, not a theist, but a dualist, and
perhaps if there are alpha and beta psychological beings, perhpas a
creationist

I still think perhaps the big bang was a destruction as well as a creation


--
Dale

[Arkalen]

On 17/05/12 07:17, Dale wrote:
> if the brain creates a cognitive function from sensory perception of the
> environment and we have experience of the environment from the cognitive
> function
>
> and
>
> the brain creates cognitive functions from dreams, etc.
>
> so
>
> are dreams, etc., just as real as the environment within the brain, and
> are there little realities that exist within our brain?

I think you made a logical jump there from "environment" and "cognitive
function" to "real".

The thing about our sensory perception of the real world, is that it is
remarkably consistent. We can make sense of it, and even where it isn't
consistent at first view (like with sensory illusions and such) we can
still make sense of it given all the rest, it just takes a bit more effort.

Dreams are remarkably *in*consistent. They feel real and sense-making
while they're happening... mostly. They make no sense whatsoever when
seen in the light of the waking world. They aren't consistent between
each other; when I'm awake I can remember the previous day and the days
before that and they all recognizably belong to the same reality. When
I'm in a dream however I don't remember previous dreams, and sometimes I
think I do while I'm dreaming and then I wake up and I realize I
actually didn't remember dreaming those dreams I'd remembered dreaming
in my dream...

All in all, it's probable at least some of the sense we have when awake
that dreams are unreal is manufactured so that we don't confuse dreams
with reality, but even on the merits dreams and reality are very different.

So what do you mean when you ask whether dreams are real within the
brain ? Do you mean whether they *feel* real, whether the brain *treats
them as* real ? During the dream, this might be the case. But there's a
difference between what feels real, what the brain treats as real, and
what's *actually* real.

I'll agree that's confusing, given all we know about reality are what we
perceive of it, so does it really make sense to separate our perception
from reality ? But the fact is our perceptions aren't consistent. I we
accepted every dream, every mirage, every bit of paraedolia as being
real, then reality would be self-contradictory.

I don't believe that. I believe reality makes sense. And from everything
I've been able to figure out it DOES make sense. If it didn't we'd be
much less likely to be able to make sense of it, for one.
But I suppose that's a point where people can agree to disagree.

>
> is the body just a part of the environment?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The obvious answer is "yes", but I
don't think you meant that question in the obvious sense.

>
> I'm starting to believe I am a dualist, not a theist, but a dualist, and
> perhaps if there are alpha and beta psychological beings, perhpas a
> creationist

What are alpha and beta psychological beings ?

>
> I still think perhaps the big bang was a destruction as well as a creation

You're free to think what you like, but there's no evidence for it.
Except in the sense that the Big Bang involved changes, and all changes
mean the destruction of the previous state. But that clearly isn't what
you meant in your previous post on the subject.

[pnyikos]

On May 17, 5:02 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On 17/05/12 07:17, Dale wrote:
>
> > if the brain creates a cognitive function from sensory perception of the
> > environment and we have experience of the environment from the cognitive
> > function
>
> > and
>
> > the brain creates cognitive functions from dreams, etc.
>
> > so
>
> > are dreams, etc., just as real as the environment within the brain, and
> > are there little realities that exist within our brain?
>
> I think you made a logical jump there from "environment" and "cognitive
> function" to "real".
>
> The thing about our sensory perception of the real world, is that it is
> remarkably consistent. We can make sense of it, and even where it isn't
> consistent at first view (like with sensory illusions and such) we can
> still make sense of it given all the rest, it just takes a bit more effort.
>
> Dreams are remarkably *in*consistent. They feel real and sense-making
> while they're happening... mostly. They make no sense whatsoever when
> seen in the light of the waking world.

Actually, I've had a few dreams that made perfect sense. Most of them
were rather short, though.

A very memorable one was when I dreamt about a troop of militia
marching through a village, singing with full-throaty voices, to the
tune of "She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes." I
can't remember most of the words any more, but I can still vividly
recall one line: "We will all hang around till she comes."

Just after this line was sung, someone standing next to me said, "Any
time you have a song running through your head that you can't get rid
of, just remember this scene and it will drive it right out."

And it works! I dreamt this almost 35 years ago, and this remedy
still works if I keep recalling the scene long enough.

