Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

What is real?

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 10:18:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?

Maybe it was an analogy. Or hypothetical or metaphorical. Anything else to add?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 10:22:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 10:18:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?

Maybe it was an analogy. Or hypothetical or metaphorical. Anything else to add?

Yes. You can always derive nonsense from poor definitions and premises.

Which of the items you listed are not physical, don't have a physical basis, or are not mental constructs relating to something physical (that includes abstractions and extrapolations)?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 10:25:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 10:22:28 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:18:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?

Maybe it was an analogy. Or hypothetical or metaphorical. Anything else to add?

Yes. You can always derive nonsense from poor definitions and premises.

Which of the items you listed are not physical, don't have a physical basis, or are not mental constructs relating to something physical (that includes abstractions and extrapolations)?

A thought. for sure. it doesn't matter it relates to something physical. The thought itself is not physical. It more than the sum of it's parts.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 10:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 10:25:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:22:28 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:18:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?

Maybe it was an analogy. Or hypothetical or metaphorical. Anything else to add?

Yes. You can always derive nonsense from poor definitions and premises.

Which of the items you listed are not physical, don't have a physical basis, or are not mental constructs relating to something physical (that includes abstractions and extrapolations)?

A thought. for sure. it doesn't matter it relates to something physical. The thought itself is not physical. It more than the sum of it's parts.

What exactly is the non-physical aspect of the thought?

In what way is it synergistic?

This is an interesting topic for me, and ( would guess that you have some ideas about this from the philosophical side that are new to me.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 4:40:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does something that exists only in your head, exist? If i imagine a purple unicorn with pink spots does a purple unicorn with pink spots exist or is it just the thought that exists?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 6:37:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

You been watching the matrix again haven't you ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 6:58:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
watching? Lol I'm stuck inside it.

At 5/8/2015 6:37:41 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

You been watching the matrix again haven't you ?

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 7:15:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 10:29:51 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:25:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:22:28 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:18:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?

Maybe it was an analogy. Or hypothetical or metaphorical. Anything else to add?

Yes. You can always derive nonsense from poor definitions and premises.

Which of the items you listed are not physical, don't have a physical basis, or are not mental constructs relating to something physical (that includes abstractions and extrapolations)?

A thought. for sure. it doesn't matter it relates to something physical. The thought itself is not physical. It more than the sum of it's parts.

What exactly is the non-physical aspect of the thought?

In what way is it synergistic?

This is an interesting topic for me, and ( would guess that you have some ideas about this from the philosophical side that are new to me.

How about 'mind'?
Is the mind physical or real?
We should be able to agree that a mind is a functioning brain.
Is it merely the chemical or electrical activity of the brain, nothing more?

How about experiences?
Are they real? Are they a part of reality, or merely iindividual constructs.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:09:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 7:15:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:29:51 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:25:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:22:28 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:18:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?

Maybe it was an analogy. Or hypothetical or metaphorical. Anything else to add?

Yes. You can always derive nonsense from poor definitions and premises.

Which of the items you listed are not physical, don't have a physical basis, or are not mental constructs relating to something physical (that includes abstractions and extrapolations)?

A thought. for sure. it doesn't matter it relates to something physical. The thought itself is not physical. It more than the sum of it's parts.

What exactly is the non-physical aspect of the thought?

In what way is it synergistic?

This is an interesting topic for me, and ( would guess that you have some ideas about this from the philosophical side that are new to me.

How about 'mind'?
Is the mind physical or real?
We should be able to agree that a mind is a functioning brain.
Is it merely the chemical or electrical activity of the brain, nothing more?

How about experiences?
Are they real? Are they a part of reality, or merely iindividual constructs.

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that the hard problem of consciousness has not been definitively solved.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 11:58:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 8:09:14 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/8/2015 7:15:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:29:51 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:25:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:22:28 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:18:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2015 10:10:48 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Have you actually ever heard anyone define "real" that way? Something that can be held in the hand?

Maybe it was an analogy. Or hypothetical or metaphorical. Anything else to add?

