Talk:Dream argument

Hutton's Paradox is not Wiki Notable, should be removed

I can't find any mention of "Hutton's Paradox" anywhere noteable, except on WP and mirrors, which were added by Mr. Hutton himself, and on a single blog (which just copied the WP text verbatim). I see two references to some type of publications in the article, one of which is apparently a circular and the other is apparently some type of trade-publication--neither are wiki notable. Further, I've found a discussion of "Hutton's Paradox" (an actual paradox, by a notable Hutton) in Stephen Jay Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, pp. 80-91. So in accordance with the WP notability policy (WP:NOTE), I propose the section on "Hutton's Paradox" be removed from the article. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed from here and List of Paradoxes. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines on notability state that the subject of an article must be notable enough to justify a separate article. They do not regulate the content of articles. I am therefore restoring my paradox both here and in the List of paradoxes.

alderbourne (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think self promotion is questionable, but I have an issue with the paradox itself. Is it really uncommon for people to question whether they are experiencing a simulated reality and be conscious of the fact that it's separate from their dream world, which is also simulated. I don't think it's truly a paradox if the premise itself is false.

A better approach would be to find others who've said the exact same thing and quote them rather than referencing a personal work. If it's highly original that's one thing -- but this is not an original concept. He may have thought of it independently -- but others have asked similar questions. Lordvolton (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting at when you ask whether it is "really uncommon for people to question whether they are experiencing a simulated reality and be conscious of the fact that it's separate from their dream world, which is also simulated". I am sure it isn't! And which premise is false?

So far as I know my paradox is original. Yes, I honestly believe I was the first person in history to think of it, or at least to publish it.

alderbourne (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alderbourne: You're right about WP:NOTE, but there are still questions of WP:CS, WP:V, WP:N, &c. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you certainly have me puzzled! The last link you provide is identical to the first, the subject of which you agree I am right about. The second is about citing sources, which I did. Only the third, about the reliability of sources, seems at all relevant. But I haven't read any of these articles all the way through, so perhaps I'm wrong.

alderbourne (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but asking if your waking world is a simulation is not original to you. Nor is asking "Am I dreaming?" a reliable test to prove it's truth. Anymore than asking it in a dream is a reliable test. In lucid dreams we're often fooled and never ask the question.

False awakenings further complicate the matter. Another topic not original to either of us.

I'm an anecdotal of example of someone who has thought and written about it without knowing you existed. And that's why it's important to cite outside sources since none of this is original to us, even if we considered it separately from others.

A cursory review of the archived discussion of simulated reality will reveal a lot of discussion on related topics. There are plenty of links to the forefathers of these topics as well. You should do some additional research rather than focusing on naming a paradox in your own honor.

Lordvolton (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

When did I say that questioning the reality of waking life was original to me? And what in God's name is an "anecdotal of example"? No offence, but you seem to have problems not only with comprehending clearly worded statements but also with expressing yourself. Indeed, I have been reading and rereading your latest posting for almost two months now, with occasional breaks for eating, sleeping and the other necessities of life, and only within the past few days have I been able to reach any conclusions about what you were trying to say. The chief of these is that you think Hutton's Paradox is not original. (You said as much before.) So far as I know it is. But since you evidently disagree, here's a wager for you: if you can cite a single example of somebody propounding the same paradox before 1989 (when I first published it), I'll write you a cheque for £1,000. And since you seem a bit confused about what my paradox states, here it is again in its concisest form:

True, asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" in a dream would seem to prove that one is. And yet that is precisely what he [Hutton] had often asked himself in waking life. Therein lay a paradox. What was he to conclude? That it does not prove one is dreaming? Or that life really is a dream?

As for the issue of notability, I was delighted recently to discover that Sam Vaknin had mentioned my paradox in a short story, which can be read here. Of course this doesn't make it notable, but at least it has been noticed by an eminent writer of our time.

alderbourne (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your first premise is wrong. Simply asking if you're dreaming in a dream doesn't prove it. Waking up often, although not always, proves it or possibly doing something that is impossible in the waking world (i.e, flying, walking through walls, etc.)

