Experience and Reality

[Dunemeister]

It takes a philosopher to doubt that there is a world of objects "out there." It takes a philosopher to doubt whether what is sour for me is sour for you (although one of us may like sour tastes and the other not). It takes a philosopher to seriously consider the possibility that I'm the only one who has thoughts and the rest of the world are either zombies or illusion or whatever. I'm glad I'm not a philosopher (although I almost became one).

 

[PureX]

The obvious first question would be: how would you go about defining reality? Is it what we feel, touch, taste? Is it a group consensus of what is there? Or is it something other than this?

Having answered that, how do we know that what we experience is reality, that it is real? How do we know that reality even exists in some form or other?

Tough questions.

I would say that reality is the body of images, concepts, ideas and experiences that I carry around in my head, organized into a kind of imaginary landscape ... the world I think I live in.

I distinguish reality from actuality, which is the phenomena of existence, a very small portion of which I can experience directly through my senses, and against which I need to keep checking and correcting my reality.

And I distinguish these both from 'the truth' which is what is.

To "know" something, to me, means to have direct personal experience of it. Therefor, my knowledge is very limited, and is usually wrong, as my experience of actuality is limited, and my understanding of it is partial and therefor often wrong at least to some degree.

 

[rojse]

It takes a philosopher to doubt that there is a world of objects "out there." It takes a philosopher to doubt whether what is sour for me is sour for you (although one of us may like sour tastes and the other not). It takes a philosopher to seriously consider the possibility that I'm the only one who has thoughts and the rest of the world are either zombies or illusion or whatever. I'm glad I'm not a philosopher (although I almost became one).

We're in the philosophy forum here. We all have our philosopher hats on.

By the way, the philosopher hat is only $14.95, with $2.95 P&H. Religious hat and atheist hat are both sold separately.

 

[katiafish]

We're in the philosophy forum here. We all have our philosopher hats on.

By the way, the philosopher hat is only $14.95, with $2.95 P&H. Religious hat and atheist hat are both sold separately.

Hehehehe
Buy one get one free!

 

[rojse]

Tough questions.

:takeabow:

I would say that reality is the body of images, concepts, ideas and experiences that I carry around in my head, organized into a kind of imaginary landscape ... the world I think I live in.

So, to you, reality is what you believe you perceive, regardless of whether this is true or not?

I distinguish reality from actuality, which is the phenomena of existence, a very small portion of which I can experience directly through my senses, and against which I need to keep checking and correcting my reality.

And I distinguish these both from 'the truth' which is what is.

And what is the difference between actuality and the truth?

To "know" something, to me, means to have direct personal experience of it. Therefor, my knowledge is very limited, and is usually wrong, as my experience of actuality is limited, and my understanding of it is partial and therefor often wrong at least to some degree.

Excellent post. Frubals. Rojse.

 

[rojse]

Hehehehe
Buy one get one free!

The actual special is that you can buy three for the price of four.

 

[Aquitaine]

But it's our experiences, our common sense that contribute to whether or not we deem something as "true".

Also, another thing I have wondered is whether or not we have Free Will at all, considering most of our activities in life is just conforming to our basic neccessities (like eating, drinking, finding a partner) and for satisfying our instinctive/hormonal drives (like sex, finding a partner).

What if we're just "slaves" to Instincts, Hormones and Emotions?

 

[Willamena]

Could you elaborate please, Willamena?

In what way? I thought it was plain.

Intersubjective objectivity reality?

The perspective of "objectivity" is available to each of us who learn it. When we make a "consensus of what is out there" we've each employed it, and agreed. When we objectify what we've agreed upon, we create an intersubjective reality.

Who is answering?

The one who got it.

 

[rojse]

But it's our experiences, our common sense that contribute to whether or not we deem something as "true".

But that presumes that what we perceive as being true is true. If, for example, you were a brain in a jar receiving electrical pulses to stimulate thought, what value would your perceived experiences be in determining reality?

Also, another thing I have wondered is whether or not we have Free Will at all, considering most of our activities in life is just conforming to our basic neccessities (like eating, drinking, finding a partner) and for satisfying our instinctive/hormonal drives (like sex, finding a partner).

What if we're just "slaves" to Instincts, Hormones and Emotions?

That's worth another thread, Paul.

I remember creating a thread with that very thought in mind. It didn't take off very well...

 

[rojse]

In what way? I thought it was plain.

Pretend I am an idiot for this one response. :yes:

The perspective of "objectivity" is available to each of us who learn it. When we make a "consensus of what is out there" we've each employed it, and agreed. When we objectify what we've agreed upon, we create an intersubjective reality.

See above.

 

[rojse]

I've seen a few responses about how reality is a consensus of multiple perspectives.

One question, though - in challenging our perception of what reality is and is not, how do we know that those we speak to are separate from the reality that we challenge? My opinions on what reality is and is not might well be being forced by figments of my imagination.

 

[Willamena]

Pretend I am an idiot for this one response.

That's a stretch, but I'll try.

Reality is a thing realized (as "true"). It is also, in a particular sense, all things realized as one thing.

When we realize a thing (as "true"), what we are looking at is "reality". (Even if we realize a thing as "false", we have realized the truth of its falsehood.)

In the larger, particular sense, we look at all things real as "reality", as well as reality as one real thing.

Hope that helps.

 

[MSizer]

I've seen a few responses about how reality is a consensus of multiple perspectives.

One question, though - in challenging our perception of what reality is and is not, how do we know that those we speak to are separate from the reality that we challenge? My opinions on what reality is and is not might well be being forced by figments of my imagination.

Isn't that essentially the same as the first person problem? I might be a living thinking being, but I have no way of knowing for sure that you are.

And yes, indeed, your opinion of reality is entirely enslaved to your mind. Delusional people don't know that they're delusional, and rational people don't see that matter is mostly empty space and so on. Our mind is simply the product of the functionning of our brain, which is not anything else but itself.

 

[rojse]

That's a stretch, but I'll try.


When we realize a thing (as "true"), what we are looking at is "reality". (Even if we realize a thing as "false", we have realized the truth of its falsehood.)

In the larger, particular sense, we look at all things real as "reality", as well as reality as one real thing.

Hope that helps.

Got it. You've been quite patient. Thanks, Willamena.

 

[rojse]

Isn't that essentially the same as the first person problem? I might be a living thinking being, but I have no way of knowing for sure that you are.

And yes, indeed, your opinion of reality is entirely enslaved to your mind. Delusional people don't know that they're delusional, and rational people don't see that matter is mostly empty space and so on. Our mind is simply the product of the functionning of our brain, which is not anything else but itself.

That is worth considering - as much as we like to question reality, there might come a point where we have to accept at least some of the evidence that we receive.

I was merely trying to point out that group consensus, which is one definition for reality that is used (and which I use for lack of anything better) presumes that the entities I believe I interact with actually exist in some form - the group consensus that I believe that I have might well just be multiple parts of my brain projecting different individuals out, and I accept these as separate, conscious entities.

 

[PureX]

So, to you, reality is what you believe you perceive, regardless of whether this is true or not?

Reality is what I've made of what I have experienced perceptually and intellectually.

And what is the difference between actuality and the truth?

Actuality is limited to that which physically exists. The truth includes everything that is, physical or otherwise. The truth can be metaphorical, for example.

 

[rojse]

Reality is what I've made of what I have experienced perceptually and intellectually.
Actuality is limited to that which physically exists. The truth includes everything that is, physical or otherwise. The truth can be metaphorical, for example.

Thanks, PureX.

 

[katiafish]

Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sunstone]

I prefer to think of truth as a quality of the relationship between a proposition and whatever the proposition refers to. The notion "truth" is merely a synonym for reality is disagreeable to me.

 

[rojse]

I prefer to think of truth as a quality of the relationship between a proposition and whatever the proposition refers to. The notion "truth" is merely a synonym for reality is disagreeable to me.

Agreed - not all truths are truths in a physical sense. A story can be incorrect in terms of fact, but be true as a metaphor.