|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 12:29 am
It has often been a complex problem for philosophers, how to define what is real and what is not? No doubt you have probably heard of a couple of the more common and unusual views - things like "nothing is real, you are all in my imagination and you can't prove otherwise" and the Chinese philosopher unsure if he was a butterfly dreaming he was a philosopher or a philosopher dreaming he was a butterfly...
I thought it might be interesting to see if people can answer in any sense how they determine 'reality'. See if anyone could pinpoint what it takes for something to be real for them and what it takes for them to disbelieve in something...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 5:52 pm
Philosophy wise, real is existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
Scientifically speaking real is of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.
Something that is real can be sensed. not necessarily all senses involved, such as the wind...you can hear it, feel it, and smell it sometimes, but you can't see it. but you can see it's effects on other things...Something real has a cause and effect. light can not be smelled, heard, felt or tasted(for the most part) but you can see it...and extremely bright lights can have damaging effects...blindness for example or ultraviolet rays...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socrates in Disguise Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 6:24 pm
dezrosatweaker Philosophy wise, real is existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Scientifically speaking real is of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space. Something that is real can be sensed. not necessarily all senses involved, such as the wind...you can hear it, feel it, and smell it sometimes, but you can't see it. but you can see it's effects on other things...Something real has a cause and effect. light can not be smelled, heard, felt or tasted(for the most part) but you can see it...and extremely bright lights can have damaging effects...blindness for example or ultraviolet rays... So images on the television are real? They're real in the sense of being light converging, they're real in the sense of being electric waves intertwining on a flat surface to produce an image, but not real in the sense that they are actual people...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 12:10 am
well in a sense they are actual people. Someone acted out those images or drew them...I don't know I was really just babbling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socrates in Disguise Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 4:48 pm
dezrosatweaker Philosophy wise, real is existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Scientifically speaking real is of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space. Something that is real can be sensed. not necessarily all senses involved, such as the wind...you can hear it, feel it, and smell it sometimes, but you can't see it. but you can see it's effects on other things...Something real has a cause and effect. light can not be smelled, heard, felt or tasted(for the most part) but you can see it...and extremely bright lights can have damaging effects...blindness for example or ultraviolet rays... That's really the scientific point of view, isn't it? I'm not criticizing or anything. I just thought that what the Chinese philosopher was thinking about was more how easily the senses can be fooled--you can never be sure whether they are right when you think they are telling you something is real. In my Psychology textbook they gave advice on proposing--take them to a really high, windy place, like a bridge or tower, and propose to them at the top. The height gets their blood pumping, so they have a quickened heart beat. They feel this, but don't think about it until the proposal, and because of the quickened heartbeat, they think, "Oh wow, i must really love this person if I'm so excited about their proposal." At least, that's how it was supposed to work...I'm sure it wouldn't work on everyone, but for most people, yes. So you see, the Chinese philosopher was wondering whether all of this was real, because you can't trust your senses all the time... That's my discussion for awhile. I'll be around!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 5:26 pm
Cirendia dezrosatweaker Philosophy wise, real is existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Scientifically speaking real is of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space. Something that is real can be sensed. not necessarily all senses involved, such as the wind...you can hear it, feel it, and smell it sometimes, but you can't see it. but you can see it's effects on other things...Something real has a cause and effect. light can not be smelled, heard, felt or tasted(for the most part) but you can see it...and extremely bright lights can have damaging effects...blindness for example or ultraviolet rays... That's really the scientific point of view, isn't it? I'm not criticizing or anything. I just thought that what the Chinese philosopher was thinking about was more how easily the senses can be fooled--you can never be sure whether they are right when you think they are telling you something is real. In my Psychology textbook they gave advice on proposing--take them to a really high, windy place, like a bridge or tower, and propose to them at the top. The height gets their blood pumping, so they have a quickened heart beat. They feel this, but don't think about it until the proposal, and because of the quickened heartbeat, they think, "Oh wow, i must really love this person if I'm so excited about their proposal." At least, that's how it was supposed to work...I'm sure it wouldn't work on everyone, but for most people, yes. So you see, the Chinese philosopher was wondering whether all of this was real, because you can't trust your senses all the time... That's my discussion for awhile. I'll be around! Interesting point. It's not similar in example, but it's similar in message to Rene Descartes' ideas that no sense can be trusted. He noted that even though wax changes every notable feature when it melts, his head still defined it as wax... if fire becomes a blue, cool fluid, is it fire anymore? The pattern is inconsistant, so senses, or the English language, for that matter, cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 2:50 pm
To me, reality exists on three levels: Mental, physical, and spiritual.
