Dreaming and Phenomenal Consciousness

Dreaming reveals that phenomenal consciousness—the felt character of experience—can include an immersive world, an embodied perspective, and compelling emotions while ordinary sensory engagement, reflective insight, and behavioral responsiveness are greatly reduced. It thereby helps distinguish experience itself from accurate perception, self-knowledge, executive control, and subsequent recollection. Scientific accounts use dreams to investigate the construction and neural realization of experience; philosophical accounts examine their implications for perception, selfhood, and knowledge; religious and mystical traditions interpret them through soul, revelation, emptiness, or nondual awareness. These approaches converge on the inadequacy of identifying consciousness with ordinary wakefulness, but diverge sharply over what consciousness ultimately is.

Dreaming is the one condition, available to nearly everyone every night, in which a complete phenomenal world—spatial, populated, emotional, centered on a self—arises while the brain is largely cut off from sensory input and motor output, and while reflective insight, report, and voluntary control are diminished or absent. It therefore functions as a natural experiment on the nature of phenomenal consciousness: it bears on whether experience is internally generated, whether it requires metacognition or report, what a minimal subject of experience is, whether consciousness can persist without content, where its neural correlates lie, and whether felt presence can certify the reality of anything beyond itself. Across science, philosophy, theology, and contemplative traditions, these questions have been pursued from opposite directions—toward internalist naturalism, toward skepticism about dream experience itself, toward idealism, and toward claims of a witnessing awareness that outlasts all content. This entry gathers those lines of argument, restricted to what dreaming reveals about phenomenal consciousness rather than about dreams for their own sake.

What Kind of Consciousness is Dreaming?

Whether dreaming is hallucinated perception, immersive imagination, or a distinctive experiential kind matters directly to its generalization to waking consciousness. Aristotle already treated dreams as activities of the sensory faculty insofar as it produces images, distinguishing appearing from judging an appearance real (Aristotle, c. 350 BCE/1908).

Contemporary imagination theories challenge the assumption that dreamers literally perceive falsely and believe their dream situations. Ichikawa proposes sensory imagery and propositional imagining instead (Ichikawa, 2009). Gregory emphasizes apparently “known” dream facts never sensorily presented and narratives spanning discontinuous periods (Gregory, 2024). Phenomenal experience need not therefore be an uninterrupted inner film; some apparent narrative duration may be represented background rather than continuously lived time.

This dispute also intersects with perceptual disjunctivism: subjective indistinguishability need not imply that dreaming and genuine perception share the same fundamental experiential kind. Waking perception might constitutively involve actual objects, while dreams do not. Dreams challenge such relational accounts to explain their own phenomenality, but do not refute them merely by resembling perception. Pluralist alternatives allow different dreams to combine imagery, hallucination, thought, and incorporated sensation differently (Gregory, 2024).

Experience Without the World

The founding observation is that the dreaming brain produces a world. During REM (rapid-eye movement) sleep, sensory input is largely restricted and skeletal muscles are inhibited, yet the dreamer sees, hears, moves, fears, and inhabits a perspective. Antti Revonsuo made this the basis of a research program, arguing that dreaming is a “paradigmatic model system” for consciousness because it isolates the phenomenal level from perception and behavior; the dream is an internal world-simulation in which a virtual self is surrounded by a virtual place, objects, and characters (Revonsuo, 2006). He emphasizes that even with eyelids held open, sleepers do not incorporate objects placed before them, evidence that the dream world is generated rather than perceived.

Rodolfo Llinás and Denis Paré drew the inverse conclusion: waking itself is a dreamlike, intrinsically generated thalamocortical state that sensory input constrains rather than creates (Llinás and Paré, 1991; see Llinás’s Mindness State of Oscillations). Thomas Metzinger generalized the point: the phenomenal world is a transparent model—one not experienced as a model—and dreams satisfy the same constraints of globality, presentationality, and transparency as waking experience (Metzinger, 2003). In Hobson’s Dreaming Protoconsciousness, the dream is what the brain’s generative model produces when unconstrained by sensory evidence.

The ontological implication is internalism: whatever is minimally sufficient for phenomenal character lies inside the head, since a world can be experienced when no corresponding world is present. Dreaming thus reprises the argument from hallucination, but as a recurring natural state rather than a pathology, and it directly challenges theories that make organism–environment interaction constitutive of experience (Revonsuo, 2006; compare Noë’s “Out of Our Heads” Theory, Manzotti’s Mind-Object Identity, and Fish’s Naïve Realism, whose disjunctivist strategy denies that dream and perception share a fundamental kind).

The internalist conclusion faces a historical qualification. As noted, Aristotle explained dreams as residual movements of sense impressions persisting in sleep (Aristotle, On Dreams 461b), so dream content is borrowed from prior perception. Contemporary data sharpen this: congenitally blind people report few or no visual dream impressions and more auditory, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory ones, while in late-blind people visual dream imagery fades with the duration of blindness (Meaidi et al., 2014). Dreaming thus shows that phenomenal character can be generated internally at a given moment, but also that its qualitative repertoire depends on a history of sensory engagement—a result each side reads in its own favor.

Phenomenality Without Insight, Report, or Action

Ordinary dreams combine vivid perception and emotion with impaired critical judgment, weak volition, and almost total failure to recognize the state for what it is. Hobson framed this as primary consciousness without the secondary consciousness of reflection and language. Neuroimaging found relative deactivation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during REM sleep alongside activation of limbic and posterior regions (Maquet et al., 1996; Braun et al., 1997), a pattern linked to diminished self-monitoring, though some dreams retain reflective thought (Nir and Tononi, 2010).

This dissociation bears directly on theories of what phenomenal consciousness requires. If experience can be rich while prefrontal and metacognitive functions are attenuated, then reflective access, report, and executive control look like additions to phenomenality rather than its constituents. Dreaming has accordingly been cited as evidence against views that make prefrontal or higher-order representation necessary for experience. Within-state studies sharpen the case: comparing awakenings with and without dream reports in the same sleep stage, Siclari and colleagues found that dreaming in both NREM and REM sleep was associated with reduced low-frequency activity in a posterior cortical “hot zone,” whose activity also tracked specific dream contents such as faces and movement (Siclari et al., 2017). Boly and colleagues use such results, in which no report or task is required during the experience, to argue that the core correlates of consciousness are posterior rather than frontal (Boly et al., 2017). A reply open to higher-order theorists is that prefrontal activity is reduced, not abolished, and that the relevant higher-order states need not be located there (compare Lau’s Perceptual Reality Monitoring Theory and Rosenthal’s Higher-Order Thought).

Lucid Dreaming

Lucid dreaming runs the dissociation in the other direction. A lucid dreamer recognizes the dream as a dream while remaining within it, and can signal this to experimenters through prearranged eye movements recorded during verified REM sleep (LaBerge et al., 1981); lucidity is associated with increased frontopolar and parietal activity relative to non-lucid REM (Baird et al., 2019). In Metzinger’s terms, lucidity renders the world-model opaque: the subject experiences the world as a representation, the closest natural case of seeing one’s phenomenal world as constructed (Metzinger, 2003). Together, non-lucid and lucid dreaming show that phenomenality and metacognitive insight vary independently.

The Minimal Dreaming Self

Dreams also reveal how little is needed for a subject. Jennifer Windt characterizes dreams as immersive spatiotemporal hallucinations: what is constant across dreams is not a body, a narrative, or even a sensory scene, but a sense of being located here and now within a world (Windt, 2010, 2015). Reports of bodiless dreams, in which the dreamer is a mere point of view, suggest that spatiotemporal self-location can occur without bodily self-identification.

Metzinger proposes dreams as the best available window onto minimal phenomenal selfhood, linking bodiless dreams to out-of-body experiences and full-body illusions. He uses dreams to distinguish bodily imagery, self-location, perspective, and mental agency (Metzinger, 2013). Reports of bodiless or unusually embodied dreams suggest these features can dissociate; autobiographical identity and a familiar body image are not invariant requirements of dream experience. His concept of phenomenal transparency explains why constructed appearances are experienced as immediate reality: their construction is unavailable to introspection. The dream self can likewise seem immediately given rather than modeled. This supports investigating how selfhood is constituted; it does not establish that all forms of subjectivity are unreal.These cases bear on self-model theories (Metzinger’s No-Self Representational Theory of Subjectivity) and on claims that all experience carries pre-reflective for-me-ness (Zahavi’s Pre-Reflective For-Me-Ness): whatever minimal selfhood is, dreaming suggests it may be spatial and perspectival before it is bodily or conceptual.

