What is real, how do you define real? if you are talking about what you can feel, what you can taste, touch or see, then real is simply electrical sig

[IWantGod]

What is real, how do you define real? if you are talking about what you can feel, what you can taste, touch or see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

 

[TechieGuy]

if you talking about what you can feel, what you can taste, touch or see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Well…yeah…I can’t prove that I’m not a brain in a box being fed electrical signals to make me think that what I perceive is real…but since I can’t prove that I am a brain in a box being fed a simulation, I live as if I’m not and that what I perceive is real.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This why we have dictionaries and universities. It’s not that difficult to understand. Defining words in our own terms is not philosophy.

 

[MchaelPatrick]

Take the red pill, stay in ‘Wonderland’ and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

 

[tweedlealice]

Well, I’m not feeling deep tonight. I have the thought from philosophy: DOES A TREE MAJE A NOISE WHEN IT FALLS IN THE FORREST AND NO ONE IS NEAR TO HEAR IT?
I say, YES! B/c noise is vibration and animals are around.
Now, Pain scientists are saying, if your brain doesn’t get the signal, you won’t feel pain…
Just my humble thoughts
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[Benadam]

Although to be fair, few would question that the mind is capable of giving rise to illusions, while it has yet to be established whether physical reality is capable of giving rise to the mind. But be that as it may, there would certainly seem to be no reason to invoke one conscious mind…God, to serve as the creator of another conscious mind…me. It’s far more elegant to assume that if everything that I perceive was created by a conscious mind…and I am a conscious mind…then the simplest explanation is, that the creator of everything…is me.

maybe think of heart instead of mind. Love has reasons for being and serving that mind can’t find reason for. imho

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What is the sense of your question, IWantGod? In the Greek philosophy “the real” had the character of stability. So, “the real” was that which was accessible to reason. And that which was perceivable to our senses, which was always changing, was not “real”. Even for Heraclitus, who was very sensitive about change, it was the Law that governs change and produces harmony amidst conflict what was “real”.

What are you asking? How to distinguish among those sensations that have a cause external to your body, and those that are internally produced in your body? Or how to distinguish a priori those experiences that might create a conflict between the perceptions of at least two of your senses and those that would not?

I would like you to clarify.

 

[Kei]

There’s a difference between the objective reality and our subjective experiences of that objective reality.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

There’s a difference between the objective reality and our subjective experiences of that objective reality.

Can you say what the difference is?

If all you have is “experience”, how could you say how “objective reality” is? And if you can’t, how can you support your statement that “objective reality” and “subjective experience” differ?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Benadam:

maybe think of heart instead of mind. Love has reasons for being and serving that mind can’t find reason for. imho

Ah, but love…like everything else…is relative. So just as up can only be understood in relation to down, and hot can only be understood in relation to cold, and hard can only be understood in relation to soft…so too can love only be understood in relation to hate. You can’t have reason for one, without having an equal reason for the other.

And so it may be with the conscious mind, that it only understands the concept of "I" in relation to that which is “Not I”. The two things…the “I” and the “Not I” must be inseparable. You can’t have one without the other. They are in essence, two aspects of one and the same thing, just as hot and cold are but two aspects of the same thing.

And so it’s a misnomer to speak of the conscious mind…be it my mind or God’s…as being the creator of everything. For without the existence of the “created”, the concept of the “creator” would have no meaning. In the end, everything is relative. This holds true for hot and cold, for up and down, and for the creator and the created. One cannot exist without the other. The existence of the created therefore, is just as necessary as the existence of the creator.

But alas, this does little to answer the question of whether the external world is real or not. Fortunately however, the external world gives us clues, and the clues suggest that the external world isn’t real. Those clues are simple, all around us, and easily overlooked…the external world simply doesn’t act as if it’s real.

Like everything else? What is wood relative to?

Franz Brentano said that “conscience” is always “conscience of” something. So, the act of conscience would be constituted by two poles. But, why would it imply that there is no mind independently of knowable objects, or that there are no objects independently of a mind?

What is the clue that suggests to you that I, who am responding to your comment, am not real?; and why that same kind of suggestion would not be a suggestion to me that you, who posted your comment above, are not real?

 

[neophyte]

What is real, how do you define real? if you are talking about what you can feel, what you can taste, touch or see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

That means your brain is real. Which means your body is real, and everything the body needs to survive. Which means that everything else you can taste, touch and see is real.

Which means that real is not simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Solipsism is a silly philosophical stance.

 

[Kei]

Two different people have different subjective experiences of the objective reality.

I can know because things can be quite different depending on different persons.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Two different people have different subjective experiences of the objective reality.

I can know because things can be quite different depending on different persons.

Ammonia and ethyl alcohol, which are different substances, interact very differently with an organic acid. It does not imply that the organic acid is not as it appears to be in its interaction with ammonia, or in its interaction with ethyl alcohol.

If you and me are observing an object that is half yellow and half orange, and each one of us is situated in such a way that each of us is observing a different color, and we declare it; the difference between our declarations does not imply that the object is not as it appears in its interaction with you or in its interaction with me.

If one day I suffer an illness and I taste a food which is usually delicious to me, but due to my illness I feel now a disgusting taste, it doesn’t mean that the food is not what it appears now in its interaction with me, being myself ill.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Wood has certain attributes that differentiate it from everything else. For example, relative to some things it’s hard, and relative to other things it’s soft. It’s wood’s relationship to everything else that differentiates it as being wood. This holds true for everything. It’s the manner in which things differ that defines them. One can’t simply say that wood is hard without some context in which to define “hard”.

So, we understand wood in relation to other objects. And perhaps we can say that understanding something means that we establish relations between it and other objects. But it does not mean that wood in itself is something relative.

The fact that things are relative wouldn’t in and of itself be evidence that objects can’t exist independantly of a mind. They certainly could. But the mind can’t exist without a context in which to define itself. I can’t for example say that I’m human without some context in which to define “human”. I can’t even describe myself as being conscious without some context in which to define “conscious”.

As soon as I try to say something about myself (that is to say, to understand me), I will be establishing relations with other objects. But, does that mean that I am nothing if I am not establishing relations?

The clue that suggests that neither you nor anyone else is real…is the fact that you don’t act as if you’re real. I.E, you don’t act as if you’re a rational entity with free will. You act probabilistically, not rationalistically. And the fact that you don’t act as if you’re a rational entity with free will, would seem to indicate that you’re not.

What makes you think that something which is not rational nor free is not real?

Indeed, I should look the same to you, as you look to me. You have just as much reason to doubt my objective existence, as I have to doubt yours. So why don’t you?

Because I don’t share your beliefs.

 

[Kei]

Precisely, there is a half colored half colored ball.
Both our subjective experiences with the ball lead to conflicting conclusions, but they are subjective experiences of an objective reality (a half color half color ball). Your example admits of what I am speaking.

 

[Richca]

There’s a difference between the objective reality and our subjective experiences of that objective reality.

Yes. The brain is used by interior sense powers of the soul to coordinate the various external sense impressions received through the five external senses which are the sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. For example, an image of an external object such as a dog is produced in the imagination and electrical signals or neurons probably have a role in the production of this image or likeness of the external object. The image or likeness of some dog in the imagination is not the same thing as the external reality of the dog but it points too the external reality. The external objective reality is the cause of the subjective experience of the individual received through external sense impressions or stimuli. So, as Aristotle said, ‘the stone is not in the eye but its likeness.’ Human knowledge does not end with particular sense knowledge in which the brain plays a role and probably the electrical signals too. Humans have an intellect which pertains to intellectual knowledge and which is a spiritual power of the soul and which is not the brain nor does it have anything to do with electrical signals. The role of the intellect is to abstract the essence, nature, or universal from the particular ‘material’ image or phantasm in the imagination (which appears to be located in the brain) such as that of a dog or stone.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

We can of course take this even further than the brain in a box. How do we know we are real? It’s entirely possible that we are simulations too. And that condition would be next to impossible to detect.

 

[Tigre]

Nailed it. The “brain in a vat” question, repackaged as the simulation hypothesis (see Musk, et al.), is impossible to prove or disprove. The ultimate answer will not change anything. Unless you can find a glitch like Neo.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Kei:

There’s a difference between the objective reality and our subjective experiences of that objective reality.

Yes. The brain is used by interior sense powers of the soul to coordinate the various external sense impressions received through the five external senses which are the sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. For example, an image of an external object such as a dog is produced in the imagination and electrical signals or neurons probably have a role in the production of this image or likeness of the external object. The image or likeness of some dog in the imagination is not the same thing as the external reality of the dog but it points too the external reality. The external objective reality is the cause of the subjective experience of the individual received through sense impressions. So, as Aristotle said, ‘the stone is not in the eye but its likeness.’ Human knowledge does not end with particular sense knowledge in which the brain plays a role and probably the electrical signals too. Humans have an intellect which pertains to knowledge and which is a spiritual power of the soul and which is not the brain nor does it have anything to do with electrical signals. The role of the intellect is to abstract the essence, nature, or universal from the particular ‘material’ image or phantasm in the imagination (which appears to be located in the brain) such as that of a dog or stone.

If we really abstract the essence of a dog, why should our “subjective experience” about it be different from “objective reality”?

 

[Tigre]

Simultaneous simulation hypothesis references. Programming error or intentional redundancy? Kidding.