Well, it might help the mad fool out of the fly trap...

But only if he wants out. — Banno

I want out :smile: :up:

How are you using "idealism" and "realism" here? — Banno

If I have a thought of making a fist with my hand...a fist of my hand then occurs in a reality mutual to the thought and the fist being made.

Dreams are ideas...physical reality is obviously influenced, maybe even created by ideas. — Anthony


That strikes me as quite backwards. Dreams are influenced by the physical world. — Banno

Babies live in a dream world of pure ideation/dreams, yet emerge into conscious awareness. Babies dream....adults cease to dream because they know physical reality requires an intimate relationship in order to survive. A priori before a posteriori as a matter of course. Matter is dumb...no information...senses are dumb...no information...only unintelligent feedback. Whatever is meaning, intelligence, understanding was prior to the content of the understood.

Do you? You seem to be enjoying yourself.

If I have a thought of making a fist with my hand...a fist of my hand then occurs in a reality mutual to the thought and the fist being made. — Anthony

You are positing a... something... between your idea and your hand, and then have the temerity to call it a reality? Looks like brillig to me.

Babies live in a dream world of pure ideation/dreams, — Anthony

How could you possibly know what goes on in the mind of a baby?

The rest is indiscernible from waffle.

Do you? You seem to be enjoying yourself — Banno

Believe me, I'm not.

We do not know the nature of reality. There is simply not enough information to draw a conclusion.But not being one to allow such trifling consideration to get in the way of a bold statement:

I would say reality is created when emotion agrees with reason - at that point we have an experience - which we take to be real.

We do not know the nature of reality. — Pop

Yeah, we do. It consists of chairs, dogs, rocks, mad presidents... stuff like that.

I would say reality is created when emotion agrees with reason — Pop

You might well say that - but reality doesn't care if you are well-adjusted to your situation.

And philosophy is more than just making up aphorisms.

You are positing a... something... between your idea and your hand, and then have the temerity to call it a reality? Looks like brillig to me. — Banno

Does the sophistry never end on this forum?

The rest is indiscernible from waffle. — Banno

Nope. I said prior to experience...there is non experience. Not waffle. Experience of ideas occurs before that of anything empirical.

Does the sophistry never end on this forum? — Anthony

Not until you stop it.

The rest is indiscernible from waffle. — Banno

You are positing a... something... between your discernment and the waffle? Curious.

Sounds like a modelling relation with reality - indirect realism - to me. The “something” that is the irreduciblilty of a relation where reality might be spoken of in terms of all it counterfactually ain’t.

Yeah, we do. It consists of chairs, dogs, rocks, mad presidents... stuff like that. — Banno

Your reality may well consist of things like that. Mine also takes into account the nature of the universe.

We do not know the nature of reality. — Pop

Mine also takes into account the nature of the universe. — Pop

Seems to be a problem here, involving taking into account what we do not know...

Seems to be a problem here, involving taking into account what we do not know... — Banno

Exactly. If we accept dark matter and energy as something real, then we are aware of about 15% of the universe.

Have you ever played Age of Empires where you start with a dark map?

As is obvious from the variety of responses to the OP, reality is a variable mental construct.

My approach is to try to understand it from the point of view of consciousness.

I know this is like the largest question there is, but how did we even come up with the concept of "real?" — TiredThinker

I would say the "concept" of real came from speculation, thought, consciousness/mind and inconsistency. While "all things are possible," is a real possibility, the concept of 'What is real?
arises when we cannot find a consistency in actuality or "what is demonstrably real," that correlates.

Did we ever come across something that wasn't real or was less real somehow? Do we just compare real against our imagination or flaws in memories? — TiredThinker

I would say so. I think we also ran into a problem of possibilities/impossibilities. Thoughts?

There's a difference between these two worlds. — TheMadFool

Indeed, there is. This world is real, in contrast to dream worlds. — Banno

I think the difference is that reality is independent of dreams while dreams are not independent of reality. The dependancy of dreams on reality makes dreams real. Dreams are a part of ourselves in the same manner we are a part of this world instead of ourselves being a part of (our) dreams; in this way, dream worlds are not something apart/different from reality.

I would say the "concept" of real came from speculation, thought, consciousness/mind and inconsistency. — Cobra

In general and with some exceptions, everyone has a clear perception of what is real and what is not. But this is not discursive knowledge, but immediate knowledge. We can analyze this. Analytically, reality depends on resistance and coherence.

Resistance or adversity means that reality resists your attempts at physical or mental manipulation.
You say that the stone is real because it resists your manipulation. That is why you say it exists.
Coherence means that the objects you call real are consistent with each other (regulated if possible) and with other men. They form a "world" with meaning or structure.
You say a dream is not real because it is inconsistent with what we call the real world and other dreams.

The depandency of dreams on reality makes dreams real. Dreams are a part of ourselves in the same manner we are a part of this world instead of ourselves being a part of (our) dreams; in this way, dream worlds are not something apart/different from reality. — Daniel

If you do not distinguish the mental world from the material or external world you are confusing things.
Dreams, imaginations, hallucinations exist in the mental world.
Stones, Covid-19 and my wife exist in the external world. (Some of them luckily, others by misfortune - the virus!, don't think badly).

I think the difference is that reality is independent of dreams while dreams are not independent of reality. The dependancy of dreams on reality makes dreams real. Dreams are a part of ourselves in the same manner we are a part of this world instead of ourselves being a part of (our) dreams; in this way, dream worlds are not something apart/different from reality — Daniel

It's a bit tricky, this issue. You made two statements: 1. Reality is independent of dreams and 2. Dreams are dependent on reality. A distinction needs to be made here between dreams and dream contents.

Dreams per se, as phenomena that occcur while we sleep, are real - they happen, we experience them.

The dream contents, however, are a different animal when compared to experiences while we're awake. For instance, in a particular dream I had, I was interacting with dinosaurs, flying like a bird, leaping immense distances, etc. However, when I woke up, I wasn't in the Mesozoic era nor was I in Jurassic Park, and far from flying like a bird, I was having difficulty jumping even a few inches of the ground. In this sense, dreams aren't real.

In general and with some exceptions, everyone has a clear perception of what is real and what is not. But this is not discursive knowledge, but immediate knowledge. We can analyze this — David Mo

You mean parochial knowledge? If so I agree on that end, but I wouldn't call it necessarily clear perception of what is real - since it is subject to error, bias and illusion, as all perceptions. I think it is the lack of clarity from these perceptions that contributes to the concept of what is real, no?

Resistance or adversity means that reality resists your attempts at physical or mental manipulation.
You say that the stone is real becauseit resists your manipulation. That is why you say it exists. — David Mo

I don't follow how you reached the bold subsequently. I would say it exists not because it is immune to mental manipulation (we do this all the time), but because it persists whether we mentally "manipulate," it or not. The fact, or state-of-affairs remains.

Coherence means that the objects you call real are consistent with each other (regulated if possible)and with other men. They form a "world" with meaning or structure.
You say a dream is not real because it is inconsistent with what we call the real world and other dreams.

I would say coherence itself is subject to a lot of error for this reason, and you have lost me again.

What would this apply to? Wouldn't reality be universal regardless of any consistency and coherence(?) from men.

That which has an effect/affect. — creativesoul

Seconded.

You mean parochial knowledge? — Cobra

No. I am atheist.

but I wouldn't call it necessarily clear perception of what is real - since it is subject to error, bias and illusion, as all perceptions. — Cobra

If the perceived object is perceived by more than one sense (sight and touch, for example); has a sufficient duration (continuous or intermittent); is consistent with different perspectives, specially when is perceived by several people, etc., the possibilities of error decrease till insignificance. Much more if what is perceived falls within an explanatory theory confirmed by other experiences. If we want to say that this gives a 100% probability, of course. Nothing in this world has a 100% chance to arrive, except death and taxes.

I would say it exists not because it is immune to mental manipulation (we do this all the time), but because it persists whether we mentally "manipulate," it or not. — Cobra

This would be the consistency. Resistance would say that mental objects can change with mental manipulation. I imagine that Trump has no hair. But I can't change his strange hair props in reality. This is real.

Wouldn't reality be universal regardless of any consistency and coherence(?) from men. — Cobra

Reality will be what it will be. But men call something that meets those conditions (or simiilar) real. If you want to know how something is real regardless of the way men know it, you are lost on the road to nothingness. I'm not going in there.

That which has an effect/affect.
— creativesoul

Seconded. — Mww

We seem to be in the minority.

:wink:

Yeah......but I don’t mind. As my ol’ buddy Horace laments, Quodcunque ostentis mihi sic, incredulus odi.

No. I am atheist. — David Mo

What does parochial knowledge have to do with atheism? I mostly mean the first form of knowledge we receive through a perceptive lens i.e., intuitive, senses. e.g., blue skies. I don't think from this alone we can discern what is real, as you said, but it is a start.

If the perceived object is perceived by more than one sense (sight and touch, for example); has a sufficient duration (continuous or intermittent); is consistent with different perspectives, specially when is perceived by several people, etc.,the possibilities of error decrease till insignificance. — David Mo

How would you say the possibility for error decreases to insignificance just because it has a consistency with multiple perceptions? We all continuously see (experience) a blue sky, and multiple other things.

Reality will be what it will be. But men call something that meets those conditions (or simiilar) real. If you want to know how something is real regardless of the way men know it, you are lost on the road to nothingness. I'm not going in there. — David Mo

I guess it would depend on what you mean by "know" here, wouldn't it? Just because we experience things doesn't mean we know them or they exist outside of a mental construct. Knowledge - to know - is attained though other means, not necessarily outside of men, but is far from a road to nothingness I would say.

The most 'Real' would what is permanent, say, quantum fields, if they are the eternal basis. The temporaries that fields form, such as particles, and more, from the particles, on up, etc., would be a lesser degree of 'real,' while they last.

What does parochial knowledge have to do with atheism? — Cobra

It was a joke,

How would you say the possibility for error decreases to insignificance just because it has a consistency with multiple perceptions? We all continuously see (experience) a blue sky, and multiple other things. — Cobra

We consider that the sky or the mountains are not really blue because we give priority to certain conditions in which we assume that our perceptions are more reliable. Science says that the blue color of the sky is due to light scattering and has a theory that explains this. Then we give preference to science. Our observation tells us that the mountains that we saw from afar are no longer blue when we approach them. We give priority to closeness. The question of reality is nothing more than a way of calling to what we consider to be the most constant and coherent. The final criterion is reliability in practice. If you pretend to go through life considering that what you have dreamt is real you will give yourself a good amount of slaps against reality. I mean against what we call reality. It was a good criterion for our fathers and it is good for me.

As you will see I am not talking about things in themselves. I'm talking about phenomena.

Just because we experience things doesn't mean we know them or they exist outside of a mental construct. — Cobra

But it seems to me that since Kant it has become clear that things themselves are unknowable. We talk about what we can talk about, which are the phenomena, and we distinguish those that have a certain degree of (real) objectivity from the subjective ones. It works.
You don't want to call that knowledge, well. Hume said it was a reasonable belief. It works for me.

it has become clear that things themselves are unknowable. — David Mo

I cannot comment on your comment itself of course, but the comment-as-I-read-it is clearly nonsense. This unfortunate unknowability of threads themselves makes discussion of philosophy quite impossible. And yet discussion-as-I-see-it definitely happens.

This unfortunate unknowability of threads themselves makes discussion of philosophy quite impossible. — unenlightened

I'm sorry to have caused you such a commotion. But I am open to discussing any means of knowing things in themselves that you wish to propose.