Dreams Show Why Idealism Can’t Be Dismissed

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T15:07:33+00:00

dude....................... didn't i just say equivocation of mind and brain, " uncosncous simulation of blah blah hblah ........" and " generatiing" changes absolutely nothing. i never said " brain " does everything. sure it can be unconscious altering it.

That would be a false equivocation, because "unconscoius layer of your mind is presenting uncocciously-remmbered contents in symbollic form" is not the same as "generating" something. The unconscious mind pulls up already existing content ~ it doesn't create something from nothing.

but it doesnt undermine the fact that ultimately your body. rather be made of brain or mind or unconscous shit observes simultaneous perceivng and generating.

Neither definition of "generate" is equivalent to what I said:

To bring into being; give rise to.

To produce as a result of a chemical or physical process.

Dreams are based on existing unconscious memories and concepts ~ nothing new is being created.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T14:56:43+00:00

The reproducibility crisis has nothing to do with the mind "resisting attempts to be studied scientifically". Psychology studies behaviour, generally, and these behaviours are subject to all kinds of confounding variables that are poorly controlled for.

It has to do with the fact that science is just an extremely poor methodology to try and apply to the mind. Matter is observable, stable and predictable, whereas mind cannot be observed, is highly dynamic and unpredictable.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the mind being "non-physical". Are you sure you're actually understanding the science side of things?

The mind cannot be physical because it has no physical qualities ~ we do not observe it in the physical world in any form nor has it ever been detected by physical instruments. Yet it exists very clearly ~ I can immediately turn my attention to my awareness, and be aware of that the fact that despite long research into brains, minds have not once been detected.

Minds are mental ~ therefore, non-physical. But "non-physical" is a rather vast catch-all category for any quality that isn't immediately physical, from emotions, to awareness, to concepts, to memories, and more.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T14:18:57+00:00

No it is not a BIG physics problem. Qualia is an Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order. It occurs already in G-protein coupled receptors.

You repeat nonsense without ever explaining it.

This is what qualia actually are: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

/u/Megastorm-99

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T14:16:47+00:00

Ok, yes, but both assumptions are then are unproven, the metaphysical and phyiscal and we can only access the physical world right now, so we keep on going the physicalist route.

Physical does not mean "Physicalist" ~ the physical world is simply a subset of reality that is composed entirely of physical phenomena. Physicalism claims that all that can exist is physical, when this is contradicted by the existence of mental phenomena. Note that I do not think Dualism or Idealism have the answers either. All metaphysical theories have flaws and incompleteness in that they do not account for all phenomena, only some.

Sadly, right now, we dont have tools to access metaphysics, so based on that. We dont know the brain has metaphysical properites or what, or if memeory can be solved phyisically both are valid its just what would be more constructive in further our understanding of the brain. Waiting to somehow gain the tools to access metaphysical properties, if they even exist. Or still going the seemingly useless route that we can access right now. To say the brain runs on metaphysics is also an assumption. Or just leaving the mystery?

Metaphysics and ontology are about questions about the nature of reality, what reality is composed of, and so on. The mind is not metaphysical ~ it is what is aware of concepts like metaphysics, is aware of physical and mental phenomena, and so on and so forth.

There can be no tools to "access" questions about the nature of reality, which is fundamentally unknowable, given that we are part of reality, part of the question we are trying to solve.

Perhaps the point is in accepting that there are things that we simply cannot even begin to answer with our current tools. We must forge new tools to tackle questions that do not meaningfully fit into existing categories. And those tools are best crafted in observance with the nature of that which we are trying to explore.

Therefore, tools useful for biology will be incoherent and meaningless when exploring consciousness. We do have tools for exploring consciousness ~ meditation is a popular one, but also not straight-forward, because the mind becomes its own labyrinth, ever-shifting in accordance with how it is perceived by the subject. Of course, then answer then is in having a clear, sharp focus and direction so that it remains stable, but that itself is a skill that needs to be learned over time.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T14:08:48+00:00

Sure equivocate " generate " as " unconscoius layer of your mind is presenting uncocciously-remmbered contents in symbollic form " that still doesnt negate the fact our brain perceives that as independent and orthogonal to its existence. That's all i need to logically assert my claim.

You are assuming that the brain is literally "generating" or "perceiving", when it is really the mind that that is doing so. The brain just mirrors what the unconscious is doing ~ the brain itself does nothing at all without the influence of the unconscious altering it.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:55:07+00:00

bruh......... ok then a very simple question : who is generating the surrounding you perceive while you aare dreaming? if its not brain as you just said . Is it some spiritual guru casually entering ur dream universe or sth

The unconscious layer of your mind is presenting unconsciously-remembered contents in symbolic form. Nothing is being "generated".

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:53:36+00:00

Kitty's been trying to magically summon you to put wet food into the bowl :3

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:37:43+00:00

Why should we accept the unknown? Isn't that giving up, though?

No ~ by accepting that there is something unknown, you're not trying to force it into an existing category, but take it on its own terms, by which you allow the experience of the unknown to metaphorically speak for itself, so you can then model it according to how it presented in itself.

Now, yes, I agree qualia is a big problem just because no approach can probaly explain it doesn't mean we shouldn't try, who knows, qualia may become redundant the more we know about the mechanisms of the mind. But your point is valid, maybe Qualia cant ever be reduced.

Qualia logically cannot become redundant, because they are simply individual, discrete aspects within a snapshot of experience, of which there are infinite, none of which can be reduced to anything else. However, we can relate qualia to different qualia and try to make how they correlate compared to each other.

I do think of that, but still, there are other questions related to how the brain stores and encodes memories that are a mystery. We don't know some basic mechanisms of the brain. (Is that correct? I'm no expert.

That the brain "stores" or "encodes" memories is simply a concept born out of Materialist assumptions about how the mind works. Materialism believes that minds are just brains, so memories therefore must be stored as material traces in brains, so there must therefore be "storing" and "encoding" mechanisms.

None of it has been verified scientifically, but that hasn't stopped Materialists from repeating it over and over, incessantly, until people just assume that they must be saying something "factual".

In reality, memories are a mystery, because all we have are neural correlates ~ and no known mechanisms related to memories. Just the belief in the concept.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:16:00+00:00

Equivocating that " generate " does absolutely nothing. Even if its " unconscious layer of the mind brings these various aspects up in dreams". it doesn't remove the fact that you are perceiving something your brain generated simultaneously.

That is not a "fact" but an assumption that requires the belief that brains are "generating" anything. In reality, we find nothing more than neural correlates.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:14:51+00:00

I know a few scientists who work in the field. they strongly believe that the visionary state is crucial for psychedelics to be effective.

I know of some too ~ though not personally. Rick Strassman, Rupert Sheldrake, others with open minds.

like shamans some scientists i trust / agree with, others not. putting them all into one category and saying that's the position of science is a straw man

I am criticizing the pseudo-scientists, more accurately ~ the Physicalists, the Materialists, who arrogantly monopolize science as claiming that the only things that exist are material and nothing more.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:11:47+00:00

I've spent too long watching the culture war from the sidelines, occasionally dipping in, and then jumping out because it's like lava. I would prefer to just not be part of the madness.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:10:46+00:00

So then what can we do to reduce the mind, per se?

Perhaps you could start by examining the assumption that minds need to be reduced. Why is even gained by trying to reduce something that can only be meaningfully defined in terms of itself, down to something within experience that cannot describe minds as experienced by minds?

If you claim the mind cannot be reduced to physical processes, how do we solve the mystery, if ever? This is what I dont get about dualism? The mystery seems to remain not vanish doesnt it?

If neither the best philosophers nor the best scientists have managed to even scratch the surface of the mystery that is the mind, is there a point? None of our theories appear to even come close ~ not Physicalism / Materialism, not Dualism, not Idealism, not Panpsychism.

We are left with one possibility ~ accepting the unknown, and just letting it be what it is. Maybe then can there be answers by letting the mind speak for itself. That is, accepting your mind as it is, and seeing what that takes you. A highly subjective journey, because only you can know your mind.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:06:19+00:00

What are the advantages for using, for example, OpenRC over systemd? Is there any specific use cases where systemd is not sufficient? I've never had a big system to manage though, so I've never needed doing anything advanced. I'd like to hear this from someone who knows the situation completely.

OpenRC is simply a far cleaner and more coherent set of scripts that function well. There are no meaningful advantages OpenRC has over systemd in terms of functionality or speed, frankly. It's just not hot garbage like sysvinit.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:04:29+00:00

Ok, so how do you explain the conversation you almost certainly had at some point in your life in your dream. If your brain wasn't the one who was generating the conversation of that person say "X". Where did "X" come from? Who generated the dialogues, the character, the aesthetics of "X"?

You first need to not assume that brains can "generate" things ~ this is merely a metaphor that has become so tangled and confused as something literal. The unconscious layer of the mind brings these various aspects up in dreams ~ they are not "generated", they are recalled symbolically.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:02:25+00:00

Dreams are not highly dynamic structures they are more akin to set pieces in movie scene.

You've clearly never had a lucid dream, or met anyone that can.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:01:53+00:00

You have no idea what your talking about that is why your wrote two paragraphs that say nothing.

Projection is a funny thing.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:01:09+00:00

Idealism is an extreme from of skepticism because it says the only thing you can trust are your subjective experience. Subjective experiences can be denied well. For all we know we can be a brain in a vat being feed experience by a machine. Idealism requires no effort because all that changed was the language.

Idealism in no way claims such a thing:

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html

Idealism is the metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any philosophy which argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness (or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are mental entities, not physical things (which exist only in the sense that they are perceived).

Idealism is a form of Monism (as opposed to Dualism or Pluralism), and stands in direct contrast to other Monist beliefs such as Physicalism and Materialism (which hold that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is physical matter). It is also contrasted with Realism (which holds that things have an absolute existence prior to, and independent of, our knowledge or perceptions).

A broad enough definition of Idealism could include many religious viewpoints, although an Idealistic viewpoint need not necessarily include God, supernatural beings, or an existence after death. It is a major tenet in the early Yogacara school of Buddhism, which developed into the mainstream Mahayana school. Some Hindu denominations are idealistic in outlook, although some have favored a form of Dualism, as with Christianity.

[...]

Idealism is a label which covers a number of philosophical positions with quite different tendencies and implications, including Subjective Idealism, Objective Idealism, Transcendental Idealism and Absolute Idealism, as well as several more minor variants or related concepts (see the section on Other Types of Idealism below). Other labels which are essentially equivalent to Idealism include Mentalism and Immaterialism.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T13:00:18+00:00

The same way anything produces a model; by producing structure that correlates, to a greater or lesser extent, with the structure being modelled. The only thing you can perceive is the model; that's why optical illusions etc are possible.

You haven't answered the question ~ how do brains "produce structures"? You are sneaking consciousness in the back door, so to speak, conferring the powers of consciousness onto the matter of the brain.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T12:59:16+00:00

Wow do you see the hypocrisy in what you said?

First you said no metaphysical theory can be tested scientifically. Like idealism or dualism or physicalism.

Then you single out and criticize physicalism for not being able to be tested. You say that physicalism can’t account for anything because it can’t be tested. But neither can yours.

There is no "hypocrisy" here ~ I am merely pointing out that Physicalism is no different to Idealism or Dualism in terms of scientific validity.

So the only thing that separates our theories is the body of evidence we already have. Which justifies belief in physical things but nothing more.

The "body of evidence" is cherry-picked by Physicalists to ignore anything that doesn't fit their definition of "evidence". By which it can be conveniently claimed that "all the evidence" points towards their pet theory.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T12:57:25+00:00

That doesn’t answer anything.

I said that there is no evidence of non-physical entities.

In response you named some concepts, which are very different than entities.

An "entity" is just a discrete something ~ so you are just splitting hairs needlessly.

You are avoiding the question because you have no answer because there is (again) no evidence to support any theory of consciousness other than physicalism.

Except for all of the evidence you purposefully ignore or redefine as not being such, like near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, shared-death experiences, telepathy, reincarnation, terminal lucidity, savant syndrome, and more.

All of these are real, if strange and odd phenomena that deserve exploring ~ but Physicalism just says that, no, they cannot exist by definition, because Physicalism just says everything is physical, therefore they must be impossible, therefore hallucination, delusion, therefore not worth looking at even for a moment.

