How real is 'reality'?

[Immanuel Can]

You said nothing about "epistemic subjectivism" or "aesthetic subjectivism."

Yes, but I did.

I knew the key distinction, and was careful to make it, as you can see above; and you didn't even realize the distinction, which is why you made a category error. But you were asking an aesthetic question (what do I like) versus an epistemological one (how do we know).

I'll give you the answer.

The fact that you (subjectively, aesthetically) like oatmeal is objectively true...perhaps, if, in fact, Gary likes oatmeal. But I can't know (epistemologically) whether or not Gary likes oatmeal, or whether Gary is only saying Gary likes oatmeal, to make a point. Something will be objectively true, even in this case; and the fact that I can't know whether Gary is telling the truth or lying will not change the objective truth. It won't make the answer factually subjective, in other words. Whether or not Gary objectively likes oatmeal will remain true, whether or not I subjectively assent to it.

So my subjectivity is not determining the facts. The facts objectively remain. Reality will be what reality is. It cannot be other than "real." Even the invocation of the question "Is X real," presupposes the existence of a thing called "reality," to which the question can be alluding. If it did not, you could not even form the predication behind the question.

So you are saying that my subjective liking of oatmeal (something you may not share or comprehend in the same way I do) is an objective fact?

If, and only if, it is true that you do like oatmeal.

So if I think murdering me is wrong,

Ugh. You did it again.

I made an epistemological claim.
Then you made an aesthetic question.
And now you've made a moral one.

Two category errors in succession. You need to look up "category error," Gary, and figure out what that means.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, but I did.

I knew the key distinction, and was careful to make it, as you can see above; and you didn't even realize the distinction, which is why you made a category error. But you were asking an aesthetic question (what do I like) versus an epistemological one (how do we know).

I'll give you the answer.

The fact that you (subjectively, aesthetically) like oatmeal is objectively true...perhaps, if, in fact, Gary likes oatmeal. But I can't know (epistemologically) whether or not Gary likes oatmeal, or whether Gary is only saying Gary likes oatmeal, to make a point. Something will be objectively true, even in this case; and the fact that I can't know whether Gary is telling the truth or lying will not change the objective truth. It won't make the answer factually subjective, in other words. Whether or not Gary objectively likes oatmeal will remain true, whether or not I subjectively assent to it.

So my subjectivity is not determining the facts. The facts objectively remain. Reality will be what reality is. It cannot be other than "real." Even the invocation of the question "Is X real," presupposes the existence of a thing called "reality," to which the question can be alluding. If it did not, you could not even form the predication behind the question.

So you are saying that my subjective liking of oatmeal (something you may not share or comprehend in the same way I do) is an objective fact?

If, and only if, it is true that you do like oatmeal.

So if I think murdering me is wrong,

Ugh. You did it again.

I made an epistemological claim.
Then you made an aesthetic question.
And now you've made a moral one.

Two category errors in succession. You need to look up "category error," Gary, and figure out what that means.

Hiding behind rhetorical antics? "Category error"? I bet you aren't making any of the errors you claim I'm making.

[Immanuel Can]

"Category error"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

[Gary Childress]

"Category error"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Fair enough. You win here.

[Immanuel Can]

"Category error"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Fair enough. You win here.

I'm not trying to "win," Gary. I'm aiming to be helpful. There isn't anything to "win" in this kind of conversation, so far as I know, other than a hearing...which you've given me, so thanks.

[Gary Childress]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Fair enough. You win here.

I'm not trying to "win," Gary. I'm aiming to be helpful. There isn't anything to "win" in this kind of conversation, so far as I know, other than a hearing...which you've given me, so thanks.

[Lacewing]

For instance, you and a house fly share the same world, but your experience of it is utterly different. In the end, you and the house fly are doing the same thing. Both of you are indifferent to 'truth' and the actual objective state of the world (whatever that may be) and are engaged only in navigating the experienced inner world given to you by your sensory organs. Your 'perspective' is the product of this engagement, and it is absolutely unique to you.

That being the case, 'true' reality is a useless concept... one you couldn't have anyway. In turn, by being useless and unattainable, it can't serve as a driving force.

This makes sense, and yet, how many of us think that some group or someone is not seeing 'reality'?

There are those on this forum who have insisted that there is only ONE reality, as if they could possibly know of it (despite the experiences of all others) -- which makes absolutely no sense. Religiously-minded people, in particular, have their whole identity and foundation dependent on such a notion.

Yet, how much broader would the concept and potential of 'god' and 'divine creation' be if we recognized the magnitude beyond human understanding, as it is reflected throughout ALL humans/beings and the Universe? Why choose to limit ourselves with small specific stories used for ego-centric and ownership purposes?

Okay... what would you do differently if you realized it was an illusion?

Great question! From my perspective, one can live just fine with such a 'realization'. It can be very freeing. With the same open spirit that a child explores their world. 'Oh, look, another day for adventure and pretending and playing!' FUN!! Even if, at times, it might be challenging not to fall back into believing and feeling tortured within the illusion. Part of the 'horror movie' thrill, perhaps? Adulthood egos try to own and make this life experience very serious... which could actually be the farthest thing from 'truth'! We can look at nature... which we are a part of... to see how life happens without the human egos. Chances are that we humans are very undeveloped 'children' in the cosmos. Maybe even brats. It might do us some good to lighten up and play.

[Lacewing]

How real is 'reality'...

...considering that it can appear differently to vast numbers of people -- and they're all convinced that what THEY themselves see/think/believe is 'the true reality'. How is that possible?

Well, we all experience the true reality, there are just a lot of different ways of interpreting it.

How does illusion fit into that? Isn't it possible NOT to experience true reality?

...considering a person's own views on reality can change throughout their lifetime -- if yesterday's perceived reality has evolved due to new understanding, is today's perceived reality any more solid than tomorrow's?

Not really. Some people believe that new information inevitably improves our understanding

I was thinking along the lines of times in our lives where we might discover we were swirling in drunken illusion. A bit different, I think, than simply gathering new information. More like waking up.

There are sects and religions that are all embracing: Christian Universalism, Sikhism, Baháʼí for example, and while it strikes me as true that all religions are equal, it doesn't follow that any one is real.

Yes, that's a clear way to say it. I do think that 'not being real' doesn't diminish value. I suspect that much of what we deal with isn't 'real'.

[Lacewing]

So your own assumption has to be that your own question isn't valid.

What makes a question valid?

[Lacewing]

Mental configurations comprise past and future.

How much of it is made up?

[Immanuel Can]

So your own assumption has to be that your own question isn't valid.

What makes a question valid?

That it is coherent. In this case, that it doesn't contain within it a contradiction of itself.

One cannot ask, "Is X real," if one doesn't already assume reality exists. It turns the question into nonsense.

[Lacewing]

How real is 'reality'...?

Hi Lacewing, I hope you are doing well.

Hi! Thank you! I hope you are doing well too.

I suggest that you can eventually derive the answer to your OP question if you will first picture how “real” your mental holography “appears” to be when you experience the multi-sensory features of an extremely vivid dream.

It all seems dreamlike to me. I used to believe in more stuff than I do now... but in retrospect, I can see how that held me captive. Now I make it a practice to notice how I'm moving through these waking dreams. I definitely get caught up in them, but it's nice when I can remember and say, 'Oh right, this is not all there is and I don't have to do this.'

Indeed, when our consciousness is directed inward when we sleep, sometimes our dreams can seem - almost as “real” - as the reality we experience when our consciousness is directed outward into the universe while we are awake.

Yes, my sleeping dreamlife is very vivid. There have been times I've woken up tired or out-of-breath from flying all over the place.

...we instead have somehow managed to awaken into “full-consciousness” and total-control of the infinitely malleable substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

I’m talking about a state of inner being in which we are not only able to consciously and willfully create literally anything imaginable out of that infinitely malleable substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created,...

...but a state of elevated awareness in which everything we do create, will appear to us (appear to the eye of our mind) as being just as “real” as the reality we experience out here in the universe.

Yes, that's what I practice being aware of. But it's a bit like when I first started dreaming (as a child) of flying: I couldn't control it, and I was flying into telephone poles and buildings. Over the years, that progressed into flying very skillfully in my night-dreams... flying around planets and escaping aliens, and even teaching others how to fly.

As for this 'waking' life, I have no firm notion of what it is, but I'm interacting with it in the same spirited way, and learning as I go. I've manifested so MANY things! It has become like breathing. Sometimes I seem to manifest things instantly just by thinking of them, and it has occurred to me that I should probably be careful. Like clumsily 'flying into telephone poles' in my dreams, I recognize that there is waking-life potential that I'm still mastering. I just try to stay in good energy and know that I am of this Universe.

Now, if you can just imagine having literally “forever” to wield and manipulate (form) that...

I can imagine that.

(a state of order that has already been achieved by what I am suggesting is the fully-evolved, fully-matured, "ADULT" version of what we are)

I think that makes a lot more sense of what we are and can be, than the small actors on a remote physical stage. It's like a difference of frequency to 'dance between the worlds'.

...you will then understand what the word “real” actually means in the context of your OP question...

It felt right to ask the question of the forum. I truly don't struggle with it. I think it's interesting to explore and question the concepts we build on.

If you click on the following link,...

https://youtu.be/78kpTL9eFFY?si=AIJZveN37DJyO7KS

...it will take you to that short clip on YouTube.

Please let me know what you think of it.
_______

I must admit that I very rarely go online to watch things. There's just so much in all directions! But if I feel drawn to check it out, I will let you know what I think. Thank you!

[Lacewing]

So your own assumption has to be that your own question isn't valid.

What makes a question valid?

That it is coherent. In this case, that it doesn't contain within it a contradiction of itself.

One cannot ask, "Is X real," if one doesn't already assume reality exists. It turns the question into nonsense.

People can ask questions to make other people think about their own beliefs, which may or may not be nonsensical. Sometimes showing the nonsense IS THE POINT.

[Immanuel Can]

What makes a question valid?

That it is coherent. In this case, that it doesn't contain within it a contradiction of itself.

One cannot ask, "Is X real," if one doesn't already assume reality exists. It turns the question into nonsense.

People can ask questions to make other people think about their own beliefs, which may or may not be nonsensical. Sometimes showing the nonsense IS THE POINT.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the point was to lure us into taking nonsense seriously. Or maybe the poster didn't realize there was a contradiction. I can't say which it was. But I can point out the contradiction, so if was the former, it was unsuccessful, in my case, and if the latter, I'm perhaps being helpful.

[Lacewing]

Maybe the point was to lure us into taking nonsense seriously.

No, that's your routine.

My point was to hear what people think about the concept of 'reality'.