Yes. You can always derive nonsense from poor definitions and premises.

Which of the items you listed are not physical, don't have a physical basis, or are not mental constructs relating to something physical (that includes abstractions and extrapolations)?

A thought. for sure. it doesn't matter it relates to something physical. The thought itself is not physical. It more than the sum of it's parts.

What exactly is the non-physical aspect of the thought?

In what way is it synergistic?

This is an interesting topic for me, and ( would guess that you have some ideas about this from the philosophical side that are new to me.

How about 'mind'?
Is the mind physical or real?
We should be able to agree that a mind is a functioning brain.
Is it merely the chemical or electrical activity of the brain, nothing more?

How about experiences?
Are they real? Are they a part of reality, or merely iindividual constructs.

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that the hard problem of consciousness has not been definitively solved.

Well, in science things are never really 'definitely solved', just a good answer until something better comes along, as I understand it.
In philosophy, we sometimes solve such questions for ourselves, so we can live with ourselves. If something better comes along, so be it, but no need to wait.
If we do not know if the mind is real, or if our experiences are real, it can make living rather difficult, for some of us.
Science will catch up eventually, it always does.

Mind is real. Not all of reality of course, just a part of it.
My experiences are real as they occur. Then I have the memories of them, as they no longer exist.
I decided that a long time ago.
Not that you asked.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 4:12:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 6:37:41 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

You been watching the matrix again haven't you ?


"My name is Mhykiel" versus "ke hMlY mn aeyMisi" Which one has more to it?

Well the one conveying a thought or concept has more to it then it's composition.
background
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 5:29:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are two ways of describing reality. On one hand you have the objective reality, which includes all the things that can be perceived or measured and so be confirmed by any human being (like there's an object called the moon orbiting our planet, the Himalaya is the highest mountain on earth, plants produce oxygen and glucose out of sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, and so on). The subjective reality however describes the world in terms of what you personally think and feel when you perceive the world, which includes your thoughts, your emotions and the conclusions you're making. I love my girlfriend and I'm pretty sure she feels the same for me. But there's no way of measuring or describing that feeling in an objective way. The only way of retracing it is being that person itself.
But subjectivity can also be productive:
I can have the wish and the will to fly, but that still doesn't make me have wings. At that point I could just give up on that idea. But my curiosity (which is an attitude of subjectivity as well) makes me observe and describe nature (in this case: flight characteristics of birds) and reproduce that property artificially. So after years of research and hard work, that thought, which seemed to be absurd in first place, now really has become an option.
We have to make clear to ourselves that there's no limit to imagination, curiosity and therefore to new inventions. If there was, we would not have developed as we did. The cooperation between objective and subjective perception makes it possible (and eliminates determinism along the way).
The world is made of processes, not things.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 6:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
except that logical conclusion has led you to this belief. Thus determanism stands.

To decide what is real we need to stand at the border between real and imaginary. That point is the mind. Lets take a thought. An idea. It exists, but only in our head. One might say its imagined. If its imagined it doesn't exist. If it didn't exist, we couldn't imagine it.
So we say a thought exists but it isn't real. It only exists in our mind. So we have something that exists but is not real. So what is real? What we see, hear, feel, taste and smell? Then real is just electrical impulses sent to the brain. How is that any different from a thought?

At 5/10/2015 5:29:07 AM, background wrote:
There are two ways of describing reality. On one hand you have the objective reality, which includes all the things that can be perceived or measured and so be confirmed by any human being (like there's an object called the moon orbiting our planet, the Himalaya is the highest mountain on earth, plants produce oxygen and glucose out of sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, and so on). The subjective reality however describes the world in terms of what you personally think and feel when you perceive the world, which includes your thoughts, your emotions and the conclusions you're making. I love my girlfriend and I'm pretty sure she feels the same for me. But there's no way of measuring or describing that feeling in an objective way. The only way of retracing it is being that person itself.
But subjectivity can also be productive:
I can have the wish and the will to fly, but that still doesn't make me have wings. At that point I could just give up on that idea. But my curiosity (which is an attitude of subjectivity as well) makes me observe and describe nature (in this case: flight characteristics of birds) and reproduce that property artificially. So after years of research and hard work, that thought, which seemed to be absurd in first place, now really has become an option.
We have to make clear to ourselves that there's no limit to imagination, curiosity and therefore to new inventions. If there was, we would not have developed as we did. The cooperation between objective and subjective perception makes it possible (and eliminates determinism along the way).
background
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 8:08:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 6:25:22 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
except that logical conclusion has led you to this belief. Thus determanism stands.

To decide what is real we need to stand at the border between real and imaginary. That point is the mind. Lets take a thought. An idea. It exists, but only in our head. One might say its imagined. If its imagined it doesn't exist. If it didn't exist, we couldn't imagine it.
So we say a thought exists but it isn't real. It only exists in our mind. So we have something that exists but is not real. So what is real? What we see, hear, feel, taste and smell? Then real is just electrical impulses sent to the brain. How is that any different from a thought?

At 5/10/2015 5:29:07 AM, background wrote:
There are two ways of describing reality. On one hand you have the objective reality, which includes all the things that can be perceived or measured and so be confirmed by any human being (like there's an object called the moon orbiting our planet, the Himalaya is the highest mountain on earth, plants produce oxygen and glucose out of sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, and so on). The subjective reality however describes the world in terms of what you personally think and feel when you perceive the world, which includes your thoughts, your emotions and the conclusions you're making. I love my girlfriend and I'm pretty sure she feels the same for me. But there's no way of measuring or describing that feeling in an objective way. The only way of retracing it is being that person itself.
But subjectivity can also be productive:
I can have the wish and the will to fly, but that still doesn't make me have wings. At that point I could just give up on that idea. But my curiosity (which is an attitude of subjectivity as well) makes me observe and describe nature (in this case: flight characteristics of birds) and reproduce that property artificially. So after years of research and hard work, that thought, which seemed to be absurd in first place, now really has become an option.
We have to make clear to ourselves that there's no limit to imagination, curiosity and therefore to new inventions. If there was, we would not have developed as we did. The cooperation between objective and subjective perception makes it possible (and eliminates determinism along the way).

A mathematical equation can be described as logical, the behavior of an isolated system can be deduced as logical as well (you can describe it mathematically). Logic only exists in systems that are completely described. If you do know all the rules and laws that govern a system (a good example would be chemical substances that react at a certain pressure and temperature) you can logically conclude what is going to happen next. But you have no full description of the human brain, nor of the consciousness. And that's because of the incapability of logic to include itself into a system that evolves in time.
Time isn't a sequence of logical events. It's a sequence of evolving events. Causality itself evolves by increasing its own possibilities. For ex. a 1000 years ago people living in a village only met about 200 other people in their entire life. 1000 years later I can pick up my cell phone and call anyone out of 5 billion people!
You can say that every single subsystem has a certain logical sequence. But this is only true when they are described separately. In our world all this subsystems are merged, influencing each other. The laws that are true for the subsystem, aren't true if you try to describe the system as a whole and on a bigger scale.
The world is made of processes, not things.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 8:30:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
what exactly causes it to evolve? I'll tell you. External events. What causes your logic to change? Again its external events. It may not happen immediately so you don't realise what has altered you view on something, but trust me, nothing changes direction unless force is applied on it. So your decision today can be different tomorrow. But today it is set. Predetermined by past events. Unless a new event alters it, your choice won't change.

At 5/10/2015 8:08:25 AM, background wrote:
At 5/10/2015 6:25:22 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
except that logical conclusion has led you to this belief. Thus determanism stands.

To decide what is real we need to stand at the border between real and imaginary. That point is the mind. Lets take a thought. An idea. It exists, but only in our head. One might say its imagined. If its imagined it doesn't exist. If it didn't exist, we couldn't imagine it.
So we say a thought exists but it isn't real. It only exists in our mind. So we have something that exists but is not real. So what is real? What we see, hear, feel, taste and smell? Then real is just electrical impulses sent to the brain. How is that any different from a thought?

At 5/10/2015 5:29:07 AM, background wrote:
There are two ways of describing reality. On one hand you have the objective reality, which includes all the things that can be perceived or measured and so be confirmed by any human being (like there's an object called the moon orbiting our planet, the Himalaya is the highest mountain on earth, plants produce oxygen and glucose out of sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, and so on). The subjective reality however describes the world in terms of what you personally think and feel when you perceive the world, which includes your thoughts, your emotions and the conclusions you're making. I love my girlfriend and I'm pretty sure she feels the same for me. But there's no way of measuring or describing that feeling in an objective way. The only way of retracing it is being that person itself.
But subjectivity can also be productive:
I can have the wish and the will to fly, but that still doesn't make me have wings. At that point I could just give up on that idea. But my curiosity (which is an attitude of subjectivity as well) makes me observe and describe nature (in this case: flight characteristics of birds) and reproduce that property artificially. So after years of research and hard work, that thought, which seemed to be absurd in first place, now really has become an option.
We have to make clear to ourselves that there's no limit to imagination, curiosity and therefore to new inventions. If there was, we would not have developed as we did. The cooperation between objective and subjective perception makes it possible (and eliminates determinism along the way).

A mathematical equation can be described as logical, the behavior of an isolated system can be deduced as logical as well (you can describe it mathematically). Logic only exists in systems that are completely described. If you do know all the rules and laws that govern a system (a good example would be chemical substances that react at a certain pressure and temperature) you can logically conclude what is going to happen next. But you have no full description of the human brain, nor of the consciousness. And that's because of the incapability of logic to include itself into a system that evolves in time.
Time isn't a sequence of logical events. It's a sequence of evolving events. Causality itself evolves by increasing its own possibilities. For ex. a 1000 years ago people living in a village only met about 200 other people in their entire life. 1000 years later I can pick up my cell phone and call anyone out of 5 billion people!
You can say that every single subsystem has a certain logical sequence. But this is only true when they are described separately. In our world all this subsystems are merged, influencing each other. The laws that are true for the subsystem, aren't true if you try to describe the system as a whole and on a bigger scale.
jkhiggons
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 11:31:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is real in as much as it is what you say it is. Some of these things you said are measure words, clearly for things that do exist. Things that are observable exist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:34:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

I find this problem with existence too. For me, to exist is to occupy space, yet heat, light, emotion, etc then doesnt exist. This is what makes philosophy so fun and exciting. The constant need to modify theories, throw out definitions and make new ones. Really the only way you percieve the world is through your five senses, which are all hooked up to yoour mind. Hence, "Reality only exists in the mind" Orwell? Therefore if you could connect to somebodies mind you could artifially create senses, you create an entirely nother reality, is this real reality? (I think this was a movie yet I forgot its name.) The best way to conclude this is that reality only exists in the mind. That is the only thing we can know more certain in this world.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 2:38:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The main problem is the word imagine. Most people believe imagine implies imaginary. An idea can exist in our mind. We see it. It is not imaginary. But it is not real. Likewise a optical illusion creates a image in our mind. We see it, so it is not imaginary but neither is it real. It exists only in our mind. Ie, we imagine it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 4:20:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots.

Your utility bills are real. Don't think so? Don't pay them. If you really thought they were not real why would you waste your time working to earn money and going online or writing out a check to pay them. But you can not pay them and sit in the dark and silence and still believe they are not real. Free will.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
mindbender
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 10:04:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:14:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot of people seem to define "real" as being something that can be measured, held in the hand, physical.

Does this mean that an emotion is not real?

Numbers are not real?

Time is not real?

Thought real?

Love real?

With so much we experience in life being an illusion, is it safer to say "real" is an illusion.

How did we ever evolve a mind so obsessed with "fantasy"? wouldn't it be more advantageous for hominids to evolve a brain that calculates only the most real of experiences. Like robots. : :

Have you watched any videos like this one?
https://www.youtube.com...