What Is 'Real?'

[exchemist]

Sure if we both agree something is real then there is a greater likelihood of its actual existence. Still no guarantee. Personally, I'm fine with working with that level of likelihood.

Yes, a pragmatic approach, in other words, involving others as a check on one's own inevitable subjectivity. That's what we all do, every day, and it works.

It's obviously like shooting fish in a barrel to point out the logical holes in this approach, but that way one can all too easily disappear up one's own ****hole and conclude nothing is real. Which is unhelpful and silly, as it simply means one then needs a new term, to mean what you and I meant all along by "real".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, a pragmatic approach, in other words, involving others as a check on one's own inevitable subjectivity. That's what we all do, every day, and it works.

It's obviously like shooting fish in a barrel to point out the logical holes in this approach, but that way one can all too easily disappear up one's own ****hole and conclude nothing is real. Which is unhelpful and silly, as it simply means one then needs a new term, to mean what you and I meant all along by "real".

Yeah, except in practice for you to be you as you. I have learned that the hard way, because I am an Aspie, belong to NA and not AA, have 4 psychological/psychiatric diagnoses/disorder/conditions and a ****load other "issues".
So there are in effect different versions of real.

Now I lucky that I have still made it, so that "we" have a limit, because I have had to learn to do it alone in some sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

In another (non-debate) thread, it was asked what 'real' is. A response to that question was the Google dictionary definition, "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."

How can one be certain something is real given that definition? I'm fairly certain nearly everyone has had dreams that, while dreaming, they thought were real until they awoke.

Actually the definition is accurate from what I may call the practical usable definition, with going all voodoo how do, and smoking strong stuff before you go to sleep. Dreams are subjective without a basis that anyone else could agree

What one perceives is merely a model resulting from sense organs that create electrical signals as interpreted by the brain. How can one trust that these are, indeed, real? How do you know you won't wake up from this reality into a 'real' one?

For practical purposes what one perceives may not reflect 'What is real?' Confirmation of what is 'real' requires a collective experience of the objective, such as how science operates and objectively confirms the 'real.'

Of course, many can individually describe what is real from a subjective perspective but with many possible interpretations, but it is not an objective 'real'

There are millions of what ifs??? from many. 'How you really really know?,' but not practical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually the definition is accurate from what I may call the practical usable definition, with going all voodoo how do, and smoking strong stuff before you go to sleep. Dreams are subjective without a basis that anyone else could agree



For practical purposes what one perceives may not reflect 'What is real?' Confirmation of what is 'real' requires a collective experience of the objective, such as how science operates and objectively confirms the 'real.'

Of course, many can individually describe what is real from a subjective perspective but with many possible interpretations, but it is not an objective 'real'

There are millions of what ifs??? from many. 'How you really really know?,' but not practical.

I get you now. The collective works for you. That makes me happy for you. I had to learn to do it differently, because I fall outside the collective on to many aspects. You don't have to feel sorry for me. I have made it, but in effect I am different than you.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, except in practice for you to be you as you. I have learned that the hard way, because I am an Aspie, belong to NA and not AA, have 4 psychological/psychiatric diagnoses/disorder/conditions and a ****load other "issues".
So there are in effect different versions of real.

Now I lucky that I have still made it, so that "we" have a limit, because I have had to learn to do it alone in some sense.

Erm......OK.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Erm......OK.

Look up neurodiversity, then branch out and if you continue, you could get this: "I am crazy and I am proud of it, because I know how to have a life both despite of it and because of it."

Some of my "tribe" never make it to a good enough life. I did, but I will never be normal like most people, including that "we", which is not objective nor really real, except if you are a member of that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I said nothing about having a 'true model'. I required a *minimal, predictive* model. And, furthermore, if there is more than one such model, then I only consider what all of them agree to.

The true Model can be to start with a ball of energy in a small space, maddeningly hot, great pressure. That is probably closest to reality and proceed from there, because we do not yet know what was before that.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In another (non-debate) thread, it was asked what 'real' is. A response to that question was the Google dictionary definition, "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."

How can one be certain something is real given that definition? I'm fairly certain nearly everyone has had dreams that, while dreaming, they thought were real until they awoke.

What one perceives is merely a model resulting from sense organs that create electrical signals as interpreted by the brain. How can one trust that these are, indeed, real? How do you know you won't wake up from this reality into a 'real' one?

We can't actually KNOW what is real. But we have no good reason to not trust our senses--they're the only things we have to assess reality with.

 

[sun rise]

I am an Aspie, belong to NA and not AA, have 4 psychological/psychiatric diagnoses/disorder/conditions and a ****load other "issues".
So there are in effect different versions of real.

As part of my studying for a psychology degree a long time ago, I spent time as an observer/helper at a state hospital adolescent ward. I remember talking with a girl who had witnessed a fight between two boys. She articulated her perception that they were in love with each other.

I could have labeled that "crazy" as it can appear superficially. But in a sense she was on to something - they were attracted negatively to each other. And it could have been a real lovers quarrel between two gay boys.

From an objective standpoint that was wrong - they were just two adolescents who had a fight. But I learned a lesson that the obvious and apparent was not necessarily "real" and that I should not judge too quickly.

I also learned something about how minds that have certain diagnoses operate that has stuck with me for a long time.

 

[Nakosis]

No, not if you look closer. Nobody in effect have solved epistemological solipsism. That is connect to how science is methodological naturalism and not metaphysical/philosophical naturalism.

BTW the word "exist" is no different than the word "God". Both have no objective referent. You either believe in them or not.

I'll just say, IMO, the word exist is not quite as vague as the word God. If someone asks me whether something exists, I've a pretty good idea of what they are asking. If they ask about God, we've entered an infinite realm of possibilities.

