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?

[Tuddrussell]

yeah this is a debate forum... a religious debate forum, shouldn't you be used to opinions, and beliefs based on nothing but conjecture, feelings, and whether or not it sounds right.

I have expressed my opinion on the nature of reality, "How do YOU define real?" was the question answered, and I believe I have answered it satisfactorily, I have never, not once stated that your belief is incorrect, merely that I believe in my beliefs, and explaining them.

You are the one that was attacking my position, and well I may have questioned the logic that forged your belief, I have never stated that your belief was incorrect, wrong, or in any way less than mine, personally I feel that my belief is better than yours, but that has more to do with the irrational feeling that "my stuff", is by definition better than "not my stuff"... whether it is or not.

Ontology is one of the more complex fields of study, but it is also one of the most important.

[Tuddrussell]

Evidence for the past existing: The past exists because the present exists, and therefore if the past didn't exist then the present did not exist because of the rules of basic cause, and effect... A cause leads to an effect, if the cause does not exist, then the effect cannot exist.

You can think of it as the past being your father, and the future being your son, which would make you the present.

The past exists because we can both agree that the present exists, which would imply that the past was once the present, and that the future is a possible present that has yet to be produced, there is a lot of evidence of the past existing... just ask a historian, or rather look around you.

Can you see anything made out of wood? If so than at one time that was a tree, the tree still exists in the present as the objects made of it's wood, and the memories of people who have witnessed it.

I propose that the tree still exists in the past, and that the desk will continue existing well into the future.

Science is not infallible, sure einstein might have presented some theories that make a lot of sense, but ancient greeks have presented theories that make a lot of sense... like say how everything is made out of fire, earth, air, and water.

Evidence for this can be easily obtained by burning a log, it produces earth in the form of ash, air in the form of smoke, and water, and fire are there as well: the log is on fire, and water is produced.

I can provide witnesses that will state that the past exists, I will show you a a pile of ingredients, and then I will show you the ingredients mixed together into a burrito, and then I will show you the finished, and cooked burrito... therefore showing you time in action, and I will have the finished burrito as material evidence to substantiate my claim.

[bernee51]

yeah this is a debate forum... a religious debate forum, shouldn't you be used to opinions, and beliefs based on nothing but conjecture, feelings, and whether or not it sounds right.

yep - it happens all the time...but that doesn't stop us pesky skeptics from asking for some 'meat' behind those unsupported opinions.

I have expressed my opinion on the nature of reality, "How do YOU define real?" was the question answered, and I believe I have answered it satisfactorily, I have never, not once stated that your belief is incorrect, merely that I believe in my beliefs, and explaining them.

No argument with that.

You are the one that was attacking my position,...

Asking for your reasons, based in objective evidence is 'attacking'?

...and well I may have questioned the logic that forged your belief, I have never stated that your belief was incorrect, wrong, or in any way less than mine, ...

Didi you not use the phrase "mind of a child"?

..personally I feel that my belief is better than yours, but that has more to do with the irrational feeling that "my stuff", is by definition better than "not my stuff"... whether it is or not.

A view of reality based on what you feel, as opposed to what the evidence suggests, is, as you rightly say, irational.

Ontology is one of the more complex fields of study, but it is also one of the most important.

and requires study and self questioning on the nature of being .

Evidence for the past existing: The past exists because the present exists, and therefore if the past didn't exist then the present did not exist because of the rules of basic cause, and effect... A cause leads to an effect, if the cause does not exist, then the effect cannot exist.

What a jumbled mess of circularity.

How long is the past? How long is the future? If I have judged your opinion correctly I would guess you would answer 'infinite' to both. How long is infinite? It is outside of time. It is not temporal. The past and present do not exist in time.

Same with 'now' (a proposition you have yet to address). How long is 'now'? 'Now', like infinity is outside of time. 'Now' does not exist in time. Existence is an infinite 'sequence' of 'nows'. We use the concept of time to measure the distance bewteen perceived instances of 'nows' - without the measuring it would not exist.

You can think of it as the past being your father, and the future being your son, which would make you the present.

I could go into a long dissertation regarding the concepts of father and son...but that is likely to confuse matters even more.

The past exists because we can both agree that the present exists, which would imply that the past was once the present, and that the future is a possible present that has yet to be produced, there is a lot of evidence of the past existing... just ask a historian, or rather look around you.

The past existed - past tense. It no longer exists - it is memory.

Can you see anything made out of wood? If so than at one time that was a tree, the tree still exists in the present as the objects made of it's wood, and the memories of people who have witnessed it.

I propose that the tree still exists in the past, and that the desk will continue existing well into the future.

Propose all you like...the only reality, the only thing that does not cja\hange nor can cease to exo\ist is 'now'...or 'god'.

Science is not infallible, sure einstein might have presented some theories that make a lot of sense, but ancient greeks have presented theories that make a lot of sense... like say how everything is made out of fire, earth, air, and water.

And the Vedic scientists long before the Greeks had five elements,...what is you point?

Evidence for this can be easily obtained by burning a log, it produces earth in the form of ash, air in the form of smoke, and water, and fire are there as well: the log is on fire, and water is produced.

And....

I can provide witnesses that will state that the past exists, I will show you a a pile of ingredients, and then I will show you the ingredients mixed together into a burrito, and then I will show you the finished, and cooked burrito... therefore showing you time in action, and I will have the finished burrito as material evidence to substantiate my claim.

{{{{{groan}}}}}

[Tuddrussell]

Legal evidence is different than scientific evidence, you should have clarified.

As for the "only that which does not change, or cease to exist" theory, by that definition nothing exists, because everything changes, and everything has the capability to cease existing.

By your definition "Now" does not exist, and niether of us exist because by your argument we will both cease to exist eventually, and I'm sure you'll agree with me that people change all the time.

My definition of reality includes most everything, and your definition excludes most things...

Why do you feel the need to be so closed off to everything?

[Tuddrussell]

As for the "Mind of a child" thing, Shouldn't you appreciate the fact the it was a part of a classic, and textbook logical fallacy?

[bernee51]

Legal evidence is different than scientific evidence, you should have clarified.

What are you talkin about?

As for the "only that which does not change, or cease to exist" theory, by that definition nothing exists, because everything changes, and everything has the capability to cease existing. By your definition "Now" does not exist, and niether of us exist because by your argument we will both cease to exist eventually, and I'm sure you'll agree with me that people change all the time.

'Now' never changes and never ceases to exist.

My definition of reality includes most everything, and your definition excludes most things...

Why do you feel the need to be so closed off to everything?

You have to be kidding!!!!

As for the "Mind of a child" thing, Shouldn't you appreciate the fact the it was a part of a classic, and textbook logical fallacy?

Which 'textbook fallacy' would that be?

[Tuddrussell]

Affirming the consequent, inappropriate generalization, and possibly affirming the consequent.

"Now" by it's very definition changes, and then ceases to exist...

Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference... the act or process of deriving a conclusion, that make information relevant to the support or disproof of a hypothesis.

Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis.

[Tuddrussell]

Sorry, sometimes I forget what I'm typing halfway through typing it...

[bernee51]

Affirming the consequent, inappropriate generalization, and possibly affirming the consequent.

"Now" by it's very definition changes, and then ceases to exist...

By who's definition.

Now is and always is. It never ceases and never changes - how can it?

Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference... the act or process of deriving a conclusion, that make information relevant to the support or disproof of a hypothesis.

Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis.

And this c & p from a textbook is apropos of what?

[Tuddrussell]

"Now" is what is happening at this point in time, and it is not fixed. Now is like a bobber in a pool of constantly rising fluid.

Now is always changing, it is in a perpetual state of flux, Now will not be now in the future, and it was not now in the past.

Change is occurring all the time, unless time stops.

Everything ceases to be at some point, therefore by your definition nothing exists, hence my calling it exclusive: It has a set of rules based on exclusion.

I can think of nothing that doesn't change in some for, nor can I think of anything that can survive the end of the universe, unless you count things that exist in other universe, which you don't because it has no evidence.

I honestly never cared about evidence, neither did my parents, or my teachers, or the principal, or the juvie judge that always put me in a cell over the weekend because I had chronic gastro-intestinal problems. I hate that guy, glad I don't have to see him again.

Evidence never helped me out with any of my problems, evidence is nowhere near as important in a trial as well rehearsed story, or a faked smile.

Fourteen men get abused every second, and there are plenty of scientific studies that prove that female-on-male violence is a common occurence... and yet there is virtually no funding going towards educating police officers, judges, attorneys, or children about it, even it is just the opposite for violence against women.

Evidence is just one way of validating something, it is a good way, I am not denying that, but it does have it's limitations, and drawbacks.

The point I am trying to make is that I respect evidence, it's just not the be all, end all way of convincing me of something, and it has never really worked for me in the past.

I missed a lot of school, mostly because it was an hour long drive to get to school, and I had tummy troubles... well that, and I never really get along with people my age, and school sucked...

I learned how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide the first time they showed me how to do it, and then they made me do it again, and again, and again, and again... until I just refused to do it any longer, but did the teachers put me in a higher math class?

No, they just put me in detention, and then later special ed.

Though my terrible handwriting probably added fuel to the "He failed math class, so he must have a learning disability!" fire.

Evidence has never done a single thing for me, but belief sure has!

I was once a nihilistic, and depressed atheist with nothing to look forward to but a miserable life, and then dieing, rotting, and ceasing to exist... but eventually belief shown into my life in the form of a wolf that came to me in a dream, he showed me how I could live my life with love in my heart, and fire in my soul.

Other animals have come to me in other dreams, and gave me profound pearls of wisdom, but that wolf never came back.

I owe everything to that wolf, I firmly believe that he saved my life, as I was in a very dark place at the time.

That might have something to do with why I have such a broad view of reality, because those dreams to me are as, real, and profound as anything else in my life.