I understood that you avoided (subconsciously perhaps) the context to avoid the implications of the questions, and instead responded to the question out of context.
The whole point is that you can know something is less vivid and detailed without visualizing it, which means your claims of needing to be able to visualize something in order to judge that it is less vivid/detailed are false.
No, I did not "avoid" the context. The answer I gave was in context to the questions you posed. You are confusing the fact that I didn't answer your question the way you expected me to, in according with the way you set them up in order to lead to a specific conclusion, with "out of context".
And no, you still can't actually know that one visualization (a dream) is less or more vivid/detailed than a regular mental visualization, if you're incapable of said regular visualization. Which is what the whole disagreement was actually about.
I remember being on a mountaintop. I know that the view from the mountaintop was more vivid than my memory of being on the mountaintop. I'm not visualizing the view in order to know this- it's not some big mystery.
But there's NO objective way for us (and that includes you) to determine that you're not actually full of shit. That's the point. All you can do is claim it, and to support the claim all you can do is say something along the lines of "well I just know it."
Sorry, "I just know it was vivid" is not good enough.
Likewise with dreams. I remember interacting consciously with a dream world and being surprised at the level of details.
But again, we don't know that. Neither do you. You have no way of knowing that what you remember isn't a feedback loop created upon waking. And you have no way of determining how vivid the dream images were because not only do you claim to be incapable of visualization and thus can't produce a visual memory of the dream's contents, but even if you WERE capable of this we would still have to express skepticism because human memory is notoriously unreliable. Being surprised at the level of detail of a dream isn't actually an indication that there was a lot of detail in the dream: the human brain isn't operating normally while dreaming; logic and internal reality-sense is severely compromised.
I remember dreams in which I *knew*, with *absolute certainty*, that I had come up with earth-shattering ideas... only to wake up, scribble them down before going back to sleep again, and find a note in the morning with utterly dumb ramblings on it. What you "know/think" you experienced in a compromised mental state like a dream is not very reliable.
Yeah. You could rehash it, so we could approach it from another angle.
Or, you could just go back and read it so you could approach it from the angle you never actually approached in the first place.
I suppose you'd have to be able to hold more than one concept in your mind to understand the article (which has context to it). Perhaps failure at contextualization is a fundamental part of your thinking "ability", which would explain a lot.
I was under the impression you ignore context in order to create strawmen... anyways. I don't know if having the information right in front of you will help or not, but here goes nothin':
Article said:
For the study, six lucid dreamers were asked to sleep in a functional MRI machine so blood flow to regions of their brain could be monitored. Once asleep, the subjects were asked to confirm their lucid dream-state with a series of of eye movements. They were then asked to purposely "dream" that they were clenching their fists.
Researchers found that the subjects' brain activity during the lucid dreaming of this task was similar to their brain activity while performing the same task when awake. However, their brain activity during sleep was weaker.
Great. Once again, this does not prove that they were lucid dreaming; nor would any scientist actually claim that it does. Once again, you're still relying on self-reporting. Certainly it suggests something akin to what they're claiming (lucid dreaming) is happening... but this what we call circumstantial evidence. There are a number of other equally plausible explanations that explain such brain activity. And once again, even if we were to accept this as proof of lucid dreaming... it still wouldn't prove that *you* experienced it.
hahahahahahaa... article... are you joking? Do you science bro?
I will interpret your mad cackling and dismissiveness as a sign that you don't actually understand what I said. Certainly the possibility I suggested is well within scientific plausibility; although the whole point of it wasn't to establish a serious theory but rather to demonstrate to you that you do not actually have an objective way to determine you experienced a lucid dream; a point apparently lost on you even though it has been explained to you many times now.
).