What is Reality? Philosophers' Views

[baywax]

Here's a synopsis of Lao Tsu's understanding and "employment" of emptiness...

Lao Tsu wrote that "the Tao is (like) the emptiness of a vessel; and in our employment of it we must be on our guard against all fullness" (Ch. 4). Lao Tsu stressed the "emptiness" of the Tao because he wanted people to keep themselves empty and pure. He wrote that "[w]e should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the complications of things . . . and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of others" (Ch. 4). These actions follow the way of the Tao and create communal harmony, the goal towards which Lao Tsu wanted followers of the Tao to achieve.

http://www.helium.com/tm/379897/taoism-peaceful-concept-encountered

And here's a newly translated version of the Tao Te Ching in which you'll find some studies about emptiness and "the unnamed way"... and stuff like that.

http://www.searchwithin.org/download/tao_te_ching.pdf

 

[sd01g]

It seems that there is one primary reality that affect everyone the same--Everyone must breath and everyone requires some form of external energy (food) to remain alive, and one secondary reality which is unique to each indiviual.

It is the secondary reality of the mind (which cannot exist without the primary reality) that is unique to each individual. Such things as mathematics, language, values, and pain perceptions exist only as secondary reality, and people can accept it or reject it as they detemine its truth or relevance.

One may decide if God exists or not but one does not decide to stop breathing and still remain alive. Remove the primary reality of matter/energy and the secondary reality of the self, the mind, the conscious, vanishes. Remove all the individuals and mathematics, language, values, and pain also vanish.

 

[JoeDawg]

It seems...

It is part of your consciousness that things 'appear' to be thus and thus. It might be otherwise, or not. But what is unavoidable, what is primary, is that you are conscious of how things 'seem' to be.

It is the secondary reality of the mind (which cannot exist without the primary reality)

Your opinion, which requires consciousness to exist. Or you wouldn't have an opinion.

 

[sd01g]

It is part of your consciousness that things 'appear' to be thus and thus. It might be otherwise, or not. But what is unavoidable, what is primary, is that you are conscious of how things 'seem' to be.

Your opinion, which requires consciousness to exist. Or you wouldn't have an opinion.

My view of reality is just my 'best guess'. I do not know anyone who actually knows what reality is. If you do, let me know. OK

 

[friend]

It is part of your consciousness that things 'appear' to be thus and thus. It might be otherwise, or not. But what is unavoidable, what is primary, is that you are conscious of how things 'seem' to be.

This is an interesting conversation.

Could there be principles in common with objective and subjective reality? Whether we are dealing with something outside ourselves or only our perceptions, it seems we are trying to understand the relationship between different things (whether real or imagined). In either case, we have to organize our observations into catagories and try to discern relationships between them. What are the common and distinct features of the different things we observe. We use math and logic to determine these relationships. So it would seem that math and logic are the tools to determine what is really real.

 

[JoeDawg]

My view of reality is just my 'best guess'.

Best guess or not, guessing at all, even badly, implies you are conscious. Before you can know anything, reflect on anything, discern or compare anything, consciousness must exist. This is what first principles is about, the idea that thinking must exist before anything else. It has nothing whatever to do with whether physical things exist or not. Its about the nature of knowledge. Knowledge requires a knower. From that, all else is derived.

 

[JoeDawg]

Could there be principles in common with objective and subjective reality?

Objective vs subjective is something of a false dichotomy. Everything known, by the process of knowing, is subjective. Objectivity, is more a goal than anything. A phrase often used more accurately with regards to knowledge is 'inter-subjectivity'. And remember this is not an ontological discussion, but epistemological, understanding the difference can be very difficult and disconcerting even.

This is the state we find ourselves in, where different 'selfs' interact. We observe what appears to be things and others like ourselves. We pile up the evidence, the commonalities and create rules about which things we observe are like ourselves. We can certainly make best guesses and do as a matter of course. But they are guesses. People like Descartes were not satisfied with guesses.

Whether we are dealing with something outside ourselves or only our perceptions, it seems we are trying to understand the relationship between different things (whether real or imagined).

This is another problem in this sort of discussion, real vs imagined are ways we give value to things, and when a philosopher asks how does one know the difference, most people don't understand the question. Science will tell us what is consistent in our observations, but our observations themselves are still from our perspective. They are not objective, even though, we consider them so, if they appear consistent over time. The question of illusion or reality does not imply everything is illusion, but simply questions how we know things and to what degree we can know things, even with science as our best weapon.

