Stop Saying Everything Is An Illusion

[LightbulbSun]

Nothing annoys me more than when I read 5,000 threads on this forum about how everything is an illusion.

Oh, you're not really breathing. That's just an illusion!
Oh, you're not really eating. That's just an illusion!
Oh, you stabbed yourself in the eye and are bleeding profusely. But that's just an illusion!

It seems to be the mantra for people who think they're talking like they're sophisticated. But it's really simple minded and authoritative. If you ask them to prove that something is an illusion they'll just give you a convoluted response with some meaningless jargon. Here's a thought, get original.

Ok, just so this topic stays within the guidelines all of you illusionists need to provide some evidence for why you think every thing is an illusion.

 

[WarPhalange]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! This thread is an illusion!

 

[LightbulbSun]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! This thread is an illusion!

Priceless!

 

[hypatia]

 

[mal4mac]

The man behind the curtain is suffering from the illusion that he is Dr Johnson.

 

[OrbitalPower]

It's easy to show that everything is an illusion because no two people even see everyday objects the same way, so everything could be said to be an illusion.

Locke claim that certain properties of things we see are totally subjective to human beings. I agree they are subjective but I disagree that they are any less "real" than the "shape" of objects themselves (see relevant threaed on forum).

 

[LightbulbSun]

It's easy to show that everything is an illusion because no two people even see everyday objects the same way, so everything could be said to be an illusion.

That doesn't prove something is an illusion though. That just proves humans are selectively bias and deluded at times.

Locke claim that certain properties of things we see are totally subjective to human beings. I agree they are subjective but I disagree that they are any less "real" than the "shape" of objects themselves (see relevant threaed on forum).

What properties though? If this were the case, then nothing would make sense to us.

 

[LightbulbSun]

It's just a cop out answer to me. It's like a bumper sticker slogan. It's easy to spout and you don't really need to think about what you're saying. Let's not forget that this statement is using the fallacy of the stolen concept because in order to say something is an illusion, you need a frame of reference on what is real to begin with.

 

[OrbitalPower]

That doesn't prove something is an illusion though.

I think it certainly does show that things are not the way we see them, and are interpretations are often misleading.

Illusion: "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. "

This could then lead to the belief that they don't exist.

Scientists actually do have to worry about things like this when they are talking about things we cannot observe by simple viewing, such as electrons.

That just proves humans are selectively bias and deluded at times.

I think it shows (not "proves") that humans cannot trust what they see all that much, they have to look for properties.

It was because scientists mistook what they saw from actual truth that Aristotelian physics lasted for as long as it did (thousands of years). I think a good scientist knows nothing is 100%, and while some things are assumed in certain conditions, everything is up for question.

What properties though? If this were the case, then nothing would make sense to us.

The Secondary Qualities.

Locke said that secondary qualities like color, sound, and so on, are merely products of the human mind, and that without life, they wouldn't exist.

This was a better theory than what had existed at the time and while it was shown to be invalid, it nevertheless lead to an advancement in science.

 

[out of whack]

Illusion: "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. "

This could then lead to the belief that they don't exist.

It's worth clarifying the difference between what is an illusion and what simply does not exist. These two are not the same thing at all. I accept that my perception of some "thing" can be skewed, incomplete, inaccurate and occasionally plain wrong, but I reject that the "thing" does not exist. If a "thing" elicits a perception on my part then this "thing" affects me at least in this regard and therefore it must exist. The problem is to arrive at a correct recognition of what exactly the "thing" truly is. This is a different question.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Yes, I agree. I don't agree that the table in front of me "doesn't exist," although some philosophers claim that when no one is looking at it it isn't there and so on. I believe what they do is start out with the illusion, and then go to claim nothing exists.

I disagree, but I don't think you can ever really "prove" a table or a chair exists, either.

I mean, crazy people hear voices and see things and feel things, but we do not say they have special abilities, we say they are insane. Likewise, there is an infinitely small chance that everybody is experiencing the tables and chairs in the same way. Or, maybe they actually exist somewhere else.

The point is, I do believe reality exists, that the chair and table exist, I just don't think you can ever really "prove" that they exist, and while I don't think anybody will ever prove they don't exist I believe it is something that is theoretically possible.

 

[out of whack]

I don't think you can ever really "prove" a table or a chair exists, either.

