Not sure, say more? I've always had trouble pinning down precisely what absolute idealism IS so I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I've just been reading passages about Nietzsche about how dreams reveal our deepest errors of thought, so I think right now I'm coming from a completely opposite place than your statement is. : )

I've always had trouble pinning down precisely what absolute idealism IS so I would love to hear your thoughts on this. — Brian

It's hard to elaborate on using something so ethereal as dreams as the leading premise.

I would suggest that dreams are just simply a way in which we perceive reality. Thinking as a materialist, you have reality being generated without external input, some (supposedly) internal gibberish, which I don't believe.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. Why we don't acknowledge it as a form of reality is a deeper question about how we think about how reality works, as something external illuminating our mind as a projector displays still images in quick succession.

I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. — Question

Though not a direct result of sensory stimulation, dreams are real because they are a result of short term memory (including sensory) consolidation which actually occurs during sleep.

Zhang, Jie (2004). Memory Process and the Function of Sleep. (6–6 ed.). Journal of Theoretics.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-6/Zhang.pdf

As such, they are not solely a product of the mind.

Thinking as a materialist, you have reality being generated without external input, some (supposedly) internal gibberish, which I don't believe. — Question

How could you not believe your dreams, while they are going on? That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. Why we don't acknowledge it as a form of reality is a deeper question about how we think about how reality works, as something external illuminating our mind as a projector displays still images in quick succession. — Question

I find this to be contradictory. If you acknowledge that your dreams are unreal, then how can you, at the same time, say that they can be regarded as a form of reality? It is true, that what we believe as real, at one time, may be dismissed as unreal at another time, but this requires a conscious decision, that what was formerly believed should now be disbelieved. This is sometimes called "changing your mind", and it involves the recognition of a difference between what is real, and what is believed to be real. So when I awaken from a dream, and what I believed as real within the dream is dismissed as unreal, what I am doing is changing my mind. I recognize that what I believe to be real, and what is actually real, are distinct, and this allows me to apprehend the fact that I believe my dream as real, when it is going on, but dismiss it as unreal, later.

Since this "changing my mind" is a case of deciding that what my mind has produced at a particular time, is not real, and opting for what my mind produces at another time as more real, how does this support idealism? What do you base the determination of "real" in, your belief?

That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal. — Metaphysician Undercover

This raises a few interesting points:

The experience of dreaming is real (actually occurs) for its duration.

Dream content (being the content of short-term memory) is also real, being the experiences (sensations, interoceptions, observations, introspections, etc.) which actually occurred during waking hours.

However, the sequence and/or association of these experiences in a dream are generally not the same as those found during waking hours. It is the sequence and/or association of experiences in a dream which are not real (in the sense that they didn't actually occur during waking hours).

I also fail to see the connection between dream reality and idealism.

I guess the question is "Is there something in waking life that cannot be dreamt, and if this is not the case, then how can we distinguish being awake from dreaming one is awake?"

My dreams are qualitatively different than my perception when I'm awake, and I believe that is true for the vast majority of people, otherwise they'd have no basis for calling one set of experiences a dream and another waking perception in the first place.

How could you not believe your dreams, while they are going on? That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal. — Metaphysician Undercover

I almost always know that I'm dreaming when I am. Dreams to me seem very similar to daydreams, imaginings when awake, etc. only I'm sleeping instead. So it's similar to knowing that I'm daydreaming or imagining something when I'm awake.

Isn't this, at least traditionally, an epistemological question and not an existential question.

Yes. That was the idea I was getting at. That the experiences are qualitatively different is how we know that dreams are a different type of thing.

Dream content (being the content of short-term memory) is also real, being the experiences (sensations, interoceptions, observations, introspections, etc.) which actually occurred during waking hours. — Galuchat

I don't agree that dream content is real in this way. The images in my dreams appear to be completely made up, and nothing I've ever experienced in my waking hours. However there appears to be some sort of word association, which relates the made up images to things I've already experienced. So for instance, there will be a person in my dream, who doesn't actually look at all like my brother, because the image is completely made up, but I will know that person in my dream as my brother. When I awaken, I'll wonder, why did my brother look like that in the dream?

I almost always know that I'm dreaming when I am. Dreams to me seem very similar to daydreams, imaginings when awake, etc. only I'm sleeping instead. So it's similar to knowing that I'm daydreaming or imagining something when I'm awake. — Terrapin Station

If you know that you are dreaming when you are dreaming, and dreaming requires being asleep or else it would be daydreaming, then I can assume that you know when you are asleep. How do you know when you are asleep, and not awake? How do you differentiate between these two, what is the difference for you, between being asleep and being awake, so that you know when you are dreaming, and not just daydreaming?

