Apparent Causality

[Jehu]

I have always wondered why it is that, in my dreams, I (the cognizant subject) always appear endowed with a physical embodiment (dream-persona), along with the five customary physical sense faculties, just as I have in the objective world – though not necessarily an exact duplicate. What’s more, my dream-body seems to have the capacity to interact with the objects inhabiting my dream-world, and thereby give rise to the same sorts of sensations as are supposed to be evoked by my objective body as it interacts with the objective world. The question that this raises is: what sort of causal law does the subconscious mind follow when it creates the virtual world of my dreams, so that when I stub my dream-toe on a dream-stone, the dream-stone will appear to hinder the movement of my dream-toe, and in doing so, give rise to the sensation of pain? As neither the dream-stone nor the dream-toe – given that they are purely imaginary entities, can be endowed with any sort of intrinsic property that might enable them to affect one another - as is generally held to be the case in the objective world, it follows that the real cause or causes of my dream-sensations must lie elsewhere.

It would appear to me that the true causes of my dream-sensations must lie in the two interdependent and complementary aspects of the sleeping mind: the one being that conscious aspect which appears to be embodied within the dream-persona (let us call this aspect the ‘operative cause’ of the dream) and which experiences the dream-world for its own unique perspective, and the other, the unconscious aspect which generates the dream-world (let us call this aspect the ‘constitutive cause’ of the dream), while being generally unaware that it is doing so. The question then is by what law or principle does the unconscious mind generate the apparent phenomena within our dreams, and how does it do so while looking for all the world as though it were the dream-objects themselves that were interacting.

Ideas?

[Sapius]

Hi Jehu, long time no hear…

I have always wondered why it is that, in my dreams, I (the cognizant subject) always appear endowed with a physical embodiment (dream-persona), along with the five customary physical sense faculties, just as I have in the objective world – though not necessarily an exact duplicate.

Well, I have wondered about that too, and additionally, I have noticed that it is not always a first person perspective endowed with a physical embodiment; sometimes I see myself waking around and tripping over a step from a third person perspective. Also, on average, forty percent of my dreams are in colour and others in shades of greys or blues or browns etc. How come my dream-eyes fail me sometimes and not on other occasions? While the objective world seems a bit more logically consistent? Did you ever wonder over those innumerable inconsistencies in a dream world?

What’s more, my dream-body seems to have the capacity to interact with the objects inhabiting my dream-world, and thereby give rise to the same sorts of sensations as are supposed to be evoked by my objective body as it interacts with the objective world.

You mean exactly the same sort of sensations? Well, not in my experience, since I do dream in a third person perspective and don’t “feel” the same when experiencing a first person dream, or when an objective perspective. And what about the inconsistent after effects of a dream? Why is my arm still not broken the next day or even in a dream the next night when I broke it in a dream a night earlier? Why that inconsistency? May be that is the difference between the dream and objective world, which you obviously do seem to recognize, but may be don't like living by it.

The question that this raises is: what sort of causal law does the subconscious mind follow when it creates the virtual world of my dreams,

Beats me! Perhaps the causal law is the same as the objective world, is that what you are getting at? But that too would not render dream world and objective world as one and the same, nor a conscious mind and a subconscious mind.

so that when I stub my dream-toe on a dream-stone, the dream-stone will appear to hinder the movement of my dream-toe, and in doing so, give rise to the sensation of pain?

No No No my friend… sensation of DREAM-pain! Please try to remain consistent, don’t mix up the dream world and the objective world in the same sentence at least. While you read this, you are NOT in a dream world; how do I know this? Take a wild guess; I’m sure you are intelligent enough to get it right the first time.

As neither the dream-stone nor the dream-toe – given that they are purely imaginary entities, can be endowed with any sort of intrinsic property that might enable them to affect one another - as is generally held to be the case in the objective world, it follows that the real cause or causes of my dream-sensations must lie elsewhere.

Perhaps the real cause may lie in the objective world? More over, my objective pain does not seem to vanish like the dream pain that does vanish the moment I wake up, nor do I encounter my dead grandmother in the objective world like I sometimes do in my dreams. I wonder why…

It would appear to me that the true causes of my dream-sensations must lie in the two interdependent and complementary aspects of the sleeping mind:

Well, absolutely all of exsitence appears to be ingrained with those TWO different but necessarily interdependent and complementary “aspects” (if you like to call it that) of existence, not only a ‘Sleeping’ mind, so no big deal… but what exactly is a sleeping mind I wonder? How exactly do you define “mind” to begin with, Jehu?

…… The question then is by what law or principle does the unconscious mind generate the apparent phenomena within our dreams, and how does it do so while looking for all the world as though it were the dream-objects themselves that were interacting.

Ideas?

Yes, I suggest you contact Dr. Ramachandran, but not before hearing many of his other talks on youtube and elsewhere. Sorry, that was the first talk google brought up, but I did hear him talk about consciouness and dreams in other clips. Good luck on your quest :)

BTW, you could also define the “unconsious mind” in your last qoute for the sake of clarity.

[Pincho Paxton]

The truth is that your real toe, and your dream toe both end up with a sensation in the brain area, so really it is apples, and apples. If anything, you should ask why does my real toe end up in my brain? No local pain information in the toe, so that's it really.

[Jehu]

Well, I have wondered about that too, and additionally, I have noticed that it is not always a first person perspective endowed with a physical embodiment; sometimes I see myself waking around and tripping over a step from a third person perspective. Also, on average, forty percent of my dreams are in colour and others in shades of greys or blues or browns etc. How come my dream-eyes fail me sometimes and not on other occasions? While the objective world seems a bit more logically consistent? Did you ever wonder over those innumerable inconsistencies in a dream world?

Indeed I have, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not the law or principle of apparent causation that is at fault, but the material upon which it operates – subjective knowledge.

Beats me! Perhaps the causal law is the same as the objective world, is that what you are getting at? But that too would not render dream world and objective world as one and the same, nor a conscious mind and a subconscious mind.

Even if it were precisely the same causal law at work, it would not necessarily follow that it would render the dream and objective worlds identical, for the one law may be operating on two different sorts of material. For example, the one law could be operating upon the subjective knowledge of the dreamer in the one case, and upon the objective knowledge that is embodied in the physical universe in the other. This might explain some of the inconsistencies in the dream world.

No No No my friend… sensation of DREAM-pain! Please try to remain consistent, don’t mix up the dream world and the objective world in the same sentence at least. While you read this, you are NOT in a dream world; how do I know this? Take a wild guess; I’m sure you are intelligent enough to get it right the first time.

I am not sure what you mean by the term “sensation of DREAM-pain”, is pain not itself a sensation? Is not a sensation a sensation, regardless of its origin and cause? I have a neighbour who lost his leg many years ago, but it still pains him, and although the doctors label it ‘phantom pain’, it is every bit as painful for him as an actual injury. Likewise, when I injure myself in a dream, it is painful, though the injury itself is not an actual one, and the pain subsides upon my awakening.

Perhaps the real cause may lie in the objective world? More over, my objective pain does not seem to vanish like the dream pain that does vanish the moment I wake up, nor do I encounter my dead grandmother in the objective world like I sometimes do in my dreams. I wonder why…

When, in a dream, I open a door, there is inevitably something on the other side, but how does this something come about? Surely its not there before I open the door, for where exactly would ‘there’ be. Clearly, that aspect of my mind which is conscious, and which experiences the dream, must relay information from the experience to that aspect of my mind which is not conscious, and which is origin and cause of the dream. In other words, the mind has split itself into two interdependent and complementary aspects: a subject and its objects. Then, according to some law or principle, it begins to operate upon that knowledge which is stored in the dreamer’s memory, and a storyline begins to unfold.

Well, absolutely all of exsitence appears to be ingrained with those TWO different but necessarily interdependent and complementary “aspects” (if you like to call it that) of existence, not only a ‘Sleeping’ mind, so no big deal… but what exactly is a sleeping mind I wonder? How exactly do you define “mind” to begin with, Jehu?

A mind is a thing, the essence of which is mentation, and which is embodied in perceptions, its efficiency lies in its ability to conceive, and its function is to give rise to consciousness.

BTW, you could also define the “unconsious mind” in your last qoute for the sake of clarity.

That portion of the mind that operates without our being conscious of its activity. For example, we may remember having had a particular dream, but we have no recollection of having generated the dream.

[Animus]

Read Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity by Thomas Metzinger.

He gives a pretty darn good functional analysis of consciousness including dream states. I think he suggests that bodily-self presence is functionally different from cognitive availability. Different forms of content are more or less available for cognition and are more or less transparent or opaque--meaning appearing as representations/simulations and not real-world. This is particularly evident in deviant conditions like schizophrenia where a person "hears voices" which are most likely their own depersonalized thoughts. He lays out a rich view of phenomenal landscape that makes thinking about these questions really easy.

A brain in a vat could have had your dream too. Your experiences of pain, proprioception, etc.. are always represented in your brain. When a brain is deprived of sensory stimuli it operates on its own internal stimuli. A person in a sensory deprivation chamber begins hallucinating in less than 24 hours. There is always bodily self representation, the quality of presence co-occurs with the phenomenal self model (PSM). A thing cannot be present in consciousness if there is no subject, but it can be available for bioregulatory function (heart-rate, etc..). With the instantiation of the PSM the system gains bodily-self-awareness.

So, it is possible to think that to a greater degree you were cognitively aware that you were in a dream because some aspects were phenomenally opaque and cognitively available, while other aspects of your dream were phenomenally transparent and/or cognitively unavailable for introspection.

[Sapius]

.
Thanks for the most educational response, Jehu, but since we’ve covered exactly the same ideas in your Fundamental unity of being thread, and you seem to have the very same arguments, I think it would be better for someone fresh to take up the discussion.

And thanks to you too Animus.

Where is…. Iolaus?

[divine focus]

Well, I have wondered about that too, and additionally, I have noticed that it is not always a first person perspective endowed with a physical embodiment; sometimes I see myself waking around and tripping over a step from a third person perspective. Also, on average, forty percent of my dreams are in colour and others in shades of greys or blues or browns etc. How come my dream-eyes fail me sometimes and not on other occasions? While the objective world seems a bit more logically consistent? Did you ever wonder over those innumerable inconsistencies in a dream world?

Indeed I have, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not the law or principle of apparent causation that is at fault, but the material upon which it operates – subjective knowledge.

It's all subjective knowledge, even from a third person perspective. The 'logical inconsistencies' of the dream world are due to a different logic than the everyday world operates under. Notice how you do not question the dream until you are awake. It makes perfect sense in the dream, unless you are lucidly dreaming. Even then, it makes perfect sense, although you may have questions. The everyday logic meets dream logic, and wonder/wondering is the result.

The dream world is the same as the everyday world in its consistency. The 'unconscious' or "constitutive cause" carries the blueprint of the worlds in the form of thought patterns or belief systems imposed upon it. The 'dream persona' simply has more latitude within its choice of thought patterns to create its reality. The everyday persona is much less conscious of the choice available, and this is on purpose. In reality (so to speak), the dream persona and everyday persona is the same.

The question that follows is, why the limitation? I would ask in response, "who chose it?"

[Jehu]

It's all subjective knowledge, even from a third person perspective. The 'logical inconsistencies' of the dream world are due to a different logic than the everyday world operates under. Notice how you do not question the dream until you are awake. It makes perfect sense in the dream, unless you are lucidly dreaming. Even then, it makes perfect sense, although you may have questions. The everyday logic meets dream logic, and wonder/wondering is the result.

For an objective idealist, such as myself, there is a marked difference between that knowledge which manifest itself in what we call the objective world (objective knowledge) and is accessible to all subjects, and that knowledge which is accessible to the individual subject alone (subjective knowledge). Objective knowledge is a fact, whereas subjective knowledge may or may not accord with the facts. Therefore, any given law that operates upon knowledge in order to generate new knowledge will produce different knowledge depending upon which type of knowledge it is operating upon; or as they say, if we put garbage in we will get garbage out.

[Pincho Paxton]

I just thought of a dream theory. Did you see Horizon about where is our concious? During the final test, a guy was linked to a computer, and his brain was scanned. Whilst he was being scanned he had to press either a left button, or a right button. It was shown on the computer that he was making his decision up to 6 minutes before pressing the button! So I apply a theory that a dream is the last 6 minutes of your thoughts.

[Animus]

I'm not familiar with the "Horizon" episode, but this same research (Libet?) was included in BBC's Brain Story with Susan Greenfield.

If its not Libet then it's probably Dylan-Haynes, Soon, et al. ( Full Paper: http://www.filesavr.com/jdh | Video Lecture by JDH: http://videolectures.net/eccs08_haynes_udofdithb/ ) which is more accurate and telling than Libet's.

Edit: Apparently filesavr.com deleted the file, I have it on my home PC I can upload/email whatever.

[Nad]

When you look into a distortion mirror at a carnival, it’s apparent that the image you see of yourself is much different from what you believe it to be in “reality.” A reflection of an object, even in a finely crafted mirror, is not an exact replica of the object, but may bear a close resemblance to the object.

It seems to me that dreams, like images in a mirror, are a reflection of our perceived reality, the brain’s way of sifting through our subjective experience and memory to produce a reflective world similar to the experiential world. Most dreams occur during our deepest stage of sleep, REM, and during that stage the brain is extremely active, nearly as active as when awake. While dreams can often be fantastic, illogical, and absurd, they normally relate closely to the familiar. The dream state, while often deviating from what we believe to be real, generally reflects our experience of “reality.” In other words, even when you’re falling off a cliff but never hit the ground, which is illogical, it’s still you that is falling, and you’re falling from a familiar object by the familiar concept of gravity.

I never experience in a dream state something that is a completely foreign or unexperienced construct. It’s always a reflection of my awake state.

Nad

[Animus]

I don't know about dreams, but there are some bizarre waking states like Cotard's syndrome in which a patient might be expected to claim "I am dead" or "I don't exist" or "It (themself) is just a useless piece of trash, an empty shell that should be discarded.". There are various degrees of alienation/ownership across mental space. e.g. depersonalization syndrome, schizophrenia, etc..

[Robert]

I just thought of a dream theory. Did you see Horizon about where is our concious? During the final test, a guy was linked to a computer, and his brain was scanned. Whilst he was being scanned he had to press either a left button, or a right button. It was shown on the computer that he was making his decision up to 6 minutes before pressing the button! So I apply a theory that a dream is the last 6 minutes of your thoughts.

It was 6 seconds, not 6 minutes.

[divine focus]

It's all subjective knowledge, even from a third person perspective. The 'logical inconsistencies' of the dream world are due to a different logic than the everyday world operates under. Notice how you do not question the dream until you are awake. It makes perfect sense in the dream, unless you are lucidly dreaming. Even then, it makes perfect sense, although you may have questions. The everyday logic meets dream logic, and wonder/wondering is the result.

For an objective idealist, such as myself, there is a marked difference between that knowledge which manifest itself in what we call the objective world (objective knowledge) and is accessible to all subjects, and that knowledge which is accessible to the individual subject alone (subjective knowledge). Objective knowledge is a fact, whereas subjective knowledge may or may not accord with the facts.

"Facts" are simply agreed-upon blueprints. We all create our everyday world together, and so there are much more similarities between our realities (not exact, though). Our dream worlds are much more independent.

[Jehu]

"Facts" are simply agreed-upon blueprints. We all create our everyday world together, and so there are much more similarities between our realities (not exact, though). Our dream worlds are much more independent.

If there were no knowledge that was independent of the individual subject (i.e., objective), then there would be no way in which two people might come together at an appointed time and place. Now, I would agree that each subject alters the information taken in by their objective senses, by way of subjective interpretation, but this do not preclude there being a body of objective knowledge (facts) that is the shared experiential domain of all sentient subjects.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's the process of dreaming and there's the process of constructing the memory of what you just dreamed, or last night. During dream recall a lot of subconscious processing precedes it to weave a story of some kind, to create comprehension out of what's near to chaos, the leftover crumbs.

Derren Brown has an episode in his Messiah program where he reads many details of dreams people had last nights. Important part of his trick is influencing the recall on the spot combined with some leaning on people, cold reading and educated guesswork.

There's similarity with our experiencing during the day. It's not about what you see, it's about what you think you saw. Magicians and con artists know exactly how to deal between that space.

As for the question about the difference between being awake and asleep. Since we are constructing memories of both, my take on it would be that consistency and relationship are the most important factors. Without it, a dream memory would disintegrate fairly quickly, as they seem to do during the morning, sometimes "before ones eyes". A dream is remembered more clearly the more relation is has with other memories, being dream memories or daytime ones.

This would also explain why the most powerful dreams I had, the ones that appeared to have the most relevance to who I was and what I was doing in life seemed so real, in cases even more real actually than memories of any "objective reality". Those dreams still stand out in the memory of my life.

In other words reality is created by connection, consistency and maybe one could say: truth. The rest we might just as well call dream for all intent and purposes.

[divine focus]

If there were no knowledge that was independent of the individual subject (i.e., objective), then there would be no way in which two people might come together at an appointed time and place. Now, I would agree that each subject alters the information taken in by their objective senses, by way of subjective interpretation, but this do not preclude there being a body of objective knowledge (facts) that is the shared experiential domain of all sentient subjects.

"Shared experiential domain" doesn't mean "independent of the individual subject." Any knowledge "independent" of a subject would be unknowable by that subject. All "objective" really means is "unknown by subject," or "outside of subject's knowledge." The process of learning is turning the 'objective" into "subjective." (Growth)

As the subject never ends, it is possible to live with no "objective." The subject experiences itself, and learns.

[Jehu]

"Shared experiential domain" doesn't mean "independent of the individual subject." Any knowledge "independent" of a subject would be unknowable by that subject. All "objective" really means is "unknown by subject," or "outside of subject's knowledge." The process of learning is turning the 'objective" into "subjective." (Growth)

While it is true that knowledge cannot exist without a subject (i.e., a knower), objective knowledge partakes of an existence that is independent of any individual or particular subject. Subjective knowledge, though it is embodied in the objective world (e.g., within the neural networks of the brain), is only accessible to the individual, and is lost upon the death of that individual.

As the subject never ends, it is possible to live with no "objective." The subject experiences itself, and learns.

Just as there can be no knowledge that is independent of a knower (subject), there can be no subject without at least one object. To live is to be caught up in the ebb and flow of the objective world, and while the objective world is not real, it is an essential aspect of being.

[divine focus]

"Shared experiential domain" doesn't mean "independent of the individual subject." Any knowledge "independent" of a subject would be unknowable by that subject. All "objective" really means is "unknown by subject," or "outside of subject's knowledge." The process of learning is turning the 'objective" into "subjective." (Growth)

While it is true that knowledge cannot exist without a subject (i.e., a knower), objective knowledge partakes of an existence that is independent of any individual or particular subject. Subjective knowledge, though it is embodied in the objective world (e.g., within the neural networks of the brain), is only accessible to the individual, and is lost upon the death of that individual.

Objective knowledge is embodied in the objective world. Upon death, it is 'lost', yes. What remains is instinctual wisdom.

As the subject never ends, it is possible to live with no "objective." The subject experiences itself, and learns.

Just as there can be no knowledge that is independent of a knower (subject), there can be no subject without at least one object. To live is to be caught up in the ebb and flow of the objective world, and while the objective world is not real, it is an essential aspect of being.

The subject creates the objective world. The creation is an experience of itself. Through the creation (experience), it becomes more and may create (experience) more.

[Jehu]

Objective knowledge is embodied in the objective world. Upon death, it is 'lost', yes. What remains is instinctual wisdom.

There is nothing that is lost in the objective world, there is only transformation. That its to say, the corpus of objective knowledge evolves in accordance with an inviolable law, and its information content is never lost.

The subject creates the objective world. The creation is an experience of itself. Through the creation (experience), it becomes more and may create (experience) more.

I would say that the subject, which is itself a creation, merely experiences the objective world, just as our dream-persona experiences its dream-world; but just as the dream-persona does not create its dream-world, neither does the sentient subject create its objective world.

[divine focus]

Objective knowledge is embodied in the objective world. Upon death, it is 'lost', yes. What remains is instinctual wisdom.

There is nothing that is lost in the objective world, there is only transformation. That its to say, the corpus of objective knowledge evolves in accordance with an inviolable law, and its information content is never lost.

Maybe your "objective" is my "subjective?" But you say the neural network is objective, and is lost at death. Is the "corpus of objective knowledge" the objective world?

Whatever..

The subject creates the objective world. The creation is an experience of itself. Through the creation (experience), it becomes more and may create (experience) more.

I would say that the subject, which is itself a creation, merely experiences the objective world, just as our dream-persona experiences its dream-world; but just as the dream-persona does not create its dream-world, neither does the sentient subject create its objective world.

The subject is a creation of what? I would say the 'persona' is not the subject, but is.

[Jehu]

Maybe your "objective" is my "subjective?" But you say the neural network is objective, and is lost at death. Is the "corpus of objective knowledge" the objective world?

Yes, the ‘objective world’ is a virtual experiential continuum wherein knowledge evolves in accordance with a universal and inviolable law, and wherein nothing remains the same for more than a single instant.

The subject is a creation of what? I would say the 'persona' is not the subject, but is.

Yes, the true subject is real and uncreated, whereas the apparent subject (individual ego-personality) is no more real that any other thing.

[Animus]

Irrespective of physical matter, causation holds.

I don't see why "matter" is such a contentious issue. Matter is simply observed energy. Its a construction of the brain. All is causally dispersed or integrated energy. What is of real importance is the causal integration of the brain.

Take a simple neural network for starters. Working with a simplified model of a neuron we can arrange a simple artificial neural network for illustration. The input layer in this model represents the sensory cells, such as retinal ganglion cells. Each cell can act as a single pixel on a visual grid, example. The cells activate according to their stimuli, this causes the firing of the synapse to the hidden layer cell. Each synapse has a weight value which is frequently adjusted by the system itself in training. Each cell also has a threshold value which in this case relates to intensity of light stimulus on the RGCs. The activity through the input, hidden and output layers determines what the stimulus is, in this case a letter or number, or a face. The representations of the system are not specific numbers or letters, they are gestalt representations. They look something like this

This can be abstracted out and improved upon to achieve different results. These systems are modeled after the brain. For example Jeff Hawkins (Palm Pilot) founded the Redwood Center For Neuroscience in order to study neural networks then founded Numenta and introduced Hierarchical Temporal Memory. HTM may eventually be used to achieve a number of different tasks that conventional computers cannot do but humans can. The most obvious is a diagnostician.

In a real brain there are about 100 to 400 billion cells and 100 trillion synapses all handling different hierarchical levels of description. Differentiating inputs in recognizable things and associating those things. All this differentiated activity is fed into different parts of the brain. The neural correlates of consciousness are illusory, but experimentally conscious activity can be inhibited or excited by electrical stimulation to specific regions. Quite a lot is already understood about the neural correlates of differentiation. The riddle for neuroscientists is; How does all of this get integrated into the appearance of a conscious entity. There have been plenty of "materialist" explanations as regards fields or oscillatory binding, as both appear to be crucial to consciousness, but these I think are inadequate. It is the integration of information post-differentiation which must be observed. A supervening field of electrons is too chaotic. There was a theory called CEMI which postulated that these floating electrons could reopen gap-junctions. But the issue here is that it can only re-open closing gap junctions and can't open one that is fully closed. Never-the-less integration cannot be explained by a chaotic field. We need something causally integrative not chaotic. There are structures like the corticothalamic that appear to suit what is needed. We'll know more later, point is that in terms of the neural correlates of consciousness its pretty clear what the next step is.