We use math and logic to determine these relationships. So it would seem that math and logic are the tools to determine what is really real.

Math is an abstraction, a generalization from what we observe, if anything its less real, it can however help us understand in a basic way how things relate to each other because it has strict rules.

Logic is also helpful, and really, essential to mathematics, but logic like math requires axioms or premises, the starting points, which are for the most part indistinguishable from 'assumptions'. Again this is why people like Descartes were embarrassed by how much we know, but how poorly we know it.

 

[zankaon]

The best thing about reality, is seeing it in the rearview mirror

Imagination is the world of possibilities.
Reality is the world of probabilities.

QLG, 1001 inflationary models, superstrings, accellerating universe, branes
vs GRT, QFT, Hubble expansion of our manifold (continuum); even if superluminal for early universe.

 

[sd01g]

Best guess or not, guessing at all, even badly, implies you are conscious. Before you can know anything, reflect on anything, discern or compare anything, consciousness must exist. This is what first principles is about, the idea that thinking must exist before anything else. It has nothing whatever to do with whether physical things exist or not. Its about the nature of knowledge. Knowledge requires a knower. From that, all else is derived.

It is time to move out of the 17th century. The first thing a new human must do to remain a human is to take a breath and continue breathing. This predates any cognitive awareness of any first princeple.

Note: It is ultimate reality that we are guessing about--not primary or secondary reality.

 

[JoeDawg]

It is time to move out of the 17th century.

Right back to the stone age. Good luck with that.

 

[vanesch]

This is an interesting conversation.

Could there be principles in common with objective and subjective reality? Whether we are dealing with something outside ourselves or only our perceptions, it seems we are trying to understand the relationship between different things (whether real or imagined). In either case, we have to organize our observations into catagories and try to discern relationships between them. What are the common and distinct features of the different things we observe. We use math and logic to determine these relationships. So it would seem that math and logic are the tools to determine what is really real.

Exactly my idea. "Reality" is a hypothesis which serves to organize our subjective perceptions. It might even be there "for real" too ! Or not. Or not the way we think it is there. No way to find out. But as a practical mental construct, in any case, the reality hypothesis is very useful - even so useful that without it, our perceptions really don't make much sense at all. So let's keep a reality hypothesis, but let's be, at the same time, aware of its hypothetical character, and let us not eliminate in advance, certain ways of thinking because they seem to be in conflict with our reality hypothesis.

 

[Phred101.2]

"Reality" is a hypothesis which serves to organize our subjective perceptions. ... the reality hypothesis is very useful - even so useful that without it, our perceptions really don't make much sense at all. ... and let us not eliminate in advance, certain ways of thinking because they seem to be in conflict with our reality hypothesis.

That's an interesting thing to say if you mean by the hypothesis that we "measure" this Reality, even though we know what we're measuring is our own "concept" of that measurement, of what it signifies in our "reality"? We know that we're really "just" remembering something?

 

[Ocularis]

Random Thoughts...

From reading this discussion I am reminded of the old question - which came first the chicken or the egg.

It seems one argument poses the ultimate (primary) reality as the vessel that develops the consiousness (the human body requiring O2) and the the other argument is for the consiousness that is 'aware' of the concept of O2 and the human body.

In other words one argues without existence of O2 the vessel would not exist to develop a consiousss in the first place, but the other argues without the consiousness there would be no concept of O2 or vessel to ponder what would hapen if there were no O2.

To introduce my thoughts I pose the question-how can a consiousness 'experience' anything if there were no concepts, things or reality to experience? So what if the consiousness exists (primary), without an external reality what would it experience, what would it have to question? But then one must ask how can such a question even be posed without the consiousness in the first place? Ah, for such a question to be posed there must be a 'reality' or 'something' to experience, else where did the question even come from? Round and round we go...

Although the consioussnes is the primary mechanism upon which we can question reality i.e. the starting point from which we determine a reality does exist, without an external reality for it to experience, there would be nothing for the consiousness to do or question, thus the fact the consiousness does exist and and that we can identify our own existence and question the existence of reality, it would imply that the external reality is really primary. Even though knowledge starts with a knower if there were nothing to know what good is the knower?

