• Deep Kumar Trivedi
    5
    The moment a dream ends, and the dreamer awakens, they realize they are awake. Like dreaming, awakening is also a feeling, yet it is perceived as real. The primary characteristic that makes the waking state feel real is its continuity (not in the strict mathematical sense; unless stated otherwise, the broader sense is to be understood) with preceding waking states.
    Upon awakening from a dream, I recognize my surroundings and recall that this is the bed in which I slept last night. The feeling of the current waking state seamlessly connects with the preceding waking state. After a few moments, I may start looking for my keys. Memory of a prior waking state reminds me that they are inside the drawer. I follow this suggestion of memory and find them there. This illustrates continuity, consistency, and coherence among waking states. The current waking state is a natural succession of the preceding waking states.
    This characteristic is generally absent among dreaming states. Dreams are typically disconnected from one another. A dream begins abruptly, while a waking state always has a definable starting point. Even when a dream incorporates elements from the preceding waking state, it lacks full continuity.
    For instance, suppose I am waiting for a friend. While waiting, I nap and dream that my friend arrives, and we share memories from the past. In this case, the dream exhibits a partial succession of events from the prior waking state. However, it remains a dream because the continuity of succession is incomplete. Upon waking, my friend would not recognize or verify the conversation we had in the dream.
    Here, an interesting analogy can be drawn between the continuity of waking states and the mathematical concept of removable discontinuity (in its strict sense). In mathematics, a removable discontinuity occurs at an
    x-value in a function where the two one-sided limits exist, are finite, and equal, but the function is not defined at that point.
    For example, consider the function:
    f(x)=(x^2-4)/(x-2)
    This function is undefined at
    x=2, but both the left-hand limit and the right-hand limit exist and are equal to 4. Thus, this is an example of removable discontinuity.
    Similarly, a dreaming state is like a point of discontinuity where the function (representing waking experience) is not defined, as the waking experience is not accessible to the dreamer. The preceding and succeeding waking states resemble the left-hand and right-hand limits, respectively. Both limits approach the same event, ensuring continuity.
    It is worth noting that in mathematics, a point is said to be discontinuous, while in the "function" of waking states, the discontinuity spans a duration. This analogy provides an intriguing perspective on the nature of waking states and their relation to dreams.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    431
    Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris agit... "What goes on in the light occurs in the dark, and the otherway round as well."

    Though, I do like this conception of yours. The dream being the undefined part of the function. Also welcome aboard, an intriguing first post.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.6k
    The primary characteristic that makes the waking state feel real is its continuity (not in the strict mathematical sense; unless stated otherwise, the broader sense is to be understood) with preceding waking states.Deep Kumar Trivedi

    This realness is a creation of the conscious mind, through the use of memory. The consciousness uses chronology to create a sense of order which appears to it as rational and coherent. Through this appeal to coherency it dismisses the creations of the dreaming mind, which lack rational coherency, as unreal.

    This characteristic is generally absent among dreaming states. Dreams are typically disconnected from one another. A dream begins abruptly, while a waking state always has a definable starting point. Even when a dream incorporates elements from the preceding waking state, it lacks full continuity.
    For instance, suppose I am waiting for a friend. While waiting, I nap and dream that my friend arrives, and we share memories from the past. In this case, the dream exhibits a partial succession of events from the prior waking state. However, it remains a dream because the continuity of succession is incomplete. Upon waking, my friend would not recognize or verify the conversation we had in the dream.
    Here, an interesting analogy can be drawn between the continuity of waking states and the mathematical concept of removable discontinuity (in its strict sense). In mathematics, a removable discontinuity occurs at an
    x-value in a function where the two one-sided limits exist, are finite, and equal, but the function is not defined at that point.
    Deep Kumar Trivedi

    I don't think that you properly represent continuity and discontinuity here. The continuity which you describe as proper to the waking state is really a discontinuity, created from separate instances, separated by sleep. So the supposed coherent rational continuity is really false and incomplete because it is broken up by sleep. Therefore in reality the coherent rational continuity which is created by the conscious mind is not a true continuity at all. It is really a bunch of separate instances pieced together by what the mind believes to be rational principles of coherency, and this creates the appearance of a continuity.

    Similarly, a dreaming state is like a point of discontinuity where the function (representing waking experience) is not defined, as the waking experience is not accessible to the dreamer. The preceding and succeeding waking states resemble the left-hand and right-hand limits, respectively. Both limits approach the same event, ensuring continuity.Deep Kumar Trivedi

    I believe you need to account for the inverse of this as well. The dreaming condition, and memories associated with it, cannot be included into the coherent rational continuity which the consciousness creates from its memories. Therefore all these memories (dreams) have to be excluded as some sort of fictitious memories, and that leaves a gap of discontinuity in the supposed continuity of the waking experience.
  • Deep Kumar Trivedi
    5


    Thanks for your thoughtful and encouraging words.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    431
    You're welcome. I think it's an interesting idea because I've always been interested in the undefined and asymtotes of functions. Especially since the identity of a number, say for this example we use 5 and 4.9999999999... repeated are the same in math... yet we can not ever reach an asymtote at 5. However, we can achieve 4.9999999999... repeated infinitly... it's odd to me that they're the same identity, yet one can not be reached when there is the asymtote at 5.

    Furthermore I think this concept could make for an excellent story because it's creative. Like say through some scanning device it finds an algorithm of a persons sleeping mind, and they hack into the dreams of the sleeper through finding the undefined variables. Like oh, lets plug in nodes to the undefined socket and warp in.
  • Deep Kumar Trivedi
    5

    I don't.........................................a continuity
    The title of my article is An Analogy with Removable Discontinuity, so it is of no use to argue that the so-called continuity of the waking state is broken by sleep. The basic concept of removable discontinuity, as discussed in mathematics, should be taken into account; otherwise, our understanding may go haywire. Separate instances are akin to mathematical points forming a continuous function. A continuous function can be increasing in some intervals and decreasing in others, whereas the function of the waking state is bound to be increasing. Thus, it is smoother than some other continuous functions. Here, memory plays the role of a weaving thread that keeps the different instances together.

    I believe................................... waking experience.
    In response to this objection, the opening lines of my article should be read: "Like dreaming, awakening is also a feeling, yet it is perceived as real." I have attempted to explain why the feeling of the waking state appears to be different from its dreaming counterpart.
  • Corvus
    4.5k
    It is worth noting that in mathematics, a point is said to be discontinuous, while in the "function" of waking states, the discontinuity spans a duration. This analogy provides an intriguing perspective on the nature of waking states and their relation to dreams.Deep Kumar Trivedi

    Dreaming is a psychological event, and awakening is a biological function of a body. Dreams are devoid of any rational explanations on their origin and nature. Isn't it a categorical error to link dreams and awakenings to continuity and discontinuity, which are the concepts for the physical movements of objects or events?
  • Deep Kumar Trivedi
    5

    The comparison of a dream with a removable discontinuity is an analogy, not a complete identity.
  • Corvus
    4.5k
    The comparison of a dream with a removable discontinuity is an analogy, not a complete identity.Deep Kumar Trivedi

    It doesn't seem to explain or help us understand why we dream or what is the nature of our awakening from sleep. You need to try to explain why and how we do so.
  • Deep Kumar Trivedi
    5

    Dear Corvus, your queries are quite interesting. However, within the scope of a single article, it was not possible to address all the points. They require separate articles for a thorough discussion.
  • Corvus
    4.5k
    Your explanation on dreams and awakening comparing with continuity and discontinuity was an analogy not identity you claimed. That is fair enough. But it seems that it could do with further investigation and elaboration on why we dream, and why do we wake up from sleep and dreaming from philosophical point of view would be interesting. It wouldn't be such a huge project for doing so. It would just require a bit further reasonings and inference on the topic I would imagine. It was only a suggestion.
  • Corvus
    4.5k
    Having said that, in fact analogy doesn't make much sense, if it is not supported by the arguments and evidence on why something works as it does, why something is the case, and why the analogy makes sense for the points.

    Philosophy often asks and explains on "why" something is the case or works the way it does, while science does on "how".
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.