I've had a recent crisis; I'm sorta over it now, but it still bothers me.
How do I know anything is real?
I can start out with I think, therefore I am. (Which finaly makes sense to me.)
However, how do I know that everything besides me is not some very clever illusion? (and by besides me, I mean not my body (or even my brain), but my mind. The part of me that thinks. The part of me that I know is there because if it wasn't there I wouldn't be able to know it was or wasn't there.
Can you prove the reality of anything? Will I wake up from my life tomorrow and say 'that was a weird dream'?
For all I know I may be a computer program being fed test data to see how I react.
I can't help but make a flippant answer to a very serious question.
If walks, talks and swims like a duck...treat it like a duck. If the illusion is that good, work the illlusion. Why puzzle over a completely realistic illusion. Just live it.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
I can't help but make a flippant answer to a very serious question.
If walks, talks and swims like a duck...treat it like a duck. If the illusion is that good, work the illlusion. Why puzzle over a completely realistic illusion. Just live it. |
True, no one will ever really know ABSOLUTELY anything, from which religion is right, to any scientific theory, to even the existance of anything. All we can do is believe what we see as true until proven false.A really nice book to read that talks about this issue is Sophie's World. I strongly recommend it to anybody that would like to learn something about philosophy.
| Quote: |
ocalhoun wrote:
I've had a recent crisis; I'm sorta over it now, but it still bothers me.
How do I know anything is real?
I can start out with I think, therefore I am. (Which finaly makes sense to me.)
However, how do I know that everything besides me is not some very clever illusion? (and by besides me, I mean not my body (or even my brain), but my mind. The part of me that thinks. The part of me that I know is there because if it wasn't there I wouldn't be able to know it was or wasn't there.
Can you prove the reality of anything? Will I wake up from my life tomorrow and say 'that was a weird dream'?
For all I know I may be a computer program being fed test data to see how I react.
[/b] |
you don't have to know this is real or not. there is no answer till these days.
but I suggest you better believe this world is the only real since you're living in it and you can not know/prove the other world than this.
you still can believe the other world is exist like paradise and hell. just believe what make you feel comfortable.
some believe there is a God, some believe that's too ridiculous since there is no way to prove the existance of God just based on the book.The problem is an old one and is sometimes known as the mind/body problem, sometimes Cartesian existentialism.
Basically there is no definitive proof that you are experiencing reality when you recieve the output of your senses. It is possible to argue that the senses are misleading and that there is no objective reality.
Don't let it worry you too much.
Chris.
Reality is relative. The truth is that there is no truth.
In the end, does it really matter if what you experience is "real" or not? Just who the hell decides what "real" is, anyway??
| snowboardalliance wrote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: | I can't help but make a flippant answer to a very serious question.
If walks, talks and swims like a duck...treat it like a duck. If the illusion is that good, work the illlusion. Why puzzle over a completely realistic illusion. Just live it. |
True, no one will ever really know ABSOLUTELY anything, from which religion is right, to any scientific theory, to even the existance of anything. All we can do is believe what we see as true until proven false. |
Good Answer.
The question is same as one of my crack friend's:
How my heart beats? Who operates it? Whats happening in my brain when I Sleep? | pulldownthesky wrote: |
The truth is that there is no truth.
|
If the truth is that there is no truth then there is no truth about that the truth is that there is no truth, it just can't be true.
Its like Socrates said "I know something that I don't know anything" . If he knows that he doesn't know , then he doesn't know that he knows than he doesn't know.
I guess that there must be an answer to these paradoxes, or they may not be at all, but I am sort of having this mix up in my mind right now. | billys wrote: |
| pulldownthesky wrote: | The truth is that there is no truth.
|
If the truth is that there is no truth then there is no truth about that the truth is that there is no truth, it just can't be true.
Its like Socrates said "I know something that I don't know anything" . If he knows that he doesn't know , then he doesn't know that he knows than he doesn't know.
I guess that there must be an answer to these paradoxes, or they may not be at all, but I am sort of having this mix up in my mind right now. |
Yep heres a simple little addition.
Mentalists hold that the senses are not reflecting reality and that there is no objective reality outside ourselves.
Materialists hold that the senses reflect a reality that is concrete and objective.
OK. Try this.
Q1 - 'Is there an objective reality?' produces a yes from the latter and a no from the former.
Consider. however, the meta-question - 'Is there an answer to Q1?'
Both parties will now agree that the answer is yes. Since both agree on this answer then we have a truth. The fact that there exists this objective proof (independant of the observer) proves that the answer to Q1 itself is 'Yes, there is an objective reality'.
