Definition of Reality

Invitation to Jackofalltardes, Prothero, Jeeprs et al (plus anyone who wants to join in) on the slightly off thread (previously) discussion on the nature of reality and how we can define it without reference to direct experince. Originally (for the uninitiated) posted on the "What is matter in the quantum age" thread. Posted in this section but it could fit in on many different sections. My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind, especially in light of quantum physics seemingly saying that subatomic particles seem to pass no test of existence themselves?" Anyone not previously involved in the discussion should perhaps look at the above thread.

Housby,

Thanks for the invite, but i may again disappoint you. The question you have posed has got nothing to do with language per se. The prompting or suggestion was to bring the issue of semantics in respect to the difference of opinion on Instincts and Intuition, into this particular section where all can opine their own meanings and understandings of those concepts.

on Reality, it can be posed in sections exclusively for metaphysics, epistemiology, mind etc.

Sorry for the confusion.

jackofalltrades,
I am also not quite on your wavelength with this. I acknowledged that this could be in almost any section. The semantics tag is really just part of a greater whole. The whole discussion will inevitably involve terminology, which can be and often is one of the major problems in discussing this. Ask the question, "What is real" and you will get different answers depending on who you are talking to or where in the world you are.
Kenneth,
Your quote about reality looks very Cartesian. Not a critiscism, just an observation. Could you expand?

jackofalltrades,
I am also not quite on your wavelength with this. I acknowledged that this could be in almost any section. The semantics tag is really just part of a greater whole. The whole discussion will inevitably involve terminology, which can be and often is one of the major problems in discussing this. Ask the question, "What is real" and you will get different answers depending on who you are talking to or where in the world you are.

For instance, we all know that there was a Moon, and stars way before there were people who believed that those objects existed. Therefore, they were real. They would remain even if people stopped believing they existed, since they existed before anyone believed they existed.

This isn't especially Cartesian. It is how the term "real" is used in English.

Invitation to Jackofalltardes, Prothero, Jeeprs et al (plus anyone who wants to join in) on the slightly off thread (previously) discussion on the nature of reality and how we can define it without reference to direct experince. Originally (for the uninitiated) posted on the "What is matter in the quantum age" thread. Posted in this section but it could fit in on many different sections. My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind, especially in light of quantum physics seemingly saying that subatomic particles seem to pass no test of existence themselves?" Anyone not previously involved in the discussion should perhaps look at the above thread.

All definitions are in reference to direct experience, even of infinites like Love, and God...Some body always got there first...And all we can do is confirm or deny the definition..

... My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind...

Kenneth,
Exactly how do we all know that the moon and stars existed before people believed in them? Who was there to witness their existence?

Science has reams of evidence for that, as we all know. You have heard of carbon dating, and other ways of telling the ages of things. Haven't you? Besides, didn't there have to be an Earth in the first place for people to evolve on? Otherwise, where did they come from in the first place? How do you explain there being people on Earth if the Earth did not exist before people?

Science relies on evidence. Evidence is data. Data relies on senses. Senses are workings of the mind. The earth that "people" rely on is a collection of data, which is in the mind. Carbon dating (yes, I know what it is) is a collection of data and therefore is a working of the mind, so even that must be questioned. You see where I am coming from? Any proof of reality relies on evidence from the very thing we are trying to prove the existence of. My problem is trying to think outside the box to prove that the box exists in the first place.
Khethil,
In this rarified air there are no absolutes and this is not in any sense a trick question. Is it not right that we should question even that that we question with?

I am going to go with the analytic philosophers, and linguistic analysis on this. "reality" is not a property of the world or our experience. It is a "term,word,concept" that we employ in speaking about various aspects of our experience and the world. "reality" has no meaning other than the definition we give to it. Our conception of what is "real" is bound up with our notions of many other metaphysical problems.
Rationalism/empiricism/phenomenology
truth/knowledge/experience
realism/idealism

I am going to go with the analytic philosophers, and linguistic analysis on this. "reality" is not a property of the world or our experience. It is a "term,word,concept" that we employ in speaking about various aspects of our experience and the world. "reality" has no meaning other than the definition we give to it. Our conception of what is "real" is bound up with our notions of many other metaphysical problems.
Rationalism/empiricism/phenomenology
truth/knowledge/experience
realism/idealism

What is real is what is not imaginary (like a mirage): Or not fake, like an artificial diamond. I don't know whether this shows that it is a term, word, or concept. I would have thought that "real" is a term and word, and the concept of reality was a concept.

All words are abstractions...All words are concepts...If a concept/form is considered as a mental reflection of reality, it is not the thing reflected; but it is common to consider the thing and its reflection as one... No one stands before a mirror and asks: who is that...Then what do we say if we have the reflection without the object, as in moral forms, and how do we begin to agree that our words point to the same moral object???.It is very easy to come to some agreement as to the nature of reality, as res, thing...All moral reality, which is our social and cultural environment, is also reflected subjectively, and as made up of infinites, cannot be defined except subjectively...Moral reality has meaning without being, except that these meanings rest on the bed rock of our reality, which is our lives,and this is the reality that gives all reality meaning.

A being experiences reality through the stream of time. Reality is the illusion of existence that occurs as a result of experiencing time.