Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reality is what's there whether we believe in it or not.

This is just one of those ideas that you can provide massive amounts of evidence against, but can never disprove. You can't even really use actual evidence against it, as any logic or principle you can use against it could be a figment of your imagination as well.

The best answer I can provide is: Does it matter? We can never find out which, and either one does not affect us, except psychologically.

There could only ever be one reality at a time. So either this is my reality and all of you are just shades of fuzzy-spikeyness inhabiting my reality pretending to be real, soul carrying individuals, or we are all harbored in a single reality which we interact with following the known rules of science. Or, of course, I am in your reality, facading as a real individual that exists only inside of your perception.

I prefer the second, as it is less lonely. And I am pretty sure I'm real.

I don't mean a physical reality but, more of a reality of the information that we are percieving.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunaHound wrote:

 broodstar wrote:
So the question: Is everything around us just figments of our own imagination?

Yes and No.

Yes because they do exist.

But no, because how they actually are, might differ due to how we perceive them.

Using example with .... Silent Hill 2.

James: How did you manage to survive with all those monsters out there.
Laura: ? They look like monsters to you?

Applying that to real life, it works the same way.

You seem to be only one that got what I was talking about. Thank you!

 broodstar wrote:
I don't mean a physical reality

There really isn't any other reality.

One either perceives reality properly, or one's perceptions are malfunctioning.

Data is obtained by objectifying (ie, making an object out of sense-data) our surroundings. There are obviously multiple 'levels' of data available, for example, colours vs wavelength, but they are all co-existent, so we shouldn't speak of different 'realities' then.

if you mean, do you have perceptions of reality that are not true but are true to you,

Then yes. Most definitely.

 Melissia wrote:

 broodstar wrote:
I don't mean a physical reality

There really isn't any other reality.

One either perceives reality properly, or one's perceptions are malfunctioning.

Define properly?

Who's to say that the way gathers and interprets data is disfunctional?

When one perceives things that aren't there, or doesn't perceive things that are, it's provably dysfunctional.

Pre-Freshman level philosophy like you're attempting here isn't enlightening at all.

 Melissia wrote:
When one perceives things that aren't there, or doesn't perceive things that are, it's provably dysfunctional.

But who is to say the chair is red?

Pre-Freshman level philosophy like you're attempting here isn't enlightening at all.

Text removed.
Reds8n

The lack of education in this thread is staggering.

 Monster Rain wrote:
The lack of education in this thread is staggering.

So, you need education to discussion and think on a topic?

 broodstar wrote:
But who is to say the chair is red?

The color red is how the human brain interprets electromagnetic radiation with a frequency of around 450 terahertz and a wavelength of around 700 nanometers, which is within the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.

It is therefor actually quite easy to create and set up an experiment to prove that something is, in fact, red in color.

 broodstar wrote:
Then why are you fething here? If you're going to start talking gak because the level of what is being discussed doesn't meet your stardard then feth off!

Because I felt like posting here. And I have to ask, if you don't like it when people disagree with you and or find your insights to be uninsightful, then why are you sharing them on a publicly accessible internet forum?

 broodstar wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The lack of education in this thread is staggering.

So, you need education to discussion and think on a topic?

I would like to point out that this is self incriminating.

And that you are strongly defending a side you didn't say you were on in the OP, which I find a little annoying.

A thread is like a child. Creating one does not give you total control over it. If you don't like our opinions you need to think up an intelligent reason why we are wrong.

 Melissia wrote:
Because I felt like posting here. And I have to ask, if you don't like it when people disagree with you and or find your insights to be uninsightful, then why are you sharing them on a publicly accessible internet forum?

It might have been an over-reaction, and of coarse I don't mind people challenging my insights that's a side effect of taking it public (you'll find people that like it and don't like it). I did take great offence to the "freshmen level philosophy" as if to say "why would you waste your time" as to undermine someone just starting to have philosophical thought. I know I'm not up to the why are we here questions but, I asks you not to insult the process.

I also to took offense to the low-level education comment by another poster. I am learning to autodidact way, but that say to me that having a question pop into you head and sitting down to think about it came with a prerequisite.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xole wrote:

I would like to point out that this is self incriminating.

And that you are strongly defending a side you didn't say you were on in the OP, which I find a little annoying.

A thread is like a child. Creating one does not give you total control over it. If you don't like our opinions you need to think up an intelligent reason why we are wrong.

touche

 broodstar wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The lack of education in this thread is staggering.

So, you need education to discussion and think on a topic?

Certainly not.

I just enjoy when people angrily proclaim their uninformed opinion as fact. It's also entirely possible that I wasnt referring to you.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Certainly not.

I just enjoy when people angrily proclaim their uninformed opinion as fact. It's also entirely possible that I wasnt referring to you.

It would help you not look like a complete douche if you actually contributed your informed opinion.

No, I'm fine.

I'd type out a long post regarding human perception and the brain and whatnot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort. We don't create our own reality. Trust me.

Or don't.

 broodstar wrote:

So, you need education to discussion and think on a topic?

No, but it helps.

If you really want to delve into this, I suggest you start with Platonic Forms. You should also familiarize yourself with epistemology and ontology.

 Melissia wrote:

 broodstar wrote:
But who is to say the chair is red?

The color red is how the human brain interprets electromagnetic radiation with a frequency of around 450 terahertz and a wavelength of around 700 nanometers, which is within the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.

It is therefor actually quite easy to create and set up an experiment to prove that something is, in fact, red in color.

Colors are perceptive categories. While they normally correspond to a certain wavelenght, they can also been dissociated from that wavelenght (in the case of a perception lacking a real object) or altered (in the case of degenerated light receptors). It is thus not phenomenologically of epistemologically correct to say that an object is 'factually' red.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
While they normally correspond to a certain wavelenght, they can also been dissociated from that wavelenght (in the case of a perception lacking a real object) or altered (in the case of degenerated light receptors)

Those fit under my statement of "malfunctioning perception".

If one is seeing things that aren't there, I think there's bigger problems to worry about than trying to identify whether or not the nonexistent object is red.

A memory is a perception lacking a real object. It can still be red.

Anyhow, it's really just cherry picking. Your post was entirely correct otherwise, and it's what matters.

Closed due to rudeness.