Is reality just electrical signals interpreted by our brain?

[DaveC426913]

My assertion is simply that the question is gibberish. Using a 500 year old philosophy in an appeal to authority doesn't exactly prove me wrong.

There is nothing to prove wrong here. You've merely expressed an opinion with no defense.

Opinion: "I believe this. I give no defense, and thus expect no one else to believe it."
"How nice for you."

I really was interested in how it was that you saw no value in the question, because it would help define where the question was lacking, but your responses simply reiterate the same content-free - and increasingly sarcastic - assertion. Without elaboration, I'm afraid your assertion is a dead-end, and it's now distracting from the discussion.

 

[phoenixthoth]

What about triangles (by which I mean the mathematically ideal triangle)? Do they exist?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What about triangles (by which I mean the mathematically ideal triangle)? Do they exist?

I doubt it. Every geometry book I ever had said "Suppose ABC is a triangle." Would they say that if it really was one?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What about triangles (by which I mean the mathematically ideal triangle)? Do they exist?

Yes, as thoughts in the minds of those who imagine them. When it comes to abstracts, especially those of a mathematical nature, whilst 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is not an intrinsic property of 2 apples the pattern exists in the mind of the observer.

 

[Char. Limit]

I just drew a triangle. It's very nice, has three sides and all. I think it's scalene. But it definitely exists.

Now the ideal circle, I don't believe that exists in real life. I do believe simple ideal polygons (like the triangle and the quadrangle) exist.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This discussion is going on too long. I hope you people figure out whether I exist or not before Congress decides whether the US economy exists or not.

 

[Willowz]

" Reality is the existence and non-existence of states of affairs. "

Pretty much sums it up, ehh?

 

[Willowz]

If no definition can satisfy your interest in 'existence' or 'reality'. Then, you can start humming or shouting or crying and so on.

 

[wuliheron]

There is nothing to prove wrong here. You've merely expressed an opinion with no defense.

Opinion: "I believe this. I give no defense, and thus expect no one else to believe it."
"How nice for you."

I really was interested in how it was that you saw no value in the question, because it would help define where the question was lacking, but your responses simply reiterate the same content-free - and increasingly sarcastic - assertion. Without elaboration, I'm afraid your assertion is a dead-end, and it's now distracting from the discussion.

My defense is simple, there is no definition provided for the terms and it is therefore gibberish. What part of "no definition provided" and "gibberish" do you still have trouble grasping?

 

[DaveC426913]

Plato too had something to say on the subject in his Cave allegory. What you perceive is your reality. It is real, again, regardless of what scaffolding it might be built on.

The question then becomes one of 'is there an objective reality?'

 

[wuliheron]

Plato too had something to say on the subject in his Cave allegory. What you perceive is your reality. It is real, again, regardless of what scaffolding it might be built on.

The question then becomes one of 'is there an objective reality?'

You expect people to determine whether reality is objective or not without so much as definition of the word much less a clear context? On the basis of a philosopher who insisted democracy was the worst form of government possible, burned books, and promoted mysticism?

 

[disregardthat]

Reality does not depend on the definition of reality, nor does existence depend on the definition of existence. Reality and existence are words which are implemented in our language. Definitions come afterwards, and their sole purpose is to explain and analyze the actual usage of the word. Asking "does anything really exist?", is asking "are we wrong every time we say that something exists?".

When do we use the word exists? How can it be wrong every time? That, my friend, does not make sense. I can be wrong about asserting that any particular thing exists, but if everyone was wrong every time, the word has no meaning, and would be of no use. Existence is not a property of a physical object, it is a word used in particular settings. It is given meaning by its usage, and only by knowing how to use it correctly we know how to make sense of "A exists", or "B does not exist".

Asserting that what you perceive is your reality is not correct. One can easily imagine a person hallucinating, and the person saying to himself "this is not right, these things does not exists". Is he wrong? Of course not, reality is not as simple as 'that which is perceived'. He knows how to use the word "exists", when it applies, and when it is applied correctly. Of course, this all depends on the collective usage of the word "exists", which also determines its correct usage.

 

[CJames]

I just drew a triangle. It's very nice, has three sides and all. I think it's scalene. But it definitely exists.

Now the ideal circle, I don't believe that exists in real life. I do believe simple ideal polygons (like the triangle and the quadrangle) exist.

Why is that? Do you believe in perfectly straight lines? Do you believe in lines that are infinitely thin? I don't, therefore I don't believe triangles really exist, although they help me understand reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is that? Do you believe in perfectly straight lines? Do you believe in lines that are infinitely thin? I don't, therefore I don't believe triangles really exist, although they help me understand reality.

Triangles do not have to have perfectly straight or infinitely thin lines.

This brick I am holding is not perfectly rectangular, does that mean it does not exist?

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll respond to the parts of your posts that are attempts to have a dialogue. I think that's fair.

You expect people to determine whether reality is objective or not without so much as definition of the word...

No, but I expect it is possible to have a discussion about it, a part of which would involve attempting to define it.

 

[wuliheron]

I'll respond to the parts of your posts that are attempts to have a dialogue. I think that's fair.

No, but I expect it is possible to have a discussion about it, a part of which would involve attempting to define it.

Again, I hear no one attempting to define the word. Here is the Stanford philosophy website link on the subject explaining just how difficult it is to define:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

If you cannot provide a definition, nobody here is willing to provide a definition, and even the philosophers you have cited failed to agree on a definition then I seriously doubt it will ever lead anywhere.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, I hear no one attempting to define the word.

Then go back and read some of the posts where people are attempting to define it.

I grant that attempting to define it is a long way from actually defining it such that everyone agrees, but that's what discussion is about.

If you cannot provide a definition, nobody here is willing to provide a definition, and even the philosophers you have cited failed to agree on a definition then I seriously doubt it will ever lead anywhere.

How does that follow? If we don't know X now, then we will never know X, and there's no point in studying it?

 

[Evo]

Then go back and read some of the posts where people are attempting to define it.

I grant that attempting to define it is a long way from actually defining it such that everyone agrees, but that's what discussion is about.

I'm lost, what have you defined?

We need to all agree on one single definition of what *real* is. I thought I furnished the accepted definition a long time ago. I have no idea what is being discussed at this time.

This thread is about to become non-existant.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm lost, what have you defined?

...attempting to define...

One working definition is that reality is what you perceive with your senses (as opposed to what you interpret with your mind). It is definitely flawed, but it's a talking point.

 

[Evo]

...attempting to define...

One working definition is that reality is what you perceive with your senses (as opposed to what you interpret with your mind). It is definitely flawed, but it's a talking point.

And are you agreeing that things that are *real* per the definition exist, or the counterpoint that nothing exists?

 

[DaveC426913]

And are you agreeing that things that are *real* per the definition exist, or the counterpoint that nothing exists?

At the moment, I'm simply refuting the claim that no one is attempting to work on a definition. wuliheron seems to be basing his arguments on that falsehood and on argument fallacies, such as: since philosophers haven't agreed on it, it can't be done.It is a shame that I have been unable to prevent this discussion from devolving into argument and derisive sarcasm. That's a terrible way for a thread to go but it's probably a fatal wound by now. Perhaps it should be closed. Pity.

 

[Evo]

At the moment, I'm simply refuting the claim that no one is attempting to work on a definition. wuliheron seems to be basing his arguments on that falsehood and on argument fallacies, such as: since philosophers haven't agreed on it, it can't be done.


It is a shame that I have been unable to prevent this discussion from devolving into argument and derisive sarcasm. While it may have led somewhere, it's been soiled badly. Perhaps it should be closed.

I just don't see a discussion of real vs not real here. Not that there would be any value in such a discussion, it's nothing more than spewing personal opinions. And if you think you're not real, then what is there to argue about? You're not real, right?

I think we can safely assume per the definition of real that we are real by our own definition.

This thread has gone nowhere, so I am closing it.

I take full responsibility for letting this go on for so long.