What is the issue with continuously thinking and talking to ourselves while walking? I do this all the time, and I get many good ideas from it.
I do not think dreams can be described as unreal. Perhaps we can describe them as an intermediate reality, but they are definitely part of reality. At least in this blog, something is defined as real if it exists, so anything that exists is, by definition, real. A dream is therefore real, but it is not ultimate reality, because you can wake up from it. It is still part of ultimate reality.
Why would something that changes not be real? If reality is defined as everything that exists, then anything that exists—including change—is part of reality. Change clearly exists; it is simply an aspect of reality.
I think that if there were a goal—and I do not think there is one, but rather a process—it would be to realize that we can never reach any conclusion with absolute certainty.
Ultimate reality means the one and only reality from which any other possible intermediate reality emerges. For example, you could argue that a dream is an intermediate reality and not ultimate reality.
A dream by definition is not reality and cant be reality. A dream is a succession of images, dynamic scenes and situations, ideas, emotions, and sensations that usually occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep.
You can only dream about concepts of reality, but it will never be reality itself.
Our mind cant grasp reality and cannot create reality. Therefor is it impossible for a dream to be reality. It can only think and understand and create concepts (maps) of reality.
A dream is part of reality, but it is not ultimate reality because you can wake up from it into a lower layer of reality. The issue is that even if you were in ultimate reality—somewhere from which there is no possibility of waking up—you could not know that for sure. You could always potentially wake up and realize that what you thought was ultimate reality was not.
You have no way of knowing whether what you are experiencing right now is ultimate reality or some intermediate reality, like a dream.
But have you ever considered that both models (determinism and free will) are just wrong?
Could you accept that science has disproven both theories? Or would you come with your flawed logic that you cannot know and trust science because we dont know reality.
Because that logic is wrong. Even if we dont en can never understand reality and can never state what it is. We CAN however state what it is NOT.
All models are wrong because they always oversimplify reality; the question is how useful they are and how broadly they can be applied. A good model is both useful and broadly applicable.
A statement about what reality is not is still a statement, and there is no way to prove or demonstrate it with 100 percent certainty.
Predictions are never perfect. For example, Newtonian physics is accurate, but only within a certain range; the model is limited and not completely accurate because it ignores certain parameters.
I believe they are useful ways to navigate reality until a better model is found. That is how models work: you use them until you find a better one. In general, it is better to have a mediocre model than no model at all.
Have you ever considered that this believe that these models are a useful way to navigate reality are actually wrong and the are not useful to navigate reality better than without them?
You yourself argue that determinism leads to fatalism and free will leads to a distorted view of how we work in this reality. Which will lead to bad decision making and to bad ways we develop our society. The model will actually keep you away from making the best decision and building the best society as a whole.
You cannot navigate reality without models; the lowest common denominator of a model is a pattern. Without patterns, everything would be pure chaos to you. You need to identify at least some patterns, even if they are inaccurate, in order to make decisions.
A model does not have to be perfect. The key is to understand that it is limited: it is useful within a certain context, but it is not an accurate representation of reality. If you keep in mind that the model is probably wrong, you can still use it with a degree of skepticism, which prevents you from relying on it too much.
So how do you make a better decision based on a model which you know is (probably) wrong, without knowing why it's wrong? How does wrong information about reality help you make better decisions.
There are still only two live options on the table: matter-primary or consciousness-primary.
“Dream-like” or “mentally created” is just a label for the consciousness-primary option.
Therefore, the skeptical move (“you might be dreaming”) is valid only against absolute certainty claims that assume or assert the matter-primary view as proven.
You cannot use it to undermine ordinary empirical facts (black swans, etc.), but you can use it against dogmatic certainty that “of course reality is just physical stuff, end of story.”
That’s the narrow but real space where the dream argument still has force.
-> Maybey interesting to know that i believe in the fact that our reality is dreamlike with accordance of the assumptions made in the conversation with Grok. Which implies it only means that there is a universal consciousness which was never produced. (by matter and/or brain)
Grok actually gave me a harder time than claud and more interesting conversation about this subject. But in the end it states;
Yes, exactly.
The dream hypothesis (or the idealist “cosmic consciousness” view) cannot validly counter your statement with “but you might be dreaming, so you can’t know.”
Why the counter fails
Your statement is an empirical claim made inside the experienced reality:
“Not all swans are white, because black swans have been observed.”
This is a statement about what appears in our shared, consistent experience. Whether this whole reality is:
generated by matter (physicalism), or
generated by universal consciousness (“dream-like”),
the observation still holds inside the system.
You (or reliable sources) have seen black swans.
Multiple people have photographed them, studied them, put them in museums, written scientific papers about them.
The phenomenon is intersubjective and repeatable.
The dream/idealist hypothesis only questions the ultimate ontological status of the entire show (is it “really” matter, or is it mind-generated?). It does not undermine ordinary empirical knowledge within the experienced world.
Classic distinction in philosophy
Radical skepticism (strong dream argument): You cannot have 100% metaphysical certainty that an external, mind-independent world exists.
Local / empirical knowledge: Inside whatever reality we are experiencing, we can still know many things with extremely high (even practical 100%) confidence.
Your swan example belongs firmly in the second category. Saying “but it might be a dream” here would be like a solipsist saying “I can’t know other people exist because they might be hallucinations” — it’s technically possible in the most extreme skepticism, but it doesn’t actually refute the practical, evidence-based claim.
Bottom line
You can (and should) make confident factual statements about this reality — black swans exist, water boils at ~100°C, gravity pulls, etc. — without the dream hypothesis undermining them.
The hypothesis only kicks in when someone claims absolute certainty about the fundamental nature of reality itself. For everything else, we operate inside the consistent world we actually experience, whether we ultimately call it “matter-based” or “consciousness-generated.”
So no — I cannot reasonably counter your black swan example with “but maybe you’re dreaming.” That would be misapplying the skeptical tool. The dream view is a metaphysical interpretation, not a universal acid that dissolves all knowledge.
The disproof could only exist within the dream, but that is not really the main point. The point is that you can make statements about an intermediate reality, but you cannot know whether that intermediate reality is ultimate reality, and therefore you can never make definitive statements about ultimate reality.
Why use these models (determinism and free will) when you have learned science has proven them leading to bad decisions. Why not rely on the unconscious models from which you know they have far superior information.
I think that, in general, people do not adopt specific models because they believe they lead to better outcomes, but because they believe they are true. For example, if you believe in God in the classical sense, and in the existence of heaven and hell, you will act accordingly, regardless of whether this leads to what someone might call bad decisions.
It is also not clear what you define as a bad decision. Let’s say you believe that by giving all your money to the church and living in extreme poverty, you will go to heaven. Is that a bad decision? If heaven is not real, then it is a bad decision, but if it is real, then it is probably a very good one. So what is a bad decision, in practice? Something that leads to a bad outcome—but over what timeframe, and based on what assumptions?
If you take a purely hedonistic approach, then yes, believing in heaven and hell could be seen as a bad idea, and you should simply try to maximize pleasure while you are alive. But what if someone believes otherwise? And what if heaven and hell are actually true?
Regarding free will, I think you cannot help but feel that you have it, so in practice you will act as if you do. If you try to force yourself to believe that there is no free will, it is not clear what would happen—perhaps you would just sit on your couch and do nothing, which does not make sense, as explained in the chapter.
Before the fact, you feel as if you have free will; after the fact, it can feel as if everything was determined. It does not fully make sense, but that is how it appears. The fact that it does not make sense probably just means that the model is incomplete—we simply have a limited understanding of reality.
Most of us are continously thinking(talking to ourselves etc), while waking.
During sleep this thinking appears as dreams(In deep sleep there is no thinking/dreaming).
The dreams appear real till they last, as we don't have anything "real" to compare against during sleep.
On waking up the reality of dreams is exposed as we have "real world" to compare against.
What is the issue with continuously thinking and talking to ourselves while walking? I do this all the time, and I get many good ideas from it.
I do not think dreams can be described as unreal. Perhaps we can describe them as an intermediate reality, but they are definitely part of reality. At least in this blog, something is defined as real if it exists, so anything that exists is, by definition, real. A dream is therefore real, but it is not ultimate reality, because you can wake up from it. It is still part of ultimate reality.
In Indian philosophy, there is distinction between real and unreal. Unreal is transient, whereas real is unchanging and eternal.
Why would something that changes not be real? If reality is defined as everything that exists, then anything that exists—including change—is part of reality. Change clearly exists; it is simply an aspect of reality.
How can you ground yourself on something transient. Check my blog to get where I am coming from.
https://www.codeandcontext.dev/blog/advaita-for-ai-practitioners
Why do you have to ground yourself?
My assumption is that the purpose of this discussion is to reach some conclusion, gain some understanding. I used the term "grounding" for the same.
I think that if there were a goal—and I do not think there is one, but rather a process—it would be to realize that we can never reach any conclusion with absolute certainty.
I was assuming we are here to gainsome understanding. But looks like it is endless talk.
I have coined a term for this, "intellectual m@sterb@tion"
Why do you keep using the term "Ultimate reality" ? Is there another reality than reality which you call ultimate reality?
Isn't your whole point there can't be an alternative reality??
Ultimate reality means the one and only reality from which any other possible intermediate reality emerges. For example, you could argue that a dream is an intermediate reality and not ultimate reality.
A dream by definition is not reality and cant be reality. A dream is a succession of images, dynamic scenes and situations, ideas, emotions, and sensations that usually occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep.
You can only dream about concepts of reality, but it will never be reality itself.
Our mind cant grasp reality and cannot create reality. Therefor is it impossible for a dream to be reality. It can only think and understand and create concepts (maps) of reality.
A dream is part of reality, but it is not ultimate reality because you can wake up from it into a lower layer of reality. The issue is that even if you were in ultimate reality—somewhere from which there is no possibility of waking up—you could not know that for sure. You could always potentially wake up and realize that what you thought was ultimate reality was not.
You have no way of knowing whether what you are experiencing right now is ultimate reality or some intermediate reality, like a dream.
What would be the point of doing that?
But have you ever considered that both models (determinism and free will) are just wrong?
Could you accept that science has disproven both theories? Or would you come with your flawed logic that you cannot know and trust science because we dont know reality.
Because that logic is wrong. Even if we dont en can never understand reality and can never state what it is. We CAN however state what it is NOT.
All models are wrong because they always oversimplify reality; the question is how useful they are and how broadly they can be applied. A good model is both useful and broadly applicable.
A statement about what reality is not is still a statement, and there is no way to prove or demonstrate it with 100 percent certainty.
A models goal is to predict outcomes. If it predict outcomes correctly the model is not wrong even if it oversimplifies reality.
Predictions are never perfect. For example, Newtonian physics is accurate, but only within a certain range; the model is limited and not completely accurate because it ignores certain parameters.
So you agree??? Assuming you understand you're not contradicting my statement?
But have you ever considered that both models (determinism and free will) are not useful and not broadly applicable?
I believe they are useful ways to navigate reality until a better model is found. That is how models work: you use them until you find a better one. In general, it is better to have a mediocre model than no model at all.
Have you ever considered that this believe that these models are a useful way to navigate reality are actually wrong and the are not useful to navigate reality better than without them?
You yourself argue that determinism leads to fatalism and free will leads to a distorted view of how we work in this reality. Which will lead to bad decision making and to bad ways we develop our society. The model will actually keep you away from making the best decision and building the best society as a whole.
You cannot navigate reality without models; the lowest common denominator of a model is a pattern. Without patterns, everything would be pure chaos to you. You need to identify at least some patterns, even if they are inaccurate, in order to make decisions.
A model does not have to be perfect. The key is to understand that it is limited: it is useful within a certain context, but it is not an accurate representation of reality. If you keep in mind that the model is probably wrong, you can still use it with a degree of skepticism, which prevents you from relying on it too much.
So how do you make a better decision based on a model which you know is (probably) wrong, without knowing why it's wrong? How does wrong information about reality help you make better decisions.
How does that work exactly?
"You cannot navigate reality without models;"
- For someone who claims you cannot make any statements about reality, you make a lot of statements about reality.
Were is this assumption based on?
You believe children learn to function into this world trough models?
You believe all people have clear idea's and/or knowledge about concepts like determinism and free will ?
You believe the actions you take are based on the patterns you have identified (wrong or right) ?
So many assumptions about reality.
How about instinct for example?
Science is full of examples how actions of humans and animals taken which simply cannot be explained by pattern recognition. Like lots!
Statement about reality: All swans are white
Disproof: Here is a swan that is black.
Statement about reality that is 100% certain: Not all swans are white.
What if you are just dreaming it?
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg_f9e8cf9e-a4cf-4a3c-9f10-620f21b08b8e
Bottom line
There are still only two live options on the table: matter-primary or consciousness-primary.
“Dream-like” or “mentally created” is just a label for the consciousness-primary option.
Therefore, the skeptical move (“you might be dreaming”) is valid only against absolute certainty claims that assume or assert the matter-primary view as proven.
You cannot use it to undermine ordinary empirical facts (black swans, etc.), but you can use it against dogmatic certainty that “of course reality is just physical stuff, end of story.”
That’s the narrow but real space where the dream argument still has force.
-> Maybey interesting to know that i believe in the fact that our reality is dreamlike with accordance of the assumptions made in the conversation with Grok. Which implies it only means that there is a universal consciousness which was never produced. (by matter and/or brain)
a conversation with Grok about your assumption. (which for some reason you never seem to question??)
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg_8c678f7d-3a46-4870-b3fa-73b787761924
Grok actually gave me a harder time than claud and more interesting conversation about this subject. But in the end it states;
Yes, exactly.
The dream hypothesis (or the idealist “cosmic consciousness” view) cannot validly counter your statement with “but you might be dreaming, so you can’t know.”
Why the counter fails
Your statement is an empirical claim made inside the experienced reality:
“Not all swans are white, because black swans have been observed.”
This is a statement about what appears in our shared, consistent experience. Whether this whole reality is:
generated by matter (physicalism), or
generated by universal consciousness (“dream-like”),
the observation still holds inside the system.
You (or reliable sources) have seen black swans.
Multiple people have photographed them, studied them, put them in museums, written scientific papers about them.
The phenomenon is intersubjective and repeatable.
The dream/idealist hypothesis only questions the ultimate ontological status of the entire show (is it “really” matter, or is it mind-generated?). It does not undermine ordinary empirical knowledge within the experienced world.
Classic distinction in philosophy
Radical skepticism (strong dream argument): You cannot have 100% metaphysical certainty that an external, mind-independent world exists.
Local / empirical knowledge: Inside whatever reality we are experiencing, we can still know many things with extremely high (even practical 100%) confidence.
Your swan example belongs firmly in the second category. Saying “but it might be a dream” here would be like a solipsist saying “I can’t know other people exist because they might be hallucinations” — it’s technically possible in the most extreme skepticism, but it doesn’t actually refute the practical, evidence-based claim.
Bottom line
You can (and should) make confident factual statements about this reality — black swans exist, water boils at ~100°C, gravity pulls, etc. — without the dream hypothesis undermining them.
The hypothesis only kicks in when someone claims absolute certainty about the fundamental nature of reality itself. For everything else, we operate inside the consistent world we actually experience, whether we ultimately call it “matter-based” or “consciousness-generated.”
So no — I cannot reasonably counter your black swan example with “but maybe you’re dreaming.” That would be misapplying the skeptical tool. The dream view is a metaphysical interpretation, not a universal acid that dissolves all knowledge.
dream what? i dont understand the remark.
The disproof could only exist within the dream, but that is not really the main point. The point is that you can make statements about an intermediate reality, but you cannot know whether that intermediate reality is ultimate reality, and therefore you can never make definitive statements about ultimate reality.
You still assume that our reality can be a dream.
https://claude.ai/share/a2635b74-64cd-40da-803a-729b0713e340
I have convinced claude that this cannot be true. I would love to hear your counterarguments.
To recap. You havent answered this question yet.
Why use these models (determinism and free will) when you have learned science has proven them leading to bad decisions. Why not rely on the unconscious models from which you know they have far superior information.
I think that, in general, people do not adopt specific models because they believe they lead to better outcomes, but because they believe they are true. For example, if you believe in God in the classical sense, and in the existence of heaven and hell, you will act accordingly, regardless of whether this leads to what someone might call bad decisions.
It is also not clear what you define as a bad decision. Let’s say you believe that by giving all your money to the church and living in extreme poverty, you will go to heaven. Is that a bad decision? If heaven is not real, then it is a bad decision, but if it is real, then it is probably a very good one. So what is a bad decision, in practice? Something that leads to a bad outcome—but over what timeframe, and based on what assumptions?
If you take a purely hedonistic approach, then yes, believing in heaven and hell could be seen as a bad idea, and you should simply try to maximize pleasure while you are alive. But what if someone believes otherwise? And what if heaven and hell are actually true?
Regarding free will, I think you cannot help but feel that you have it, so in practice you will act as if you do. If you try to force yourself to believe that there is no free will, it is not clear what would happen—perhaps you would just sit on your couch and do nothing, which does not make sense, as explained in the chapter.
Before the fact, you feel as if you have free will; after the fact, it can feel as if everything was determined. It does not fully make sense, but that is how it appears. The fact that it does not make sense probably just means that the model is incomplete—we simply have a limited understanding of reality.