Reality? Yes or no?

[Hegel]

Is there a reality? Do we all see the same reality, or is the assumtion that thy reality is the same as everyone elses wrong? If so what do you think does exist?

[luvtinayothers]

I don't know. I'm drunk right now.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Hegel
Is there a reality? Do we all see the same reality, or is the assumtion that thy reality is the same as everyone elses wrong?

My view : There is indeed a reality. We see an interpretation of a very small portion of it. Each person sees a slightly different interpretation. A colour blind person sees reality somewhat differently than I do, for instance.

If so what do you think does exist?

I'm not sure it's a meaningful question to ask what "really" exists.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm with Seismo: There may be a reality, but it is meaningless to ask what it is. Something like that.

~~ Paul

[Yahweh]

Reality exists as the totality of all things that exist objectively and in factuality (the universe if you dont like complex definitions). Most people make the common mistake of assuming reality and perception are the same. Perception is the observation and understanding of reality.

Its absurd to believe that one's perception can change reality (such as the belief that if one can conceive of an idea, then it exists).

Reality is an incredibly complicated subject to contemplate, its probably the most hotly debated and issue in Philosophy.

Edited to capitalize the word "Philosophy"... why, just cuz.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[BIts absurd to believe that one's perception can change reality (such as the belief that if one can conceive of an idea, then it exists).[/B]

Just for clarification, why is it absurd to believe that one's perceptions can alter one's reality? After all what if the assumtion that we all share the same reality is wrong? If it is right can we prove it? If it is wrong can we prove it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Most people make the common mistake of assuming reality and perception are the same. [/B]

Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain why that is a mistake? :rolleyes:

[espritch]

Just for clarification, why is it absurd to believe that one's perceptions can alter one's reality? After all what if the assumtion that we all share the same reality is wrong? If it is right can we prove it? If it is wrong can we prove it?

For the sake of argument, I'll give it a shot. I purpose an experiment wherein I drop a large rock on your toe. In my reality, this sort of experience tends to result in pain and discomfort. If it produces a similar result in your reality, then we have established that, at least in this respect, our realities operate in a similar fashion. We can conduct similar experiments to establish other similarities in our respective realities. Once we have obtained a fairly sizeable number of such observations, we are left to conclude that either we inhabit separate realities that operate in a similar fashion or we inhabit the same reality. Parsimony would tend to favor the second option.

As far as personal perceptions altering your reality, we could also test that. I could repeat the first experiment while you close your eyes. I’m willing to bet a shiny new nickel that the results would not be altered to any significant degree. This would suggest that your personal perceptions make very little difference to your reality.

[drowden]

If "Reality" is defined as the totality of all things (as Yaweh quite reasonably suggested) then it is clearly absurd to suggest that we don't share the same Reality. To do so would necessitate arguing that one (or something) exists outside of the totality of all things.



Dan Rowden

[evildave]

If I perceive that Interesting Ian is actually an eight year old girl, and reality and perception are the same, then it must be true.

Of course, this is not true. Well, probably not. If God can exist in the space between impossible and highly improbable, certainly Ian might be a little girl.

:wink8:

In all seriousness, a perception of "hopelessness" in a situation can literally doom you to death when, struggling just a little more might get you to safety.

People who apparently have everything qualifying for what you might consider a "dream life" commit suicide. They perceive that live is not worth living. They quit.

People who grow up in poverty, yet perceive a better life is available through simple and consistent labor can achieve it. Those who do not pereive a better possible future will generally continue to live in povery. Maybe go to jail.

If you perceive the world is run by angels and demons and devils pulling the strings, you might be ill-equipped to cope with the mundane reality that people do just about everything. (Machines do much of the rest.) The bad AND the good.

Perception and reality are different things.

The model is not the reality.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Hegel
Is there a reality?

Yup. Seems to be--

Do we all see the same reality, or is the assumtion that thy reality is the same as everyone elses wrong?

I figure that the reality I see is pretty much the same as everyone else's, even though we can disagree on the particulars of what we're seeing. There seems to be an objective reality reality out there once we assume our way past solipsism and make allowances for the fact that folks tend to interpret things differently from time to time.

If so what do you think does exist?

If my reality's not the same as everybody else's? I guess a reality that's so damn close to being like everyone else's as to hardly make it worth mentioning the differences, assuming that there are some. What the difference between folks experiencing the same reality and folks simultaneously experiencing different realities that are indistinguishable from one another?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I hope so, otherwise driving on the free way seems like it may get pretty dangerous astraffic and speeding laws would become meaningless.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Hegel


Just for clarification, why is it absurd to believe that one's perceptions can alter one's reality?
I think evildave did a good job when he said "If I perceive that Interesting Ian is actually an eight year old girl, and reality and perception are the same, then it must be true".

If you believe something is true, it does not make it true. There is a method, call it a scientific method if you want, that provides support for or against any and all falsifyable beliefs.

First, schizophrenics have difficulty (or in severe cases are completely incapable) to distinguish reality from unreality. If they percieve reality in the way that they see pretty pretty pixies flying all over the room, clearly (via scientific, logical, and empirical reason) there are not pixies flying around them. (Note: Schizophrenia is quite an "unspecific" mental disorder, my example does not encompass all facets and definitions of schizophrenia).

Yet another dilemma, human dreams. In a dream, you believe everything is real, your understanding (perception) of world you are exposed (namely your dreams) does not make the the giant screaming cockroaches exist in reality (assumption based on scientific and philosophical reasoning).

Colorblindness is not uncommon, yet some colorblind people have no understanding of conception of color. That is the perception they have of reality, but it in no impacts reality so that all other people as well have no concept of color.

Because all humans are exposed the same reality, yet many humans perceive the reality differently (whether it be schizophrenics, dreams, different philosophical beliefs, etc.). Those are perceptions (the understanding of reality), not reality (the totality of yada yada yada).

After all what if the assumtion that we all share the same reality is wrong?
I believe we all share the same reality, we just percieve it in our own individual ways.

The "what if you were wrong" is not a way to make a justification. The phrase itself is not a arguement of logic or science. To say the least, its (kinda) an arguement of very evasive intellectual appeal, its not a valid arguement (if it is valid, it is very shakey in my opinion).

If it is right can we prove it? If it is wrong can we prove it?
The assumption is supported by materialistic Philosophical reasoning (remember, immaterialism is Philosophically valid, but the problem Philosophical valid stems from the fact that it ignores empirical and scientific evidence in favor of logic). I also support my assumption with empirical Psychology (when I cited dreams, schizophrenia, and colorblindness). I also supported my assumption with science, in the way that there are no known biological or neurological factors that suggest that any perception of reality can alter reality (to look at this as an individual arguement by suggesting "just cuz theres no evidence now wont mean we wont find evidence later" would be an incorrect form or analysis). The assumption is also based on logic, especially when you consider my alltime favorite quote from Sherlock Holmes "Once you've elimated the impossible, all that remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth".

Finally, I derived my definition of reality (thank you dictionary.com for helping find the appropriate words) from my own education, all the things I said are taught in any college "Philosophical Theory" course (not a form or "proof" obviously, just a form of credibility).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
------------------------------------------------------
Most people make the common mistake of assuming reality and perception are the same.
------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain why that is a mistake? :rolleyes:
Not at all hard to explain. Reality has a different definition than Perception. (Based on my own psychological observation) People have a tendency to think they are the same.

In the same way, most people tend to make the mistake of assuming a hypothesis is the same as a theory.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by espritch


For the sake of argument, I'll give it a shot. I purpose an experiment wherein I drop a large rock on your toe. In my reality, this sort of experience tends to result in pain and discomfort. If it produces a similar result in your reality, then we have established that, at least in this respect, our realities operate in a similar fashion. We can conduct similar experiments to establish other similarities in our respective realities. Once we have obtained a fairly sizeable number of such observations, we are left to conclude that either we inhabit separate realities that operate in a similar fashion or we inhabit the same reality. Parsimony would tend to favor the second option.

As far as personal perceptions altering your reality, we could also test that. I could repeat the first experiment while you close your eyes. I’m willing to bet a shiny new nickel that the results would not be altered to any significant degree. This would suggest that your personal perceptions make very little difference to your reality.
Great example :cool:! And nice addition of using the scientific method to support it!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
Not at all hard to explain. Reality has a different definition than Perception. (Based on my own psychological observation) People have a tendency to think they are the same.



Er . . .excuse me? I don't give a flying f*ck whether reality has a different definition or not! I want to know why you don't think our perceptions constitute reality? Why is it stupid to suppose otherwise?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Er . . .excuse me? I don't give a flying f*ck whether reality has a different definition or not!
Holy Crap! Shock value, I didnt expect that...

I want to know why you don't think our perceptions constitute reality?
Because I believe we all live in the same reality. All people capable of perceiving reality do perceive reality. Some might perceive it in one way, others perceive it in their own way. You cant suggest for every one way a person understands the world around them, that there is seperate alternative reality.

Most importantly, Perceptions also dont constitute as a reality because thats not what it means. Perceptions are an understanding of reality, they are not reality themselves. (I'll try to use religion as an example as best I can) In the same way, science is cosmic explanation, religion is cosmic purpose (although some try to turn it into explanation for whatever reasons).

Why is it stupid to suppose otherwise?
Because its a confusion of what things are supposed to mean. (Just an example) It'd be pretty stupid (and arrogant) of me to assume that evolution was a hypothesis simply because I considered evolution to be an "educated guess".

[Some Friggin Guy]

Is there a reality?

Frankly, I find this to be one of the silliest questions I have ever been asked.

OF COURSE there's a reality! If there was no reality, who would sell our homes? Who would allow us to buy property? Where would all the people who work for Remax go?

I mean, without reality, I would have never been able to become a home owner and...

wait a minute...


I'm thinking of realty.


Sorry.

[joyrex]

If we think of reality as a sum of all things that exist, then it would be same for everyone (regardless of perception), wouldn't it?

But if we personally analyze our perception (for example, establish that trees in a landspace actually get more blue the more there is distance between them and the perceiver - which is an illusion) and make assumptions from from this and then create our reality according to those assumptions / beliefs, then reality would be different for everyone.

It's up to the meaning of the word.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by joyrex
If we think of reality as a sum of all things that exist, then it would be same for everyone (regardless of perception), wouldn't it?/quote]
Yes, very true.

[quote]But if we personally analyze our perception (for example, establish that trees in a landspace actually get more blue the more there is distance between them and the perceiver - which is an illusion) and make assumptions from from this and then create our reality according to those assumptions / beliefs, then reality would be different for everyone.
If you start to see more blue, are the trees actually turning blue. While your at it, are you actually moving away from the trees, or are you a fixed point and those trees just happen to be getting smaller (just for clarification, a stoner doesnt have the attention span to think that much... as far as he's concerened "wow, blue trees" is all he cares about). Perception or reality does not alter reality.

It's up to the meaning of the word.
You also dont want to mix it up with other words.

[joyrex]

Okay, so there are no individual realities, but individual interpretations of reality.

So it is settled. :)

[Hegel]

Originally posted by Yahweh

First, schizophrenics have difficulty (or in severe cases are completely incapable) to distinguish reality from unreality. If they percieve reality in the way that they see pretty pretty pixies flying all over the room, clearly (via scientific, logical, and empirical reason) there are not pixies flying around them. (Note: Schizophrenia is quite an "unspecific" mental disorder, my example does not encompass all facets and definitions of schizophrenia).

Just a simple thought experiment. What if it is not the schizophrenics seeing what is not there, but you not seeing what is there. Just a thought (WOW what if there really are flying pixies and some of us poor people can't see them!;))

Yet another dilemma, human dreams. In a dream, you believe everything is real, your understanding (perception) of world you are exposed (namely your dreams) does not make the the giant screaming cockroaches exist in reality (assumption based on scientific and philosophical reasoning).

Could you please expand on the philosophical reasoning? (After all, if the assumtion of shared reality is wrong then scientific reasoning really doesn't work anymore.)

The "what if you were wrong" is not a way to make a justification. The phrase itself is not a arguement of logic or science. To say the least, its (kinda) an arguement of very evasive intellectual appeal, its not a valid arguement (if it is valid, it is very shakey in my opinion).

I'm sorry it came out that way. What I actually meant was more along the lines of "why don't we try a thought experiment and see what happens if this assumtion is wrong.)