Thoughts? — Question

Whatever anyone writes here, we should remember that dreams are something in the world. They have a psychological, cognitive, physical, and/or biological meaning, or explanation, or at least mechanism which have been studied.

Our typical philosophical ruminations should be held up to what science has figured out.

I'm still not entirely sure what absolute idealism means. I haven't read Hegel myself directly yet (life is short). If we're going down this line where altered states of consciousness (which dreaming is) is proof then why isn't being drunk vs being sober also evidence? There is an obvious phenomenal difference between the two.

I think dreams are evidence the waking experience is not we think it is. I believe it is just a continuation of the same ontological sort but with the sensory inputs combined into it. The reason it feels different is due to evolution (if you believed you were still dreaming you could jump off a cliff to fly away or something), but if you focus on the between the waking moment or going into sleep you can actually feel the change first hand.

A proof is the sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition. Dreams are neither.

In an effort to facilitate some discussion, I would hope to change the subject to something of the sort of, 'Dreams, as proof of 'idealism''

Would that be better than the rather hard to comprehend Hegelian conception of absolute idealism?

Dreaming/daydreaming are qualitatively different than waking experience. Daydreaming always occurs parallel to waking experience. Sleep-dreaming does not.

Would that be better — Question

No, because dreams are neither sufficient evidence nor arguments for the truth of 'idealism'.

We could, of course, discuss the nature of dreams, whether they have anything to do with the nature of reality and so on...

No, because dreams are neither sufficient evidence nor arguments for the truth of 'idealism'. — jkop

Well, that's what we're discussing here. Mind to explain why they aren't sufficient evidence? What's your take here?

I have to admit the OP question was ill-formulated. It should read,

"Dreams, as proof of idealism?"

That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, — Metaphysician Undercover

While I am still asleep, long before I wake up, part of my mind says "It's just a dream".

Some dreams are horrible. Maybe they are manifestations of my worst subconscious fears, anxieties, etc., and my conscious self, though in a body that is asleep, works overtime on coping.

It's like the child in me, confronted with overwhelming trauma, telling himself that it is going to be okay--that it's just a dream and I'll get through it.

Then I wake up, process all of it, and say "Dreams are cruel!"

Here's one interesting concept.

Take the fact that some dreams are lucid enough where we are in control of our surroundings. Would this not at the very least be a sort of an informal proof for the existence of God? How else would one explain the fact that the observer in the dream can have control over everything they are experiencing?

In other words, what's the philosophy of lucid dreams and it being in relation to reality or a sort of reality in itself?

In other words, let's assume that some person has the miraculous ability to realize every night that they are dreaming. This realization would allow the person to control their dreams for whatever purpose/desire for the period of the dream. Say one is studying some material, then in the dream, they can recall material, which this person is studying (doubtfully what one would do; but, a noble purpose to devote the dream space-time to). An alternative is that one can dream about music.

Isn't it fascinating that the mind can recall pieces of music with such detail during sleep (I'm sure I'm not the only one), effortlessly? In my case, I find it extraordinary that I can dream W.A. Mozart - Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183 1'st movement without a hitch during sleep as opposed to the great difficulty one would have to recall the same piece during waking hours. If that isn't extraordinary, then I don't know what is.

Dreaming/daydreaming are qualitatively different than waking experience. Daydreaming always occurs parallel to waking experience. Sleep-dreaming does not. — Terrapin Station

What do you mean by "parallel to waking experience"? Daydreaming occurs while one is awake, it is an awake experience. I've done it many times and it's a completely different thing from dreaming when I am asleep.

While I am still asleep, long before I wake up, part of my mind says "It's just a dream". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Perhaps, but I'm talking about while the dream is going on. This is called lucid dreaming, when one can exercise some form of control over one's dreams.

Putting that aside, have you never woken up from a dream, to realize at the moment of awakening, that it was just a dream? In this case, the dream is being experienced as if what is happening in the dream is really happening.

In other words, what's the philosophy of lucid dreams and it being in relation to reality or a sort of reality in itself? — Question

Suppose that in a regular dream, what is being experienced in the dream is taken by the dreamer as being real, what is really happening. In a lucid dream, one has some control what is being dreamed. I've heard a lucid dreamer tell me that despite having some control over what is to happen in the dream, the dream is still experienced as if it is real. How do you think this could be possible? How could one have some control over what is happening, and yet experience it as if it is really happening?

