We often think that some things are "optical illusions". When we smoke too much weed or snore too much rock (not me! :D ) we often see "hallucinations". Little children can be synaestesic and we call those perceptions illusions as well. We are in the middle of a desert and we see an oasis and that is also an illusion.

Well, maybe not. What makes something an illusion? How do you know the entire world we live in is also an illusion? It is just because we don't all perceive completely different things!? How do you know? You cannot see with others' eyes. You cannot hear with others' ears. So how can you be so sure!? ;)

Even if we would do tests, that doesn't really override the concept that something is real. If you perceive it, it is essentially real. We can barely grasp this universe and yet we classify some things as illusions?

Why would something that we would perceive be an illusion?

Take for instance this example. I'm walking down a street. The sun is shining in the horizon. A mirror is placed on the right side and I can perceive too suns. Which one is real? They both hurt my eyes, because the light is very bright. So how can you call the one reflected in the mirror an illusion? Doesn't it behave the same way as the other one? Doesn't it have the same attributes? Doesn't it "go away" with the sun, when the sun goes down, and comes back when the sun is back? How can you call it less real then the sun!?

When you start thinking about that, you might want to take a closer look around you. What are you perceiving? Atoms? Molecules? You don't see them, do you? But those things are the actual "reality". So how can you call an object real, if your perception is different from the actual Truth? ;)

Now try to perceive it. I've been able to perceive how relative space is and how odd matter behaves- specially when I was a child. So maybe we are capable of it. Maybe what we consider "illusions" are just a part of reality that we are usually unaware of.

What is real?

Much of reality is a fill-in-the-blanks type of existance. Reality can be real and what we see is really there, but what you do not pick up with your eyes, ears, ect., the brain fills in the rest. I remember looking at pictures of what our eyes actually see in the world and I got to tell you, it's not much. A lot of blur and nonsense but the brain fills in the rest so you can make sense out of it.

Ok, that was me assuming reality is a real thing; external of our mind.

Perhaps it is not real. Maybe the Matrix? Maybe we are all someone's dream in a different reality? Perhaps we are all blobs of thought energy in a vast sea of nothing all networked to create a coherent whole we call reality? Maybe it is only I that exists and everything and everyone is just a product of some evil being controling my reality? Would I have free-will in that situation?

Hell, we do not know.

Realness............hmmm....I have no clue.

again?

Is everyone awake at this hour (1:20 am)? Does anyone have a life? :D

I'm going to bed as soon as my child finishes his bottle! Jesus... :D


...
I will be back tomorrow when I'm actually awake... ;)

Its 4:21AM were i live:D

again?

what?

It's 4:26 AM here.
I'm here because I work nights and I get bored at work.

what?
This damned topic again.
I can't count how many time this topic has come up, not to mention all the times something similar enough has come and inevitably led to this.

This damned topic again.
I can't count how many time this topic has come up, not to mention all the times something similar enough has come and inevitably led to this.

How often does this topic come up? So long as it is not every month I am ok with it...

reality can't be an illusion, but the appearance of the universe can be.

Doesn't it "go away" with the sun, when the sun goes down, and comes back when the sun is back? How can you call it less real then the sun!?

because it's not the sun, it's just a reflection of the sun. illusion means "something else than what it seems to be", it also means "part of mind".

everything is part of our consciousness, otherwise we couldn't be aware of it.

What is real?

real is something that is what it seems to be. the sun is not real, it appears to be a round burning ball in the sky, but if you look more closely you'll see something different. the sun is made of "matter", to understand what the sun is in reality, you have to understand what matter is and what it's made of.

what is visible is always illusory, an illusion produced by a cause but unable to create anything.

Anything filtered through human senses is subject to being false. We cannot percieve reality until our senses have evolved enough to let us do so. Until then we can only work it out on paper and in theoretical models.
Our senses are unreliable, it is why we see 3D images in 2D pictures. Many animals such as bees are able to see in UV light, so their perception of reality is much different.
At this point, humans cannot know what reality is.

Yes, BS... :)

If reality is an illusion then death must be truly living and life is death. Like a matrix type existence.

If reality is an illusion then death must be truly living and life is death. Like a matrix type existence.

No...

what we sense might be illusions, but as they are all relative to each other, we are able to percieve reality as a whole despite how our mind translates individual senses.

Hehehehe...

I was high on painkillers yesterday night, as you can tell... :D
I saw a few hallucinations, specially around 2:00am... :D

So anyways... how can we trust our senses, really? I think we only perceive a little bit of reality- not the whole... :m:

So anyways... how can we trust our senses, really? I think we only perceive a little bit of reality- not the whole... :m:
well of course. i mean, if we percieved all of reality we would know everything.

What kind of painkillers you got Truth?

well of course. i mean, if we percieved all of reality we would know everything.
Yes. Meanwhile we know nothing.

What kind of painkillers you got Truth?
Well, at that day I took Tylenol-3, which has codine in it. I also have oxicodon. They were prescribed to me when I broke my elbow in half and since then I just love them. :D

I managed to save quite a few... I usually use them when I have a really bad headache...

I don't use drugs often. I get too much resistance and quickly need much more to get a buzz. I'm not interested in getting addicted so... I rarely use them... :eek:

True. Thats the kind of reality I would like to be in all the time though!

We often think that some things are "optical illusions". When we smoke too much weed or snore too much rock (not me!) we often see "hallucinations". Little children can be synaestesic and we call those perceptions illusions as well. We are in the middle of a desert and we see an oasis and that is also an illusion. Well, maybe not. What makes something an illusion? How do you know the entire world we live in is also an illusion? It is just because we don't all perceive completely different things!? How do you know? You cannot see with others' eyes. You cannot hear with others' ears. So how can you be so sure!? ;) Even if we would do tests, that doesn't really override the concept that something is real. If you perceive it, it is essentially real. We can barely grasp this universe and yet we classify some things as illusions? Why would something that we would perceive be an illusion? Take for instance this example. I'm walking down a street. The sun is shining in the horizon. A mirror is placed on the right side and I can perceive too suns. Which one is real? They both hurt my eyes, because the light is very bright. So how can you call the one reflected in the mirror an illusion? Doesn't it behave the same way as the other one? Doesn't it have the same attributes? Doesn't it "go away" with the sun, when the sun goes down, and comes back when the sun is back? How can you call it less real then the sun!? When you start thinking about that, you might want to take a closer look around you. What are you perceiving? Atoms? Molecules? You don't see them, do you? But those things are the actual "reality". So how can you call an object real, if your perception is different from the actual Truth?
Now try to perceive it. I've been able to perceive how relative space is and how odd matter behaves- specially when I was a child. So maybe we are capable of it. Maybe what we consider "illusions" are just a part of reality that we are usually unaware of. What is real?

:cool:

Your view in this thread is called 'hyper-skeptic's worldview'.
It's based on three assumptions:
1. Reality is unreal!
2. Mental images of reality are hallucinations.
3. Every mind is unique, closed, and isolated
completely from ever thing else.

The three assumptions, above, are false and
have been disproved in three different ways:

(1) The Cartesian disproof:
You can doubt the reality of every thing,
except the fact that you are doubting every
thing right now. You cannot doubt that
you doubt! And so your doubt is real. From
the reality of your doubt, we deduce at once
the reality of time, space, and the laws of logic.
And then we use those deductions to prove
the reality of all real things.

(2) The physiological disproof:
All human brains have the same anatomy.
Therefore, they are the same and produce
the same results.

(3) The psychological disproof:
The human mind is an integral part of reality,
and can never produce any mental image that
does not reflect reality directly or indirectly. Even
the craziest hallucinations are produced by mixing
up mental images of real things. In short, the human
mind cannot generate or produce truly original mental
images on its own.

Is that clear?

:cool:

:cool:

Your view in this thread is called 'hyper-skeptic's worldview'.
It's based on three assumptions:
1. Reality is unreal!
2. Mental images of reality are hallucinations.
3. Every mind is unique, closed, and isolated
completely from ever thing else.

The three assumptions, above, are false and
have been disproved in three different ways:

(1) The Cartesian disproof:
You can doubt the reality of every thing,
except the fact that you are doubting every
thing right now. You cannot doubt that
you doubt! And so your doubt is real. From
the reality of your doubt, we deduce at once
the reality of time, space, and the laws of logic.
And then we use those deductions to prove
the reality of all real things.

(2) The physiological disproof:
All human brains have the same anatomy.
Therefore, they are the same and produce
the same results.

(3) The psychological disproof:
The human mind is an integral part of reality,
and can never produce any mental image that
does not reflect reality directly or indirectly. Even
the craziest hallucinations are produced by mixing
up mental images of real things. In short, the human
mind cannot generate or produce truly original mental
images on its own.

Is that clear?

:cool:

In other words, if I look at a red color and you look at a red color what we call red may be two completely different colors?

I cannot prove that my perception of red is the same as yours after all and all my associations with red (e.g. blood) may be the same as yours. I might be seeing blue and calling it red and you might be seieing pink and calling it red?

:)

(1) The Cartesian disproof:
You can doubt the reality of every thing,
except the fact that you are doubting every
thing right now. You cannot doubt that
you doubt! And so your doubt is real. From
the reality of your doubt, we deduce at once
the reality of time, space, and the laws of logic.
And then we use those deductions to prove
the reality of all real things.
How does the reality of your doubt make anything real?

(2) The physiological disproof:
All human brains have the same anatomy.
Therefore, they are the same and produce
the same results.
How do you know? What if we have solipcism?
What if the anatomy is the same, but the brains are used in different ways? It's like computers that have same hardware, but different softwares. Something that runs in a Microsoft may not run in a Machintosh.

(3) The psychological disproof:
The human mind is an integral part of reality,
and can never produce any mental image that
does not reflect reality directly or indirectly. Even
the craziest hallucinations are produced by mixing
up mental images of real things. In short, the human
mind cannot generate or produce truly original mental
images on its own.
Of perceived realities, yes. That doesn't prove that what we perceive to be outside is indeed what outside is.

What is real?
It depends on definitions. "Reality" is just a word. If you define it as what you perceive, then it is that. You may also define it as the outer world or what you expect to be in the outer world, because you know you can't trust your senses and you can only guess what does the world look like, like in the case of the sun in the mirror.
Take for instance this example. I'm walking down a street. The sun is shining in the horizon. A mirror is placed on the right side and I can perceive too suns. Which one is real?
They are both only images of one sun. The difference is that in the case of the one you see in the mirror, light is being reflected. However, you also can't exactly know how the light comes to you in the other case, it is being refracted in the atmosphere etc. Which one is real? None or both. From what you see you can only guess what attributes the sun (or what is expected to be the sun) has.

In other words, if I look at a red color and you look at a red color what we call red may be two completely different colors?
I cannot prove that my perception of red is the same as yours after all and all my associations with red (e.g. blood) may be the same as yours. I might be seeing blue and calling it red and you might be seieing pink and calling it red?

:)

That is not a problem at all
By comparing the colour receptors
inside your eye to the typical ones, any
optometrist (eye doctor) can find out
whether your sensation of the colour red
is normal or not.

They are both only images of one sun. The difference is that in the case of the one you see in the mirror, light is being reflected. However, you also can't exactly know how the light comes to you in the other case, it is being refracted in the atmosphere etc. Which one is real? None or both. From what you see you can only guess what attributes the sun (or what is expected to be the sun) has.
My point is that both suns are real. There's no one sun that is more real then another.

That is not a problem at all
By comparing the colour receptors
inside your eye to the typical ones, any
optometrist (eye doctor) can find out
whether your sensation of the colour red
is normal or not.
So it follows that objectivity is what we can agree upon. So what if all humans are perceiving it improperly? How come do you know that the one who is perceiving it differently is the incorrect one? How about a fly? Does it perceive colors the same way we do? Why aren't the fly's perspective more real then ours? Why the fly's perspective is wrong? Because it is certainly a different perspective, isn't? :bugeye: :eek:

:m:

Im sure all humans ARE NOT percieving our world properly. After all the fool and the genius are exactly the same except their conscious.
It is impossible to percieve something for what it actually is, without applying human concepts to it, hence Aristotles idea of "forms".

Your view in this thread is called 'hyper-skeptic's worldview'.
It's based on three assumptions:
1. Reality is unreal!
2. Mental images of reality are hallucinations.
3. Every mind is unique, closed, and isolated
completely from ever thing else.

In reaction to statement number 3.
Like I said a page back in my series of questions: "Perhaps we are all blobs of thought energy in a vast sea of nothing all networked to create a coherent whole we call reality?"

:cool:

Your view in this thread is called 'hyper-skeptic's worldview'.
It's based on three assumptions:
1. Reality is unreal!
2. Mental images of reality are hallucinations.
3. Every mind is unique, closed, and isolated
completely from ever thing else.

The three assumptions, above, are false and
have been disproved in three different ways:

(1) The Cartesian disproof:
You can doubt the reality of every thing,
except the fact that you are doubting every
thing right now. You cannot doubt that
you doubt! And so your doubt is real. From
the reality of your doubt, we deduce at once
the reality of time, space, and the laws of logic.
And then we use those deductions to prove
the reality of all real things.

(2) The physiological disproof:
All human brains have the same anatomy.
Therefore, they are the same and produce
the same results.

Very nice. I might consider labeling them contradictions instead of disproof's (you can't prove a negative but can contradict a positive).


(3) The psychological disproof:
The human mind is an integral part of reality,
and can never produce any mental image that
does not reflect reality directly or indirectly. Even
the craziest hallucinations are produced by mixing
up mental images of real things. In short, the human
mind cannot generate or produce truly original mental
images on its own.

Is that clear?

:cool:

I get the just of this one, but unfortunately it is very incorrect and I know this from personal experience. I've had hallucinations whose content has not been the result of mixing real things.

In my opinion there is no way to prove which definition of reality is correct. Each word's meaning is assigned to it by people. Any definition you can think of came to existence this way. Eg milk is called milk because everyone calls it that. If someone said that white liquid is "fdsigobpgbs", there would be no way to persuade him it is not. Should it be milk only because the most people call it that? What about neologisms? Do they come to existence only because many people starts to use them? If so, what is the minimal number of people which have to use any new word for it to become a meaning in the language? I think there is no definition of the word reality which should be accepted by all the people. Everyone calls reality what they want to.

There's a difference between symbology and meaning. There are many collections of symbols (which we call "languages"). They are all correct. Semantics is just a little part of reality, though.

:)


TruthSeeker: "...How does the reality of your doubt make anything real?...".

The reality of your doubt implies as a necessary consequence the reality
of time, the reality of space, the reality of the law of identity, the reality
of the law of contradiction, and the reality of the law of excluded middle.
Otherwise, your doubt cannot be real and it would not work.


TruthSeeker: "...How do you know? What if we have solipcism?
What if the anatomy is the same, but the brains are used in different ways? It's like computers that have same hardware, but different softwares. Something that runs in a Microsoft may not run in a Machintosh...".

If their structure is the same, then their functions must be the same.
As for 'solipcism', it is what the Cartesian argument is all about.


TruthSeeker: "...Of perceived realities, yes. That doesn't prove that what we perceive to be outside is indeed what outside is".

And doesn't mean it is not outside either.
We have to check and re-check for that.
That is what the Scientific Method is for.

Did I make that clear?

:cool:

:(

Crunchy Cat: "Very nice. I might consider labeling them contradictions instead of disproof's (you can't prove a negative but can contradict a positive)...".

But you can disprove it.
Just prove (if you can) its opposite is true!

Crunchy Cat: "...I get the just of this one, but unfortunately it is very incorrect and I know this from personal experience. I've had hallucinations whose content has not been the result of mixing real things".

Can you describe those original 'hallucinations' of yours?

:D

In reaction to statement number 3.
Like I said a page back in my series of questions: "Perhaps we are all blobs of thought energy in a vast sea of nothing all networked to create a coherent whole we call reality?"

;)

Well, 'blobs of thought energy' are more than
fit to be given the grand title, which we call 'reality'.

So it follows that objectivity is what we can agree upon. So what if all humans are perceiving it improperly? How come do you know that the one who is perceiving it differently is the incorrect one? How about a fly? Does it perceive colors the same way we do? Why aren't the fly's perspective more real then ours? Why the fly's perspective is wrong? Because it is certainly a different perspective, isn't?

:cool:

So far, you've refused to define 'objectivity & subjectivity'.
Define them clearly and briefly!

As for the normality or abnormality of the human senses, it
is always judged, and correctly so, on the basis of what
is typical And what is typical is what the vast majority
of individuals (past & present) have.

But in any case, it would be naive and misleading to look
at those sensations of the senses as ultimate presentations of
physical reality in itself. Because they are not!
The output of the senses is the result of interaction
between those senses and real objects. And the only
function of those sensations is to be used as labels for
important objects and as pre-language labeling systems.
And so it is always possible, in principle, to have an
infinite number of those labeling systems (physiological sensations)
through interaction with the same objects (the same reality).

Therefore, reality is based not on those 'physiological sensations'
per se, but on their relations to each other. And that is
why it's always correct to say the 'book of nature is written
in mathematics', i.e. clear, coherent, and self-consistent relations.

O.K.?

:D

Finally, someone begins to question reality. Think about it, everything we perceive is through our five senses; touch, sight, taste, hear, smell. We have to use an instrument to view reality and hence can not view reality itself. In order to view reality we need to restrict our senses and try and feel the truth itself. There is no right or wrong answer for this, it must be experienced as Lord Buddha did via meditation. Meditation is a great way to restrict the senses.

WHAT!?!?!? What the hell happened with the long-winded message I left here 5 hours ago!?!? Dammit! :mad:

Let's try again... :bugeye:

TruthSeeker: "...How does the reality of your doubt make anything real?...".

The reality of your doubt implies as a necessary consequence the reality
of time, the reality of space, the reality of the law of identity, the reality
of the law of contradiction, and the reality of the law of excluded middle.
Otherwise, your doubt cannot be real and it would not work.
How do you know you are not imagining your doubt? I have doubted while dreaming. Does that make my dreams more real then what we call "reality"?


TruthSeeker: "...How do you know? What if we have solipcism?
What if the anatomy is the same, but the brains are used in different ways? It's like computers that have same hardware, but different softwares. Something that runs in a Microsoft may not run in a Machintosh...".

If their structure is the same, then their functions must be the same.
They are not necessarily compatible. What is true to one is not necessarily true to the other. Maybe some of the functions must be the same, but certainly not all. Otherwise, they would be compatible. Same hardware does not imply same software.

As for 'solipcism', it is what the Cartesian argument is all about.
So what? No proof or disproff there...

TruthSeeker: "...Of perceived realities, yes. That doesn't prove that what we perceive to be outside is indeed what outside is".

And doesn't mean it is not outside either.
We have to check and re-check for that.
That is what the Scientific Method is for.
Sure

:(

Crunchy Cat: "Very nice. I might consider labeling them contradictions instead of disproof's (you can't prove a negative but can contradict a positive)...".

But you can disprove it.
Just prove (if you can) its opposite is true!

I wasn't completely correct in my assertion. I should have stated that you can't prove a negative without constituents that exist, but if something has those existing constituents then you don't want to prove a negative because it's generally not feasable.

For example. Prove the afterlife doesn't exist. You can't because it requires a rebuttal of all the information regarding the afterlife. Furthermore, the level of proof required to rebut the information will be put to the Cartesian test, "beyond any doubt". This means that there has to be zero doubt in the minds of anyone whom the proof is presented too. In other words, it's absolutely impossible. In this scenario, you can; however, find something that does exist and directly contradicts the assertion 'the afterlife exists'. That's the difference between disproof and contradiction and the latter is applicable to your argument.

Similarly, in the other category (something with existing constituents), I can say 'Disprove a needle is in that haystack'. While it could be done, it's not at all realistic.

Actually there is a case where constituents exist and the assertion automatically contradicts itself. For example, prove that there are no elephants inside a bumble bee. Clearly the size of an elephant (amongst many other reality violations) automatically self-contradict the assertion.

Hope that makes more sense.



Crunchy Cat: "...I get the just of this one, but unfortunately it is very incorrect and I know this from personal experience. I've had hallucinations whose content has not been the result of mixing real things".

Can you describe those original 'hallucinations' of yours?

:D

Coming back to this assertion, I re-evaluated it and might just be getting hung up on semantics. My hallucinations typically had sensory and emotional components that might be considered a base off of which to derive from (if that's in fact what you meant by mixing mental images of 'real things'). The difference in my hallucinations came in the form of the quality, the configuration, and the quantity of the experience.

Just for hypothetical example, if you're a 7-dimensional construct that operates with more sense and emotional differentiation than human's experience in their daily lives, then is that the result of deriving from real things?

So far, you've refused to define 'objectivity & subjectivity'.
Define them clearly and briefly!
That's the first time we talked about that, actually...

I think theri definition is pretty clear. Subjectivity is our perception of the world and objectivity is the actual truth, independent of our perceptions.

As for the normality or abnormality of the human senses, it
is always judged, and correctly so, on the basis of what
is typical And what is typical is what the vast majority
of individuals (past & present) have.

But in any case, it would be naive and misleading to look
at those sensations of the senses as ultimate presentations of
physical reality in itself. Because they are not!
The output of the senses is the result of interaction
between those senses and real objects. And the only
function of those sensations is to be used as labels for
important objects and as pre-language labeling systems.
And so it is always possible, in principle, to have an
infinite number of those labeling systems (physiological sensations)
through interaction with the same objects (the same reality).

Therefore, reality is based not on those 'physiological sensations'
per se, but on their relations to each other. And that is
why it's always correct to say the 'book of nature is written
in mathematics', i.e. clear, coherent, and self-consistent relations.
You forgot to take probability into account... ;)

the universe should not exist by law and rule, but it does so when talking about such matters maybe not taking physics so seriously would be of help.



peace.

Reality is both real and an illusion.

Reality is both real and an illusion.

How? Real in our minds but not materialistic? I could see that possibility.