I think the way that Buddhists and Vedantists use the lucid dream analogy doesn’t rely on solipsism, so perhaps I’ve chosen the wrong topic to find a solution to the “in the moment” question.

The point of the challenge is not whether or not there are individualized minds that have “different” perspectives, but whether or not those apparently “other” minds have a common Ground.

I don’t think, as far as I can see, that any of the solipsism arguments are likely to be relevant, as solipsism is generally taken as meaning only “my” mind exists, which is radically different from non-duality (though often misinterpreted that way).

So we’re still at the point where in the moment of the false awakening, there’s no concrete thing you can point to.

I actually have had an answer for years - at some point one’s intuition kicks in, and one knows one is not dreaming. What happens in false awakenings is one’s lost that intuition. So in a way, once you’re familiar with that intuitive sense, you just wait until it kicks in. No external evidence or argument is going to help.

I often employ the false awakening analogy as a challenge to belief in physicalism. If there’s no evidence at any given moment to refute the possibility that your and my mind exist within a larger consciousness, there’s no logical reason for me to choose the metaphysical belief in physicalism. All scientific experiments could be conducted within a shared dream (which is what it means to have individualized minds within a larger context of Consciousness - and i am not talking about idealism, but that’s a larger conversation.

In any case, thanks. I’m very curious to see if anybody who makes arguments against solipsism can refute this argument against nonduality. So far, I haven’t come across anyone who has done so convincingly.