What is Real?

@mars90000000,

You are real, because you wrote all that.

0 Replies

@mars90000000,

what you described about " real " is just limited in physics. There are many " real " upon this physical environment but those are hidden of eyes but not hidden of the lucid thought.

0 Replies

Okay, so it's one think to ask oneself "What" is real... But how about... "When" is real? "Who" is real? "Where" is real? "How" is real?

2 Replies

@mars90000000,

Quote:

Okay, so it's one think to ask oneself "What" is real... But how about... "When" is real? "Who" is real? "Where" is real? "How" is real?

I think " what exist "

0 Replies

@mars90000000,

mars90000000 wrote:

Okay, so it's one think to ask oneself "What" is real... But how about... "When" is real? "Who" is real? "Where" is real? "How" is real?

All of them are real because what, when, who, where, and how all relate with real, one way or another --- thought, perception, belief, and non- descriptive words, not related with real, are not real. However, they could all evolve into real under certain kinds of situations.

"A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds" anon

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I guess everything is real in some way; maybe the question should be for every phenomenon, what is it ? What is its reality? Is it a real illusion or a concrete phenomenon? This is difficult. But could someone tell me--point to--something that is not real?

If you can detect it --- see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it, it's real.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

So that includes everything in our world. As you say, "If you can detect it--see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it, it's real."

1 Reply

I ask "When" and "Where" is real because for example, some people believe in life after death... Which neither now, nor here, so in that case, is it still real?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

So that includes everything in our world. As you say, "If you can detect it--see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it, it's real."

Ever thought about what life would be without our five senses -- can't see it, can't hear it, can't feel it, can't taste it, can't smell it

2 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Not a problem. We wouldn't last very long without our senses.

0 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

JLNobody wrote:

So that includes everything in our world. As you say, "If you can detect it--see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it, it's real."

Quote:

Ever thought about what life would be without our five senses -- can't see it, can't hear it, can't feel it, can't taste it, can't smell it

fine

what is real though is what it takes to make the senses possible in the first place

biology

and what does our biology need ?

nutrients

and where do these nutrients come from ?

many come from minerals

minerals are real , despite the fact you can niether taste , feel , see , hear or smell any of them

0 Replies

Generally, what we all can verify, what we all can observe and agree on, is considered real. Personally I think this definition is too narrow. There are levels of "real" that must be considered. The requirements for an emotion to be real, for instance, are not the same as the requirements for a stone to be real.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

When thinking of the range of reality, the only limits are dictated by functional context. Does the chair you are currently sitting on have "reality" ? Does that hair on the carpet have "reality" ?....surely "reality" only raises its head when the flow is interrupted and a focal point is identified...otherwise it is a vacuous concept. Thus "rocks" in general have no "reality", but this rock which I tripped over and came to my attention became a candidate for the verbal label "rock" which I acquired through socialization. And it is the persistence of labels such as that which I project outwards as a "persistent world" despite the fact that all is in flux including every particle of my own body.

1 Reply

@fresco,

The key phrases 'functional context' and 'acquired through socialization' really nail it for me. As you say, a chair only has reality through it's functional context.
Does that mean that ideas of 'absolute reality' are merely generalizations of very specific experiences which we superimpose on our surroundings?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

As I have argued elsewhere, "absolute reality" implies a "God's eye view" which transcends the flux. The fact that we as homo sapiens (a common physiology) have many comon functional contexts in which labels are not disputed
gives the illusion of a permanent independent "reality".

2 Replies

@fresco,

Yes, I recall you saying that several times. But it's good, every time. Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

Yes, I agree that "'absolute reality' implies a 'God's eye view." But I'm not sure anything "transcends the flux" of reality, even abstractions (even though such a transcendence is their function). I like to think that when I am referring to "absolute reality" I am doing no more than a bit of metaphysics, presuming the existence of a general picture of what we can actually see only--as with the blind men and the elephant--piecemeal.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

The closest I can get to a pointer to "absolute reality" is the vantage point from which I have analysed "ordinary reality". The niggling question is whether "common physiology" is a sleight of hand in that analysis but I can take an axiomatic step backwards if I need to towards a "systems view of life" (i.e. autopoiesis). But his step has the "disadvantage" of deflating human consciousness to an epiphenomenon of "languaging behaviour".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yes, I like to think of human consciousness as both "relatively" independent of and dependent on (viz., epiphenomenal to) the "languaging behavior" of my culture. Every morning I practice looking at the world from a kind of feral perspective, but in the end my social drives demand I most often structure my thoughts in terms of the common language I share with people with whom I also share a "common physiology."
But I appreciate your suggestion (as I see it) of a near equation of "absolute reality" with the reality of your particular vantage point, with your equating "absolute reality" with "ordinary reality". From the mystical perspective they are one. Hence the saying: Zen mind is ordinary mind."

0 Replies

Perhaps it would be easier to define what "real" is if we can define what "un-real" is?

So, what is "not real", by which, the rest is real? And is there something that is not real nor un-real?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know