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

Reality is just relative, our perception of what is real is based on a subject observing in a specific environment, as the creation is not static (always changing) what we think is real is often referred to as an illusion.

The absolute truth (or God) cannot be challenged and is reality as it is infinite. The state of Enlightenment is reality as it is ,was and will always be.

 

You are operating on unrecognized assumptions.
What would be relative reality or truth?..which is it relative reality or truth?
Reality is
Relative reality is not a definition of reality.
Start with one thing, a standard metric that we have different takes on.
Reality is. No variation in the state of reality.
It seems you are trying to firmly account for the subjective experience by saying it is less than real or relatively real.
What is reality, information. Every informational bit of reality is every bit informed.
We are relatively informed. which does not mean less than informed. It means we are informed through relationship and are increasingly informed as we expand our relationships. Never in any part of this are we less than informed, or information less.
What is it to be informed, in the know. What is knowledge, being shared. to be bit by bit informed is perception.
Truth is relative in that it requires comparison and true terms are, same, different, or purposeful. You are the arbiter of truth if you arbitrate on true terms. If truth is a qualification then no one qualifies.

So you see the only exception that is made in this reasoned output is that of qualification.

There is no restriction of the subjective perception to apprehend firmly real things save for the temptation to qualify as oppose to quantify.

 

Descartes was right. Our existence is the one thing we can be sure of. Not only is it logically compelling because of the "I think, therefore I am" syllogism, but also we can apprehend it directly thru our conscious minds. Beyond that, though, I think nothing is certain, not even that. We have to resort to at least a modicum of faith of the kind Santayana called "animal faith", the sort of instinct that makes me confident I'm communicating with real people right now and am not a head in a jar or a simulation in some virtual reality computer program. There's a prof at Oxford who believes the latter, and who am I to judge. After all, he has the title and the salary, so I concede that he might be sane. I think of faith as intuitive risk-taking, or as Martin Luther put it, a "joyful bet'. I'm willing to gamble even farther on the existence of something that can be called God. Unlike Kierkegaard, however, I'm unwilling to make a "leap of faith". A hop of faith is more like it for me, and I won't bet on anything that is contrary to science and logic, or that is unsupported by substantial evidence, defined as less than scientific or courtroom proof but enough evidence to convince a rational person even though other rational persons are convinced otherwise. I also hold all my beliefs tentatively, to be revised on the basis of new evidence.But those are just the rules I've opted to live by, because they seem reasonable and intuitively sound on the basis of my personal experience, street wisdom, book larnin', reason and intuition. So that's my philosophy, that has gotten me thru so far. I might not be right, but I'm following a system that seems the best I can come up with. The important thing is to enjoy the ride!

 

Apprehend what? We are our only measure. It is a logical fallacy that we cannot perceive real things accurately.I will remind, I will send the comforter, the holy spirit that teaches all things. It is a logical fallacy that you to believe that you are gambling on belief. The human being is a two part being one spirit and one physical sensation. All living things share a sensation of self in the body but only human being are self reflective on sensation. Uniformed taste is traffic control for the unintended which in practical terms means that animals are confined to their respective ecological niche whereas we can occupy any clime. Currently we are taught to use taste instead of reason as guide for what we might choose. It is a dim way to relate to the world. The mind is naturally abstract, a communication of spirit which is why we can't find the seat of consciousness in the body. the most resonable explanation for what we see is that spriit is real

 

our experience is real.

 

So you seem to be saying that we know we can perceive real things accurately because "I remind, I will send the comforter etc"--.'i.e., you have supernatural assurance. And you can tell us all about "the human being" and its nature because of some knowledge that you just have because of what? the comforter that teaches all things? Lucky you. But how do you know you're not delusional? To you, I'm sure, that seems impossible, but to others, believe me, it seems like a very real possibility we can't rule out.

 

It is not a logical fallacy. From a physical perspective, we are limited to what we can experience in reality due to all our senses being limited. We don't have adept sonar listening capabilities, or 20/2 vision.

From a metaphysical position, all organized structured spiritual beliefs have had some elements which have been wrong, misunderstood, or more mysterious than may have once been presumed. There seems to be some elusive quality to the divine.

So if this were accurate, which I'm not sure it is... how does isolating us from the world (presumably reality) make you think we apprehend reality accurately?

