Is reality a construct therefore relative?

[brooksie]

How do we know something is real? Just because there’s something we can see, touch and smell or whatever doesn’t mean it’s really. We’re a making huge assumption to say its real not a hallucination, hologram or whatever. So we have to say something we see, touch, hear and all that is real because it’s as real as it gets. So why is a schizophrenic hallucination or dreams any less real. If these are just as real then reality is relative therefore meaningless because no matter if there is a god or anything in one reality it doesn’t matter because it will be different in another.

In conclusion nothing matters in the slightest on any level.

I know this is a kinder stupid, twisted view and I don’t really believe in it but I just felt like saying it and I can’t really prove its wrong.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, most mathematicians with the tools to discuss "reality" seem to think that what is around us is ONE reality of God only knows how many realities. So this reality IS relative. That does not make it any less real however

Regards,
Scott

 

[Engyo]

Brooksie -

You have sort of stumbled on the basic principle of impermanence as taught by Buddhism; that all things are dependent on everything else, and nothing has a permanent, eternal existence - in other words all things will change, given enough time.

 

[c0da]

in other words all things will change, given enough time.

Apart from the coolness of led zeppelin.

 

[brooksie]

"What is around us is ONE reality" i didn’t really mean other realities as in other dimensions. I mean reality is surly one mans interpretation and realities what u believe it is, so if I believe there isn’t a god then there isn’t and its relative because it nothing more than what u see hear touch and whatever. (I’m not sure if iv thought about this enough, sorry)

“all things will change, given enough time” I’m not really sure that’s what I was getting at but I would like u to explain some more

 

[Halcyon]

How do we know something is real? Just because there’s something we can see, touch and smell or whatever doesn’t mean it’s really. We’re a making huge assumption to say its real not a hallucination, hologram or whatever. So we have to say something we see, touch, hear and all that is real because it’s as real as it gets. So why is a schizophrenic hallucination or dreams any less real. If these are just as real then reality is relative therefore meaningless because no matter if there is a god or anything in one reality it doesn’t matter because it will be different in another.

In conclusion nothing matters in the slightest on any level.

I know this is a kinder stupid, twisted view and I don’t really believe in it but I just felt like saying it and I can’t really prove its wrong.

I think i know what you're saying.

I've often thought, the world we think we live in - its not what we think it is. Our brain receives input from our sensory organs and then creates this 4 dimensional world - inside our own heads.

Think about it, everytime we touch something a nerve impulse is triggered which is then relayed through a complex network of, what is in essence, 'biological wiring' to our brain. There it is processed and the information is regurgitated into our conscious mind in a form we relate to as a touch sensation.
Time has passed between the actual touch and our realisation of it, thus the we don't feel the touch itself but only our brain's interpretation of touch.

It works that way with every sense. The organ senses the input and transforms it into data that our brain then uses to create a virtual reality world inside our minds. In reality, the world we experience is quite separate and distinct from the outside world.

Thus we can never truly know what is real and what is imaginary, since both are the creations of our mind.

 

[michel]

I think i know what you're saying.

I've often thought, the world we think we live in - its not what we think it is. Our brain receives input from our sensory organs and then creates this 4 dimensional world - inside our own heads.

Think about it, everytime we touch something a nerve impulse is triggered which is then relayed through a complex network of, what is in essence, 'biological wiring' to our brain. There it is processed and the information is regurgitated into our conscious mind in a form we relate to as a touch sensation.
Time has passed between the actual touch and our realisation of it, thus the we don't feel the touch itself but only our brain's interpretation of touch.

It works that way with every sense. The organ senses the input and transforms it into data that our brain then uses to create a virtual reality world inside our minds. In reality, the world we experience is quite separate and distinct from the outside world.

Thus we can never truly know what is real and what is imaginary, since both are the creations of our mind.

I agree. But even if that were the case, it makes not a half pence's difference. My reality (and if it is only mine) still has to be dealt with, and lived through. It makes no difference from the way I deal with every event.

 

[Valjean]

Reality is structured in consciousness.

There is an objective Reality and several levels of subjective reality. What we experience day to day is 3rd-state reality. It is a type of dream.

 

[michel]

Reality is structured in consciousness.

There is an objective Reality and several levels of subjective reality. What we experience day to day is 3rd-state reality. It is a type of dream.

Does that actually make any difference to us, practically, or spiritually ? - I don't believe it does.

 

[Valjean]

No. We must live in the reality we perceive.

 

[Quiddity]

No. We must live in the reality we perceive.

No way. I'll take the red pill.

 

[Ori]

One person cannot percieve all the intricacies of the infinite

 

[d.]

Apart from the coolness of led zeppelin.

ah, don't say that. they might become cool in a few hundred years, at least to archaeologists.

 

[ch'ang]

So we have to say something we see, touch, hear and all that is real because it’s as real as it gets. So why is a schizophrenic hallucination or dreams any less real

Because they don't live in what is generally accepted as reality, bascily reality is just an informal agreement on what can and what cannot between most people in the world. If someone sees a different reality then they are labeled crazy. Like a couple people said before when we sense something we are not acutally seeing it, rather we are "seeing" our brains interpritation of it, whatever the feeling may be, so in esense nothing can be proven, just generally accepted.

 

[d.]

very short answer :

yes, 'reality' is relative.

but to say 'nothing is real' to me is meaningless, because if nothing is real, then what does 'real' mean? nothing. it becomes a meaningless concept. you have to sort your experiences into 'imagination' and 'reality' for reality to be a meaningful concept, and if you don't, it isn't.

'reality' and 'imagination' are concepts, tools, given meaning by us. i generally hold what i perceive to be 'real', it works for me. if i perceive my dog talking to me, i would probably hold it to be 'imagination'. (depends on what she would say, really)

the louvin brothers made a records called 'satan is real' - you gotta see this cover - to them, satan was real. to me, he is fantasy. me and the louvin bros. use the words 'real' and 'fantasy' in the same way though - and therefore we would also understand each other, or at least each others' terms, if we ever were to debate the subject. we probably define 'reality' and 'imagination' very differently though, but that's another matter.

to me, concepts as 'truth' and 'reality' are working definitions. what we perceive as real and true is what works best for us. there is no way one can be 'absolutely right'.

we cannot know anything outside of what our senses tell us.

so the concept of something 'outside' our consciousness also becomes meaningless...IMO. we can't know anything about it. and if we can't know an objective reality, is it meaningful to say there is one?

in that sense, the world is exactly what we think it is. what else can it be?

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

How do we know something is real? Just because there’s something we can see, touch and smell or whatever doesn’t mean it’s really. We’re a making huge assumption to say its real not a hallucination, hologram or whatever. So we have to say something we see, touch, hear and all that is real because it’s as real as it gets. So why is a schizophrenic hallucination or dreams any less real. If these are just as real then reality is relative therefore meaningless because no matter if there is a god or anything in one reality it doesn’t matter because it will be different in another.

And there in lies the problem with relying too much on empiricism. For one to make a statement like this, there needs to be a presupposition of what objective reality actually is for them to be able to compare. Therefore an objective reality must exist.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[brooksie]

"Our brain receives input from our sensory organs and then creates this 4 dimensional world" that exactly what I was kinder meaning. But also no matter what is "real" people can always perceive things that aren’t "real" through being stupid, lying to themselves denying the truth or like hallucinations or whatever and because reality is merely are understanding then this doesn’t make that any less real
"Does that actually make any difference to us, practically, or spiritually"
if there is a god then people can still perceive that there isn’t one and that wouldn’t mean there wasn’t.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

SoliDeoGloria that was a good point, but by doubting objective reality (as an idea) enough its possible to lose the sense of there being something with which to compare it. I think that's what people tend to find so fascinating about this.

Bottom line for me: There is consciousness. There is consciousness of something.

 

[d.]

And there in lies the problem with relying too much on empiricism. For one to make a statement like this, there needs to be a presupposition of what objective reality actually is for them to be able to compare. Therefore an objective reality must exist.

no, but the idea of an objective reality must. and it clearly does, since we're talking about it.

in much the same way as the idea of atheism does not prove the existence of god.

i agree the OP does presuppose objective reality, which is only to be expected since the poster admits that she or he doesn't share this view and probably is new to the idea of 'relative' reality.

There is consciousness. There is consciousness of something.

yes.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

no, but the idea of an objective reality must. and it clearly does, since we're talking about it.

in much the same way as the idea of atheism does not prove the existence of god.

i agree the OP does presuppose objective reality, which is only to be expected since the poster admits that she or he doesn't share this view and probably is new to the idea of 'relative' reality.

Now don't take this personal but, the idea of relative reality reminds me of of a cliche used for really pompous people that goes "They think the sun doesn't rise until they get up".

Now what you call an "idea", I am calling an objective fact. I wonder, since you acknowledge that this is an issue of empirical observation, if you would use the same logic for scientific theories such as the Darwin theory, or is this just a convenient philosophical arguement. No matter how it is put, when one makes statements such as this, they are attempting to make nominal claims about what they claim is phenomena. But how can that be true if it is phenominal?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria