Reality, what is really real? What is really not real?

120 responses total.

Reality is stuff that happens.  Unreality is stuff that doesn't happen.

so who defines what happens?

(as in "how do you know something has happened?")

[I think I'm going to love this.]

Relative Reality is what you know as reality because you have experienced
it via all of your various senses.
Relative Reality is different for every individual.
Realative Reality is the only meaningful reality to the individual.

re 3
yeah who decides what has happened and what hasn't. It is different for 
different people, but yet there is somthing that we all must share.

Heres another question for ya. 
Who makes things happen?

re 4:  But what is real reality?

We don't know for SURE.  All we know is what we sense.

Yeah, and that might not be accurate either.

I see.

re #8-

You are very right, it may not be acurate at all.  It is still nonetheless
the only 'individual' way we have of knowing reality.

If the sensory process is not representative or reflective of reality then it
is not a means by which we can know reality. This idea has already been dealt
with by R. Descartes.

And he's stupid.
I said you MAY very well be right, I didn't say you WERE right.
Our senses probably report an acurate reality, but there is
no DEFINITE way to prove it.
The question is how do you KNOW the sensory process is not representative or
reflective of reality?  How can you prove it one way or the other?

I don't think that you can.
You have to belive in things for them to be real. You have to belive that
because if feels solid, that means it is.

Exactly.

re:#12
Nope, our senses do NOT provide us with an accurate description of reality
AT ALL. Why? Think of the stick in the glass of water experiment, for all
purposes the stick looks bent, it just isn't. A piece of glass at 450 
degrees C looks just like a piece of glass at 20 degrees C, take it in your
hand and you'll notice the difference, however, at the same time your senses
will not be able to tell the diff. in temp. to a hot stove burner. Your 
senses are awefully limited, vision is only representative of a narrow
part of the EM spectrum, you can't even detect high energy radiation, nor
can you smell all substances at finite concentrations.  VERY deficient!
re:#13
Nada again. The concept here is not belief (people believe a lot of crap and
it has absolutly no reflection upon the actual existance of what they 
believe, i.e., belief something therefore it exists is PURE BULLSHIT). 
Consult a psych. book about cognition and the cognitive process, add
does not mean that we have to make certain steps in the beginning to lay down
a framework for communicating ideas, like the concept of what is solid or
not, and as soon as that happens you run into problems, e.g. is glas a 
solid??

in your own indivualy <sp> reality what you belive exists, does exist. Weather
you can prove to anyone else that it exists, is another matter though. Think
about God(s). If I belive in God then in my reality God exists, weather you 
belive in God is entirly up to you. And since our sences don't provide a 
base for what is real and what isn't, what does?

re #15-  i think you miss the point of the arguements, because you think
they negate yours.  That's not the case.  They basically point out much
of the truth in your arguments.  I guess it's just not clear
to you.
We do have other 'intruments' that go beyond our admittedly limited
ability to 'know' reality.  My point is that we can only know reality
with whatever collective or individual tools we possess.  anything beyond
that is pure speculation about reality.

re:#16
Uhh, ehhm, yeah, I believe in god, therefore god exists, no, not for all people
just for me, in my universe, my reality. Any other schizoidal delusions you    
can come up with?
re:#17
Yikes, that's the whole point: how, when and where did we agree that what our
limited senses tells us actually exists? Am I imagining sitting on a computer
leaving you a message, OR am I REALLY sitting infront of a physical computer
typing this message? The issue is not HOW well we percieve things, but can we
actually make a claim of existence AT ALL (cogito, ergo sum vs. qui sensu
percipi potest, ergo esse). If you claim that Descartes was stupid, and ask 
THIS very question, then you have not understood what he attempting to do,
 right? The question then is how do we get out of our reductio ad absurdum?
(Hint: every level of complexity floats freely above the next, supported only
 by abstractions. Structures emerge from unconceived thoughts. )

I think you are missing the point.
It's merely definition.
I define reality as the most accurate picture I can get of what 'IS' based
upon all of my resources.  Beyond this, a concept of reality is not
very meaninful.

ok, ok, I believe you can't/won't follow me here, so rest comfortably with y
that trivial attitude about it. I can think af at least two problems with your
view, right now, wonder why you don't see 'em, well, not really....

