On the contrary, I think we can (with this rule-of-thumb): where "the difference" is ambiguous (or vague), we encounter "reality"; on the other hand, where it is clear, explicit, definite, we perceive "illusion" – just like "the difference" between waking and dreaming, during the latter we don't get tired and cannot fall asleep (as if we're "more awake" than awake). Also a problem with the "Simulation Hypothesis" is the (conspicuously) hidden assumption of 'ontological (substance) dualism' whereby it makes sense to pose the question which can be answwered, if only in principle, one way or another; otherwise, absent this assumption, the philosopher (e.g. Nick Bostrom) is also a simulation and therefore the "hypothesis" makes no sense, as :strong: 'Conan the Barbarian' points out ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof
My instincts, however, inform me that he's not entirely correct about the relationship between language and philosophy. — Agent Smith
.such as property, money, government, credit...? — Banno
Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing — Joshs
You mean to say that clarity, consistency, certainty are markers of illusion? That's interesting! So the more you (think you) understand something, the more deluded you are (psychotic individuals tend to be 100% certain about their beliefs); vagueness, uncertainty, cognitive dissonance are the defining features of the real world, the real world is, as someone once said, messy. — Agent Smith
That's not what I "mean to say". :roll:You mean to say that clarity, consistency, certainty are markers of illusion? That's interesting! — Agent Smith
That's not what I "mean to say". — 180 Proof
idealist — Metaphysician Undercover
@BannoThese things are not created by language, they are created by human beings, with language as a tool. — Metaphysician Undercover
Muchas gracias señor/señorita for the suggestion.
Would you like to discuss hyperreality? I've come across the idea in connection with the use of psychedelics. It's been described by people who were tripping as "realer than real". That makes it possible that this world we experience as normal people not under the influence of mind-bending drugs is a simulation/illusion; in a sense, with mind-altering drugs, we wake up and catch a glimpse of the real world!
Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith
Language doesn't enact realities. It's merely a means of reinforcing and express them. To a minor extent It's involved in shaping realities. — Hillary
are we baffled or not? — Agent Smith
I'm afraid I lack the background to grok your post. — Agent Smith
A shared hallucination is closer to reality than one specific to an individual by virtue of consistency in the group that experiences it. — Agent Smith
The opposite though, mìght be the case as well. — Hillary
Enlightenment hallucination — Hillary
No pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!? — Agent Smith
If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.
If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible. — Agent Smith
What is nirvana? Is it a very private experience? Wittgenstein did make an interesting point. Was he into mysticism (re religious experiences)? — Agent Smith
I read somewhere that the naysayers of philosophy accuse it of being nothing more than literature review. How would you respond? — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.