Reality, exists or just a mere Ilusion?

Jan 23, 2013 4:58 PM

#51

Deserada

Offline

Aug 2008

2600

So is this enough for your homework? Should we keep going?

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Jan 23, 2013 6:05 PM

#52

katsucats

Offline

Oct 2012

16017

Someone mentioned Bertrand Russell. We know for a fact what we experience is not reality as it is. Here's Bertrand Russel's Time Lag Argument of Indirect Perception:

Perception is dependent on information about the external world reaching the sensory areas of the brain, via the sense organs, and then being processed there, all of which does not happen instantaneously, but takes at least around a tenth of a second.
Therefore, what one experiences perceptually must lag behind the external world by at least around a tenth of a second.
If X and Y are actually literally the same thing, then there cannot be any kind of distinction whatsoever, however small, between X and Y.
Therefore, what one experiences perceptually cannot literally be the area of the external world being perceived.
Therefore, what one experiences perceptually must be a delayed representation of the area of the external world being perceived, generated by the brain from sensory information.
Therefore, perception is merely a mental simulation of the external world.

Basically, nothing travels as fast as the speed of light. Therefore, there is a time period between when the electrical impulses are picked up by your finger when you touch something, to it reaching the brain giving you "perception". Therefore what you experience cannot be what actually exists in real time.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 23, 2013 6:11 PM

#53

Rezurrekt

Offline

Dec 2010

2668

You know, there has been research done to show that Reality may be nothing more than a simulation.

I don't remember the article link but it was said that scientists had modeled a computer simulation after our "reality" and realized that in the computer simulation there were constraints/ceilings forced onto the world -- the same constraints found in reality.

Jan 23, 2013 6:52 PM

#54

002173

Offline

Feb 2011

886

katsucats said:
Someone mentioned Bertrand Russell. We know for a fact what we experience is not reality as it is. Here's Bertrand Russel's Time Lag Argument of Indirect Perception:

Perception is dependent on information about the external world reaching the sensory areas of the brain, via the sense organs, and then being processed there, all of which does not happen instantaneously, but takes at least around a tenth of a second.
Therefore, what one experiences perceptually must lag behind the external world by at least around a tenth of a second.
If X and Y are actually literally the same thing, then there cannot be any kind of distinction whatsoever, however small, between X and Y.
Therefore, what one experiences perceptually cannot literally be the area of the external world being perceived.
Therefore, what one experiences perceptually must be a delayed representation of the area of the external world being perceived, generated by the brain from sensory information.
Therefore, perception is merely a mental simulation of the external world.

Basically, nothing travels as fast as the speed of light. Therefore, there is a time period between when the electrical impulses are picked up by your finger when you touch something, to it reaching the brain giving you "perception". Therefore what you experience cannot be what actually exists in real time.

Somewhat related, but I remember watching some video that talked about how tall people actually live further in the past than the average-sized person because of the greater distance the information has to travel through the nerve pathways from the receptors in the skin to the brain.

The delay isn't increased by much, but it's still a longer delay. I just thought that was cool. idk.

Jan 23, 2013 10:39 PM

#55

Citizeninsane

Offline

Jan 2012

367

Regicide said:

I do not deny the reality of an external, mind-independent world, but I do agree with Kant insofar that we can never truly know whether or not we are perceiving "things-in-themselves." To further elucidate this point, we can only understand objects via the intuitions of time and space which give rise to appearances of objects a posteriori. Now whether those are presentations of the object in itself or a re-presentation of the object is again outside the bounds of epistemology. We have to keep in mind how we by the limitations of our being cognize external reality and how that possibly distorts objective reality.

Anyways, to address the topic. I would contend that some formulation of reality exists, how exposed to that reality and what reliability can be given to the senses is obviously up to debate but as said previously by InfiniteRyvius, "I think, therefore I am", which grounds our existence as a being.

CitizeninsaneJan 24, 2013 1:01 AM

Jan 23, 2013 11:48 PM

#56

katsucats

Offline

Oct 2012

16017

InfiniteRyvius said:
the only thing that we know for certain exists is our own mind, hence that quote "I think therefore I am".

Except you don't think, your thoughts were externally predetermined.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 24, 2013 12:20 AM

#57

FreakyTy

Offline

May 2011

792

Pretty much if where we are now is not reality than it won't matter because it's not real.

In other words, who gives a damn?

*Cringey anime weeb stuff*

Jan 24, 2013 1:12 AM

#58

Citizeninsane

Offline

Jan 2012

367

katsucats said:

InfiniteRyvius said:
the only thing that we know for certain exists is our own mind, hence that quote "I think therefore I am".

Except you don't think, your thoughts were externally predetermined.

In a materialistic deterministic perspective? Extrapolate.