Well Then, show them to me.  Elighten me, if you have some enlightenment to 
give me.  I may be stupid, but I *can* learn, and even *change* my
possistion if I hear a good enough argument to do so.  So far you haven't
said anythingto me which makes me think I need to change it.
Trivial?  how so?  You haven't given me any meaningful definition of
reality yourself.

re #19: (I almost hate to say it, but you've just changed my world view.
        It never occured to me that what is beyond my senses doesn't matter
        because I'll never know it's there anyway. Not that I've spent all that
        much time insecure in my grasp of "reality"; I usually do take the
        "what I can sense is reality" tack.)

re #15, 1st paragraph: (so how DO you know the difference, if not by
        sense? how do you think those instruments you describe are
        calibrated? How do you know what the instruments read? How do you
        know there is a difference to begin with? You're using a circular
        argument here...)

re:#21
Trivial, because you ASSUME that your senses ARE your 'interface' to reality,
and I say assume, because you have not made a valid argument why your senses
could have that property.
1] Since you do not provide a proof for what you say your concept of reality
   becomes an assumption, and therefore is just as dubious as the 'I believe
   this, therefore this exists..' argument.
2] If I grant your assumption as true and correct then your statement about
   how you percieve reality (i.e., how you define reality) has a tremendous
   flaw: reality encompasses more than your senses/resources can tell you,
   but for you that is not part of reality. Unless you allow for uncertainty
   (which is diff. then speculation) you cannot claim to know reality par se.

See, the rub is that when Descartes says, "things we know for sure" he jumps
into the abyss of metaphysics, out of which there is no escape (unless you
think his attempt was any good). He denies physical existence on the basis that
it is uncertain, but is it, i.e., can we work on the basis of 'essence'? Either
way you turn you will run into problems. When D. finally makes his claim of
"cogito, ergo sum" we're still not any further ahead then we were before, since
neither 'cogito' nor 'sum' are well defined. What happens when you start a 
causal chain, regarding 'sum', at the end of chapter 3 ?? How can he claim
the existence of certain items ("an evil force") while he cannot claim HOW he
"knows them for sure"? 
There is no metaphysical explanation for physical existance, therefore we
either exist as metaphysical concepts ('essences') or as physical beings.
If you chose metaphy. you cannot make any claims about physical existence, if
you chose physical existence you cannot know reality for the sumtotal of it
is larger than what we can grasp and know. You can only chose physical e
existence if you admit to the following: reality, as a concept, I cannot know
completely, there are uncertain aspects of it. WHATEVER is 'known for sure' 
(in the physical system, not Descartes's system) forms my WORLDPERSPECTIVE.
Please note:
a] I say 'chose'; there has to be a nontrivial reason(s) for going one way or
   the other, which I leave for you to think about, or read about, since the
   'background' knowledge is considerable. Second, I cannot claim that I'm 
   able to explain many of those concepts (what does Plato mean by 'potentia',
   what is 'res extensa' vs. 'res cogitans' (ok, those are rather easy), but
   how can I sumtotal Kant and explain the depth of his central question
   (are synthetic judgements possible a priori), sufficiently here and now?
   Third, once through all the philosophical concepts, how do I go on and  
   explain the questions brought up by QP, and it's implications??
b] Once done with a], which should take you quite some time, you will see why
   simplistic statements on the basis of sensory perception (etc.) are indeed
   simplistic (besides the fact that we can come to terms on ideas like
   uncertainty and worldperspective), and that they're in need of better
   definition and modification.
c] the flaws in systems in which metaphysical and physical ideas mix freely
   (i.e., religion) will become apparent, which may/may-not be a shocker.

re:#22
The issue is if your senses are sufficient to explain what passes for reality,
the exact quantities and qualities of the examples are trivial to that respect
and are only used to elucidate the point in question to somebody who forms his
worldperspective in their qualitative/quantitative terms.

I hate to say this, but, to quote GWAR:
'Speak English or Die!'

As clear as I can make it:

We know what is real because we have a way to perceive it.
Real must be perception based to have any meaning.
Show me how something can have any 'meaning' if we can't percieve it
in some way?
Sure, there may be more to reality than what we can currently perceive, but
what meaning can an unpercieved reality possibly have?

