But that's very important. Just because you exist doesn't mean the perception of true existence is correct, therefore you must acknowledge the possibility that a simulation can be occuring.
Yes, absolutely. But even if I am in a simulation, there is still and "I" that is being deceived. That's the extent of what I'm saying. I make no conjectures about what I am or how I relate to the outside world. The only quality (if you can call it that) that I know I possess is existence.
But what makes reality real? Is it our senses, or is it because we think it's real
I can't tell if this is a linguistic question or a metaphysical one.
A good example of this is a realistic dream. I've had several dreams in life that seem real and in some cases more real than my waking life.
Now I really don't know what you mean by "real". If by real you mean something veritical, something that actually obtains, then how did you know that dream was a dream? The word "dream" is loaded to indicate things the rest of us would consider unreal.
Does this mean that only our consious mind is our reality? If so how do we describe these type of dreams?
We seem to have a good ability to describe dreams within the linguistic framework we have. I can't tell what you're getting at here. Are you saying our current usage of the term "real" isn't as effective as it could be?
If I call a pen green and you call it black does not mean that one of is wrong, it simply means that our perceptions are different.
Person A: I perceive a green pen.
Person B: I perceive a black pen.
This is not a contradiction, even when looking at the same pen.
Person A: That pen is green all over.
Person B: That pen is black all over.
Now we have a logical contradiction. If we are saying of that pen that it possesses a particular attribute, then we are making a statement of fact about the world around us. And something cannot be both green all over and black all over at the same time.
Reality is perception. Of course I am not arguing conformity. You see the only reason so many believe things are the way they are, is because they are subconsciously conformed to the norms that exist.
You say reality is perception and then say that we subconsciously conform to norms that exist. But how do these norms exist outside of perception if reality is perception? How are these norms even established in the first place if reality is just personal sensory experience without any conformity?
I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. But if you're suggesting that reality is completely relative to the perceiver, then you've effectively taken yourself out of the conversation.
This theory is essentially idealism or anti-realism of some sort. You've escaped the problems of direct perception by denying that it exists in the first place.
But where we would like to say that we know things about tables and chairs as a community of cognitive agents, your theory backs you into a linguistic corner where you can't even engage with the rest of the conversation.
While idealism is a philosophically interesting position, it is very unintuitive.
So let me try to understand this right. You're saying:
A) If I exist, then I will have some perception that I exist.
B) My perception that I exist could be wrong.
C) Therefore, it is possible that I could not exist, or that I exist as a simulation.
I think this should read:
A) If I exist, then I will have some perception of how I exist.
B) My perception of how I exist could be wrong.
C) Therefore it is possible that my perception of how I exist is wrong.
We can't conclude from this that it's possible we don't exist. Again, having perceptions in the first place - whether they're real or not - is absolute proof that we exist. We can show
that we exist, but not
in what manner or how we exist.
I mean, we don't perceive existence. We perceive things like smells and colors and emotions, but not existence itself. Existence is a necessary condition for us to experience these things.
