What is reality?

[bluecherry]

This may just be a false rumor, but I've heard it said before that Einstein couldn't tie his shoes. So relax, even if we WERE all that smart, surely there's some area in which you'd know better then other people here still. wink

 

[Celest Demonlane]

Actually, yea. I heard that too >< I wonder if it's true...  

[CrandiBerry]

Reality is that which is agreed upon. It can be agreed upon by two or an infinite number. Agreement determines reality.

Example: We're outside. There is a brown stalky thing in front of us with branches and leaves on it. You say it's a tree. I say it's a tree. There is an agreement - and for us it's a tree. That is our reality.

Two other people look at the same thing and they say it's a woompie. They also have an agreement - and for them, it's a woompie. That is their reality.

Now here's where the problems arise. Can each group of two accept that the other has a different reality and let it be okay?

Here's where the problems with the variety of moral viewpoints, religions other groups that exist. One group considers their choice is ands should be the only reality. Other realities cause the group to feel their own reality threatened. This often has led to violent results trying to ensure that only their reality is the right one to have. Take a look around and you have a viewpoint of why there are conflicts and wars.

So, what do you think about this?  

[bluecherry]

I think if you and a friend agreed you could fly the cliff you jumped over would not agree with the both of you back.

Semantics, names for things, do not change physical properties. An odd place for this line to come to mind, but the famous "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," is true and fits here. Really, do you think somebody speaking in French sees something different when they look at what you call in English a "tree"?

 

[every1lafs]

Crystal Light peach iced tea is good stuff. smile No kiddin'.

It's tasty, therefore it Is?

------------

I'm thinking of sending my Dad an old book of mine, by DesCartes. He wants something short, just to pass the time, but this is pretty dense reading. Waddya think, maybe something more contemporary?  

[[Aeora]]

Matter+Energy&Space+Time=Reality
Reality is a manifestation of the laws of duality (the yinyang and whatnot) There is certainly a physical universe consisting of matter of which we can see, smell, taste etc. But without some kind of driving power or force, matter sits motionless for all of time. Energy is the equally important component to determining what fills up the void of the vast chaos of the universe. Matter and energy are one and the same; they work together as you CANNOT find one without the other. We have been tought about the physical world and most of us seem to grasp that concept very well, but few understand the idea of the psychophysical world. Energy=Psychophysical world. Energy is not simply what you've been taught it is; it can be called a number of things, but I call it the psychophysical world in reference to human beings and the thought process, as all thinking really is is energy at work in our brains.
Now that we have a subject we need a medium. The subject has nowhere to exist without a medium. That medium is space and time. It is impossible to find a place in the universe at least on Einstein's spacetime model that is outside of these two parameters. Therefore it is the perfect medium when trying to explain the universe. Tadaa, there you go, the truth to reality revealed.  

[bluecherry]

I have no real complaints with that post. 3nodding It's basically stating "reality is all that which is and was and, when it comes, will be. And all of that is composed of the actual matter and energy interacting in three dimensional space over time", yes?

 

[every1lafs]

bluecherry

I have no real complaints with that post. 3nodding It's basically stating "reality is all that which is and was and, when it comes, will be. And all of that is composed of the actual matter and energy interacting in three dimensional space over time", yes?

My smurfy friend, you have a very ambitious reality. My own "reality" is just the distorted model of yours, as seen thru a me-shaped filter from one place at a time.  

[bluecherry]

And I think you are quite ambitious if you think you get your own entire reality. xp You have your own life and experiences with which you see reality sort of filtered and tinted by perhaps (such as certain life styles if you'd had them may leave you more suspicious of people's motives and intentions and thus a hug from a stranger may make you think somebody might be trying to pick pocket you, whereas having had a different life you may have just thought it was a friendly gesture and nothing more), but it is all just a perspective on the same reality that does exist for us all. razz If realities came personalized I'd be out flying in a round square just for the sake of saying that was what I was doing.

 

[every1lafs]

A person is enclosed in a sparse room. Outside it's windy, and a little frightening. The temp inside is reasonable, food is made available, and everything one needs to survive is furnished.

Whether our subject is an inmate, a devoted monk, or perhaps a grateful refugee, is his reality to tell us. It's all one's perspective, and subject to change. He could be any of those things this morning, and a different one tonight.

Reality isn't objective or definable by an independent observer. Neither is it the agreement of the "real world" and one's model of this real world. One's reality is just that, one's own. Don't believe me? Ask a schizophrenic who has gone off his meds. A benevolent, loving family can be viewed as conspiratory and backstabbing. To say "If I had my very own reality, I'd be a millionaire married to a model", is a glib simplification, certainly. One doesn't get to *pick* their reality, it forms like the layers of an onion's skin (in the mind of the mentally stable). You cannot go from what you "know" to be real to how you would like it to be just because you'd like it that way. We are each a product of who we were one second ago, conditioned by new stimuli. Each thought is formed by the previous thousand, plus one's experiences.

Don't ya think it's rather contrary to the *process* of philosophy to simply label the sum of the physical state of the universe as reality? Maybe it's silly semantics, but I don't see it as productive, in a forum ostensibly created around Philosophy, to use this term, which has a unique nature in the field of thinking, searching, examining, reflecting, questioning, etc. as a dead-end. Use the word "reality" to symbolize that in a forum on physics, or astronomy, or another scientific discipline, but not here in one of the humanities. It may be the same word, but it has a radically different intent among philosophers than scientists.  

[Wertish]

every1lafs

Reality isn't objective or definable by an independent observer. Neither is it the agreement of the "real world" and one's model of this real world. One's reality is just that, one's own. Don't believe me? Ask a schizophrenic who has gone off his meds. A benevolent, loving family can be viewed as conspiratory and backstabbing. To say "If I had my very own reality, I'd be a millionaire married to a model", is a glib simplification, certainly. One doesn't get to *pick* their reality, it forms like the layers of an onion's skin (in the mind of the mentally stable). You cannot go from what you "know" to be real to how you would like it to be just because you'd like it that way. We are each a product of who we were one second ago, conditioned by new stimuli. Each thought is formed by the previous thousand, plus one's experiences.

Don't ya think it's rather contrary to the *process* of philosophy to simply label the sum of the physical state of the universe as reality? Maybe it's silly semantics, but I don't see it as productive, in a forum ostensibly created around Philosophy, to use this term, which has a unique nature in the field of thinking, searching, examining, reflecting, questioning, etc. as a dead-end. Use the word "reality" to symbolize that in a forum on physics, or astronomy, or another scientific discipline, but not here in one of the humanities. It may be the same word, but it has a radically different intent among philosophers than scientists.

To me I believe that what you described about the onion layering is not a self defined reality, but the evolution of the thought process for any given individual. Reality, is in flux, but not so much as time. Time is as a river where as no one spot is identical, where reality is more akin to a piece of lumber. Lumber is more concrete and substantial but it can be shaped and molded on whim.

As for the last part of your post, I agree, and disagree. I'm this ambiguous because the equation for reality does make sense in a realm of natural sciences but if subjected to the scrutiny of philosophy it is too rigid and exacting and precise.  

[every1lafs]

Two attorneys are working on a case. One says to the other, "The copier is out of paper." The second one grunts acknowledgment.

An attorney says to the office secretary, "The copier is out of paper." The secretary replies, "I'm sorry, I'll refill it straightaway."

The second example is higher context communication. A simple observation is seen as an order, maybe even a complaint about job performance.

In the lowest possible context, "reality" is concrete and objective. But when you walk thru the door of this forum, certain things attain a higher context meaning. People have to think more, which is a good thing.

I like the metaphor of reality as lumber better than mine (about an onion's skin). An immutable fact can shape it, like a tree's roots growing around the edge of a rock. And just like wood, a violent blow can fracture one's reality... Mine was just off the cuff...

Like puzzles?? Add punctuation to the following (more than one sentence) so it makes sense...

that which is is that which is not is not is that it it is

(Good Luck!! rofl rofl rofl )  

[bluecherry]

every1lafs

Like puzzles?? Add punctuation to the following (more than one sentence) so it makes sense...

that which is is that which is not is not is that it it is

(Good Luck!! rofl rofl rofl )

That which is, is that which is not "is not;" IS that it - it is.

It's an awkwardly stated sentence, but it is comprehendible. An easier way to say it is: That which is is whatever isn't not, it is whatever is.
It basically uses some double negatives and stuff to just keep restating a truth by definition: What is, is.

 

[every1lafs]

Hmmm... Close. Think simpler. Remember, more than one sentence. biggrin  

[bluecherry]

every1lafs

that which is is that which is not is not is that it it is

Alrighty then.

"That which is, is. That which is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

And to your earlier statement, those things you listed about the room are facts, they are reality. The possibilities of what the person in the room considers himself to be is more of an opinion by perspective upon that reality than a "subjective reality." However, I do believe it could be said for certain to an extent: if he/she/it is kept against his will, it is to be an inmate. To be there willingly coming and/or staying from something bad is to be a refugee, and they could be a monk the same time as either of the other two and in any case they only fit the monk part if they are actually a monk. The room itself has no bearing on if they are a monk or not even if the room is like that to fit their wishes or requirements as a monk.

And I don't see the definition I gave of reality as defeating to philosophy at all. o_O I think it is philosophy which should be fit to reality, not reality which should be fit to philosophy. Philosophy is about looking at reality, so it would be ridiculous to have philosophy define its own subject. It would be like math deciding it would say what two and two put together equaled, and the big debate was should the answer be four, ten, or almond. Worth note though in case I'm coming off wrong, but when I say reality is made of what exists, existed, and when it comes, will exist (all in all, the facts) and not just whatever people want or think (wishes and opinions) I do include in there as part of reality that it IS a fact that those wishes and opinions existed and thus they are a part of reality in that way and if acted upon within the confines of what is possible they can change other external facts and form reality to fit those desires and opinions and become those wishes. Thus, I indeed do still fit in the realm of philosophy and not merely fact observing science. I still have the factoring in of human interaction and so on with that scientific data and facts of existence.