Reality As An Illusion
We've all been exposed to the idea that reality could be an illusion. That it's a worrying possibility is lost to no one but what exactly do we mean by "reality could be an illusion"?
There are three things to consider:
1. Reality itself. The thing-in-itself is probably what I have in mind.
2. Perceptions of reality. phenomenon seems to fit the bill.
3. Interpretation of perceptions. I don't know whether there's a previously known concept that matches this stage of our interaction with reality. It is essentially the conclusions we draw from our perceptions and involves some amount of logical reasoning.
Where exactly in this chain from 1 to 3 can things go wrong? How exactly can reality be an illusion?
The thing-in-itself, while purportedly inaccessible directly, can't be illusory for it is by definition not.
Some may be of the opinion that on phenomenon/perception lies the answer to how reality could be an illusion a la Descartes' demon or brain-in-a-vat thought experiment. However, there's the final stage/step to factor in, to wit 3, the interpretation of perceptions. It maybe an incontrovertible truth that our senses could be misperceiving but whatever filters im through our senses must go through the final stage, that of interpretation. In a very basic sense, there's the analysis of perception we must take into account. Only when the mind completes the examination of perceptions does the encounter between us and reality end. In essence then accepting a perception/phenomenon as reality - an accurate representation of noumenon - is ultimately not about noumenon, not phenomenon but actually consists of the mind making a judgement on what reality is to it.
Given this is the case, the issue of whether reality is an illusion (or not) has nothing to do with reality itself (noumenon) or pereceptions of them (phenomenon) but is entirely a matter of how the mind interprets/analyzes perceptions/phenomena. In short, when we say, "reality could be an illusion" it doesn't necessarily mean that there's something fishy going on with reality itself or with perception/phenomenon; what we actually want to convey is our lack of confidence in the mind's analysis/interpretation of perception/phenomenon.
The usual way this idea of reality being an illusion is understood is at the level of perception/phenomenon - our senses being triggered in the absence of a real/actual stimuli i.e. noumena are non-existent. The final stage 3. interpretation of perception is never discussed but, as it turns out, as outlined above, the mind creates a map of the world (interpretation) as it were and the process of drawing this map is not immune to errors; thus we could be under an illusion, a different kind of illusion where there's no issues with either noumeona or phenomena.
There are three things to consider:
1. Reality itself. The thing-in-itself is probably what I have in mind.
2. Perceptions of reality. phenomenon seems to fit the bill.
3. Interpretation of perceptions. I don't know whether there's a previously known concept that matches this stage of our interaction with reality. It is essentially the conclusions we draw from our perceptions and involves some amount of logical reasoning.
Where exactly in this chain from 1 to 3 can things go wrong? How exactly can reality be an illusion?
The thing-in-itself, while purportedly inaccessible directly, can't be illusory for it is by definition not.
Some may be of the opinion that on phenomenon/perception lies the answer to how reality could be an illusion a la Descartes' demon or brain-in-a-vat thought experiment. However, there's the final stage/step to factor in, to wit 3, the interpretation of perceptions. It maybe an incontrovertible truth that our senses could be misperceiving but whatever filters im through our senses must go through the final stage, that of interpretation. In a very basic sense, there's the analysis of perception we must take into account. Only when the mind completes the examination of perceptions does the encounter between us and reality end. In essence then accepting a perception/phenomenon as reality - an accurate representation of noumenon - is ultimately not about noumenon, not phenomenon but actually consists of the mind making a judgement on what reality is to it.
Given this is the case, the issue of whether reality is an illusion (or not) has nothing to do with reality itself (noumenon) or pereceptions of them (phenomenon) but is entirely a matter of how the mind interprets/analyzes perceptions/phenomena. In short, when we say, "reality could be an illusion" it doesn't necessarily mean that there's something fishy going on with reality itself or with perception/phenomenon; what we actually want to convey is our lack of confidence in the mind's analysis/interpretation of perception/phenomenon.
The usual way this idea of reality being an illusion is understood is at the level of perception/phenomenon - our senses being triggered in the absence of a real/actual stimuli i.e. noumena are non-existent. The final stage 3. interpretation of perception is never discussed but, as it turns out, as outlined above, the mind creates a map of the world (interpretation) as it were and the process of drawing this map is not immune to errors; thus we could be under an illusion, a different kind of illusion where there's no issues with either noumeona or phenomena.
Comments (67)
Great OP TMF!
I'm subscribed! (Because item 1 seems to include Metaphysics, and item 2 consists of things --many things-- like the paradox of time and the perceptions of same... .)
It doesn't worry me in the slightest.
I know I exist and I know I experience perceptions, phenomena. Those perceptions aren't random (like white noise), but have patterns. The patterns allow me to interpret them as a 4-dimensional world which is in a lot of ways consistent and to some extent predictable in all those 4 dimensions.
Producing this mental picture of a 4-d world involves interpretation of my perceptions.
Now, what I can't know is the source of those perceptions. Do they come from a world like the one in my mental picture, one which contains other people who are conscious just like me? Or do they arise in some other way, like a computer feeding stimuli into a brain in a vat?
I can't know that, and I don't need to know that. It makes no difference to me either way. It won't change my experiences or the way or feel about those experiences or the value to me of those experiences. And it won't change how I react to those experiences.
One might think that, if I assume other people aren't independently real, I would treat them badly. But I know that, if I do treat them badly, people will treat me in ways that I don't like. It makes no difference whether those people are independently real or not.
I try to get the maximum pleasure out of my existence. I would go about that exactly the same way whether or not other people are independently real - whether or not the world I perceive is independently real.
If reality is an illusion then, to the same extent, illusions must be real.
To each his own but that's just a side issue. Thanks.
Quoting Pantagruel
Yes, they are but the idea behind the thought doesn't seem to be that reality = illusion (that would be the square circle you were so kind to mention) but that reality OR illusion.
Illusions are real. They cause us to behave differently. They are a misinterpretation of sensory data. What they are interpreted as isnt real until you interpret it as an illusion.
Indeed. So it would seem that being real for a subject is independent of being real as an object.
:death: :flower:
(emphasis is mine)
Quoting TheMadFool
:up: vide Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus ... Spinoza ... Peirce, Zapffe, Merleau-Ponty, Clément Rosset ...
[quote=Twilight of the Idols]What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. “Reason” is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie.[/quote]
(emphasis is mine)
Add Nagarjuna to the list
:up:
Quoting TheMadFool
Agreed. Also very much like Ernst Cassirer's neo-kantian "symbol theory". Or Zapffe's / Camus' confrontation-divorce-mismatch of our minds with the world aka "the Absurd". Acculturated repertoires of overlapping interpretations, idiosynchronized by lived experiences, mediate-regulate our illusions about reality (not of reality), no? Thus, inescapable fallibilism.
I agree. Many people assume that what you "see" is what's out there. But they forget that "what you perceive" sub-consciously (the Territory) is typically converted into a conscious concept (the Map). Yet we faithfully follow the map, as-if it were the terrain, ignoring the fact that a simplified map omits the fine details of the specific topography. That is basically what Don Hoffman is talking about in his book, An Argument Against Reality.
But, I'm not worried about that "possible illusion", because it's all I've ever known, and everyone else is in the same fog-shrouded boat. Except for a few Enlightened Ones, who may still be unable to "see" the true terrain, but are merely aware that "there's more to the world than meets the eye". :smile:
It depends on what we're talking about. Are we talking about the experience or what the experience is about. Experiences are real, but what they are about requires logic to be applied to the experience.
Specifically what about Descartes' proposition of radical metaphysical doubt qualifies it as being faux doubt?
I would say we cannot truly doubt everything because by living we don't doubt everything. In fact, we rely on everything, for the most part unreservedly. Thus we eat, drink, walk, build things, interact with each other and the world at large every minute. We wouldn't if we had any real doubt. We doubt, really, when we have reason to in specific circumstances.
If Descartes' doubt is faux doubt, then equally anyone's commitment to any belief could be characterized as faux belief...unless it led to a serious commitment in actual circumstances. Unless you are practicing faux philosophy, please don't minimize one of Mssr. Descartes' central tenets. :)
No. A subject is an object.
I'm pretty sure I said being real for a subject is not the same thing as being real as an object. I'm quite sure I did not say a subject is an object.
Also, in order to doubt literally everything, wouldn’t you need to be aware of everything? Also, isn’t “doubt” a thing? If so, then you would have to doubt it too, which would mean that you couldn’t be certain that your doubts are warranted or accurate.
Correct. And I disagreed and said that a subject is an object.
Dreams are real states for some objects - like humans.
Sorry, I don't understand the construct.
The subject is an object. Yes, things which are subjects (have subjective experiences) are also objects. But having a subjective experience (which is specifically how subjectivity was being characterized, "being real for a subject,") is explicitly different from "being real as an object." Your construction lacks specificity.
What can be said about such a state of affairs, with and without?
There are some things we can't properly be said to "believe." I don't "believe" I'm eating, breathing, pissing. I need make no "serious commitment" in order to understand this to be the case. Nor can we be properly said to "doubt" such things. Imagine wondering whether you're really breathing as you breath. I think it's unlikely Descartes doubted he was really writing his "central tenets" as you call them, while writing them. He was engaging in an extended game of "let's pretend." It isn't clear to me that the result of the game was in any way useful.
As I said, the same could be said of any belief of any person, including yours, unless you can demonstrate that you're committed to it in an existential sense (which is the force I take to be behind your argument). So if you want to discount any beliefs that aren't "existentially impactful" I'll just as casually ignore your comments about Descartes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=221s
In somewhat related news, a recent NPR story reports that LSD is making a significant come back, but with middle aged and older people, not the young folks.
To compare, while LSD distorts our perception of the world we normally perceive, DMT takes the user in to a completely different realm. A very philosophical drug, but not for casual users seeking entertainment.
I'm unsure what you mean be "existentially impactful." But if you want to ignore my comments, suit yourself. If your desire is to ignore things, there's no better guide to doing so than Descartes.
What existential, factual or formal grounds did Descartes have to "doubt everything"?
re: "paper doubts" ...
[quote=C.S. Peirce]Some philosophers have imagined that to start an inquiry it was only necessary to utter a question whether orally or by setting it down upon paper, and have even recommended us to begin our studies with questioning everything! But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle.[/quote]
(emphasis is mine)
If you're not acquainted, I recommend Peirce's essay in full "Fixation of Belief" (1877).
Also, Wittgenstein's On Certainty (1949, 1969). Like doubts, beliefs require grounds (Clifford), which, with respect to non-speculative, practical, habits (or non-theoretical commitments), the absence of grounds, or reasons, to doubt usually suffices for believing (Witty). So, no, Pantagruel, at best your leap is a false equivalence.
Also Some Consequences of Four Incapacities. Peirce laid into Descartes in that essay as well. For Peirce and Dewey, actual doubts--actual problems or uncertainties which we seek to resolve--motivate inquiry.
And upon what do you base the assertion that Descartes did not experience this as a real and living doubt? He said he did. So you just do not believe him? Now it is a question of credibility.
I doubt that you can make me doubt the sincerity of Descartes' metaphysical doubt.
Those "illusions" are Memes, and the brain/mind is very good at "creating, sustaining, and swapping them". Some Memes are reliable facts, but many are malicious gossip or deceptive propaganda. But only the term is new. Human minds have been dealing with those factual and illusory beliefs for millennia. So, don't give-up in despair. Each culture has developed techniques, such as Greek Philosophy, for discriminating useful knowledge from worthless or dangerous Memes.
Socrates claim to "know nothing" was simply a rhetorical device to indicate that humility regarding your own knowledge-base was advisable in the search for Wisdom. The basis for Wisdom is discernment of Illusions from verities, and Good from Evil. :smile:
Memes : an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.
Memetics : Memetics is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution. Proponents describe memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. Memetics describes how an idea can propagate successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual.
Socrates : "all I know is that I know nothing"
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/
Maybe he did, maybe he hallucinated or merely thought he did. No one has "asserted" that he didn't, only that Descartes was mistaken, even begged questions because he lacked reasons to question 'everything' in the first instance. The actual question asked was this one:
Quoting 180 Proof
You find Cartesian Doubt genuine, not merely idle, and answering the question above would go a very long way to demonstrating why I/we should agree with you, Pantagruel, that it's not "faux-doubt".
Descartes' reasons are explained through his arguments.
Accusing Descartes of "faux doubt" means that you are not accepting the content of his arguments. So essentially, you and/or CTW are perpetrating an ad hominem against a dead man. I guess an easy target for you.....
That's how I handle the all too well known limitations of our physiological sensory perception.
Others can posit that's it's all illusory, if they like.
:wink:
Thanks for your post. The idea of memes as information following the same principles of biological evolution - replicating, morphing, going extinct - makes sense. What's intriguing is that for a meme to "infect" its host mind, the host mind must be receptive to the meme otherwise it'll be rejected. As an analogy the the key (meme) must match the lock (host mind) and only then will unlocking (meme-host mind match) take place. In the context of this current discussion, the host mind's receptiveness (the way the lock is constructed to match particular meme keys) contributes to the illusion the host mind lives in.
Well, one final.
Doubt is clearly a species of belief: I doubt x is true. I believe x is true.
You do not require reasons for belief. As soon as you add a requirement for a reason for belief, you have crossed the line from belief to knowledge. This was the glaring problem with Dennett's argument that there are "no good reasons for believing in god". Maybe no good reasons for him. He has absolutely no basis for disputing anyone else's belief in anything that isn't trivially and manifestly false. Same thing with doubt.
Finally, Descartes' doubt is an integral methodological component of his philosophy, and figures directly in his arguments. So it is supported by the coherence of the body of the whole. Thus the integrity or credibility of his doubt(belief) is evidenced by the quality of his conclusions. Cogito ergo sum is a monumental achievement that rang true for an age and rightly contributed to the well-earned title and position of the "father of modern thought." You are free to dispute him, but you cannot deny him.
I think those points are probably substantive by anyone's standards.
Oh, and for the record, Dewey is a genius and one of my current top picks. Have you read Nature and Human Conduct? Moving. I'll be reading Democracy and Education when I finish with Marx in a week or so.
If humans are objects, then having subjective experiences is being real as an object. It would be a defining property of a the object, human. Our subjective experiences have a real causal effect on the rest of the world and are caused by the real interaction between the world and body, all of which are objects. So talking about states of objects being subjective isn't helpful as all objects have defining states that make them unique with unique responses to the events in the world.
Yes, of the object "human". Not of the object "rock" or "atom" or of objectivity per se.If subjectivity is a uniquely emergent property, then you can't say that experience is a feature of objectivity as such.
Well, he set the stage, as it were. I think he made it clear he was engaging in an exercise, a contrived one that he didn't really think anyone engages in normally, purportedly for the sake of acquiring an unshakeable foundation for thought. This supposedly required him to establish an absolute certainty; something that could never be questioned. Something needed, though I don't know why he thought it was needed, to eliminate any concern that we might be dreaming, or worry that an evil demon was fooling us.
Now I suspect he never really thought there was an evil demon; he was never really concerned that Beelzebub or some other demon was making him think he was writing about Beelzebub or some other demon making him think he was writing about him, or that he was sitting in a chair while doing so in his room while doing so. That's what I think of as faux doubt. A "doubt" which is entertained solely for the sake of making a point.
I don't think anyone seriously believes they are a brain in a vat either. And yet...that is the whole point, isn't it? Reality can be...deceptive. And sometimes doubt needs to be driven by intellect.
Let's call this one a draw.
That would be fine.
It's good to know there's another admirer of Dewey here. I think he was extraordinarily insightful.
On this we agree 100% There's a man whose convictions come across with force in his writings.
:up:
Good point! A poster on another thread --- discussing FreeWill not gods --- replied to my reply, first by rejecting my links to "expert" opinions, and then by insisting that Philosophy must be governed by empirical science :
"There is no scientific discovery that involves or demonstrates gods, and I can guarantee that if there is any "expert opinion" to be found by following your link, it has nothing to do with science. Science is not a study of opinion. I can also guarantee that if the link contains any scientific information, that information has nothing to do with gods."
So, he made it clear that he is not "receptive" to philosophical speculation, even by credentialed scientists. Apparently, his belief system "lock" is already blocked by the meme of Scientism. So, I asked him why he bothers to post on a Philosophy forum. He didn't attempt an answer. But I suspect that he views philosophy as the theoretical branch of empirical Science, not as an independent method for critically examining even the dogmas --- yes, and even "illusions" (phlogiston, etc) --- of mainstream Science. Ironically, the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology, are still primarily philosophical. :smile:
Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Science vs Philosophy : "those who post comments to my entries often show two interesting and complementary attitudes: a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy, coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rationally-speaking/200911/the-difference-between-science-and-philosophy
:up:
Philsophers are rain-makers. Wherever there's a parade, they make sure it rains and rains hard. :smile:
Quoting Gregory
Simulation Hypothesis
Thats strange because you just wrote about subjectivity objectively, just as we can talk about some property of rocks being unique and a defining feature of rocks and that makes rocks behave in certain ways.
Does that minimize or maximize the force of his discovery?
My position is that "illusion" is not actually a property of physical things, it's a relative property of hypotheses. The hypothesis that I am a human living in the year 2020 in a spacetime universe is the best one I have right now, and so I call it "real" and all other explanations "illusions".
But if I get introduced to some "Zion" outside of this world which is actually the Matrix, then I might come up with a better hypothesis to explain the totality of my experiences, and the idea that I'm a 2020 earthling might then become the "illusion".
But my opinion is that the real illusion is the concept that there is a fundamental view point called "reality" that anyone can technically experience this "reality " and it somehow be identical regardless of how many people get to experience it
I think that's the real illusion because we all experience a slightly different world because we have been shapeing are perspective since the day we were born and that's why a movie that makes one person cry can make the next person laugh despite being the same exact movie
And so I think reality is an illusion.
I didn't see anyone mention the paradox/illusion of time, so I thought I would add this to your notion of our "perceptions of reality" statement.
You're welcome. One thing it didn't mention (among other's) is the idea that time itself, is not as illusionary as the change in time, itself. A distinction that's interesting. Of course the simple paradox of time zones and time travel via infamous twins bear this out... .
I think time is unreal for the simple reason that it's relative according to the much bandied about theory of relativity of Einstein. The idea of relativensss, if that's even a word, suggests a kinship with what philosophers refer to as worldview/weltanshcauung - it's just a perspective ergo, subjective and not objective. I'm going out on a limb by saying, if Einstein is correct and we have good reasons to think he is, no one's time will ever perfectly match with someone else's. Time then is very much like a private, personal, experience having no existence beyond.
TMF!
The illusion/paradox of time is real for sure (twins, time zones, relativity, etc.), but also the perception of time is just as intriguing. Like the simple feeling that time seem to fly by when one is either busy or as one ages. And how it seems slow when one is bored or anxious.
[i]Time perception raises a number of intriguing puzzles, including what it means to say we perceive time. We see colours, hear sounds and feel textures. Some aspects of the world, it seems, are perceived through a particular sense. Others, like shape, are perceived through more than one sense. But what sense or senses do we use when perceiving time?
It is certainly not associated with one particular sense. In fact, it seems odd to say that we see, hear or touch time passing. And indeed, even if all our senses were prevented from functioning for a while, we could still notice the passing of time through the changing pattern of our thought. Perhaps, then, we have a special faculty, distinct from the five senses, for detecting time. Or perhaps, as seems more likely, we notice time through perception of other things.[/i]
This just goes to show time is unreal - lacking an objectivity of its own. If one's state of mind can affect how time flows, it suggests that time, if not entirely subjective, has a subjective aspect to it.
Quoting 3017amen
Don't count on it. As I'm beginning to realize - taking into account Einstein and what you said about how temporal perception changes with our state of mind - it appears to be the case that, at least within the framework of our discussion, time lacks an objective existence. Just saying...
No exceptions taken TMF. Perhaps it's some sort of Kantian intuit. Nevertheless, a subjective, existential thing of some sort that just is...
Say, I ma standing on equator at 12 Noon, where will I be at 1 PM? I will move with planet Earth to the left. Only southern hemisphere people can see me move to the right. Yet, time and movement of the Earth has always been counted by the point of view of Northern hemisphere.
Can something be both objective and subjective?
OPTICAL ILLUSIONS:
Shepard's Table
Cafe Wall Illusion