What makes something 'real'?

[bubka]

depends if you are a realists or idealists... though realists always have the upper hand, with science and all

[Captain_Wang]

This subject has baffled the worlds greatest thinkers throughout history and some still believe they have the answer, the truth is there isn't an answer to the question "how do we know what's real". It's scary but needs to be accepted.

I think it was on an episode of Horizon, on a documentary about the theories and possibilites of time travel and some scientists suggested that the odds of our reality being the ultimate, 'true' reality and not a simulation of some sort is actually billions to one. I don't know how true that is but it was interesting none-the-less.

[fascist]

I think my brain is making this all up this whole world. Its making up the word brain to the idea behind it. I can keep going on and on that my brain is making this all up and what I am in is just one long day dream. Everyone else is just a prop and my brain knows my future and it knows what im going to next. It can determine what someone is going to do and that it controls them and they do not have there own brain. My brain is essentialy god and I have to complete the puzzle to find out the real life and see what my brain is not making up. For instance every famous saying anything is just a piece of the puzzle. Such as this thread it makes you think your brain is questioning you to say that and yet you want to think otherwise. Also sayings such as "Mind over Matter" are just one small puzzle piece that need to be connected to form what is 'real' and what is essentialy the meaning of life.

Ok i'll run away now :| :| :|

[Nexus]

Its simple;

Perception is Reality.

[MGS4-SS]

I think my brain is making this all up this whole world. Its making up the word brain to the idea behind it. I can keep going on and on that my brain is making this all up and what I am in is just one long day dream. Everyone else is just a prop and my brain knows my future and it knows what im going to next. It can determine what someone is going to do and that it controls them and they do not have there own brain. My brain is essentialy god and I have to complete the puzzle to find out the real life and see what my brain is not making up. For instance every famous saying anything is just a piece of the puzzle. Such as this thread it makes you think your brain is questioning you to say that and yet you want to think otherwise. Also sayings such as "Mind over Matter" are just one small puzzle piece that need to be connected to form what is 'real' and what is essentialy the meaning of life.

Ok i'll run away now :| :| :|

Don't worry, I feel sometimes like that (and probably many others too).

And to correct someone above, time does exist, only that it was invented by the human being to schedule life.

The concept of time existed, only that there was no name and no definition for it, until the human being came.

[Laurë Veteran]

Its simple;

Perception is Reality.

What about hallucinations? I once hallucinated giant ants on my arm. They were real for a few seconds, until I realised that it was a hallucination.

So they weren't 'real', they didn't exist, and yet I perceived them to be there so strongly that I jumped up panicky and trying to get them off my arm.

I would say perception + some kind of rational thought is reality.

[Captain_Wang]

And to correct someone above, time does exist, only that it was invented by the human being to schedule life.

The concept of time existed, only that there was no name and no definition for it, until the human being came.

It depends on what a person thinks time is. Even nasa and air travel companies take the fact that the faster you go the slower time goes into consideration. General relativity requires space and time to become one entity.

In other words if a watches output was continuous despite its speed then it would be a change in the watch we are measuring, however because the observations and accepted theories we use tell us that the faster you go the slower the watch will, it could be suggested that it is actually measuring some other change in the quantum world and whatever that is, is time; fluctuating.

[mad_onion]

What about hallucinations? I once hallucinated giant ants on my arm. They were real for a few seconds, until I realised that it was a hallucination.

So they weren't 'real', they didn't exist, and yet I perceived them to be there so strongly that I jumped up panicky and trying to get them off my arm.

I would say perception + some kind of rational thought is reality.

reality isnt the same for everybody, those ants on your arm were real because you percieved them as such. it doesnt mean they arent real because no one but you can see them.

like in the truman show, what he sees as the real world is real to him although most other people would disagree because what they see they would say is real. it all depends on what you perseve and reality is different for everybody.

so perception is reality

[Laurë Veteran]

So what you are saying is, they were real and then became unreal when I realised they didn't exist? They were only ever real inside my mind - and I don't think figments of imagination can be classed as real.

[Captain_Wang]

Perception is not reality, it's like saying a hallucination or mirage is reality.

[Jowood]

What about the past? You can\\\'t touch or play with it, but it\\\'s there.

We are talking about things that are in existence. Not things that were in existence. If a location from the past is not there anymore, and no remains of it are anywhere, including pictures and artifacts, then I dont see how we can prove it was real.

