[krapp]

>I theorise that dreams are more garbled than we realise, filled with pseudo-language and incoherent vague impressions, and ambiguous images, and that memories of dreams are actually post-hoc reconstructions formed at the point of waking, and are not to be trusted.

This seems more like a post-hoc rationalization than a theory. If you can't trust memories of dreams, how can you even know you dream at all? What do you even base your assumptions on?

[bigfudge]

I think it’s a fair assumption that you cant trust memories of dreams. Heck, you can’t even trust memories of eyewitnesses very much. We are all doing a -lot- of active inference and post hoc reconstruction all the time. We just don’t notice the gaps because 1. We are good at it and are often right and 2. People rarely call you out on mistakes even if they’re obvious, because it’s impolite or they are not sure either.

[card_zero]

True. To be honest this is just based on having spent a lot of time half-asleep (for science), and trying to remember what's going on, and imagining that I'm better at it than you. I may be dead wrong. I get the impression of a process of rationalization at the point of waking up (which I like to do slowly). But then, you got an equally persuasive impression of a vivid detailed dream, probably, so at this point it's just one impression against another, that's qualia for you.