Ed asked:

Is reality a dream?

If not, what differentiates the 'real world' from the 'dream world'?

If so, Life is wrapped in a dream. If that is true, then wouldn't death be wrapped in a dream? Is death
just one big dream?

Hazeland SFBasked:

What is reality?

and Aaron asked:

What is reality? Could we simply be pawns in a child's computer game?

============

The key to the answer is the recognition that the concepts "reality" and "dream [world]" refer to two
distinctly different modes of experience. By the very nature of these two concepts, they cannot refer
to the same thing. Therefore, the simple answer is "No!". Reality cannot be a dream without seriously
abusing the meaning of the two words. Poets, of course, are granted license to abuse the language
for artistic purposes. But philosophers must take greater care.

We each experience "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" in two distinctly different modes.
When experiencing life in one mode, we notice that things perceived are constant, persistent,
consistent, and coherent. When experiencing life in the other mode, we notice that things perceived
are dramatically less constant in form and character, often transient in existence, frequently mutually
inconsistent both from thing to thing and across time, and far more frequently quite incoherent. One
mode of experience draws the focus of our attention, is amenable to inquiry, and responsive to our
reactions. The other mode of experience often drifts uncontrollably past our attention, is rarely subject
to inquiry, and is often unresponsive to our reactions. On any scale of measure, the difference
between the two modes of experience is dramatic and unmistakable whenever noticed. One of these
modes of experience we call the "real word", the other we call the "dream world" (or hallucinations, or
illusions).

Most of us spend most of our time experiencing life in the "real world" mode. Episodes spent in the
"dream world", while they may seem quite real at the time, always end with a transition back to the
"real world" mode of experience. Some people, for reasons as diverse as drugs to organic brain
damage, spend more of their time in the "dream world". Some people, again for diverse reasons, lose
the ability to notice the distinctly different character of two modes of experience, and are unable to
distinguish their "real" experiences from their "dream" experiences.

The bottom line is that life is not a dream. The "real world", unlike the "dream world" possesses an
unmistakably greater degree of constancy, consistency, and coherence. In the real world, elephants
are huge, grey and don't fly. That remains true across time, and is consistent with all other information
we have about the real world mode of experience. In the dream world, pink elephants can buzz
around your head, and turn into green mice stomping on the roof of your house. The fact that
sometimes a dream appears so real you can't tell, does not alter the fact that you always wake up.

Stuart Burns

We cannot waken up from reality, therefore it is not a dream. However, we can waken up to reality
from a dream. I think I understand where you are coming from, and it is not an unusual question you
have asked. Fundamentally, you are asking; What is reality? the blunt answer is, I don't know!!
Further, I have not yet come across anyone who does. However, there are several theories to choose
from, posited by philosophy, science and religion. Most of these theories are backed by strong logical
arguments, although some appear more feasible than others. There is little doubt that we all entertain
the notion of a fundamental reality, and most of the world's human population take it for granted that
there are things that are real and things that are unreal.

Probably most people who care to give the problem some consideration are willing to accept the
materialist views of science, i.e. the universe is in reality solid, size, weight and shape are
measurements of a solid reality. Philosophers can be divided broadly into 'materialists' and 'idealists.'
Materialists basically hold views sympathetic to science. Reality for idealists is somehow linked to
'mind,' we live in an inner 'subjective' world rather than an outer' objective' world. However, there are
several variations within both the notion of materialism and the notion of idealism; hence, we are
presented with a choice of several 'world views.' Added to all this is the notion of 'Dualism,' which
accepts that the world is both mind stuff and matter stuff. In dualism there is, in some cases, a link
with religious views, where mind and body are interpreted as 'soul' and body. We have a real soul in a
real body.

Religion in general is perhaps the thinking body least concerned with seeking out reality. Religion, in
all its variations, remains spiritual, and establishes reality through 'faith.' God is real and God created
a real universe. There is an undeniable pragmatism about the overall religious view, 'what is 'is,' do
not question reality, trust in God, or the powers that be, accept the reality we are aware of and get on
with living the good life.'

To briefly consider dreams. Probably most people will accept that dreams are real, though the content
may be fictitious. The assertion, "I had a dream last night," is true to me and probably can be
accepted as true by the person I am addressing, based on his/her own experience with dreams. We,
therefore, both understand what is meant by dreaming, and are each well aware of the of the
difference between dreaming and its association with sleep, and being consciously awake. The
implication in your question suggests a fallacy commonly expressed by those who wish to make a
comparison between a solid, material world and the idealist world of mind concepts. It is not the case
that if reality is not fundamentally material, then it is somehow a dream world in the mind. The idealist
world is a concept of a real world, but differently constructed to the notions of scientists and
materialists in general. If our world is an idealist world, then it is a real world, in which we are capable
of recognising the difference between being awake and dreaming.

I am no expert on death, for, so far as I know, I have not yet experienced it. Neither have I met
anyone to my knowledge who has returned from the dead. However, what little I do know about death
indicates that it is a reality and far from being a dream. In fact it is the only outcome of life that we can
safely predict. Having said all this, I do keep an open mind on the subject, my years of interest in
psychic phenomena keeps me alert to possibilities.

Not wishing to appear flippant, because your question is a very serious one, I would say that reality is
what each individual chooses to believe, some explanations seem more acceptable than others, and
until philosophy, science or religion produces the real answer, if they ever do, then we will have to go
along with the choices open to us. But there is no denying the fact that one of the present theories
just may be true, it is a matter of proof.

John Brandon

I think you're confusing something really basic here. Death is not a state of anything or anyone: it is
the absence of existence, the non-being in or of any state. You'll have to think about this in the
context of language, which treats 'Death' as though it were the opposite of something existent. But of
course it's not. Language used in such a way is a means for us to bring to apprehension a state that
exists (or which we presume to exist) and then to identify linguistically a non-state.

Perhaps the simplest way to explain this is as follows: if you and I were stranded in the middle of the
Sahara on a hot day, and you say: 'I'm thirsty', I might reply 'there's no water here'. The important
language element in this sentence of mine is not 'water' but 'here'. It implies that water is known to
exist; it just happens not to be available where we are situated. So I'm not making an existential
statement about water or non-water. Whereas, if in the same situation you are on your last gasp,
about to expire, then I might be in the humanly very distressing situation of having to understand that,
at present, you are, but in a few moment, you may no longer be. Then it is appropriate for me to
report, 'this man was alive and now he's dead,' to identify a state of being which I knew you to inhabit
at some temporal bracket in history. But to extend this kind of articulation to states which are not,
never have been and therefore never will be 'dead', is strictly speaking just a game, the game of
language (cf. Wittgenstein). It does not refer to anything 'real', it just refers back to us, and that
includes to a large extent not just our understanding but our wishes and beliefs.

I expect that from this answer you will readily deduce that your question about dreams is a non-issue
for the same language-dependent reasons. Reality is distinctly of the body: it is therefore experienced
by every organism in its struggle to live and survive and reproduce. The only organism to which this is
a 'problem' is the mind-endowed creature called homo sapiens,whose state-of-being is among many
other qualities identifiable by his ability to note a difference between mental and physical features of
this reality. We then go ahead from this fairly innocuous problem and hang enormous weights of
speculative thinking on it, of which a great deal is again just part of the game of language.

To put this into a neat capsule for you: we tend to lump the concepts 'mental', 'psychological',
'spiritual', 'soul' and so on into a single basket, as if somehow they were all the same, i.e. parts of a
dimension divorced from 'reality', which is then opposed to it as the 'hard stuff'. But just as a rock
differs in significant features from a microbe, so 'mental' and 'spiritual' are different categories. What
we refer to as 'mental' are states-of-reality which apply to animals as well as us (animals dream!) and
are simply the neurophysiological responses of our body to the impact of 'reality' on us. Dreams are
generated by the body, by the neurosystem as part of its homeostatic routine; but the dreams to
which you might otherwise assign such notions as (e.g.) 'hope' are a different kettle of fish. Again, in
language we usually fail to distinguish in the expression 'hope' a realistic expectation and the
doodling of the mind.

But whichever you look at it, in the end 'reality' comes first. So 'reality', however experienced,
precedes 'dreams', however defined. In dreams, waking or sleeping, you can do 'what you like', but
God help you if you try to do the same 'in reality'!

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney.

Though it can't be proved I believe that the world exists. Existing in the dream of an unknown being is
no fun, so I refuse to believe that..

But reality IS a fantasy, that is you can shape it to your own likings. However it is practical to share a
big part of that fantasy with others, otherwise you'll lead a lonely life (and often end in a mental
hospital)

So death is for me not a dream but another fantasy. In many cultures just an accepted part of life. In
Christian culture it generally and officially was made something absolute and a subject of fear (but
many Christian priests have a comforting relative view on death).

Henk Tuten

This doesn't really constitute an answer but your question sounds very much like Morpheuses in The
Matrix.I don't remember the exact quote but yours is quite close unless I've lost all short term
memory. Which is all a good way of saying that there are two article that everyone should read:

David Chalmers 'The Matrix as Metaphysics' at http://www.whatisthematrix.com

and,

Nick Bostrom 'Are you Living in a Computer Simulation?' at http://www.simulation-argument.com.

Both are really good though the latter is quite tough if you're familiar with probability theory (though
there is a really good introduction to the argument that was published in the Times Literary
Supplementon the site) and the former does get quite technical (though Chalmers' ever impressive
writing style makes things very clear)

And everyone should go and see that new Matrix film, (Matrix Reloadedin case you've been reading
Kant in your room too much — get out!)

This might not answer the 'is life a dream question?' (which leads to interesting questions about how
clever I must be (I came up with this?)) but I might help with the analogous 'are we in the Matrix?'
question.

Rich Woodward