Experience and Reality

[Aquitaine]

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.

Or maybe the members of the conscensus are too, just "slaves" to their own knowledge of existence, and the subjectivism of their senses. It;s like the Matrix example you mentioned before, all the people agreeing together on something (therefore making it "objective") are all also inside the Matrix too!

So then, does that blur the line between Subjectivism and Objectivism?

Now this is where I'm starting to get confused.....

 

[Heneni]

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?

Quantum Knowledge - 09/08/2008 - Colin Pape

Interesing video about reality.

 

[Aquitaine]

Quantum Knowledge - 09/08/2008 - Colin Pape

Interesing video about reality.

That's crazy...... that's really crazy. No wait, that's scary.

I'm gonna have to sit back for a bit and watch that again!

 

[YmirGF]

I try never to confuse my perception of reality with reality itself. It saves a lot of grief and I don't have to do so much back-peddling.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Experience is reality. If we couldn't experience it, it couldn't be real.

In other words, "real" appears to be a term used to describe what can be interpreted by our conscious mind. (This could of course, be wrong, but this seems reasonable to me.)

In order for us to experience something, our senses must be able to collect data that can be made into a "thing"--a model in our mind to play with. If we cannot, it is not "real."

 

[Erebus]

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?

To all of those questions... Depends on my mood. That is honestly how I view reality.

Ok, maybe I'd best expand on that a little. I believe that reality is for the most part subjective and utterly chaotic. A major part of my "religion" revolves around embracing the chaotic nature of reality, which is part of the reason that human reasoning, logic and faith are not (in my eyes) qualified to teach us anything about our existence. I could go into more detail, but it would be pointless to do so, because as soon as I finish typing, my view on what reality is will have changed.

 

[Dunemeister]

The only answer you can give a skeptic (someone who doubts the existence of objects and other minds) is to turn your back and walk away. There are no good answers to the skeptical arguments. If the skeptic asks me how I know that there is a book on my desk, I point to it and say "there it is." The skeptic presses and asks "Well how do you know that there's really a book on your desk as opposed to you being subject to a massive delusion, or perhaps the victim of capricious Alpha Centaurian cognitive scientists?" To this I respond that the beliefs that there is a world "out there" and that there are other minds are not of my manufacture. They simply press themselves upon me as thoroughly trustworthy propositions.

Indeed, one can see that skepticism is a very hard view to maintain with any seriousness for any amount of time. David Hume, that canniest of Scotsmen, who himself argued forcefully for skeptical conclusions about everything, said that even a skeptic will leave the room by the door, not the window. But if you can't live your philosophy, of what use is it?

 

[rojse]

The only answer you can give a skeptic (someone who doubts the existence of objects and other minds) is to turn your back and walk away. There are no good answers to the skeptical arguments. If the skeptic asks me how I know that there is a book on my desk, I point to it and say "there it is." The skeptic presses and asks "Well how do you know that there's really a book on your desk as opposed to you being subject to a massive delusion, or perhaps the victim of capricious Alpha Centaurian cognitive scientists?" To this I respond that the beliefs that there is a world "out there" and that there are other minds are not of my manufacture. They simply press themselves upon me as thoroughly trustworthy propositions.

Indeed, one can see that skepticism is a very hard view to maintain with any seriousness for any amount of time. David Hume, that canniest of Scotsmen, who himself argued forcefully for skeptical conclusions about everything, said that even a skeptic will leave the room by the door, not the window. But if you can't live your philosophy, of what use is it?

You can always hit them over the head with the book. If that isn't proof that the book exists, then what is?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Skepticism is useful to help a person maintain intellectual humility and integrity. Taken to an extreme (like an idea, doctrine, action, etc) it falls apart.

There are certain "assumptions" we make about the realm external on account of its pragmatic value. We assume that we can experience that which is real. Well, this begs the question then, how do you know what you experience when you take drugs is not real? You experienced it, why is that any less real than say the book on your desk?

And just because we can't experience something in the senses doesn't mean it isn't real. Otherwise we would have to consider gamma rays and neutrinos as pure fantasy. Our senses are only able to give us a limited picture of the world. There is a world of smells which exists materially which is far beyond our capability to notice.


The best way of looking at reality in my opinion is to just approach it as the framework of existence (that which allows things to be real). Anything more than that, and you have question how you got this information. I know I exist. This tells me that identity is fact; Existence is possible, and there is an "I am" that exists.

Now intuitively I accept that that which I discover with my senses is true. The evidence is overwhelming. So why deny it? You profit nothing, and you serve to gain by accepting it. With this in mind I think it is very important to probe the limits of the senses and figure out how to expand the list of human senses and sensitivity.

MTF

 

[Morse]

Reality is the sum total of conscious experience. If it has not been observed/experienced, it does not exist. Each experience is connected as each person is energetically connected, and thus the entirety of our experiences can be connected to a singular reality.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Reality is the sum total of conscious experience. If it has not been observed/experienced, it does not exist. Each experience is connected as each person is energetically connected, and thus the entirety of our experiences can be connected to a singular reality.

So prior to our observation that stars existed in deep space they did not exist? I'm guessing we are the only observer in the whole of reality...

MTF

 

[Morse]

You seem to misinterpret everything you read.

Did I say that people were the only observers? I did imply conscious, which does not mean sentient, but it does imply an organism. Thus I retract the conscious from my statement, to fix my clumsy wording.

 

[Willamena]

The only answer you can give a skeptic (someone who doubts the existence of objects and other minds) is to turn your back and walk away. There are no good answers to the skeptical arguments. If the skeptic asks me how I know that there is a book on my desk, I point to it and say "there it is." The skeptic presses and asks "Well how do you know that there's really a book on your desk as opposed to you being subject to a massive delusion, or perhaps the victim of capricious Alpha Centaurian cognitive scientists?" To this I respond that the beliefs that there is a world "out there" and that there are other minds are not of my manufacture. They simply press themselves upon me as thoroughly trustworthy propositions.

Indeed, one can see that skepticism is a very hard view to maintain with any seriousness for any amount of time. David Hume, that canniest of Scotsmen, who himself argued forcefully for skeptical conclusions about everything, said that even a skeptic will leave the room by the door, not the window. But if you can't live your philosophy, of what use is it?

The skeptic who doubts reality doesn't really have an argument.

 

[rojse]

The skeptic who doubts reality doesn't really have an argument.

The skeptic would doubt your existence, too, and once the skeptic is unsure if his or her opponents exist or not, then their arguments are null and void.

It's a good way of removing opposing viewpoints. :yes:

 

[rojse]

Bump.

 

[Kathryn]

Sheeze, reading all this thread has given me a headache - well, I THINK it has, but maybe it's just IN MY HEAD.

I believe there are certain ranges of "norms" when it comes to perception - and that this is physiological/biological. Kinda like "it takes about 40 weeks of gestation to create a full term, healthy baby weighing somewhere between 5-9 pounds." Some babies are healthy and can thrive at 35 weeks and/or 4 pounds and some need to "gestate" for 42 weeks to make it to five pounds and be healthy - in other words, there's a wide range when it comes to the reality of a healthy, full term baby.

So it is with perception - wide parameters that encompass human experience, but within those parameters is an awful lot of common experience and perception.

Example: I didn't know till I was in my twenties that I had been seeing everything fatter and shorter than it "really" was. Did I think everything was fat and short? No. Everything looked "normal" to me, till I put on glasses - then everything looked tall and skinny! For awhile, anyway.

But people still looked like people - you know, arms, legs, hair, etc. They didn't look like cubes or ghosts.

When reading threads like this, I want to holler, "SO WHAT'S YOUR APPLICATION?" In my world, if there's not a practical application to a mind game, it really doesn't hold my interest too long.

But hey, that's just me - Miss Pragmatic.

 

[rojse]

When reading threads like this, I want to holler, "SO WHAT'S YOUR APPLICATION?" In my world, if there's not a practical application to a mind game, it really doesn't hold my interest too long.

But hey, that's just me - Miss Pragmatic.

Since when did philosophy have a practical application?

 

[Kathryn]

Since when did philosophy have a practical application?

Hey, it does in my world! My little slice of reality runs on a good mix of philosophy, theology, common sense and a work ethic.

Speaking of which, I gotta go to work at the bank moving "money" that's not backed by anything around.

 

[rojse]

Hey, it does in my world! My little slice of reality runs on a good mix of philosophy, theology, common sense and a work ethic.

Speaking of which, I gotta go to work at the bank moving "money" that's not backed by anything around.

Electronic money is backed by the dream of money, but only as long as you don't go looking for that money.

 

[Ozzie]

But how do you know that what you taste/see/touch/smell/hear exists outside of your head?

If you want to shut all other senses off, touch remains to confirm reality. Even bacterium rely upon it as confirmation they are part of reality.