What's reality?
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
Cartoon Corpse
Veteran
a biochemical reaction is our perception of 'reality'. what reality is, no one knows for sure. we could all be in a trance, standing in a mudhole for all we know.
it you try a drug or two, you'll know that perception can be altered, whether it's going more towards truth or not, isn't known for sure, except by frauds.
it you try a drug or two, you'll know that perception can be altered, whether it's going more towards truth or not, isn't known for sure, except by frauds.
Reality is for those who can't handle drugs. 
Reality doesn't exist.
The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy
Newcomer
K.I.L.E.R said:
A] You WILL pay taxes.
B] You WILL die.
C] The spiders in your bedroom ARE scanning your mind as you sleep and relaying their intelligence to an ever encroaching invasion fleet.
I'm not getting my Comp Sci & Maths degree for a job.
I'm doing it because I love Comp Sci & Maths.
You don't get degrees from college.
Children go to college.
I'm doing it because I love Comp Sci & Maths.
You don't get degrees from college.
Children go to college.
Nite_Hawk said:Reality is the thing that bitch slaps you when you get out of college with your oh so precious Computer Science degree.
Nite_Hawk
One creates his/her own reality. There is no "One" reality for everyone.
Who else am I going to talk to?
"The question is ill-defined."
Why?
Everyone's complaining that everyone else need to get their head out of their ass and come back to reality.
I just went to the dictionary to find out what reality is.
http://www.answers.com/reality&r=67
"The quality or state of being actual or true."
So does this come down to mathematical proof?
"The question is ill-defined."
Why?
Everyone's complaining that everyone else need to get their head out of their ass and come back to reality.
I just went to the dictionary to find out what reality is.
http://www.answers.com/reality&r=67
"The quality or state of being actual or true."
So does this come down to mathematical proof?
It's ill-defined because it lacks context. Asking what's real is too unspecific:
Are you asking in an objectivist, realist, or anti-realist? Fundamentally, you are asking a philosophical question.
For example, some people will hold that electrons exist independently of us.
Other people will hold that electrons do not exist, but that a phenomena that we label as "electron" exists, which we *model* with certain equations.
Still others will deny even that, and hold that the phenomena itself doesn't exist outside human observation.
I hold that there are physical universals that exist independent of human thought, but we as humans cannot know their true nature, we may only model them in our minds using approximations. The approximations *aren't real* They allow us to make predictions of real phenomena, but the model itself doesn't necessarily bear any resemblance to the true nature of the modeled object. (e.g. consider the many different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. All produce predictions that agree with experimental evidence, but all produce radically different interpretations of what's "real"ly going on. )
As Morpheus said, for us, what's real is what we perceive, what we think and feel. But just because our brains are modeling something, and that there isn't neccessarily one true model, doesn't mean that *thought creates reality*. Clearly, there is something universal being modeled, else no two human beings who evolved separately would come up with the same models, but in fact, we can and do agree on a wide range of universals (existence of gravity, color, temperature, et al)
So, to answer your question, reality exists, but is ultimately unknowable. Reality, as it exists in human thought, is a mental construction, that gets better overtime, a map approximating the physical world, and we get by very well with it.
Ultimately, all we have are concepts that we can communicate to one another, but concepts and true reality are disjoint. The map is not the territory.
Are you asking in an objectivist, realist, or anti-realist? Fundamentally, you are asking a philosophical question.
For example, some people will hold that electrons exist independently of us.
Other people will hold that electrons do not exist, but that a phenomena that we label as "electron" exists, which we *model* with certain equations.
Still others will deny even that, and hold that the phenomena itself doesn't exist outside human observation.
I hold that there are physical universals that exist independent of human thought, but we as humans cannot know their true nature, we may only model them in our minds using approximations. The approximations *aren't real* They allow us to make predictions of real phenomena, but the model itself doesn't necessarily bear any resemblance to the true nature of the modeled object. (e.g. consider the many different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. All produce predictions that agree with experimental evidence, but all produce radically different interpretations of what's "real"ly going on. )
As Morpheus said, for us, what's real is what we perceive, what we think and feel. But just because our brains are modeling something, and that there isn't neccessarily one true model, doesn't mean that *thought creates reality*. Clearly, there is something universal being modeled, else no two human beings who evolved separately would come up with the same models, but in fact, we can and do agree on a wide range of universals (existence of gravity, color, temperature, et al)
So, to answer your question, reality exists, but is ultimately unknowable. Reality, as it exists in human thought, is a mental construction, that gets better overtime, a map approximating the physical world, and we get by very well with it.
Ultimately, all we have are concepts that we can communicate to one another, but concepts and true reality are disjoint. The map is not the territory.
DudeMiester
Regular
Reality is pure interaction and relationship. The particles that compose your body don't exist, save for how they interact with the world around you. Despite what some monks say, it's not what you think, but what you do that matters. Fortunitly, what you do is dependant on what you think, so if you cover that base you cover the other.
I like to think of conciousness, and the soul, as a sort of self perpetuating interaction, not unlike light. Light is the combination of an electric and magnetic wave fused together, the one perpetuating the other. One of the only true perpetual motion machines. Likewise, I see the mind and soul as a similar flux of interaction. However, if we don't maintain that interaction, it and thereby, us, will fizzle into nothingness.
Fortunitly, we have our bodies to carry our minds for now, with our blunders and mishaps, but after death there is no such support. I think there's no reason the soul and mind can't survive onward, but only if we die in a state of grace. A state where the soul can perpetuate ad infinitum. If a beam of light is not disturbed it will "live" forever. Who's to say the same doesn't apply to the mind?
That's what I think at least, and it's served me reasonably well.
I like to think of conciousness, and the soul, as a sort of self perpetuating interaction, not unlike light. Light is the combination of an electric and magnetic wave fused together, the one perpetuating the other. One of the only true perpetual motion machines. Likewise, I see the mind and soul as a similar flux of interaction. However, if we don't maintain that interaction, it and thereby, us, will fizzle into nothingness.
Fortunitly, we have our bodies to carry our minds for now, with our blunders and mishaps, but after death there is no such support. I think there's no reason the soul and mind can't survive onward, but only if we die in a state of grace. A state where the soul can perpetuate ad infinitum. If a beam of light is not disturbed it will "live" forever. Who's to say the same doesn't apply to the mind?
That's what I think at least, and it's served me reasonably well.
K.I.L.E.R said:
In that case I suggest you'll read some of the quantum philosophers (meaning information theorists & quantum physicist with a philospohical background): Top choice is probably Michael Redhead: Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism - A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Clarendon Press Oxford
It's really good book, I can only recommend it. Unfortunately, it is out of print ATM. However, it can be obtained by abebooks.com, etc. But be warned this one involves calculations and its reader should be well versed in quantum mechanics.
