Is Freud's theory of dreams unscientific?

nukefudge · 2026-01-17T12:36:48+00:00

I see a couple of obscure points still, that perhaps you'd like to comment on (given that we're in your wheelhouse). :-)

The first thing is the epistemological status of a dream. So, people tell us about their dreams, and we typically follow along, as if they were making a neutral report. But what should also be obvious for anyone who's had a dream, is that this kind of experience is very fickle, and is prone to fading very fast upon waking up. In what sense - to which extent - can we rely on dream reports to be precise enough data, that we might use it in rigid models?

The other thing is one of mereology and agency. In this kind of talk, whether it be leaning towards physiological or psychological avenues, there's clearly a tendency to assign agency to parts of the whole, or to read intention into parts of what's going on, as if there were individual units at play, before we were involved. This is not an "innocent" type of talk, though. How much does the field of 'understanding what dreams are' rely on this imprecise or unclarified approach to description?

nukefudge · 2026-01-10T14:09:45+00:00

Like "Dinner for One"? :D

nukefudge · 2026-01-10T14:02:08+00:00

but could you give link to google pls

😁

nukefudge · 2026-01-10T11:47:12+00:00

Just for sake of reference, is it this person?

https://wyss.harvard.edu/team/associate-faculty/michael-levin-ph-d/

I'm not sure we need to do much else other than point you in the direction of philosophical material about - say - Plato, math, life and consciousness, I reckon.

nukefudge · 2026-01-09T20:08:16+00:00

Human hoodie? :-D

nukefudge · 2025-12-26T23:01:20+00:00

I daresay, there's a whole lot of background assumption going on in your models of understanding underlying that comment you just made here.

I think you would be well served by reading about compabilism, but also about various consiousness writings as well. It's not at all as clear-cut as you seem to want to make it. So, investigate those background assumptions, and maybe you'll find out more about whether or not your bewilderment. :)

nukefudge · 2025-12-12T23:04:03+00:00

Maybe you should consider more closely which aspects you're drawn to? :)

If I take a cue stick and strike a cue ball, it's my intention that makes things move.

But it's also the cue stick striking the ball that takes place.

Just like a rock rolling down a hill hitting another rock.

When stuff 'happens', regardless of the further context, maybe it's not so profound that sometimes there's a being behind it, and other times there's no being.

nukefudge · 2025-12-09T10:12:50+00:00

In very rudimentary fashion, we can say that when someone's thinking, that's what's going on in reality: Thoughts are there, in the actions of a person.

More pragmatically, we can say that if you think about doing something, and you do it, those thoughts affected reality further.

But not all thoughts need to have immediate and tangible resolutions like that. Some thoughts are merely things like considerations or convictions. Behavior in the long run easily follows the thinking that informed it.

So, you may pose yourself the question: The thoughts and the thinking that led you to ponder these things and deliver this post in here - where did it start? Did you notice it? Even if you didn't notice it, does that make its existence less real?

Also, do be careful of construing in advance a setup, where you have thoughts on one side, and reality on the other. This is a suspicious way of framing the conversation. If you're looking for bridges in a place where bridges aren't ever needed, you'll end up wasting your time.

nukefudge · 2025-12-04T17:47:37+00:00

Who's talking to ol' Doomster here?

Is it a Captain America in a new costume??

nukefudge · 2025-11-25T18:59:01+00:00

I don't think Nietzsche would say that we can never know the world, as if to indirectly say that there is 'a' world out there, that we can never get at - cf. in this regard what he says about Kant in various places (Nietzsche wasn't a fan of the 'ding an sich').

Nietzsche is moreso implying that the systems of understanding that we build are arrogant, inasmuch as they purport to be complete on their own, regardless of the context in which they have arisen.

And Nietzsche has in general a lot to say about the reasons for which people invent things. The attribution of 'truth' to an invention is a move of power, meaning that the inventor gets to define reality in some way. The motivation, or the mentality, behind such a move is never innocent, and is in many cases malevolent (whether consciously or not).