Dream embodiment also distinguishes the experienced body from the organism sustaining it. Reduced correspondence between dream movement and actual movement does not establish bodily independence. Sensory incorporation and physiological coupling make complete disconnection an oversimplification. An enactive account may therefore appeal to the living organism and acquired sensorimotor capacities without requiring ordinary environmental interaction at every experiential moment.

Dream characters pose a further conceptual question. Their apparent autonomy shows that one person can experience agents whose actions surprise the dream ego. It does not show that these represented agents possess separate phenomenal perspectives. Apparent multiplicity of persons is not evidence of multiple conscious subjects within one dream.

Evan Thompson describes the ordinary dream self as a dream ego wholly identified with its viewpoint, and the lucid dreamer as shifting identification to the self-as-dreamer, evidence for his view of the self as an ongoing process of “I-making” rather than a fixed entity (Thompson, 2015a; see Thompson’s Phenomenology: Waking, Dreaming, Sleeping, Pure Awareness). Depth psychology adds that the authorship of experience is not transparent to its subject. For Freud, the manifest dream is the end-product of unconscious dream-work, so that what appears in consciousness is constructed by processes the subject does not experience (Freud, 1900; see Freud’s Surface Consciousness and Irreducible Affect). Jung treated dream figures as expressions of a psyche with autonomous, personified components, implying that a single field of experience can host centers of agency the dreamer does not identify with (Jung, 1948; see Jung’s Collective Unconscious and Synchronicity). Augustine had already registered the puzzle, asking whether he was himself in sleep when his dream self-consented to what his waking self-rejected (Augustine, Confessions X.30.41). Dreaming thus separates the unity of a phenomenal field from the identity and ownership of the self within it.

Are Dreams Experiences?

The evidential value of dreaming depends on dreams being experiences, and this has been denied. Norman Malcolm argued that dreams are not experiences during sleep at all: the concept of dreaming is learned from waking reports, which are its only criterion, and a person in any state of consciousness is not soundly asleep (Malcolm, 1959). Daniel Dennett’s “cassette theory” offered an empirical rather than conceptual challenge: dreams might be composed and loaded into memory during sleep without ever being presented to consciousness, so that it is like something only to recall them; dream recall cannot distinguish this from the received view (Dennett, 1976). The challenge anticipates Dennett’s Heterophenomenology and poses the question in its sharpest form: whether the existence of phenomenality in a given state is settled by testimony or by theory.

Subsequent findings have made real-time experience the received view. Lucid dreamers mark the onset of dreamed events with eye signals during REM (LaBerge et al., 1981); dreamed actions unfold over durations comparable to, though often longer than, waking actions (Erlacher et al., 2014); dreamed hand movements activate sensorimotor cortex (Dresler et al., 2011); and lucid dreamers have perceived and answered experimenters’ questions in real time (Konkoly et al., 2021). Yet the reports through which ordinary dreams are known remain retrospective and vulnerable to narrative fabrication (Rosen, 2013). Dreaming therefore exposes a general feature of the epistemology of experience: first-person knowledge of experience is mediated by memory and report, and its reliability is an empirical question (compare Schwitzgebel’s Unreliable Introspection).

A second dispute concerns the kind of experience dreams are. On the imagination model, dream “beliefs” are imaginings, and dream imagery is closer to imagining than perceiving (Sosa, 2005; Ichikawa, 2009); Thompson characterizes dreaming as “active, spontaneous imagination” (Thompson, 2015a). Revonsuo and Windt treat dreams as hallucinatory simulations with perception-like immersion. The finding that people with aphantasia, who lack voluntary visual imagery, nonetheless report visual dreams has been used against simple versions of the imagination model (Whiteley, 2020). At stake is whether perception-like phenomenal character requires current perception or can be generated by imagination’s involuntary operation.

Developmental and comparative evidence bear on who dreams. David Foulkes found that young children report dreams infrequently and in static form, and argued that dreaming depends on maturing visuospatial and representational capacities, making dream consciousness a cognitive achievement rather than a primordial given (Foulkes, 1999), a challenge to Hobson’s view of dreaming as developmentally prior. Conversely, David Peña-Guzmán argues that behavioral and neural evidence of dreaming in nonhuman animals supports attributing phenomenal consciousness to them (Peña-Guzmán, 2022).

Sleep, Dreamless Sleep, and the Boundaries of Consciousness

Dreamless sleep is the standard contrast case for defining consciousness; Searle’s Biological Naturalism defines conscious states as those that cease in dreamless sleep. Dreaming complicates this boundary. When the cortex is stimulated during NREM sleep, effective connectivity breaks down, a result interpreted as a loss of the integration consciousness requires (Massimini et al., 2005; see Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory). Yet dreaming occurs in NREM as well as REM sleep (Siclari et al., 2017), and Mark Solms’s lesion studies found that dreaming ceases after damage to specific forebrain regions even when REM sleep is preserved, implying that dreaming and REM are controlled by different mechanisms (Solms, 1997, 2000). The presence or absence of experience therefore does not map onto sleep stages, which is why contrasting dreaming and non-dreaming within the same stage has become a preferred method for isolating the correlates of consciousness.

Dreamless sleep may not be uniformly blank. Windt, Tore Nielsen, and Thompson distinguish non-immersive imagery and thinking, bodily sensations without dream-like immersion, and “selfless” or contentless states, including the witnessing sleep reported by experienced meditators (Windt, Nielsen, and Thompson, 2016). This connects scientific inquiry to the oldest systematic analysis of sleep states. The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad distinguishes waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, and a “fourth” (turīya) that is not a further state but the awareness underlying all three (Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 3–7, in Olivelle, 1998).

Advaita Vedānta argues that on waking the judgment “I slept well; I knew nothing” is a memory, implying a witnessing consciousness present in deep sleep; Nyāya replies that the judgment is an inference, since consciousness is a contingent quality of the self arising from contact of mind and object (Thompson, 2015b; see Śaṅkara’s Self-Luminous Nondualism and Nyāya’s Contingent Consciousness of the Enduring Self). Tibetan sleep yoga aims to recognize the “clear light” of awareness in dreamless sleep and links this practice to dying (Wangyal, 1998). The question these traditions and the newer science share is whether phenomenal consciousness requires content, or whether contentless awareness is possible (compare Shiah’s Contentless Consciousness Theory).

Nondual and Buddhist interpretations

As noted, the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad contrasts outwardly oriented waking, inwardly oriented dreaming, and deep sleep, then characterizes turīya, the “fourth,” as nondual selfhood beyond those distinctions (Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, §§3–7, in Gauḍapāda, 1936). In Advaita, this comparison motivates distinguishing changing experiential contents from the consciousness in whose light states are known. Turīya is not simply another dream episode.

Gauḍapāda deploys the waking–dream analogy to challenge the ultimate reality of apparently external multiplicity (Gauḍapāda, c. sixth century/1936, II.1–15). Its philosophical force is that seeming externality need not establish independent existence. Its limitation is that the absence of dream objects does not establish the absence of waking objects, nor does state comparison alone demonstrate an unchanging witness. Advaita’s stronger conclusion depends on its wider metaphysical argument.

Vasubandhu’s Twenty Verses uses dreams to answer objections to consciousness-only: spatiotemporally ordered appearances and bodily effects can occur without corresponding external objects (Vasubandhu, c. fourth–fifth century/1984). The target is the supposed necessity of external objects for experienced appearance. Yogācāra does not thereby become solipsism, nor should its account of cognition be equated with Advaita’s enduring Self. Buddhist dream analogies can undermine reification of consciousness as well as of objects; “dreamlike” need not mean sheer nonexistence.

Tibetan Buddhist and Bön dream yoga turns this comparison into disciplined inquiry. Recognizing and transforming dream appearances is intended to loosen the assumption that apparent solidity entails independent existence; sleep yoga seeks awareness beyond ordinary conceptual activity (Wangyal, 1998/2022). These practices investigate the relationship between luminosity, emptiness, and attachment to a subject–object division. Their experiential claims merit examination, but laboratory verification of lucid dreaming does not establish liberation, uninterrupted awareness through deep sleep, or survival after death.

Zhuangzi’s well-known butterfly dream provides another challenge: the waking identity from which a dream is judged may itself be only one situated perspective (Zhuangzi, c. fourth–third century BCE/1968, ch. 2). Its “transformation of things” unsettles a privileged, fixed standpoint without requiring an idealist substance underlying every experience.

Soul, Revelation, and Imaginal Reality

Soul-travel interpretations treat the dream perspective as a subject actually visiting another place while the body remains behind. Tylor documented this inference in his historical account of animism, although his evolutionary ranking of cultures should not be accepted as an adequate account of diverse Indigenous traditions (Tylor, 1871). The ontological question is whether experienced displacement is genuine displacement of an experiencer or a representation within experience. Dream phenomenology alone cannot decide.

