Reality...What is it?

[Twilight Hue]

All the coolest philosophers are base players.

I like the 16' octave Cello personally. :0)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

All the coolest philosophers are base players.

That's interesting, as none of the coolest bass players are philosophers.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Forces, weak and strong nuclear force, electromagnetic and gravity in concert with each other.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Electrical signals interpreted by our brains.

 

[Penumbra]

I've pondered and subsequently researched what reality really is, as I'm sure we all have.

I have seen and heard many different opinions from a number of sources.

These range from Wikipedia's
'Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.[1] In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.'

That definition works.

I wondered what you think yourself. Is reality personal to you, is it what you are aware of yourself, or is reality a universal truth that doesn't change where you are, who you are or what you've experienced? Or does it go deeper than that, deep into the world of quantum mechanics?

Any thoughts welcome...

Reality is the universal truth that doesn't change where you are, and includes all ways in which existence operates such as quantum mechanics or whatever else.

Even if there were totally subjective elements of the system, the objective reality would be that there are totally subjective elements of the system.

 

[Muri27]

there is no such thing as reality... only subjective truth.

 

[Penumbra]

there is no such thing as reality... only subjective truth.

That very claim of yours is written as an objective truth, and therefore self-refuting.

 

[Muri27]

That very claim of yours is written as an objective truth, and therefore self-refuting.

yes that is my truth, and thus my reality if you will

so in my reality i am right! hehe

 

[NeverGotBetter]

Reality is what exists at the moment and what used to exist, both around our immediate person (electrical and chemical signals to the brain) and around others regardless if we know them. I like to think there's that global reality then an individual one, which is pretty much based on bioelectric and biochemical signals reaching our brain that we react to and know even if not in conscienceness at that moment. It's also involving episodic, autobiographical and other "forms" of memory. Lastly, it's how we plan to react to them consciously and out of conscious experience.

I haven't a clue if other philosophers share this same view or not.

 

[chinu]

what you think yourself. Is reality personal to you,

Reality is:
"Love" is loving "Love"
"Love" decided to "Love"
"Love" is loving "Love"
"Love" decided to dissolve in"Love"
"Love" dissolved in "Love"
"Love" is loving "Love"
"Love" is "Love"
"Love" is "God"
"God" is "Love".

 

[blackout]

There is
Subjective Reality,
and
Objective Reality.

We each experience an "overlay" of the two.

(ie, no one's experience of life is purely either one)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sure somebody else has posted it by now, but:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick

 

[Willamena]

There is
Subjective Reality,
and
Objective Reality.

We each experience an "overlay" of the two.

(ie, no one's experience of life is purely either one)

It's talk like that that splits the world.

 

[Alex_G]

I've pondered and subsequently researched what reality really is, as I'm sure we all have.

I have seen and heard many different opinions from a number of sources.

These range from Wikipedia's
'Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.[1] In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.'

to the Quantum Mechanic theory
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/

to a religious person I questioned
'My perception of reality is being aware of what happens on this planet. Certainly, I can't keep up with all of it all the time. Some conditions don't need to be reported daily to affirm their existence. Such as poverty, hunger, disease, and natural disasters. Natural disasters make the news if the death toll is a significant number. Currently, the aftermath of a cyclone in Myanmar has claimed 4,000 dead, the death toll may be as high as 15,000. No one has yet discovered a cure for cancer, nor AIDS, and many serious health problems still continue to baffle medical research. Droughts still devastate food supplies for millions, earthquakes destroy settlements and kill, and floods wipe out many lives.'

I wondered what you think yourself. Is reality personal to you, is it what you are aware of yourself, or is reality a universal truth that doesn't change where you are, who you are or what you've experienced? Or does it go deeper than that, deep into the world of quantum mechanics?

Any thoughts welcome...

I do like to ponder reality from time to time.

I think there is that which is objective, and exists in itself distinct to the rose tinted reality of my perceptive experience. I guess in a very Descartes way I consider my personal existence to be somewhat real, and that all my experiences of life are not total false constructs, but at least modelled on some external truth or state of affairs.

I do recognise that to all intent and purposes the unobservable doesn’t functionally exist, and the ‘reality’ of things is that all is subjective to more or less a degree. To claim reality over something is to invariably define it by the very features of the percipient. This very relationship in equilibrium makes the separation of what is actual reality very hard if not impossible, suggesting itself that what reality is, is in fact this complex relationship between observer and observable.

I think objective reality and reliability are closely connected. One thing science has done for humanity is provide a means in which to get closer to that which is objective. The accurate, precise and reliable tests which yield results we can rely on provide a window of increased objectivity, although in a way deliver something that is very much apart from the very reality it seeks. A system, defined by abstract units and rules, creating a model of reality, very useful, but never the less stands apart from the reality itself.

For example a thermometer is very good at measuring temperature. It’s something we can rely on, and it serves a very useful purpose, being objective. But of course it defines itself what it is searching for, and therefore although it is objective, more so than say our sensation or feeling, it moves further away from the reality in question. What does 37.5 degrees Celsius actually tell us? It tells us that some state of nature impacting on the device is yielding a result, one where the units are defined by ourselves. It is correlated with some reality, but itself is not the reality.

I think it’s interesting how the relationship between the observer and the observable works, and how the more you try and analyse the world, the more modulus and abstract your experience of it becomes. There is some trade off occurring that always defeats the ability to really ‘see’ objectively.