You are all a part of my dream, pray I gain no lucid control over it.  Gosh,
when I wake up you all will vanish.  Good thing this coma is most likely
irrevers- able, but then again what you call armageddon I call morning.

Ahh but what if the person who is dreaming you up, wakes up?? What then?

I *still* say that reality is stuff that happens.

so who determines what happens???
I may say that the Holicost <sp> didn't happen, therefor it isn't real

re:#24
Well, I tried, I guess there are certain gaps to you have to fill by yourself,
rather pass them by with assumptions.

Re #28:  Nah, saying that something did or didn't happen has no effect
on whether it happened or not.  Now, actually *doing* something that
causes something to happen is a different story, of course.

re#26...Arggggggg!:)

imagine three alien races, symbiotic life forms.  the first alien sees
hears smells etc. what we call the real world, the second does not have what
we would call senses, but can sense the thoughts of the first, and the
third alien senses the thoughts of the second.  each is getting a different
viewpoint, but each thinks it is sensing reality...
now imagine we are the third alien.  how can we know what reality really is, if
we are seeing it through all these 'filters', through the minds
of other beings...

(we can't. That's why we call what *we* sense the real world. If we can't
sense it, it's not real to us yet.)

as i said before.

R#24 stimulates something I have been reading lately in Charles Tart's
book "States of Consciousness," and on the question of how our perception
of the world "matches" whatever is the "actual" world.  Even Oscar Wilde
worried over this same idea.  Like Tart, Wilde believed that "reality"
was *enculturated*.  Certain things, certain ways of looking at and
percieving the world, are beneficial to your culture depending upon what
time and place you live in.  What is beneficial to your culture, in Wilde
and Tart's view, simply determines what you percieve, what you are
"conscious" of.  For Wilde, it was artists that showed us what was most
important in the world, therefore determined what we percieve as reality.
He says:  "There were fogs in London once, I dare say there were, BUT
NO ONE SAW THEM" until they were painted.
Tart gives a similair example, that of eskimos.  Eskimos can literally
SEE twenty or so different types of snow.  We do not see those different
types.  We are actuall^ not conscious of those varying types of snow
because it it not important for our survival to see them.  Evolution
has decided that there are certain types of snow which are not "real"
to us--we simply are not conscious of them.  In that view, there is
"stuff that is happening" all the time which we are not privy to simply
because it is not necessary for us to be conscious of it.  We are
unconscious of the sum total of reality, it is necessary, in order
for us to satisfy natural drives, to be conscious of a small sliver, a
cross section.
Reality is a blessing and a curse in this sense.
To me, this is a very interesting idea.  Tart goes so far as to imply
that there could even be "angels," yet in what form would we see them?
Only those forms which we have been enculturated into seeing or believing
exist.  His example is for theatrical purposes only but it makes a good
point.  What is really OUT THERE and HOW MUCH do we really see?

see item one as well, this is covered a little there too.  yes i agree that
we don't see all of reality, but i'm not sure that it's culture.  i think
that what we see is determined by the individual, which is somewhat affected
by the culture, but not solely.  many other things also affect the individual
and therefore what he sees.

re 35:  Nooooooooooo!  They used that quote on my SAT.  Also, that bit about 
the snow is B.S.  Any alpine skier can tell at least seven or eight kinds of 
snow at a glance.  Good ones, probably more.  

Re 36:  I think you are right in that "culture" does not affect people
entireely. I think that each of us grows up and lives in our own, personal set
of stimuli which is our universe.  what we call culture shows up in most of
them, but  in very different amounts and ways, and it is certainly not the sole
or  even most important factor in our growth.  

R#37:  I assume you mean the Wilde quote.  This quote lacks validity
because they used it on your SAT?  Also, your reference to the alpine
skier doesn't "cut either way".I assume that the ability of an alpine
skier to "see different types of snow" would only lend support to what
Tart and Wilde believe, namely that reality is larger than what we percieve
it to be.  Eskimos and alpine skiers, as opposed to you and me (who I assume
are not either) have access to a portion of reality that most of don't have
access to.
This view seems to show that what we mundanely refer to as "reality" is
not a closed system, but an opened-ended plenum of possible realities (if
that makes any sense...).

yes, i was griping about the culture part, and greg was griping about the 
eskimo part.  anyone, according to us, can gain these added realities, not
just one culture.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss