"What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you feel, smell, taste, and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
- Morpheus: The Matrix, 1999

So, what is real? how do you define real?

Chew on that and spit out an answer if you wish.

My world!

So, what is real? how do you define real?
That:
"electrical signals interpreted by your brain"

I'm not a fan of The Matrix or its philisophy which can be described as hyperreality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality).

One reason is the film is often cited and used in arguments from ignorance. Extreme christians or new-age cranks with some conspiracy theory or other often argue "you do not know what reality is therefore Jesus / reptiles / aliens exist. It's just like The Matrix and I am offering you the red pill... etc" (Or is it the blue? - I forget).

Also, philosophically I don't buy it. This is because of kick-back (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/02_StuffKicks.pdf). WARNING - pdf file

We stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious
sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the
universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his
doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I shall never forget the
alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force
against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."

People may state philosophically they consider reality to be an illusion. But they still look both ways when crossing a road for some strange reason.

EDIT: fixed links

This guy has used alot of Matrix quotes to explain what he cant.

Real to me is tangible.

ONE QUOTE? one quote is alot?

Loki, you really seem to have it out for me. Did i run over your cat?

Oh and again, you do not know me or why i decided to post this thread. The fact that i do not insert my own conclusion does not mean that i cannot myself explain it.
From my point of view real is whatever you decide your 'real' to be, so no one is wrong. One view of real could be that there are different types of real, ethereal and nonethereal; varying types of those.

Originally posted by Evakian
From my point of view real is whatever you decide your 'real' to be, so no one is wrong. One view of real could be that there are different types of real, ethereal and nonethereal; varying types of those. Perhaps postmodernism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_modernism) would be your cup of tea.

Originally posted by Evakian
ONE QUOTE? one quote is alot?

Loki, you really seem to have it out for me. Did i run over your cat?

I just think your self indulgent suffering from narcissism.

Your also trying to control the situation and keep it within your defined and set parameters which, considering the nature of this forum had you checked beforehand, you would have noticed is impossible. But in this loss of control of your intended threads question you get snipey with your statments explaining that those who respond are wrong and too stupid to understand the original point.

You wont change, so you wont gain my respect at any point.

-This guy has used alot of matrix quotes-
Lokideviluk
(You still lied and offered no reason why)

I won't change? well alright, seeing as you can analyze my behavior, see the future and pass judgement on people (whom you do not know) i can tell you are one bright individual
Perhaps my repetitive behavior is a result of your own

Keep doing your thing man. Pleasant Afternoon :)

Originally posted by Evakian
"What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you feel, smell, taste, and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
- Morpheus: The Matrix, 1999

So, what is real? how do you define real?

Chew on that and spit out an answer if you wish.

Real is sooooo subjective. Take the colour dark blue for instance and ask several people what they see... you will get different answers for something that small and insignificant. Scale it up and the differences multiply.

Real is whatever makes your world spin the right way for you. And there in lies the fuel for both good and bad. Perception is a bizarre thing. What some perceive as pain others perceive as pleasure.

Even suffering...most would agree that it is something to avoid. Yet some people seek it out daily and inflict it upon themselves.

"Real" is the opposite of "subjective".

Originally posted by Ed Blank
"Real" is the opposite of "subjective".

Hey, you're still alive and peeking in... :D Welcome back!

Can you explain your above comment?

Originally posted by Evakian
Loki, you really seem to have it out for me. Did i run over your cat?

here kitty kitty kitty here kitty kitty kitty. reality check kitty has been run over by Evakian giant SUV ooh the shame of it all. :D


If one person feels the that something is the best but another feels it is junk who is correct? example chevy is the best vehicle made.

They should institute a rule in the philosophy forums, add something meaningful to a thread or keep your fingers silent.

The problem with a purely subjective point of view (as evidenced by lines like "Real is only what I think it is") is that you are, quite literally living in a dream world. Though, technically, it is true, as per quantum physics, it leads to a lonely life, never being able to really tell if the person standing next to you is real or not. You cannot simply believe he is real, and expect him to be so. It leads to thoughts of "well, what if this whole thing is really an illusion?" and other unsavory lines of thought. If those are your bag of tea, go for it, but you have to return to reality sooner or later, the rent does come due.

One cannot rely on a purely objective reality for similar reasons. Humans are a dreaming race, and the formless, subjective world is the only one you can do that in. A purely objective world also falls to some rather elementary thought exercises.

Hence the maxim that only those with something to actually contribute should post on philosophy forums, and those with naive one-liners should do quite a bit of thinking before posting.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

Hence the maxim that only those with something to actually contribute should post on philosophy forums, and those with naive one-liners should do quite a bit of thinking before posting.

Right so what your saying is, that you fully and completely understand exactly what every single user on this board considers "correct contribution" and thus have declared that anything outside of this idea of said "correct contribution" should not be allowed.

Its a free speech forum, anyone can say anything and if its considered truly unfit for forum use, then it will removed by the moderaters.

So before you get ahead of yourself and start handing out "Forum for the Future" pamphlets, realise exactly what kind of forum your in.

Cheers

I made a point and backed it up. Tis up to you what to make of it. I really didn't expect it to be taken seriously. Instead of attacking my argument, you whine about my conclusions.

I made a number of contributory arguments to the topic, that of reality. Have you nothing to say about those? The purpose of these threads is to build a viewpoint using the combined intellectual strengths of those participating. Well, that's my purpose anyway. Would you like to play? Or just attack others.

Now to make some more arguments of my own, to prove I'm not just here to agitate people.

I think that the general flavor of reality changes according to one's tastes. Coming from my relative point of view here, I find that there is a series of purposes for everybody here. That purpose determines the lens you see reality with. It isn't really dictated by you, it is set by the combinations of the conditions in which you are born, genetics, the influences on you growing up, what have you. I think that existance is attempting to experience everything it can, and everybody is fodder for that purpose. It also tends to exhibit a sharp upward trend, 'more' of everything seeming to be that trend. More technology, more intelligence, more people, and so on.

It would be premature at this stage to say whether our reality is "fake" or not, we really don't have enough information. We will probably find out as we start to approach the Singularity, if in fact the Singularity can actually happen.

Napster, you chose to criticise my one line reply.
Yet, in all your words, I do not see where you improved upon it.
"My world", is what I perceive as reality.
Most people here are deep thinkers. I am sure most understood what I intended.

Most people here may be deep thinkers, but when it comes to communication, particularly in a web forum like this, a one line reply fails to appreciate the vastness of existance. It is true, my post did not go much farther, but the rabbit hole is very deep, and it takes a cooperative effort to explore it. One person cannot enlighten everybody without participation, at least, ordinary people like you and me.

Your world may be what you perceive as reality, but that does nothing for us. You answered the question, but failed to respect the cooperative spirit of what we are trying to do here.

If you have deep thoughts, please share them! If you don't, at least ask questions to keep the conversational flow moving!

Originally posted by Napsterbater

It would be premature at this stage to say whether our reality is "fake" or not, we really don't have enough information. We will probably find out as we start to approach the Singularity, if in fact the Singularity can actually happen.

For those who dont know, Vernor Vinge wrote of the Singularity as a defining moment in time where the time taken between concept and product was zero and that the level of intellegence applied to mechanical AI would be such that they would then start improving themselves exponentially. I dont have the link with me but search it out as its a very interesting read.

He also said this would happen in 30 years time, roughly about 2030-2035.

Your statement says that "if" the singularity were to take place that we would find out if our reality is fake or not in the run up to it.

Of course this is an impossible statement, for it is only at the very point of the Singularity occuring that anyone can say for certain it actually exists.

Putting this aside for a moment, Let me move on to your statement about our reality being fake. For this I shall quote the dictionary definition of both words, and explain what I personally consider them to mean in relation to one another and your previous post.

Let us review the currently agreed meaning for the english word "fake".

Fake -
-Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
-One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham

and for Reality.

-The quality or state of being actual or true.
-The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence
-That which exists objectively and in fact

Noting these two definitions it is therefore my view that to say "Fake Reality" is in fact an Oxymoron. For if a reality were fake it wouldnt in fact be a reality at all. Of course this would then lend to the idea that the term "Fake reality" should really have been replaced with "Alternate reality".

But even with this it seems to me that such a statement is also unusable, due to its very nature. We are but in one reality at all times and so I believe the proper term to describe what i believe your trying to say is "Percieved alternate reality" which of course is impossible for me since I can with great certainty say that "I am in a reality" and be content not knowing what that in complete totality encompassess

Ill finish by saying that your statement "It would be premature at this stage to say whether our reality is "fake" or not, we really don't have enough information" is indeed fraud, as it is impossible to have a fake reality.

Cheers

Originally posted by Napsterbater
One person cannot enlighten everybody without participation, at least, ordinary people like you and me.

I think its exceptionally ignorant of you to decide that any person is ordinary, since by the very nature of what we are, it is clear we are anything but.

If you meant it to mean that posters with vague uninteresting abilities are commonly encountered then you included yourself and this seems a tad contradictory to the nature of your posts. Which whilst I find ignorant of others, I do find interesting.




Originally posted by Napsterbater
If you have deep thoughts, please share them! If you don't, at least ask questions to keep the conversational flow moving!

A fine idea.

My view, or anyone elses view of reality, does not effect that which is reality.
Reality- being that which is true- can be viewed from an angle of prejudice. Sometimes people see what they want to see.
A meteor falls from the sky and destroys a city, one person may view this event as destruction by a deity, while another views the event as a city simply being in the path of a falling object.
Reality is not altered by either of the two views.

The human brain has the potential to view with logic or preconceived conseptions. Neither will effect the reality.

Many times the perception of reality is discussed, or argued, over a situation, when not enough facts are present to fully explain the occurance.

Most, would not argue the reality that fire burns to the touch.
Yet, a person that had not been burned may argue that fire- burning is not a reality. He may even stick a piece of metal into the fire to prove that it remains unchanged. Not knowing that the melting point of skin and metal are quite different.

My true belief is that reality remains unchanged, merely the view of it changes.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
They should institute a rule in the philosophy forums, add something meaningful to a thread or keep your fingers silent.


Oh gawd, a forum vigilante. The reality of this forum would be inproved without one of them.

Originally posted by Echo2
Oh gawd, a forum vigilante. The reality of this forum would be inproved without one of them.

Actually I am loving reading the discussion, so I be to differ.

Loki, when I referred to ordinary people, I meant people hat are not like J Krishnamurti, people with the capablity to enlighten people with a single glance, or word.

Also, I define ordinary people to be those who haven't created an exceptional talent for themselves. A good example of an unordinary person is Linus Torvalds, the organizer and main programmer of the Linux operating system kernel. Another would be Albert Einstein. On a smaller scale, an unordinary person might be that fellow who has the record store everybody likes to hang out in. People with the capability of amassing others around them. People others automatically and subconsciously defer to.

I meant fake reality as in simulated reality, matrix style. Given nanotechnology, it is theoretically possible to simulate an entire civilization, up until the point they discover their own nanotechnology, at which point the models break down. We simply cannot know whether we exist in such a simulation or not. Leaving the semantics aside, it would be a valid conversational premise to state that those living in a Matrix-like simulation are not living in a real reality, even if the logic fails. We use such semantical devices all the time.

Dan, I have witnessed that a single person's idea of reality can be so much stronger than everybody else's that even emotions are altered by the mere presence of that person. I personally have the ability to alter the entire mood of a room simply with my presence, and have done so many times, mostly to uplift spirits and to lend a playful character to a social grouping. Would you say that emotions are part of objective reality or subjective reality?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
it would be a valid conversational premise to state that those living in a Matrix-like simulation are not living in a real reality, even if the logic fails. We use such semantical devices all the time.

I must be the only person who has a deep interest in nanotechnology, vernor's singluarity and other technologlical breakthroughs that doesnt think the matrix was a plausable existance.

I did however know you would bring it up.

In the Matrix film - Those people ARE living in a real reality. Their real reality is -- They are plugged into large machines where upon they are put into a deep sub consious comma that allows them to interact with a virtual world. Just because they are unaware of it doesnt make it any less real.

As i stated before, "I am in a reality" and know I cant understand what that in complete totality encompassess.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I personally have the ability to alter the entire mood of a room simply with my presence,

Do you have a few examples that would better help us understand what is it you mean.

The matrix isn't really a plausible existance from an A.I. standpoint, there is no reason to believe that superAI would be in any way hostile to humanity, and it really falls down once you have a little grounding in the nature of programming and mechanics. Even the grey goo phenomena is debatable.

What isn't implausible is for an advanced civilization to create an ancestor simulation from a planet converted into a computer. If you think about it that way, why not? One could have one's own personal world to play around in. A source of endless amusement for a functionally immortal being.

You are right, people do indeed live in a reality, whether it might be considered fake or not by those living outside of it. The question is, is that a subjective reality or an objective one? Where do we draw the line? Can we even point to, "One true reality?" If we can't point to it, can we even say it exists?

You can find examples replete throughout history of one person changing the reality of an entire nation of people. Where one man's (or woman's, in this case mostly men) vision changed reality for the entire world. Edison put cheap incandescant light bulbs in the homes of the entire industrialized world, redefining nightime for the whole of human civilization.

One person can change reality. On small and large scales. If you get a chance, read the Tucker Max stories. Aside from giving you enough laughs to fill Russia, it gives you a no-bullshit way to create reality on your own terms.

The matrix isn't really a plausible existance from an A.I. standpoint, there is no reason to believe that superAI would be in any way hostile to humanity, and it really falls down once you have a little grounding in the nature of programming and mechanics.
Computer science major in here? We have a man with a PhD in Computer Science and engineering specializing in AI design! Ah, I certainly hope you could teach us a few things.
Mocking aside, every essay on AI by an AI specialist that I've seen tends to throw in a number of warnings on losing control. In case you're not familiar with the area, the goal is to design code that can rewrite itself to be not only more efficient but also to add functions and expand its repertoire. Who, who also has the most funding at their disposal, would find this to be most useful? I happen to believe that would be the military. Now, if the United States doesn't take advantage of this, then China certainly will(if they still exist, if not then whatever the ultimate evil at the time is). Most would think that this idea is at least a hundred years away. All I can claim with certainty is that today we have code that can evolve other code to be more efficient. That and we have robots that will call for more of themselves and merge together and evolve in the most efficient way to accomplish a certain task given to them.

If he is here, he should make his presence known, and start tossing ideas around that help the discussion. Until he does, we are stuck with who we have; me, an insufferable egoist who likes to know a little bit about everything, rather than a lot about a little, and, well, whoever you guys are.

Self-evolving code is useful to everybody, not just the military, which is why it is being so hotly researched right now. It has the capability of destroying every problem we have today and bringing on a golden age of human prosperity.

Technology has the long-term effect of liberating everybody in question. It is certainly possible for us to annihilate ourselves still, but I choose an optimistic point of view because it is the only one that is really productive. It keeps me amused, whereas pessimistic attitudes keep me depressed, and I've spent too much of my life depressed.

"PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile."

"OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful, including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity, and is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof — an intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is hereditary, but fortunately not contagious."

"OPTIMIST, n. A proponent of the doctrine that black is white.

A pessimist applied to God for relief.
"Ah, you wish me to restore your hope and cheerfulness," said God. "No," replied the petitioner, "I wish you to create something that would justify them."
"The world is all created," said God, "but you have overlooked something — the mortality of the optimist.""
- Devil's Dictonary.


Self-evolving code is useful to everybody, not just the military, which is why it is being so hotly researched right now. It has the capability of destroying every problem we have today and bringing on a golden age of human prosperity.
As a programmer I know just how useful self-evolving code would be. And at the same time I understand how far it could go. All it would require is one morally devoid computer engineer working for the military and we'll reenter the Cold War. Well, only if there were two morally devoid computer engineers.

Technology has the long-term effect of liberating everybody in question. It is certainly possible for us to annihilate ourselves still, but I choose an optimistic point of view because it is the only one that is really productive. It keeps me amused, whereas pessimistic attitudes keep me depressed, and I've spent too much of my life depressed.
Often pessimism is a synonym with realism while optimism is a synonym with blinded.

I like that! Very good! Something to foist upon other hopeless optimists that float my way.

I really could care less whether it is realistic or not. All of the great makers of history were very unrealistic, everybody told them it couldn't be done. I will go ahead and invoke Godwin's law now, and ask whether Hitler was a realistic man or not. He wasn't, but he made his imaginations reality. I lose. Go gloat.

It's very simple. Optimism allows me pleasure, and pessimism allows me misery. I have the hard-won freedom to choose, unlike most people, and I choose mostly optimism. That doesn't mean I can't take the blinders off for awhile whenever I feel like being sad, but this medicine is much more useful than Prozac. It is a practical thing. As an optimist, nothing amuses me more than a cynic, having been a cynic once myself. They are fun to torture with imaginative scenarios and clever wordplay. If you do it right, they torture themselves!

Ignorance truly is bliss. Why in the world should we torture ourselves with reality when there is an ever more compelling world to sink into? Reality sucks. Makes me wanna go smoke a nice fat blunt right now.

I really could care less whether it is realistic or not. All of the great makers of history were very unrealistic, everybody told them it couldn't be done. I will go ahead and invoke Godwin's law now, and ask whether Hitler was a realistic man or not. He wasn't, but he made his imaginations reality. I lose. Go gloat.
Au contraire. I happen to believe they were all thinking quite realistically. Lots of people dream, yet they don't try and accomplish them. I believe that everybody has the chance to acheive their most realistic dreams. In this case, realism is --O dare I say it?!-- subjective. The real world in their eyes was what they could do. Realistic dreams are the dreams that one puts forth the effort and has the abilities to do. Hitler did, Ghengis Khan did, Ghandi did.

As an optimist, nothing amuses me more than a cynic, having been a cynic once myself. They are fun to torture with imaginative scenarios and clever wordplay. If you do it right, they torture themselves!
We appear to be polar opposites then. I was once an optimist. An optimistic Catholic no less. I happen to find the real world more inviting. It places boundries in which I can reason. Unbounded reasoning is so very confusing. Not only that, but so very wrong. I don't like coming to the wrong conclusion after a long discourse with myself on the subject. Progression of knowledge comes from truth and fact, not wishful thinking.

Ignorance truly is bliss
So is death.

They were indeed thinking realistically, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to make their dreams reality. But these people defined reality. It is not up to us to say whether they were realistic or not, because we are but flotsam floating around the people defining reality for us. I wouldn't have near the amount of music in my posession if it weren't for the dreamers dreaming a perfect internet. Well, it ain't perfect, but I have lots of kick-ass music I can't get any other way.

They defined reality for the music companies, who are scrambling to deal with this perceived threat.

Throw away the horrible religion, but keep the precious optimism. It is like a flower that is easily crushed. But that flower has more power than all the pessimism in the world. I know this firsthand, and am living proof.

The real world will always try to crush your optimism, that is it's job. The collective systems in this world have one wish, to continue their existance. They will do anything to perpetuate themselves, including crushing the dreams of young people.

Truth and fact play little into the advancement of knowledge, in my opinion. Most of the earth-shattering paradigm shifts came as a result of intuition, not sheer deductionism. Witness Archimedes in his bathtub.

Truth and fact are too relative to be of any use in this day and age, anyway. True knowledge expands the bounds of truth and fact, so holding too hard to those ideas will get one nowhere.

Truth and fact for one is not truth and fact for another. Where do the distinctions lie? Is there a real truth lying underneath all the subjectivism? I say to thee nay!

Truth and fact play little into the advancement of knowledge, in my opinion. Most of the earth-shattering paradigm shifts came as a result of intuition, not sheer deductionism. Witness Archimedes in his bathtub.
Absolutely incorrect! Look to Aristotle, he based everything off of observation and intuition. His perception of what was going on. He was completely wrong. In almost everything he said. Now, Galileo on the other hand used logical reasoning and experimentation in order to determine that which was true. Our modern science comes from experimentation and deductive reasoning, not gut feelings. Einstein's gut feeling, the universal constant, pushed his progress back years. Only to discover that further examinations of his equations meant that it was never even needed in the first place! His second gut feeling followed him to his death, his idea that there could be a unification theory of the universe without using the budding research in quantum mechanics. The closest we have ever come to a unification theory uses quantum mechanics almost extensively. They're lightyears ahead of where Einstein would be now if he continued his course. Science and technology stem directly from deductive logic and is often greatly hampered by one's "intuition".

Truth and fact are too relative to be of any use in this day and age, anyway. True knowledge expands the bounds of truth and fact, so holding too hard to those ideas will get one nowhere.
Truth - A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Fact - Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

Fact and truth require proof. They require evidence. The only thing that could be subjective about it is if one is paranoid schizophrenic.

Not so. There is quite a bit of philosophy out there debating the absoluteness of truth and fact. The only thing that makes a fact a fact is that it is held in the minds of enough people who believe it to be true. So-called 'facts' change all the time. Johnny thought his father Joe was his real father, but that *fact* changed when the results of the DNA test came in and he found out his mother was a whore, yet another *fact* that had just changed.

Quantum uncertainty also proves you wrong. One can never find out the true facts, because they change the second you look at them. Simply looking at the surface gives you a rough idea of what is going on, but tear away the facade, and a situation often becomes much different. Scientific determinalism is the rule any longer. One can never specify the starting conditions to a great enough degree to guarantee end results anymore, in for more applications as science expands.

Fact and truth are mere guides, not hard and fast rules anymore.

Argueing Existentialism is stupid. Everyone is right therefore no one can win the argument. Game Over, Go home.

Argueing Existentialism is stupid. Everyone is right therefore no one can win the argument. Game Over, Go home.

That can be applied to every forum on the site and therefore this site is pointless and should not exist. :alien: hehe

Despite the topic (such as this one), it can be fun just to discuss it sometimes. :corn:

Yes discussing it is good fun and all. I was just denouncing using it in arguments (like the example towards the beginning) thats just worthless.