So would you call this an involuntary process?

Dreams provide me with characterizations of my emotional life with which my dream self can interact. — Baden

But the dreams and the dream self are from the same source. If it's cathartic, is this providing the same function as your body sweating to regulate your temperature?

Thank you Cavacava.

How are you attaching these photos?

Is there another way to define it? — Baden

No probably not. But If it were associated with a physical process then it's function would be to in some way help maintain some balance or equilibrium. As a mental event could it have a function other than dream practice? Do dreams help reinforce what we believe about ourselves? We can certainly project meaning on our dreams but not much and not reliably. Random white noise visuals that on occasion yield something we can use?

Are you all defining dreaming as a purely mental event?

A good actor never acts for the audience, they act for themselves. — Sentient

I disagree in a very real sense. If they acted for themselves they could do it alone in the basement. The actor's task is to fulfill the playwright's intention which, by the way, is an attempt to communicate. If this could be reliably done in an essay there wouldn't be plays.

Also, it's interesting you bring up the idea of acting versus genuine feeling. Why did you, actually? — Sentient

My whole point is that perhaps there is not the polar distinction between acting and genuine feeling that we suppose.

We can't demonstrate anybody's truth because there are none and simultaneously many — Sentient

Then what / where is this genuine feeling you can't talk about but must? Yes language is a dull tool. What I'm saying is that maybe at some level we realize we don't know what we really mean (or what they'll understand) and we don't have the right words for it anyway. So we take a shot at it and make do with the best response we can believe. Doesn't this support what Derrida is talking about? Or Wittgenstein"s language game?

It's hard enough finding our own truth — Sentient

Indeed, but it is not an objective truth I can act on, only a premise. A premise I made up, that changes everyday and only by acting on that premise can any exact mechanisms or 'substance(s)" possibly be confirmed. There is no point in talking (or acting in the theatrical sense) to myself. So I run it up the flag pole and see who salutes.

Another question would be how we can convey a thought or feeling when we haven't even been able to qualify/quantify them in any meaningful way. — Sentient

I don't know if this is helpful, but perhaps when we attempt to convey a thought or feeling we are simply inviting another's interpretation of us and trying to manipulate it into a desired response. Whether we really know what we are trying to convey or not, the desired response is the prize. I have been an actor on the stage and a sane actor does not attempt to fully invest in being in Denmark or being Hamlet or that the words are really his. They are not and the audience knows it. But he does not believe that if he died on stage that he died while lying. We demonstrate somebody's truth and seek a desired response from whomever we care is observing.

Well that would make some sense of all this wouldn't it? How many ego based impulse buys are you going to get from 100 people in the lucrative pursuit of philosophical truth?

So is it worth $20,000 to buy a forum with maybe 100 sets of active eyeballs to advertise to?

From a behaviorist point of view, we act based on our premise at the time. We may be aware, unaware, right, wrong, about what belief, truth, faith, we are relying on or where it originated. But all these words only get reified in the act, if they are even analyzed. Our premise however (whatever is present and accountable of it), gets full faith and credit at once. I see that I'm splitting hairs here. Probably more psychology than philosophy.

There is indeed only one act; one cannot jump and not jump. One has faith, or one does not. — unenlightened

Did you give a ball park definition of "faith" so I can orient myself?

Why would I need to actively decide the legitimacy of accepting something of which I'm already convinced? — Sapientia

You don't need to. You do it automatically. How else would what you're convinced of be demonstrated? That's who you are.

Yes, exactly.

And I'm saying that it's all an act of putting your money where your mouth might or might not be. And reason and viscera 'believe' are standing in the same shoes.

Well consider the first time bungee jumper. Reason believes it is safe; the viscera 'believe' it is certain death, and he jumps, or else does not jump. Neither he nor we can determine his decision in advance. He might jump thinking 'I'm going to die', or he might refuse, thinking 'it's perfectly safe'. — unenlightened

But this is where the rubber meets the road. We cannot determine his decision in advance so whatever he is going to draw from (to make the decision) is not present. So all this "belief" and "faith" he has are only demonstrated, activated, supervene upon, when he put it to use. I'm not trying to get Zen on you. It's only when he acts (based, at that moment, on his premise) that any of this belief, faith, determinism free will, gets any weight or substance at all. We only sign off on it when we actively demonstrate our premise.

To put it very starkly, faith is how one lives, and belief is what one thinks, and there is not a necessary connection. — unenlightened

Can you make a decision with one without the presence of the other? I see this all conflated or subsumed into premise, which is not objective truth, so it's only power / meaning comes from your activation of it.

I can will to believe something, but again, there's the issue of whether it's my will which determines my belief or other factors, or, if it's both - which does so to a greater extent. — Sapientia

I'm saying that whether it's will, other factors, or both which determines your belief, you actively decide the legitimacy of accepting it so you can make choices and move on. You sign off on it no matter where it comes from. I think this dwarfs the origin or extent of the influences.

I merely chose to try out a certain method in the hope that my beliefs would be altered — Sapientia

If I get drunk and say something inappropriate, Is that me or the liquor talking?

Can you spell it out? — Sapientia

The discussion is about what is choosing / determining our beliefs. I guess I see correctly diagnosing the cause as irrelevant.
Our premise / belief is not objective truth. It is Fallibilism at best. But if our rational mind is to survive and stay in charge is has to index it's choices from something. Believing something is true and "making it true for the time being" (for necessary operational purposes) are the same thing. We may be able to change to what extent things in our path are going to effect us but we still follow the path that is least resistant to what (we choose to believe) is beneficial.

A Navy Seal undergoing agonizing, perhaps abusive, training can apparently quit any time he wants. He is encouraged to do so. It's only because, at the time, he considers quitting as worse, that he endures. What he accepts as "what quitting would mean" is a private truth whose origin cannot be assigned to a cause. He is following the path of least resistance. And that I believe, is testable and empirical.

Let's say I chose to practice CBT, and my beliefs were altered as a result. But I didn't choose to alter my beliefs, did I? I merely chose to try out a certain method in the hope that my beliefs would be altered — Sapientia

Suppose your beliefs are altered. Do you accept and own those beliefs as yours or do you pass the responsibility to CBT? Aren't we just looking down the road and reevaluating what is really going to push us to the left or to the right? Your "choice" is your path of least resistance.

Kierkegaard writes: " …..but one may also be deceived by not believing the true…. “

James writes: "….. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error…."

It seems they are speaking about the loss of an opportunity at an objective truth. That would certainly raise the stakes. But the discussion is dealing with belief or premise. Our premise is not truth since it’s not constant nor the same for everybody. And yes we make it up, and so we love it, and so we defend it. This would seem to be an operational necessity. Whatever the causal role we take, whatever endless loop of cost / benefit analysis are we not just taking the path of least resistance?

... and how many have posted anything or been active online more than 2 hours? — Mayor of Simpleton

Very few. When I first started following the OPF there were about 48,000 members and most of those who actually posted are here now.

Thanks for the Welcome.

By my count 64 people have joined the old PF in the last week.

Well I'm one of the new members you're talking about. I've been following the original PF for about 4 years. (I was unable to join due to a technical problem.) It was a very interesting and educational experience to say the least. At any rate, I always got the impression that a lot of new posters had never read the posting guidelines, which really get your message across and never read through some threads to get a feel of what's expected. You might consider adding the guidelines on this site. Also when some God proofs or science of morality came along you all really seemed to enjoy trying to get through to them. Just my two cents.