Jan 24, 2013 1:22 AM

#59

katsucats

Offline

Oct 2012

16017

Citizeninsane said:

katsucats said:

InfiniteRyvius said:
the only thing that we know for certain exists is our own mind, hence that quote "I think therefore I am".

Except you don't think, your thoughts were externally predetermined.

In a materialistic deterministic perspective? Extrapolate.

Yes. We had a long debate about this with him arguing for determinism and against free will. I believe this as well, but above all that Descartes' rationalist "cogito ergo sum" is incompatible with materialism. You cannot actually be responsible for your own thoughts, so in a metaphysical sense your thoughts have no meaning that could anchor you to existence in the same way that a puppet cannot claim to "exist".

"I" in "I think therefore I am" is a posteriori. It must be assumed that "I" exist and thinks in order to make that argument.

katsucatsJan 24, 2013 1:59 AM

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 24, 2013 1:52 AM

#60

gemanepa

Offline

Nov 2011

521

Jan 24, 2013 2:47 AM

#61

Citizeninsane

Offline

Jan 2012

367

katsucats said:

You cannot actually be responsible for your own thoughts, so in a metaphysical sense your thoughts have no meaning that could anchor you to existence in the same way that a puppet cannot claim to "exist".

"The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions."

I would agree that all phenomena that we have dealt with has been purely material or energy based, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of reality is strictly material. Now before you get all fussy about that, I am a materialist strictly by induction.

So either the materialistic deterministic empirical realist perspective is correct, and our senses lead us to some formulation of objective reality and we exist as an entity. Or the materialistic perspective is actually wrong since it is by mere induction that materialism is held and cogito ergo sum holds necessarily instead. So either way you have to exist.

Thus the entirety of your mind is where thoughts originate. You might not be the conscious originator of your thoughts insofar as there are a myriad of variables that come into play that influence every thought, but the entirety of your mind whether that be in the matrix, in a jar, or in a delusional paradise the product of a demon, your mind has to necessarily exist for thoughts to even begin.

katsucats said:

"I" in "I think therefore I am" is a posteriori. It must be assumed that "I" exist and thinks in order to make that argument.

I is necessairly a priori. You have to distinguish yourself from the external world before you make any argument. Only by the virtue of "I" being a priori is experience even possible.

Jan 24, 2013 3:21 AM

#62

azzuRe

Offline

Oct 2009

7146

I had a friend once that loved to hang out with me, but people are saying that he isn't real.
Then I told him and then he said that this world I'm living in is just an illusion.
He asked me to follow him to the reality beyond this world.
I would really love that you know, but at least he should teach me how he walks through the wall first.
Because I have a hard time catching up with him.

The most important things in life is the people that you care about

Jan 24, 2013 3:32 AM

#63

Infinite

Offline

Mar 2011

9988

katsucats said:

Citizeninsane said:

katsucats said:

InfiniteRyvius said:
the only thing that we know for certain exists is our own mind, hence that quote "I think therefore I am".

Except you don't think, your thoughts were externally predetermined.

In a materialistic deterministic perspective? Extrapolate.

Yes. We had a long debate about this with him arguing for determinism and against free will. I believe this as well, but above all that Descartes' rationalist "cogito ergo sum" is incompatible with materialism. You cannot actually be responsible for your own thoughts, so in a metaphysical sense your thoughts have no meaning that could anchor you to existence in the same way that a puppet cannot claim to "exist".

"I" in "I think therefore I am" is a posteriori. It must be assumed that "I" exist and thinks in order to make that argument.

Katsucats, as I mentioned in the debate, identity is not mutually exclusive to determinism, hard or otherwise. Likewise although our thoughts are pre-determined, it does not mean that it isn't proof of it's own existence.

Jan 24, 2013 3:35 AM

#64

katsucats

Offline

Oct 2012

16017

Citizeninsane said:

katsucats said:
You cannot actually be responsible for your own thoughts, so in a metaphysical sense your thoughts have no meaning that could anchor you to existence in the same way that a puppet cannot claim to "exist".

"The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions."

I would agree that all phenomena that we have dealt with has been purely material or energy based, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of reality is strictly material. Now before you get all fussy about that, I am a materialist strictly by induction.

So either the materialistic deterministic empirical realist perspective is correct, and our senses lead us to some formulation of objective reality and we exist as an entity. Or the materialistic perspective is actually wrong since it is by mere induction that materialism is held and cogito ergo sum holds necessarily instead. So either way you have to exist.

The mechanisms behind some idealist reality being epistemically impossible notwithstanding, the "I" in cogito ergo sum refers to the subjective self -- the soul rather than the machine. So while you are right that "you" have to exist, the formulations of self are completely different in each possibility that they cannot be said to refer to the same concept. The materialist "you" is merely some combination of molecules in physical space; it cannot think, it has no agency, no capacity to act, because everything is externally determined (causality) and predetermined by some state of the universe prior to its existence.

