Content determination in dreams supports the imagination theory

GregoryNovember 2024

Abstract
What This Study Is About
How They Studied It
What They Found
What This Might Mean
One Interesting Detail
Authors
Cite this paper

Abstract

There are two leading theories about the ontology of dreams. One holds that dreams involve hallucinations and beliefs. The other holds that dreaming involves sensory and propositional imagining. I highlight two features of dreams which are more easily explained by the imagination theory. One is that certain things seem to be true in our dreams, even though they are not represented sensorily; this is easily explained if dreams involve propositional imagining. The other is that dream narratives can be temporally segmented, involving events which take place across long spans of time; this makes sense if dreams involve sensory imagining, for we often sensorily imagine narratives during wakefulness in the same way. The two considerations are unified by the fact that both highlight forms of content determination characteristic of imagining.

Our summary in plain words

What This Study Is About

This research explores whether dreaming is more like "perceiving" (seeing something real) or "imagining" (picturing something in your mind). The author argues that dreams are a form of imagination, which helps explain why we can dream about complex stories and specific people without actually believing those things are happening in the moment.

How They Studied It

This is a philosophical study rather than a laboratory experiment. The researcher analyzed existing theories of dreaming and compared them against how human memory and belief systems work. By looking at logical "objections"—such as why we don't wake up still believing our dream was real—the author tested which theory best fits the human experience.

What They Found

The study argues that the "imagination theory" is stronger than the "orthodox theory" (which views dreams as hallucinations or false perceptions). Key points include:

Belief Persistence: If dreams were hallucinations, we would likely wake up with "leftover" false beliefs. Since we usually recognize a dream as a dream immediately upon waking, it suggests our brain was imagining, not perceiving.

Narrative Structure: Dreams often jump through time and space like a movie. The author argues this is only possible through "designation"—a mental process where we decide a scene represents a specific person or time—which is a hallmark of imagination.

Aphantasia Connection: While not the primary focus, the theory supports the idea that dreaming and waking mental imagery (the ability to picture things in your mind) are distinct processes, explaining why some people with aphantasia can still have vivid dreams.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that dreaming is a creative, active process of the mind rather than a passive "glitch" in our visual system. It implies that the brain uses different "wiring" for dreaming than it does for seeing the real world. However, because this is a philosophical argument, it provides a framework for future brain-scan studies rather than a final biological proof.

One Interesting Detail

The author compares dreams to films: just as a movie uses "labels" to tell you that an actor represents a specific historical figure, our dreams use "mental labels" to tell us who someone is, even if they don't look exactly like that person in the dream.

This summary was written with AI and may contain errors. Check the original paper.

Authors

Daniel Gregory
1 paper in the library

Cite this paper

Gregory, D. (2024). Content determination in dreams supports the imagination theory. Philosophical Studies, 181(11), 3037–3057. doi:10.1007/s11098-024-02250-3

Topics

Dreams

Most-cited researchers

Recruit participants for your study

We can help you reach people across the imagery spectrum, from aphantasia to hyperphantasia.

Partner with us

Image-Free Insights

A short note from our founder, Tom Ebeyer, every other week, plus occasional news and invitations to take part in studies. Change what you get from any email.

Research Philosophical Studies

Content determination in dreams supports the imagination theory

GregoryNovember 2024

Read the paper

Abstract
What This Study Is About
How They Studied It
What They Found
What This Might Mean
One Interesting Detail
Authors
Cite this paper

Abstract

Our summary in plain words

What This Study Is About

How They Studied It

What They Found

The study argues that the "imagination theory" is stronger than the "orthodox theory" (which views dreams as hallucinations or false perceptions). Key points include:

Belief Persistence: If dreams were hallucinations, we would likely wake up with "leftover" false beliefs. Since we usually recognize a dream as a dream immediately upon waking, it suggests our brain was imagining, not perceiving.

Narrative Structure: Dreams often jump through time and space like a movie. The author argues this is only possible through "designation"—a mental process where we decide a scene represents a specific person or time—which is a hallmark of imagination.

Aphantasia Connection: While not the primary focus, the theory supports the idea that dreaming and waking mental imagery (the ability to picture things in your mind) are distinct processes, explaining why some people with aphantasia can still have vivid dreams.

What This Might Mean

One Interesting Detail

This summary was written with AI and may contain errors. Check the original paper.

Authors

Daniel Gregory
1 paper in the library

Cite this paper

Gregory, D. (2024). Content determination in dreams supports the imagination theory. Philosophical Studies, 181(11), 3037–3057. doi:10.1007/s11098-024-02250-3

Topics

Dreams

Most-cited researchers

Recruit participants for your study

We can help you reach people across the imagery spectrum, from aphantasia to hyperphantasia.

Partner with us

More research

All research

2026

Vividness of mental imagery reflects a broad range of internally generated visual experiences

Schwarzkopf and colleagues · Royal Society Open Science

Vividness ratings robustly capture a wide range of subjective experiences, from internal mental depictions to externally projected imagery. This suggests aphantasia should be redefined to distinguish between faint imagery and a total lack of pictorial representation.

2025

Mental imagery, predictive processing, aphantasia, and the interaction between philosophy and cognitive science: Responses to Amy Kind, Christian Scholz, and Neil Van Leeuwen

Nanay · Mind & Language

This short reply to three commentaries on a 2023 book about mental imagery restates the book's view that aphantasia is not a single condition: many people with it still dream in images or have flashbacks but cannot call up images at will, which differs from having no conscious imagery at all. Most of the reply concerns other questions, chiefly how the book's idea that imagery forms part of everyday seeing differs from predictive processing theories, and how philosophy can work with the sciences of the mind. It reports no new data.

2021

Aphantasia, imagination and dreaming

Whiteley · Philosophical Studies

This philosophy paper uses reports that most people with aphantasia still have visual dreams to test the view that dreams are a kind of imagining. The author argues this undercuts the version in which all imagery is something we actively do, but not a version in which dreams involve passive, involuntary imagination. The paper proposes testing whether people with aphantasia can learn lucid dreaming, in which dreamers know they are dreaming and can sometimes control the dream.

Image-Free Insights

A short note from our founder, Tom Ebeyer, every other week, plus occasional news and invitations to take part in studies. Change what you get from any email.