Your opinions on dreams.

[Groucho]

A dream is your dead grandmother arriving on a squeeky bicycle telling you to move your pet fish away from the sunlight.

When you haven't got a pet fish.

Dreams are often the most profound when they seem the most crazy

Like the physical, the psychical is not necessarily in reality what it appears to us to be

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

I believe in the future transmutation of those two seemingly contradictory states, dream and reality, into a sort of absolute reality, of surreality, so to speak

For some dreams are our recollection of our conscious' (our 'spirit's') interactions within the spiritual realm, or the astral plane. For others they are unconscious, often repressed, desires or fears finding expression whilst our conscious and logical control mechanism are inactive. Almost always the prompt for happenings and feelings in a dream can be located in events of the preceding day.

 

[Santino]

The fact is that dreams are a biological process that goes on in the brain. You must start from that fact or you're just engaging in intellectual wankery.

When you dream your brain is flooded with chemicals which inhibit various functions, such as many of the logical/rational bits of the brain, which is why in dreams we do not get freaked out by the unusual phenomena we sometimes experience. Dreaming is somewhat analogous to being drugged.

 

[girasol]

dreams are the symptomatic expression of repressed unconscious drives. In that sense they are closer to "reality" than the second-order experience we call consciousness.

Some of the dreams I have are quite disturbing some involve death, destruction and major catastrophes. Most of my death dreams are connected to one event: when there was a big flood and I had to swim home and I was terrified. The others are connected to my, sometimes, morbid personality.

My dreams are so vivid and more often than not I have no trouble remembering them. I can always see the link between my dreams and some aspect of reality - present or past, or even future.

I also have pretty amazing dreams - i.e. happy or colourful or just plain surreal. I don't think I'd be who I am if I didn't dream the way I do.

 

[Groucho]

The fact is that dreams are a biological process that goes on in the brain. You must start from that fact or you're just engaging in intellectual wankery.

When you dream your brain is flooded with chemicals which inhibit various functions, such as many of the logical/rational bits of the brain, which is why in dreams we do not get freaked out by the unusual phenomena we sometimes experience. Dreaming is somewhat analogous to being drugged.

Which tells us nothing. After all conscious emotions are also biological/chemical/hormonal and trigger electrical pulses in the brain.

Feelings such as Love and Lust are biological processes. But they are not merely biological processes. There is clear, yet complex, interaction with the World external to ourselves.

Dreams too invoke images remembered in our conscious minds that we may associate with, and can often show were provoked by, events external to ourselves and our interaction with, and reaction to, these events.

 

[Santino]

Which tells us nothing. After all conscious emotions are also biological/chemical/hormonal and trigger electrical pulses in the brain.

Feelings such as Love and Lust are biological processes. But they are not merely biological processes. There is clear, yet complex, interaction with the World external to ourselves.

Dreams too invoke images remembered in our conscious minds that we may associate with, and can often show were provoked by, events external to ourselves and our interaction with, and reaction to, these events.

But the point is, if you completely ignore the science, you are on a hiding to nothing. Simply sitting around and trying to divine the nature and meaning of dreams through introspection is hopeless.

 

[Santino]

For example, if someone tries to argue that the reason we aren't surprised by weird phenomena in our dreams is because dreams represent some kind of wish-fulfillment in which logic plays no part, you can point to the evidence and say, No, this is why we don't get weirded out by shit, because that bit of our brain has been shut off.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Simply sitting around and trying to divine the nature and meaning of dreams through introspection is hopeless.

But maybe noting the typical content of dreams might help understand what their function is?

 

[Santino]

But maybe noting the typical content of dreams might help understand what their function is?

It's a rich tapestry.

But one must not presuppose that dreams even have a function. They might just be a by-product of having a brain of a certain complexity, although there is scientific research that suggests they may have something to do with memory functions.

 

[d.a.s.h]

But one must not presuppose that dreams even have a function. They might just be a by-product of having a brain of a certain complexity, although there is scientific research that suggests they may have something to do with memory functions.

No I think it's a good idea to presuppose that they do have some function, just as it's reasonable to ask on discovering any other universal physiological activity: "What's that for?"

If only a few people reported having dreams, or if dreams only occurred under very unusual circumstances, we might well doubt that they have a function. No one seriously wonders whether epileptic seizures have a purpose. But everyone has dreams.