Dreams also motivate an inference to survival: experience may outstrip the bodily senses because consciousness belongs to a soul. Augustine recounts Gennadius’s dream instruction that seeing while bodily eyes are inactive makes postmortem perception intelligible (Augustine, 415/1887, Letter 159). Yet seeing without currently using the eyes does not establish seeing without a functioning brain. Augustine himself cautions that dreaming of the dead need involve only their likenesses, just as dreams depict living people who are unaware of appearing (Augustine, c. 421/1887, On Care for the Dead, §13).

This distinction separates three claims often conflated: dreams represent absent persons; dreams reveal otherwise unavailable information; consciousness exists independently of the organism. None entails the next. Biblical and Qur’anic revelatory dreams supply theological examples of consciousness receiving truth through nonordinary presentation (Genesis 41; Matthew 1–2; Qur’an 12). Such revelation concerns the source and authority of particular experiences; it need not imply that consciousness itself is fundamental or divine.

Ibn ʿArabī gives dreaming a more explicitly ontological role. Imagination mediates intelligible or spiritual realities and sensible forms; dreaming exemplifies how meaning becomes perceptible without reducing to either ordinary material objects or arbitrary fantasy (Ibn ʿArabī, 1229/1980, “The Wisdom of Light in the Word of Joseph”). The dream analogy extends to the cosmos as divine self-disclosure. Phenomenal consciousness is thus participation in an imaginal order, not merely private fabrication. This conclusion depends on his theology; vividness alone cannot distinguish disclosure from construction.

Soul, Revelation, and Anomalous Claims

Edward Tylor proposed that the concept of the soul arose from dreams and visions, in which a self appears to act apart from the sleeping body, making dream experience a root of mind–body dualism (Tylor, 1871). Religious traditions accordingly gave dream experience its own ontological status. Augustine distinguished corporeal, spiritual (imaginative), and intellectual vision, placing dreams in the middle class: likenesses of bodies seen without bodies, a distinct mode in which phenomenal objects exist (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram XII).

In Ibn ʿArabī, as interpreted by Henry Corbin, dreams open onto the imaginal world (ʿālam al-mithāl), an intermediate realm in which spiritual realities take on form, so that dream images are neither merely subjective nor physical (Corbin, 1969). Revelatory dreams in Hebrew and Islamic scripture presuppose that dream experience can carry content not generated by the dreamer.

Parapsychology tests a version of that claim. Claims of dream telepathy, precognition, or veridical encounters would, if robustly demonstrated, challenge prevailing accounts of information acquisition. A meta-analysis of 50 dream-ESP studies from 1966 to 2016, including the Maimonides program, reported a small significant (above chance) correspondence between dream content and remote targets, with effect sizes declining over time (Storm et al., 2017). If such effects proved veridical, they would bear on whether dream content is wholly brain-generated. Such results do not settle exceptional-information claims, and even confirmed anomalous access would not alone demonstrate nonphysical consciousness: unusual knowledge and an immaterial experiencer are different hypotheses.

Running the other way, people reporting near-death experiences show elevated rates of REM intrusion into waking (Nelson et al., 2006), and bodiless dreams resemble out-of-body experiences (Metzinger, 2013), suggesting that some experiences taken as evidence of a separable consciousness may involve dream mechanisms intruding into waking.

What Dreams Establish—and Leave Open

Dreaming’s strongest contribution is comparative: it shows how phenomenal presence can persist while familiar conditions of waking knowledge and action change. Internally generated worlds support constructive accounts; variable insight separates consciousness from explicit self-recognition; altered embodiment constrains theories of self; uncertain recall reveals limits of retrospective evidence. None licenses treating every dream as identical in structure or every feature of ordinary waking consciousness as dispensable.

The metaphysical alternatives remain distinct. A physicalist may regard dreams as internally realized neural experience; a dualist as experience mediated by brain and soul; an idealist as mind-dependent manifestation; a Buddhist as dependently arisen appearance without intrinsic essence. Dreams provide discriminating evidence where these approaches make different predictions, but their mere occurrence selects none conclusively. Their deepest constraint is that any adequate theory must explain both why an apparent world can be absent while experience occurs and why that occurrence is accessible so imperfectly to the experiencer and to science.

