What Is 'Real?'

[Nakosis]

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

Instrumental. Devices which doesn't rely on our perception other than our ability to perceive the instrument we are using.

 

[PureX]

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?

The problem with turning to a dictionary to clarify the meaning of a word is that all the dictionary does is record how we tend to use words. It does not explain or clarify their meaning. It only explains how we currently use them. "Gay" to mean homosexual, for example. No matter how stupidly we misapply a word, if enough of us misapply it that way, it gets listed as one of the word's "meanings".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Instrumental. Devices which doesn't rely on our perception other than our ability to perceive the instrument we are using.

Please for any instrument give a scientific measurement standard for "good" in a moral and/or ethical sense. You can't.
There is a good reason for this one:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

We can go through it step by step, but it end here. For example length is the same for all humans, but "good" is not, but the latter happens in a non-observable and non-quantifiable way.
The measurement of it is relative to a subjective standard for a given human and another human can use a different standard.

This is methodological naturalism and you are doing philosophy.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, reality is not as simple as that definition. It is a part of it, but not all. And it has nothing to religion or not. It is in effect as much as anything philosophy and the limit of knowledge and all those other cognitive words.

If you read what I wrote you'd see that I never claimed to have a definition of reality. I started off stating that it's quite possible that we're incapable of knowing what TRUE reality is, but given the fact that we're stuck in whatever 'game' or 'dream' this might be, we have no real choice but to play by the game's rules. And in THIS particular 'game' the Google definition applies. So in 'this game' gravity is REAL and even if it IS just a game, if you step off a cliff you'll fall and 'die'. Because simply pretending to KNOW that this is all a game doesn't mean you suddenly have the ability to fly through the air life Superman.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you read what I wrote you'd see that I never claimed to have a definition of reality. I started off stating that it's quite possible that we're incapable of knowing what TRUE reality is, but given the fact that we're stuck in whatever 'game' or 'dream' this might be, we have no real choice but to play by the game's rules. And in THIS particular 'game' the Google definition applies. So in 'this game' gravity is REAL and even if it IS just a game, if you step off a cliff you'll fall and 'die'. Because simply pretending to KNOW that this is all a game doesn't mean you suddenly have the ability to fly through the air life Superman.

But this game is not just played by the rules above as per your example. There is no single rule or even similar set of rules. There are at least 3 sets: Objective, inter-subjective and subjective and while it appears that you can connect the sets, you can't make one universal set of all 3 and you can't just use of one of them.
So in effect there 3 versions of real and not just one.

 

[Nakosis]

Please for any instrument give a scientific measurement standard for "good" in a moral and/or ethical sense. You can't.
There is a good reason for this one:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

We can go through it step by step, but it end here. For example length is the same for all humans, but "good" is not, but the latter happens in a non-observable and non-quantifiable way.
The measurement of it is relative to a subjective standard for a given human and another human can use a different standard.

This is methodological naturalism and you are doing philosophy.

It is not necessary for "science" to make judgments. It is only necessary to be able to measure your response to such judgments to accept it as a physical process.

When you listen to music that you feel is "good" vs "bad" your body will have different physical responses. The reason we "like" some things, decide they are "good" is because of how our body physically responds to it.

If you were monitored your responses to a particular stimulus could be consistently predicted. We tend to do this on a casual level anyway when we learn how to please other people. Sure since we are unique individuals our responses from individual to individual are unique but avoiding any other causal factor are consistent to each individual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you listen to music that you feel is "good" vs "bad" your body will have different physical responses. The reason we "like" some things, decide they are "good" is because of how our body physically responds to it.

If you were monitored your responses to a particular stimulus could be consistently predicted. We tend to do this on a casual level anyway when we learn how to please other people. Sure since we are unique individuals our responses from individual to individual are unique but avoiding any other causal factor are consistent to each individual.

You do know how an instrument work, don't you? It is calibrated to an objective standard. There is no objective standard for listening to music, but there are objective standards if you want to build a bridge, which can hold a certain weight.

That we have different physical responses as you call them, is how you can't use an instrument objectively calibrated to measure if music is good or bad. You said you could use science and objectively calibrated instruments to measure everything. Well, you can't, because "good" and "bad" are not decided by objectively calibrated instruments. They can be measured in a given subjective state, but that is a measurement of the subjective state.
Gravity is not in the eye of the beholder, but good and bad are.

 

[Nakosis]

You do know how an instrument work, don't you? It is calibrated to an objective standard. There is no objective standard for listening to music, but there are objective standards if you want to build a bridge, which can hold a certain weight.

That we have different physical responses as you call them, is how you can't use an instrument objectively calibrated to measure if music is good or bad. You said you could use science and objectively calibrated instruments to measure everything. Well, you can't, because "good" and "bad" are not decided by objectively calibrated instruments. They can be measured in a given subjective state, but that is a measurement of the subjective state.
Gravity is not in the eye of the beholder, but good and bad are.

My original comment was not about science. I only said that if something has a physical effect that can be measure by instruments, it is physical. Your response is physical, your determination of good or bad is based on a physical response. I didn't say there needs to be an objective standard, only a physical response that can be measured.

If you had no physical response to music why would you judge it good or bad?

Unless you want to deny that you have a physical response to music which caused your like/dislike, I see nothing wrong with my statement.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But this game is not just played by the rules above as per your example. There is no single rule or even similar set of rules. There are at least 3 sets: Objective, inter-subjective and subjective and while it appears that you can connect the sets, you can't make one universal set of all 3 and you can't just use of one of them.
So in effect there 3 versions of real and not just one.

If you say so. So in what 'version of this reality' am I able to step off the side of a cliff and fly like Superman?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My original comment was not about science. I only said that if something has a physical effect that can be measure by instruments, it is physical. Your response is physical, your determination of good or bad is based on a physical response. I didn't say there needs to be an objective standard, only a physical response that can be measured.

If you had no physical response to music why would you judge it good or bad?

Unless you want to deny that you have a physical response to music which caused your like/dislike, I see nothing wrong with my statement.

Ahh, I also have a mental one.
So here is the test of your beliefs.
You: The non-physical has no measurable effect.
Me: Yes, it has.

Now the problem is that the world is not just understood in physical terms, because then "Yes, it has" is just physical and that is all. That is clearly not the case, because that is absurd. If everything is just measurable as you claim, then my denial is a fact according to your belief-system, but you know that is not. But you "measure" my answer in another way than physical. You measure it mentally.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you say so. So in what 'version of this reality' am I able to step off the side of a cliff and fly like Superman?

All of reality is not your example. Now I have denied it, so now I am dead, right? See, your example of getting killed is not all there is to reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Now need to feel sorry for anybody, nor you. The concept of the community conscious to comprehend reality is not the only factor. The nature of our physical existence is predicable and functional in human history from the earliest predictable use of tools to Quantum Mechanics.

 

[QuestioningMind]

All of reality is not your example. Now I have denied it, so now I am dead, right? See, your example of getting killed is not all there is to reality.

If you say so... but I'm STILL wondering in which of these realities I can step off a cliff and fly like Superman instead of falling to my death.

 

[Nakosis]

Ahh, I also have a mental one.
So here is the test of your beliefs.
You: The non-physical has no measurable effect.
Me: Yes, it has.

Now the problem is that the world is not just understood in physical terms, because then "Yes, it has" is just physical and that is all. That is clearly not the case, because that is absurd. If everything is just measurable as you claim, then my denial is a fact according to your belief-system, but you know that is not. But you "measure" my answer in another way than physical. You measure it mentally.

Well if what you are talking about has a physical effect, then for me, it meets the criteria of being physical.

All matter, as far as I know, is a matter of energy or waves. Energy or waves interacting which each other defines a physical process. On the macro level we experience a "physical" reality because of the interaction of waves/energy.

What you call "non-physical" for whatever reasons you have, I accept as being a physical process even though it may not be a thing/object you can physically touch.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you say so... but I'm STILL wondering in which of these realities I can step off a cliff and fly like Superman instead of falling to my death.

In short, for a specific version of a Boltzmann Brain Universe, you could be Superman.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now need to feel sorry for anybody, nor you. The concept of the community conscious to comprehend reality is not the only factor. The nature of our physical existence is predicable and functional in human history from the earliest predictable use of tools to Quantum Mechanics.

Please clarify the bold part.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well if what you are talking about has a physical effect, then for me, it meets the criteria of being physical.

All matter, as far as I know, is a matter of energy or waves. Energy or waves interacting which each other defines a physical process. On the macro level we experience a "physical" reality because of the interaction of waves/energy.

What you call "non-physical" for whatever reasons you have, I accept as being a physical process even though it may not be a thing/object you can physically touch.

And then you use a different version than the only you gave before.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please clarify the bold part.

Individuals do not necessarily define reality, because of factors like mental illness. Science operates in a collective community basis, and not what one individual believes what reality is, Computers and airplanes work not because one person believes that they can work and that is Reality.

 

[allfoak]

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Individuals do not necessarily define reality, because of factors like mental illness. Science operates in a collective community basis, and not what one individual believes what reality is, Computers and airplanes work not because one person believes that they can work and that is Reality.

Says you.
So let play many worlds and reality. "I am now insane and live in my own world of unreal beliefs and what not. I now think that my neighbor is trying to kill me, so I kill my neighbor." Where do insane people live and what they do, happens where?

BTW "Individuals do not necessarily define reality,..." So your "we" of science define reality and as you subjectively say: That is reality. What would you characterize a person as, who doesn't believe, that insane people are not a part of reality?