Reality is...

Probably the most delicious things about reality is that we don't know if it exists, since it's not provable.

reality
Tartarin, it seems to me that since we made up the notion of reality, we can call define it--do what we wish with it--as we wish. I see a rose and smell it. Ah.
Where's reality?

I love it. Reality by consensus (or not, as the case may be!) We should get into reality in art. Now -- therein hangs a tale!!

roses
By the way, Tartarin, I just noticed your avatar (I'm not always very observant). And it creeps me out to think I'm having this conversation with a little girl. Please tell me your age--within a decade, if you wish.

Da debbil's number, minus one digit.

I agree with jl, as usual, you're well preserved, probably, I would guess by a third generation; if you're half as cute as her, you're doing O.K. (@66!) :wink:

Bo -- I wish I were that cute. It's all downhill from there...

tart...;
think of life as a bicycle ride.
"Downhill" is good; especially when theres no mountain to climb around the next curve!

Bo Go Wo wwrote:



Neither. It's all you.

But then it's all me, reading this story of yours which is actually my observation.

And now it's all you reading this post of mine.

Tartarin wrote:


Can the presence of consciousness be denied?

JLNobody wrote:


The thing is we can't see reality for being it. This thing we call 'reality' is a given, is imposed on us. But that's wrong wording, as the 'us' is included in the reality.

Where isn't reality? Reality has made up the notion of us.

Too many references and meanings for this word 'reality'.

My ultra practical approach is to say reality is reality; the variations are in the nuances created by our individual responses to, and definition of "our" reality; if I invite someone else to look at the posts on my computer monitor, that will not change the specific letters that have been used to make a point, but the colour of the screen, the amount of light given off, etc., may be physically encountered diferently, and you can be sure there will be a somewhat different interpretation of the intent, wisdom, correctness, etc., of the ideas presented.
But surely the messenger can not kill the "reality" of the message.

Bo

Good point.

Reality is whatever reality is.

Our perceptions of reality do not change reality -- unless that is what reality is.

But whatever reality is -- it is.

There is a difference between saying ultimate reality, 'our' reality, your reality, my reality etc. Of course in BoGoWo's example when one observes the writings in your computer, the 'writings' are only a small aspect of the perceived 'reality ' of the person. They are observing from a different life, body, experiences etc., so in effect they are not observing the same reality, or 'our' reality. There is no 'our' reality. We can both see the same apple, but from each perspective the 'other' person is just another percept and in that sense is equal to the apple. Like it or not we all live in our own world in which we cannot get in contact with each other.

That others exist as something real apart from the perception of them, is a belief, a guess, that I exist (as body and thoughts) is a belief, and that a material world exists is a belief, and I suspect all are wrong.

That said, within my world the epistemological dualism of subject vs. object and the ontological dualism of mental vs. material is the fundamental lie or error. As James and Schroedinger have said, "The world is given but once." Nothing is reflected. The mirror image and the original are identical. If that's the case there is no ""me in here"" and "" you and the universe"" out there""

Well actually, Twyvel, the reality is that saying "our reality" "your reality" "my reality" -- is simply an erroneous use of words.

One might accurately say: "my concept of reality" "our concept of reality" or "your concept of reality" -- but reality is whatever it is with absolutely no dependency on anyone's concept of it -- UNLESS THAT IS THE REALITY.

But it appears as though none of us knows whether that is so or not -- so one should really avoid using terms like "my reality" or "your reality."

Frank wrote:



I agree. A misuse of the word, or using one word with multiple meanings, as in your sentence above starting with, the reality is that saying....





In one view there is no one to have a concept of the reality (that is whatever it is) Frank. Any concept of reality is in the way of seeing the reality for what it is.(if reality is not a mere concept) And since my (or anyone's) concept of reality includes me the concept of 'me' is in the way, so to speak.

When you say, UNLESS THAT IS THE REALITY. You seem to be using another meaning of the word reality, .i.e. suggesting that one's concept of reality might be what reality is. If my concept(s) of reality is what reality is then reality is a concept, and dependent on being conceptualized and therefore inconsistent and ever changing.

I think there are "concepts of reality" and a "reality" that cannot be represented by concepts and therefore is something other then a concept. Hence your expression, "Reality is whatever it is.".....apart from any concepts or ideas of what it might be.



I wouldn't agree that it appears that none of us knows. It appears to me that some do know. And since based on observation awareness cannot be observed I think that that is a kind of hole in what we take to be every day reality. ( it eliminates the observer). That is, ultimate reality or that which is real and right here right now cannot be known through a subject---object relation, even though it is always present, simply because it is the merging of the subject and object. We, you and I are the ultimate reality and we go looking for it 'out there' and 'in here', when all along the seeker is the sought. Sweet and bizarre.

reality
It seems that we normally break up our "reality" into three parts (1) the perceiving self, (2) the awareness by which the self perceives, and (3) the objects of awareness/perception/experience. What if we try to consider each of the three components separately, analytically, as it were. What a problem we would have keeping them apart while trying to understand their existence. For example. A physical self without awareness is no more than a rock, a body without life experience (even if its heart were beating). Awareness without a physical self, as part of the awareness is difficult to imagine--although one CAN have states of awareness in which the phenomenal self is forgotten; but we're talking about analysis, the feeling that awareness without a self (mind without brain) is unlikely and a phenomenal self without awareness is unlikely. Then there are the objects--the content--of awareness (this would include brains, which are really ideas we have now). Imagine being aware but of nothing. Not likely. In the end there is no awareness without objects and (physical and phenomenal) subjects of that awareness, but these are part of the awareness itself. They cannot exist apart from the awareness and awareness cannot exist without them. In this sense, the self doesnt exist in itself, by itself, and objects of awareness cannot exist without awareness (like the falling tree in the forest in the absence of a hearing mind). All three components do not exist in themselves, only as part of a field of activity, and that field of activity extends out infinitely. Materially speaking, the phenomenal self, and its awareness of its contents, cannot exist without a body, which requires a range of temperature and air-pressure, gravity itself if it's not to implode and drift away frozen or burnt to a crisp. I'm lost here folks. Help me out.

Reality
I have a simple question about the subject : Why do you care ? What you can name reality is what you feel and experience. That is real. At least, the fact that you experience it is real. We all know that. You can think that what the other feel is not real, that they are not real themselves, but you always know that you see and feel things. You don't know if it's real but you know the feeling is. So once you realize that, I think the rest is only choice. Do you believe that what you see is real and stands by itself, or do you believe that you are the only reality ? Do you even care. I think it's one of the only way to answer of the question, since you can't prove anything else.
I chose to believe that reality is something that exist independently from me, but that's only a choice. And from your perspective, it might not even be real.

Chakobsa, I'm not sure what you mean by reality existing independent of you. Do you mean that it is all that is external to you? Do you not include yourself within this realm of reality?
I like your provocative questions. I personally do not see much value in the idea of reality unless we mean by it something like God, that which stands by itself. I am that I am. Otherwise we must use it in comparison with 'unreality', as in "I am feeling a sense of unreality." (not me but someone with a medical problem or on drugs).

Some care because they have to.

I have a thought here that may shed some light on "practical" reality;

Is not language the tool by which we "share" our concepts of the reality which each of us perceives?

If we eat an apple, each of us has the experience of eating an apple; the juicyness, the sour/sweetness, the crunchy/softness, the specific flavour; which I suspect probably differs for us all, depending on the development, makeup, or damage to our senses that our individual life experiences have brought to the subject "happening".
However, the "glue" which ties our personal enjoyment of the apple to those with whom we wish to share that experience, is our verbal facility with which we describe the details to each other, and discuss its merits.
This is how we impart "our" reality to our fellow "tourists", exploring the "reality" of the universe which we all share.

The taste of an apple is not sharable and it is indescribable like all experiences. We can give a description but the description is not the thing described. We can't actually describe the taste, but only what it is like to experience it, but not the experience.

Words never get to the thing itself, Words don't even get to words. i.e. we can't get to A with language because all descriptions of A are not A.


So we don't share the experience but rather at best merely a description, a representation,...... if that.

Are you a tourist in your own house?