Anyways, I seem to like this definition:

That which exists objectively and in fact

But that assumes that human fact is definite

Edited July 26, 2006 by Jowood

[dreamz Veteran]

Perception is not reality, it's like saying a hallucination or mirage is reality.

quite right. there is a difference between what is perceived and what is real. moreover, it does not follow that what is perceived is necessarily also what is real. insofar as a distinction exists, that condition is insufficient.

We are talking about things that are in existence. Not things that were in existence. If a location from the past is not there anymore, and no remains of it are anywhere, including pictures and artifacts, then I dont see how we can prove it was real.

no, the same thing could be said about anything. you could be taken on a plane, blindfolded and drugged up, then left on a beach, and told that you're in australia. would you call it real? would you know you were really in australia? that type of skeptical attitude is at the root of the question.

you are in no more a privileged position to decide current things than you are past or future things.

besides, if you look at a tensed logic (e.g., the one proposed by quine), the quantifiers imply that you quantify over real entities. there, even historical things are real, but simply no longer existing. there is a difference.

but that attitude can be taken further, e.g., some writers have devised varying standards of necessity in a theory of contextualism. others take a pragmatic approach, which is a sharp departure from what most people think of as "pragmatism." really, it is saying that the whole of a conception is also the conception itself. a real thing is delimited by its differences.

still others have proposed unwavering empiricism or rationalism. and then there are correspondence theories (something is true because it corresponds to something in reality) or coherence theories (the whole web must make sense and fit together). quine argues for a mixture of the two.

Anyways, I seem to like this definition:

That which exists objectively and in fact

But that assumes that human fact is definite

that's a vacuous definition, as it assumes the existence of and definability of objectivity and factuality, and those cannot be assumed, simply because it is possible to reject them outright.

now, had you said something like, that which is real is that which is arrived at intersubjectively, you would not be too far off from some thinkers, though the main objection to that is, a community of like-minded interlocutors could arrive at a common conception without that conception being real at all.

nevertheless, i see that attitude as part of a larger one. the reason that type of idea works is because it affirms the existence of causal and non-causal relationships among all beliefs, truths, etc. hence, a cup is real because i can sense it (all five senses), because other people sense it, because when we talk about it, we arrive at the same conclusion, because i cannot see it any other way (the intersubjective community is fixed, i can't override my senses, etc.). everything is, in a word, felicitous. now, if i reach for it and my hand goes right through it, that would be an infelicitous determination. it breaks the other relationships that i have.

[Nexus]

What about hallucinations? I once hallucinated giant ants on my arm. They were real for a few seconds, until I realised that it was a hallucination.

So they weren't 'real', they didn't exist, and yet I perceived them to be there so strongly that I jumped up panicky and trying to get them off my arm.

I would say perception + some kind of rational thought is reality.

Yes, so for that brief moment and to you it was real, you perceived it to be real. And once you realized it wasn't "real" your perception changed therfore your reality changed.

[Jowood]

quite right. there is a difference between what is perceived and what is real. moreover, it does not follow that what is perceived is necessarily also what is real. insofar as a distinction exists, that condition is insufficient.

no, the same thing could be said about anything. you could be taken on a plane, blindfolded and drugged up, then left on a beach, and told that you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'re in australia. would you call it real? would you know you were really in australia? that type of skeptical attitude is at the root of the question.

you are in no more a privileged position to decide current things than you are past or future things.

besides, if you look at a tensed logic (e.g., the one proposed by quine), the quantifiers imply that you quantify over real entities. there, even historical things are real, but simply no longer existing. there is a difference.

but that attitude can be taken further, e.g., some writers have devised varying standards of necessity in a theory of contextualism. others take a pragmatic approach, which is a sharp departure from what most people think of as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"pragmatism.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" really, it is saying that the whole of a conception is also the conception itself. a real thing is delimited by its differences.

still others have proposed unwavering empiricism or rationalism. and then there are correspondence theories (something is true because it corresponds to something in reality) or coherence theories (the whole web must make sense and fit together). quine argues for a mixture of the two.

that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s a vacuous definition, as it assumes the existence of and definability of objectivity and factuality, and those cannot be assumed, simply because it is possible to reject them outright.

now, had you said something like, that which is real is that which is arrived at intersubjectively, you would not be too far off from some thinkers, though the main objection to that is, a community of like-minded interlocutors could arrive at a common conception without that conception being real at all.

nevertheless, i see that attitude as part of a larger one. the reason that type of idea works is because it affirms the existence of causal and non-causal relationships among all beliefs, truths, etc. hence, a cup is real because i can sense it (all five senses), because other people sense it, because when we talk about it, we arrive at the same conclusion, because i cannot see it any other way (the intersubjective community is fixed, i can\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t override my senses, etc.). everything is, in a word, felicitous. now, if i reach for it and my hand goes right through it, that would be an infelicitous determination. it breaks the other relationships that i have.

About the australia thing, the drugging is subjective. You cant introduce the drugging as a variable, because its not a natural thing that is part of us. Drug someone up enough and they can wake up believing that they were in a parallel universe dancing with Elvis. The only thing that is definite/real in that example is the plane trip, the act of being drugged, the blindfolding, and the actuality of being somewhere. Everything else can be modified.

Once traces of a civilization are left behind (for example: Rome), we only have writings to go by, ancient artifacts, and buildings. Our historians/archaeologists analyze everything, and base their conclusions on their findings. They can be completely wrong, it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s just a matter of whether or not the general body accepts their hypothesis. What I am trying to say is that the only definite thing about Rome is that some people lived in some location and did some things, which we do not know the validity of.

If no traces of a civilization are left behind, then we get the Atlantis type theories. Nobody can prove those, even if Atlantis did exist.

We know much about the past through writings, and what It boils down to a matter of accepting whats presented to us, and embracing it as proof.

I am having a hard time explaining myself on this issue. Lol, I guess the best way to go about this issue for me is just being satisfied knowing that I exist in one way or another, and not bother with the details.

\"you are in no more a privileged position to decide current things than you are past or future things\"

Nor is anybody else. Thats the issue!

Edited July 26, 2006 by Jowood

[dreamz Veteran]

About the australia thing, the drugging is subjective. You cant introduce the drugging as a variable, because its not a natural thing that is part of us. Drug someone up enough and they can wake up believing that they were in a parallel universe dancing with Elvis. The only thing that is definite/real in that example is the plane trip, the act of being drugged, the blindfolding, and the actuality of being somewhere. Everything else can be modified.

no. it doesn't matter whether some accident is "subjective" or not. any phenomenon, subjective or not, can be made to be subjective, which is why the threat of solipsism is so common and pervasive in the history of philosophy.

non-subjective phenomena do not necessarily qualify as being either objective (they could still be subjective) or real (they could be solipsistically generated).

the thought experiment about being transported to australia is meant to change the standards (and make you think about it) of epistemological criteria.

If no traces of a civilization are left behind, then we get the Atlantis type theories. Nobody can prove those, even if Atlantis did exist.

the point is, EVEN IF you have proof, there is nothing that validates it necessarily. it is not absolute. there is no reason to think that proof is sufficient for establishing a historical reality, no more than perception or even objectivity is sufficient for establishing a more generalized, local reality.

Nor is anybody else. Thats the issue!

no. the issue is whether or not 1) one can be assured of anything, and 2) whether intersubjectivity is sufficient as a criterion.

intersubjectivity may or may not be useful. it may be a sufficient, but not necessary criterion. intersubjectivity may not be needed to establish the reality of a thing, but it may be sufficient.

everything that has so far been mentioned, objectivity, intersubjectivity, etc. can be made to coincide with a larger definition of felicitous determination, although to that extent, it may be somewhat vague.

[CY:G]

The word "real" shouldnt exist, since it does not have a meaning, i wonder who came up with that word, just like the word "perfect", what is perfect? is there something perfect? how do you know something is perfect?

:blink:

[Jowood]

no. it doesn\\\\\\\'t matter whether some accident is \\\\\\\"subjective\\\\\\\" or not. any phenomenon, subjective or not, can be made to be subjective, which is why the threat of solipsism is so common and pervasive in the history of philosophy.

non-subjective phenomena do not necessarily qualify as being either objective (they could still be subjective) or real (they could be solipsistically generated).

Yes it can be subjective but I assumed that your example had events happen as you say it did and I took it as a statement from a third person point of observation. Of course anything can be made to be subjective in the viewpoint of a person who is blindfolded and drugged-and once again their reality is subjective

For solipsism, I havent studied that psychological concept (that the person/self is the only thing real?). Actually, I haven\\\\\\\'t even taken any psych classes so I find it a bit hard to relate to your words and fully comprehend them.

the point is, EVEN IF you have proof, there is nothing that validates it necessarily. it is not absolute. there is no reason to think that proof is sufficient for establishing a historical reality, no more than perception or even objectivity is sufficient for establishing a more generalized, local reality.

Yeah I totally agree and I actually state that:

We know much about the past through writings, and what It boils down to a matter of accepting whats presented to us, and embracing it as proof.

no. the issue is whether or not 1) one can be assured of anything, and 2) whether intersubjectivity is sufficient as a criterion.

intersubjectivity may or may not be useful. it may be a sufficient, but not necessary criterion. intersubjectivity may not be needed to establish the reality of a thing, but it may be sufficient.

everything that has so far been mentioned, objectivity, intersubjectivity, etc. can be made to coincide with a larger definition of felicitous determination, although to that extent, it may be somewhat vague.

I actually like those two things, they fit the subject better than what I said. But does intersubjectivity/intersubjective verifiability not mingle with the statement about privileged decision regarding the past and future, because the subject takes a very public view of how culture and meaning should be determined?

Anyways, I am just wondering what classes you took in College?...since you present some advanced words and topics :p

I am assuming that you majored in/are majoring in psychology/analysis/economics?

Edited July 26, 2006 by Jowood

[bubka]

sounds like dreamz has had a lot of philosophy and or sociology (Y)

[Captain_Wang]

Yeah it's interesting reading his stuff.

I think it basically boils down to the two classical viewpoints; the scientists' and the philosophers'. A scientist needs and desires a tangible reality otherwise everything would be in vein and solely unproveable theory, a nightmare. Even if reality doesn't exist per se, science needs to use some form of it as you would n in algebra to achieve anything.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

The word "real" shouldnt exist, since it does not have a meaning, i wonder who came up with that word, just like the word "perfect", what is perfect? is there something perfect? how do you know something is perfect?

:blink:

Agreed.

I think there is a reality, but the universe is the only thing that can tell, we can only perceive the reality through our own interpretations. The search for reality I feel is rather fruitless but makes for nice conversation, I myself am quite content with my level of reality and existence and don't feel the need to examine it any further.

[CY:G]

Agreed.

I think there is a reality, but the universe is the only thing that can tell, we can only perceive the reality through our own interpretations. The search for reality I feel is rather fruitless but makes for nice conversation, I myself am quite content with my level of reality and existence and don't feel the need to examine it any further.

Same here, seems like a waste to time to analyze it, even tho as you said, makes for a nice conversation...

[dreamz Veteran]

The word "real" shouldnt exist, since it does not have a meaning, i wonder who came up with that word, just like the word "perfect", what is perfect? is there something perfect? how do you know something is perfect?

that's not the way to think about it. you could say the same thing about a triangle. clearly, no one has ever seen a real triangle, nor has one ever been made. does it therefore follow that it is futile to think about triangles?

triangles exist because we can describe the criteria for determining one (e.g., in various spaces, through various means like angles, etc.). the same is true for reality. we can describe the conditions for reality and thus determine its nature.

this type of question comes up, e.g., in set theory, when our naive intuitions about which sets ought to exist. in naive set theory, every condition (e.g., "the class of all dogs") is assumed to exist and therefore define a class. the problem is, set theoretic paradoxes like russell's force us to reconsider either 1) the existence of certain classes (hence, a question of ontology), or 2) the validity of the assumption that every condition defines a class.

these are important questions to the extent that they have other ramifications in other theories, e.g., philosophy of mind (supervenience, identity theories of phenomena, etc.), philosophy of language, and so on.

For solipsism, I havent studied that psychological concept (that the person/self is the only thing real?).

yeah, solipsism is a philosophical theory expressing the contention that only the self can be made known or that it is the only reality. it is a very unpopular view in philosophy, and nearly all thinkers devise their arguments to avoid falling into solipsism.

now, the reason it comes up here is, it is always possible, given the level of standards involved with the situation, to create a solipsistic environment. this corresponds to the ultimate skeptical position. numerous theories have dealt with precisely this question, e.g., the contextualists, who maintain that there are varying standards for different situations. whether or not this is valid is another question.

