Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is reality real?

Posted May 26, '14 at 12:23am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

6,508 posts

This stems from BFR's post on facts. On pages 4 and 5 it branched off into nihilism and existence. I am calling into question the concepts from "Inception," since they make some rather interesting suggestions, as well. Regardless of whether you liked the movie, or whether it made sense, it references some very unique and complicated theories.

Are we in a real world, is this a dream, or does it not exist at all? Does the phrase "I think, therefore I am" apply, or is it incorrect because I don't realize I'm not actually thinking? What if death is merely a literal awakening into the real world, if there is one?

True, you could pass this off immediately, but it merits at least a little discussion. I personally consider it all ridiculous and untrue, but I find the concept rather interesting. I may argue in favor or against nihilism and the possibility of an existence in a "dream-state," depending on the way the arguments flow.

So: Is reality real?

 

Posted May 26, '14 at 12:44am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,560 posts

So: Is reality real?


Yes, because what is being defined as "reality" is contingent upon what is being defined as "real". Reality being the entirety of things that are real and nothing else, it is real by default.
 

Posted May 26, '14 at 7:27am

09philj

09philj

1,879 posts

Yes, because what is being defined as "reality" is contingent upon what is being defined as "real". Reality being the entirety of things that are real and nothing else, it is real by default.


Reality is real, but we can't know the extent of reality. "I think, therefore I am" is flawed in that we only believe we are, so a more true statement is "I believe I am thinking, therefore I believe I am." This is also the extent of reality that is certain.
 

Posted May 26, '14 at 8:08am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

"I think therefore I am" must be correct. Or answer me this, how could you think if you are not?

 

Posted May 26, '14 at 9:02am

09philj

09philj

1,879 posts

how could you think if you are not?


It is not certain that what we perceive to be our thoughts are the exclusive creation of our own minds and not affected in by an external agency.
 

Posted May 26, '14 at 9:49am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

What we perceive and what we think is most certainly the result of a combination of internal and external stimuli. But there has to be an existing being at the core of that, so independent of the nature of the stimuli, if you think, you are.

Or from another point of view, if you were a mere construct of another existing being, you wouldn't perceive your induced thoughts, because there would be no you.

 

Posted May 26, '14 at 10:28am

09philj

09philj

1,879 posts

But there has to be an existing being at the core of that,

However, can you demonstrably link thought to existence?


last edited May 26 2014 10:34 am by 09philj
 

Posted May 26, '14 at 11:26am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

However, can you demonstrably link thought to existence?

I would say that thought originates from existence. As in my second approach, a non-existent "being" cannot think, or can it?

Or can you demonstrate that thought can be independent of existence?
 

Posted May 26, '14 at 11:29am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,560 posts

"I think, therefore I am" is flawed in that we only believe we are, so a more true statement is "I believe I am thinking, therefore I believe I am." This is also the extent of reality that is certain.


To think is to be something that thinks, which must be real. To believe that one thinks is to be something that believes, which must still be real. To do anything at all is to be something which does things, and therefore real.

It is not certain that what we perceive to be our thoughts are the exclusive creation of our own minds and not affected in by an external agency.


In what way would thought be independent of external stimuli? Why do you regard the origin of that thought as relevant?
 

Posted May 26, '14 at 12:07pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

Mentioning whether what we are perceiving is real or not. I don't think it really matters. Even if what we are perceiving is just some simulation, this is still the world in which we all have to interact with collectively. This world does exist in some form, even if just an illusionary one. So as such it would seem to be in our best interest to treat this world as real to us.

If we are just a simulation within a simulation, than how is that any different from the perspective of being a simulation to being in a real world?

I was thinking of the concept of this world being nothing more than a fabrication of the mind rather than the result of external stimuli being perceived. We do have a frame of reference to compare a world that is created entirely within the mind to the one we perceive as realm that is when we dream. The dream goes by different rules from dream to dream, then we wake up and still have the same rules apply here consistently. We don't see any sort of disconnect as we do with dreams.

It is not certain that what we perceive to be our thoughts are the exclusive creation of our own minds and not affected in by an external agency.


Would that not still require something (ie myself) to exist to input those thoughts into?
 
Reply to Is reality real?

You must be logged in to post a reply!