Citizeninsane said:
Thus the entirety of your mind is where thoughts originate. You might not be the conscious originator of your thoughts insofar as there are a myriad of variables that come into play that influence every thought, but the entirety of your mind whether that be in the matrix, in a jar, or in a delusional paradise the product of a demon, your mind has to necessarily exist for thoughts to even begin.

Minds don't exist in materialist monism.

Citizeninsane said:

katsucats said:
"I" in "I think therefore I am" is a posteriori. It must be assumed that "I" exist and thinks in order to make that argument.

I is necessairly a priori. You have to distinguish yourself from the external world before you make any argument. Only by the virtue of "I" being a priori is experience even possible.

"I" is necessarily a posteriori. There is no evidence for why you should have to distinguish yourself from the external world, whether there exists such distinction to begin with objectively, yet when faced with the problem of the origin of experience, you conceptualize a vessel to justify it.

In any case, "I think therefore I am exist" presupposes the "I" exist (as does the a priori "I"), making it a circular argument.

Edit for clarification: The conceptualization of "I" in Descartes' rationalism is a priori and I certainly understand how he arrived to this conclusion. It can be said that one cannot even begin to deliberate whether "I" exist without presupposing "I" being his own identity. However, it could also be argued that self-awareness is not necessary for experience; in fact, many animals are able to complete simple tasks without being self aware. Under materialism there is no "I" (because of causality), so the attempt to presuppose "I" begs the question. There is a solution to this problem: by externalizing agency, any argument "you" make is not made by you freely, making self-awareness irrelevant.

katsucatsJan 24, 2013 4:33 AM

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 24, 2013 3:48 AM

#65

katsucats

Offline

Oct 2012

16017

InfiniteRyvius said:

katsucats said:

Citizeninsane said:

katsucats said:

InfiniteRyvius said:
the only thing that we know for certain exists is our own mind, hence that quote "I think therefore I am".

Except you don't think, your thoughts were externally predetermined.

In a materialistic deterministic perspective? Extrapolate.

Yes. We had a long debate about this with him arguing for determinism and against free will. I believe this as well, but above all that Descartes' rationalist "cogito ergo sum" is incompatible with materialism. You cannot actually be responsible for your own thoughts, so in a metaphysical sense your thoughts have no meaning that could anchor you to existence in the same way that a puppet cannot claim to "exist".

"I" in "I think therefore I am" is a posteriori. It must be assumed that "I" exist and thinks in order to make that argument.

Katsucats, as I mentioned in the debate, identity is not mutually exclusive to determinism, hard or otherwise. Likewise although our thoughts are pre-determined, it does not mean that it isn't proof of it's own existence.

If we're talking about subjective (symbolic) identity, then they are exclusive, lest you run into the trap of associating subjective identity with every physical object. A calculator solves a simple mathematical problem and renders a solution. Yet it does not have identity. It has a physical PVC shell and rubber buttons, such that we have arms and feet, insofar that there is someone to perceive the object from other objects (which there isn't), but that's as far as identity goes in a deterministic world.

Using thoughts to prove your existence assumes that you are thinking instead of an external arrangement of molecules causing thought. It's like pulling a string to a puppet and saying, "Look, it moved. It must be alive!"

Edit for clarity: A string is tied to a branch on one end and a rock on the other. It swings by the forces of gravity or wind or some other object hitting against it, but even though it swings it has no agency. When we say that it is swinging, we do not mean that some force within the string causes it to swing by itself; it is not responsible for its actions.

However if the string tied to a rock on one end has the capability to swing by itself, not totally determined by external forces such as gravity, wind or other physical objects -- I mean it swings by itself, under its own intent... On some days it might swing rhythmically, others violently, then in others it might be docile as if asleep. If there were 2 of such strings, each possessing different swinging ability, we could say that the strings possess personality, that they are different in themselves. Even if the string is not biologically alive, we could say that they are alive -- for such a string, it swings, therefore it exists.

And when we say "it", we do not mean the string itself tied to a rock, we mean the "soul" of the string. The string itself exists even if it never swings.

Likewise, a human exists if it never thinks. When we say "I think therefore I exist", we are not talking about the human shell, we are talking about the human "soul". If determinism is true, and we act wholly according to external circumstances, then we can be attributed to thinking as much as a string is attributed to swinging.

katsucatsJan 24, 2013 4:51 AM

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 24, 2013 8:31 AM

#66

Citizeninsane

Offline

Jan 2012

367

katsucats said:

Citizeninsane said:

katsucats said:
You cannot actually be responsible for your own thoughts, so in a metaphysical sense your thoughts have no meaning that could anchor you to existence in the same way that a puppet cannot claim to "exist".

"The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions."

I would agree that all phenomena that we have dealt with has been purely material or energy based, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of reality is strictly material. Now before you get all fussy about that, I am a materialist strictly by induction.