Dream Arguments: Skepticism, Idealism, and the Waking World

Because dreams are experienced as real while dreaming, they have served as the principal argument that phenomenal presence cannot certify its objects. As noted, Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, woke uncertain whether he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt of being a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of being Zhuang Zhou, and named the episode “the transformation of things” (Zhuangzi, ch. 2). Plato’s Socrates asks what evidence could show whether we are asleep or awake (Plato, Theaetetus 158b–d). Descartes concluded that there are no sure signs distinguishing waking from sleep, then turned the argument into a foundation: whether dreaming or waking, it remains certain that experience is occurring (Descartes, 1641/1984, Meditation I). His eventual criterion for waking was not felt vividness but coherence, the connection of perceptions with the rest of one’s life through memory (Meditation VI).

Indian idealists used dreams more ambitiously. Vasubandhu answered realist objections that, without external objects, experience would lack determinacy of place and time and causal efficacy: dreams show both without external objects, so experience may be “mere representation” (vijñaptimātra) (Silk, 2016; see Yogācāra’s Mind-Only). Gauḍapāda extended the argument to waking life, holding that whatever does not exist at the beginning and the end does not exist in the middle, so that waking objects are unreal as dream objects are (Gauḍapāda, Māṇḍūkya Kārikā II, in Karmarkar, 1953).

The common lesson is that the felt reality of experience is identical in dreaming and waking. Dreaming thus leaves phenomenal presence neutral between realism and idealism: arguments about the reality of a world must appeal to coherence, explanation, or metaphysics rather than to how experience feels.

Assessment

Dreaming bears on phenomenal consciousness more broadly than any other single phenomenon. It supports the internal sufficiency of brain activity for experience while showing that experience’s qualitative repertoire depends on sensory history. It dissociates phenomenality from report, metacognition, volition, and bodily self-identification, isolating a minimal subject defined by perspective. It allows within-state comparisons that sharpen the search for neural correlates, and it complicates the equation of consciousness with wakefulness, raising the possibility of contentless awareness. It shows that the felt reality of experience cannot by itself decide between realism and idealism.

Dreaming’s limits are equally clear. Nearly all evidence about dreams is retrospective and depends on memory. No account of dreaming explains why any brain state is felt. Inferences from dreaming to idealism, to brain-independent consciousness, or to a higher or mystical realm go beyond what dreaming alone can establish, as do deflationary inferences that dreams are not experiences. Dreaming does not resolve the nature of phenomenal consciousness, but it constrains every theory of it.

References

Aristotle. On Dreams. In D. Gallop (Trans.), Aristotle on Sleep and Dreams. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1996. [Bekker pagination.]

Augustine. Confessions. H. Chadwick (Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. [Cited by book, chapter, section.]

Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram), Vol. 2. J. H. Taylor (Trans.). Ancient Christian Writers 42. New York: Newman Press, 1982. [Book XII.]

Baird, B., Mota-Rolim, S. A., and Dresler, M. (2019). The cognitive neuroscience of lucid dreaming. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 100, 305–323.

Boly, M., Massimini, M., Tsuchiya, N., Postle, B. R., Koch, C., and Tononi, G. (2017). Are the neural correlates of consciousness in the front or in the back of the cerebral cortex? Clinical and neuroimaging evidence. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(40), 9603–9613.

Braun, A. R., et al. (1997). Regional cerebral blood flow throughout the sleep-wake cycle: An H2(15)O PET study. Brain, 120(7), 1173–1197.

Corbin, H. (1969). Creative Imagination in the Ṣūfism of Ibn ʿArabī. R. Manheim (Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dennett, D. C. (1976). Are dreams experiences? Philosophical Review, 85(2), 151–171.

Descartes, R. (1641/1984). Meditations on First Philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dresler, M., Koch, S. P., Wehrle, R., Spoormaker, V. I., Holsboer, F., Steiger, A., Sämann, P. G., Obrig, H., and Czisch, M. (2011). Dreamed movement elicits activation in the sensorimotor cortex. Current Biology, 21, 1833–1837.

Erlacher, D., Schädlich, M., Stumbrys, T., and Schredl, M. (2014). Time for actions in lucid dreams: Effects of task modality, length, and complexity. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1013.

