Barcode

Well ya know, I figure even the external world is an illusion, I'd better behave as if it were real. It's either that or find myself committed to the nearest lunatic asylum.

Wyrdsmyth

I base it on when I bump my head on a doorway, and it hurts.

melinie007

Ya know, I just don't care.

I cannot make a good argument for this all being real. So, as real as it seems, and with the lack of anything 'more real', I still acknowledge it may not be real.

The non-realness/realness of the world doesn't bother me. It certainly wouldn't upset much of my logic, or change how I would rationally live my life.

Not to be trite, but I guess that was my problem with the first Matrix. I understood Neo's thirst for knowledge - he had to find out the world wasn't real. But once he found out, I didn't see why the real world was such an awful thing for him that he wanted to go to the hell hole of the real world.

If it were me, give me an illusion. What difference does it make, if its all I know or better then the non-illusion alternative?

ComestibleVenom

Possible, of course it is. I know just how seriously we can be decieved. But I also know that we have powerful means of determining when this is the case. So powerful, in fact, that such illusions are highly implausible.

Note again in this case, the reality is that we have no evidence suggesting such a delusion, although plenty of evidence suggests fundamental gaps in our knowledge. In the absence of such evidence, and in light the problematic epistemological system in which such cartesian doubt is embedded, doubts about reality don't need to be taken as a serious challenge.

It's certainly a puzzle worth tackling, but don't get trapped in the descartes' language game. Doubting in theoretical isolation is no better than conjecturing in theoretical isolation.

mimi

Whether this reality is 'real' or not is irrelevant, because as far as I'm concerned, this is it. As naive as it may sound, unless you can prove to me that there is something else (Hello, Neo...) then I'm happy.

Just a thought though... are those looking for an alternate life similar to those looking for an afterlife?

mimi

Gawdawful

If none of this is real, what are y'all doing in my dream?

I get up, I go to work, sometimes I work, I eat, I sleep and in between all those activities I think I hear, see, smell and feel things. It all seems pretty real to me. Could be an illusion, but if it is it sucks. Wake me up, I want this ugly dream to stop.

Warren, I believe, in what I perceive as Oklahoma

DoubleDutchy

:notworthy

Raezzor

Just my 2 cents.

In order to perceive anything, it could be said that a conciousness needs to "exist". Whether it exists in a body, or on it's own, or in a computer as an AI is irrelevant to the topic, it simply must be in order to "see" or perceive anything, period. Once existence is established, it could be said that the conciousness must exist somewhere. That somewhere, for me, is reality. Basically a hyped up version of "I think, therefore I am."

Is it possible there is more or less to reality then I am perceiving? Absolutely, humans are, by nature, very flawed beings. It's to be expected that we don't always see or understand the truth in it's entirety (or by extension, infect or contaminate "truth" with our very presence and our observations themselves). The trick is to prove what you can, believe what you want, and keep an open mind about what you don't (believe or prove). Ultimately, you have to find your own truth, and go with that.

Like Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretions.

mimi

Ya know, I've only just thought about the fact that not all animals see the same... some only b&w, some without depth cues, etc. But does that mean that their reality, by definition, is different? Or just the perception of the reality?

We are always the more superior - how to we know that another individual within our species, or another species altogether perceives more than us? What if there are few among us with rare genetic mutations not unlike colour-blindness which enhance rather than hinder their sight?

That turned out to be a bit of a ramble - and know I am basing this purely on sight, too - but it seems to be the most primary of the senses.

Koyaanisqatsi

Oh, great. Yet another variation on solipsism.

What "lack of evidence" are you referring to?

Here's a quick little experiment for you. Type the following glyphs back to us in your response: I did not think of this sentence.

If you don't do as I ask, then you've reallized you're the solipsist (since there can be only one), in which case stop f*cking imagining us so we can get some much needed annihilation.

If you do, then you have conclusively proved through direct and verifiable evidence that there is an external world to your existence and your senses merely register it, not create it.

Do you have the ability to recreate it in any fashion your imagination desires? Yes, you do. Can you imagine all sorts of things that you don't see in your waking or non-imaginative state? Yes, you can.

Can you see them in your waking or non-imaginative state without the aid of drugs or audio/visual technological manipulations or sleep deprivation or recalling your imaginative creation (i.e., by closing your eyes or doing a mental superimposition)? No, you can't.

So what does that body of evidence lead you to conclude about how your senses are registering (or not registering) objective reality?

If a tree falls it still makes a sound wave. Whether or not there is something to register that wave is irrelevant to the wave itself. It exists, whether you or anything else is around to "hear" it.

I have red/green color blindness, which means I can't easily discern subtle hues (i.e., I see dark blue as black). Does that mean my personal experience of dark blue is black or does that mean that I have a faulty hue detection system? I'll save you the intellectual cunnundrum; it's both, but one does not negate the other.

I will go my entire life thinking, off hand, that dark blue is black. Am I right? No, I am not. Does it matter? Yes, it does, since it means that I am at fault and not the color spectrum or the concept of a color spectrum or the objective nature of that color spectrum. I am fundamentally incorrect in my offhand assessment of the difference between dark blue and black, which can easily be verified by a spectrograph ad nauseam. In other words, I will always be wrong, no matter how much I insist that my own experience of "dark blueness" is "black." Get it? I'm wrong, qualitatively and quantitatively.

That means I have a choice. I can either ignore the evidence proving that I am wrong, or I can accept that I am at fault and not the "universe." If I do the former, I'm nothing more than an idiot.

You can't see in the ultraviolet wavelength (without technology); so does that mean we aren't "real" to animals that can only see in this wavelength? No, it does not. It only means that their sensory input devices are not tuned to our wavelength.

Following the reasoning yet?

Just ask a blind person if there is any such thing as an objective "reality" and you'll grow beyond Freshman Philosophy 101.



And, just so "we're" clear; if you (anyone, for that matter) continue to argue that only you exist (which is the logical extension of any such arguments as you've presented in your OP), then you have effectively ended all future interaction, since, again, that means everything you do or think or practice or preach is utterly without merit or point and the discussion is over.

If you don't accept the evidence presented and find ways to easily verify it, then you are without the ability to do so anyway and any further discussion with you would be utterly pointless for all concerned.

So, which is it? You accept what you are right now reading as conclusive proof that there is an objective reality independent of your existence or perception of it, or you do not, in which case we can cease responding as figments of your imagination?

By the way, that was a trick question, since the instant you respond to anything is the instant you conclusively prove that there is an external reality beyond your perception of it.

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. Either you accept the overwhelming evidence surrounding you or you do not. If you do not, then there is never any point in you doing or thinking or speaking anything ever, since everything around you is just a figment of your imagination.