Its an interesting question and its correlation to dreams consciousness need further deliberations.

When we are awake, then logic seems to be real and can be reasoned out with our subjective takes with self and also in relation to the time and surrounding we are in. More precisely, the logic of the awake

consciousness is real but subjective and may change minute-to-minute.

Conversely, when we are in a state of non-waking consciousness, what we see (in our dreams), what we surmise, and what we carry forward with our memory (clear dream-recall), is absolutely reflexive, pure, non-confounded; and most importantly, we are very much present in our dreams, but are not aware the dream consciousness. Because the waking consciousness which concerns with logic has a fully aware person observing it and modifying it in real-time, the logic is weak as it can be subjected to person-specific confounding. Other way around, in the non-awake consciousness, which does not have an aware person observing the logic, is apparently more consistent. To conclude, reflexive logic of non-awake state without awareness and the relative subjective confounding, scores over awake logic that is vulnerable to change.

In my personal view, and in a sentence, I would say that yes

Marc Carvallo

To be able to consider your question, one needs to know what you mean by “waking consciousness.” Surely you do not mean merely the difference, for example, between a sleeping dog and a waking dog. I will approach an answer to your question (1) first by a deeper discussion of what “consciousness” might man, and (2) second by a consideration of nonhuman animals use of logic.

The following consideration of “consciousness is copy/pasted from a chapter I co-wrote with Rosanne Lorden (see pages 16-17) Here is a link to the chapter where you may also find the References cited in the following. I apologize for the length of the copy/paste, but the meaning of “consciousness” is not a simple question.

https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/rkthomas/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.rkthomas/files/ThomasLorden1989_0.pdf

Natsoulas (1978) began his analysis of consciousness by distinguishing between consciousness-3 and consciousness-4. The [numbers] refer to the third and fourth definitions in the 1933 Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Quoting Natsoulas: The main definiens of the fourth entry reads in full,

''The state or faculty of being conscious as a condition or concomitant of all thought, feeling, and volition; 'the recognition by the thinking subject of its own actions or affections' (Hamilton)." This concept of consciousness amounts to a restriction of the "wide, colorless use" (Dewey, 1906) to which the third entry is addressed. Consciousness-3 means simply being aware of something, anything, whereas I exemplify consciousness-4 by being aware of, or by being in a position to be aware of, my own thought, feeling, volition, or other mental episode (i.e., event, process, or occurrent state).

Natsoulas (1983 1985) states that consciousness-3 is simply being aware of something, such as an internal state or environmental event. This subsumes activities such as perceiving red, hearing a noise, holding an event in short-term memory . . . . Consciousness-4 is being aware of being aware and includes such categories as intentions, abstractions, self-concepts, and thoughts.

Many have expressed views on the relationship between language and consciousness. In Carlson's (1987) recent account, "Consciousness ... can be viewed as being synonymous with verbal processes” (p. 407) and “ . . . the sole criterion for consciousness is verbal acknowledgement” (p. 403). “Private nonverbal processes are conscious if we can describe them . . . we are conscious of external events only if we can think (and verbalize) about them” (p. 407).

Because even the most linguistically accomplished of the apes could barely provide such descriptions, it might appear that this view precludes nonhuman animals from having consciousness [added here . . . . or Natsoulas’ consciousness-4]. Carlson also said,

Although consciousness may be synonymous with activity of verbal mechanisms of the brain, we need not conclude that only humans are conscious. The evolutionary process is incremental: new traits and abilities build upon ones that already exist... Certainly your dog can learn to communicate with you. The fact that it can learn to tell you when it wants to eat, go for a walk, or play probably means that it is conscious, also. (p. 406).

However, Carlson did not equate consciousness with communication per se, noting that “Species-typical communications . . . probably do not fall in the domain of consciousness.” (p. 404).

Turning now to the second part of my attempt to address your question, are animals capable of behavior that might be deemed “logical” ? I believe that some, perhaps many, animal species are capable of displaying use of logic. Here I point you to the following chapter, “Squirrel Monkeys, Concepts, and Logic.”

https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/rkthomas/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.rkthomas/files/ThomasNatArtifMindsChap1993.pdf

If you read the chapter, the point was made that in one of our experiments (Burden & Thomas, 1984) we believed the monkeys demonstrated the use of relational logic, but the experiment did not enable us to distinguish between whether the monkeys used conjunctive or conditional logic. That inability to distinguish was elaborated upon in my 2012 Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning entry titled “Conditional Reasoning by Nonhuman Animals.”

https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/rkthomas/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.rkthomas/files/CRPreprint.pdf

So . . . I cannot answer your question, but I hope this has made it possible for you to understand the complexity of the question and the work to be done to answer it.