Regards
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
....
OK. Try this.
Q1 - 'Is there an objective reality?' produces a yes from the latter and a no from the former.
Consider. however, the meta-question - 'Is there an answer to Q1?'
Both parties will now agree that the answer is yes. Since both agree on this answer then we have a truth. The fact that there exists this objective proof (independant of the observer) proves that the answer to Q1 itself is 'Yes, there is an objective reality'.
Regards
Chris |
Hmmm, that seems a little simplistic. Two parties agreeing to Y/N question that they both might precieve differently is gonna happen 50% of the time anyway, right?
I await 5 paragraphs. 
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | ....
OK. Try this.
Q1 - 'Is there an objective reality?' produces a yes from the latter and a no from the former.
Consider. however, the meta-question - 'Is there an answer to Q1?'
Both parties will now agree that the answer is yes. Since both agree on this answer then we have a truth. The fact that there exists this objective proof (independant of the observer) proves that the answer to Q1 itself is 'Yes, there is an objective reality'.
Regards
Chris |
Hmmm, that seems a little simplistic. Two parties agreeing to Y/N question that they both might precieve differently is gonna happen 50% of the time anyway, right?
I await 5 paragraphs. |
No...both parties must agree to the question because that is their stance and it is a logical continuation. If you are a mentalist then you believe in no objective reality by definition. Likewise the materialist believes the opposite by definition. The meta-question, therefore, is always answered in the affirmative, regardless of the view or position of the person answering, because no other answer is possible.
That is a fairly good definition of objective reality - a thing which exists independantly of the observer and regardless of the viewpoint of that observer.....
If one objective reality exists, it follows that the mentalist position cannot hold and the materialist position must be true.
(I know that this is fairly easy to take apart, but that was the idea...let people sharpen their teeth on such aperatives before plunging into the real deep stuff 
Here's another variation. This one was actually my own work in a Philosophy paper I did as an undergrad when studying for my BEd.
The mentalist position is that the individual perceives a reality via the senses and that this is not an objective reality but it a result purely of the senses and has no correlation to a physical objective universe beyond that.
This position is irrefutable, for sure but since perception requires brain and associated kit (body, memory etc) then certain conclusions follow.
There can only be one preceiver since if there were another then that perceiver would in itself represent an objective reality. Therefore the mentalist position holds only in complete isolation.
More seriously : mentalists hold that our capacity to exist in the non objective world is made possible by our actions being preceded by the occurrence or existence of our thoughts. But as pointed out by other critics (Gilbert Ryle (1949), such a claim tends to generate an "infinite regression."
Consider the claim that before you could act capably you must think about what you are doing. Thinking is itself an activity which may be done well or may not. Now, before you can do something well you have to think about it, but before you could think about it you would have to think about thinking about it. The regression becomes apparent.....
Just a few thoughts to tickle debate or not.....
Chris. | Bikerman wrote: |
No...both parties must agree to the question because that is their stance and it is a logical continuation. |
I must be dense, but if I believe that reality is subjective and people interpret everything in different ways, the two parties may say they agree on the proposition, but they may be perceiving the statement to mean different things. The fact that they agree could just be chance. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
No...both parties must agree to the question because that is their stance and it is a logical continuation. |
I must be dense, but if I believe that reality is subjective and people interpret everything in different ways, the two parties may say they agree on the proposition, but they may be perceiving the statement to mean different things. The fact that they agree could just be chance. |
Let me run through it....
The meta-question is
'is there an answer to the question 'is there an objective reality'
Both parties must answer yes - one believes the answer is yes and the other no but both believe there IS an answer to the question......
Is that any better ?
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
Let me run through it....
The meta-question is
'is there an answer to the question 'is there an objective reality'
Both parties must answer yes - one believes the answer is yes and the other no but both believe there IS an answer to the question......
Is that any better ?
Chris |
Nope, since both parties could be percieving the question differently. They are answering different questions in their own minds! | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Let me run through it....
The meta-question is
'is there an answer to the question 'is there an objective reality'
Both parties must answer yes - one believes the answer is yes and the other no but both believe there IS an answer to the question......
Is that any better ?
Chris |
Nope, since both parties could be percieving the question differently. They are answering different questions in their own minds! |
But the fact remains that there is one answer and this is itself an objective reality since the answer does not depend on their positions and is, in fact, independant of position and view. The answer will always be yes and regardless of the perceived question that fact alone represents an objective reference point.... | Bikerman wrote: |
But the fact remains that there is one answer and this is itself an objective reality since the answer does not depend on their positions and is, in fact, independant of position and view. The answer will always be yes and regardless of the perceived question that fact alone represents an objective reference point.... |
LOL. Chris, I don't think that is a fact at all. This is the 3rd time Ive tried to post this, the server keeps locking on me, so I'm getting pretty burnt out on this.
The point is that if two people are interpreting reality in different ways, there is no way to tell how they are interpreting the question. There is no frame of reference for the two to have a conversation with any objective meaning. Whether they say yes or no to ANY question only has meaning within they individuals frame of reference and not to anything else. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
But the fact remains that there is one answer and this is itself an objective reality since the answer does not depend on their positions and is, in fact, independant of position and view. The answer will always be yes and regardless of the perceived question that fact alone represents an objective reference point.... |
LOL. Chris, I don't think that is a fact at all. This is the 3rd time Ive tried to post this, the server keeps locking on me, so I'm getting pretty burnt out on this.
The point is that if two people are interpreting reality in different ways, there is no way to tell how they are interpreting the question. There is no frame of reference for the two to have a conversation with any objective meaning. Whether they say yes or no to ANY question only has meaning within they individuals frame of reference and not to anything else. |
But that leaves out the fact that all materialists would answer the same as would the mentalists so any misinterpretation is therefore generalised to the particular group and within that group the perception is both consistent and invariant. That would surely imply that there is an objectively real 'thing' which a group of people react to in exactly the same way, and the fact that there may be a difference between the materialist interpretation and the mentalist one is not important. Any difference in perception between the two would still not lead them to answer NO to the meta question so if all the people say yes then I still say that you have established an objective reference.
Chris. | Bikerman wrote: |
But that leaves out the fact that all materialists would answer the same as would the mentalists so any misinterpretation is therefore generalised to the particular group and within that group the perception is both consistent and invariant..... |
I can't agree there. Of course, I dont think we really are on the same wave length here. If the world that each individual "knows" is totally subjective, again, there is no basis for consistency, agreement, discussion...nothing. You seem to be unable to accept that the posed statements might mean completely different things when viewed through the filters of a "subjective" experience.
I don't think we are going to find common ground on this one. Why don't we sit back and let some others speak up for a bit. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
But that leaves out the fact that all materialists would answer the same as would the mentalists so any misinterpretation is therefore generalised to the particular group and within that group the perception is both consistent and invariant..... |
I can't agree there. Of course, I dont think we really are on the same wave length here. If the world that each individual "knows" is totally subjective, again, there is no basis for consistency, agreement, discussion...nothing. You seem to be unable to accept that the posed statements might mean completely different things when viewed through the filters of a "subjective" experience.
I don't think we are going to find common ground on this one. Why don't we sit back and let some others speak up for a bit. |
Sure no problem. My point was partly micheivious of course but there is still a kernel of interest in it.
If a million people read a question and they all see different things in it and interpret it accordingly. They are then asked one specific question and each understand the question differently and through their own filters BUT they all answer YES, then what have we got .....I say we have at least 1 objective reality - the answer to the question. Regardless of interpretation and perception, the response is the same. IE the response is independant of perception and interpretation. That itself would be a reasonable definition of reality...existence regardless of perception or interpretation....
So if you accept they would all answer Yes then I stick to my point.
Anyway, as you suggest, let's give air for others to breathe...
Regards
ChrisYou should really read Plato's allegory of the cave. He discusses exactly what you are talking about in your post. Some people choose to only exist in the cave and trust the illusions that they see, while others escape. If a horse is drinking from a lake with the sun shining down on him, you could mistake its reflection for being a horse when the real horse is standing in the sun (truth)
| window2 wrote: |
| You should really read Plato's allegory of the cave. He discusses exactly what you are talking about in your post. Some people choose to only exist in the cave and trust the illusions that they see, while others escape. If a horse is drinking from a lake with the sun shining down on him, you could mistake its reflection for being a horse when the real horse is standing in the sun (truth) |
Read it ? I once learned chunks of it rote....
It is valid to a point and I personally think Plato knew that point but this got lost over time until Plato's cave allegory was accepted as dogma and science and experiment were regarded as messing about. The answer you got by looking would never be the same as the image producing the shadow so why bother measuring it.....this led to the crazy minded period called the dark ages which laster amost 2 millenia and put progress back by a similar amount....Coppernicus merely rediscovered Aristarchos from nearly 2 millenia before.
Chris | pulldownthesky wrote: |
Reality is relative. The truth is that there is no truth.
