For people for whom their dreams seem just like what they consider their waking phenomenal experience, this must surely be confusing, and I'm not sure what the solution to the problem would be for them. — Terrapin Station

Indeed. The mind seems to be wandering to nowhere when we don't get what kind of experience we're going through and why. However imagining good things and being aware of the dreamlike condition does not mean that you've found the purpose of being 'dreaming', but rather that you are not subjected anymore to sensations as they reach you, because you've stopped reacting and understood it, and once we cross the line we learn the difference jumping out of the 'action and reaction' effect.

The same goes to reality: people allegedly can sense it differently by stopping reacting and by starting being aware of other senses.

If you want to share how you've unlocked your perception to realize while you dreaming, maybe through a technique, please share. However, be aware that I won't understand right away... learning takes time and every person has its own. We can point the truth to a blindman with our fingers, and he will be able to see it right away, but not the opposite I think.

If your life is a continuous dream then it's the other way around: dreams form the basis of your idea of 'material reality'. — lambda

Like prisoners that only know shadows produced by forms: they'll suppose the shadows are the truth and not the other way around.

Material reality forms the basis of our experiencing dreams — Heister Eggcart

Material reality is susceptible to what we sense "materiality" is. At microscopic level we are not sure what materiality is. While dreaming, I think all stuff I see is true and concrete, but we know it turns out that a dream is an "illusion" and it fades out. Taking this into view, when we're dreaming we don't question ourselves "are these things really physical?", since we are seeing them there as we normally do. It's the same with our reality: if we live just seeing a map of it, we never really look into reality even being trapped at it, just like when we are into a dream without realizing it. It means that observation is the key to understand and it is just possible with our senses. And to use our senses, we must know ourselves first.

I agree that science is studying our minds/cognitions and senses. I think there is a false sense of objectivity that is damaging where we separate ourselves from the world and exploit it as opposed to integrating ourselves into reality, so we end up feeling alienated. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, I see there's this possibility, because Cartesianism separates body/mind.

However it seems that there are truths "out there" that we find through induction and that we should therefore seek the truth if it is available whilst not neglecting the realities produced by the arts. — Andrew4Handel

Science helps us to find the truth, but, to find it in fact, we need to allow ourselves and go further science itself: because science is the map, but not the way. Science studies our mind through "reasoning" (Cartesianism). But this is one sensation being explored. There are other senses we need to access, but we can't access them through reason and - since reason is our source of knowledge - we feel this is not something "true". We're living in a very specific circumstance (state) provided by our senses, mostly by the mind by reasoning, and we see our reality through this optics without realizing it. All this I said is illustrated by Plato's Myth of the Cave.

Yes

I think emotions are probably the key motivator but I can't see a relationship between emotion and the truth. — Andrew4Handel

Emotion is a state of feeling produced by a sensation. And sensation is the truth itself, because when we sense, we are able to feel the reality around us with the senses (our gifts) - smell a flower to know its truth. "Here" is literally the truth, and to inspect it just requires one to see, hear, smell...
Science is guided by rational thought, and reason denies the senses through logics, see Descartes's metaphysics which are at the core of the scientific principle. Science does not consider mind as a "sense" and our mind becomes thus our judger. But mind is a sense, and when science studies our reason, it is actually studying our mind, since reason is a tool used by it. They've been studying our ability to reason for a long time until they've realized it: they were not studying reality but our own consciousness.

Our physical life is filled with experiences that produce sensations - the death of a dog may be very painful. But pain is an emotion, it's not "there", only "reality" is there, and a dead dog is just what it is. Seeing the dog dead is the sensation, feeling pain is an emotion triggered by this experience. If one has never seen something bad, he may cry; if he's been seeing bad things every day, it may not strike him so much, because this is the purpose of experiences - to teach. That's why we exist to learn. Knowing this makes us aware that pain is our head and we're able to choose to feel it or not - each exprience is a gift.

There is only consciousness, reality is experienced constantly, reality is truth.
The act of seeing is truth, hearing is truth, thinking is truth, smelling is truth, tasting is truth, being is truth. — eb0t

Reality is both truth, when the mind is awaken, and a lie, when the mind is asleep. Reality is everything because it is just a sensation.

Moral values come from outside sources, such as the ten commandments or, at a more basic level, the teachings of our parents about what's good and bad. The difference between good and bad is preestablished by society by means of laws. Ethics comes from inside playing a role of looking at what morality should be in a given context. In order to live in society, there are guidelines to be followed, as well as there are guidelines to be followed in Christianity, Judaism... So accepting morality as a code is the principle to live together in community. Since we know we're born "pure", moral codes are an attempt of remembering our mind of what's good.

The rawest form of an idea could be expressed by the number "0". With words, one could postulate the same choosing a term: so 0 might equal now. "Now" therefore is the rawest idea, and everything was built upon it this idea, including, for example, our sense of self. We can only "exist" at the present moment as a result, so we "are", regarding our abstractions of past and future.

Though, I think cogito ergo sum falls short, as it is not so much that we think that makes us a subject, rather it is that we are aware we think that makes us subjects. — AcesHigh

We're always "thinking", since the mind is a sense, the same way we're alway smelling something, because we have a nose all the time. The difference is how we use and how we choose to perceive the sensations. So, one way to use our mind is applying logics, "If A, then B" (Descartes's method). So using reason, there's no room for interpretation, and we can state we do exist, but existence becomes a product of our potential to "reason" things with our mind.

Hi, Partinobodycular. There are a few points I'd like to reply:

[...] their intuitive capabilities will most assuredly be limited — Partinobodycular

Yes, limited, but only if one builds up a concept for "limitation" first. The act of drawing a picture, or playing the piano, is per se art, not matter how you classify the outcome.

[...] but these skills are almost certainly attributable to previous exposure to sounds that they found pleasant, or coloring in a coloring book. Intuition is an offshoot of a learned skill. — Partinobodycular

This is your reason working in order to try to fit an explanation (what reason does), not what reality is. The fact these skills do change and evolve only mean they do change and evolve.

In such instances intuition can be a good thing — Partinobodycular

Intuition is a thought, an insight. It can't be good or be bad, it is what it is.

but the point where intuition leads to idiocy is when people apply intuition to beliefs. — Partinobodycular

Everything may lead to idiocy. Reason may lead to idiocy in terms of beliefs; the search for "why".

The point is, that trusting in intuition without questioning it's validity, or recognizing its source, is what leads to idiocy — Partinobodycular

When one questions intuition, he's questioning it with his reason: at this point, the intuition was already gone and he's being rational. By recognizing something, assessing, you're using reason, the kind of thought defined by "Cogito, ergo sum". This is a state, not reality itself.

Trusting in intuition is what makes people idiots. — Partinobodycular

Could you elaborate that?

Talking is an action per se. Some people make a living just by talking - lecturers. From the time we wake up till the time we go to sleep, we're acting in a play with an audience watching our moves - our judgers. What is the worst of the judgers if not our own consciouness? The claps mean our success. But does recognition mean we're on the right track? If your friend's actions are to be changed to suit a need, the question is where does this need come from.

I think we mold our thinking as we grow from a completely small intuitive baby to a big rational man. There is a loss along the path, as you pointed out in your post.

Consciousness is the feeling emerging when a brain introduce the concept of self to its model of reality — Raphi

I wouldn't say consciousness is a feeling, but rather a state produced by feelings. And feelings are all sensations. And all sensations are abstractions that we give an imprint. The concept of self emerges when we are conscious of our "self" and look into us, self-consciouness. All forms of life are conscious, the difference is how consciousness is observed and classified.