The only hitch was that after about ten years of applying this remedy
hundreds of times, the song "She'll be coming round the mountain when
she comes" began running through my head each time, but fortunately I
found another one that got rid of it fairly easily, and now I have a
little repertoire of old songs which together can stop all runnings
through my head.

> They aren't consistent between
> each other; when I'm awake I can remember the previous day and the days
> before that and they all recognizably belong to the same reality. When
> I'm in a dream however I don't remember previous dreams, and sometimes I
> think I do while I'm dreaming and then I wake up and I realize I
> actually didn't remember dreaming those dreams I'd remembered dreaming
> in my dream...

Actually, some of my dreams do recur, so to speak: some seem to pick
up more or less where another left off weeks or months earlier.

> All in all, it's probable at least some of the sense we have when awake
> that dreams are unreal is manufactured so that we don't confuse dreams
> with reality, but even on the merits dreams and reality are very different.
>
> So what do you mean when you ask whether dreams are real within the
> brain ? Do you mean whether they *feel* real, whether the brain *treats
> them as* real ? During the dream, this might be the case. But there's a
> difference between what feels real, what the brain treats as real, and
> what's *actually* real.
>
> I'll agree that's confusing, given all we know about reality are what we
> perceive of it, so does it really make sense to separate our perception
> from reality ? But the fact is our perceptions aren't consistent. I we
> accepted every dream, every mirage, every bit of paraedolia as being
> real, then reality would be self-contradictory.
>
> I don't believe that. I believe reality makes sense. And from everything
> I've been able to figure out it DOES make sense. If it didn't we'd be
> much less likely to be able to make sense of it, for one.
> But I suppose that's a point where people can agree to disagree.

I'm with you all the way on this. I often tell people on Usenet that
reality is timeless when they complain about me replying to old posts,
some of them almost two months old.

> > is the body just a part of the environment?

Different parts of the body are an environment to other parts.
Despite this, the unity of the body is just amazing. Why, for
example, does a pain feel like it is in my index finger when I hurt
it, rather than in my brain where the signal from my finger goes?

The signal doesn't register consciously until it is in my brain.
Otherwise we would never experience our hands jerking back from hot
things before we consciously feel the heat itself. [I posted on
reflex actions of this sort on another thread late last night.]

> I'm not sure what you mean by that. The obvious answer is "yes", but I
> don't think you meant that question in the obvious sense.

I'm not sure what Dale meant either, but I've given one coherent way
of interpreting that last question.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

Dreams are not real; for instance, people
that you meet in dreams are not really
there. This applies whether you dreamed
about President Obama or about Superman.
On the other hand, you may dream about
your wife and it's quite likely that she
/is/ there, but she is not experiencing
your dream, of course. Well, I say
"of course", but would you accept that?

In books such as the bible, there are
stories asout people having dreams which
are messages from gods or angels, or
conversations with such, in which they
learn something important, such as the
utility of knowing somebody who can tell
you the mysterious meaning of a dream,
although it would seem to be more useful
for a dream (1) to have a straightforward
plain meaning and (2) to declare
convincingly that it's that sort of dream,
and not just things happening randomly in
your head.

I'm not sure I remember, is it Joseph in
the bible who is set the more difficult job
of telling the king what the dream /was/,
first, and then what it means?

[pnyikos]

On May 17, 10:46 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

Well, as I told Arkalen, I did learn something important in a dream.
Before that dream 35 years ago, I had tunes running through my head
for days, and was very annoyed by them; ever since that one dream,
I've been able to drive out any tune from my head if I really want to.
[Sometimes I don't want to.]

>such as the
> utility of knowing somebody who can tell
> you the mysterious meaning of a dream,
> although it would seem to be more useful
> for a dream (1) to have a straightforward
> plain meaning and (2) to declare
> convincingly that it's that sort of dream,
> and not just things happening randomly in
> your head.
>
> I'm not sure I remember, is it Joseph in
> the bible who is set the more difficult job
> of telling the king what the dream /was/,
> first, and then what it means?

No, Joseph was told all the dreams that he was asked to interpret. It
was Daniel, in the book of the same name, who succeeded in telling
Nebuchadnezzar what the dream was, after all the king's wise men not
only couldn't tell him, they let him know that it was unreasonable for
him to think anyone could do it.

Peter Nyikos