I'd like to explore a personal example of inductive reasoning with you guys. I'll oversimplify inductive reasoning as the idea that, If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. (I'm sure you know there's more to it than that, but the duck analogy is a perfect example of the particular experience I'd like to share.) Here is my example: I have a small poodle. Two days before the new year she was in a fight with a large dog, and got her left eye popped out of her head! I took her to the emergency vet, and they put her eye back in, but in order to do so they had to cut a little bit along the side of the eye. Then, in order to keep the eye in, she had to have the eyelid sewn closed for 10 to 20 days. So, we would not know for at least ten days whether she would be blind in that eye. Well, yesterday was the 11th day and they did take the stitches out. It turns out that she is blind in the eye. Of course I love my dog very much, and of course, I was very sad for her yesterday. I really needed someone to help me salve my soul. I didn't realize that however, and I had a headache, so I took my little dog and went for a nap and some private wallowing. I slept for three hours. During that three hours I had a very involved dream in which my best friends all came and partied me up, and helped soothe my soul. It was not a fully lucid dream, but I had enough awareness in it to feel as though it was really happening. (as apposed to normal dreams that you are usually not aware of until you wake and remember them, or the fully lucid kind in which you are able to control yourself.) Anyway, I woke up feeling better. Certainly some of the feeling better was a result of having the nap, as I had not slept well the night before in anticipation of the vet visit. But the fact is, I felt better in a deep down way that came from having my friends comforting me. So the question is: If it looked like my friends, and felt like my friends, and had the same effect that being with my friends always has, was it reality? Obviously I was not with my friends in the waking world. I mean, im not denying that the reality of the dream was completely internal. But what difference does that make to objective reality? It didn't PHYSICALLY happen, yet it DID happen, and it caused a real effect. Is it reality, when the end result is the same as it would have been if it had happened without, instead of within? Btw, my little dog is taking the whole thing much better than I am. The vet told me that would be true, but I didn't believe it.
[quote name='"tHe LoNLy StOnR"']Was the experience real to you? Yes. Was it based in reality? No.[/quote] So then, what you are saying is that if it's only real to me, then it's not reality? That because my experience was not experienced by any other living soul while it was being experienced by me, it was not reality? And as is inferred then by your logic that only things that are PERCEIVED by (how many people?) I assume at least two people, are in fact reality? Hmm....no. I don't believe it. If it has cause and effect like reality, and has a linear cascade of consequences like reality, then couldn't it be reality? It doesn't HAVE to be reality, but its possible that it could be. Isn't it?
What if this experience I had, at some later moment, has some kind of effect on someone else through some action of mine. Something like causing you to be able to respond to it. Does it become real then?
i think this has not much to do with inductive reasoning, because that is more so the idea that "the future will be like the past" I think this has to do more so with the nature of reality, if you received comfort in a dream, who is to say that it wasn't real if it had real effects. In the very nature of epistemology it is unknown whether or not we can ever know that we are not being deceived or dreaming. Descartes tried to solve this foundational lack of trust of sense experience with the cogito, i think therefore i am. Yet he had to rely on God to make his perception clear and distinct. I think that if you clearly and distinctly perceived the soothing effects of partying with your friends, who is to say you did not.
[quote name='"reggaemylitis"']i think this has not much to do with inductive reasoning, because that is more so the idea that "the future will be like the past"[/quote] I'm not really sure what you mean here? My op is not about inductive reasoning? Or is it the other questions I asked? [quote name='"reggaemylitis" In the very nature of epistemology it is unknown whether or not we can ever know that we are not being deceived or dreaming. Descartes tried to solve this foundational lack of trust of sense experience with the cogito, i think therefore i am. Yet he had to rely on God to make his perception clear and distinct. I think that if you clearly and distinctly perceived the soothing effects of partying with your friends, who is to say you did not.[/QUOTE'] Right. That is what I was saying in my second and third post. So, I agree. And you are right that it is about the nature of reality. [quote name='"reggaemylitis"'] I think this has to do more so with the nature of reality, if you received comfort in a dream, who is to say that it wasn't real if it had real effects.[/quote] What I'm really trying to get to in the op is whether the nature of reality can be explained through inductive reasoning. Not as an alternative to the posit of "I think therefore I am," but as further evidence.
You have to remember that we are talking about a dream here. Think of it this way: If I were to imagine seeing your head explode, would that mean your head really exploded? Or better yet, if you were a virgin, and you had sex in a dream, would you still be a virgin? /thread I think this discussion has more to do with reality testing than anything else.
Metaphysical and inductive skepticism are both alike in their ways of drawing conclusions from past experiences, but metaphysics seems like more of a stretch because it involves basing future events on past experiences in a mathematical-like manner. Its idea is rejected by some because even though the factors of time and space are held accountable, changes in such components could completely configure a presupposed event. No type of experience can become of nothing, but letting such experiences dictate how events will unfold is not precise. At least some set of laws is used to help formulate a logical conclusion as to why certain events take place.
