If you disagree with statement 1: i have a mind - then who would you be communicating with right now? It would also be hurtful to my own feelings saying I have no mind of my own. It would not be ethical — Benj96

Well, philosophers have criticised Descartes on this idea. The Cogito isn't necessarily correct as 'I think therefore I am', it might be, 'there is thinking.' An "I" is being presupposed.

Use of "I"
In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue.[54] The first to raise the "I" problem was Pierre Gassendi, who in his Disquisitio Metaphysica,[55] as noted by Saul Fisher "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. …[T]he only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present."[56]

The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks" wherein the "it" could be an impersonal subject as in the sentence "It is raining."[5]

- Cogito, ergo sum
From Wikipedia

I can imagine a scenario wherein my thoughts are not mine. I've certainly met many people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who claim that the thoughts in their head belong to others. But I imagine we could go broader with mere skepticism.

Always found it interesting that the creator of the most ruthlessly rational figure in fiction was himself a flake. :razz:
— Tom Storm

I don't know how to explain that. — Agent Smith

In the same way that comedians can be depressed.
You can be both flaky and rational, no?

In the same way that comedians can be depressed.
You can be both flaky and rational, no? — Amity

It was just an excuse for an alliterative quip. I take nothing much from this.

In the same way that comedians can be depressed.
You can be both flaky and rational, — Amity

Si, si señor/señorita!

It was just an excuse for an alliterative quip. I take nothing much from this. — Tom Storm

:smile:
Pretty poet potential, perhaps? :flower:

I never expect anything much to make sense - but it's a human trait to build ourselves little stories of meaning. Descartes versus Gautama sounds like the perspectival gulf between East and West, perhaps.

There is a problem, no?

Not for me.

I never expect anything much to make sense - but it's a human trait to build ourselves little stories of meaning — Tom Storm

And to try to make sense of them, nested as they are...

Oh, ok!

Oops - apologies, TC, if I've been clogging your OP with unrelated frivolities. I'll stop now.

:up:

I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. — T Clark

.
All ideas, if we want them to be useful to us, should be used in relation to human understanding and limits of investigation. If not then we are dealing with an idealistic version of the idea,which is pseudo philosophy and epistemically useless.
Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations.
There is nothing we can say, hypothesize or theorize beyond that "ability" of "real things". Of course we can drink a beer or two while suggesting things about it but no serious Philosophical discussion can be held without having a robust, epistemic , starting point. (So I agree with your guidance to avoid metaphysics).

-" A memory of an apple, an imagined apple, or the taste of an apple may or may not be real. "
-A brain state is real and can be observed. If you imply that the "apple" isn't real, I will agree because there is no physical object (apple) involved in those scenarios. The claim "the apple isn't real is a "strawman" related to the statements "a memory, image, taste of an apple" since none of those mental representations are contingent of a physical apple during that experience.
So the mental experience of an apple is real, but a physical apple doesn't exist in there.

"The map is not the territory”according to Alfred Korzybski and that is a common mistake we do. In our case physical objects are "the territory" and the map is our mental representations of them.

I can imagine a scenario wherein my thoughts are not mine. I've certainly met many people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who claim that the thoughts in their head belong to others. But I imagine we could go broader with mere skepticism. — Tom Storm

Well isn't there two scenarios here...pathologize your thoughts not being your own or spiritualize it?

For example if you told someone " My thoughts are not my own they are part of a greater whole (a god). They could either be like "yeah right this guy thinks he's god. He's obviously delusional" and they could pathologize it as some bipolar disorder or a schizophrenia or some mental illness.

But he didn't say he "was" god he only said his thoughts are part of god. Just like the same way our body is part of the universe. And then well it would be less prudent to admit them to a psychiatric hospital without further enquiry. Just in case this person is not a schizophrenic but a sage or scholar that has studied/ searched for such a thing.

We could ask them what this god is like? And why we should even care? What's the consequences of a god for us? Is it a good god or a bad one?

And if such a person were to give good enough reason and ethical principle to believe, and or to demonstrate that reasoning in practice then maybe it is worth believing?

Is that not what Muhammad (Islam) and jesus (Christianity) tried to do? Demonstrate proof of a god or that their thoughts were with some god?

If they were alive today I wonder would we call them Schizophrenics and lock them away?

Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell in their homes, at work, hunting Mastodons, playing jai alai, or sitting on their butts drinking wine and writing about reality. Example - an apple is real — T Clark

If reality only makes sense in relation to human sensations, then why wouldn't you be concerned with the sensations themselves, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling? If the sensations are what are real, then we have two conditions, that which is sensing, and that which is sensed. Why do you proceed only toward that which is sensed, the apple? If we start from human sensations, shouldn't that which is sensing be just as real as the thing sensed?

Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell — T Clark

Agreed. Reality is that which corresponds to a sensation in general; and that, consequently, the conception of which indicates a real being in time, that is to say, a representation of that sensation, and the sense it makes is proportional to the manifold of representations contained in the conception, and the relation of them to the sensation, and to each other.

It’s a priori knowledge, by which I mean it’s because I say so. — T Clark

Because I say so, yes, and it is knowledge a priori that I say so, but knowledge of reality, by means of sensation, is of empirical objects, so not a priori knowledge. That which is not from any sensation whatsoever, on the other hand, but is nevertheless a conception, as a representation is a real being in time, and is a priori necessarily, and if an object can be predicated as belonging to that representation without contradiction, that is knowledge a priori.
————

I’ll define “reality” as the state of being real. — T Clark

Agreed, in principle, the caveat being the state of being real does not necessarily imply reality. Non-reciprocity kinda thing, doncha know.

So.....what does “real” mean? It means that which satisfies the criterion of being in a certain state, and that state is representation in time.

"Real", as is used in English is an honorific word, adding little substance to what is being discussed. If a person tells you this is the "real deal" or this is the "real truth", it would be an error to think there are two kinds of deals or truths.

It's a matter of emphasis.

Are unicorns real? Well, they're not objects in the world, but people can surely speak about them without much problem, within an appropriate context (mythology, storytelling, etc.)

I think this is an issue in which the use the word often obfuscates the phenomenon it is trying to discuss.

I can imagine a scenario wherein my thoughts are not mine — Tom Storm

And this is not as science fiction as one might think at first.

They did some experiments where they artificially stimulated mice brains to give them artificial memories. These mice then changed their behavior due to these memories. See here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-successful-artificial-memory-has-been-created/

If I manipulate the electrical activity of your brain such that you get thoughts of wanting a pineapple topped pizza right now, are those your thoughts? The though would be indistinguishable from any other thought you had.

We may soon have the technology to take what were once theoretical philosophical questions, and turn them into very practical ones.

the use the word often obfuscates the phenomenon it is trying to discuss. — Manuel

Agreed. Discussion of anything presupposes its being real or possibly real enough to discuss. But then...what does it mean to discuss, and the dance continues.

...while Austin shows that it has different meanings (uses) depending on context - it's not a real dollar note, it's a forgery; it's not a real tree, it's an illusion; and so on. The pattern is "it's not a real X, its a Y". Austin goes on to add a tool for analysing metaphysical notions of "real", by finding a more appropriate word, or dismissing the argument if one be not apparent. — Banno

Yes, I agree. Real has lots of different meanings or shades of meaning. For what it's worth, it was not my intention to exclude imaginary or conceptual phenomena from this discussion. On the other hand, I think "Is that tree real" is a different question than "Is that a real tree." Seems to me the first causes more philosophical agita.

[Deleted]

All well and good. The point of departure for me is, despite all I've said, that an objective reality does, most likely, exist. So it would appear I'm now disagreeing with myself. I'm fine with that. What's important is that whatever seems to be "real" to me is, again, a product of my own personal world. The possibility that something "more real" might exist outside of my perception is not only plausible, but probable, given my own failure (within my own limited framework) to perceive or derive any sort of plausible objective relativity. My own inability to derive the objective says nothing about the reality of the objective; and the sheer way in which we speak about philosophical problems presupposes the existence of the objectively real. Call it apophatic Theology if you like. We are dumb creatures of hubris. — Noble Dust

As I've said enough times to drive even me crazy, I don't think whether or not objective reality exists is a question of fact. I think it's a metaphysical question with no truth value. Please everyone, I don't want to go into that here. On the other hand, the question "Is this apple real?" asked as I hold up a normal everyday apple, has a meaning and an answer. Not to keep you in suspense, yes, the apple is real.

I don't find myself needing or using the world real much in the 'real world'. — Tom Storm

Probably because of the sense of permanence and solidity regular people feel and don't see the need to undermine with philosophical folderol.

This "idea" is pragmatic, or existential. — 180 Proof

I have been accused of being a pragmatist.

Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. Thus, it's the ur-standard, or fundamental ruler, against which all ideas and concepts, knowledge and lives are measured (i.e. enabled-constrained, tested). — 180 Proof

"Ineluctable" is defined as "Not to be overcome by struggling; irresistible; inescapable; inevitable.
Impossible to avoid or escape; inescapable, irresistible." And yet, here we are struggling and resisting. I guess that makes us philosophers.

I suspect the problem resides in our not knowing well enough how to categorize "purely" mental objects. But then, this rock I see here, is partially mental, at the very least.

And so, it is not clear...

In quantum mechanics realism usually refers to counterfactual-definiteness, which is "the ability to speak 'meaningfully' of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured)." — Andrew M

I'm trying to decide the best way of dealing with the ideas of "real" or "reality" are, given quantum mechanics. The options, as I see them 1) Reality only applies at the classical level. 2) Reality exists at the quantum level, but it is a different kind of reality. 3) There is a broader meaning of "reality" which encompasses both classical and quantum scales. 4) There is no such thing as reality.

I'm willing to go with 3 as long as we keep in mind that it has to remain consistent with our everyday reality. I'm not even sure that's possible.

No physicist questions the reality of the experimental equipment that they are using when performing these experiments, or of the measured outcomes. — Andrew M

I wonder if that's true.

I suspect the problem resides in our not knowing well enough how to categorize "purely" mental objects. — Manuel

Yeah, that, or, we don’t bother with them in the first place. The senses govern our lives, right?

This too is how I tend to view 'reality'. What is 'real' to someone, e.g. experiencing hallucinations, is only real to me in that I understand the person believes their 'sense', 'perception'. Also, any belief or delusion that they are God or have a special status or knowledge e.g. receiving messages from the television.
However, the actual content of this mental state is not 'real' to me; I can't access what the other person sees. — Amity

I think it might be reasonable to include hallucinations and delusions as real. They certainly exist here at everyday human scale. That's one of the things for discussion in this thread.

Whether fictional or no, the content is 'real'. This time it is accessible. We can read and 'feel' it...there is a mental connection. Of course, our own experience/interpretation can be compared and perhaps found wanting by others but it's real, no? — Amity

I see you are making a distinction between delusions and experiences associated with reading fiction. If I understand correctly, the difference is that fiction is open for examination by everyone while delusions are purely personal. I'm not sure I buy that distinction.

For me when I ask myself what is "real".. I think of that which is "true". That which exists. — Benj96

I think "real" and "true" mean very different things. I came across a discussion of the difference on the web while putting together the OP. Truth applies only to propositions. If you buy the correspondence theory, the truth of a proposition is determined by its consistency with reality, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. I don't think that's a nitpicky distinction.

I sense that, I don't know anything. A bit like a zombie, what with Halloween coming up and all.