 

[Santino]

No I think it's a good idea to presuppose that they do have some function, just as it's reasonable to ask on discovering any other universal physiological activity: "What's that for?"

If only a few people reported having dreams, or if dreams only occurred under very unusual circumstances, we might well doubt that they have a function. No one seriously wonders whether epileptic seizures have a purpose. But everyone has dreams.

No, it's not reasonable to presuppose that. One can by all means investigate whether they have a function, and what it might be, but if you presume that there is a function your investigation would be compromised from the very beginning.

The brain is not a perfectly-working supercomputer, it has been cobbled together with whatever functions were needed at the time and does lots of things very inefficiently.

 

[Aldebaran]

For rationalists, dreams are just the mental equivalent of indigestion. At first glance this seems plausible. But they have to explain why saying "I have a dream" seems to resonate much more than a simple observation like "I have indigestion".

I would say it is the opposite of "indigestion" or said otherwise: It is the solving of "indigestion". In dreams subconsciousness is processed.

Why do you think there is something special in saying "I have a dream" other then that when people say this, it indicates they have a wish.
It's not related to dreaming while you sleep.

salaam.

 

[articul8]

The fact is that dreams are a biological process that goes on in the brain.

Well they are the result - in part - but this is woefully inadequate. There is a big difference between brain (phsyical) and mind (psychical). Although obviously you wouldn't have the latter without the former, the particular content and significance of psychic processes aren't can't simply be read off neurophysiological data. (The mental life of the biological specimen only takes on the characteristics of human psychology to the extent that it is able to materially interact with each other and communicate shared meanings in concrete historical situations).

In other words in order to begin understanding what dreams might mean for us you need far more than biology! - you need an account of what has historically been excluded from the models of subjectivity and subjective relations that make up modern societies.

 

[adc069975]

Why is socialisation necessarily negative? It is a contradictory thing, surely?

it tends to be negative because as a psychic function dreams are produced by the need to suppress the realisation of our social power. it's like telling tales to ourself which affirm the (oppressive) relations we are subject to.

anthropological studies confirm that the more 'civilised' society becomes, the more important the dream-reality relationship is. primitive communism doesn't have alarm-clocks.

Do you not have utopian dreams? Or neutral ones?

utopias are always dystopias... there isn't a distinction... when we get what we _want_, we have a spiritual challenge we can't overcome. for example, in dreams the negativity of language that we have in everyday life is supplanted in the form of the dream. this is basically why the socialising aspect of dreaming is dystopian, because it arises from conflicts which create the need re-consolidate our ego.

Why lust for dystopias? I find that odd.

see first quote.

look at all those disaster films, we want the existential threat presented by a large asteroid but only so we overcome it, and confirm our ultimate power.

 

[scallyfanboy]

A dream is a way for you to gently nudge yourself in whatever direction you want your life to go, obviously if u did that conciously you would freak out, so dreaming is just the imagination working while the brain is busy planning other trickier things.

Whats really cool is how you visualise feelings, it really shows how the brain tries to attach an image to everything, even states of mind. A few days ago I was in a house that was floating on a sea of ball bearings, then a wave of them crashed through a window and the house tilted, no matter what i couldnt climb above the flowing balls they just engulfed me, then the whole house flipped and I was immersed in them and just new at that point I was dead and gave up. i was feeling trapped in reality and had nearly gave up again, but experiencing the feeling as a dream i thought was pretty clever.

Turns out I was also giving myself a slight nudge in a certain direction too (in reality or whatever it is) and that feeling has passed. so good.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I dreamed last night that I was shagging the wife of the King of Spain, and we were cooking up a plot to get him out of the way. I wonder what that means?

 

[scallyfanboy]

I dreamed last night that I was shagging the wife of the King of Spain, and we were cooking up a plot to get him out of the way. I wonder what that means?

that your a scheming b'stard?

 

[Bang to Rights]

What are dreams - what do they mean for you.

Who knows? I change my mind from time to time. At the moment I'm willing to believe that there's some connection betweeen dreams and "déjà vu". Question then is this: Is "déja vu" the realsation that what is really happening was ealier predicted in a prophetic dream? In any case, I've never been able to confirm a "déjà vu" experience with any actual, former incident. The conclusion is, therefore, that "déja vu" is the notion that an incident has taken place that never really did. Was then this earlier experience merely in a dream? There's some sense (or nonsense) in it. No?

