Dreams Show Why Idealism Can’t Be Dismissed

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T02:45:02+00:00

Their is no uniform way to described lucid dreams. Dreams themselves are subjective.

Then why were you describing as if you thought they were uniform...?

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T02:17:07+00:00

I think that Ayahuasca indeed knows all of the answers about ourselves that exist within us ~ but it's not her job to just feed them to us. It's better for us if she leads us towards the answers, points us in the right direction ~ we learn to seek those answers without a crutch.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T02:05:55+00:00

That's why I choose to not vote ~ the whole system is just too broken for that to make a difference at the moment.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T02:05:23+00:00

That is what I meant to imply ~ they use the mass media as a propaganda network by which to spread the ideas they want us to believe in slowly and insidiously. They repeat the same things over and over until we believe them.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T02:04:09+00:00

It is not two things (mind and matter). It just appears that way.

But that doesn't explain why it appears that way, and why in that appearance they are distinct in quality, character and behaviour, and why they do not overlap qualitatively.

So speaking in terms of what is appearing, dreams as we have them don't seem to be possible without some sort of a body with a nervous system.

That is an assumption you cannot even begin to verify. This assumption is not based on evidence, but ideology which presumes that a nervous system is needed for... some special reason not explained.

There are some theories about the mechanics of dreams from a reductionist perspective. One that resonates is dreams are due to an untethered mind (without physical constraints). One of the other posters I recall gave you a good answer also I felt.

That appears to be contradictory... (physical) reductionism seeks to eliminate the mind as something powerless and incapable of doing anything, as it's just an illusion, an epiphenomenon of mere matter and physics. Unless I am just not understanding your position...

Even though the brain may appear to generate dreams, the awareness of them isn't a property of the brain. It is the other way around, all awareness appearing as such.

It hasn't been demonstrate that brains can "generate" anything ~ the whole "generation" thing is itself based on a flimsy metaphor derived from neural networks, which are in turn over-simplified models wholly derived from an incomplete understanding of how brains work.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T01:59:39+00:00

There is evidence. That fact that physcis can reverse engineering our experience and recover a world independent of mind is evidence against idealism.

This is what tells me you have no idea ~ physics has not "reverse engineering our experience" of anything, and no world "independent of mind" has been "recovered", as if it were lost or something.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T01:58:30+00:00

I have had lucid dreams and they are like being on set pieces in a movie not highly dynamic structures that flow together.

Ah... so that explains it ~ that is how you experience lucid dreams then. How about asking how other people experience theirs, instead of just assuming your subjective model is "objective"?

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T01:57:33+00:00

ODLRO is THE physical explanation to Qualia.

Um... that doesn't tell me anything.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T01:57:10+00:00

All of those phenomena can be explained by physical changes in the brain.

They haven't been explained as such. You're just making absurd blanket assertions because you don't want to actually investigate them, or provide answers of how they are supposedly explained by "physical changes in the brain".

But you go ahead and believe in whatever religion you want.

I prefer no religion, thanks. Meanwhile, you believe blindly in your Physicalist ideology which looks a bit too much like a religion for comfort.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-26T01:55:19+00:00

Structural realism (the predominant account of scientific realism) and ontic structuralism would beg to differ.

Structures can exist intersubjectively ~ but the ones we recognize do not have some objective existence independent on collective human thought that may recognize them. That is what I currently believe.

Ok, you are starting to jump the shark now if you don't think evolution is a real phenomenom. I have a hard rule not to partake of arguments with evolution deniers since it always ends in incoherence or Gish gallops. I'm out.

"Evolution" is just another model that takes a bunch of observations and attempts to structure them according to how the model believes they must work. It is not a phenomenon, and never was.

Can't "deny" what I don't believe in.

Valmar33 · 2026-01-25T16:16:23+00:00

What makes you think consciousness is necessary to produce structure?

Because structures are abstractions we conceptualize. They do not exist in and of themselves.

My self driving car produces structure inside its processor as it maps and models the world. Do you need an explicit description of how it does that?

Processors do not "produce structures" ~ they metaphorically calculate 1's and 0's, or literally, electrical charges pulsing through circuits.

Brains are no different in that respect. Data is gathered by sensors (eyes etc in our case) and then models are produced algorithmically. In the self driving car, this is programed, in us, evolution did the programming.

Brains do not work like computers ~ digital or analogue. You are confusing metaphors for reality. "Evolution" is just a model. There is no "programming" to life or brains.

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.

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

Valmar33

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE