So shared dreaming is real. Now what?

dude this is literally what buddhist philosophy has been saying for 2500 years. consciousness is fundamental. mind precedes matter. the dream realms are just as real as this one, everything is mind-stuff at different levels of density.

check out the yogacara school. they map out like 8 different levels of consciousness. what you're experiencing is probably alaya-vijnana, the storehouse consciousness that everyone shares.

why are western philosophers so resistant to just accepting that consciousness comes first? you guys tie yourselves in knots trying to explain how meat can generate experience, when the obvious answer is right there: experience is primary, matter is what experience feels like from the outside.

peace

dharmabrother - I appreciate the reference, but "consciousness is fundamental" isn't an explanation, it's a claim that needs defending.

HOW does consciousness generate physical reality? What's the mechanism? Why does physical reality follow mathematical laws we can discover and predict? Why does brain damage affect consciousness if consciousness is primary?

I'm not "resistant" to idealism - I'm asking for a rigorous argument, not ancient authority.

CognitoSum, I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

The brain is an information processing system. During certain states (sleep, trance, etc.), the brain's processing can become coupled with other brains through mechanisms we don't fully understand yet - probably quantum coherence in microtubules, as Penrose and Hameroff suggest.

This creates a shared informational space that multiple brains can access and contribute to. The "dream realm" is just a shared computational space, like a server that multiple clients connect to.

Nothing about this requires consciousness to be non-physical or fundamental. It just requires brains to have capabilities we haven't fully mapped yet.

The information is probably stored in the quantum foam of spacetime itself - there's theoretical work suggesting that spacetime has informational structure at the Planck scale that could serve as a substrate for this kind of phenomenon.

Problem solved. Consciousness remains an emergent property of physical systems. Shared dreaming is just a weird physical phenomenon involving quantum information transfer.

probably quantum coherence in microtubules

Every time someone can't explain something they invoke quantum mechanics. That's not how QM works. Decoherence at brain temperatures happens way too fast for quantum effects to matter.

stored in the quantum foam of spacetime

This is word salad. You're just naming sciencey-sounding things.

I've also done shared dreaming. It's real. But "quantum" isn't a magic explanation wand.

skeptomancer - The Penrose-Hameroff model specifically addresses the decoherence problem. There's evidence for quantum coherence in biological systems (photosynthesis, bird navigation).

And yes, spacetime information theory is speculative, but so is everything in this thread. At least I'm working within established physics rather than invoking magic consciousness fields.

Why are we jumping straight to metaphysics? Can we start with phenomenology?

What is the actual EXPERIENCE like? That might tell us more than armchair theorizing.

When I'm in a shared dream, it feels different from a regular dream. There's a kind of resistance - like the dream has its own structure that I can't just change by wanting it to change. Other people's presence feels real in a way that regular dream characters don't.

Also, the experience has a quality of "otherness" - I'm perceiving something that isn't just generated by my own mind.

These phenomenological facts need to be explained by any theory.

Dr_Materialism - your quantum information theory doesn't explain the qualia. WHY would quantum information transfer create the feeling of perceiving an independent space?

u guys are all overthinking this

its just a thing that happens. who cares why? just enjoy it. not everything needs a philosophical explanation

like why does music sound good? idk it just does. shared dreaming works, cool, lets explore it and not worry about the deep meaning

Thomas - we care why because understanding the mechanism might tell us something profound about consciousness and reality. This isn't idle curiosity, it's potentially revolutionary.

phenomenologist_jane - YES, thank you. The phenomenology is important.

The key facts as I experience them:

• The dream space has persistence - it's there whether I'm perceiving it or not
• It has structure that resists my individual will
• Other minds can perceive the same structures
• Documentation in physical reality affects the dream space

This seems to require SOME kind of shared substrate that isn't just "my brain" or "your brain."

But here's my problem with idealism: if consciousness is fundamental and generates reality through perception, why can't I just fly in physical reality by believing hard enough? Why does physics work and not bend to consciousness?

The shared dream space bends to consciousness more than physics does, but less than my private dreams do. So there's a spectrum of... what? Resistance? Objectivity?

CognitoSum - what if there's only ONE fundamental substance, and both consciousness and physical matter are just different arrangements or aspects of it?

Like Spinoza's substance monism, or Russellian neutral monism.

The fundamental substance could be something like "experiential information" or "structured awareness." Physical matter is what this looks like when it's in highly stable, crystallized configurations. Consciousness is what it's like from the inside when it flows.

Dream realms would be intermediate - more stable than pure thought, less stable than physical matter.

This would explain:

• Why consciousness and matter seem connected (same substance)
• Why brain states correlate with mental states (same substance, different aspects)
• Why shared dream spaces exist (intermediate stability of the substrate)
• Why physics is so stable (extreme crystallization)

No need to reduce one to the other. Both are real aspects of one fundamental thing.

This entire discussion is meaningless because none of you are defining your terms operationally.

What do you MEAN by "consciousness is fundamental"? What predictions does that make that differ from physicalism? If both theories explain the same observations, they're the same theory with different words.

Same with "shared substrate" or "experiential information." These are just labels. What are the TESTABLE differences between:

A) Brains accessing quantum information in spacetimeB) Consciousness flowing through structural patternsC) Single neutral substance in different configurations

If they all predict the same observations, this is a pseudo-problem. You're arguing about language, not reality.

Give me OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS and TESTABLE PREDICTIONS or admit you're doing poetry, not philosophy.

logical_positivist - Fair challenge. Let me try:

PHYSICALIST PREDICTION: Shared dreaming should correlate with physical mechanisms. We should find brain states that enable it. Blocking those mechanisms (drugs, interference) should block shared dreaming.

IDEALIST PREDICTION: Consciousness should be able to exist without physical substrate. We might find minds persisting after brain death, or consciousness that never had brains.

DUALIST PREDICTION: There should be two kinds of causal principles - physical (brain affects mind) and mental (mind affects brain). Both should be irreducible.

NEUTRAL MONIST PREDICTION: Everything should be explainable as arrangements of one substance with both physical and experiential aspects. No hard border between mind and matter.

These make different predictions about:

• Whether consciousness can survive brain death
• Whether mind can causally affect matter
• Whether there's a hard problem of consciousness or just an epistemic gap

Not just poetry. Real differences.

CognitoSum >> "Why can't I fly in physical reality"

because physical reality has WAY more karmic weight. it's being dreamed by like billions of minds all agreeing on the same rules. you're just one consciousness trying to go against the collective dream.

in your private dream you're the only consciousness, so you have total control. in a shared dream realm there's like 10-20 people, so it's malleable but not totally. in physical reality everyone's participating, so it's basically fixed.

same principle, different scale. consciousness is still fundamental, it's just that you're vastly outnumbered.

this is literally in the texts. alaya-vijnana is the collective storehouse. we're all dreaming this reality together.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this but I think you're all missing the obvious explanation:

Property dualism.

Physical stuff exists and has physical properties. It ALSO has experiential properties. Consciousness is what certain physical configurations feel like from the inside.

Shared dreaming happens because:

• Brains have both physical and experiential properties
• Under certain conditions, the experiential properties of multiple brains can become linked (we don't know the mechanism yet, fine)
• This creates a shared experiential space
• The space has some stability because it's grounded in something (maybe quantum fields, maybe something else)

This explains:

• Why brain damage affects consciousness (same thing, different aspects)
• Why shared dreams are possible (experiential properties can link)
• Why physics is stable (physical properties are really stable)
• Why dreams are less stable (experiential properties are more fluid)

Not idealism (matter exists), not eliminativism (experience is real), not substance dualism (only one substance, two kinds of properties).

mind_body_skeptic - Property dualism is just closet mysticism. "Experiential properties" is code for "I don't know what consciousness is so I'll call it a fundamental property."

Either explain consciousness in terms of physical processes, or admit you're giving up on physicalism. You can't have it both ways.

The reason people invoke property dualism is they've been seduced by the hard problem, which is itself a confusion. There IS no hard problem. Once we fully understand the information processing in the brain, the "mystery" of consciousness will dissolve.

Shared dreaming doesn't require any new metaphysics. It's just a weird physical phenomenon we'll eventually explain with better neuroscience and quantum physics.

Dr_Materialism - You keep asserting that consciousness will be explained by neuroscience, but you haven't actually explained it. You're promissory note-ing.

I could just as easily say "Once we fully understand how consciousness structures matter, the 'mystery' of physics will dissolve."

The fact that brain states correlate with mental states doesn't prove causation goes brain → mind rather than mind → brain or mind ↔ brain.

You're assuming your conclusion (physicalism) in order to prove your conclusion.

OK here's my attempt at a synthesis:

We know:

• Shared dreaming happens
• It involves brains somehow (you need to be alive with a functioning brain)
• It involves something beyond individual brains (the space is shared)
• The space has properties (persistence, resistance to individual will, etc.)

Maybe we should focus on mapping those PROPERTIES before arguing about metaphysics?

Like:

• How persistent is it really? Does it exist when no one's dreaming it?
• Can you create new areas or only explore existing ones?
• What's the relationship between documentation and stability?
• Can dream entities demonstrate knowledge they shouldn't have?
• What happens to the space if everyone forgets it?

Answering these empirically would constrain our theories.

Otherwise we're just arguing about angels on pins.

pragmatist_phil - This is actually helpful. Let me share some observations:

PERSISTENCE: The shared realm I visit (called Ethel) definitely persists when I'm not there. Other people visit at different times and report the same features. But it DOES slowly degrade if no one visits for a while.

CREATION: You can create new features, but it takes effort and multiple people agreeing. It's not instant like private dreams.

DOCUMENTATION: This is weird - when we document features in physical reality (wiki, forum posts, maps), those features become more stable in the dream. Like the documentation itself adds weight.

ENTITIES: Yes, I've met entities that remember previous conversations and seem to have knowledge I don't have. But I can't prove they're not just sophisticated constructions.

FORGETTING: When people deliberately try to forget something, it becomes less stable. When everyone believes in a feature, it becomes very solid.

So consciousness/belief clearly AFFECTS the space. But the space also has its own inertia - it's not infinitely malleable.

CognitoSum's observations are key.

Here's my theory: TWO substances.

• CONSCIOUSNESS - fluid, formless, what perceives
• STRUCTURE - mathematical patterns, what is perceived

When consciousness flows through structure, you get experience. The structure shapes what the experience is like. The consciousness brings it to awareness.

Different structures have different stability:

• Thoughts = low stability structure, high consciousness
• Dreams = medium stability structure, medium consciousness
• Physical matter = very high stability structure, low consciousness permeability

This explains:

• Why brain states matter (brain is structure that channels consciousness)
• Why shared dreams work (multiple consciousness flowing through shared structure)
• Why documentation adds stability (creates structure in physical reality that constrains dream structure)
• Why matter seems objective (structure is so stable it doesn't need consciousness to maintain it)

NOT idealism (structure is real and has its own logic). NOT physicalism (consciousness is irreducible). NOT property dualism (two substances, not two properties of one substance).

oneiric_dualist - So you're just inventing a whole new substance (consciousness) because you can't figure out how matter generates experience?

That's not parsimony, that's giving up.

And you haven't explained anything! You've just labeled things. HOW does consciousness "flow through" structure? What's the mechanism? How do they interact if they're fundamentally different substances?

This is Cartesian dualism with extra steps.

Dr_Materialism - And you haven't explained how matter generates consciousness! You keep saying "it just does" or "neuroscience will figure it out."

I'm not claiming to know the MECHANISM of interaction, I'm claiming both substances are needed to explain the phenomena.

You can't explain consciousness from matter alone. I can't explain the interaction. Both are mysteries. At least I'm admitting it.

The difference is my framework actually FITS the phenomena better. It explains why:

• Shared dreams feel like perceiving something real (because structure is real)
• But also feel influenced by mind (because consciousness shapes structure)
• And vary in stability (spectrum of structure stability)

Your framework can't explain why it FEELS like anything at all.

You're all confused because you're using folk psychological concepts.

"Consciousness" doesn't refer to anything real. It's a placeholder term for brain processes we don't understand yet.

When we say "I'm conscious of X," we really mean "information processing system reports state X." That's it.

Shared dreaming is interesting because it shows brain states can become correlated in unexpected ways. But it's still just brains processing information.

The "hard problem" isn't a problem, it's confusion caused by dualist language embedded in our grammar.

eliminative_edith - So you don't think there's anything it's LIKE to see red? You don't have experiences?

This is self-refuting. The thing you're denying is the most certain thing we know - that we experience.

Descartes at least got this right: "I think therefore I am." You can doubt matter, but you can't doubt that you're experiencing doubt.

phenomenologist_jane - I'm saying the WAY we talk about "experience" is confused and will be replaced when we have better neuroscience.

Like how we used to talk about "vital force" and now we just talk about chemistry.

Or how we used to talk about "impetus" and now we talk about momentum and energy.

"Qualia" and "consciousness" will go the same way. They're confused categories.

you people are so stuck in your heads!!!

just EXPERIENCE the shared dream. stop analyzing. the truth is beyond concepts.

all your theories are maps, not territory. consciousness doesn't need explaining, it IS the explanation.

namaste 🙏

OK, I think we've hit the limits of productive discussion.

Summary of positions:

IDEALISM: Consciousness fundamental, matter is consciousness-patterns (dharmabrother, mystic_mouse)PHYSICALISM: Matter fundamental, consciousness is emergent (Dr_Materialism, eliminative_edith)DUALISM: Two substances (oneiric_dualist)PROPERTY DUALISM: One substance, two property types (mind_body_skeptic)NEUTRAL MONISM: One substance, neither mental nor physical (neutral_monist)PRAGMATISM: Who cares, let's test (pragmatist_phil, Thomas_the_Tank_Engine)

The shared dreaming phenomenon:

• Challenges pure physicalism (Dr_Materialism had to invoke quantum stuff)
• Challenges pure idealism (can't explain physics stability)
• Fits dualism well but has interaction problem
• Fits neutral monism pretty well actually

I'm leaning toward either neutral monism or dualism at this point. Consciousness and structure both seem necessary, and neither seems reducible to the other.

But I'm not confident. This is genuinely hard.

Thanks for engaging seriously (mostly).

CognitoSum - Invoking quantum mechanics isn't "giving up on physicalism," it's just pointing to the relevant physics.

You're conceding too much to the dualists. The fact that we don't have a complete explanation YET doesn't mean we need new substances.

Newton didn't understand gravity's mechanism but he was still doing physics.

We'll figure out consciousness. Give it 50 years.

Dr_Materialism - It's been 50+ years since the identity theory was proposed and we're no closer to explaining HOW matter generates experience.

At some point you have to admit the problem isn't just epistemic, it's ontological.

But I agree with CognitoSum that neutral monism might split the difference. Both consciousness and matter are real, neither is reducible to the other, both are aspects of something more fundamental.

The shared dreaming data fits this really well. The dream space is made of the same "stuff" as physical reality and consciousness - just in a different configuration.

neutral_monist - I'm open to this. Maybe what I'm calling "two substances" are really two aspects of one deeper thing.

The key insight is that you NEED both the structure side (mathematical patterns, persistence, objectivity) and the consciousness side (awareness, subjectivity, experience).

Whether that's two substances or one substance with two aspects - I'm not sure it matters practically.

The point is neither can be reduced to the other.

See, now you're converging!

oneiric_dualist and neutral_monist are basically agreeing, just using different words.

This is why I think we should focus on the PROPERTIES and DYNAMICS rather than the fundamental ontology.

Map out how the shared dream space actually behaves, then see which metaphysics fits best.

Don't start with metaphysics and try to force the data to fit.

pragmatist_phil gets it.

The rest of you are arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin.

If "dualism" and "neutral monism" make the same predictions, they're the same theory.

Stop doing bad metaphysics and start doing empirical research.

logical_positivist - They DO make different predictions though.

If dualism is right, you might be able to have consciousness without ANY physical structure - disembodied minds.

If neutral monism is right, consciousness always requires some structure (even if it's dream structure, not physical structure).

This is testable: Can consciousness persist after complete brain death? Can you encounter minds in dreams that never had bodies?

I don't know the answer, but the question is empirical.

That's why this matters.

CognitoSum - yes! you're getting it!

buddhist literature has hundreds of accounts of discarnate beings in dream realms. they're called devas, hungry ghosts, etc.

some people in the shared dreaming community claim to have met beings that never had physical bodies.

i'm not saying i know for sure, but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing we should be investigating.

if we find genuine cases of minds without brains, physicalism is dead. period.

dharmabrother - And I predict you'll find exactly zero genuine cases, because consciousness requires brains.

Any "entities" in dream spaces will turn out to be either:a) Shared constructions of the dreaming brains presentb) Lingering information patterns from previous dreamersc) Self-deception

No ghosts, no devas, no discarnate minds.

That's my prediction. Let's test it.

This has actually been really productive.

We've moved from shouting past each other to:

• Agreeing the phenomenon is real
• Mapping out different theoretical frameworks
• Identifying testable predictions

That's philosophical progress!

I'm still not sure which framework is right, but at least now I understand what would convince me of each one.

Thanks CognitoSum for starting this thread.

so can i just ask

if physical reality is also "made of consciousness" or "made of the same stuff as dreams" or whatever

why cant i walk through walls

like really why not

Thomas_the_Tank_Engine - Because physical structures are REALLY HEAVY and REALLY STABLE.

It's like asking "if ice and water are both H2O, why can't I drink ice?"

Well, you can't drink it BECAUSE IT'S FROZEN.

Physical reality is "frozen" - it's the same substance as dreams but in an extremely stable configuration that you can't change just by willing it.

Thomas - you CAN walk through walls

you just have to expand your consciousness enough

physical laws are just consensual reality

break the consensus, break the laws

some yogis can do it

mystic_mouse - [citation needed]

Until someone walks through a wall in a controlled setting, I'm going to assume physical reality is more stable than consciousness can override.

But the REASON why is still an interesting question.

neutral_monist's "frozen" metaphor is good. Different configurations of the same substrate have different properties.

OK folks, this has been a great discussion but it's starting to spiral.

mystic_mouse - please don't make claims about yogis walking through walls without evidence.

Dr_Materialism - please be respectful of non-physicalist positions.

dharmabrother - please provide sources for claims about Buddhist literature.

This thread has run its course. I'm locking it but leaving it up because there's some good philosophical discussion here.

If people want to continue, start a new thread with a specific focused question rather than "what does shared dreaming mean."

Thanks everyone for mostly staying civil!

[Thread Locked]