that what we mean by "real" and "reality" only has meaning in relation to everyday human experience. I think that's a metaphysical position, so I wasn't looking to see if it was right, but if it is useful. — T Clark

If you think it better,it is not metaphysical position at all.It is in fact true.
Reality and what we perceive as real is totally attached to the way our physiology is. So indeed real has meaning only in relation to humans.

As to your thread question,for me our reality is a form of the actual reality indeed.But there must be numerous of other forms also.Depending from the observer.
So we are sure that there is "Something" that we see as real.But it is real only to us.Notice that doesn't make it less real.Still is!But it is just one way of how that "Something" can be presented to the observer.
What we humans call real is ,imo, just a version(or a frame) of what actual "real" can be.

I don’t disagree with your definition but is it not somewhat limited? What does it give you – the realness of quotidian objects like apples, chairs and presumably bananas? — Tom Storm

Yes, it is definitely limited. Intentionally so. I think this sets a lower limit on what usages of "real" and "reality" can be considered meaningful. If a conception of reality doesn't include everyday objects, it's useless. It's a test I can apply. Applying that test, I can reject the idea that quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality not just for subatomic particles, but also for apples and orangutans. And that is what set me off down this path.

The big fights about what is real seem to happen in a different space – Platonism, UFO’s, the voices inside the heads of people with psychosis, demons, gods, etc.

I’m looking at a glass of water in front of me which is presumably real. Last night I dreamed of a glass of water. I picked it up, I drank from it and I put it down. It seemed real too. Until I woke up. — Tom Storm

I recognize the issues you describe here as worthy of discussion, but they are not the ones I set out to address in this thread.

Applying that test, I can reject the idea that quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality not just for subatomic particles, but also for apples and orangutans. And that is what set me off down this path. — T Clark

We don't know the status of matter that isn't being measured. If that fits your conception of reality, then you're good to go.

As to your thread question,for me our reality is a form of the actual reality indeed.But there must be numerous of other forms also.Depending from the observer.
So we are sure that there is "Something" that we see as real.But it is real only to us.Notice that doesn't make it less real.Still is!But it is just one way of how that "Something" can be presented to the observer.
What we humans call real is ,imo, just a version of what actual "real" can be. — dimosthenis9

I have argued against the idea of objective reality in the past. Even so, I think it is reasonable to believe, or at least to act as though, there is a reality which is mostly stable and enduring for everyone under everyday human conditions.

We don't know the status of matter that isn't being measured. If that fits your conception of reality, then you're good to go. — frank

What is the status of the apple when I pick it up and take a bite?

there is a reality which is mostly stable and enduring for everyone under everyday human conditions. — T Clark

True.But you have to acknowledge also that this is totally filtered by our human physiology,our senses and brain.
It would be too egoistic for humans to think that their physiology is the only "right" or possible one ,that can or has been created in this vast and timeless universe.

Yes ,other possible forms of reality can't be known by humans and probably we shouldn't care about them at all then.Just focus on ours and end of story.It is a view indeed.But that still doesn't make our reality the only right one.

What is the status of the apple when I pick it up and take a bite? — T Clark

It's an apple.

Yes. @T Clark asked "What does 'real' mean?", and when faced with an answer, backtracked to saying, "No, I asked what does 'physically real' mean".

So now we have the pretence that what is real is only the stuff of physics. Scientism reinforcing itself with poor analysis.

True.But you have to acknowledge also that this is totally filtered by our human physiology,our senses and brain.
It would be too egoistic for humans to think that their physiology is the only "right" or possible one ,that can or has been created in this vast and timeless universe. — dimosthenis9

But the concepts of "real" and "reality" were created by humans for use by humans to describe a world of human experiences. They only have meaning in relation to us.

We can differentiate between what we don't know, but could know, on the one hand, and what we cannot know at all.

And what we cannot know at all cannot form part of our understanding. The only response one might make to it is silence.

Anything you say about what cannot be said will by that very status be wrong.

Yes. T Clark asked "What does 'real' mean?", and when faced with an answer, backtracked to saying, "No, I asked what does 'physically real' mean".

So now we have the pretence that what is real is only the stuff of physics. Scientism reinforcing itself with poor analysis. — Banno

You have misstated my position. I have said several times in this thread that "real" and "reality" are metaphysical concepts and are not subject to empirical verification.

I have said several times in this thread that "real" and "reality" are metaphysical entities and are not subject to empirical verification. — T Clark

But that is not right.

We do say that it's a real painting, not a forgery; that it's a real apple, not plastic; that Spiderman is a fiction, not part of reality. These are not metaphysical statements, and they are empirically verifiable.

It seems to me you have trapped yourself in a misguided approach to the topic.