Indeed, I find this to be a major problem with this "paradox." "True, asking oneself 'Am I dreaming' in a dream would seem to prove that one is." How do you figure? It's simply not true, and any conclusions that follow from that false assumption are dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.47.27 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Descartes and others, many others, have wondered how do you differentiate the qualia of dreams from reality. How many popular songs posit a similar question? "Is this the real life? Is this fantasy? Caught in a landslide no escape from reality." - Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody 1975.

Analysis of lucid dreaming goes back decades in scholarly journals. And yes, people realized they were dreaming by looking around and saying, "Is this a dream?". And anyone who has false awakening then asks, "Is this a dream?" after they wake up. False awakenings force people to question their ability to distinguish the real world from the dream world by contemplating whether they are awake or dreaming (while dreaming and awake). It's a lot more common than you realize. You should use Google scholar to research "lucid dreaming" and "false awakening".

Lordvolton (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that the study of lucid dreams goes back decades. Not only have I been reading books on the subject for decades, but the earliest one in my collection, Hervey de Saint-Denys's Dreams and How to Guide Them, was first published in 1867.

The problem with tests of the kinds you mention – walking through walls, flying and so forth – is that they don't always convince. "How curious!" I will very often say to myself on flapping my arms in a dream and rising into the air. "I am absolutely certain this is the real world. I must have acquired the ability to fly." But the moment I remember my paradox all doubt leaves me. "Ah!" I say. "It really is a dream!"

My wager will remain open indefinitely.

alderbourne (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be stickler, but again, it appears to me, the line of demarcation is not in asking if you are dreaming, but in the experience of events which cause you to question if you are dreaming. For example, when you flap your arms and fly in a dream, you immediately question the possibility, mechanism, &c, of such an event, and conclude that such an event is more likely to occur in a dream than in waking life. Thus, asking if you're dreaming (which also happens in waking life--in fact, an age-old cliche is "pinch me, I must be dreaming") does nothing to establish that one is actually dreaming. It is the sequence of events which leads you to question if you are dreaming that is important, not the question in and of itself. 64.234.10.32 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:alderbourne, it might be helpful for you to review WP:OR, the wikipedia recommendations regarding insertion of original research. The policy would not even allow Einstein to add original research to his articles. Rather the policy would be that a disinterested second party must find the research in a separately notable publication and add it to wikipedia. It would also be helpful to review WP:POV, which discusses the need to avoid subjectivity in the articles. I hope this has helped some in clearing up why you're meeting such resistance. Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth of its information so much as gathering information which is established by a second party as being notable in a third party source. I run across articles all the time which are essentially collections of garbage, but they are garbage collected from reliable third party sources and as such are include-able.Trilobitealive (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Supported by one source? As a borderline WP:FRINGE, this needs to go. If it's notable enough for it's own article, let's include it - if not, this advocacy of this theory doesn't belong here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Toddst1, I see that you have removed the section on Hutton's paradox from this article, and, it would seem, done so solely on your own authority. In justification you cite Wikipedia's policy on "undue weight," adding "one source, [an] essay." Permit me to enlighten you.

Hutton's paradox has given its name to a rock band in Boise, Idaho, inspired a cartoon by Daniel Merlin Goodbrey, provided the title for a play by Libby Leonard, based on a short story by Neil Gaiman, is mentioned in a short story by Sam Vaknin and is discussed in a treatise on epistemology by Anders Jørgensen. It even has its own article, "Парадокс Хаттона," on Traditio. There are, in fact, numerous references to it online.

I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision.

Alderbourne (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Alderbourne. It adds very little and the citation is a letter to the editor. I am removing it again. We may need to have this arbitrated if you keep restoring it. Lordvolton (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the message I posted to your talk page on 16 July, in which I suggested that you "refer this matter to a Wikipedia administrator rather than remove the section again on your own initiative"?

I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision.

Eric Bond Hutton (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Illucid lucid dreams: when the very act of being lucid is only a dream (which you're not aware of having)

This is a dream inside a dream where the waking state, that the act of being "lucid" is with respect to, is also a just dream. It exists, but I can't find any references on this (other than personal experience) and don't even know what it's called. This also includes the case where the "you" that is in the act of being lucid isn't even you -- that is, where you're dreaming of being someone else having a lucid dream; or where it is you, but in another place or time.

Third opinion request regarding Huttons paradox

Since there has been on ongoing disagreement regarding the inclusion of Hutton's paradox I am going to request a 3rd opinion. I've updated Eric Bond Hutton's talk page. Lordvolton (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I came here to take a look at the dispute listed in WP:3O, but there appears to be more than two people involved in the dispute. Am I mistaken? The process in third opinion is intended to help break a stalemate between two people. A bigger dispute probably should be listed at requests for comment. That being said, I'm here, so maybe I can help. Can the various sides summarize briefly their take on the matter? — e. ripley\^talk 21:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So, I had a run through the prior discussions and looked at the sourcing used to justify including the "Hutton's paradox" concept and I do not think any of them are sufficiently reliable. One goes to a myspace page for a band that includes no information about why they're named such a thing. One goes to a self-published author that seems to mention the concept in a work of fiction. One goes to a letter to the editor for a publication. One goes to a report in a language I can't read (I suppose this one could qualify as reliable, but I can't translate it and in any case it would seem to be a primary, not secondary, source -- can anyone else?) As far as I can see, none of them are adequate secondary sources. Are there others? — e. ripley\^talk 21:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I also peeked in from 3O, and looking at the older discussion above, the author more or less freely admits this is his own WP:OR that he's been inserting for the last decade+. The only referenced source available online is a primary source statement from the author/editor. Sauzer (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Right. So I'm going to go ahead and take it out. If there's some other source to support re-adding it, please bring it forward. — e. ripley\^talk 03:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings all, I had seen this at 3O as well but had refrained from answering in an "official" capacity due to the number of previous participants. I concur with both e. ripley and Sauzer; in my own searches I couldn't find any independent sources referring to Hutton's Paradox at all; when I attempted to correct for Google search inaccuracies by including other required search terms like "dream" and excluding "wikipedia", I got around 200 total hits, basically all of which were either Wikipedia mirrors, verbatim reprints of the letter to the editor, or other self-published content like local blogs and Reddit threads. It certainly appears that this paradox probably shouldn't be listed here.

The reason I am posting this is not to pile on, but to ask the participants if we should also remove the reference to Hutton's Paradox at list of paradoxes. I will note that it was added there (according to Blame) by a third party, Jake Rilko, back in 2006. It would seem to me we should do so if it doesn't belong here, but i didn't want to do so unilaterally without discussion. CThomas³ (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removal from that list for the same reasons as above.Sauzer (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should also be removed from that list. I will do so now. — e. ripley\^talk 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A few comments would seem to be in order. Proof that the rock band is named after my paradox can be found here. Sam Vaknin may publish his own work but is a figure of note in the world of psychology. To say, furthermore, that he "seems" to mention my paradox is the height of absurdity: he very clearly mentions it, though admittedly in a work of fiction. The Danish treatise is most definitely a secondary source, as Wikipedia defines the term. By the way, Google Translate is always useful when dealing with some beastly foreign language.

Eric Bond Hutton (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, none of these are adequate to satisfy the policy on reliable sources. Are there any secondary sources that would mention your theory? Say, a newspaper or magazine article? A letter to the editor isn't sufficient. — e. ripley\^talk 14:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, this attempt at soliciting off-site support comes up amongst the results on Google now and while nothing has come of it yet, I think bringing in people in this way (rather than supplying additional references) violates WP:Canvas: [1] Sauzer (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, a bit naughty that! But if it helps flush out more sources, that would be welcome. Also, I am but a smallwig! — e. ripley\^talk 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

From Wittgenstein

I believe this passage, the last paragraph of Wittgenstein On Certainty, is relevant:

Someone who, dreaming, says "I am dreaming", even if he speaks audibly in doing so, is no more right than if he said in his dream "it is raining", while in fact it is raining. Even if his dream were actually connected with the noise of the rain.

Although some may not be as certain as W. was in his opinion. -- llywrch (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)