I cannot prove it to you but I can prove it to myself. This is simply an extension of "I think therefore I am" where I know without any doubt that I exist but I don't know exactly what I am. Well, that table is the same thing. It may be a physical object external to my body or it may be nothing more than a misfired neuron inside my brain. But whatever it is, it matters to me and therefore it exists. I don't know for sure what it is but I do know that it exists.

By the way, even if it's only a misfired neuron in my own brain and you cannot see it, it does matter to you as well. This is because it affects me and in turn I affect you through my actions and/or my words which are influenced by my perception of this table. So indirectly, that table that I see matters to you as well because you are indirectly affected by it. The table exists for you too. You just don't know exactly what it is anymore than I do, and you may not even be aware of its existence if I don't tell you about it. But, want it or not, you are affected by it.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Basically I think the same way. I would just call it the most rational belief; I wouldn't use the term proof. For instance, if I asked someone to pass me the table salt, and he did, I would perceive that he understood my question. But, he may have just decided to pass it to me at that moment. I could question him, but he may just be responded "yes" to my questions.

I think this is the same kind of reasoning I am using to deny that the table absolutely exists, there is an easy escape. I would just say, I ratioanlly exist, and therefore the table I see rationally exists.

To give further evidence, I could ask someone else if they see it, and many people do ask others if they are not sure they just saw something. The point is you could always be doubtful about your perceptions and observations, and if there is doubt, nothing is really "proven."

What you say certainly makes a lot of sense, I just disagree on the semantics.

 

[out of whack]

For instance, if I asked someone to pass me the table salt, and he did, I would perceive that he understood my question.

Actually, you would infer that he understood. You know for sure about your perception that someone passed the salt so you know for sure that "something" happened. The rest is your interpretation of this perception.

I just disagree on the semantics.

I agree.

In the end, it makes absolutely no difference if the reality I experience is truly as it seems or if it's an illusion. The table I imagine is too far from my delusionary window. I hallucinate that I apply a horizontal force to it, which results in an illusional acceleration proportional to that force and the inexistant table ends up near the window, or so I think. From this dream I see that this false acceleration is proportional to the imaginary force and inversely proportional to the non-table's mass. Cool, my imaginary f=ma equation models my virtual reality and is therefore quite useful to me. Dream science works just as well as if it were real. What else do I need to know?

 

[ZapperZ]

I think it certainly does show that things are not the way we see them, and are interpretations are often misleading.

Illusion: "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. "

This could then lead to the belief that they don't exist.

Scientists actually do have to worry about things like this when they are talking about things we cannot observe by simple viewing, such as electrons.

Er... I work with electrons all the time, since that is the particle I try to accelerate. Can you tell me where I'm worrying about them, or their "interpretation"? In none of my papers that dealt with electrons, be it in a particle accelerator or photoelectrons that hit a detector, there were NEVER any argument or disagreement that these WERE electrons.

Zz.

 

[ronjanec]

I don't think you can ever really "prove" a table or chair exists either? The question you must answer here is what does it mean to exist in the first place? If someone or something has a physical body of any kind(or existing being) existing anywhere in the physical universe right now then they or it exist. If a table or chair has a physical body existing anywhere in the physical universe today this would prove either one exists.

If your still not sure either one exists just lift either one above your head and then release your grip on it.

 

[russ_watters]

It's easy to show that everything is an illusion because no two people even see everyday objects the same way, so everything could be said to be an illusion.

Locke claim that certain properties of things we see are totally subjective to human beings. I agree they are subjective but I disagree that they are any less "real" than the "shape" of objects themselves (see relevant threaed on forum).

Those two paragraphs contradict each other.

The basic problem is your definition of "illusion" in the first is wrong. Observations differ between observers: that means they are relative, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they are real.

I think it certainly does show that things are not the way we see them, and are interpretations are often misleading.

Illusion: "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. "

This could then lead to the belief that they don't exist.

A person who sees differing observations and concludes that they must not be real is simply beeing fooled and choosing to assume things are illusory instead of trying to learn if it is really true. One with a scientific mind looks for (and eventually finds) how the differing observations are related. Ie, with things like Relativity.

These threads are really tiring. We probably need to ban this topic - it's just drivel, not philosophy.

 

[Alfi]

If your still not sure either one exists just lift either one above your head and then release your grip on it.