Examples of things that exist on a physical level are easy to define. They can be sensed by one of your senses. An example would be a rock, water, or wind.
Example of something that exists on a mental level would include ideals. Ideas of government, morality, and personal preferences.
Examples of things that exist on a spiritual level are a bit harder to describe. God, angels, and demons.
There are things that bridge all these levels together, like people, but also things that exist in two of these levels like...well...animals, if you don't believe they spiritually exist or angels(some exist on spiritual and mental levels)
So....it depends on what you're trying to prove exists. You could say anything you can think of exists(on a mental level). You could also say that anything you can touch, see, smell, feel, or taste exists(on a physical level). You could also say that things you can't quite perceive exist. (On a spiritual level)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 3:25 pm
Kogeta To me, reality exists on three levels: Mental, physical, and spiritual. Examples of things that exist on a physical level are easy to define. They can be sensed by one of your senses. An example would be a rock, water, or wind. Example of something that exists on a mental level would include ideals. Ideas of government, morality, and personal preferences. Examples of things that exist on a spiritual level are a bit harder to describe. God, angels, and demons. There are things that bridge all these levels together, like people, but also things that exist in two of these levels like...well...animals, if you don't believe they spiritually exist or angels(some exist on spiritual and mental levels) So....it depends on what you're trying to prove exists. You could say anything you can think of exists(on a mental level). You could also say that anything you can touch, see, smell, feel, or taste exists(on a physical level). You could also say that things you can't quite perceive exist. (On a spiritual level) Hear, Hear whee But...don't involve animals in this, we can't really tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 pm
boku_wa_kage Kogeta To me, reality exists on three levels: Mental, physical, and spiritual. Examples of things that exist on a physical level are easy to define. They can be sensed by one of your senses. An example would be a rock, water, or wind. Example of something that exists on a mental level would include ideals. Ideas of government, morality, and personal preferences. Examples of things that exist on a spiritual level are a bit harder to describe. God, angels, and demons. There are things that bridge all these levels together, like people, but also things that exist in two of these levels like...well...animals, if you don't believe they spiritually exist or angels(some exist on spiritual and mental levels) So....it depends on what you're trying to prove exists. You could say anything you can think of exists(on a mental level). You could also say that anything you can touch, see, smell, feel, or taste exists(on a physical level). You could also say that things you can't quite perceive exist. (On a spiritual level) Hear, Hear whee But...don't involve animals in this, we can't really tell. I'm talking about the physical plane right now. I think he intends by the question, "how can we define what's real in the physical plane and not just in our mental plane or spiritual plane?" If we wanted to get scientific on this we could just say that since the universe is constantly expanding and the rate at which it expands is always increasing, then an infinite universe holds all things in our imagination to be real somewhere. If we're only talking about what's in the present, whether that chair over there is actually there or not, I dunno. Consider this example, though, that interested me: Studies have shown that when people get used to a singular image every day, like parked car on the side of the street that they pass every day, that never moves, then, when the day comes that the car actually does move, the driver is so used to it not moving that it literally does not move, in his mind, when he crashes into it. This being the case, we might go to sit down in a chair, when in actually it is no longer there, and we would still think ourselves to be... we would still feel it beneath us, etc. Weird, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 4:54 pm
To me the meaning is of reality is not something that is the same for everybody. I believe that reality is acually an opinion. Each person gets to define their own reality. If you whole heartedly believe that something is real then to you it will be a part of your reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 5:05 pm
Yafehseishin To me the meaning is of reality is not something that is the same for everybody. I believe that reality is acually an opinion. Each person gets to define their own reality. If you whole heartedly believe that something is real then to you it will be a part of your reality. But I can't really wholeheartedly believe dragons exist and then one will show up in my driveway, right? I understand that idea but only really believe it on a level of description, per se. For example I could smash a mirror because I wanted it smashed, and to you it would be "broken", whereas to me it would be "fixed." Same physical object, just different ideas of it's condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 5:05 pm
Here is an idea for you.
