AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Reality

42 7113
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

I would have you consider the following proposal:

Are we truly alive? How do we know if we live if all we know is what is in front of us? Many will claim that we live here and now and that reality is our own unique perception. While this may seem agreeable, it cannot be all that life is, for that would indicate we have no founding, solid view of reality. What does reality, the concept of being alive, and existence really mean?

Thoughts, comments, feelings.

  • 42 Replies
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

If perception is reality, then our definition of what is real and not real is very narrow. Have you ever had a dream that you thought was real? One where you smelt, tasted, saw, felt and heard? One where you woke up and were confused because you thought it was real? Yet, so many will conclude that dreams are not real. But by our definition of reality they must be. Yet, they are not.

Or is it that when we dream we truly live and when we wake we truly dream?


*sigh* Perception very well may NOT be reality. But it is as close as we can get, and if we cannot comprehend this TRUE reality then why ponder it? Why sit there trying to comprehend something you'll NEVER comprehend? Go play some COD or something...
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

*sigh* Perception very well may NOT be reality. But it is as close as we can get, and if we cannot comprehend this TRUE reality then why ponder it? Why sit there trying to comprehend something you'll NEVER comprehend?


Because who's to say that we will never comprehend it? Besides truth is something we cannot perceive, just because I say something is true or not doesn't make it so.
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

1) I was not debating the definition of the word "true" with you, I was grasping for a word to define "actual reality" in a topic discussing possibilities of our "false reality" I found it difficult...

2) If you cannot perceive reality or truth then how can you comprehend it?

In the end this topic is merely a method for you to post endless questions to which you admit the answers are endlessly difficult for you to reach, or impossible to reach altogether.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

In the end this topic is merely a method for you to post endless questions to which you admit the answers are endlessly difficult for you to reach, or impossible to reach altogether.


Seems to be a perfect definition of philosophy to me. And we can perceive things, but is what we perceive true?
Darkroot
offline
Darkroot
2,763 posts
Peasant

The theory you proposed would be similar to the brain in a vat theory.

sigh* Perception very well may NOT be reality. But it is as close as we can get, and if we cannot comprehend this TRUE reality then why ponder it? Why sit there trying to comprehend something you'll NEVER comprehend?


That would be an anti-realist because your saying there is no objective reality. Your definition of true is confusing since you didn't specif what your truth is or if getting closer to the truth is good enough. Last part is not even an argument it is you giving up well technically it is since it's valid but I won't go into that.

Go play some COD or something...


Your basically spouting mindless drivel to drive people off the topic.


Say I knew I did not exist


Impossible

And *sigh* it all comes to life after death...


Depends on your ideals. You either believe that you will be rewarded for chemistry in your brain driving to you good decisions. or nothing.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Despite the engrossing philisophical debate here, I think that Immanuel Kant answered this one already with the infamous (and in my opinion, eloquent) line: Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am


Only to some degree. But how does one truly know? Existence is so wrapped up in itself. And again, dreams.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

That's the entire point that Kant was trying prove I believe. The only way we know we exist is because we believe we do.

Everything that we perceive is nothing more than an elaborate interpretation of electrical impulses translated by our brains.

This is the essence of our existence. If we cease to think, we cease to be. Reality is nothing more than our individual perception of our surroundings. Everyone has a different perception, hence a differing reality.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

I think that Immanuel Kant answered this one already with the infamous (and in my opinion, eloquent) line: Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am.


That was Rene Descartes, but your point is well taken. But Descartes also had to develop an ontological argument for the existence of God so that he could then argue that he wasn't being deceived (i.e., in a skeptical scenario of some sort).

Kant, on the other hand, took what must be a priori categories for experience and tried to develop a deductive proof for the world. He actually described two different worlds: the phenomenal world (the world as we see it) and the noumenal world (the world as it really is).
Using the a priori conditions for experience, Kant was supposed to be able to say at least some things about the noumenal world, but the project was really doomed from the start.

Descartes' argument didn't fare much better. His argument for God just didn't fly, and the consequences of his theory, Cartesian dualism, make very problematic the state of other minds.
But the question is more to the material world. The only thing I can prove with the cogito argument is that I exist in some fashion or other (although even this claim is contentious). Thus, the only certainty I have is one of severe solipsism. We can't say much more about the nature of reality.

You have made on unfortunate assumption and that is that you took the fact that if YOU knew you were real it would affect your day to day life and applied it to everyone. This fact would not change my life.


And herein lies the problem with pragmatism. Is it a normative theory - one that tells us what statements should be meaningful? If so, then it's ineffective. If it is a descriptive theory, then it's philosophically uninteresting.
If you want to take a hard line stance that you don't care about the answer to a question, my suggestion is to stop posting. It's hard to believe someone finds a question pointless when they keep entering in on the conversation. Unless they're 5 and need to go potty or something.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

If perception is reality, then our definition of what is real and not real is very narrow. Have you ever had a dream that you thought was real? One where you smelt, tasted, saw, felt and heard? One where you woke up and were confused because you thought it was real? Yet, so many will conclude that dreams are not real. But by our definition of reality they must be. Yet, they are not.


Yes I have, and that was my reality until it ended, something I mentioned in my last post:

If what we see is defined as our reality, then it is reality to us. It's what we have to live through until our reality stops.


The ending of that reality may not be death; it can be the ending of a dream, of a simulation, or any other artificial means of perceiving. This is reality, until it stops.

Reality to me is not something that is 'real' as in the literal definition. Reality is all of my aforementioned senses.

I'm pretty sure my argument fails miserably, but that's reality to me, in the same way no one perceives the same reality.
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

If you want to take a hard line stance that you don't care about the answer to a question, my suggestion is to stop posting. It's hard to believe someone finds a question pointless when they keep entering in on the conversation. Unless they're 5 and need to go potty or something.


Damn! I've been caught
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

The ending of that reality may not be death; it can be the ending of a dream, of a simulation, or any other artificial means of perceiving. This is reality, until it stops.


Fair point. But if death does not end reality how do you know you are dead? Is there any escape from reality? Or is it that we're want to be real, so we claim we are real, when in truth, nothing is real.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

Fair point. But if death does not end reality how do you know you are dead? Is there any escape from reality? Or is it that we're want to be real, so we claim we are real, when in truth, nothing is real.


All I said was it may not death. Death is the permanent end of reality, as far as the living know. If there is a reality after death I do not know, but as far as I do know, death is the end.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

To EnterOrion:

I wonder about what you say here:

Our perception doesn't matter, only what we alone see.


I don't think I know what you mean by perception. To philosophers, this is the act of perceiving, typically of seeing. But this must not be how you mean it, otherwise it doesn't make sense. Maybe our worldview or something?
At any rate, you say that only what we alone see. Now, you can get out of the dreaming argument with this statement because we aren't perceiving anything. They are simply mental images. Perception requires an object of perception.
All to the better - your line of argument (I'm not sure you would say that you're arguing so much as just explaining your thoughts) seems to avoid a certain kind of skepticism, which is nice.
But what about seeing mirages, or hallucinations? Our perception is certainly a very good tool to interact with the world around us, but it certainly isn't infallible.
But in the case of a hallucination, what you're seeing isn't really there. If I hallucinate a pink rat in the corner, there is no actual object of perception.
Of course, you may be able to slip by again by saying this isn't perception because you're not seeing anything. The images are in your mind. The problem is that how do we come to know that? In dreams, illusions, and hallucinations, we at least believe that we are perceiving something. Otherwise, we wouldn't have nightmares, right? We believe, at the time, what is going on in a dream.
It is through memory, reflection, and a consistency of experience that allows us to tell good cases of perception from bad ones.
But by appealing to memory, your position is now very vulnerable to the case I first mentioned, where you have just popped into existence with memories and such. But these memories aren't based on experience - they're just planted in you. It seems like there is still an appeal here to say that the world actually is how we perceive it. But then that means that mirages are real, as well as pink rats.

I dunno, just thought I'd mention that and see what you think.
tennisman24
offline
tennisman24
4,682 posts
Farmer

I have thought all the time, "what if our whole life that we are living is all just a dream, and we wake up as a baby."

Has anyone else thought that?

Showing 16-30 of 42