Just my two cents.

 

[JoeDawg]

Although the consioussnes is the primary mechanism upon which we can question reality i.e. the starting point from which we determine a reality does exist, without an external reality for it to experience, there would be nothing for the consiousness to do or question, thus the fact the consiousness does exist and and that we can identify our own existence and question the existence of reality, it would imply that the external reality is really primary. Even though knowledge starts with a knower if there were nothing to know what good is the knower?

Where knowledge comes from is a good question, but that's a different question.

It still doesn't address the problem that Descartes was trying to address all those years ago. What if you are being deceived? You can't rule that out with regards to what you perceive. The question of the illusion of reality is grounded, not on the idea that external things don't exist, but rather on the notion that the supposed 'external cause' of perceived reality is something different from the way it appears to the self. What if you are a brain in a vat? What if your observations are no more than the work of a deceiving god. What if your 'self' has no 'material' component at all? Knowledge of 'the world' is very different from knowledge of 'reality' or of 'the self', the latter being immediate and unavoidable.

This is why the solipsist thought experiment is so important, and is generally so misunderstood. Any hierarchy of knowledge needs a foundation and consciousness is that foundation. One could certainly conceive of a being that doesn't require oxygen to live.
One could conceive of a being that doesn't require a body, a la star trek and other Sci-fi.
Can a conscious being exist outside time and space? Millions believe so, and call it god.
Are these possible? Probable? Likely? Doesn't matter.

At the end of the day, knowledge of any kind isn't conceivable without some form of consciousness. The external cause of 'reality' remains unknown, and that cause may not be anything like what we perceive, or it might be very close, but the seat of what we call reality remains consciousness.

 

[Ocularis]

Random Ponderings...

The question of the illusion of reality is grounded, not on the idea that external things don't exist, but rather on the notion that the supposed 'external cause' of perceived reality is something different from the way it appears to the self. What if you are a brain in a vat? What if your observations are no more than the work of a deceiving god. What if your 'self' has no 'material' component at all? Knowledge of 'the world' is very different from knowledge of 'reality' or of 'the self', the latter being immediate and unavoidable...

I like the question, What if you are being decieved? Why is consciousness protected from such deception? If everything we experience externally can be a deception how can you differentiate the experience of the consciousness as 'something that can not be a deception' and the experience of exernal reality as 'something with the potential to be a deception' in the first place? i.e. why is the experience of the consciousness more real, than the experience of exernal reality?

Consider the statements- I think therefore I am. I think therefore you are.

How can you be sure I am not actually you, since your external reality can be a deception? Yet your consciousness does know it is not me.

In this example, if you assume that you can be sure that I am not you, then there would be at least one piece of external reality that you could not be deceived with.

Then my train of thought follows that if there can be no deception with the consciousnesses perception of itself then would all parts of the consciousness be protected from such deception?

But then I have to wonder, what if I take away all perception of external reality, all memories of perception of external reality, what is left?

With no experiences and no memories I would think that the consciousness would cease to exist. How can a consciousness conceive of anything including itself without having perceived something? Without experiencing an external reality can the consciousness still experience itself? I don't think it can.

However if this external reality is a deception wouldn't the consciousness experience of itself be suspect as a result. Since its ability to experience itself would rely on previous experience of a deceptive external reality how could you trust the ability of the consciousness to perceive itself?

Just some random ponderings...

 

[Phred101.2]

Here's a quote I found from some guy doing neuro-bio research (sorry I lost the web page and forgot to get his name)

“...finding neurophysiological correlates for consciousness. I think that the moral of all that is, yes, conscious states are material states, they are identical with neurophysiological states, but what the existence of consciousness shows is that there's more to matter than meets the physicist's eye. That there's something inadequate about the physical description. Not inadequate simply because it leaves consciousness out, but that the existence of consciousness shows that, in a certain sense, it's systematically incomplete.
...we have to recognise that although we feel that we have a kind of full bodied conception of the physical world. We think we know what we mean when we talk about material objects. I think that that sense that we know what we mean is in large part an illusion. “

And another:

“...the complex question of how the brain and its constituent parts produce mental activity (specifically consciousness) is, as usual, based mainly on the temporal and spatial analogy that exists between what are believed to be the properties of the conscious mind and those of the electromagnetic fields of the brain. Reasoning by analogies of this kind is, ...widely appreciated in philosophical circles to be a flawed road to understanding.
We have learned that in the modern world of information processing machines and Turing's theorems that symbolic representation is an entirely plausible way to represent even the most intangible of concepts or personal experiences. The idea that isomorphic encoding (i.e. spatiotemporal congruence) has any priority over symbolic representation ...flies in the face of our ability to encode such parameters as the hue of a 700nm light or the aroma of a flower... [T]he assumption ...that the information content of the EM field and the states of the neurons are identical, as McFadden puts it[:] ...'”...The brain's EM field holds precisely the same information as neuron firing patterns...”'.
...Einstein was speaking of matter-energy equivalence and not information equivalence. ...[M]ore specifically, the essence of Einstein's equation is the bidirectionality of the equal sign. Mass could be converted to energy [and back again]. There is no such bidirectionality possible between the EM wave and ...neurons." -William Uttal

 

[baywax]

From Phred101.2

McFadden puts it[:] ...'”...The brain's EM field holds precisely the same information as neuron firing patterns...”'.
...Einstein was speaking of matter-energy equivalence and not information equivalence. ...[M]ore specifically, the essence of Einstein's equation is the bidirectionality of the equal sign. Mass could be converted to energy [and back again]. There is no such bidirectionality possible between the EM wave and ...neurons." -William Uttal

I agree. However, the person interpreting the em wave and also interpreting the work of the neurons is subjecting both to their own configuration of neurons, chemicals, firing patterns and so on (ie: opinion). So that ultimately the reality of an "equivalency" or the "non-eqivalency" between em signatures and neuronal activities may be and is probably completely lost in translation.

 

[Owen Holden]

I need some help from Philosophy-oriented folk in answering this question, which I've been sounding off about in the Relativity forum in the thread "Raindrops and Gravity". After having a few of my deviant ideas ironed out there by people who know much more than I do, I've arrived at the following understanding:

First, there is no need to doubt a bricklayer's view of "reality" in his immediate vicinity. He is likely to answer by hefting a brick, and tell you "that's what's real". And you'd better believe him.

Second, you may describe this definition to a friend, and ask him to give you a more sophisticated example of reality. He could describe the new Ferrari he has over at his house, and tell you that it is "really" there. If you doubt him, you could go over and drive it around, if he'd let you.

Third, if you ask a physicist whether a magnetic field is "real", he could try to convince you that it is by showing you iron filings sprinkled on paper above a magnet. You might then believe his claim.

Fourth, you could approach an engineer who is building a machine to accelerate particles. He will tell you that Special Relativity (SR) requires him to take into account an increase in mass of the particles as they are accelerated. If you ask him whether this is "really" so, he would assure you that his pay cheque depended on his accepting that SR describes an observer-dependent reality.

Fifth, you might ask a General Relativist if Spacetime, or the Riemann curvature tensor, were part of objective reality. He would insist that the latter is a geometric object in the former, that both are part of a four dimensional reality which is independent of any observer.

Sixth. I don't know how a mathematician or a string theorist would define reality.

I've arranged these "straw views" in increasing order of abstraction regarding a definition of reality. I don't which, if any of them are true. But my own conclusion is that in the end reality is nothing but a Platonic model in one's mind that matches, in as many ways as one can devise, the fullness of experience.

I'd like to know if philosophers consider such simple-minded views on the subject.

Reality is all that is the case.
What is not the case is not part of reality.
Even dreams are partof reality, even if the 'objects' in that dream are not.

 

[JoeDawg]

why is the experience of the consciousness more real, than the experience of exernal reality?

Questioning the nature of the self, the nature of the 'I', in 'I think therefore I am' is fully reasonable, but questioning that you are something that thinks is not. You need to think to form the question. 'I' in this case, is simply a signifier.

How can you be sure I am not actually you, since your external reality can be a deception? Yet your consciousness does know it is not me.

Actually, from a completely solipsist point of view, you are a part of my experience so you are a part of 'me'. The question is, do you have a separate self? Do we interact? Do you have what I have? Or are you a zombie located wholly in my experience? Giving you an external, equal, existence to myself, required an inference on my part. You are part of me on the level of experience. What else you are, I can only guess.

