|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:34 pm
Devvo Yeah I see that. However if we're saying that even if this isn't reality we only know this one so it is our reality. Which means we're believing it until we can prove that it isn't real. Even if someone claims this . . . "world" is all one knows, if we don't accept this as reality or have doubts about attaining truth through the senses, then we cannot say that this "is our reality" because we obviously don't believe that. People do not say that God exists when they have doubts in their mind about the legitimacy of religion. Juries don't convict people of murder if they feel the defendent may be innocent.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:51 am
The_Wicked_Man Devvo Yeah I see that. However if we're saying that even if this isn't reality we only know this one so it is our reality. Which means we're believing it until we can prove that it isn't real. Even if someone claims this . . . "world" is all one knows, if we don't accept this as reality or have doubts about attaining truth through the senses, then we cannot say that this "is our reality" because we obviously don't believe that. People do not say that God exists when they have doubts in their mind about the legitimacy of religion. Juries don't convict people of murder if they feel the defendent may be innocent. Yeh but that's because they have something that makes them doubt what they're proving.
If we're trying to prove that this world we live in isn't real and we have abosolutely no evidence then we have to class it as our reality even if somewhere there is someone writing out our thoughts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:53 am
We are all people stuck in pods living in an man made simulation of life called the matrix
s**t ... nevermind that was a movie.
I actually do think that we exist... unless someone proves otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:04 pm
Devvo If we're trying to prove that this world we live in isn't real and we have abosolutely no evidence then we have to class it as our reality even if somewhere there is someone writing out our thoughts... But to prove that the world is not real, we must first define "reality." If that cannot be done, then we cannot simply assume that we are already living in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:09 pm
VCmnky It is too easy to tell if your dreaming or not. In a dream have absolute control. Only if your dreams are lucid, and mine never are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:24 am
The_Wicked_Man Devvo If we're trying to prove that this world we live in isn't real and we have abosolutely no evidence then we have to class it as our reality even if somewhere there is someone writing out our thoughts... But to prove that the world is not real, we must first define "reality." If that cannot be done, then we cannot simply assume that we are already living in the real world. So do we presume that we don't actually exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:16 pm
Devvo So do we presume that we don't actually exist? Only in the physical sense. Remember: We think, therefore we are. We can be sure that our minds exist on some idealogical plane, but to prove anything beyond that (i.e. the physical world) we need to define physical realities first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:36 pm
What's the saying? A Chinese Philosopher once dreamed he was a butterfly, and from that moment onward, he was never sure he was not a buterfly dreaming it was a Chinese Philosopher.
Something like that. The reference that quote in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (best play everrrr) and I really like it.
Although, in general, I'm quite sure I'm not. My dreams just aren't vivd enough for me to think they may actually be reality. Although I have been known to mix up dreams and reality before. I'll wake up after having a dream about kissing/being kissed by one of my male friends and I'll wake up thinking "wow, it's going to be awkward next time I see him!" and then I'll realize... oh wait, dream. One time when I was younger I dreamed my dad was insisting I had done something, and then a week later he insisted I hadnt done it and I was all confused because I seriously though the dreamed conversation had happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:52 am
The_Wicked_Man Only in the physical sense. Remember: We think, therefore we are. We can be sure that our minds exist on some idealogical plane, but to prove anything beyond that (i.e. the physical world) we need to define physical realities first. Hmm I think my Philosophy teacher might just be slightly happier with me now that I understand it more.
Thanks smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:21 am
I think there's only one way to define "reality."
Existance itself doesn't exist.
Wherever you are RIGHT NOW is reality. Whatever you're doing RIGHT NOW as you think, and as you read my post is reality. When you were asleep dreaming last night, THAT was reality until you woke up. Even if someone were feeding you fake feelings and experiances, you yourself being inside of these is a reality in itself. It's very much real. Make any sense? Reality as a whole is just subjective. That's what I believe. 3nodding
It's rather shallow minded to let what is "physical" coincide with what is real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:10 pm
Eysce Wherever you are RIGHT NOW is reality. Whatever you're doing RIGHT NOW as you think, and as you read my post is reality. When you were asleep dreaming last night, THAT was reality until you woke up. Yet if someone dies in a dream, he does not die in "waking life." The point is, if the senses are obviously unreliable in dreams, then how can they also be used to formulate a definition of reality outside of them? Quote: Even if someone were feeding you fake feelings and experiances, you yourself being inside of these is a reality in itself. It's very much real. You as a person are real, but the experiences and feelings being imposed on you and the surrounding environment would be entirely fabricated and in no way considered a reality. The Truman Show, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:26 am
The_Wicked_Man Eysce Wherever you are RIGHT NOW is reality. Whatever you're doing RIGHT NOW as you think, and as you read my post is reality. When you were asleep dreaming last night, THAT was reality until you woke up. Yet if someone dies in a dream, he does not die in "waking life." The point is, if the senses are obviously unreliable in dreams, then how can they also be used to formulate a definition of reality outside of them? Quote: Even if someone were feeding you fake feelings and experiances, you yourself being inside of these is a reality in itself. It's very much real. You as a person are real, but the experiences and feelings being imposed on you and the surrounding environment would be entirely fabricated and in no way considered a reality. The Truman Show, anyone? I do see what you mean! But I realized something recently. Our only real connections to the world around us are our five senses. Touch, sight, taste, feeling, etcetera. And any one of those given senses can be fooled, and at times will be. We are in truth kind of, isolated in a way. I don't know how to explain this very well, but we interact with the environment through information alone. Everything we recieve from the environment is information. And when you're in a dream, you're just recieving other information. I can't figure out in my mind, what makes a situation with full information as involved as the information we get in the real world, any less real than the other world we spend far more time in. It seems that the only factor deciding reality is the fact that one set of information has a monopoly on our time as opposed to all the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:37 am
Our senses aren't the thing that connect us to the world around us. It's our mind. Our minds are the ones that interpret the senses data. Like while we're sleeping our eyes are shut. We're touching our pillows. We're smelling our own rooms. So in our dreams the only thing we're smelling is something our mind has made?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:20 pm
Eysce Our only real connections to the world around us are our five senses. Touch, sight, taste, feeling, etcetera. And any one of those given senses can be fooled, and at times will be. We are in truth kind of, isolated in a way. I don't know how to explain this very well, but we interact with the environment through information alone. Everything we recieve from the environment is information.But if we receive that information through our senses and our senses can be fooled, making them unreliable, how can we accept the environment as being real? Quote: And when you're in a dream, you're just recieving other information. Yet it is also being attained through the same five imperfect senses. Quote: I can't figure out in my mind, what makes a situation with full information as involved as the information we get in the real world, any less real than the other world we spend far more time in. Yet how do you know you are receiving full information (or even factual information) in what you call "the real world"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:51 am
The_Wicked_Man Eysce Our only real connections to the world around us are our five senses. Touch, sight, taste, feeling, etcetera. And any one of those given senses can be fooled, and at times will be. We are in truth kind of, isolated in a way. I don't know how to explain this very well, but we interact with the environment through information alone. Everything we recieve from the environment is information.But if we receive that information through our senses and our senses can be fooled, making them unreliable, how can we accept the environment as being real? Quote: And when you're in a dream, you're just recieving other information. Yet it is also being attained through the same five imperfect senses. Quote: I can't figure out in my mind, what makes a situation with full information as involved as the information we get in the real world, any less real than the other world we spend far more time in. Yet how do you know you are receiving full information (or even factual information) in what you call "the real world"? The point that you make in your questions is the same point that I've been making [or trying to!] You've basically paraphrased all my main points~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
