Does anyone here believe in and practise dream interpretation?
dream interpretation exists; there is no believing or not believing in it. it exists. is it accurate? it depends on what you expect from it and who is doing the interpreting. people who interpret your dreams to predict something are either delusional or playing you. people who interpret your dreams on a psychological level -- that's another story. those who know how can really give you some insight into what your dreams say about you. those who don't may mislead you, whether on purpose or otherwise. i have interpreted dreams. i'm not bad. i have some psychological understanding. i've seen people get it REALLY wrong.
g
The current understanding in research is that most of our dreams do indeed include material from our daily lives -- officially known as 'day residue'. Theorists of the psychodynamic school do believe that dreams 'meant' something. Freud had a strict set of definitions for what symbols meant -- but it could really just be narrowed down to phallic, or vaginal images. Jung took a more personalized approach. He also felt that only a few of our dreams are important, or what he called 'big dreams'. They can be recurring dreams or particularly vivid dreams. With a little questioning, the meaning of them often becomes clear to the dreamer. Often they revolve around some important conflict or event in the dreamer's life. Even though this is interesting, nobody takes them seriously enough any more to allow them to control therapy.
Not really, however... It really amazes me the images and places I get to "see" in my dreams (what I can remember anyway, I am sure there is a looooot more). I wonder how our brain have the capability to build stuff we have never seen !! The only explanation I can come up with is that dreams are built with information previously processed and blended into pieces that get put together randomly, there for the sensation that we remember things we have never seen.... interesting how the process works. As far as what do they mean, no I don't care much about that part
I used to keep a dream diary and sometimes think I know what dreams mean, I'm also interested in symbology, but don't have my books anymore. Most of my dreams are just working through my life's hopes, fears and tasks
This group - [agnostic.com] - may be right for you!
Yes and no. I think dreams are extracts from our day, sometimes tied up in other issues that may be older than that, and to that end, looking at them will probably give us an idea what's going on in our psyche. For instance, there's a friend of mine whom I love very much, but for several months every time I saw her in my dreams I was screaming at her... about nothing... about stupid stuff... so I started looking into what might be going on, and I noticed that it felt often as if she was dismissive of my hopes and goals, and that made me angry though I didn't know it.
So yes, it can give us insight into what's going on in our own minds, and even open up a little of our blind spots. But I don't think there's any mystical value to it.
Jungian dream dictionaries seem like a fairly decent codification of dream imagery and symbolism. They have some value to some people sometimes because the subconscious deals in symbols and metaphors, and one can gain insight into what one is processing mentally and emotionally, particularly if you're out of touch with yourself to begin with.
Personally I haven't received particularly revelatory or actionable data from assessing my dreams, but I also haven't mounted a concerted effort in that direction. It's mostly the rare dream that has stood out in my memory that I've looked up.
I think it's a mistake to assume dreams are some woo-ish message from some imagined "higher self". This usually comes from people who don't understand that conscious thought is only the tip of the iceberg and are surprised at how much goes on beneath the surface of the human mind.
@zarathustra13 I regard it as an unfalsifiable but interesting hypothesis. I don't see how it could be validated. But it is possible, and there are some indications that gene expression, as well as genes themselves, can be influenced cross-generationally, so who knows. As an empiricist however I must simply say I don't know, and am not sure there's a way one could know.
@zarathustra13 All I know about Sheldrake's conjectures (which is what they are, properly, called in press accounts -- not a hypothesis) is that they are unsubstantiated and generally regarded as pseudoscience.
@zarathustra13 Mechanistic paradigm?
@mordant Mechanistic paradigm is a euphemism for scientific rigor.
@pnfullifidian Yep, I figured as much.
@zarathustra13 It is not a question of machines and mechanisms necessarily, it is a question however of direct or indirect testability. This may involve nothing more than careful observation over time, or it might, in fact, involve (gasp!) a machine. The important point is that one must be able to describe how one would go about conclusively disproving one's hypothesis, by some valid means, and if you can't, then it is in the realm of speculation, not science. If you claim your speculative idea as science, then it is, by definition, pseudoscience.
Your definition of "mechanistic paradigm" is clearly meant to be front-loaded with a lot of pseudo-disparagement based on the false notion that science operates via stupid mechanisms that lack some je ne sais quoi of intuition and flexibility of thought that is implicitly alleged without evidence to be (1) necessary and (2) desirable in investigating reality.
The whole point of the scientific method is to push back against confirmation bias, and one of the main ways it does is to require people advancing a hypothesis to demonstrate that it is DIS-provable, since, of course, anyone advancing a hypothesis would naturally want people to prove it. If many scientists cannot succeed in disproving the hypothesis then it gradually becomes accepted as an explanatory framework. You are attacking the very basis of science in a way that suggests you want us to embrace confirmation bias, at least for your favorite ideas that are not falsifiable. Sorry ... no-can-do.
@zarathustra13 You are laboring under the misconception that I give the slightest fig whether or not you're anti-science. I'm simply putting some information out there to counter misinformation you're putting out there. Not to prove that I have the larger dick, but for the benefit of lurkers, which is always 95% of the point of posting anything in a forum like this.
If you're making a hypothetical just to stir the pot, or don't mean to describe the "mechanistic paradigm" as if it were actually the same thing as science, and you're actually supportive of doing good science, then no harm done. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. No need to get all defensive or partisan about it.
I do good to just remember any of them.