My dreams have a very different phenomenal quality to them than my waking experience. They're like daydreams I have while asleep, although like "druggier" daydreams. Like daydreams, I know that it's not real when I'm experiencing it, and I can direct them to a large extent.

OK, so now the question is, 'is what I experience seen?' The structure, and problems, remain.

I don't see the experienced triangle having any lines or marks of its own, so, obviously I don't see the triangle. I experience it by way of seeing the black marks, like depicted things in illustrations can be experienced by way of seeing the concrete marks of which an illustration is made.

Can you experience something, and take yourself to see it, even though in reality you don't?

You can't both see and not see in the same respect, but you can imagine seeing something, in which case the seeing is replaced by an empathic ability fueled by memories or descriptions of seeing something.

Can you be having an experience, during which you take yourself to see somehting that you do not actually see?

You can take yourself to experience things you don't see, but never see things you don't see. You're using the word 'see' in two different senses.

Is it possible that you can have an experience, during which you are unable to tell whether you see what you think you see or not?

Again, no you can't have an experience of your own experience during which you'd be unable to tell whether it is what you think it is.

For example, the other morning the phone rang, waking me up from a deep sleep. The experience was a blur, and for a moment I couldn't tell whether I was answering the phone or dreaming.

But it was not the blur of my own experience that I experienced, so the question whether the blur is what I think it is does not apply.

I had yet to wake up, but when I was awake the "problem" of whether I was answering the phone or dreaming was quickly resolved (unlike your alleged problem which is basically insurmountable).

Again, no you can't have an experience of your own experience during which you'd be unable to tell whether it is what you think it is. — jkop

I never asked whether you can have 'an experience of your own experience.' Read the question again.

But it was not the blur of my own experience that I experienced, so the question whether the blur is what I think it is does not apply. — jkop

It doesn't matter. You were unable to decide, on the basis of an experience you had, whether you heard what you thought you heard. Whether you can 'experince your own experience,' or anything to that effect, is beside the point.

I had yet to wake up, but when I was awake the "problem" of whether I was answering the phone or dreaming was quickly resolved (unlike your alleged problem which is basically insurmountable). — jkop

Again, you don't know this, because you don't antecedently know whether for any given experience, you are perceiving (seeing, hearing, etc.) what you claim to be or think you are.

You are continually trying to attribute to me the position that you must assume some notion of representation or sense data; but you are simply wrong about this. Your problems persist regardless of whether this intermediary layer does, and so the issues with perception and the dreaming argument are independent of the type of realism you adopt. It is a realist problem, not an indirect realist problem, and direct realism does not help you in principle in resolving it. This is so as long as you admit the possibility of ever being perceptually mistaken about anything.

I never asked whether you can have 'an experience of your own experience.' — The Great Whatever

I didn't say you did. I said it is assumed in your question. It is assumed and disguised in its claim that you're having an experience during which you're also thinking about what it is.

You were unable to decide, on the basis of an experience you had, whether you heard what you thought you heard. — The Great Whatever

No, you assume too much. I was waking up, recall: I was unconscious when my brain's reticular activation system identified the sound of the phone, and thus activated sufficient conscious attention towards the phone for waking me up, but I was hardly conscious enough to be able to think about what I heard, nor contemplate on whether it is what I think I heard. It's ridiculous to assume that someone who is brutally woken up from a deep sleep would suddenly possess the conscious attention of some armchair phenomenalist who is awake and trained in thought about thoughts.

you don't antecedently know whether for any given experience, you are perceiving (seeing, hearing, etc.) what you claim to be or think you are. — The Great Whatever

Now you're just repeating a false mantra, you're on your own with that.

Am I crazy or does this guy just not get it?

You're not crazy.

Is it possible that you can have an experience, during which you are unable to tell whether you see what you think you see or not? — The Great Whatever

That's an interesting question.

A. I see a banana.
B. The banana I see is real.

Even in a dream, A could be true while B is only true for all practical purposes. Even under the influence of a true hallucinogenic like Datura, there's no question that one is seeing something. It's just that the ability to distinguish between reality and fiction is off-line.

Even in a dream, A could be true. . . — Mongrel

How could it be true unless it is assumed that you don't see the banana but only your own experience by way of which something you call 'banana' is then experienced (but never seen).

In the dream, I saw a banana.

But is it true? What conditions satisfy the possibility to see bananas in dreams?

Your phrasing is confusing. The truth conditions for "P" are that P.

Hence my question. What conditions satisfy the possibility that P?

So you aren't talking about truth conditions. Truth maker?

Under what conditions could you see rather than just experience a banana in the dream?

When you see the dream banana. Dude.

Is it possible that you can have an experience, during which you are unable to tell whether you see what you think you see or not? — The Great Whatever

The very possibility that you could be seeing something other than what you think you see presupposes that there is a truth about, that is a reality in regard to. what you are seeing.

Oh, but how could you see a dream banana? Didn't you rather dream the seeing of a banana? What satisfies the possibility that in the dream you saw a banana rather than just had an experience such as that of a described banana which is not seen?

Sorry jkop... I don't understand what you're asking.

Really? Too bad. I think it is fairly clear that there is a difference between seeing something and having an experience of it, such as when remembering it without seeing it. I think the experience that one has in a dream is of the latter kind, when nothing is seen. After all one is usually asleep during a dream, with eyelids closed etc.., and there are many qualitative differences between "seeing" something in a dream and seeing something with your eyes.

Reality without dreams is just somebody's nightmare, while dreams without reality are a contradiction explaining why its impossible to live without dreams. Stay awake long enough and you will merely hallucinate because the greater context always decides the truth. There are many lesser truths which are both contents and contexts and, then, there is the One Greater Truth of Socrates which he called the memory of God that none may look upon and remember in all its glory which, of course, is the greater context that the truth decides everything!

dreams without reality are a contradiction explaining why its impossible to live without dreams — wuliheron

What about reality as a dream though, you didn't express that. Also, it isn't impossible to live without dreams... just ask anyone who is on benzos or smoking MJ constantly. REM sleep isn't essential, only beneficial.

The very possibility that you could be seeing something other than what you think you see presupposes that there is a truth about, that is a reality in regard to. what you are seeing. — John

Good point. Why should we not think there is some reality giving us sensory data? Any good reasons? No? Ok then...

Skepticism is a castle you can't take, but it isn't sending out any troops to molest travelers. . -- mangled Schopenhauer