In the end, does it really matter if what you experience is "real" or not? Just who the hell decides what "real" is, anyway?? |
The first statement are is self-defeating. The truth is that there is no truth.
Is this a true statement? if it is then truth exist.
If it is not true, then this is pointless to state this.
Is it real or imaginary? Sounds like there is a choice here. if everything is imaginary, than can I have whatever your smoking?
____________________
www.socialoutcast.co.nrMy own idea is that we are real but this world and its rules are not, maybe I have just watched the matrix too much but the more I think about it the more I can see how it could easily be the truth.
I've never really questioned the authenticity of realism, but i always had this theory. Sorry if sounds ridiculous but it was just something that struck me.
I was thinking about it, and i realised that the most powerful thing that we know of and that exists is the human brain. Put aside the talk about aliens and their contribuition to technology, from how i see it, everything that we ever envisioned, has been made possible. I can't answer how we came into existence but i believe that in order for our reality to last, people must exist. once the last person on earth dies, our "ojective or subjective" reality also vanishes.
| tyrant wrote: |
| I can't answer how we came into existence but i believe that in order for our reality to last, people must exist. once the last person on earth dies, our "ojective or subjective" reality also vanishes. |
So, is it a requirment for people to exist in order for things to be real?
____________________
www.socialoutcast.co.nrI come to wonder... why do you want to know so bad? Would it make any difference on your actual perception of the world when you come to realize whether things are real or imaginative?
Well, its very important to me, I suppose. (I'm not altogether sane, if you havn't noticed yet.)
I began wondering this when I was trying to prove that God exists. Then I realized that I couldn't even objectively prove that my hand, for example, exists! I was becoming quite distrought for a moment and wondering if I existed, when I remembered 'I think, therefore, I am', which kept me from going completely insane. (That was the first time that I actually realized the significance of that statement.)
However, it would be nice to know that the words A/I TEST SUBJECT FJ31A INITIAL INPUT/OUTPUT BETA TESTS PASSED won't suddenly appear in front of me, followed by a completely incomprehinsible world. (Or worse yet, A/I TEST SUBJECT FJ31A INITIAL INPUT/OUTPUT BETA TESTS FAILED)
The Matrix Has Us All - runs away screaming and bonks himself head first into a ceiling light. Laying on the floor " Ooh the matrix has little birdies floating around my head too Ahhh.." 
Well, this may not answer your question but I sure hope it helps... No-one else can answer if it is real. You can only judge. Do things seem logical? Does everything connect? Mainly, does anything seem real? It's a question I ponder over every so often... Are we but a mirror reflection of the real world? I hope I helped...
Neither I nor anyone else who has posted here has any way of knowing whether all of this is "real". Even God (if there is one) would not be certain. However, as has been stated, internal consistency gives us a pretty decent standard. If things appear to have been occurring in a consistent manner, then it seems a reasonable conclusion that they will continue as such. Of course, we are not certain, and maybe assumptions for repetition are not really reasonable and I can't see that because I have a human brain which is programmed to make such assumptions.
Anyway, I think it would be good to look at how it would matter if everything around us was not "real". First of all, if the rules of our existence are internally consistent and complete and perpetual, such a phenomenon would affect nothing. If, however, our situation is affected by the "outside" in some way (which we may be incapable of discerning), then it may matter. If the rules of our situation change at some point due to the meddling of the "outside", then it may matter.
That is about as far as I can go. I will also say that I did not find Sophie's World to be all that profound, but I know a lot of people who loved it.
When I hold and see an apple, electrical impulses that my brain are being fed by my senses are interpreted and so tell my conciousness that I´m holding the apple (no, I´m not a Matrix fan). Is the apple real? My senses tell me so. Is anything real? Well, there must be something out there, otherwise where the hell are all these images coming from?
Well, yes, I don't think is anyone is saying that "nothing exists" is a defensible position, since "something exists" is a self-evident statement.
This is the only reality we know. What are these people talking about - the world is unreal? Then who is writing here? But I know that there should be an awakening and compared to that reality of that awakening, this whole reality becomes unreal...
An if you wanna throw it this far who know we could all be in the matrix just like in the movies and the machines made the movies just so we would tell our selves it was all fiction and be happy little batteries. Ok what if that is the truth or what if it is one of an infinity of other solutions what r u g2 do send the big bad machines an instant message and tell them to stop. I say you make your own life and leave the divine and destiny to the Universe's own devices
| rano wrote: |
| This is the only reality we know. What are these people talking about - the world is unreal? Then who is writing here? But I know that there should be an awakening and compared to that reality of that awakening, this whole reality becomes unreal... |
How do you know there is any writing here ? Because your eyes pass electrical signals to your brain which interprets those signals as meaning you are looking at a monitor. There is no way to be sure that the signals are really what the brain says they are....
ChrisIn the geometry point of view, no nothing in this world is real.
___ this is not a line, it is actually a ..., you would guess I would say "line segment", but no, it is actually a "representation of a line segment." The squares, circle (there isn't such thing as circle in this world, nothing can measure and draw or make it so perfect, it only exist in theory."
The stuffs you see, are not real. They are not really what they are, they are light that transferr into your eyes and create an image. Who know, maybe your eye substitute green for red, but since that happen since you are born, you naturally learn that green for another person is red.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| rano wrote: | | This is the only reality we know. What are these people talking about - the world is unreal? Then who is writing here? But I know that there should be an awakening and compared to that reality of that awakening, this whole reality becomes unreal... |
How do you know there is any writing here ? Because your eyes pass electrical signals to your brain which interprets those signals as meaning you are looking at a monitor. There is no way to be sure that the signals are really what the brain says they are....
Chris |
It doesn't matter whether it is a writing here or just an electrical signal interpreted by my mind. But if I read it I understand it. If I hit my head into the monitor it hurts. There is something here, really!!!
What we mean when we say it is real or it is not real?
Of course if I have my eyes seeing ultra-high frequencies or ultra-low frequencies I will see different things. And If I have some completely different organ of perception I will see the same thing as something completely different. So I will not know ever what the thing is really if I have not seen the thing with every possible organ of perception...
But I don’t want to depreciate the value of what I see by calling it unreal. I know that there are states of different perception and compared to some higher states of perception this reality could be called unreal - like the dream reality is called unreal compared to this reality, but even the dream is real for me because I feel it, I experience it... | rano wrote: |
It doesn't matter whether it is a writing here or just an electrical signal interpreted by my mind. But if I read it I understand it. If I hit my head into the monitor it hurts. There is something here, really!!! |
No, that does not follow. Your brain could be simply keeping a consistent but entirely fictional model and the pain is only, itself, electrical signals which are again interpreted by the brain.
How can you be sure that what you perceive is reality and not just a complex self-consistent model or simulation either constructed by the brain or fed into the brain from an external source ?
The problem is not so simple - it has taxed the best minds for hundreds of years.
Regards
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
No, that does not follow. Your brain could be simply keeping a consistent but entirely fictional model and the pain is only, itself, electrical signals which are again interpreted by the brain.
|
It happens exactly like this when we are dreaming. In a dream we are living in reality created by us - so called simulated, virtual reality. I have said that it doesn’t matter, because even if it is a dream we are experiencing it and we live it...
| Bikerman wrote: |
How can you be sure that what you perceive is reality and not just a complex self-consistent model or simulation either constructed by the brain or fed into the brain from an external source ?
|
Of course we can’t be sure that this reality is real, like when we are in the dream reality we don’t know that it is a dream and we are just dreaming.
But if my brain is able to simulate now this monitor and this room and the building, and than goes on simulating the people, the city, the nature, the ocean, and sky with stars... than my brain should have a power and imagination not less than God itself has))) Am I a God? I want to stop here, if you want to continue this way it is very well explained in Buddhism theory.
And if you think that it is not my brain who creates but it is fed up by external sources than you should try to be like Neo from Matrix and find out the Programmer, good luck to you)) I am also looking for the ways to find out the truth and break into the higher realities from this dreamy world if it is possible, though I don’t think that I need to fight with some external sources who are limiting me and playing simulation games with me. It seems almost impossible to me. I think that it is rather me that not mature enough to see the truth and I have to fight with myself, to grow up and be able to see and receive the real reality. I think also that the world is created in such a way to help me in that difficult task and not like it is Matrix that the world is covering up the reality with its vicious intents and hiding from me...
| Bikerman wrote: |
The problem is not so simple - it has taxed the best minds for hundreds of years.
|
It is not so simple of course and I am not saying only my own thoughts... These are some thoughts which I have got from some great thinkers too;)
...... | billys wrote: |
| A really nice book to read that talks about this issue is Sophie's World. I strongly recommend it to anybody that would like to learn something about philosophy. |
yupI think you ask an interesting question. I could be too sleep deprived to make any sense but I think that the definition of reality, as well as its existence is completely subjective. What if you weren't what you thought to be "real"? You are still cognitive of your environment so what does that really mean? Is everything actually a dream and can you prove otherwise?
"The worst mistake that you can make is to think you're alive when really you're asleep in life's waiting room." - Waking Life
