What is real?

[GliderGuider]

What differentiates the real from the unreal? How do you decide which is which?

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. If it "is", it is real

QED

[GliderGuider]

2. Is it?

Really? :evilgrin:

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Yes, by definition

One cannot talk about something "being" without it existing, even if it exists only as a thought. What is it that "be"s without existing? Not a thing, that's for sure.

[GliderGuider]

5. So, how can you tell if something exists or not? /nt

[snooper2]

45. It would be composed of something called...

atoms

[GliderGuider]

46. Are ideas real?

If not, how would you classify them?

[snooper2]

48. Yes, because energy was required to produce the idea

synapse exist to allow electrical or chemical messages pass between cells in your brain

[GliderGuider]

49. So synaptic electrochemical impulses are identical to ideas?

Perhaps nothing is unreal, then...

[wookie72]

53. So, light isn't real, then nt

[NoNothing]

4. What is "real"? How do you define "real"?

If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Have you ever had a dream you were so certain was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

[GliderGuider]

6. If you can't tell whether a situation is real or not

but you are nonetheless experiencing it, what is real in that circumstance?

[rrneck]

8. That only works if you take the blue pill. nt

[GliderGuider]

10. So the inevitable question is, "How do you know whether you have taken the blue pill or not?" nt

[rrneck]

12. I guess if there is no way to test it, you wouldn't.

Unless Keanu Reeves shows up. :D

[tama]

57. You don't and Matrix is real

"2 Envatment Reconsidered

This is a standard way of thinking about the vat scenario. It seems that this view is also endorsed by the people who created The Matrix. On the DVD case for the movie, one sees the following:

Perception: Our day-in, day-out world is real.

Reality: That world is a hoax, an elaborate deception spun by all-powerful machines that control us. Whoa.

I think this view is not quite right. I think that even if I am in a matrix, my world is perfectly real. A brain in a vat is not massively deluded (at least if it has always been in the vat). Neo does not have massively false beliefs about the external world. Instead, envatted beings have largely correct beliefs about their world. If so, the Matrix Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis, and its possibility does not undercut everything that I think I know.

Philosophers have held this sort of view before. The 18th-century philosopher George Berkeley held, in effect, that appearance is reality. (Recall Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.") If this is right, then the world perceived by envatted beings is perfectly real: they have all the right appearances, and appearance is reality. So on this view, even envatted beings have true beliefs about the world.

I have recently found myself embracing a similar conclusion, though for quite different reasons. I don't find the view that appearance is reality plausible, so I don't endorse Berkeley's reasoning. And until recently, it has seemed quite obvious to me that brains in vats would have massively false beliefs. But I now think there is a line of reasoning that shows that this is wrong.

I still think I cannot rule out the hypothesis that I am in a matrix. But I think that even I am in a matrix, I am still in Tucson, I am still sitting at my desk, and so on. So the hypothesis that I am in a matrix is not a skeptical hypothesis. The same goes for Neo. At the beginning of the film, if he thinks "I have hair", he is correct. If he thinks "It is sunny outside", he is correct. And the same goes, of course, for the original brain in a vat. When it thinks "I have a body", it is correct. When it thinks "I am walking", it is correct.

This view may seem very counterintuitive at first. Initially, it seemed quite counterintuitive to me. So I'll now present the line of reasoning that has convinced me that it is correct."

More: http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html

[BurtWorm]

15. Viagra?

[rrneck]

17. Heh.

Actually I was thinking about the Matrix. But now that you mention it...

[rrneck]

7. I think anything that is real is testable. nt

[GliderGuider]

9. Is anything that is not testable therefore unreal?

Is the test real?

[rrneck]

11. That would follow if my reasoning is correct.

On edit, the test would make it real. Internal states, like emotions, are real and are testable by the individual experiencing them. They are also testable by others by observing behavior exhibited by anyone experiencing them.

Of course, that's not a test that lends itself to instrumentation. Evaluations of internal states are tested through experience.

Your's was a short post, youda thunk ida read the whole thing before replying. Duh.

[GliderGuider]

13. What if we don't have an appropriate test yet?

Did matter consist of quarks before the advent of high-energy colliders? Is the Higgs boson real? Or is there a third state between real and unreal in which something might be either? ("Paging Dr. Schrodinger...")

ETA: This is a response to rrneck's post above.

[rrneck]

14. I think whatever was matter

was always matter, no matter what we may think of it. If Helen Keller fell down in the woods, would she make any noise?

I updated post #11.

I think I need more coffee.

[Nihil]

40. Then it can't be defined as "real" yet.

> What if we don't have an appropriate test yet?

If there is no appropriate test then the best that can be said is that it
is "expected" or "believed" to be, not that it "is".


> Did matter consist of quarks before the advent of high-energy colliders?

Pedantically no (as they could not be proven to exist).

The proton/neutron/electron/... was viewed as a black box with no subcomponents
and that explained most of the questions that they had at that time. Once people
had started to consider the remaining unanswered questions, the existence of
quarks was postulated (still a bit before the existence of the means of detecting
them) so they took on a pseudo-existence that, in turn, encouraged others to make
a suitable means of examining those hypotheses. Once enough evidence to support
the existence of quarks was obtained (and agreed upon), at *that* point you can
honestly start to say that "matter consists of quarks" - but not before.


> Is the Higgs boson real?

Not yet ... :evilgrin:

Sorry ... "No, it is not real as it has not yet been proven to exist".

On the other hand, it is an elegant theoretical solution to a number
of questions/problems that have been proven(*) to exist. This would
make it a very desirable solution that - at the same time - has not
yet been proven *not* to exist (so far).

(*) = "proven to the satisfaction of many questioners if not all of them"


> Or is there a third state between real and unreal in which something might
> be either?

Yes: "theoretical" or "woo-woo" depending upon who is arguing what.

I like this thread!
:evilgrin:

[GliderGuider]

44. Nice!

:thumbsup:

So, how do we tell the difference between something in that middle, unresolved state, and something that is "unreal"? Is it just a question of logic at that point? That is, only those things that can be logically proven to be impossible can be definitively considered to be unreal?

Like using the "Problem of Evil" as a technique for proving that the standard-issue Christian god is unreal? :evilgrin:

[Nihil]

52. Thanks!

> So, how do we tell the difference between something in that middle, unresolved
> state, and something that is "unreal"? Is it just a question of logic at that
> point? That is, only those things that can be logically proven to be impossible
> can be definitively considered to be unreal?

To my mind, yes.

I suppose that the "middle unresolved state" is technically a spectrum or
band that ranges from "still unproven but almost certainly real" to "still
not proven false but almost certainly unreal" but that's just a decorative
border for the basic three-state situation that I find a reasonable answer
to your earlier question.


> Like using the "Problem of Evil" as a technique for proving that the
> standard-issue Christian god is unreal?

I think you'd have more difficulty trying to pin down that elusive target
(i.e., the "standard-issue Christian God") than drawing a definitive result
from the tristate logic (real/possible/unreal).

But that's just my opinion after all ... :hi:

[rrneck]

54. This conversation is real.

I think that makes the subject of the conversation, whatever it may be, real because the results can be measured in any number of ways.

A conversation about sub atomic particles can be measured in exactly the same way as a conversation about Gandalf.

Could it be that the yardstick of reality is not empirical verification or emotional validation but the experience of acting on them, and maybe knowing which is which?

[Jim__]

16. All that is not unreal.

Shore enuf.

[skepticscott]

18. You think, therefore you are

you can't be absolutely, positively, 100% sure of anything else.

Hasn't this ground been covered before?

[GliderGuider]

19. I think, therefore everything is

All ground has been covered before - just not right here, right now, with this mix of people.

[skepticscott]

20. If you define something as being

even if it only exists in your thoughts, yes. But if that's all that's needed for something to qualify as "real" or "is" or "being" that makes your original question pretty much a waste of time, since you've already decided that anything becomes real as soon as you think of it. Your question is only interesting if there are things that don't qualify as "real" simply by being thought of.

[GliderGuider]

21. No, something doesn't necessarily exist if it only exists in my thoughts.

However, my thoughts of it exist. The thoughts are real, even if their content isn't (?) Since I'm aware of the outside ("real") world only through my thoughts as well, what makes the difference between a thought that has an external reference and one that doesn't?

I'm not trying to be (too much of a) smartass here. I'm really looking for the answer to the question "Who am I?" and trying to come at it from as many directions as possible.

[skepticscott]

24. Then reconcile that

With your last post, "I think, therefore everything is" Not just thoughts, but everything, according to you.

[GliderGuider]

26. "I think, therefore everything is" is a pointer.

It's a reminder that I only experience my thoughts, no matter what is represented in those thoughts. I cannot experience the universe directly, I have no way of experiencing anything except as neural impulses. The actual triggering source of those impulses doesn't matter - an impulse is the same whether it arises because of sensory stimulation or a completely internal, purely mental event. I have learned conventions to distinguish one from the other (as have we all), but these conventions are necessarily nebulous and incomplete.

Nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that my entire experience of the world is inside my own mind, so as far as I'm concerned, the world only exists because I think. I understand that this position looks much like solipsism, but I don't see it that way. There is a world "out there", but in a sense it exists for me only because I think it does.

[skepticscott]

32. Which takes you right back to my original point

that the only thing you can be sure is real is whatever is generating/experiencing your thoughts. It's not a hard concept, but since you seem to have a difficult time even defining or understanding what you mean by "is" or "exists" or "real", any discussion beyond that still seems like a waste of time.

[GliderGuider]

34. Not quite.

I believe that the only things I can be sure are "real" are my thoughts. "Whatever is generating/experiencing them" may or may not be real.

Most people take the word "real" to mean something like, "Real things have an objective existence apart from the experience of them." I'm not so sure that objective existence in that sense is the gold standard for all human endeavours, because at some level I believe the sense of apartness is a perceptual illusion. As a result I don't find the colloquial definition I gave above terribly satisfying. On one level I accept that definition, but on another level it seems slippery and ephemeral while pure awareness feels absolute. So that leaves the question of the ultimate nature of reality open, for me at least.

[trotsky]

25. Yes, of course this ground has been covered before.

It's just that some folks never get past the "DUDES, listen to this" phase of philosophy. (Which, granted, seems to encompass about 99% of the subject.)

[GliderGuider]

27. "Dudes, listen to this" is the driving force of all human communication, isn't it?

If we didn't feel the urge to test our ideas by sharing them the world would be a much poorer place, since nobody would learn or grow. I'd much rather have too much self-expression than too little.

[trotsky]

28. Not "Dudes, listen to this" but "DUDES, listen to this."

There's a difference.

[GliderGuider]

29. There is a difference?

I can understand that you might feel that way, but it sounds simply like your interpretation. And even if there is a difference, why does it matter if someone wants to re-plow old ground? Should we limit our discussions to tones and topics that don't annoy you?

[trotsky]

30. It is only your interpretation that there isn't a difference.

And besides, I wasn't even replying to you to begin with.

[GliderGuider]

31. Ah, the "Speak only when spoken to" rule

Right up there with "Respect your elders."

Anyway, as OP I claim Droit de Seigneur on every post in the thread. :evilgrin:

[Nihil]

39. Ah, but ...

> Anyway, as OP I claim Droit de Seigneur on every post in the thread. :evilgrin:

... is that a *real* rogering or just a *virtual* one?

And, really, at the end of it all, is there a difference anyway? :evilgrin:

[RagAss]

56. ...and who is this "You" ????

[greyl]

22. Depends on how you look at it. nt

[Axle_techie]

23. Perception

[GliderGuider]

38. Do you mean

"Perception is real", or "Perception is how we discriminate the real from the unreal"?

Do perception and consciousness mean the same thing to you?

[Axle_techie]

47. A persons perception of reality is reality to that person.

That is what makes people hard to reason with. In order to make them change their mind, you must change their perception, which is the same as changing reality for them. To make it harder, you are trying to change their reality to your reality which makes them resist the harder because it becomes a question of who has the right perception of reality. If you are strong enough of will and charisma, your reality becomes the reality for a larger number of people. This is the reason that people like Adolf Hitler, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, Napoleon Bonaparte, and other leaders have been able to gather forces to them and lead conquests. This is all my opinion, of course.

Perception and consciousness are not the same IMO.

What you can believe and perceive, you can achieve.

[GliderGuider]

50. Thank you!

That's very clear.

[Silent3]

33. What is real, or what can you know certain is real?

Absolute certainty isn't attainable for anything. You can at best establish a definition for "reality", and then talk about how certain or not you are that particular phenomena belong to that reality or not.

While some people like to seem to delight in confusing the concepts of reality and perception, even claiming perception is reality, I'd counter with the idea that there's no sense having separate words "reality" and "perception" if there isn't an important distinction to be made between them. The most useful concept of reality is a public, not private, concept. This is a reality defined to be persistent, independent and external to individual minds. This reality itself is not subject to proof, it is simply a useful construct, a construct inherent in the act of communication, and pretty much the only coherent alternative to solipsism. If you intend to lead your life as if people other than yourself are real and important, not mere figments of your own imagination or personal delusion, this will lead you a public and objective concept of reality.

The question of whether something is real or not becomes a question of how consistent that thing is with a coherent objective reality. I've heard some people say that only something which can be objectively verified is real -- that I consider an overstatement, one which excludes to many potentially real things. What I would say is that objective verification helps to improve the certainty that something is real, that importance of such verification for a particular claim depends on how great a departure from known patterns of reality is implied by that claim.

[GliderGuider]

35. There's no question that the notion of objective reality is useful.

It lets us exist in the world, after all. I question whether that's the only useful definition of reality. I'm fascinated by the idea that there is an ultimate reality, a "ground of being" in which subject/object separation is just one more form that arises, little different from quarks or compassion or rusty bicycle frames.

[Silent3]

36. Objective in this case means independent...

...from individual perception. That concept of reality does not depend upon subject/object separation, it's meant to set aside the confusions and ambiguities that can arise from that distinction.

[GliderGuider]

37. I know. That's what I see as the shortcoming.

As I say, it's a an essential concept, but I've got nothing against a little ambiguity creeping in at the edges.

However, I feel/think/believe that the the concept of independence from individual perception is intrinsically dependent on subject/object separation. It seems to me that there simply cannot be independence without that pre-existing separation. Can you explain a little more?

[Why Syzygy]

41. In this interview

Neil Kramer talks about a specific monk culture who consider the dream state to be reality and the waking state as just a time to support the dream state (via food, places, practices).

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/08aug/RIR-100819.php

[Iggo]

42. I am.

Y'all muthaf***ers is fake, though.

[GliderGuider]

43. Straight to the point!

:rofl:

[DeSwiss]

51. What is real?

- That is now, and will always be impossible for us to discover.....

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves
are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." ~ Max Planck

[RagAss]

55. "From the beginning, not a thing exists".....Hui Neng

A modern English translation of this would be "First of all, nothing is real".