How do we know what is and isn't real?

We can either experience It real, or we can not experience It, and then it is known as just not-the-Finity.

 

the problem with the question concerning "what is real" is the with the definition of "reality". It is with the dogma. I do not deny what you experience but only that which you say "is".

 

Reality is that which you believe to be real, as consciousness is required for the manifestation of the duality behind real/unreal.

 

Our senses are real to the extent that they can interact with the physical world. But our senses also lie to us sometimes, and occassionally we catch a glimpse of worlds that can't be perceived by our senses. So while our senses are real and can do us well in this world, this reality, this isn't the only one. There are places where our senses are of no use because those places lack physical matter, but not substance. In this case the mind could be considered a sense.

Everytime you think you prove that you exist. Every time you touch something, smell something, etc. We do exist in a physical world. The question would be better asked, "How do I know that I will exist outside of this (physical) world?"

We most surely exist in the physical world, we prove it every time we touch something or take a step in any direction. This world is real to this body, whether or not life is really a dream.

Can we prove that we exist in other, less physical, realities as well? I think so. Having left my own body behind a few times I like to think that it isn't wholly necessary in order for me to exist. It's a vehicle in order to better understand and navigate the physical world.

We can't prove that other people exist, other than to touch them. This, in my opinion, is a flaw in existentialism. We either have to say, "perhaps everyone else and everything is simply a product of my own mind because after all, the only mind I can prove exists is my own."

If you follow this thought path, you have to ask an ever bigger, more disturbing question, "Do others really exist while they're not in my presence?"

Or, a more realistic approach, is to have some measure of faith that others experience the same reality that you do (more or less). All thoughts are shared, this isn't hard to prove, which would lend credence to the idea that everyone is sharing the experience of reality, not just you (or whoever is doubting the existence of others).

Existentialists don't say, "peace and love", they say, "Chaos and doubt".

 

:2thumbsup: Heavy man.....;-)

 

Yaah, I know of this experience reaised during film festivals. It would seem a strong ttmept to have everyione beave like sheep. But then they all want to pig on the perspectival perception of the life world, as thus political opinons might toruble at once that you have less a conscience for it.

 

We don't. We're just guessing, and betting our lives. Some options seem more likely than others. This may be a delusion, but I go on the way things seem to me, on the basis of reason, experience, reading, thinking, and intuition. But it's a gamble.

 

You can't.

Look up Philosophical Skepticism, and welcome to being a Philosophical Skeptic.

Another question though: what does it matter whether something is real or not?

 

I generally am satisfied with the "existence "of an object if it effects or interacts with my(or others) reality. As long as it does that, I'm quite satisfied with its existance and do not hurt my head by going any further.

 

It's a gamble to the mind which is a combobulation of thoughts all competing with one another. Say to the storm "be still", walk on water, see the dove descending. There is no gamble.

 

You speak as one who sees. Some are still a making a case for verification.

 

I sometimes see. Most of the time I'm in a dream world.

 

It's real if it's energy influences, interacts with, or resonates with yours?

 

Nobody knows what is real...

 

everyone knows what's real, we just forgot along the way....which is what inspires (re)awakening in this particular incarnation - if all goes well.....

 

If we forgot... then we don't know.


I get your point though... we can always hope.

 

i don't think free will can exist, it's just a very convincing illusion. consciousness is just a sort of echo phenomenon where the system becomes aware of it's own process, or some aspects of it probably because of latencies in the system maybe. you observe yourself "thinking" about a decision you are going to make, and then you observe yourself making the decision after you consciously decided to perform the action. after you have performed the action, was there ever really any other choice? your mind caused you to perform an action based on numerous input and different criteria involved in the exact circumstances surrounding the decision and you happened to have an awareness that this was occurring which is what we call "thought". an autonomous zombie may also perform actions and appear to be making decisions but not be conscious or aware of the process.

 

You're probably not around but Descartes arrived at his "I think therefore I am" proclamation by assessing many of these things you touch on and more.

He reduced to what we (he) can be sure to know, he suggested that we cannot trust all our senses because we are sometimes deceived by them, he went so far as to say that we cannot even be sure that we even inhabit our perceived bodies. He also suggests that it's possible our thoughts may be twisted by some malovelent demon so that everything we think is illusory.

He arises at the conclusion that the only thing he can be certain of is that he is a thinking thing because at a fundamental level, regardless of all, that he is thinking in some capacity.

"I think therefore I am."

I agree with that, however Descartes living at a time where religion is the dominant social institution somehow goes on to say after that proclamation that God must exist as well and we can trust our perceptions because of that but make errors due to being granted free will, which I'm not sure how he turns around such skepticism to arguments of faith.

From very rigid philosophical positions, I'd agree with this.

 

The paradox is that philosophy is concerned with how we come to know...

This makes some of the writings of Nietzsche so impressive, he attempts to deconstruct the edifices of philosophy itself.

 

we are all equally impressed by the moon all of us being residents of the earth. this bit is a good place to point out that myopic view of our condition. We are all physically involved with physical proportions. we all live on the earth with all other other life eating the same foods and showing physically degrading processes. the appearance that we are isolated in our body but that is only because we think that way. we're taught to think that way To perceive ourselves as naked and exposed in the world. If watch a baby oh approaching toddler you might notice that they seem to impervious to cold and you can here mom saying put your coat and, don't talk, don't dispute my word, and all along the kids think are you a bitch. this battle goes on until the child or chokes down his emotion. We just open up and trust ourselves and I tell you have reason for it.