What is Real? How do YOU define Real?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 829 times
Been thanked: 140 times

What is Real? How do YOU define Real?

Post #1

Post by 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? :lol:

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: What is Real? How do YOU define Real?

Post #2

Post by bernee51 »

Compassionist wrote: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? :lol:
Interesting...and the conundrum (which isn't really a conundrum) can be seen through if existence is broken down into its constituent parts...

In Ghost in the Machine Koestler coined the term ‘holon’ – a whole part. For example, the letter ‘a’ is a whole in and of itself. It is also part of another ‘whole’, known as a word – ‘am’. It is also part of a phrase “I am…� or a sentence, a paragraph, a book and so on. If you were to destroy the letter ‘a’ it would severely compromise those other ‘wholes’ which depend on the existence of ‘a’.

We tend to see ‘existence’ as a whole when it is really a holon, made up of other holons. As physical entities, we, our physical ‘selves’, are made up of atoms and molecules. These nuts and bolts of existence ‘inhabit’ what has been called the physiosphere. From the perspective of the physiosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. We are ‘one with the universe’. According to one view of modern cosmology, the physiosphere started out as simple sub-atomic particles which over a long period of time underwent a ‘complexification’ – it evolved into more complex structures.

At some point this complexification led to the emergence of ‘life’. Life brought about the emergence of the next holon – the biosphere. All living matter – or those aspects that make it ‘living’ are inhabitants of the biosphere. From the perspective of the biosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ with a biomechanical system supporting it. Again we are ‘one with the universe’.

This biomechanical system evolved a neural network which laid the ground for the emergence of consciousness which on becoming more complex emerged as a self-awareness – a consciousness that not only knows but knows that it knows. Perhaps the very first question that arose on the emergence of this phenomenon was “Who am I?� This sphere of mental activity is the noosphere – from wiki… “For Teilhard [de Chandon], the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.� Think of the connectivity of thought we have access to in comparison to our previous generations and it is easy to see the continued evolution of this sphere.

So to answer your question - all we perceive of existence 'resides' in the noosphere and is illusion in that it is a mental construct whcih is in constant flux. It indeed is maya, like all concepts, maya exists in the noosphere.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

User avatar
kayky
Prodigy
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Post #3

Post by kayky »

If we cannot trust our senses to obtain knowledge of the physical universe, then we have no way of knowing anything at all. That seems to defy reason.

And--no--I am not part of your dream--you are part of mine... O:)

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 829 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Post #4

Post by Compassionist »

kayky wrote:If we cannot trust our senses to obtain knowledge of the physical universe, then we have no way of knowing anything at all. That seems to defy reason.

And--no--I am not part of your dream--you are part of mine... O:)
I would not say that we have no way of knowing anything at all. For example, I know that I am typing on my laptop to post this message on this forum for you and others to read. What I don't know is whether there is more to reality than perceived by my senses. It is entirely possible that there is much more to reality than our limited senses can perceive. It is also possible that reality is pretty much as we perceive it. Unless I become omniscient and omnipotent I would not be able to know with total certainty. Do you understand?

As for your last sentence, as entertained as I am by the possibility, given that I am sentient and have no absolute way to verify that you are not a dream or a hallucination, I disagree with your statement. I am all too aware that you could say the same and you would be equally right. Only I know what it is like to be me and only you know what it is like to be you. And neither of us is omnipotent and omniscient.

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 829 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: What is Real? How do YOU define Real?

Post #5

Post by Compassionist »

bernee51 wrote:
Compassionist wrote: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? :lol:
Interesting...and the conundrum (which isn't really a conundrum) can be seen through if existence is broken down into its constituent parts...

In Ghost in the Machine Koestler coined the term ‘holon’ – a whole part. For example, the letter ‘a’ is a whole in and of itself. It is also part of another ‘whole’, known as a word – ‘am’. It is also part of a phrase “I am…� or a sentence, a paragraph, a book and so on. If you were to destroy the letter ‘a’ it would severely compromise those other ‘wholes’ which depend on the existence of ‘a’.

We tend to see ‘existence’ as a whole when it is really a holon, made up of other holons. As physical entities, we, our physical ‘selves’, are made up of atoms and molecules. These nuts and bolts of existence ‘inhabit’ what has been called the physiosphere. From the perspective of the physiosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. We are ‘one with the universe’. According to one view of modern cosmology, the physiosphere started out as simple sub-atomic particles which over a long period of time underwent a ‘complexification’ – it evolved into more complex structures.

At some point this complexification led to the emergence of ‘life’. Life brought about the emergence of the next holon – the biosphere. All living matter – or those aspects that make it ‘living’ are inhabitants of the biosphere. From the perspective of the biosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ with a biomechanical system supporting it. Again we are ‘one with the universe’.

This biomechanical system evolved a neural network which laid the ground for the emergence of consciousness which on becoming more complex emerged as a self-awareness – a consciousness that not only knows but knows that it knows. Perhaps the very first question that arose on the emergence of this phenomenon was “Who am I?� This sphere of mental activity is the noosphere – from wiki… “For Teilhard [de Chandon], the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.� Think of the connectivity of thought we have access to in comparison to our previous generations and it is easy to see the continued evolution of this sphere.

So to answer your question - all we perceive of existence 'resides' in the noosphere and is illusion in that it is a mental construct whcih is in constant flux. It indeed is maya, like all concepts, maya exists in the noosphere.
Thank you very much. I found your post interesting. Although, I don't agree that the conundrum is not really a conundrum. I don't see how I can convince myself that there isn't anything more to the perceived reality than what is perceived by me or how I can convince myself that there is in fact much more to the perceived reality than what is perceived by me.

I suspect that I will remain a strong agnostic regarding the ultimate nature of reality unless I become omniscient and omnipotent and I don't think that's likely. If I had become omniscient and omnipotent in the future I would have changed the past to ensure that all of reality was equally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omniculpable. That would be my idea of perfection.

Carico
Scholar
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 6:29 pm

Re: What is Real? How do YOU define Real?

Post #6

Post by Carico »

Compassionist wrote: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? :lol:
This is the main problem with philosophy. Philosophers don't know the truth which is why they're always in pursuit of it. Some philosophers don't even know if they exist. :shock: ANd many don't know the real from the unreal. So from my experience, philosophers are one of the most confused group of people on the face of the earth. That's because they rely on human "reasoning" which is fallible and not omniscient.

What philosophers don't understand is that the human mind can't change the human mind any more than a neurotic mind can change a neurotic mind because that mind thinks neurotically to begin with! So they go round and round in circles like a dog chasing its tail just to end up right back where they started from with the same questions like; "Does God exist?" "What's real and unreal?" "Do I exist?" :lol:

So all philosphy proves is that man doesn't know what's right, wrong, true or false, real or unreal which is precisely why we all need God. :)

User avatar
kayky
Prodigy
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Post #7

Post by kayky »

I would not say that we have no way of knowing anything at all. For example, I know that I am typing on my laptop to post this message on this forum for you and others to read. What I don't know is whether there is more to reality than perceived by my senses. It is entirely possible that there is much more to reality than our limited senses can perceive. It is also possible that reality is pretty much as we perceive it. Unless I become omniscient and omnipotent I would not be able to know with total certainty. Do you understand?
Yes, I understand. And I do think there is more to reality than what is perceived by the senses.
As for your last sentence, as entertained as I am by the possibility, given that I am sentient and have no absolute way to verify that you are not a dream or a hallucination, I disagree with your statement. I am all too aware that you could say the same and you would be equally right. Only I know what it is like to be me and only you know what it is like to be you. And neither of us is omnipotent and omniscient.
I'm not sure I see any practicality in holding such a belief.

User avatar
kayky
Prodigy
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: What is Real? How do YOU define Real?

Post #8

Post by kayky »

This is the main problem with philosophy. Philosophers don't know the truth which is why they're always in pursuit of it. Some philosophers don't even know if they exist. :shock: ANd many don't know the real from the unreal. So from my experience, philosophers are one of the most confused group of people on the face of the earth. That's because they rely on human "reasoning" which is fallible and not omniscient.
Human reason is the best source we have for exploring the nature of reality. It should be at the base of any belief system.
What philosophers don't understand is that the human mind can't change the human mind any more than a neurotic mind can change a neurotic mind because that mind thinks neurotically to begin with! So they go round and round in circles like a dog chasing its tail just to end up right back where they started from with the same questions like; "Does God exist?" "What's real and unreal?" "Do I exist?" :lol:
Of course the human mind can change the human mind--that is how we progress. And a neurotic mind can get medical attention and become well again.
So all philosphy proves is that man doesn't know what's right, wrong, true or false, real or unreal which is precisely why we all need God. :)
From what I've learned about you through your other posts, I'm thinking what you're actually saying here is that we all need to adopt your brand of Christianity.

User avatar
David E
Student
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:25 am
Location: Murray KY

Post #9

Post by David E »

Philip K. Dick defined reality as that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

I always liked that definition. But, on further reflection, it doesn't really work. By that definition a persistent hallucination is real (think of the hallucination of the dead doctor from the last several episodes of House for an example).

So instead I'll stick with this very simply definition: reality is the totality of things that exist.

As to the question of whether its all "maya". Its an interesting, but not terribly fruitful, thing to speculate on. There's just no way to know. And in the meantime, maya or not, I've still gotta pay the electric bill if I want the lights to stay on.

User avatar
Dreammaker Twilight
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:48 pm

Post #10

Post by Dreammaker Twilight »

Nothing is "real". Nothing has been proven to "exist". We might as well be having a mass hallucination. Or we might as well be AI robots programmed to think we're human. In fact, when faced with all the possibilities, the probability of actually being a human living in the world we "see" are slim indeed.

Post Reply