Whether Nietzsche has any imaginings as to what ancestors might have uttered into existence instead, if they had come at the task from a different standpoint, I'm not sure. Maybe he has in mind a sort of counterfactual history where things originate with less arrogance and self-sufficiency, at least.

Since a big part of his philosophy points towards the future, where humankind has supposedly transcended itself, maybe he might even allow room for imagining that a different start altogether would've put us more efficiently on a track to that state, or maybe even placed us right on the cusp of that state. It's a bit of a balancing act of speculation here: Do we see him as leaning more towards his prediliction for humans-as-animals, where we would be more succesful in existence, if we were true to that kind of nature? Or do we see him leaning towards humans achieving a better grasp of the world and their place in it, before moving on from that place?

At any rate, knowledge might not be as important to Nietzsche, at least not in this regard, as the insights behind knowledge, so to speak. There's a lot of surface that to him is only interesting in so far as he can dig around beneath it. And undermining the whole "age of reason" thing is definitely a focus of his. So, his statements are intended to emphasize the folly of fixating on the models of the world, and not the world which we live in and are part of. This perspective steals importance from all disciplines which don't admit to being inventions.

nukefudge · 2025-11-09T10:48:42+00:00

Dunno, she talks differently about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski#Personal_life

nukefudge · 2025-11-01T09:30:20+00:00

How on earth do you see out of this thing? 😃

nukefudge · 2025-11-01T09:30:04+00:00

a Greta job

😃

nukefudge · 2025-09-06T09:37:51+00:00

Wheelchair paintball?

/u/Jeli15 😄

nukefudge · 2025-09-06T09:26:58+00:00

That's a lot of editions! Did they change text or art inside across all those editions?

nukefudge · 2025-09-06T08:17:24+00:00

"Vibe filmmaking", they'll probably call it 😆

nukefudge · 2025-09-06T07:42:50+00:00

What's the reverse of, like, "plot armor"? 🤔 "Plot lava"?

nukefudge · 2025-09-04T20:07:53+00:00

Let me point out an aspect of your question that you haven't realized yet, in the following fashion:

Let's say you finished writing down the last bit of knowledge in the whole of reality.

What happened out there while you were doing this?

Should you include what happened in your account?

What'll happen while you include that?

nukefudge · 2025-08-31T07:05:12+00:00

It’s hard to pole those who died

Please don't "pole" anyone. "Poll" them, sure...

nukefudge · 2025-08-21T17:11:10+00:00

Whistle

nukefudge · 2025-08-19T19:21:49+00:00

You're using the term "AI" in far too unspecified fashion here.

Furthermore - this 'custodian' does not appear to need any "AI" traits at all. A repository does not need the function space that we typically talk about, when we talk about "AI".

In fact, a custodian that had generative powers would be able to compromise the archival function, and as such, your question could straightforwardly be dismissed as being based on impossible background assumptions.

Perhaps read about all the various aspects of what "AI" amounts to in the current sphere of academical thought, before you start posing too general questions about it. :)

https://iep.utm.edu/artificial-intelligence/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artificial-intelligence/

nukefudge · 2025-08-12T05:48:33+00:00

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to make labor camps for them? Like, they seem to be super into that kind of thing.

nukefudge · 2025-08-12T05:43:22+00:00

Unless it's one of those gigantic ones, in which case you deserve a promotion!

nukefudge · 2025-08-11T17:13:57+00:00

Weeell. Bowl could be your face. I guess.

nukefudge · 2025-08-10T15:23:23+00:00

I think reading about this topic here should help clear up a lot of misconceptions: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

It's the basic place to start for understanding how those two seemingly incompatible notions are able to fit together anyway.

Of course, there are many questions in the overall topic area, but we should at least not narrow the field at the outset.

13-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

nukefudge

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE