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]

Lions, and amoeba do no nothing of time, that is not proof of time's non-existence.

Amoebas don't no anything about hydrogen, or gold, or couchs, or pretty much anything that you conceive as real. lions don't know about them either, so your argument is meaningless.

Reality is defined as: The state of being actual or real, a real entity, event or other fact, The entirety of all that is real, and an individual observer's own subjective perception of that which is real.

It is also an album by david bowie, and in its widest sense, reality includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis

Reality is just a word, it has many meanings, in your world the word reality probably doesn't exist because lions don't know english, and neither do amoebas, which you apparently think are the infallible, godlike beings that know everything about everything, and therefore anything they don't know doesn't exist.

I agree with you about your view of reality in that time does not exist in your concept of reality, which is different than mine, in which time does.

I am willing to say that your definition of reality is correct, and has follows its own rules.

Neither of us really know anything of time, we can only harbour beliefs about its nature, and hope that we're right.

My theory is as untestable as yours, and thus Neither of us can be right.

OR we can both be right, it really depends on how you see things.

I say that time exists, you say that it doesn't, that says more about you, and I then it does time.

[Tuddrussell]

Also from what I can tell of your concept of reality, then the only things that are truly red are things that came about their redness naturally, like apples, and certain rocks, but things that came to be red by other means, like say a waggon that was painted red, or cherry flavoured gumdrops are not truly red at all.

Whether something came to be red by man's intervention, or by godly plan really makes no difference... they are both red.

[bernee51]

Lions, and amoeba do no nothing of time, that is not proof of time's non-existence.

Amoebas don't no anything about hydrogen, or gold, or couchs, or pretty much anything that you conceive as real. lions don't know about them either, so your argument is meaningless.

Reality is defined as: The state of being actual or real, a real entity, event or other fact, The entirety of all that is real, and an individual observer's own subjective perception of that which is real.

It is also an album by david bowie, and in its widest sense, reality includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis

Reality is just a word, it has many meanings, in your world the word reality probably doesn't exist because lions don't know english, and neither do amoebas, which you apparently think are the infallible, godlike beings that know everything about everything, and therefore anything they don't know doesn't exist.

I agree with you about your view of reality in that time does not exist in your concept of reality, which is different than mine, in which time does.

I am willing to say that your definition of reality is correct, and has follows its own rules.

It has been interesting talking through the topic with you and getting your opinion and ideas on the matter.

The only reaosn I mentioned other life forms and their relationship with the idea of time is that is differs markedly from ours - we have one and the rest of theuniverse apparently does not.

What might that suggest to you?

Neither of us really know anything of time, we can only harbour beliefs about its nature, and hope that we're right.

My theory is as untestable as yours, and thus Neither of us can be right.

OR we can both be right, it really depends on how you see things.

I say that time exists, you say that it doesn't, that says more about you, and I then it does time.

I don't 'hope that I am right'. My main interest is to do with the nature of being and how that is influenced by the concept of time. By being more 'in the now' as opposed to reacting to influences grounded in 'time' i.e. memories and re-figured responses based on them I am acting more closely from my fundamental nature.

[bernee51]

Also from what I can tell of your concept of reality, then the only things that are truly red are things that came about their redness naturally, like apples, and certain rocks, but things that came to be red by other means, like say a waggon that was painted red, or cherry flavoured gumdrops are not truly red at all.

Whether something came to be red by man's intervention, or by godly plan really makes no difference... they are both red.

yeah - the topic of qualia in an interesting one.

When we say we 'see red' are we actually seeing it, or are we, as Nicholas Humprey suggests, being redded.

[Compassionist]

Also from what I can tell of your concept of reality, then the only things that are truly red are things that came about their redness naturally, like apples, and certain rocks, but things that came to be red by other means, like say a waggon that was painted red, or cherry flavoured gumdrops are not truly red at all.

Whether something came to be red by man's intervention, or by godly plan really makes no difference... they are both red.

yeah - the topic of qualia in an interesting one.

When we say we 'see red' are we actually seeing it, or are we, as Nicholas Humprey suggests, being redded.

I am a strong agnostic regarding the ultimate nature of reality while I am a gnostic regarding my experiential reality. Is there anything beyond my experiential reality? May be. May be not. It is impossible to know with certainty without becoming omniscient.

Incidentally, what do you make of this free course?

[Cathar1950]

Time is a human construct much like length.
Time is the measurement of change and the smallest change seems to be Plank's.
It is discrete.

There is a difference between concrete reality and abstraction which should be grounded in the concrete.

Do make any kind of distinction between the two?
How are you defining reality?

[Compassionist]

Time is a human construct much like length.
Time is the measurement of change and the smallest change seems to be Plank's.
It is discrete.

There is a difference between concrete reality and abstraction which should be grounded in the concrete.

Do make any kind of distinction between the two?
How are you defining reality?

According to Hinduism the perceived reality (as perceived by sight, sound, touch, taste and smell) is an illusion (Maya). How can we test this hypothesis and know for sure if it is an illusion or not?

[Cathar1950]

Time is a human construct much like length.
Time is the measurement of change and the smallest change seems to be Plank's.
It is discrete.

There is a difference between concrete reality and abstraction which should be grounded in the concrete.

Do make any kind of distinction between the two?
How are you defining reality?

According to Hinduism the perceived reality (as perceived by sight, sound, touch, taste and smell) is an illusion (Maya). How can we test this hypothesis and know for sure if it is an illusion or not?

You eat. Causality is also a good indicator.
It is to late to go into details but there is presentational immediacy. Rejecting mind/body dualism we sense the world in which we are part of it.
Illusion of what is the big question.
There is a point were we have to take seriously our being in the world even if we think symbolically.
Feeling, experience, awareness and reflection; to exist is to feel or be felt and influenced by other actual entities.

[Sir Rhetor]

Time is a human construct much like length.
Time is the measurement of change and the smallest change seems to be Plank's.
It is discrete.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that time was non-existent before Man? If not, what then?

By the way, just to think about: if time is in discrete increments, then calculus is useless. This is off topic though.

And just because time and space are not concrete, this does not mean they do not exist. Dimensions are a (albeit arbitrary) framework which the universe is suspended.

Anyways, if you think dimensions are just made up fantasy by philosophers, just try to move your hand through the fourth spacial dimension. You cannot (but it would be fascinating if you could). There are a minimum of four coordinates required to describe the position of a point in space-time: three spatial and one time (because the point could move).

It seems to me that if dimensions were not real, we could specify an arbitrary amount of dimensions at any time, maybe even that the number of dimensions was always changing, in flux. Responses?

[Tuddrussell]

Time is a human construct much like length.
Time is the measurement of change and the smallest change seems to be Plank's.
It is discrete.

There is a difference between concrete reality and abstraction which should be grounded in the concrete.

Do make any kind of distinction between the two?
How are you defining reality?

According to Hinduism the perceived reality (as perceived by sight, sound, touch, taste and smell) is an illusion (Maya). How can we test this hypothesis and know for sure if it is an illusion or not?

Whether or not "reality" is an illusion or not is inconsequential, it would change nothing, at least in my mind.

Even if everything was an illusion, like say a dream, or a computer programme or somewhat, it wouldn't change how I lived my life, and really shouldn't change anyone else's either, but realistically it would affect a lot of people, in bizarre ways.

Chaos, anarchy, and hedonism would likely run rampant, and maybe we'll revert into a wild west style after-the-end apoco-film.

IF reality is an illusion, then I would rather that we were kept in the dark about it, nothing good would likely come of knowing.

People tend to panic, and just do all sorts of random, idiotic things when such things are brought to their attention.

If reality is an illusion, then it is likely that knowing about it would cause it to end.

This is from wikipedia: An Apocalypse (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Apokálypsis; "lifting of the veil" or "revelation") is a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e. the veil to be lifted.

That sounds a lot like what I'm talking about, almost scarily so.

Also length is not a human construct, it is firmly anchored in reality, something will have length whether we measure it or not.

That is like saying that a tree that falls in a forest will not produce sound waves unless someone is there to hear it.

Now inches, feet, and metric are definitely human creations, but length is not.

Say something is five inches long, it will be five inches long even if inches don't exist, it could be two and a third yom-yoms, or not have a name at all, but that doesn't effect it's length in the slightest. Just how it is measured.