What is Real? How do YOU define Real?

[Compassionist]

As Morpheus asked in 'The Matrix', "What is real? How do you define real?"

We don't know reality directly. We appear to know our sensory-cognitive-affective model of reality as it appears to be generated by the brain. One is considered psychotic if one perceives things, not perceived by others.

Are you familiar with the concept of Maya in Hinduism? Maya means illusion and states that this perceptual world that is sensed by our senses and measured by science is an illusion i.e. not what it seems. It is impossible to disprove it. This is why I am a strong agnostic about the ultimate nature of reality although I am not agnostic about the apparent nature of reality.

Does the workings of the brain produce the mind or is the brain an illusion perceived by an immortal soul? How would I know for sure? How would you or anyone else know for sure? Do any of you really exist or are you all part of a dream or a hallucination I am experiencing?

[otseng]

Moderator comment.

I apologise for attacking you, it was rude, and built on a logical fallacy:

This is a good thing to post.

Very young children believe that things they can't see no longer exist, you don't believe in things you can't perceive, therefore you have the mind of a very young child.

This is not a good thing to post. Though you might have meant this to mean what you should not have done, it can still be interpreted as an indirect attack.

[Tuddrussell]

I was only explaining the insult, in an attempt to discredit the insult...

My entire point is that time, memories, and thoughts do exist, if only in the minds of men, and beasts... but it seems to me that everyone here is quick to dismiss something insubstantial as not real merely because it exists in a different way then we do.

Reality is hard to define, but I Define reality as all that is, and could be, and I think it is safe to say that my definition is broader, or at lest more inclusive than yours.

Abstract objects, and concrete objects are different, but one is not more real than the other, at least in my opinion.

Taken from Wikipedia:

An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction). In philosophy, an important distinction is whether an object is considered abstract or concrete.

Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum). The type-token distinction identifies that physical objects are tokens of a particular type of thing. The "type" that it is a part of is itself an abstract object.

The abstract-concrete distinction is often introduced and initially understood in terms of paradigmatic examples of objects of each kind

A physical body is an enduring object that exists throughout a particular trajectory of space and orientation over a particular duration of time, and which is extended in the world of physical space, e.g. as studied by physics.

Examples are a cloud, a human body, a weight, a billard ball, a table, or a proton. This is contrasted with abstract objects such as mental objects, which exist in the mental world, and mathematical objects.

Other examples that are not physical bodies are emotions, the concept of "justice", a feeling of hatred, or the number "3".

In some philosophies, like the Idealism of George Berkeley, a physical body is a mental object, but still has extension in the space of a visual field.

[bernee51]

I was only explaining the insult, in an attempt to discredit the insult...

And ending up in only compounding the issue...

My entire point is that time, memories, and thoughts do exist, if only in the minds of men, and beasts... but it seems to me that everyone here is quick to dismiss something insubstantial as not real merely because it exists in a different way then we do.

You are the one making the calim that the 'insubstantial' is 'real' it is up to you to support it.

You are also seem to be claiming that I (or 'everyone here') said the insubstantial (your generalization) is 'not real'...where did I say that?

Reality is hard to define, but I Define reality as all that is, and could be, and I think it is safe to say that my definition is broader, or at lest more inclusive than yours.

Whether it is 'inclusive' or not is not the issue...is it a true reflection of what is 'real'.

How can 'what could be' be considered as reality?

Abstract objects, and concrete objects are different, but one is not more real than the other, at least in my opinion.

You opinion is noted.

Taken from Wikipedia:

An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction). In philosophy, an important distinction is whether an object is considered abstract or concrete.

...

In some philosophies, like the Idealism of George Berkeley, a physical body is a mental object, but still has extension in the space of a visual field.

That is all very interesting...care to explain it in your own words.

i.e. what does it have to do with what is 'real' and what is not.

[Tuddrussell]

you claimed several times that Time is not real, or rather that it did not exist...

Time exists, just within the reality of the mind, as a concept... Just because something is a concept does not mean it is not real, or that it does not exist.

If something did not exist then how would you know of it?

[Tuddrussell]

It is hard to debate the nature of existance if we have different notions of whatr exatly "exitance" is.

I define reality as anything that can be thought of, or observed.

Therefore if something was unreal, then niether of us would be able to argue over it's existance or not, because we would not know of it.

[bernee51]

you claimed several times that Time is not real, or rather that it did not exist...

You however made this statement: ... everyone here is quick to dismiss something insubstantial as not real...
This is your straw man...everyone here made no such claim

Time exists, just within the reality of the mind, as a concept... Just because something is a concept does not mean it is not real, or that it does not exist.

I set out my arguments as to why I hold that time exists only as a concept...I note you have not addressed these arguments. I also provided you with additional information (in the form of links) which further extend the case...did you look at them? Apparently not.

It is hard to debate the nature of existence if we have different notions of what exactly "existence" is.

It is doubly difficult when faced with claims that existence is ‘everything’

I define reality as anything that can be thought of, or observed.

Let me tell you of the zmbolo...it is a ruminant animal somewhat like a cow but the size of an average housecat. It is believed by the local tribe, the Antozi, that the hide of the zmbolo when soaked in its milk renders the wearer as invisible. The zmbolo and the Antozi live on the planet Maskodi, which is in the Antares star system.

By your definition this is all ‘reality’.

Therefore if something was unreal, then neither of us would be able to argue over its existence or not, because we would not know of it.

Which is why accepted and objective definitions are agreed upon.

When you say: "I define reality as anything that can be thought of, or observed" you are speaking of your belief.

It is your opinion. And I suggest it is not an opinion grounded in 'reality'.

[Tuddrussell]

I define reality as anything that can be thought of, or observed.

Let me tell you of the zmbolo...it is a ruminant animal somewhat like a cow but the size of an average housecat. It is believed by the local tribe, the Antozi, that the hide of the zmbolo when soaked in its milk renders the wearer as invisible. The zmbolo and the Antozi live on the planet Maskodi, which is in the Antares star system.

By your definition this is all ‘reality’.

I am glad you now understand my point, I totally agree with you on this, and would also like to point out that in an infinite universe this is happening on an infinite amount of worlds, and on an infinite amount of them the hides do indeed make them invisible, and on yet another infinite amount of worlds it does not make them invisible, just really stinky, and ridiculous looking.

[Tuddrussell]

Whether my opinion is incorrect or not, is your opinion, and I claim that it is the incorrect one... but that too is an opinion.

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it is not real, or of value.

It was thomas jefferson's opinion that church, and state should be separate... and that opinion still has a major effect today, centuries after he, and his opinion, are dead, and gone.

[bernee51]

I define reality as anything that can be thought of, or observed.

Let me tell you of the zmbolo...it is a ruminant animal somewhat like a cow but the size of an average housecat. It is believed by the local tribe, the Antozi, that the hide of the zmbolo when soaked in its milk renders the wearer as invisible. The zmbolo and the Antozi live on the planet Maskodi, which is in the Antares star system.

By your definition this is all ‘reality’.

I am glad you now understand my point, I totally agree with you on this, and would also like to point out that in an infinite universe this is happening on an infinite amount of worlds, and on an infinite amount of them the hides do indeed make them invisible, and on yet another infinite amount of worlds it does not make them invisible, just really stinky, and ridiculous looking.

I understood your point all along. Your 'point', however, as has been pointed out, is based on an unsupported premise and is therefore suspect.

When you can show that the universe is infinite you will begin to have some credence - up until then you are blowing smoke.

[bernee51]

Whether my opinion is incorrect or not, is your opinion, and I claim that it is the incorrect one... but that too is an opinion.

Just in case you missed it the first time, if your 'opinion' is based on incorrect or unsupported premises then is is suspect.

This is a debate forum - until you either provide support for your opinions, or admit to them being 'just you opinion with no bearing on objective reality', they mean diddly squat AFAIAC

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it is not real, or of value.

Or valueless

It was thomas jefferson's opinion that church, and state should be separate... and that opinion still has a major effect today, centuries after he, and his opinion, are dead, and gone.

It is given the value not by the expressor but by those who accept it.