Even if I was in a dream, my ability to have these thoughts, including interacting with you, proved your existence. — javi2541997

Does dreaming of Zeus prove that Zeus exists?

My dream was based on the experience of interacting with other living beings like me, not deities or gods. I believe that addresing Zeus is not particularly relevant to the existence of you, me, and the other members of this forum.

My dream was based on the experience of interacting with other living beings like me, not deities or gods. I believe that addresing Zeus is not particularly relevant to the existence of you, me, and the other members of this forum. — javi2541997

You’re arguing that dreaming of X is proof that X exists.

If the argument fails when X is Zeus then it fails when X is Michael.

, but Zeus does exist, he's just not real. ;)

You’re arguing that dreaming of X is proof that X exists.

If the argument fails when X is Zeus then it fails when X is Michael. — Michael

No, it does not fail.

There are different subjects in your premises. Zeus is a deity, and its characteristics are based on Greek mythology. It is the subject of a "myth", nothing close to something real.

Meanwhile, Michael or Javi is real, because you are causing me to feel certain experiences. There are some chances that you might appear in my dreams, because the source of your existence (at least in what I consider real) is based in my experience of interacting with you. Then, you exist.

I have never experienced Zeus, nor did I dream with him. I think it is pretty obvious the cause: his source of existence is missing.

However, the source of your existence is obvious to me.

Meanwhile, Michael or Javi is real — javi2541997

You’re begging the question.

Your argument is now “if I dream of X and if X exists then X exists”.

When I have been interacting on the forum, I find that it affects both my conscious experience and dreams. At times, the communication seems more real if I know a little about the person I am communicating with.

At times, I have dreamt that I am interacting on the forum and either disappointed or relieved that the exchange was not 'real'. At one point, I even dreamt that my own threads were rolled up as scrolls beside my bed. The experience of communicating on the forum seems to make philosophy surreal. Previous to that my own philosophy reading felt rather lonely and cut off, so I have felt some validification as a thinker in interaction on the forum. I don't mind the surreal aspect because, in a way all communication is surreal in the sense that communication between others involves imaginary aspects of listening and interpretation.

You’re begging the question.

Your argument is now “if I dream of X and if X exists then X exists”. — Michael

I guess you disagree with my notion, right?

At times, I have dreamt that I am interacting on the forum and either disappointed or relieved that the exchange was not 'real'. — Jack Cummins

I know that feeling. I experienced something similar. After waking up, I felt disappointed because the mentions were all products of my dream. Nonetheless, I still think that my dream did not cheat me because I actually dreamt with people who I interact with in this forum. If they also appear in my dreams, then they have to be real. You evoke certain experiences in me that lead me to believe you exist.

I have never experienced Zeus, nor did I dream with him. I think it is pretty obvious the cause: his source of existence is missing. — javi2541997

You've used the phrase "dreaming with" several times, whereas "dreaming of" sounds more apt. It's kind of odd because in order to dream with someone you'd have to share in the same content.

Joseph Campbell called myth (shared narrative/ideas about what is) communal dream. So maybe we can stretch this to the concept of dreams/reality as the domain of social constructions, reality as shared/directed hallucination.

The frustration of a lucid dream is apparent in and round those rare moments when you take what is occurring in a dream to be reality. The only notable example of this was thinking I had a drawer full of cash, which evaporated on waking. :groan:

I guess you disagree with my notion, right? — javi2541997

I’m saying that your argument is fallacious.

Either it’s a non sequitur because “therefore X exists” does not follow from “I dreamed of X” or it begs the question because you’ve independently assumed that X exists (and in which case your dream is irrelevant).

You've used the phrase "dreaming with" several times, whereas "dreaming of" sounds more apt. It's kind of odd because in order to dream with someone you'd have to share in the same content. — Nils Loc

It was a grammar oopsie, sorry.

The frustration of a lucid dream is apparent in and round those rare moments when you take what is occurring in a dream to be reality. The only notable example of this was thinking I had a drawer full of cash, which evaporated on waking. — Nils Loc

It is frustrating butsatisfactory at the same time. Lucid dreams are fun, yet I think I should not consider my dream as lucid because I wasn't aware that I was dreaming of you. I came to this conclusion when I woke up.

Whether my dream is irrelevant or not is not the case, Michael. The point is that I have knowledge and consciousness that you exist because you caused me certain experiences in both dreams and reality. Disagreeing with my point may mean that you do not exist in one of these. :sad:

I am interacting with you right now, so you exist. Wait when I dream of you. :cool:

The point is that I have knowledge and consciousness that you exist because you caused me certain experiences in both dreams and reality. — javi2541997

Here and in several other cases you are presuming your conclusion, that we exist. Only if we exist, have we caused these experiences in you, in reality. (But much less so in dreams. It seems more accurate to say that your mind, creatively using these experiences as a foundation, synthesized your dreams. We have no causal efficacy in what specifically did and didn't happen in your dreams.)

Suppose that I, and everyone else but you on this site, were all AI personas. If so, we would impart the same experiences to you, and you would have the same dreams about them. So these experiences and dreams themselves cannot prove that we are not AI. You might argue in various ways that this AI hypothesis is profoundly unlikely, and I would agree. But I don't think you can prove it is not the case.

I agree, sort of.