I've heard a lucid dreamer tell me that despite having some control over what is to happen in the dream, the dream is still experienced as if it is real. How do you think this could be possible? — Metaphysician Undercover

I suppose it's the same as when we go to the movies. We don't stand up and shout, "That's not true!". Some form of suspension of disbelief is required to entertain a film as well as a dream.

How could one have some control over what is happening, and yet experience it as if it is really happening? — Metaphysician Undercover

That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience. I've had lucid dreams where I know it's a dream; but, still am in the domain of believing/entertaining what I am seeing as real as in waking life.

I suppose it's the same as when we go to the movies. We don't stand up and shout, "That's not true!". Some form of suspension of disbelief is required to entertain a film as well as a dream. — Question

The lucid dreamer I spoke to claimed to have some control over what was happening in the dream. When we go to a movie we do not even consider the possibility of having control over what happens in the movie.

That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience. I've had lucid dreams where I know it's a dream; but, still am in the domain of believing/extertaining what I am seeing as real as in waking life. — Question

The question though, is a question for the lucid dreamer who has control over the dream. How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like? Wouldn't having control over it make it like a daydream? And in a daydream I know that what I am daydreaming is not real, because I have control over it.

When we go to a movie we do not even consider the possibility of having control over what happens in the movie. — Metaphysician Undercover

The concept of 'control' is obviously not the same as in a dream as in waking life. The concept of control in a dream is maximized when one dreams lucidly. I have no qualms with calling a lucid dream a form of reality, just not occupied in the same space-time as in waking life.

How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because the dream IS real. There is no point in denying the beauty of a piece of music as well as the content of a dream. The content of a dream is not fundamentally different than that of waking life. It's just a state space where the set of possible configurations of 'things' (the possibilities in a sort of monastic space that is reality) is different than that of waking life.

The content of a dream is not fundamentally different than that of waking life. — Question

I strongly disagree. In my experience the two are very different.

What grounds are there for assuming a differentiation between the two?

In my waking life there is a logical continuity of happenings. If I am walking down the street, in the next moment I will be continuing to walk down the street unless I decide to stop and do something else. In my dreams there is no such logical continuity. I may be walking down the street one moment, then in the next moment in a car, then in a house, etc.. The content is very random with very little logical continuity.

In my waking life there is a logically continuity of happenings. If I am walking down the street, in the next moment I will be continuing to walk down the street unless I decide to stop and do something else. In my dreams there is no such logical continuity. I may be walking down the street one moment, then in the next moment in a car, then in a house, etc.. The content is very random with very little logical continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, sci-fi or fantasy movies are just as 'real' by the same logic; but, we don't have a prejudice against them as not being real as you claim dreams are.

I guess I've always rejected idealism in all its forms, be it Berkeleyan, or transcendental or absolute.

Which means, I suppose, that I have always subscribed to some brand of realism, if one must fall into one of these two camps to some extent.

Since I basically reject idealism, I must not think that dreams are in any way a proof of idealism.

Why not? Well... I need to think this through.

Idealism, I think, is basically the notion that there is no real mind-independent reality, whereas reality is in some major way mind-independent for the realist.

Dreams are most certainly mind-dependent, on the other hand. Dreaming is a psychological process. The raw materials for dreams are derived from reality, but they do not then become reality. They are processed and synthesized in a way that is not real.

Unfortunately for me, I had a dream the other night that I was dating Jennifer Lawrence, but when I woke up I realized that this wasn't reality (again, unfortunately, for so so many reasons).

There is a certain state of affairs in the world, in which two people, me and J-Law, are very clearly not involved in any kind of romantic entanglement - hey, I've never even met the lovely lady.

While my mind is responsible for the fact that I am cognizant of this state of affairs, my mind doesn't dictate this state of affairs. Even if I thought I was dating J-Law, I would not be dating J-Law. Similarly, even if I dream that I am dating J-Law, I am still not dating J-Law.

The reality does not correspond to the dream. And this has nothing to do with my own psychological states. I guess this is what you could call a physico-social fact about the world. Physical in the sense that it involves two physical beings, me and J-Law, and it involves a social fact about us - we are not dating.

The only role my mind is playing here is that I am conscious of this fact. I am aware of it, I can think about it, be upset about it, fantasize about it. But none of this changes the reality of the situation.

Hence, realism.