Regrading the question of logic when dreaming versus when awake from a dream, that is another very complicated matter for which I have too little knowledge to consider. As for personal experience, I have dreams that, when I can recall one clearly when awakened, defy logic. Most dreams cannot be recalled clearly by anyone, and on that subject, I do have some education, especially of the physiology of dreaming.

You may find other useful and downloadable articles, chapters, etc. on my website:

https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/rkthomas/

Roger K. Thomas

logic is form surely, and therefore subject to replication in dreams

Dear all,

Thanks for the 6 answers! My search is to build up a subjective knowledge from scratch. The last 5 ages, i.e. since the 17th century beginning with Galileo up to now (the beginning of the 21st century), the whole science consists of objective knowledge (see a.o. Popper), including the most recent development of AI and space exploration, etc. However, since mid 20th century there is a gradual change in the direction of what you may call a sort of subjective knowledge (see a.o. consciousness studies), based mainly upon the analytical philosophy. Reason itself belongs (according to me) to the subject! Accordingly, it is at least unfair to remain on the armchair of the objective knowledge. Please go and walk in the nature and hear the splashing of water. According to Galileo the language of nature is mathematics. But how can I describe the splashing of water mathematically? Maybe you can answer me both objectively and subjectively in a sort of quantum-parallelism. Thanks, Marc.

I sincerely thank Marc for bringing up a perceptive perspective on subjectivity and objectivity and linking it up with the state of consciousness. And in doing so he provided us with the opportunity to explore the issue.

I was always overwhelmed by the dream consciousness since my childhood days, and more by what I used to see in them.

Being a career Anesthesiologist, I got the opportunity to dwell deeper into it, and what I gained in return is simply more than wonderful.

Now I place human consciousness not only into 'awake' and 'dream' consciousness, but further divided into lamellar structure with a good bit of overlap. The levels, from consciousness to deepest natural sleep (because anesthetized patients gets the deepest sleep), are: being fully awake, in imaginative reality, in day dreaming; light sleep with random perceptions, deep sleep with dreams of day-to-day activity (usually related to professional, personal, domestic life. Represent a stressed up individual); deep sleep with pleasant current day context content (stress free individual who enjoys is personal and professional life); deeper sleep with out-of-ordinary dreams which an individual can memorize but cannot relate (usually dreams containing features experience of previous life/lives); and finally to deepest natural soul-relieving sleep (wherein the soul moves out and travels beyond our planet, solar system and even galaxies (and in the process proves that extra-earth life exists).

Now with individuals indulging in more and more outer-than-self life in form of screen-front activities (like laptops, computers, mobile, TV, movie screen) and gender agnostic convenience socializing; they are less likely to internalize and understand oneself and inner functional scope of our body-n-mind system. I now find a very few natural dreamers who deliberate on this issue. Therefore, the dreams that the fellow sleep-starved ambitious human beings get today are of day-2-day life and represent stress around our external life. In the yesteryears, going way back in the ancient times and periods in India, there were yogis and saints who could internalize at-will and therefore were very much aware and conversant with human body system and its scope. For them, it was awareness in awake state of mind, what we try to comprehend from dreams today.

When these facets of internalization are a things that are way past us, we are left only with the dream path to realize the potential of human existence fully; and sadly we are every day losing out on our wonderful spectrum of state of consciousness to external gadgetisation, competition and comparison, and awkward socialization; with only that bit of sleep with which to recuperate from daily assault to our bodily physiologic systems.

I will stop at the 'introduction' above for the want of space and wish to converge back on such an important of our life again, especially in trying to link up the epi-genetic implications of what we witness in our dream consciousness.

As Dr./Mr. Carvallo (and other discussants) do not understand knowledge the same way, I will make this my last contribution to this discussion. To show how I understand knowledge, please see the attached PDF, "Brain and Intelligence."

Also, in my first answer, I failed to make explicit the relationship between the complexity of defining "consciousness" and the relevance of showing that nonhuman animals can use of logic. To make it explicit, squirrel moneys lack Natsoulas' "consciousness-4" (being aware that one is aware) but they are capable of using logic having only "consciousness-3" (being aware).

Popper has been well refuted. See relevant subsection in the attached PDF of an article by Schick. Despite his good synopsis of the weakness of Popper's falsifiability criterion for what is and what is not science, Schick did not prove his article's title.

in closing, having been a white water canoeist for approximately 40 years, I have done much water splashing, and my understanding of "Brain and Intelligence" only enriches all my experiences.

Dear Amitabh and Roger,

Thank you both for suggestions for furthering the search of the subjective knowledge. I 'll read both pdf's of Roger (No End of Science, but completing it!). And Amitabh, I am completely unaware that anesthesiology can have enormous influence on our brain. (By the way, do you know your fellow-anesthesiologist prof. Stuart Hameroff (University of Tucson, Arizona) who is working together with the renowned physicist/mathematician prof. Roger Penrose (University of Oxford, UK); they still puzzling the myriad of consciousness). Again, thanks! Marc.