[quote name='"tHe LoNLy StOnR"']You have to remember that we are talking about a dream here. Think of it this way: If I were to imagine seeing your head explode, would that mean your head really exploded? Or better yet, if you were a virgin, and you had sex in a dream, would you still be a virgin? /thread I think this discussion has more to do with reality testing than anything else.[/quote] The thing is, we are NOT talking about a dream. The dream is only the vehicle I am using to get at a deeper question. You should understand that a single run-on sentence that required little thought is not going to present a definitive answer to my question. Furthermore, I'm not so much looking for a definitive answer. And I'm fully aware that none of us could provide one anyway. I'm looking for thoughtful discussion, even debate, about whether inductive reasoning might indeed provide similar evidence of the nature of reality as, for instance does the wonderful example, "I think therefore, I am." "I think therefore I am." addresses the understanding that while we can not be sure of the nature of our reality, we can be sure that there IS a reality that we DO exist within. Or that does exist within us. I will use your second example above to ask YOU to think of it THIS way: Say that I had sex ONLY in my dreams while I was still a virgin. Say that in my dreams I became a master in the art of love making. And say that I was then a master lover the first time and every time thereafter. THEN, say that you became a master at love making but ONLY through many years of physical practice. Both examples result in a master lover. What, if anything would that say about the nature of reality? I have to sleep now. More later.
I'd say it was reality, because the fantasy is just the extension of reality, through the mind. And you did reach a goal through it, so, Fantasy's just an extension of reality. But the thing is fantasies are not real until you make them real. Of course according to what's practical... But if you're a virgin how could you understand the feeling of making love? Unless of course your dream was shared... But I get what you're saying man, it's like the matrix, he was programmed to know kung-fu, and when he applied it, he mastered it. But you won't for sure until you apply it though.
There's no such thing as reality, only our experience of it is real. So your experience of your friends in the dream is every bit a real and valid experience for you as any experience you might have in waking life. Its reality comes from how it makes you feel, what you might conclude from it, how it affects what happens next, not whether it originated outside you. In any case, as I see it, there is no outside of you anyway, as all experience happens internally, even when it obviously originates from external means, that someone else might have shared. Although, having said that, even if they do share it, they aren't really doing so, because even if you're with someone, you're only with your version of them anyway.
So what you're saying is that if you were to build trains in your dream, without having acquired any prior knowledge of how to build trains in your waking life, then you could transfer those dream skills into reality? Uhhm ... Not possible. As esseff said, the things in your dreams are simply your interpretation of those things. Those things could be vastly different in your waking life, and so, drawing any conclusion based on dream situations is nothing but mere fantasy. Let me make my final example before I quit this thread: What if I always fly in my dreams? Would that mean that I can fly irl?
[quote name='"AresKenux"'] I'd say it was reality, because the fantasy is just the extension of reality, through the mind. And you did reach a goal through it, so, Fantasy's just an extension of reality. But the thing is fantasies are not real until you make them real. Of course according to what's practical... But if you're a virgin how could you understand the feeling of making love? Unless of course your dream was shared... But I get what you're saying man, it's like the matrix, he was programmed to know kung-fu, and when he applied it, he mastered it. But you won't for sure until you apply it though.[/quote] ok, the only problem I have with the first two sentences is that I don't like your use of the word fantasy. But i'm pretty sure thats a semantics issue. As for your question at the end, I would posit that perhaps the physical sensations could have been passed through genetic memory. In psychology is believed that vague fears are passed through genetic memory, but Jung, posited that we could possibly pass more detailed racial memories. Who knows what might be locked into the subconscious? What do ya think?
[quote name='"esseff"']There's no such thing as reality, only our experience of it is real. So your experience of your friends in the dream is every bit a real and valid experience for you as any experience you might have in waking life. Its reality comes from how it makes you feel, what you might conclude from it, how it affects what happens next, not whether it originated outside you. In any case, as I see it, there is no outside of you anyway, as all experience happens internally, even when it obviously originates from external means, that someone else might have shared. Although, having said that, even if they do share it, they aren't really doing so, because even if you're with someone, you're only with your version of them anyway.[/quote] If reality does not exist, then how could we have personal experience of it? Are you talking about solipsism. Is it Buddhism? Please explain.
