What is real?

#11
It's one of those things that reminds me of this sentiment ...just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
Reply
#12
(Aug 12, 2019 10:49 PM)Leigha Wrote: It's one of those things that reminds me of this sentiment ...just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

What is real? Real for me is whatever can be interacted with, whatever can engage me, whatever pushes back whenever I poke at it.
Reply
#13
(Aug 13, 2019 08:35 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Aug 12, 2019 10:49 PM)Leigha Wrote: It's one of those things that reminds me of this sentiment ...just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

What is real? Real for me is whatever can be interacted with, whatever can engage me, whatever pushes back whenever I poke at it.
Do you think that the concept of ''reality'' is subjective? Perceptions are real, I'd say, but I might perceive something differently than you. Know what I mean?
Reply
#14
(Aug 13, 2019 08:53 PM)Leigha Wrote:
(Aug 13, 2019 08:35 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Aug 12, 2019 10:49 PM)Leigha Wrote: It's one of those things that reminds me of this sentiment ...just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

What is real? Real for me is whatever can be interacted with, whatever can engage me, whatever pushes back whenever I poke at it.
Do you think that the concept of ''reality'' is subjective? Perceptions are real, I'd say, but I might perceive something differently than you. Know what I mean?

Reality is part subjective and part objective. We can disagree whether a painting is good or not, but we can't disagree on whether the painting exists.
Reply
#15
(Aug 13, 2019 09:04 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Aug 13, 2019 08:53 PM)Leigha Wrote:
(Aug 13, 2019 08:35 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Aug 12, 2019 10:49 PM)Leigha Wrote: It's one of those things that reminds me of this sentiment ...just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

What is real? Real for me is whatever can be interacted with, whatever can engage me, whatever pushes back whenever I poke at it.
Do you think that the concept of ''reality'' is subjective? Perceptions are real, I'd say, but I might perceive something differently than you. Know what I mean?

Reality is part subjective and part objective. We can disagree whether a painting is good or not, but we can't disagree on whether the painting exists.

If what supposedly exists is quantum fields (selected example in a context of scientific realism) rather than everyday presented objects and affairs... Then wherever the organizations of particle excitations composing us travel in that weird environment, we internally convert the other disturbances and transactions residing in the fields to the aforementioned, familiar corporeal manifestations associated with a brain (latter includes the macroscopic bodily appearances of ourselves).

But that's roughly equivalent to just saying we also carry around within us the whole objective world, along with those variable subjective aspects, in terms of that world's coherence and governed predictability. That is, if we stop treating metaphysical beliefs or "next-level" models like the above as true rather than practical orientations to have (since such resist being validated once and for all, anyway).

Any deep attempt to explain the "cosmos of appearances" results in reasoning (sometimes coupled with experimentation) theorizing that what manifests to us is a flawed or deceptive ectype of an archetypal manner existence (the "true" or original level of be-ing). But the "proofs" of reason concerning such realms have long since been exposed as being fallible and only wholly "true" with regard to the processes of the intellectual games and pre-conditional biases on paper which approve them. And/or competing with multiple rival ideas similarly outputted and supported by their own language and symbol games.

Phenomenal experience seems to carry its own internal causes or explanations for its furniture and happenings, similar to a fantasy novel whose author spent some time rationalizing its events rather than leaving them hanging as arbitrary and inexplicable magic. But if either philosophy or research starts probing beyond the mundane attempts to tie things together, the explanations become ever more abstract and alien, potentially conflicting with each other in areas, and explode into multiple possibilities and interpretations. Just like the well-crafted fantasy novel that superficially appears to hang together well for the reader simply wanting to be entertained, but shows signs of unraveling for the technical critic who relentlessly prods and pokes its framework in earnest.

The fantasy novel world exists no further than the text on its pages, and it's impossible for the characters to know or ascertain anything about the next level which spawned them unless the author slipped in revelations about it in the story. Likewise, we're essentially in the same boat. One can either take the position that there's nothing more to be-ing than the manifestations themselves exhibited as if from the points of view of observers (in which case there would ironically be a kind of "direct realism" going on), or hand-wave about competing metaphysical affairs (which again resist being validated once and for all, with that very competition without an iron-clad winner being one of the obstructions).
Reply
#16
What is real? - I kind'a go with consensus. Despite having seen a pixie the overwhelming view is that pixies don't exist so I discard my pixie experience as some sort of aberration. I have been with a schizophrenic and said the things you are seeing aren't real but for him his situation was more real than my assessment of his situation. This assessment by consensus is a bit problematic. If I had grown up with a god that needed to be prayed to five times a day would I have done that? From where I stand now I'd say I wouldn't do it but there may well be people just like me with the same 'origin of reality' view who would be amazed that I didn't pray five times a day to a 'real' god.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)