How can a consciousness conceive of anything including itself without having perceived something? Without experiencing an external reality can the consciousness still experience itself? I don't think it can.

The problem here is you are equating external cause with experience. Consciousness and experience are inextricably linked. The cause of experience, whether it is solipsist (resulting from the self) or externally caused is the question. Its hard for many to separate 'experience' as a concept, from 'external cause', but they are different. And the difference is important.

The brick layer experiences the 'bricks'. They are real. They are part of his consciousness in a very compelling way. But what causes his experience? Even brick layers can have compelling dreams about laying bricks, and although most of us have little trouble distinguishing between dream experience and 'everyday' experience, both are simply categories of experience. Where that experience comes from is the question.

However if this external reality is a deception wouldn't the consciousness experience of itself be suspect as a result. Since its ability to experience itself would rely on previous experience of a deceptive external reality how could you trust the ability of the consciousness to perceive itself?

Consciousness could not trust its ability to perceive itself 'correctly', but it still perceives itself in some way. So it is a thing that perceives, correctly or not. Ultimately, what consciousness really is, is indeed inextricably linked with whether external cause exists, but its a question of kind. What type of consciousness exists? What is its nature? The fact it exists in some form, cannot be doubted, or a matter of deception.

 

[Phred101.2]

Here's a little something I 'discussed' with myself a while back...:

The interaction with external reality that is projected at us, through our biological and thermodynamically functioning brains and senses, is both a Descartian despair of connection, in some logical and physical sense, and an accepted and biological (evolutionary) fact of our existence, and something we just “live with”.
The external has, (as we who are in it, and a part of it have) an existence, due to 'mass-energy' and 'extent'. The extent (space), contains this mass-energy, and is also produced by another property of mass-energy (entropy), which means it disperses, there is an 'excursive-property' the universe has.
Our concepts (our logic and thinking), are connected to these external symmetries. The connections are “obvious” to us, but our logic, capable of projecting 'imagined' and 'instinctive' maps onto the external, 'seems' to us, when we examine it, to be a work in progress. We are learning.
We see those around us as a 'universe' of reflections.

Of our own symmetries with nature, of our own sense of being in the external, and in the same internal 'universe'.
So there is a symmetry between our own mind (occurrence) and this 'universe of reflections' (other humans). And there is a symmetry with our single (but recursive) mind and the single (but recursive, or egressive) cosmos, which contains the other beings (a universe of conscious reflections of 'mind'), which our mind informs, and itself informs our mind. Simple.
Our 'map-of-self' is a complected 'occurring-recurring' (neurobiological) phenomenon (an emergence -from the parts that 'structure' a brain).
It is itself an 'observed', and observes (itself and the world). Because, or necessarily of, this complect, we are able to copy this image, in a recursive process that 'remains' itself, yet can become any number of 'maps' of itself. This allows comparison (relativity) to be made (between any copy), except that each recursive copy is able to remain itself, and the entire recursion remains 'singular' (there remains a sense of being one, rather than several minds). The mind is both the recursion and the 'maps' that this produces. This process, being thermodynamic, must require energy...
(unfinished)

 

[kalle437]

I would say you cannot in any way find out or prove what reality is. Everything we see, touch and think about might just be some kind of illusion. The only things that you can be 100% sure of is that you exist and that mathematics are correct.

 

[Phred101.2]

And how can you be "sure" that anything, including math, in that case, is 'correct'? What does correct "mean"?
Aren't we, as observers, only capable therefore, of observing? Even knowledge is observation. It's "all we have" in that sense. Without it (observation), there wouldn't be any records (books) to "observe", it really is the chicken, in this case, and the external record (also the internal one in that case), is the egg.

 

[JoeDawg]

...and that mathematics are correct.

About what?

 

[kalle437]

Well, you have a point there. The only thing we could really know is that we exist then. Nothing else.

 

[kalle437]

About what?

I changed my mind ;) Math is proven to be 100% correct, in this world. But we cannot know if the conditions of "reality" is the same as "here". So therefore we cannot say math is correct.

 

[Phred101.2]

The only thing we could really know is that we exist then. Nothing else.

Not so, we are in the world and we exist. We are observers and we are capable of logical processes because of our brains (and the evolution, the change that 'delivered' the mammal brain to the world), so we are compelled to think, to consider and understand it, because, if you like, that's "all we can do" about it.