 

[d.a.s.h]

No, it's not reasonable to presuppose that.

Okay, how many other mental phenomena can you list which:

(a) Occur in everyone;
(b) Occur under normal conditions;
(c) Give rise to complex, information-rich experiences; and
(d) Have no obvious function

We're not starting from the position of knowing absolutely nothing about dreams.

The brain is not a perfectly-working supercomputer [. . .] and does lots of things very inefficiently.

Like what? And what sets the benchmark for efficiency?

 

[weltweit]

Dreams do not always occur independent of outside stimuli ..

For example, when I doze off in front of the TV, my dream includes whatever is ocurring on the TV while I am asleep.

 

[Santino]

Okay, how many other mental phenomena can you list which:

(a) Occur in everyone;
(b) Occur under normal conditions;
(c) Give rise to complex, information-rich experiences; and
(d) Have no obvious function

We're not starting from the position of knowing absolutely nothing about dreams.

What's your point, that dreams are a unique kind of experience? So what?

There's plenty about our brains that have no obvious function. Appreciation of music. Any aesthetic appreciation, for that matter. Getting emotional about fictional characters. Laughing at stuff. Maybe some of these have - or had - functions, but to presuppose that they did - which is to say ruling out that they don't have a function - is simply a gross methodological error.

Like what? And what sets the benchmark for efficiency?

Have you never forgotten something important? Failed to concentrate properly? Not done something you fully intended to do? This article (a review of a book actually) goes into more detail:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/136061

 

[d.a.s.h]

What's your point, that dreams are a unique kind of experience? So what?

No, that's not my point. My point is that from what is commonly known about dreaming, it is reasonable to assume it has a function. If dreaming had just been discovered, then the first task would indeed be to gain a good description of it, and then make the choice between deciding whether dreaming is functional or abnormal or epiphenomenal. But we already have good descriptions of dreaming since we all experience it. We know from the outset, then, that dreaming is not abnormal. It is not like an epileptic seizure.

Also, it is unreasonable to assume that dreaming is epiphenomenal. It is not like the neural 'noise' which produces the swirly patterns you see when you shut your eyes tightly, or the faint tone or hiss you hear in silent surroundings. Dreams are richly-structured experiences with common themes involving navigation and other actions in the dream environment. In dreams, people go places, do things, look for stuff, and have social encounters. They're not random slideshows.

That leaves the question, 'What are they for?'

There's plenty about our brains that have no obvious function. Appreciation of music. Any aesthetic appreciation, for that matter. Getting emotional about fictional characters. Laughing at stuff. Maybe some of these have - or had - functions, but to presuppose that they did - which is to say ruling out that they don't have a function - is simply a gross methodological error.

You're right - there are functional explanations for all of the phenomena you've listed above, whether as cultural inventions or evolved mental faculties. It certainly isn't a 'gross methodological error' to ask what something is for, once it's been observed and described. That's what archaeologists do when they dig up some artifact. That's what zoologists do when they observe some not-seen-before behaviour of an animal. It is simply part and parcel of explanation.

 

[Santino]

Also, it is unreasonable to assume that dreaming is epiphenomenal.

I'm not the one assuming things, I'm saying that one should NOT assume that dreams have a function, one shouldn't assume anything about them.

My original point was that we should not ignore the biological evidence, especially given that humans have spent literally thousands of years trying to 'explain' dreams based on introspection and have yet to come up with a single fact upon which people generally agree about them.

You're right - there are functional explanations for all of the phenomena you've listed above, whether as cultural inventions or evolved mental faculties.

What is the functional explanation of our appreciation of music? Not the fact that we use music as a social tool, but the fact that our brains appreciated it in the first place, which must have pre-dated its social use.

 

[d.a.s.h]

I'm not the one assuming things, I'm saying that one should NOT assume that dreams have a function, one shouldn't assume anything about them.

I like sentences beginning "I'm not the one . . ."

My original point was that we should not ignore the biological evidence, especially given that humans have spent literally thousands of years trying to 'explain' dreams based on introspection and have yet to come up with a single fact upon which people generally agree about them.

I agree with some of that. The biological evidence however points to dreaming as having a function or functions. Introspection isn't necessarily bad, it's what people do with the reports or results of such introspection. What dreams tend to be about is surely relevant to understanding dreaming itself.

Re. music, some explanations claim that music utilises and exaggerates certain prosodic features of language, for example.