Reality is what people collectively believe. While you may believe you sense or feel or see something ofte people are wrong, they have false memories or colours and other detaisl change in memory. Some people even imagine whole other worlds or dream of spectacular events. Yet something isn't truly real unless many people can agree on it.
There are two levels of reality, implicit realiy and complicit reality. Implicit reality is the individual reality you assume, you assume a chair is there and exists because there have been many before and they are an accepted part of a larger complicit reality. Similarly anything you experience individualy can be implicit reality - due to cmplicit reality you have reason to believe in and accept such a reality, though you can never be entirely sure.
Complicit reality are things which enough people agree upon that they become real. For exaple an event on the other side of the world, you can't sense it in any way directly and cannot judge it's reality - yet if enough other people believe it you believe it and take it to be real. Similarly something near you, you may not notice a car that is coming when you cross the roa, yet if other people do it is there and real and you cannot deny it - they warn you and suddenly it is there for you too.
Obviously this needs far more detail to do it justice as a full theory on reality and perception. However I hope it makes you think on how you can define reality and what reality means...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 5:22 pm
SanguineV Here is an idea for you.
Reality is what people collectively believe. While you may believe you sense or feel or see something ofte people are wrong, they have false memories or colours and other detaisl change in memory. Some people even imagine whole other worlds or dream of spectacular events. Yet something isn't truly real unless many people can agree on it.
There are two levels of reality, implicit realiy and complicit reality. Implicit reality is the individual reality you assume, you assume a chair is there and exists because there have been many before and they are an accepted part of a larger complicit reality. Similarly anything you experience individualy can be implicit reality - due to cmplicit reality you have reason to believe in and accept such a reality, though you can never be entirely sure.
Complicit reality are things which enough people agree upon that they become real. For exaple an event on the other side of the world, you can't sense it in any way directly and cannot judge it's reality - yet if enough other people believe it you believe it and take it to be real. Similarly something near you, you may not notice a car that is coming when you cross the roa, yet if other people do it is there and real and you cannot deny it - they warn you and suddenly it is there for you too.
Obviously this needs far more detail to do it justice as a full theory on reality and perception. However I hope it makes you think on how you can define reality and what reality means... That seems very easy to counter, but I may be being decieved! The mass opinion was that dragons existed, back in the Middle Ages, but that doesn't make it that they actually did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 6:08 pm
TheBeatnik SanguineV Here is an idea for you.
Reality is what people collectively believe. While you may believe you sense or feel or see something ofte people are wrong, they have false memories or colours and other detaisl change in memory. Some people even imagine whole other worlds or dream of spectacular events. Yet something isn't truly real unless many people can agree on it.
There are two levels of reality, implicit realiy and complicit reality. Implicit reality is the individual reality you assume, you assume a chair is there and exists because there have been many before and they are an accepted part of a larger complicit reality. Similarly anything you experience individualy can be implicit reality - due to cmplicit reality you have reason to believe in and accept such a reality, though you can never be entirely sure.
Complicit reality are things which enough people agree upon that they become real. For exaple an event on the other side of the world, you can't sense it in any way directly and cannot judge it's reality - yet if enough other people believe it you believe it and take it to be real. Similarly something near you, you may not notice a car that is coming when you cross the roa, yet if other people do it is there and real and you cannot deny it - they warn you and suddenly it is there for you too.
Obviously this needs far more detail to do it justice as a full theory on reality and perception. However I hope it makes you think on how you can define reality and what reality means... That seems very easy to counter, but I may be being decieved! The mass opinion was that dragons existed, back in the Middle Ages, but that doesn't make it that they actually did. Ok... Let's say I drop a pen from my hand to the ground. Why did it drop? Gravity. If I got a friend to say that gravity doesn't exist. The pen would still drop. If we got everyone on gaia to vote, and the majority voted that gravity didn't exist, gravity still exists. If everybody in the world collectively thought there was no such thing as gravity, gravity would still be here. There once was a belief that the world was flat. We dont decide what's real or not. God does. biggrin (Whoo, go Life Teen!) xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socrates in Disguise Captain
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 7:14 pm
Dragons may be just the exaggeration of Dinosaurs and in medieval times, large lizards like the Komodo Dragon...so in a way they did and do exist.
Until the 18th Century everyone was sure that witches, fairies, magic, and the like was real...and some is still believed today? Who's to say they don't you can't really prove either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