If I say something exists, it is only because I have quite a bit of certainty about getting agreement on its existence. WRT God, zero certainty is possible.

 

[sun rise]

Much else that I might have posted has already been done by others in this thread, but I have one comment about dreams.

There are people who can have lucid dreams and know that they are dreaming while they are in fact asleep.

That helps me hold the attitude that being "awake" in the normal sense is the equivalent of a lucid dream and that someday I'll wake up and know who I truly am.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll just say, IMO, the word exist is not quite as vague as the word God. If someone asks me whether something exists, I've a pretty good idea of what they are asking. If they ask about God, we've entered an infinite realm of possibilities.

If I say something exists, it is only because I have quite a bit of certainty about getting agreement on its existence. WRT God, zero certainty is possible.

Well, the word "exist" has no objective referent like the word "God". So there is that.

 

[Ponder This]

In another (non-debate) thread, it was asked what 'real' is. A response to that question was the Google dictionary definition, "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."

How can one be certain something is real given that definition? I'm fairly certain nearly everyone has had dreams that, while dreaming, they thought were real until they awoke.

What one perceives is merely a model resulting from sense organs that create electrical signals as interpreted by the brain. How can one trust that these are, indeed, real? How do you know you won't wake up from this reality into a 'real' one?

I assume that you are like me to the extent that you perceive and discern reality in the same way that I do. From this, it follows that when we talk about things that are 'real', we are, in fact, referring to something in common between us. If you are genuinely confused about what 'real' refers to, then perhaps your experience is not at all like my experience, which is to say, I experience waking and dreaming, real and imaginary, and generally have little trouble discerning the one from the other. When you raise a hypothetical that maybe we are not really experiencing something 'real', it is very much something that I imagine as a non-real hypothetical and I assume that you are imagining it as a hypothetical as opposed to experiencing it as a reality.

If you are asking the question: But how do you know?
Then it isn't a definitional issue, but rather an epistemic concern.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I assume that you are like me to the extent that you perceive and discern reality in the same way that I do. From this, it follows that when we talk about things that are 'real', we are, in fact, referring to something in common between us. If you are genuinely confused about what 'real' refers to, then perhaps your experience is not at all like my experience, which is to say, I experience waking and dreaming, real and imaginary, and generally have little trouble discerning the one from the other. When you raise a hypothetical that maybe we are not really experiencing something 'real', it is very much something that I imagine as a non-real hypothetical and I assume that you are imagining it as a hypothetical as opposed to experiencing it as a reality.

If you are asking the question: But how do you know?
Then it isn't a definitional issue, but rather an epistemic concern.

So you have solved epistemological solipsism?

 

[Nakosis]

Well, the word "exist" has no objective referent like the word "God". So there is that.

Doesn't need it. Our perception is subjective. No getting around that. As long as it is consistent to our separate subjective experience it "exists" enough for us to work with. Especially if we both get consistent results.

In fact, if we both don't get consistent results that would make its existence highly suspect. There is no abosolute certainty of knowledge but there is knowledge of what consistently works.

That to me is what science/knowledge is based on, consistency of outcome. Not some concept of objective proof which we are not privy to.

I don't know your position on God, but God is pretty inconsistent. So I see little reason to accept the existence of a God.

Things like power, gravity, energy, these things have pretty consistent measurements and functionality. Proof is about consistency. I pretty much have to be right 100% of the time. That doesn't guarantee I will continue to be right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Doesn't need it. Our perception is subjective. No getting around that. As long as it is consistent to our separate subjective experience it "exists" enough for us to work with. Especially if we both get consistent results.

In fact, if we both don't get consistent results that would make its existence highly suspect. There is no abosolute certainty of knowledge but there is knowledge of what consistently works.

That to me is what science/knowledge is based on, consistency of outcome. Not some concept of objective proof which we are not privy to.

I don't know your position on God, but God is pretty inconsistent. So I see little reason to accept the existence of a God.

Things like power, gravity, energy, these things have pretty consistent measurements and functionality. Proof is about consistency. I pretty much have to be right 100% of the time. That doesn't guarantee I will continue to be right.

Yeah, if you only in effect lived in a in a strong sense physical world. You don't, neither do I. So there is more to that "we" than is in your usage of the "we".

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, if you only in effect lived in a in a strong sense physical world. You don't, neither do I. So there is more to that "we" than is in your usage of the "we".

How can you be certain that we don't live in a physical world?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can you be certain that we don't live in a physical world?

Because I have checked and it doesn't work for a purely physical world. It doesn't mean that there is a God. I would never claim that. It means there is more to the world than just being physical.
We can go though it if you want.

 

[Nakosis]

Because I have checked and it doesn't work for a purely physical world. It doesn't mean that there is a God. I would never claim that. It means there is more to the world than just being physical.
We can go though it if you want.

Well, let's define physical. Physical to me means it has a measurable effect on something else that is "physical".

Not physical would mean something that has no measurable effect on the physical world.

Love for example has a physical effect that can be measured.
Love and the Brain

Something non-physical OTOH would have no measurable effect on the "physical" world.

So sure, something non-physical could exist but I'm not sure why we would worry about it since it can't affect us in any way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, let's define physical. Physical to me means it has a measurable effect on something else that is "physical".

Not physical would mean something that has no measurable effect on the physical world.

Love for example has a physical effect that can be measured.
Love and the Brain

Something non-physical OTOH would have no measurable effect on the "physical" world.

So sure, something non-physical could exist but I'm not sure why we would worry about it since it can't affect us in any way.

The "devil" is in measure. You haven't defined how to measure.