 

[baywax]

Not so, we are in the world and we exist. We are observers and we are capable of logical processes because of our brains (and the evolution, the change that 'delivered' the mammal brain to the world), so we are compelled to think, to consider and understand it, because, if you like, that's "all we can do" about it.

So, is it the conclusion here that "what we are aware of is reality?"

Or does everything we are aware of and unaware of make up reality?

Decartes' seems to postulate that if we are aware of thinking then we exist and therefore this is the reality which often appears so elusive.

Awareness = reality.

However, there is the reality of the unknown. We may not be aware of it but it remains a reality of its own right. It is a component of uncertainty in that the unknown is the generator of uncertainty. And, although it is a condition we are vaguely aware of, we are unaware of its mechanisms and outcomes. So, there appears to be two realities, 1.) the reality of awareness and 2.) the reality of the unknown.

Or am I over complicating this... or over simplifying it?

 

[Phred101.2]

the reality of the unknown.

Strange as this sounds in a logical sense (how can an unknown -a virtual chunk of info- be real to us?), we have found out that matter has a property that, because of all those waves it's made out of, means it can "be" more than one wave, even when they are separated by a real distance (like the Andromeda galaxy. say).
We have managed to "keep" these things entangled (superposed) for short distances so far, but we're gradually improving the techniques and our ability to trap and harness this "virtually infinite" information resource. More than a few people think we are close to building a computer that can harness hundreds, or thousands of entangled states, and manipulate them reliably.
This will probably lead to a machine that resembles a brain a lot more closely, (IMO). The von Neumann architecture doesn't model what a brain does all that well. A network of them works more like a brain. Maybe networks of arrays of quantum dots and other nanoscale devices will be able to model a brain a lot more closely. Certainly they will be a resource that will redefine information processing...
In other words, we could be about to step through another new door -the storage of mind in a machine.

 

[setAI]

I am a proponent of something like Max Tegmark's Computable Universe Hypothesis [from http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ] which states that Reality is defined by computable causal systems and that only computable structures 'exist'- or more precisely computability IS existence- since only causal structures with logical/consistent/computable relations and rules can provide the medium of isotropic space and time for which a world and it's history could be physically expressed as real-

I also think that the implications of the Superpostion Principle mean that only systems with observers could said to be 'real' since if there are no observers a system is in total superpostion and not defined into any specific state- so Reality consists of the set of all algorithmically generated state histories with observers

 

[baywax]

I am a proponent of something like Max Tegmark's Computable Universe Hypothesis [from http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ] which states that Reality is defined by computable causal systems and that only computable structures 'exist'- or more precisely computability IS existence- since only causal structures with logical/consistent/computable relations and rules can provide the medium of isotropic space and time for which a world and it's history could be physically expressed as real-

I also think that the implications of the Superpostion Principle mean that only systems with observers could said to be 'real' since if there are no observers a system is in total superpostion and not defined into any specific state- so Reality consists of the set of all algorithmically generated state histories with observers

I can agree with this in that it takes computation to be aware. However, this model is biased toward known systems and doesn't take into account the fact that there are more ways that one to peel an orange. The unknown holds 99.99999999999999 (edit) percent more ways to do that.

 

[JoeDawg]

Math is proven to be 100% correct, in this world.

Correct about what?

 

[mww]

Hi guys, thanks to oldman for the great thread.

I guess this is all about definitions, like you were saying Descartes thought we needed. So let me put forward some intersubjective assumptions that we can just use as definitions for the term of my post and its potential replies. Let's call ourselves observers (as well as each other neural configuration that could self-awarely muse about this subject, whether alien or machine or uncommonly intelligent Earth insect). Let's also ignore whether anyone observer believes itself to be the most self-aware being and that it alone is responsible for the existence of the collective reality. Let's assume we're all equal in that regard. This assumption should not be too much a stretch since I believe I'm posting this post, and not you, just as you believe you are reading my post, and not me. It doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility that we are each, despite our possibly-differing aptitudes among various fields of study, on equal footing as far as having a consciousness that endows us with an observer status.

Despite not knowing the cause of its uniqueness, this observer status is apparently unique, since I am observing only with my senses right now and not yours. You may be eating a banana split right now; I am somehow excluded from that sensory perception, which is too bad because banana splits are awesome, so I tend to think that each observer status is independent. (And though we're not sure that ants can't observe out of each other's bodies, let's also assume that since humanity gets along fine without this ability, other lifeforms might too.)


I therefore offer one definition of reality to be that which persists for other observers after our own observer status ends.


When you accidentally step on an ant on your front porch, your own observer status is not affected (i.e., you continue to log experiences even though the ant doesn't seem to do so anymore; or at least, it doesn't seem to react to its experiences as enthusiastically as it once did). By the same reasoning, once we die, our friends should still be able to kick our body around and draw funny faces on it with a Sharpie or whatever they might do before the coroner arrives. For them, our body remains "real," in a way that it is no longer real to us since we are no longer able to enthusiastically react to them drawing a face on it. It is that nature of reality that I think at least constitutes one definition.

A fun contrast (to the other definitions you guys were coming up with) occurs upon the consideration of the destruction of all observers. Like, with all consciousnesses removed from all bodies (with each consciousness untethered from each body -- such that no sensory input is being inputted into any senses on any bodylike construct in existence), what would be real?

Using the consciousness-is-primary definition, nothing. No consciousness to say anything's real, so nothing is.
Using the above tether definition, plenty would be real. But then, no one would be reacting very enthusiastically to any of it.

 

[octelcogopod]

Right mww, but you still make an assumption that our body or the external world is still out there after we die.
In that same vein it can be said that nothing we see or do daily is real.
It may sound stupid, but you can't disprove it.

This is simply because nobody can define what reality is, although there are some good suggestions.
On a more down to Earth example, you can't prove what reality is simply because you will never see anything from anything but your associations in the brain, and your consciousness.
Solipsism will always be true, on a deeper level, it is everywhere, the possibility that everything that exists is just a figment of someones imagination.
I could be dreaming my in bed with complex computer equipment around my head, and none of this which has happened since birth is true, and as long as this possibility is here, we can never say /certain/ that for instance "the universe is just a large machine and we're in it as observers."
There can almost always be another story to it. I'm not saying I personally believe in this, but with the weak progress in consciousness and so forth, I really do believe there's a lot yet to explain before we try to create our own personal 'theory of everythings."

 

[baywax]

Hi guys, thanks to oldman for the great thread.

I guess this is all about definitions, like you were saying Descartes thought we needed. So let me put forward some intersubjective assumptions that we can just use as definitions for the term of my post and its potential replies. Let's call ourselves observers (as well as each other neural configuration that could self-awarely muse about this subject, whether alien or machine or uncommonly intelligent Earth insect). Let's also ignore whether anyone observer believes itself to be the most self-aware being and that it alone is responsible for the existence of the collective reality. Let's assume we're all equal in that regard. This assumption should not be too much a stretch since I believe I'm posting this post, and not you, just as you believe you are reading my post, and not me. It doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility that we are each, despite our possibly-differing aptitudes among various fields of study, on equal footing as far as having a consciousness that endows us with an observer status.

I enjoyed your post however it does not address the probablility of a type of consciousness that is in superposition and not tethered to the sequences found in past, present or future states. This mode of consciousness would require no beginning or end nor would it rely on birth or death but would exist inextricably from all other states, elements and events (if events is the right word when dealing with superposition). It would also not be bound by distance nor extremes of conditions but would be what has tirelessly been touted as "universal consciousness". This would be what I would call a combination of the 2 nows I mentioned earlier (the known and unknown nows).

 

[Phred101.2]

This mode of consciousness would require no beginning or end nor would it rely on birth or death but would exist inextricably from all other states, elements and events (if events is the right word when dealing with superposition). It would also not be bound by distance nor extremes of conditions but would be what has tirelessly been touted as "universal consciousness".

This looks a lot like Spinoza's "eternal mind", which, I concluded after skimming through his 'Ethics' stands for "all knowledge". In other words the record (external) of our observations and the learning (internal) that is required for the first to exist (knowledge is meaningless without mind).
Individual existence is possible because of the existence of others. This could mean that if you were the only individual (there were no "others") around to observe, then observation and learning would only be meaningful to you, so why bother to "record" it (externally)? In other words the "principle" of knowledge extends beyond the concept of individuality to a universal, even an infinite, notion. Then God and the unknown appear...