So either the materialistic deterministic empirical realist perspective is correct, and our senses lead us to some formulation of objective reality and we exist as an entity. Or the materialistic perspective is actually wrong since it is by mere induction that materialism is held and cogito ergo sum holds necessarily instead. So either way you have to exist.

The mechanisms behind some idealist reality being epistemically impossible notwithstanding, the "I" in cogito ergo sum refers to the subjective self -- the soul rather than the machine. So while you are right that "you" have to exist, the formulations of self are completely different in each possibility that they cannot be said to refer to the same concept. The materialist "you" is merely some combination of molecules in physical space; it cannot think, it has no agency, no capacity to act, because everything is externally determined (causality) and predetermined by some state of the universe prior to its existence.

Citizeninsane said:
Thus the entirety of your mind is where thoughts originate. You might not be the conscious originator of your thoughts insofar as there are a myriad of variables that come into play that influence every thought, but the entirety of your mind whether that be in the matrix, in a jar, or in a delusional paradise the product of a demon, your mind has to necessarily exist for thoughts to even begin.

Minds don't exist in materialist monism.

Citizeninsane said:

katsucats said:
"I" in "I think therefore I am" is a posteriori. It must be assumed that "I" exist and thinks in order to make that argument.

I is necessairly a priori. You have to distinguish yourself from the external world before you make any argument. Only by the virtue of "I" being a priori is experience even possible.

"I" is necessarily a posteriori. There is no evidence for why you should have to distinguish yourself from the external world, whether there exists such distinction to begin with objectively, yet when faced with the problem of the origin of experience, you conceptualize a vessel to justify it.

In any case, "I think therefore I am exist" presupposes the "I" exist (as does the a priori "I"), making it a circular argument.

Edit for clarification: The conceptualization of "I" in Descartes' rationalism is a priori and I certainly understand how he arrived to this conclusion. It can be said that one cannot even begin to deliberate whether "I" exist without presupposing "I" being his own identity. However, it could also be argued that self-awareness is not necessary for experience; in fact, many animals are able to complete simple tasks without being self aware. Under materialism there is no "I" (because of causality), so the attempt to presuppose "I" begs the question. There is a solution to this problem: by externalizing agency, any argument "you" make is not made by you freely, making self-awareness irrelevant.

Ah, well not that you have explained to the extent you have, I would tend to agree. I misunderstood what you implied originally.

Jan 24, 2013 10:00 PM

#67

Zephys

Offline

Apr 2007

826

If "reality" is a so-called illusion, then what?

Jan 25, 2013 1:35 PM

#68

Baman

Offline

Feb 2005

13573

Obviously, our interpretation of reality is a pretty solid reflection of it. If we couldn't properly interpret the world around us, our ancestors would have died out long ago, killed by predators they could not see.

Too what degree our interpretation of reality really reflects it's objectivity, who knows, who cares. Not as if We'll find out anyways, can't do anythign but assume that it's real.

Jan 25, 2013 6:04 PM

#69

Umbrya

Offline

Dec 2010

2795

OP abandoned ship so damn fast.. I knew Regi's post would be the first of many to scare him away....

Jan 25, 2013 6:09 PM

#70

Narmy

Offline

Jun 2011

7035

It's all an illusion. Just free your mind and you too can jump skyscrapers.

In fact, why don't you try that right now... just to make sure.

Jan 26, 2013 6:03 AM

#71

im4eversmart

Offline

Aug 2011

441

Does it matter?

Subjectively everyone is living under the same manner, I dont dare say if objectively there is some kind of otherworldly power or maybe we're stuck in a matrix, but what you see and feel now is your current "life"

or you can try this.

dankickyou said:
Kill yourself to find out

kek

Poll: » Do you think about bombing italy? WeebIncelLoser - 4 hours ago	11	by traed »» 3 minutes ago
» Favorite places in the EU you have visited, and where in the EU would you like to go next KiraraFan - Jun 12	11	by MeanMrMusician »» 16 minutes ago
» How to improve intelligence False_Entity - 5 hours ago	13	by ghostsamurai »» 38 minutes ago
» Do your dress nice? ( 1 2 ) PopArt - Jul 6, 2023	92	by starshiiine »» 1 hour ago
» What is a food you hate that everyone likes? ( 1 2 ) ThisAaugh - Aug 30, 2023	96	by starshiiine »» 1 hour ago

Reality, exists or just a mere Ilusion?

More topics from this board

Poll: » Do you think about bombing italy?

» Favorite places in the EU you have visited, and where in the EU would you like to go next

» How to improve intelligence

» Do your dress nice? ( 1 2 )

» What is a food you hate that everyone likes? ( 1 2 )

MoreTop Anime

MoreTop Airing Anime

MoreMost Popular Characters