Foulkes, D. (1999). Children’s Dreaming and the Development of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Freud, S. (1900/1953). The Interpretation of Dreams. Standard Edition, Vols. 4–5. J. Strachey (Trans.). London: Hogarth Press.

Ichikawa, J. (2009). Dreaming and imagination. Mind & Language, 24(1), 103–121.

Jung, C. G. (1948/1960). General aspects of dream psychology. In The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Collected Works, Vol. 8. R. F. C. Hull (Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Karmarkar, R. D. (1953). Gauḍapāda-Kārikā. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Konkoly, K. R., et al. (2021). Real-time dialogue between experimenters and dreamers during REM sleep. Current Biology, 31, 1417–1427.

LaBerge, S. P., Nagel, L. E., Dement, W. C., and Zarcone, V. P., Jr. (1981). Lucid dreaming verified by volitional communication during REM sleep. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 727–732.

Llinás, R. R., and Paré, D. (1991). Of dreaming and wakefulness. Neuroscience, 44, 521–535.

Malcolm, N. (1959). Dreaming. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Maquet, P., et al. (1996). Functional neuroanatomy of human rapid-eye-movement sleep and dreaming. Nature, 383, 163–166.

Massimini, M., et al. (2005). Breakdown of cortical effective connectivity during sleep. Science, 309, 2228–2232.

Meaidi, A., Jennum, P., Ptito, M., and Kupers, R. (2014). The sensory construction of dreams and nightmare frequency in congenitally blind and late blind individuals. Sleep Medicine, 15(5), 586–595.

Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Metzinger, T. (2013). Why are dreams interesting for philosophers? The example of minimal phenomenal selfhood, plus an agenda for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 746.

Nelson, K. R., Mattingly, M., Lee, S. A., and Schmitt, F. A. (2006). Does the arousal system contribute to near death experience? Neurology, 66(7), 1003–1009.

Nir, Y., and Tononi, G. (2010). Dreaming and the brain: From phenomenology to neurophysiology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(2), 88–100.

Olivelle, P. (Trans.) (1998). The Early Upaniṣads: Annotated Text and Translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peña-Guzmán, D. M. (2022). When Animals Dream: The Hidden World of Animal Consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Plato. Theaetetus. M. J. Levett (Trans.), rev. M. Burnyeat. In J. M. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. [Stephanus pagination.]

Revonsuo, A. (2006). Inner Presence: Consciousness as a Biological Phenomenon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rosen, M. G. (2013). What I make up when I wake up: Anti-experience views and narrative fabrication of dreams. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 514.

Siclari, F., Baird, B., Perogamvros, L., Bernardi, G., LaRocque, J. J., Riedner, B., Boly, M., Postle, B. R., and Tononi, G. (2017). The neural correlates of dreaming. Nature Neuroscience, 20(6), 872–878.

Silk, J. A. (2016). Materials Toward the Study of Vasubandhu’s Viṁśikā (I): Sanskrit and Tibetan Critical Editions of the Verses and Autocommentary; An English Translation and Annotations. Harvard Oriental Series 81. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Solms, M. (1997). The Neuropsychology of Dreams: A Clinico-Anatomical Study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Solms, M. (2000). Dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(6), 843–850.

Sosa, E. (2005). Dreams and philosophy. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 79(2), 7–18.

Storm, L., Sherwood, S. J., Roe, C. A., Tressoldi, P. E., Rock, A. J., and Di Risio, L. (2017). On the correspondence between dream content and target material under laboratory conditions: A meta-analysis of dream-ESP studies, 1966–2016. International Journal of Dream Research, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.11588/ijodr.2017.2.34888

Thompson, E. (2015a). Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Thompson, E. (2015b). Dreamless sleep, the embodied mind, and consciousness: The relevance of a classical Indian debate to cognitive science. In T. Metzinger and J. M. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND (pp. 1551–1569). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture. London: John Murray.

Wangyal, T. (1998). The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.

Whiteley, C. M. K. (2020). Aphantasia, imagination and dreaming. Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01526-8

Windt, J. M. (2010). The immersive spatiotemporal hallucination model of dreaming. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 295–316.

Windt, J. M. (2015). Dreaming: A Conceptual Framework for Philosophy of Mind and Empirical Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Windt, J. M., Nielsen, T., and Thompson, E. (2016). Does consciousness disappear in dreamless sleep? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 871–882.

Zhuangzi. The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. B. Watson (Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. [Chapter 2, “Discussion on Making All Things Equal.”]