[quote name='"tHe LoNLy StOnR"']So what you're saying is that if you were to build trains in your dream, without having acquired any prior knowledge of how to build trains in your waking life, then you could transfer those dream skills into reality? Uhhm ... Not possible. As esseff said, the things in your dreams are simply your interpretation of those things. Those things could be vastly different in your waking life, and so, drawing any conclusion based on dream situations is nothing but mere fantasy. Let me make my final example before I quit this thread: What if I always fly in my dreams? Would that mean that I can fly irl?[/quote] Well, I did ask for your opinion. It seems to me though, that you are very quick to claim knowledge of what is impossible. It further seems to me, that in a world where we disprove the impossible so frequently with our science, we would be hesitant to express a certain knowledge that a particular thing is impossible. Anyway, as you scurry your way out of this thread, you can go knowing that, yes, I am claiming that it could be possible to build a train after dreaming about it. I have done a little research into what are now known as autistic savants. They are people who do things exactly like my example. There is one, for instance, who can see a city from a helicopter one time then draw a perfect image of that city. There is another who was blind, couldn't speak, couldn't walk till he was 15 years old. He woke his mother one night in the middle of the night by playing Tchaikovsky, on a piano, after having never played the piano before. Indeed, he had heard the Tchaikovsky, piece earlier that evening. Point being: If he had dreamed that Tchaikovsky, piece instead of hearing it, he could have then woken up and played it on the piano. And, if the other guy had seen the image of a city in a dream, he could then have drawn the image. As for your last example: No, its not likely that anyone is going to fly by their own power after having dreamed it. You're not likely to turn a guitar into a piano by any kind of physics either. Building trains, however, is already known not to be impossible.
Look savantism is nothing like dreaming. Those examples were of people "witnessing" things in the physical world and then later reproducing those things based on a memory anomaly. Their brains are wired differently and as such they may display splinter skills. Now I'm not certain about that kid that suddenly playing piano. Care about sharing ur sources for that claim? I don't know how you're even going to argue that seeing a place in a dream would be like actually being in that place. That makes no sense. How can you see something that you've never seen? Dreams aren't even consistent ... You know forget it. You're right. I'm just tired of arguing. If I could at least take one cognizant fact from this thread, I would want it to be that savant piano playing kid, so can you supply sources?
[quote name='"tHe LoNLy StOnR"']Look savantism is nothing like dreaming. Those examples were of people "witnessing" things in the physical world and then later reproducing those things based on a memory anomaly. Their brains are wired differently and as such they may display splinter skills. Now I'm not certain about that kid that suddenly playing piano. Care about sharing ur sources for that claim? I don't know how you're even going to argue that seeing a place in a dream would be like actually being in that place. That makes no sense. How can you see something that you've never seen? Dreams aren't even consistent ... You know forget it. You're right. I'm just tired of arguing. If I could at least take one cognizant fact from this thread, I would want it to be that savant piano playing kid, so can you supply sources?[/quote] This is why you think we are arguing. Because we ARE. You're entire form of argument is just that. Argument. It's not debate. You are only claiming the IMPOSSIBILITIES. The rest of us are discussing the POSSIBILITIES. You are not offering anything of your own, you are only arguing AGAINST mine. Don't get me wrong. I don't EXPECT everyone, or even anyone to agree with my ideas. If you choose to debate from the side of disbelief, then fine. I can handle that. But I AM asking you take more than the two seconds it takes to say something is impossible. I AM asking you to do more than spit out some regurgitated piece of half digested dogshi.....I mean dogma. If you wiki the definition of genetic memory you will find this: "In psychology, genetic memory is a memory present at birth that exists IN THE ABSENCE of sensory experience, and is incorporated into the genome over long spans of time.[1] It is based on the idea that common experiences of a species become incorporated into its genetic code." If you read a little further you will see a definition of Jung's, theory of racial memory, which is about an even more detailed type of genetic memory. These are ideas that we do not KNOW for a certainty are real. But IF they do in fact exist in reality,THEN their logic suggests that it is indeed POSSIBLE to see something in a dream that one has never seen in reality. It may not be probable. If it happens at all, it may not happen frequently. If it happens frequently, and IF we have a real time shared consciousness, THEN, we may not even know it ever happened. It might become reality for all of us at the same time and seem like it's always been that way. (something close to what I think esseff is hinting at.) Before you go screaming IMPOSSIBLE, you might want to bone up on your quantum physics. Cause thats where i'm going next. I Hope to see you there. Sorry, no. I do not have a citation for the examples I used. It was not the example that was important. It was the logic suggested in the example that was important. If you are truely interested in autistic savants, then I invite you to not take my word for it. Look it up. Unless I was lying, or just plain wrong (And.......you know.........i'm not. (Thanx Monk.)) you will find other examples that are of the same distinction. YOU can figure out if I was wrong faster than I could find that particular story and cite it for you.
So you just pulled examples out of thin air to prove a point? That says a lot. The reason I questioned you on that is because you said that savant spontaneously learned to play piano - something which savants aren't known to do.
[quote name='"tHe LoNLy StOnR"']So you just pulled examples out of thin air to prove a point? That says a lot. The reason I questioned you on that is because you said that savant spontaneously learned to play piano - something which savants aren't known to do.[/quote] Lol. Yeah ok dude. I invite you to scurry on out now. Enjoy.