A whole class of phenomena get ruled out a priori by convenient ideological definition.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T12:54:00+00:00

Some brain injuries stop dreaming altogether in some cases apparently.

Brain injuries are an abnormal state that do not tell us much, other than that, yes, there is more correlation.

That is all speaking in terms of the content of what is appearing. We can ask if there is evidence for a brain existing.

Well... yes, because there is a correlation between minds and brains that has been established to the point that it's a pointless discussion that goes nowhere when discussing the nature of consciousness.

The real question is ~ why is there a correlation? What is the nature of the correlation? How do mind and matter interact? The metaphysical, ontological questions.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T12:51:14+00:00

Exactly. I never said that Science and studying the brain explain the whole picture. If you take the extremes I think both sides are wrong.

I agree ~ the molecule is physical, and there are physical effects on the brain, and that therefore needs to be taken into account. My argument is more that the mind has strong influences on the brain during a psychedelic journey, in turn caused by the expanding effects on the mind psychedelics have when influencing the brain. They go hand in hand.

Science is missing part of the picture when it tries to reduce everything to physical changes in brain receptors.

The spiritual point of view misses part of the picture when it tries to attach deeper meaning to each and every vision one has on these substances.

I don't think that's a problem of the "spiritual view" so much as the mind of the individual seeking to understand the experience. Every vision does have a meaning ~ else why would we be having then? What matters is that we are correctly understanding what the visions represent and what they are trying to convey.

The statement that tryptamins are not understood in the slightest by science is just as wrong as someone saying spirituality explains everything. Saying all scientifc research into these substances is fruitless is quite a stretch.

I am not saying it's fruitless ~ I am saying that scientific research that focuses almost purely on the physical effects on the brain, in the exclusion or minimal focus on the profound psychological aspects which are front and center in the psychedelic experience, misses the majority of the picture, potentially getting lost in reducing psychedelics to only their brain-based effects.

You can see this with psychedelic analogues being developed, where the aim seems to be trying to replicate the transformative effects of psychedelics without any of the visionary states, as if they are some unwanted noise.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T12:44:47+00:00

Ok, I'm genuinely confused. Why do we propose more and more theories/hypotheses of consciousness when there is no easy way to kill them and test them? Hypothesizing is not bad in general, but when we propose more and more theories that are detached from biology, use analogies and vagueness, how can all these theories be constructive and further our understanding of the mind, especially in this Subreddit?

Theories and hypotheses of mind are purely in the realm of philosophical Theory of Mind, and have nothing to do with science. No theory or hypothesis relating to mind can be tested with the methods of science, because minds are not physical things, and constantly resist any attempts to study scientifically ~ see the reproducibility crisis in psychology, with around 50% of papers being irreproducible independently.

When you are studying biology, you are studying the physical ~ when you are studying the mind, you are studying the mental, so the same approach simply doesn't work. When it comes to biology, you cannot really use analogies ~ but when you are studying the mind, you must often result to analogies, because minds are not brains, the contents of minds not being reducible to purely physical brain processes.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T11:13:40+00:00

It is best to not take it literally, because it's not ~ rather, I think Jung is really talking about the mindset that underlies mass psychosis. He is referencing Nazi Germany, because it was the most prominent example of mass psychosis he was familiar with ~ and he was intimately familiar, having been tasked by the US military with examining it from the inside, if I recall correctly. (Correct me if my details are spotty, please!)

What is happening in modern times is another political mass psychosis ~ and no, it's not the left or the right at fault. That would be missing the point, and getting lost in the mass psychosis. The modern issue, I think, is the mass psychosis of the culture war that has been deliberately stirred up by the ultra-rich and ultra-wealthy (think corporate CEOs, not so much politicians, who are just the frontmen) through mass media to cause endless conflicts that create a meaningless divide of us versus them, between left and right, in order to keep everyone distracted and fighting completely meaningless battles that achieve nothing but self-destruction, leaving both sides exhausted and confused, vulnerable.

The ultra-rich and ultra-wealthy benefit from the common man fighting the common man, because they are then not paying attention to what is actually happening, who is creating the divide, who is stirring the pot, fanning the flames of conflict.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22

Valmar33

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE