What is "real?"
I know this is like the largest question there is, but how did we even come up with the concept of "real?" Did we ever come across something that wasn't real or was less real somehow? Do we just compare real against our imagination or flaws in memories?
Comments (132)
This is fallacious thinking. Suppose there's a group of people X, Y, and Z and X observes something, say W. The relevant probability for W being real - as in existing independently of X's mind and thus perceivable by both Y and Z, is 50%. The same probability applies to Y and Z i.e. both of their perceptions have a 50% chance of being real.
The probability that all of them, X, Y, and Z, are hallucinating i.e. W isn't real = 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5%. Decidedly a lower probability that W isn't real than if only X observed W.
However,
The probability that all three of them, X, Y, and Z, are perceiving something real = 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5%. As you can see, that all three, X, Y, and Z are observing W paradoxically reduces the probability of W being real.
Also, if my math is correct, the probability that X, Y, and Z are perceiving something not real = the probability that X, Y, and Z are perceiving something real = 12.5%. Having more observers didn't help.
1. Words have meaning in virtue of their negative space; running is not walking, or not flying or not stationary.
2. The same word can have different meanings according to their various different negative spaces. The engine running not stalled; the course is running next term; the rabbit is running not hopping.
real - not imaginary
real - not painted
real - not virtual
real - not made-up
real - not a hallucination
real - not a semblance
Thus a mirage is contrasted with an oasis or in optics, a real image with a virtual image. Don't expect there to be one single sense in which things are real; a stick insect is a real insect, but not a real stick.
The probability that three people are hallucinating the same thing is a lot lower than 12.5%.
Depends on the situation. But usually, the more people that see something, the better the odds that it actually happened.
Show me the numbers.
Probably, the practical need for an invariant standard - measure (ratio) - lead to a 'speculative' search for a guarantee for all 'values' and 'limits' in every area of culture and endeavor. Later on, perhaps, a (conceptual? theoretical?) criterion for distinguishing between 'presence and absence' (and, more concretely, discerning facts from fictions) ...
The real is that which hurts you badly, often fatally, when you don't respect it, and is as unavoidable as it consists in whatever preceeds-resists-exceeds all (of our) rational categories and techniques of control (e.g. ambiguity, transfinitude, contingency, uncertainty, randomness). The real encompasses reason (Jaspers) and itself cannot be encompassed (Spinoza / Cantor) ... like 'the void within & by which all atoms swirl' (Epicurus). Thus, Rosset's principle of 'indispensible yet insufficient' reason (à la Zapffe, Camus, Meillassoux-Brassier).
For example (some attempts @ conceiving (or designating) the real):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/351534 (A)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/349320 (B)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/429633 (C)
Concrete stuff here, not abstract games. :up:
It's a bit of a classic misuse by philosophers, a textbook case for Austin.
Is it a real painting, or a reproduction? Is it a real coin, or a counterfeit? Is it a real lake, or a mirage? Is it real magic, or prestidigitation?
What is real is set by the item being discussed.
But philosophers will wander up the garden path by asking if it is real per se.
Whole realms of verbiage built on the misuse of a word.
You said this:
Quoting RogueAI
You should've done some calculations.
We call real those referents that fulfill a series of conditions = something that is presented under certain conditions. For example:
To be perceived with a certain constancy.
To be perceived by more than one sense.
To be perceived by the greatest possible number of people.
To be perceived under certain circumstances of "clarity".
To present a certain degree of resistance to our physical and mental activity.
To be part of a real world, that is, a structure in which some parts are related to others on a regular basis. Interdependence.
We especially call real those objects that enter the scientific system within a certain level of consensus.
The object that fulfills these conditions we say is real, or that it is real with a more or less high probability.
Applying this type of criteria with more or less rigor we can reach the conclusion that we are before objects that are not real, even though they may appear to be so: a mirage, a hallucination, a dream, a fantastic or virtual image, an entity of reason, etc.
As we can see, these conditions refer to a semantic and epistemological field. We say that "we know" or "we believe".
I'd say anything that has the capacity/ability/power to affect the self directly or indirectly is real independently of it being perceivable (by the body or its sense of awareness-not everything that interacts with the self is perceivable).
Real is relative to what is not real. Now there's a revelation :smile:
Wait wait wait -- please tell me this is the probability because either it's real or it's not. Did I get it?
Yes, you got it. Anything wrong with it?
Well, the fact of the matter is this: Given a group of people (X, Y, and, Z) making observations we've to assign a probability value for one person's observation being real/unreal.
What is the numerical value of the probability of one person's observation (call it P) being real/unreal. At this point we must realize that, supposing X is the one who makes the first observation, X doesn't, can't, know whether his observation is real OR unreal. What then is the value of P for X?
Remember that if P is less than 50% or more than 50% it implies either we already know that X's observation is less likely to be real/unreal or that X's observation is more likely to be real/unreal respectively. That's not true. If we had that information the very idea of having more observers would be pointless; after all, if P were anything other than 50%, a single person's observation wouldn't need to be corroborated with the help of other observers.
What follows from this I've already explained in my previous posts.
BTW, how do you know aliens landing on the WH lawn is unlikely?
Many like to consider real as “material” but this negates the existence of forces and energy states and probabilities etc which have no matter or substance. Some like to consider real as “objectively observable” between multiple members of society but this negates an individuals internal experience Imagination and personality or uniqueness as it is not perceivable consistently by others, as well as important concepts such as morality, justice and ethics which you cannot scientifically prove or observe yet are understood collectively to varying degrees and augment scientific endeavour to make it humane.
Some believe “real” is that which exists consistently or with most certainty/ stability through time but that negates the passage of time itself which is inherently consistent but also the mode by which things change. It also means that the laws of physics are the most real while the painting I drew and then burned straight after was not real because it didn’t last long enough.
Some people also believe that what is “real” is that which is perceptible or has the ability to interact or pass information or be measured. In this case considering what is real or not is a mute point because we cannot concieve of nothingness. Nothingness or absence of something is a concept constructed by objects that exist using phenomena that exist and so is inherently biased. It is something that exists and contains information.
So my opinion is that everything is real and that time dictates what part of everything is real at any one stage. If we can generate simulations and also put our imagination into words images and media then I fail to see a limit on thought and the physical products of thoughts.
That ship has sailed, they're already in the WH.
Other times, real versus not real is used like discovered versus invented.
Other times still, real just means exists.
Then there are some cases that overlap with objective/subjective.
All seems very contextual (and Englitch is my 2nd language).
(y)
That it is wrong is a fact; it's a bizarre misapplication of the principle of indifference, but a mistake that looks like it's worth understanding. I'm going to think about it a bit.
First things first. Consider that I'm observing something, say X. I don't know if X is real or not. What probability value should I assign to X being real?
..My options ----------------What it means
1. Greater than 50%.----It's likely that X is real
2. Less than 50%---------It's unlikely that X is real
3. 50%--------------------------I don't know. X is real is as equally likely as X is not
If I opt for 1 or 2, that means I know that it's more/less likely that X is real but then I'm contradicting myself because I began with not knowing whether X is real or not i.e. I admitted to not knowing whether it's more/less likely to be real.
3 is the correct choice. The probability for a single individual that what s/he's observing is real/not is exactly 50%.
What's before "i.e." there doesn't entail what's after. Why do you think it does?
I believe all three options are incorrect, as this is a misapplication of what probability is. Probability is based on knowables. When you talk about the probability of a jack being pulled from a regular deck of 52 cards, we know that there are four jacks. Probability is making a prediction based off of the limitations of what we do, and do not know.
You cannot assign the probability of something being real, without first constructing some limitations. What does it mean to be real? What are the circumstances in which you observed something, and it was not real? Is there chance involved based on these limitations?
Until these things are answered, you cannot assign a probability. You are instead stuck in an unassessable uncertainty.
That's four times the answer has been presented, and ignored.
:chin: How?
Says who? Why should we start with the assumption that "reality" means anything that "exists" independently of our "minds"?
If that's false then dreams must be real.
...so you are not trying to perform some sort of Bayesian calculation?
Then what is it you think you are doing?
Exactly wrong. Real is there regardless of what you decide. As is truth.
Your dreams are not real? So you remember dreams you did not have? How could you know this?
It's basic probability that I'm doing and doesn't involve Bayes' theorem if that's what you're referring to by "Bayesian calculation".
It's a common mistake. A consensus of belief makes money real, but is irrelevant to gravity.
No, it isn't.
I have a bag of marbles, two of which are real and one of which is not real...
What are the chances of my pulling out the unreal marble?
Begging the question. Dreams are real, in my view. They're just as much part of the world as anything else -- different than waking life, but certainly still there.
I think we should move on from Descartes.
It's different, right? Falling in a dream leaves no cuts and bruises.
This is basic probability. Probability of pulling out the unreal marble = 1/3
No, it isn't. 99 people seeing a ghost does not make the ghost real. Reality is not a popularity contest.
And see the mess that the notion has made here - a hotchpotch of misguided number crunching that gets nowhere.
No, the analysis engendered by your post is fraught with errors. See the alternative presented by . and myself. Or alternately, the discussion of reality given by and . Either will be more productive than further torturing statistics.
:rofl:
You've never dreamed you had a fall, and in that dream found yourself to have cuts and bruises?
What if I miscounted the number of unreal marbles in the bag? How can I know for sure how many unreal marbles are really in the bag?
Never and even if I were to get cut and bruised in my dreams they wouldn't carry over into my waking life. There's a difference between these two worlds.
Indeed, there is. This world is real, in contrast to dream worlds.
See
Simply, idealism does communicate with realism. Dreams are ideas...physical reality is obviously influenced, maybe even created by ideas. Why is there something rather than nothing? Ideas I'd say.
Metacognition probably came from a self-awareness preexistent in dream worlds. Whether this is a property limited to humans, who could say.
if you're going to bring up the issue of one being something only in contrast to something else then it's alright with me but I remember falling from a great height in my dream without a scratch on my body which is more than I can say about falls I experienced while awake.
That's your fault, not mine. :smile:
...most of philosophy, summed up in a knutshell.
I was surprised to see you entertaining the discussion.
How are you using "idealism" and "realism" here?
Quoting Anthony
That strikes me as quite backwards. Dreams are influenced by the physical world.
Your reliance on Wittgenstein's philosophy is to a fault.
Well, it might help the mad fool out of the fly trap...
But only if he wants out.
I want out :smile: :up:
If I have a thought of making a fist with my hand...a fist of my hand then occurs in a reality mutual to the thought and the fist being made.
Quoting Banno
Babies live in a dream world of pure ideation/dreams, yet emerge into conscious awareness. Babies dream....adults cease to dream because they know physical reality requires an intimate relationship in order to survive. A priori before a posteriori as a matter of course. Matter is dumb...no information...senses are dumb...no information...only unintelligent feedback. Whatever is meaning, intelligence, understanding was prior to the content of the understood.
Do you? You seem to be enjoying yourself.
You are positing a... something... between your idea and your hand, and then have the temerity to call it a reality? Looks like brillig to me.
Quoting Anthony
How could you possibly know what goes on in the mind of a baby?
The rest is indiscernible from waffle.
Believe me, I'm not.
I would say reality is created when emotion agrees with reason - at that point we have an experience - which we take to be real.
Yeah, we do. It consists of chairs, dogs, rocks, mad presidents... stuff like that.
Quoting Pop
You might well say that - but reality doesn't care if you are well-adjusted to your situation.
And philosophy is more than just making up aphorisms.
Quoting Banno
Nope. I said prior to experience...there is non experience. Not waffle. Experience of ideas occurs before that of anything empirical.
Not until you stop it.
You are positing a... something... between your discernment and the waffle? Curious.
Sounds like a modelling relation with reality - indirect realism - to me. The “something” that is the irreduciblilty of a relation where reality might be spoken of in terms of all it counterfactually ain’t.
Your reality may well consist of things like that. Mine also takes into account the nature of the universe.
Quoting Pop
Seems to be a problem here, involving taking into account what we do not know...
Exactly. If we accept dark matter and energy as something real, then we are aware of about 15% of the universe.
Have you ever played Age of Empires where you start with a dark map?
My approach is to try to understand it from the point of view of consciousness.
I would say the "concept" of real came from speculation, thought, consciousness/mind and inconsistency. While "all things are possible," is a real possibility, the concept of 'What is real?
arises when we cannot find a consistency in actuality or "what is demonstrably real," that correlates.
Quoting TiredThinker
I would say so. I think we also ran into a problem of possibilities/impossibilities. Thoughts?
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting Banno
I think the difference is that reality is independent of dreams while dreams are not independent of reality. The dependancy of dreams on reality makes dreams real. Dreams are a part of ourselves in the same manner we are a part of this world instead of ourselves being a part of (our) dreams; in this way, dream worlds are not something apart/different from reality.
In general and with some exceptions, everyone has a clear perception of what is real and what is not. But this is not discursive knowledge, but immediate knowledge. We can analyze this. Analytically, reality depends on resistance and coherence.
Resistance or adversity means that reality resists your attempts at physical or mental manipulation.
You say that the stone is real because it resists your manipulation. That is why you say it exists.
Coherence means that the objects you call real are consistent with each other (regulated if possible) and with other men. They form a "world" with meaning or structure.
You say a dream is not real because it is inconsistent with what we call the real world and other dreams.
If you do not distinguish the mental world from the material or external world you are confusing things.
Dreams, imaginations, hallucinations exist in the mental world.
Stones, Covid-19 and my wife exist in the external world. (Some of them luckily, others by misfortune - the virus!, don't think badly).
It's a bit tricky, this issue. You made two statements: 1. Reality is independent of dreams and 2. Dreams are dependent on reality. A distinction needs to be made here between dreams and dream contents.
Dreams per se, as phenomena that occcur while we sleep, are real - they happen, we experience them.
The dream contents, however, are a different animal when compared to experiences while we're awake. For instance, in a particular dream I had, I was interacting with dinosaurs, flying like a bird, leaping immense distances, etc. However, when I woke up, I wasn't in the Mesozoic era nor was I in Jurassic Park, and far from flying like a bird, I was having difficulty jumping even a few inches of the ground. In this sense, dreams aren't real.
You mean parochial knowledge? If so I agree on that end, but I wouldn't call it necessarily clear perception of what is real - since it is subject to error, bias and illusion, as all perceptions. I think it is the lack of clarity from these perceptions that contributes to the concept of what is real, no?
Quoting David Mo
I don't follow how you reached the bold subsequently. I would say it exists not because it is immune to mental manipulation (we do this all the time), but because it persists whether we mentally "manipulate," it or not. The fact, or state-of-affairs remains.
I would say coherence itself is subject to a lot of error for this reason, and you have lost me again.
What would this apply to? Wouldn't reality be universal regardless of any consistency and coherence(?) from men.
Seconded.
No. I am atheist.
Quoting CobraIf the perceived object is perceived by more than one sense (sight and touch, for example); has a sufficient duration (continuous or intermittent); is consistent with different perspectives, specially when is perceived by several people, etc., the possibilities of error decrease till insignificance. Much more if what is perceived falls within an explanatory theory confirmed by other experiences. If we want to say that this gives a 100% probability, of course. Nothing in this world has a 100% chance to arrive, except death and taxes.
Quoting Cobra
This would be the consistency. Resistance would say that mental objects can change with mental manipulation. I imagine that Trump has no hair. But I can't change his strange hair props in reality. This is real. Quoting Cobra
Reality will be what it will be. But men call something that meets those conditions (or simiilar) real. If you want to know how something is real regardless of the way men know it, you are lost on the road to nothingness. I'm not going in there.
We seem to be in the minority.
:wink:
Yeah......but I don’t mind. As my ol’ buddy Horace laments, Quodcunque ostentis mihi sic, incredulus odi.
What does parochial knowledge have to do with atheism? I mostly mean the first form of knowledge we receive through a perceptive lens i.e., intuitive, senses. e.g., blue skies. I don't think from this alone we can discern what is real, as you said, but it is a start.
Quoting David Mo
How would you say the possibility for error decreases to insignificance just because it has a consistency with multiple perceptions? We all continuously see (experience) a blue sky, and multiple other things.
Quoting David Mo
I guess it would depend on what you mean by "know" here, wouldn't it? Just because we experience things doesn't mean we know them or they exist outside of a mental construct. Knowledge - to know - is attained though other means, not necessarily outside of men, but is far from a road to nothingness I would say.
It was a joke,
Quoting Cobra
We consider that the sky or the mountains are not really blue because we give priority to certain conditions in which we assume that our perceptions are more reliable. Science says that the blue color of the sky is due to light scattering and has a theory that explains this. Then we give preference to science. Our observation tells us that the mountains that we saw from afar are no longer blue when we approach them. We give priority to closeness. The question of reality is nothing more than a way of calling to what we consider to be the most constant and coherent. The final criterion is reliability in practice. If you pretend to go through life considering that what you have dreamt is real you will give yourself a good amount of slaps against reality. I mean against what we call reality. It was a good criterion for our fathers and it is good for me.
As you will see I am not talking about things in themselves. I'm talking about phenomena. Quoting Cobra
But it seems to me that since Kant it has become clear that things themselves are unknowable. We talk about what we can talk about, which are the phenomena, and we distinguish those that have a certain degree of (real) objectivity from the subjective ones. It works.
You don't want to call that knowledge, well. Hume said it was a reasonable belief. It works for me.
I cannot comment on your comment itself of course, but the comment-as-I-read-it is clearly nonsense. This unfortunate unknowability of threads themselves makes discussion of philosophy quite impossible. And yet discussion-as-I-see-it definitely happens.
I'm sorry to have caused you such a commotion. But I am open to discussing any means of knowing things in themselves that you wish to propose.
I perfectly distinguish the mental world from the material world... I think; all I am saying is that if I am part of the material world and dreams (and the mental world) are a part of me then dreams (and the mental world) are part of the material world.
I understand what I mean but what do a close examination of the dependency between the material world and the world of dreams. Take away the material world and the world of dreams goes away to but the converse isn't true, at least to the extent that I'm aware.
If you are a materialist you will say that everything that happens is part of matter and that dreams are nothing but brain activity.
Okay. But what dreams are made is one thing and another thing is if they represent, reflect or report something real, that happens outside the brain. This is what we are discussing now. Outer or external reality.
Quoting Daniel
Quoting TheMadFool
That's exactly what I am saying. If the world of dreams is part of the material world, then the former must be as real as the latter. However, they are not the same thing, obviously. Now, if we consider real that which is not imagined then dreams are NOT real, off course. Again, all I wanted to say is that the act of considering the world of dreams as something independent of the material world is erroneous.
Quoting David Mo
Have you ever heard your alarm go off in your dreams before noticing that (in reality) it went off in the external world?
Nevertheless, I understand what this discussion is about. I agree that the mental world and the material world are different. Again, all I wanted to say is that I think that to make the world of dreams an entity separate/independent from the material world is bad thinking. I say this because sometimes I get the impression that some people do this, but I might be miss-understanding what they mean.
Well, to be honest, dreams entail a conclusion, a conclusion that has the power to throw a spanner in the works of a materialistic world view. One only has to realize the fact that the only way we know we were dreaming is to wake up and until and unless we do wake up, there's no possible way to distinguish between dreams and reality. If that's the case then, how do we know that this state, the "waking state" in which we experience the material world isn't just another dream state, a state that no one, till date, has awakened from? Basically, is the world we've decided to accept the material world all there is? Or is there another level of reality we can wake up to?
I think so too.
Dreams are on the edge of consciousness. That is why they can be directly caused by an external event. A loud noise can make us dream that we are in a bombed-out city. Then we wake up and realize that it was our cousin who was driving nails in the next room. The fact is that we quickly associate hammering with reality and bombing with fiction. The question is why. And hence the reasons I had suggested.
There is no absolute reason to choose the real world instead the dream world. All the reasons I have suggested here are reasonable and common sense, but nothing more. But I would not like to see some beloved person behave in real life as if the dream they have had were more real. I am afraid -I am sure- he would be doomed to disaster.
It seems to me that this is a subject for fantastic and romantic films. Not for the world we live in.
Indeed, if we were to confuse reality with dreams, disaster is assured but, likewise, if we assume, for whatever reason, that this world is the only reality, the same logic would apply, no?
Sorry, what logic?
Sorry, you know the real world is not a dream because it doesn't have the characteristics of a dream.
In a dream you walk on a street in a different way than on a real street; in a dream you walk on a street and this street changes in a different way than in the real world. Etc. The coherence in your behavior, the consistency of the vital background, the continuity of life in time, etc. everything is different. So you know that the real world is not like the world of dreams. You are in the real world, so live this real world.
Do you realize that you're dreaming when dreaming? No. The waking world is assuredly different from the dream world both in the sense that our minds are in a different state - the so-called "awake" phase in the 24 hour cycle that makes up our lives - and in the sense, to use gaming jargon - the physics is totally different.
However, the waking world could itself be a dream and the only way we could know that is by waking up but since no one has ever experienced such a state, at least to the extent I'm aware, we can't say that this world is, well, not just another dream.
Impeccable logic. And so we arrive at the solution, that the real contains the illusory, and we gain the idea of the unreal from reality. A stick insect gives the illusion of being a stick, while actually being an insect; it is both real in one sense, and unreal in another. And in the same way, a painting of a wooden chair has the semblance of a wooden chair, but is really made of paint and cannot be sat on. A mirage fails to quench thirst, the end of the rainbow fails to be there when you arrive at the place you saw it.
Real light, real insect, real paint, real dreams, all in the guise of something else. The 'something else' is the unreal, because it is only a guise.
How do you know that the screen of a TV is not the screen of a photo camera?
Answer: because they work differently.
The question: How do we know that when we are awake we do not dream?
Answer: Because we function differently than when we dream.
What you may want to ask is:
How do we know that when we're awake we capture something out of the mind? Couldn't it be that there is nothing real as a reference of our perceptions as it happens in dreams?
It's less literary, but it's more accurate.
I want to ask you a simple question: Do you know, for certain, that this world, your waking world, is real and not a simulation?
Absolute certainty, no.
I believe that all people have the powerful natural intuition that the things we perceive correspond to something real. Science and common sense tell us that they are not always as we see them, but that does not mean that they do not exist. I see no reason to suspect that this intuition is false. Do you have any proof that the world we live in is a simulation? As long as you don't, it seems to me an expendable hypothesis.
If you don't mind, we can move on to something else.
My position on the matter is irrelevant because I'm not claiming that the world is or is not a simulation. Frankly, I don't know and, in fact, nobody does.
You, on the other hand, are saying the world isn't a simulation. Basically, the burden of proof falls on you.
Right, which makes the question a waste of life. There are things within this Matrix that intelligence must come to terms with and will only suffer from if it remains ignorant. Ideological and class structures are examples of vital consciousness.
Au contraire, it makes life all the more mysterious ergo, vastly more interesting than otherwise. I believe, not from personal experience though, that realizing this world could be an illusion is itself a higher state of conscisousness - an awakening, if you will.
This is only true if you are talking about absolute knowledge. If you low the bar, you should consider the reasons I have already given in the previous comment.
I am not going to start a discussion about who bears the burden of proof. They are usually endless. I simply hope you will consider the reasons I have given for not taking into account the hypothesis that the world we live in is a simulation.
I will be waiting.
Well, it's not impossible to relax the rules every now and then to make an idea or a theory more digestible but where are you going to draw the line between what is knowledge and what is not knowledge then? If you can lower the bar, can I not ask that it not be lowered or that it be raised higher instead? It's arbitrary, without rationale - it's basically a whim. Is knowledge based on whims and fancies?
Quoting David Mo
Whoever makes a claim has to prove his claim. That's all I'm saying.
There is not a single branch of knowledge, except the formal sciences, that seeks absolute knowledge. Each of these branches has its criteria to distinguish between knowledge and other things, such as faith, opinion, etc. Natural sciences have strong criteria. Other branches of knowledge are more ductile. This does not mean that there is no separation between science and opinion, or between rational knowledge and faith, reality and dream. It simply means that the claim of absolute knowledge leads to absolute skepticism, a position that is impossible to maintain in practice.
Look, "life is a dream" is fine for Calderón de la Barca's theological comedies, but if you intend to take your dreams for reality, I recommend an urgent visit to an analyst. Really, what do you intend with that? I understand that Descartes posed an Evil Genius that made you doubt everything. He was looking for an indubitable method inspired by mathematics. Do you think that his failure to find an absolutely certain knowledge implies that there is no truth or lie?
Why is it impossible to maintain what you refer to as "absolute skepticism"?
Quoting David Mo
If anything I'm trying not to confuse dreams with the real deal.
Look, you can't prove that the world we're experiencing is not a simulation, right? What does that mean to you? Shouldn't take anything for granted, shouldn't make any assumptions about this world, shouldn't rule out the possibility that there could be another level of reality, right?
An absolute skeptic would think this conversation be absurd. I'm not talking. I have no absolute proof that you, my computer, the chair, etc. exist.
The immediate consequence of doubting everything is to do nothing. Which is a way like any other to die of starvation.
For my part, I prefer more moderate and less dangerous solutions. I have already mentioned them. One : trust the natural intuition that tells me the world exists. Until someone presents proof that the world does not exist. Two : accept as evidence what has a high degree of probability.
If you do not accept the same criteria you should stop responding to my comments. That would be the only coherent thing to do.
Are there folk who genuinely do not know the difference between a dream and being awake? Of course not.
Do you genuinely not believe in the device on which you are reading this? Of course not.
These are just word games played on a philosophy forum.
subjective - objective
fictional - real
voluntary - involuntary
invented - discovered
Too lazy to transform the original html to forum markup, so I'll just attach an image instead.
Not done though, quickly became a bit wishy-washy, isn't argumentative, more summarizing.
Anyone have suggestions, see errors, clarifications, ...?
That's philosophy in a nutshell
Me?
Ok, you don't exist.
Real is the opposite of what is "fake". So one must first ask, "what is fake?" The answer to that is subjective and based on one's beliefs, experiences, and what they assign a certain meaning or definition to. So, perhaps in a way, nothing is real. But everything can be.
If I lost a civil war, my badge and the authority it proclaims is "real"- but only to those who believe it to be, and "fake" to those who don't. Seems 'existent' and 'non-existent' are better terms to debate. Just because something 'exists' doesn't mean it's recognized or legal. Back to subjectivity. Popular opinion. Mob rule. Etcetera.
So your Quoting Dymora
was a lie!
a mirage or rainbow can be explained
does that make them any less real?
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Banno
Quoting TiredThinker
I see that @unenlightened and@Banno have already made the observations I would have based on Ordinary Language Philosophy (Austin, Wiggenstein, etc.) of the ordinary uses we have for the concept of "real", but the question remains of why did we come up with the philosophical (abstract) idea of "real"?
Now my history of philosophy is patchwork, but I offer that the common thread is the same desire that is behind "existence" or "consciousness": philosophy "came up" with its own picture of the world and its criteria for deciding what was real (thanks Plato) because of the problems created by our disappointments with our ordinary ways of judgment and certainty (such as in each case above). "We can't tell if they are lying to us? but we must know their pain? they could be a robot!" "I see tons of chairs; what is the 'meaning' of 'chair'? I don't see all of it! maybe what I see is not the 'true' chair?!" So, yes, our (philosophy's) imagination ran away with us to create, as one example, a quality opposed to the "appearance" of the world, and then that open question became an independent desire for a world/quality to be a foundation to our world --"reality".
I would only say that the skeptic's concerns about the world do reveal some truths about us: we are not ultimately in a position of knowledge toward each other. Our ideas of the structure of our world can not ensure, nor account for the failures of, communication. Philosophy's fear of the world, and desire for a solution to doubt, are not limited to philosophers alone: it is the human condition to want to reach past our partial, failing, contingent role in the world to something "real" that does not rely on us.
The problem with such a notion of the real is that it can't be proven. How are we going to prove that, say, x exists despite our mind not perceiving it? To prove that x exists independent of our minds, we would need two conditions to be fulfilled:
1) we're not perceiving x with our minds
AND
2) x continues to exist despite that.
The catch is we can't fulfill condition 2 without failing to satisfy condition 1 because the only way to know x exists is by perceiving it with our minds. We can't meet the conditions necessary to prove the kind of realness I described.
That said, there's an indirect method to prove such realness - realness as existence independent of mind perceptions. There's what's consistent continuity in objects between two temporally separate mind perceptions. I have this Samsung cell phone that I'm typing this post on. It's 3:00 PM now. If I then put it in a drawer where no one, even I, can't perceive it and let it remain there for 3 hours and then retrieve it from the drawer, the cell phone clock will read 6:00 PM. This, if nothing else, shows that the cell phone continued to exist independently of my mental perception of it and kept on recording the passage of time, the 3 hours it sat in the drawer. The cell phone exhibits consistent continuity - it behaves as if it exists independent of mind perceptions, everyone's mind perceptions.