We know much about the past through writings, and what It boils down to a matter of accepting whats presented to us, and embracing it as proof.

yes, our embracing it as proof already presupposes that 1) that the proof is real and accurate, 2) that the proof is correctly referential, and so on. hence, we're already assuming reality in order to make use of it. that's not necessarily valid. one could argue that one would need to validate perceptions, beliefs, etc. before validating reality in general. this is a legitimate objection insofar as those perceptions, beliefs, and so on are localized parts of reality that ought to be validated hand-in-hand, if not before.

But does intersubjectivity/intersubjective verifiability not mingle with the statement about privileged decision regarding the past and future, because the subject takes a very public view of how culture and meaning should be determined?

that's a possible perspective, and some philosophers take that view. but then you get into the issue of intersubjectivity as a sufficient criterion for reality. it could very well be the case that a whole community intersubjectively verifies something, but that thing is actually unreal. here, the criterion is insufficient. moreover, it does not explain how an objective reality can exist beyond the intersubjective. these are some common criticisms of rorty's views.

Anyways, I am just wondering what classes you took in College?...since you present some advanced words and topics :p

I am assuming that you majored in/are majoring in psychology/analysis/economics?

i majored in economics, but my passion is in philosophy. :D

sounds like dreamz has had a lot of philosophy and or sociology (Y)

sociology?! :o never! 100% philosophy.

Yeah it's interesting reading his stuff.

I think it basically boils down to the two classical viewpoints; the scientists' and the philosophers'. A scientist needs and desires a tangible reality otherwise everything would be in vein and solely unproveable theory, a nightmare. Even if reality doesn't exist per se, science needs to use some form of it as you would n in algebra to achieve anything.

the viewpoints overlap, and in many cases, coincide. many of the analytic philosophers are also philosophers of science in a way (e.g., kuhn, quine, putnam, etc.). while it is true that scientists often presuppose reality in order to do their work, it is not true that it is not an important philosophical question for them. for instance, heisenberg himself questioned whether his uncertainty principle was a matter of reality or simply our understanding of it. other scientists and philosophers, like einstein, wonder what makes a theory a good one, which is a question of truth and reality.

[n3wt]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.?

~Philip K. Dick

Though I think he was just being glib.

I prefer to think that reality is a consensus reached between myself and others who may or may not exist.

[MadFerIt]

Reality.. Perceptions.. Dreaming..

There's no such thing as "real". If the question is what defines an illusion or what is based in our own "reality" even that cannot be defined.

We all live day by day accepting what we believe is our reality (even if we do question it from time to time), but simply put our minds are not capable of understanding where the line is drawn. Even people such as myself who do have spiritual beliefs do not have all the answers, and certainly religious texts fail to answer all.

Think of time.. Does it exist? We percieve a beginning, and an end.. Yet science teaches us that time is not linear.. So thus time is an "illusion". But to us it is "reality" because we are trapped inside of it unable to move between time.

I find it humorous sometimes, the questions of how the world began.. Evolution, ect ect.. When time doesn't exist there was no beginning, so why do we always argue over those issues? Time is infinite, even if in many different stages humanity doesn't exist .

And this does fit into religious beliefs as well. To believe time truely exists, then God would have to have a beginning wouldn't he? He would have then had to of been "created" in some manner. Like I said our minds just aren't capable of understanding.. Maybe after death we have a bit more knowledge eh? Lol.

And here's another question.. Dimensions.. Are we just one "time space" within many? The idea of other time spaces where different choices have been made, infinite possibilities.. Possibly entirely different Universes.. Perhaps "heaven" (If you believe in it) is a completely seperate time space (or perhaps where time does not exist whatsoever) outside of our own? Can we exist in one time space and another at the exact same moment (my use of the word moment of course means that time exists but.. Lol my mind is tied to what we percieve as "Reality" so it's impossible at the moment to escape it.. Or tune my mind off when it comes to the issue)? If time is parrellel (sp?) then that would imply that yes we can. What if time didn't exist in the other "time space", would that also imply we can exist in parrellel?

Edited July 30, 2006 by MadFerIt2006

[_sphinx_]

Look at my sig.

Our beliefs and convictions constitute reality...What I believe is "real" isn't necessary real to you. Don't try to understand. What you believe is real, is real.