Why do we remember our dreams so well? Implications of dream recollection on the imagination vs. hallucination debate
Why is dream memory so good? This loaded question appears to be based on an incorrect assumption, considering that bad memory of dreaming is, after all, well documented. However, whether dream memory is good or bad depends on what we compare these recollections to. Dream recollection is usually compared to memory of waking perceptual experiences, yet there is disagreement about whether this comparison is appropriate. Preliminary evidence suggests that dream memory is not bad compared to imagination memory and this may have implications for what it means to dream. Here we consider exactly how bad – or good – dream memory is compared to imagination that occurs while mindwandering and argue that while, prima facie, dream memory appears to provide an argument for the imagination model, this argument turns out to be unconvincing. There are many adverse conditions that would explain why memory of dreaming is worse than memory of waking events or hallucinations under the hallucination model. Further, if, as preliminary evidence might suggest, dream memory turns out to be somewhat better than imagination memory, this currently has no explanation under the imagination model. However, NREM dreams display the type of memory one might expect from imaginative dreaming. While the goodness or badness of memory in dreams should not be seen as a definitive argument for a particular model of dreaming, it should instead be taken as a piece of the broader landscape of abductive reasoning in this debate.
Authors
- Ludwig Crespin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5912-4372)
- Melanie G. Rosen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7545-5558)
Institutions
- Université Clermont Auvergne (FR)
- Trent University (CA)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Philosophy and the Mind Sciences
- Published
- 2025-04-26
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2025.10225
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Sleep and Wakefulness Research
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 2.86