Not real???

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will start with the fact that a mistaken idea is not real and thus not in reality and thus not physical, yet the mistaken idea is in my head, which is physical and in reality.
So how does it work? I have a mistaken idea and want to write about. That causes a physical process in my brain and body, which is in reality and then passes through the Internet as a lot of physical processes in reality into your physical head in reality and then turns not real in your head as now not in reality and not physical.

So my question is: What is the evidence for this?

 

[The Hammer]

What?

Concision please friend

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I will start with the fact that a mistaken idea is not real and thus not in reality and thus not physical, yet the mistaken idea is in my head, which is physical and in reality.
So how does it work? I have a mistaken idea and want to write about. That causes a physical process in my brain and body, which is in reality and then passes through the Internet as a lot of physical processes in reality into your physical head in reality and then turns not real in your head as now not in reality and not physical.

So my question is: What is the evidence for this?

As it's early and my head still has a waking up funk in it, I shall just say the evidence is that we live in a strange world hardly anything is ever what it actually seems. Like that brain and body, it's just a cloud of energy when we look closer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What?

Concision please friend

E.g. fiction is not real. But yet I can pick up a book written as fiction. All that is physical, real and in reality. Yet fiction as a book genre is not real in some sense.
I don't understand that. The effect in my brain are real, physical and in reality and can be detected in brain scan.

So how is it not real?

 

[The Hammer]

So how is it not real?

Because it's just a best guess, an interpretation from a limited apparatus (the senses mislead).

So whatever you conceive of fiction or not, whatever you sense as real, isn't what is actually there.

Hence, illusory.

Edit: and yet, at the same time, it does exist. A paradox for the ages.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I will start with the fact that a mistaken idea is not real and thus not in reality and thus not physical, yet the mistaken idea is in my head, which is physical and in reality.
So how does it work? I have a mistaken idea and want to write about. That causes a physical process in my brain and body, which is in reality and then passes through the Internet as a lot of physical processes in reality into your physical head in reality and then turns not real in your head as now not in reality and not physical.

So my question is: What is the evidence for this?

It appears to me that this is evidence that you are laboring to resolve a semantic paradox that originates from having poorly constructed propositions and reasoning. Ideas exist.

Whether an idea is mistaken or not, you are talking about their truth value.

 

[Aštra’el]

E.g. fiction is not real. But yet I can pick up a book written as fiction. All that is physical, real and in reality. Yet fiction as a book genre is not real in some sense.
I don't understand that. The effect in my brain are real, physical and in reality and can be detected in brain scan.

So how is it not real?

Is Mario real?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Because it's just a best guess, an interpretation from a limited apparatus (the senses mislead).

So whatever you conceive of fiction or not, whatever you sense as real, isn't what is actually there.

Hence, illusory.

I believe "The map is not the territory" is an expression that works here.

 

[The Hammer]

View attachment 67694
Is Mario real?

Yes/no.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It appears to me that this is evidence that you are laboring to resolve a semantic paradox that originates from having poorly constructed propositions and reasoning. Ideas exist.

Whether an idea is mistaken or not, you are talking about their truth value.

So where does truth value exist and is it real? If yes, what is your evidence? If no, what is your evidence?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So where does truth value exist and is it real? If yes, what is your evidence?

You're just restating your semantic nonsense with other terms.

No, let's start with what you said:

"I will start with the fact that a mistaken idea is not real and thus not in reality and thus not physical, yet the mistaken idea is in my head, which is physical and in reality."

What is mistaken idea versus any other kind of idea?
How do you differentiate them?
How do you know any statement (including your original sentence) is indeed a fact?
What is the relationship between "real" and "not physical/physical"?

You have not established that any of your assertions in the above sentence is a fact, is real, and is or is not physical. Indeed, you seem to be conflating "real" with "physical" without having clearly defined your terms of reference.

The idea is not the object...a map is not the territory...your statement is treating the map as if it is the territory...hence your paradox...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 67694
Is Mario real?

Yeah, a picture is real, as it is physical and has a physical effect in your brain. So yes, Mario is real, otherwise you couldn't react to him and he wouldn't cause an effect in a brain scan.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're just restating your semantic nonsense with other terms.

No, let's start with what you said:

"I will start with the fact that a mistaken idea is not real and thus not in reality and thus not physical, yet the mistaken idea is in my head, which is physical and in reality."

What is mistaken idea versus any other kind of idea?
How do you differentiate them?
How do you know any statement (including your original sentence) is indeed a fact?
What is the relationship between "real" and "not physical/physical"?

You have not established that any of your assertions in the above sentence is a fact, is real, and is or is not physical. Indeed, you seem to be conflating "real" with "physical" without having clearly defined your terms of reference.

The idea is not the object...a map is not the territory...your statement is treating the map as if it is the territory...hence your paradox...

So where is a map if not in a terrority?

If you make a model of the world, where do you actually make the model? Where are you if not in the world?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So where is a map if not in a terrority?

If you make a model of the world, where do you actually make the model? Where are you if not in the world?

if you make a model of something, physically, you are in the world. If you make a mental model of something, an idea, you are in the world, and your idea is in the world, inside you.

One might find a way to make an idea of an unreal object 'real,' by drawing a picture or writing some code that when fed through a certain device will generate a physical image of something that does not exist. Such objects are maps of ideas that are unreal...made real because ideas are real, and you can conceive of symbolic maps of things that do or do not exist in reality.

Indeed, the idea of ideas is merely an idea, a symbolic map that we in reality can experience in our imagination.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

if you make a model of something, physically, you are in the world. If you make a mental model of something, an idea, you are in the world, and your idea is in the world, inside you.

One might find a way to make an idea of an unreal object 'real,' by drawing a picture or writing some code that when fed through a certain device will generate a physical image of something that does not exist. Such objects are maps of ideas that are unreal...made real because ideas are real, and you can conceive of symbolic maps of things that do or do not exist in reality.

Indeed, the idea of ideas is merely an idea, a symbolic map that we in reality can experience in our imagination.

So you have 2 categories. Mental and physical. Okay, that is close enough for me, since as I understand it, mental is real.

That fits this theorem in sociology:
Thomas theorem - Wikipedia.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So you have 2 categories. Mental and physical. Okay, that is close enough for me, since as I understand it, mental is real.

That fits this theorem in sociology:
Thomas theorem - Wikipedia.

hmmm.

I have the concept that there could be two categories. That is a mental map of the territory. It could also be that there is only mental, and that physical is an concept that is not real, a map of territory that does not actually exist...or that is real only under certain mental conditions (given quantum interpretations of reality)...or vice versa...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

hmmm.

I have the concept that there could be two categories. That is a mental map of the territory. It could also be that there is only mental, and that physical is an concept that is not real, a map of territory that does not actually exist...or that is real only under certain mental conditions (given quantum interpretations of reality)...or vice versa...

Yeah, but now we are entering philosophy, though we have been there all the time.

 

[exchemist]

I will start with the fact that a mistaken idea is not real and thus not in reality and thus not physical, yet the mistaken idea is in my head, which is physical and in reality.
So how does it work? I have a mistaken idea and want to write about. That causes a physical process in my brain and body, which is in reality and then passes through the Internet as a lot of physical processes in reality into your physical head in reality and then turns not real in your head as now not in reality and not physical.

So my question is: What is the evidence for this?

Is this a question about imagination, then? Because what a mistaken idea and fiction have in common is that they are imaginary rather than real.

Or is it about the image - or map- of the world that our brain forms, which may not completely correspond to the territory it maps?

Or is it about coding: the patterns in the brain are merely a code for representing reality.

Or something else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is this a question about imagination, then? Because what a mistaken idea and fiction have in common is that they are imaginary rather than real.
...

Yeah, but the problem I have it this. I now imagine that they are imaginary and real. That is a mistaken idea. Yet that causes me to write this post and you react to it,
I mean it is all in my mind as something I think and yet you are going to react to it. So what is going on if it is not real?

In other words I have a mental idea that is only mental, yet you are seeing it on a screen and that cause a reaction in you.
In the correct test, scientists could brain scan us and see results.

So in philosophical terms what is the ontological status of they are imaginary rather than real if that can be detected in a brain scan?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Or is it about coding: the patterns in the brain are merely a code for representing reality.

Or something else?

I missed these ones.
Where are they then for the bold one?

To me you are doing a weird form of ontological dualism of real and unreal.

As for something else, I don't know.