 

How do I know I'm not delusional? Dissemble my reason, if you can do that then you have a case. The reason I talk about the comforter to you is that you are not aware that such a thing can inhabit you and you rely on belief instead of gleaning certainty. If you are not experiencing this phenomena as described in the bible then you haven't experienced it yet. It is something that you should seek out. In addition I have my physical condition to point to and the fact that a chronic pain complex I have had for years has vanished. I don't have supernatural assurance I have clear vision and the difference is stark. Your assurances seem to be guesses.

 

What is the prerequisite for being able to see clearly? A lack of judgement. I don't have an emotional attachment to the idea of right and wrong. I am concerned only with true or false. the true supports us the false leaves us nothing to grab to firmly.

 

Reality is complete, understanding is not and truth is in fact relative but only in true terms or in comparison to one another which are same, different, and purposeful.

 

Delphic, as usual. I don't think it's productive to continue dialogue with an oracle.

 

It is from a thoughtful perspective.Think again on the abilities we have. you have spoken inaccurately. how is it that we don't have adept sonar listening capabilities if you know what those are? How do you know what 2020 vision is if you you haven't come upon 2o20 vision? You confuse your sensational self with the ability to make sense of things. We come to know through trial and error. We have leaning to taste to instruct instead of reason. In this case we have a lack of faith in ability and if you don't think it exists then it is not accessible to you

.

,The apparent illusive quality of the divine stems from the belief that you not possess it. On continuing errors it is a fact that a truth in one instance may not be helpful in another and that we always have more to learn. Doesn't mean we cant in fact learn anything.

We are not isolated from the world in any sense whatsoever. we are in two parts which are the communal elements of coming to know, taste and knowing. We take something in reflect on on it and either accept, reject, or wait for more information. We have seven senses 5 tactile and two abstract.

 

It is the only thing about us that is substantially relevant.

 

And vacuous as you usually are. Make a snide comment and say nothing of substance. All you are saying is that you are not very good at reading comprehension or discerning the dimensions of your own faith.

You may as well run along if you nothing to contribute

 

People you misunderstand, I am not asking that I be believed I am asking that you use your reason and figure it out.

 

Posted December 25 2014 - 03:32 PM

Will clarify the world for you to the extent that it seems like you know everything in comparison to what has only been suspected, but no one stops becoming, stops becoming informed and therefor in grasp of ever greater proportion. We journey right now beyond our own system for the first time and we bring light with us to every where. We are the seed from the furnace of all that is visible, all that can be touched and all that, can be apprehended. We have the capabilty to master our experience in this very moment and the only thing that can slow you down is try to accommodate the past. The past is not here, if you entertain it, it will not pass away.

Lot's wife looked back and turned into stone, the dusty past of cosmic collisions and it is a long way back into the light.

 

Because we can observe bats echolocation calls and abilities and for the 20/2 vision, we can witness a hawk dive bomb from the height of a skyscraper to a precise location in the water in a few seconds to catch it's prey.

We in turn can study these phenomena, to understand and learn the mechanisms behind them and even emulate them somewhat in our technology, but we do not possess them. Therefore if we are experiencing reality, we can recognize that we are experiencing it in a limited way.

 

Bull. It is true that we take cues from the environment. If we have the technology then we possess it. What bats don't have is the ability to understand. The fact that we use magnification devices doesn't not mean we do not see what we are looking at and no other animal has electron microscopes. We use sonar, it is not fake sonar nor are we fakes. We are real with genuine ability. We are the most observant animal on the earth. Not bats and hawks.

 

I had a feeling you were going to split hairs there.

By possess it, I mean the way in which we inherently experience reality. Looking at the moon elicits a different experience for most, if not all, then seeing a picture of the moon. There is a difference in the direct experience compared to the mediated experience of technology.

I am not suggesting that the cognitive makeup of a bat or hawk is superior than ours in all facets, I am suggesting that natural selection has developed them particular features which are superior to ours, which we recognize (primarily due to our magnificent ability to recognize our ability to function admist the enviornment) and therefore we see how our senses are limited.

 

The way we apprehend is through a biofeedback loop of inquiry and response. If you mean by split hairs to open the mind then yes that is what I am doing. Our experience is an abstract domain by nature. It is in the domain of mind where we exist in every conceivable detail. We all have individual bodies but in these we are divorced from each other as far as recognizing our common estate of being a mind we share and a flesh which functions the same for everyone. We get the idea that no understands our pain or our joy because this witness of separation which is in fact individuation, that is the appearance of the body is so convincing in it's appearance. Let's just say it looks convincing because we are convinced.
However we didn't always have this conviction and we can change our mind and discover again our greater proportions.

Well what is it if you say it exists?