What is reality?

[scotch0069]

so lets take this just a bit farther, with science fiction coming into play...and what i mean by this is VIRTUAL REALITY...like you said if reality is based on facts independent of perception couldnt a computer create a reality that is almost exactly the same as the one we wake up to day after day...or has it already happened? meaning that despite gaia's best intentions some of the people on this site have taken the ideals of certian religions to the far extent...thinking that they are dragons or vampires and such...to us this is ridiculus but to them the internet allows them this place to make a dream a reality...so my point is that i agree that reality is made up of actuall facts (facts that we know, and facts we yet can find out.. lol ) but if i virtual place can alter a reality would that reality take precedence over the real reality thus creating a paradox...(i think thats the word i want to use here... lol )  

[bluecherry]

Shh! Silence Neo. ninja

Kidding, kidding. xp The reason that virtual reality is simply that, virtual and never concrete ACTUAL, is that virtual reality is almost entirely perceptual only. There is no actual solid web page that we are all looking at discussing this topic, all it really is is duplicated data going through computer monitors so they will show the same (or very similar) pattern of light. We then see different computer screens giving off different light, but in the same pattern, and interpret it as all being one and the same thing. The page does not actually exist that we'd all typically say we were looking at, it isn't "real" at all. 3nodding

 

[scotch0069]

ok so lets change up the persepective then...say a person does get caught up in this flashing light of a screen and sees it as reality...would thier idea of reality (even though it is fantasy based on virtual reality) be the same definition that we give about reality? if so what is the difference, if not how would you explain that to the person?  

[bluecherry]

Well they'd either HAVE to be defining reality differently (and incorrectly I'd say) or have some real mental problems that they can not distinguish the difference. In the case of the first, I'd have to see what their definition is to challenge it, and in the case of the second they have bigger problems then an argument is going to get through -- they need actual trained medical and psychological attention.

 

[Ai_90]

Reality has only one meaning. To exist. That's how I see  

[black love666]

reality?is anything reality?reality is not the human world the human world is not infinite or the spirit world the residents of the spirit world are only 1/2 complete no body space is reality or is it?is space infinte who knows i sure as hell dont and is space consistent is it possible to be consistent?.the answer as i see it there is no reality never was never will be in my opinion  

[bluecherry]

If nothing is real, never was, and never will be -- the just what exactly are you and where do you come from? Or any of us for that matter. Even if you want to say the "real" world is fake, then what are any of us to be experiencing these delusions? We're not real in any way too, we do not exist in any form, not even one different then what we think we exist as, because that ultimate actual form would be something "real." What it really comes down to as to why there must be some real thing at least in existence, if you want a quick and simple answer, how about "I think, therefore I am." It does not cover in itself all of what is reality, but it's a quick way I think to prove your theory of absolutely nothing being real false.

 

[every1lafs]

Reality...

as built by oneself, from collected experience and current interpretation...

the cosmology that works...

whether one finds it pleasant or not. crying / biggrin



3nodding May yours be Kind to You. 3nodding  

[every1lafs]

bluecherry

If nothing is real, never was, and never will be -- the just what exactly are you and where do you come from? Or any of us for that matter. Even if you want to say the "real" world is fake, then what are any of us to be experiencing these delusions? We're not real in any way too, we do not exist in any form, not even one different then what we think we exist as, because that ultimate actual form would be something "real." What it really comes down to as to why there must be some real thing at least in existence, if you want a quick and simple answer, how about "I think, therefore I am." It does not cover in itself all of what is reality, but it's a quick way I think to prove your theory of absolutely nothing being real false.

Have you had the chance to actually read "The Meditations Concerning Primary Philosophy"? (I don't suggest "Discourse on Method", unless you really don't have a life.) What I took from DesCartes as far as the Cogito is the concept that one has an idea of Perfection, although no sum of the parts of anyone's reality is "Perfect". In fact, he tries to play Devil's Advocate and make an argument that any belief in things existing can be shown to have a trace of doubtfulness EXCEPT belief in oneself and belief in Perfection. This leads to the idea that one's consciousness Must have come in contact with a Perfection. Bound by his own western base of knowledge, the only name he could ascribe to this concept of Perfection was God. Not YHWH, Allah, or any of the other deities he was familiar with. His own "reality" wouldn't accomodate any true God but the one he was indoctrinated into following.  

[bluecherry]

I can't say I've read either of those actually as far as I recall. I've read a little by DesCartes though for an English class last semester, though I forget the name of it, and it did address the "Cogito, ergo sum" idea. From what I got out of it, I agree that it was a nice idea he had for a method of deriving out truths and he did indeed identify a real and good axiom to start off with, but a lot of stuff he just messed up from there on out, not applying the process he intended to correctly always (I recall at least one or two specific instances where he made a leap of logic that did not in fact make sense. He mentioned something as if it was the only possible option to follow as a conclusion from something while ignoring even more obvious other possibilities.), but I digress ^_^; ... Anyway, I mentioned I agree his axiom does indeed make it ridiculous to try to doubt one's own existence, that said there are still people foolish enough to do so. As for perfection, I've seen that one doubted too actually, along with debate over how to define "perfection" too. Althogh that is indeed a funny example of him demonstrating his own assertion, how his own life only allowed him to make an imperfect conclusion about reality, that it must be the god he had heard of (not being familiar with other ideas of perfect beings) that was the source of the idea of "perfection." As for me, I think that conclusion he made was invalid also because just coming to have knowledge of other things outside yourself which are separate and different from you will show you examples of things/people who are in some way "better" than you at something or in some sort of particular aspect/area or else or else have things about them you do not for which they can be judged for quality. Since people have concepts of measurement, scales of quality, and from the concept of measurement the concept of endings and absolutes, it makes sense we'd ask ourselves "what is the best?" in all kind of things -- we're looking for the absolute far positive end of the quality scale. The same can be said for looking for the far negative end of the quality scale, "what is the worst possible?". However, notice people still don't agree on what "perfect" really is? Even for individual things like "what is the perfect donut?" you'll get different answers, let alone try asking people to give you a positive definition of what "perfection" in general is (positive definition as opposed to a negative definition which would be something like "free from flaw" -- all something like that tells you is what it isn't, now what it actually IS.) So if "perfection" was something we all believed in without doubt and got from the same source, shouldn't we at least be able to have one uniform and positive definition of perfection among everybody?

 

[every1lafs]

You sort of have to Expect the conclusions of "The Meditations" to support the Church of the day. That was his target audience, and his benefactor. To decide otherwise would be social (and perhaps Literal) suicide.

He was, I'm certain, aware of the other deities I mentioned. Remember, in the Middle Ages it was possible for an educated man to have read all (or damn near all) the written texts in one's own lifetime. The Torah, Koran, Vedas, etc. were all available to the elite. However, to use them as anything more than tools to understand the nonbelievers was strictly heresy.  

[every1lafs]

bluecherry

...So if "perfection" was something we all believed in without doubt and got from the same source, shouldn't we at least be able to have one uniform and positive definition of perfection among everybody?

That's the nice thing about high context communication. It acts as shorthand for the bigger message. All of RD's peers were like-minded believers in the same God. So it would be a foregone conclusion that Perfection had the same "uniform and positive definition" in his circle.

In practice, however, we clearly see that this uniformity simply doesn't begin to exist for everyone, even within the same religion sometimes. One Hindu may see Shiva as Perfect, while another looks to Vishnu or Krishna or any of the others of their pantheon.

You rembember the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant, yes? One says it's a tree, as he touches the leg. Another calls it a wall, touching its side. The third says it's a snake, as the trunk wraps around his waist. Who's to say that all the religions aren't blind men, touching different aspects of the same Perfection?

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily... Life is but a dream.  

[bluecherry]

True, it does figure considering the times and the place he lived in he had certain other interests to act in which would influence him.

I've heard similar propositions before of the "they're all looking at different incomplete aspects of one thing." The thing is though, when it comes to "perfection", it's being asserted as a characteristic of another thing. That other thing they may disagree on other aspects of, but they're supposed to agree upon that characteristic of it being "perfect." If they all agree on it being that one thing, perfect, shouldn't they all agree on what that attribute is that they are ascribing to something? It's like 30 people all agreeing they saw something tall, but to one of them that means between seven and eight feet high and to another it's thirty to forty feet high and still another he/she just throws up their hands and says "who's to say what 'tall' is? It's all relative. That said, the thing was indeed tall, whatever tall is". It means you've got people who do have a clear definition of the attribute giving different definitions and then you've got people asserting the attribute without giving it any real meaning at all. So saying everybody believes in "perfection" proves any one thing exists conclusively is just ridiculous.

 

[every1lafs]

bluecherry

So saying everybody believes in "perfection" proves any one thing exists conclusively is just ridiculous.

Locked into the same 21st Century mindset, I agree with you. But be patient with ol' RD. His idea of Perfection was handed down to him by his narrowminded peers -- Perfection as an omniscient, infallible, omnipotent father figure. And he was, after all, a bit of a tool when it came to the Royals and the Church. They had a desired conclusion, and he would come up with the means to that end (with enormous leaps of logic that were substantiated by almost nothing), which would endear him mightily to the high-ups. He'd look good, they'd look good (since a supremely educated figure could only conclude that they were right), and everyone was happy. smile  

[bluecherry]

Oh true, I do know he was limited a bit in his perspectives and all, especially with his motivations for doing things pushing him in certain directions. I'm not saying I have no idea why he did what he did, I do, it's just that I think it's a shame that with a pretty decent idea to start with -- getting an undeniable fact and working logically from there to deduce further truth. He ended up abandoning that nice idea ,after going through all the trouble to get a good starting point too, and selling out his intellectual integrity and stepping all over the good name of "truth." It would have been really great if he had kept up honestly what he originally said he was going to do and stuck to his guns on the real conclusions. It would have been a really beautiful stand he'd have made I think.