What is reality?

Hookah

What is real reality?

Or what is reality really?

Kazuma

Hookah wrote: »

What is real reality?

Or what is reality really?

There is no spoon.

Serious answer - this is very very vague...
Reality is just the way that your senses deliver information to your brain, does not need to be the same for all people (perhaps it's completely different for every individual).

Hookah

Kazuma wrote: »

Reality is just the way that your senses deliver information to your brain, does not need to be the same for all people (perhaps it's completely different for every individual).

What is reality outside individual perception of it, then?

Misty Chaos

Reality is the way you see it.

Reality is different for everyone, my idea of reality is different to yours, your idea of reality is different to mine.

You make your own reality, simple as.

Hookah

Misty Chaos wrote: »

Reality is the way you see it.

It's not how you see it, though.

All the colours are entirely different. Red is actually gree, blue is actually orange etc.

I read somewhere else that at another level of perception, everything is a kind of shimmering monochrome

Reality is different for everyone, my idea of reality is different to yours, your idea of reality is different to mine.

Of course. We all experience reality differently, according to our belief systems.

You make your own reality, simple as.

This article may underline that statement...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

18AD

Hookah wrote: »

What is real reality?

Or what is reality really?

What do you mean 'real'?

As opposed to what? Fake reality?

Hookah

18AD wrote: »

What do you mean 'real'?

As opposed to what? Fake reality?

As opposed to how we perceive it.

In the quantum mechanics paper above it postulates reality doesn't exist when we're not around to observe it, for example.

18AD

Hookah wrote: »

In the quantum mechanics paper above it postulates reality doesn't exist when we're not around to observe it, for example.

So it's equating existence with perception? So then there is no, "as opposed to perception".

It's not reality that doesn't exist, rather it's that reality is the perception.

Hookah

18AD wrote: »

It's not reality that doesn't exist, rather it's that reality is the perception.

You agree with the theory then?

18AD

I haven't read the theory. I'm just curious as to what exactly would entail reality? What would ever be a satisfactory answer to this question? Especially if it's something beyond perception.
I mean, when you walk along the path somewhere, what part of it isn't real and why is it not real?

Hookah

18AD wrote: »

I'm just curious as to what exactly would entail reality? What would ever be a satisfactory answer to this question? Especially if it's something beyond perception.
I mean, when you walk along the path somewhere, what part of it isn't real and why is it not real?

That's what I'm asking.

18AD

Hookah wrote: »

That's what I'm asking.

I guess more to my point is what exactly is the aim in looking for "reality"?

I know I probably won't sleep any easier if I know the bed I'm sleeping on is real.

It just seems like a pointless endeavour, don't you think?

Hookah

18AD wrote: »

I guess more to my point is what exactly is the aim in looking for "reality"?

I know I probably won't sleep any easier if I know the bed I'm sleeping on is real.

It just seems like a pointless endeavour, don't you think?

I might never comprehend 'it', but no harm speculating what 'it' is, either from a philosophical or scientific viewpoint. Just passing the time.

Another physics paper I came across theorised that mathematics exists, outside of our 'invention' of it. That information is the building block of the universe, as opposed to atoms and stuff, and that all we perceive is the manifestation of this primal information.

Another odd view of 'reality'.

18AD

Hookah wrote: »

I might never comprehend 'it', but no harm speculating what 'it' is, either from a philosophical or scientific viewpoint. Just passing the time.

I just don't even think there is an 'it'.

Just for fun. I'm with you on that.

Hookah

18AD wrote: »

I just don't even think there is an 'it'.

Just for fun. I'm with you on that.

Then in that case I suppose the question is, are you a figment of my imagination, or am I a figment of yours?

A bit like Chuang Tzu's butterfly.

18AD

Hookah wrote: »

Then in that case I suppose the question is, are you a figment of my imagination, or am I a figment of yours?

A bit like Chuang Tzu's butterfly.

Yes, but a figment in the realest sense of the word. There is nothing false about a figment. It is real in one's mind, as is a hallucination.
Also, why stop at other people? I'm a figment of my own imagination.
We are figments of eachother's imaginations.

It depends how you define imagination. Does something need to be imagined for imagination to take place? In such a case you are already permitting something seperate from imagination, so it cannot simply exist by itself.

“The name that cannot be named is not the eternal name.” - Lao Tzu

I'd take this as the most basic premise. Reality or the world, or whatever you want to call it is not language. We can only understand language. That's as far as we get.

Just some thoughts.

Any idea of what it is yourself?

Hookah

18AD wrote: »

Yes, but a figment in the realest sense of the word. There is nothing false about a figment. It is real in one's mind, as is a hallucination.

Perhaps there is a material basis to thoughts, though.

I'm not sure of the physics of the imagination.

Also, why stop at other people? I'm a figment of my own imagination.
We are figments of eachother's imaginations.

I'd say there's a fairly good chance you exist in a material sense.

It depends how you define imagination. Does something need to be imagined for imagination to take place?

I would imagine so.

I'd take this as the most basic premise. Reality or the world, or whatever you want to call it is not language. We can only understand language. That's as far as we get.

'The map is not the territory' type thing?

Semantics plays a massive role in our perception, certainly.

It's an enquiry into the nature of the territory beyond our perception that concerns me.

I think we could philosophise till the cows come home, but is interesting that some of the Eastern spiritual philosophies correlate with some of the findings in quantum mechanics.

I'm more interested in the science of things like the 'spooky actions at a distance' of Bells Theorem. How an experiment on one particle can affect the properties of another particle, so far away that no mechanical process can have caused the change, faster than the speed of light for example.

18AD

Hookah wrote: »

It's an enquiry into the nature of the territory beyond our perception that concerns me.

I think we could philosophise till the cows come home, but is interesting that some of the Eastern spiritual philosophies correlate with some of the findings in quantum mechanics.

The Tao of Physics type stuff?

But surely the Eastern Spititual philosophies arrived at their conclusions through direct perceptual means? Even if they are fairly fringe methods of consciousness expansion like extreme meditation.

Why is it that the 'science' backs up the perceptual and not the other way round?

This sort of approach is debilitating to peoples perception. I mean thought is the one thing that sets us apart from the other animals and still we look away from it to figure out whats great about it!

I'm more interested in the science of things like the 'spooky actions at a distance' of Bells Theorem. How an experiment on one particle can affect the properties of another particle, so far away that no mechanical process can have caused the change, faster than the speed of light for example.

One explanation is that they aren't communicating faster than the speed of light, but that there is no distance between them at all.
I think it's in Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm, or The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot.

Hookah

18AD wrote: »

The Tao of Physics type stuff?

But surely the Eastern Spititual philosophies arrived at their conclusions through direct perceptual means? Even if they are fairly fringe methods of consciousness expansion like extreme meditation.

Why is it that the 'science' backs up the perceptual and not the other way round?

This sort of approach is debilitating to peoples perception. I mean thought is the one thing that sets us apart from the other animals and still we look away from it to figure out whats great about it!

I'm all for it.

But for the purposes of drawing others into the debate, I was hoping to concentrate on the scientific.

I'd imagine there's been a few raised eyebrows at this thread already.

One explanation is that they aren't communicating faster than the speed of light, but that there is no distance between them at all.
I think it's in Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm, or The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot.

A 'One giant consciousness' type of thing?

Here a little on Bohm's book..http://www.broowaha.com/articles/5645/wholeness-the-holomovement-david-bohm

18AD

Hookah wrote: »

A 'One giant consciousness' type of thing?

Here a little on Bohm's book..http://www.broowaha.com/articles/5645/wholeness-the-holomovement-david-bohm

That's the one! It's not about 'one great consciousness' but rather that the material stuff of the universe functions like a hologram in that each small part contains the whole and vica versa. It follows from Bell's Theorem and the spooky action at a distance you mentioned.

The brain functions in a similar way in that if you remove large portions of it the full set of memories and mental functioning remains. Although there are other areas that when damaged seriously impair proper functioning.

Cosimo Salvatore

I am reality.

Earthhorse

To paraphrase Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, continues to exist."

DeBunny

Hookah wrote: »

What is real reality?

Or what is reality really?

This should help. Hard to follow at times without a deeper understanding of science. Even the scientists in the documentary are confused at times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTjUqI6W3yQ

Killer Pigeon

Hookah wrote: »

What is real reality?

Or what is reality really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o

Hookah

DeBunny wrote: »

This should help. Hard to follow at times without a deeper understanding of science. Even the scientists in the documentary are confused at times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTjUqI6W3yQ

Cheers. I'll give it a go.

This is one that got me thinking, which seems similar...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1406370011028154810#

slowburner

Maybe the question is not 'What is reality?'.
Maybe it's 'How do I know what reality is?'.
And then, it follows: 'How do I know what knowing is?'.

Even though we can stand outside ourselves to analyse questions about the nature of reality and in theory, could come up with a perfect argument for its non-existence - we exist and function within it - so it must be there.
But then.........

Ostrom

Reality is whatever we make it (apparently)!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality

Singed Icarus

Can a person ever produce a truly objective analysis on the nature of reality? Answer that I tells ya!

slowburner

Singed Icarus wrote: »

Can a person ever produce a truly objective analysis on the nature of reality? Answer that I tells ya!

Not unless they can stand outside reality.
This could have consequences.

Earthhorse

slowburner wrote: »

Not unless they can stand outside reality.
This could have consequences.

For example, you may end up missing your bus.

Adamas

Hookah wrote: »

What is real reality?

Or what is reality really?

Reality is the state of things as they are in fact, rather than as one might wish them to be. All that exists, exists in this condition or state, as being factual, real, existing in a state of truth, and not merely imagined.

We can tend to think that the way we personally view things as being reality, but that's only own own subjective opinion, our individual perspective, which is either expanded by or limited to our level of ability to perceive it. The more you realise that what you know is all you know, you can then realise that you need to know more, before you know better.

There are various things we need to perceive reality better, and if we don't have those faculties then we live within very limited horizons. In fact (reality), if we don't have them, we are completely unaware of the need for them, and so remain unknowing that we need them in the first place.