First, I think I didn't claim that your existence made a cause in my dreams, and I did because I write a lot of word salad. I am sorry because it wasn't my intention. What I said is that the source of your existence seems legit to me because I had (literally) the same experience of interacting with you in both reality and dreams. For me, this is more than sufficient to claim that you actually exist. This is not about identifying a cause, but rather exploring the origin of why you influence certain experiences or stimuli in my life.

On the other hand, I even believe that my point would also be plausible if you were AI, because my argument is that I suggest you exist because you interfere in me. It is not possible to dream of God or Zeus because they never made an impact on me. But I consider it plausible to dream of you, Michael or Baden. Isn't this a good starting point to consider people real?

Wait when I dream of you. — javi2541997

Dream Michael is an incarnation of Zeus... He is sporting a gilded purple himation right now in a aural sphere on planet Jupiter in the eye of the red storm. Hopefully this suggestion will have amusing effects.

"Even the gods who are not his natural children address him as Father, and all the gods rise in his presence." (Homer) Guess it comes with being a mod.

But you are resistant to silly associative contamination for good reasons. No amount of telling you that Michael is (like) Zeus will make you believe that Michael is (like) Zeus.

But we should try anyway. Michael (what/which Michael?) is like Zeus (what/which Zeus?).

Quis ut Deus?

On the other hand, I even believe that my point would also be plausible if you were AI, because my argument is that I suggest you exist because you interfere in me. It is not possible to dream of God or Zeus because they never made an impact on me. But I consider it plausible to dream of you, Michael or Baden. Isn't this a good starting point to consider people real? — javi2541997

If it were then would it not be the case that God or Zeus is real for some, and not real for others?

That is, some would say that they have made an impact on them -- so just as I conclude that money is real so do I conclude that Zeus is real every time there's a lightning storm.

If it were then would it not be the case that God or Zeus is real for some, and not real for others?

That is, some would say that they have made an impact on them -- so just as I conclude that money is real so do I conclude that Zeus is real every time there's a lightning storm. — Moliere

It might be.

But I hardly see the possibility of dreaming with God or Zeus in any circumstances. I just can't see it as plausible, even with the fact they are anthropomorphised, and my mind should easily be able to locate them in my dreams. But, for some reasons, they don't appear in my real life nor in my dreams. Therefore, I believe their existence is highly unlikely.

My point is that some may argue that Zeus made an impact on him. But, upon serious reflection, does Zeus really interfere with people while they are asleep? I think this is key. For the moment, you (members of TPF) caused certain experiences, things, episodes, etc. in both my real life and dreams. Therefore, your existence is more plausible than Zeus'.

No, it does not fail.

There are different subjects in your premises. Zeus is a deity, and its characteristics are based on Greek mythology. It is the subject of a "myth", nothing close to something real.

Meanwhile, Michael or Javi is real, because you are causing me to feel certain experiences. There are some chances that you might appear in my dreams, because the source of your existence (at least in what I consider real) is based in my experience of interacting with you. Then, you exist.

I have never experienced Zeus, nor did I dream with him. I think it is pretty obvious the cause: his source of existence is missing.

However, the source of your existence is obvious to me. — javi2541997

This touches on an aspect of belief that Davidson focuses on: that no belief exists in isolation. Each of your beliefs is part of a web of inter-related beliefs. Your belief that Zeus is not real is a component of your cohesive worldview, it's ultimately bound up with everything else you believe, such as that strawberries are plants and clouds are made of water vapor. This web or field of beliefs, along with the concept of truth, essentially is your rationality. It can be updated, but not all at once, so in a sense it's self stabilizing.

And now you put your rationality to the job of determining its own foundations and effectiveness at delivering you reliable information. You're asking the eye to see itself. As always, it will go to work trying to give you the explanation you seek. That's what it does. It follows the Law of Explanation, which is that everything must have one, including the Law itself.

:up: :up:

You're asking the eye to see itself. As always, it will go to work trying to give you the explanation you seek. — frank

Frank, I agree with all your post, and I see myself represented in it. Nonetheless, I don't seek for an answer. It is just that I realised something that is obvious but was hidden from me. That you exist. I don't think my thoughts are fallacious. Yes, it lacks better quality writing, but I follow Davidson's view on where my beliefs and rationality come from. I guess I refer to "source" when he talked about webs.

:up:

Even if I was in a dream, my ability to have these thoughts, including interacting with you, proved your existence — javi2541997

Doesnt the strange world of dreams teach us that just as important as the question of whether something exists is how it exists? Have you ever noticed that when you try to make sense of a dream strictly on the basis of remembered perceptual data (the identification of people, things and the actions that are being performed, like flying) the narrative of the dream appears bizarre and incoherent? And yet if asked to make sense of that narrative from the vantage of the emotions and feelings accompanying the perceived images and actions a much more intelligible picture emerges? For instance, one may perform an act, likely floating or flying, which in waking life would trigger feelings of joy, astonishment or terror.

But the emotions accompanying such feats in the dream may tell a very different story. One may feel bored , nonchalant or blasé, suggesting f that the meaning of the act should be sought in the kinds of waking activity that typically evoke such feelings. I suggest that if one wants to know what is really going on in the dream one needs to consult this affective narrative rather than the narrative of concrete perceptions and actions. This includes the identification of people in the dream. Dont be too sure you’re dreaming about so and so just because the dream image looks like them. The feeling accompanying the image may lead you to someone else. And often, what starts out as one person morphs into someone else. Follow the feelings , not the images.