But the concepts of "real" and "reality" were created by humans for use by humans to describe a world of human experiences. They only have meaning in relation to us. — T Clark

Yeah but that "Something" outside of us that we are also part of it wasn't created by Humans.But we know there is.So let's suppose a different creature with different mind and physiology appear.The same "Something" would be real for it also.They would be part of the same Something,and they would understand that something exists except themselves.So they might not be able to name it as real but they will know is there.

Even in humans before we develop language and name what we perceive as real,still we could understand that Something exists.We could feel it and act like that.We just couldn't name it.

And what we cannot know at all cannot form part of our understanding. The only response one might make to it is silence.

Anything you say about what cannot be said will by that very status be wrong. — Banno

That's exactly what science does though.Explore what we can actually know.It isn't limited only to what can be said.At the very end we can never know the borders of science.And after years what can and what cannot be said.So you can never be sure about what we cannot know.

So better that science doesn't follow the silence path that you suggest.

It seems to me you have trapped yourself in a misguided approach to the topic. — Banno

No need to go around this again.

science... Explore(s) what we can actually know — dimosthenis9

But not all that we can know. A small consideration...

What is important here is to realise that saying things like " Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell" and "Reality is ineluctable", and "Reality and what we perceive as real is totally attached to the way our physiology is" we are not doing science.

Indeed, we are not doing much of anything.

No need to go around this again. — T Clark

So you want not to talk about where you went wrong. Fine. :wink:

What is important here is to realise that saying things like " Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell" and "Reality is ineluctable", and "Reality and what we perceive as real is totally attached to the way our physiology is" we are not doing science. — Banno

Can you explain me what your disagreement is to the above statements?You find them wrong?
By the way I didn't discover America here.These are well known views that in fact many many scienctists support.Are they not doing science either?

Can you explain me what your disagreement is the above statements. — dimosthenis9

That's what I've been doing in this thread. See my previous posts.

Reality is not defined by what we perceive. We perceive stuff that is not real, and there is stuff that is real yet unperceived.

Reality is not defined by what we perceive. We perceive stuff that is not real, and there is stuff that is real yet unperceived. — Banno

How else is defined if not by what we perceive??We perceive stuff that are real indeed.But it is not the only way of how these stuff could be.I still can't understand your disagreement here.
Your sentence above says nothing about how you think real should be defined then and sorry but i will not read all your posts here as to find it out where you mention it.If you wanna tell me ok if not it's still fine.

How else is defined if not by what we perceive? — dimosthenis9

Why suppose that reality can be defined?

Tell me, how would you tell that you had found the right definition? To avoid circularity, you would have to know what reality is, apart from that definition. In order to know that you had found the right definition of reality, you would already have to know what reality is.

But if you already know what reality is, why do you need a definition?

Pfff..What exactly was that know?We go back to the definition game again?So we can't define perfectly what reality means so let's shut up and not talk about it at all.Hmm in fact we can't have absolute definitions about anything at all now that i think about it.So let's shut up in general and remain in eternal silence.
I expected more from you.

o we cabt define perfectly what reality means so let's shut up and not talk about it at all. — dimosthenis9

No, not at all. You can stipulate a definition if you like; but be honest about it, realise that is what you are doing.

Better to analysis how we use the term, as in https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/749380

In order to know that you had found the right definition of reality, you would already have to know what reality is. — Banno

I know that reality is the real and the real is realty and the..... forget it..

Reality is not defined by what we perceive. We perceive stuff that is not real, and there is stuff that is real yet unperceived. — Banno

Nice. This is a point I keep coming back to in my own thinking about this.

That's exactly what science does though. Explore what we can actually know. — dimosthenis9

Do we not have to set limitations on this conceptualization of science? We need to guard against scientism. Science provides us with tentative models of reality based on the best available information we have at a given time. It shouldn't make proclamations about truth. In science things are not 'true' as such they are 'not false'. Yet.

like; but be honest about it, realise that is what you are doing. — Banno

How i do that exactly?Again to the statements i made above you disagree?if yes tell me where.

In science things are not 'true' as such they are 'not false'. Yet. — Tom Storm

That's where the magic in science lies.

I did:

Reality is not defined by what we perceive. We perceive stuff that is not real, and there is stuff that is real yet unperceived. — Banno

I think we need a pause here.

It says nothing.Stop the games here please.So it can't be defined totally so that's it??we cant say anything about it?Make like it doesn't exist? That's your thesis?

I know that reality is the real and the real is realty and the..... forget it.. — Tom Storm

SO back to Philosophical investigations §201; there is a way of understanding what is real that is not set out in a prescriptive definition, but shown in the way we use the word in our language games...

and hence Austin's analysis, transcending* @T Clark's request for a definition.

* I'll confiscate that word from the continental philosophers and use it tongue in cheek.

there is a way of understanding what is real that is not set out in a prescriptive definition, but shown in the way we use the word in our language games... — Banno

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.