Then try it again while in orbit on the ISS.




above your head?

 

[ronjanec]

"above your head?" Yes Alfi if someone who is not crazy thinks a table or chair might be a illusion they should do what I said and this will prove to them that the table or chair exists and were not a illusion. Discussions like this give philosophy a bad name.

 

[Nick666]

Consciousness is an illusion . Maybe this is what people want to say when they say everything is an illusion.

 

[out of whack]

Consciousness is an illusion

Stop Saying Everything Is An Illusion!

At the very least, if you claim that something is an illusion, you should support your claim with something ...especially in this particular thread.

 

[LightbulbSun]

These threads are really tiring. We probably need to ban this topic - it's just drivel, not philosophy.

This is the point I was trying to make in the OP. It's bumper sticker philosophy and just as thoughtless as saying "GOD DUN IT!"

 

[Nick666]

Stop Saying Everything Is An Illusion!

At the very least, if you claim that something is an illusion, you should support your claim with something ...especially in this particular thread.

I only said that maybe that's what some folks want to say.

"Everything is an illusion" replaced with "Consciousness is an illussion" .

If a guy looks at the traffic lights and sees red and green, and a color blind guy watches the trafic lights, which one of them has the illusion ? (that is, the optical illusion of seeing the same colour when in fact there are 2 different sets of wave length )

 

[robertm]

If a guy looks at the traffic lights and sees red and green, and a color blind guy watches the trafic lights, which one of them has the illusion ? (that is, the optical illusion of seeing the same colour when in fact there are 2 different sets of wave length )

It doesn't matter who or what is detecting a phenomenon or what particular limitations might be in place; the waves/photons of light still REALLY DO exist, the idea and experience of 'colour' vision REALLY does exist, etc..., ad nauseum...

If it can be experienced, it exists. If it can not be experienced on any level by any constituent of matter then it does not.

It matters not what you call a phenomenon, 'illusion', trickery, 'not real', what have you; a phenomenon CAUSES an EFFECT and thus matters to the universe.

Humans, nor any other stuff of the universe, can not perceive that which is not real/does not exist. End of story.

 

[baywax]

Nothing annoys me more than when I read 5,000 threads on this forum about how everything is an illusion.

Oh, you're not really breathing. That's just an illusion!
Oh, you're not really eating. That's just an illusion!
Oh, you stabbed yourself in the eye and are bleeding profusely. But that's just an illusion!

It seems to be the mantra for people who think they're talking like they're sophisticated. But it's really simple minded and authoritative. If you ask them to prove that something is an illusion they'll just give you a convoluted response with some meaningless jargon. Here's a thought, get original.

Ok, just so this topic stays within the guidelines all of you illusionists need to provide some evidence for why you think every thing is an illusion.

As far as I've read, this is just another thread promoting illusion and attracting people who live their lives solipsistically. This is probably an unintended result, but it appears to be the result, nonetheless.

 

[LightbulbSun]

As far as I've read, this is just another thread promoting illusion and attracting people who live their lives solipsistically. This is probably an unintended result, but it appears to be the result, nonetheless.

It is unintended. Illusionists are all talk and no action. If everything is such an illusion then why don't they stab themselves and see what happens? Because they know they're full of it, and just want to spout this unsupported nonsense to be a pain in the ***.

 

[ronjanec]

robertm made some very intelligent and logical comments here in my opinion...

 

[baywax]

It doesn't matter who or what is detecting a phenomenon or what particular limitations might be in place; the waves/photons of light still REALLY DO exist, the idea and experience of 'colour' vision REALLY does exist, etc..., ad nauseum...

If it can be experienced, it exists. If it can not be experienced on any level by any constituent of matter then it does not.

It matters not what you call a phenomenon, 'illusion', trickery, 'not real', what have you; a phenomenon CAUSES an EFFECT and thus matters to the universe.

Humans, nor any other stuff of the universe, can not perceive that which is not real/does not exist. End of story.

When the local meth addict sees a coat draping out of a bin and thinks he's seeing... or "perceiving"... a demon climbing out, toward him, its true this reality exists but, it exists only as a specifically patterned electromagnetic activity in his brain. Otherwise it is a case of mistaken identity and the illusions created by light and dark, and his meth.

 

[robertm]

When the local meth addict sees a coat draping out of a bin and thinks he's seeing... or "perceiving"... a demon climbing out, toward him, its true this reality exists but, it exists only as a specifically patterned electromagnetic activity in his brain. Otherwise it is a case of mistaken identity and the illusions created by light and dark, and his meth.

Precisely, I should have been more clear on that point.

 

[baywax]

Precisely, I should have been more clear on that point.

I think you're point is good. The end game is, as you've pointed out, the fact that there is any perception going on at all indicates a form and an existence... and signals that there is interaction going in an environment. Even "perceived perception" indicates that an environment exists.

 

[Jake Kenner]

Listen to what Stephen Hawking has to say about the nature of reality and consciousness:

“I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements”.

And the clincher:

“Consciousness is not a quality that one can measure from the outside”.

Can the holographic principle of quantum gravity explain the nature of reality?

What if empty space is the nature of reality? What if empty space is the source of consciousness? How then to interpret what the holographic principle is telling us? Empty space itself cannot be measured because there is nothing in it. It is empty. It is pure consciousness. It is what measures all the perceivable things. All of those things are composed of information. All information is defined on surfaces with one bit of information per Planck area. Information is energy that flows in an energy gradient. That information flows from more ordered states to less ordered states. The most ordered thing in the universe is the big bang event with its uniform distribution of matter and energy. Information becomes more disordered because of gravitational collapse. The most disordered thing in the universe is the black hole which is as far as matter and energy can gravitationally collapse. All of the perceivable things can be measured. They are observable. Even a theory is a perceivable thing that predicts how information is organized into perceivable things as it flows in its ordered energy gradient. All of the perceivable things in the observable physical universe are holographically defined on surfaces. Those surfaces are all embedded within empty space. If the nature of consciousness is empty space then it is outside all the perceivable things.

 

[baywax]

Listen to what Stephen Hawking has to say about the nature of reality and consciousness:

“I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements”.

And the clincher:

“Consciousness is not a quality that one can measure from the outside”.

Can the holographic principle of quantum gravity explain the nature of reality?

What if empty space is the nature of reality? What if empty space is the source of consciousness? How then to interpret what the holographic principle is telling us? Empty space itself cannot be measured because there is nothing in it. It is empty. It is pure consciousness. It is what measures all the perceivable things. All of those things are composed of information. All information is defined on surfaces with one bit of information per Planck area. Information is energy that flows in an energy gradient. That information flows from more ordered states to less ordered states. The most ordered thing in the universe is the big bang event with its uniform distribution of matter and energy. Information becomes more disordered because of gravitational collapse. The most disordered thing in the universe is the black hole which is as far as matter and energy can gravitationally collapse. All of the perceivable things can be measured. They are observable. Even a theory is a perceivable thing that predicts how information is organized into perceivable things as it flows in its ordered energy gradient. All of the perceivable things in the observable physical universe are holographically defined on surfaces. Those surfaces are all embedded within empty space. If the nature of consciousness is empty space then it is outside all the perceivable things.

Stop saying everything is an holograph.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I agree with the quote Jake Kenner posted from Hawking. Call me an "illusionist," I don't care.

I have no problem with these threads being prohibited, though. This is because I think the people against "illusionists" will probably not convince many people with arguments along the lines of "reality exists because I said so and I exist."

I think a true scientist would be questioning everything at all times, while focusing on what you can seemingly test and demonstrate and show. This is done by logic and by observing the properties of things. That was the point I was making earlier.

 

[mjolnir80]

if everything is an illusion then illusions must be real

 

[LightbulbSun]

This is because I think the people against "illusionists" will probably not convince many people with arguments along the lines of "reality exists because I said so and I exist."

No, it's more along the lines of illusionists not being able to support their proposition with any evidence. All they do is shout the mantra and that's suppose to convince us.

 

[baywax]

Illusion is a relative term when you think about it.

You have to ask, "illusion as compared to what?" And this shatters the solipsist's illusion. One cannot know one to exist without a comparable by which to gauge that existence.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Illusion is a relative term when you think about it.

You have to ask, "illusion as compared to what?" And this shatters the solipsist's illusion. One cannot know one to exist without a comparable by which to gauge that existence.

Also one must know what is real in order to say something is an illusion because the term illusion is derived from the term real.

 

[baywax]

Also one must know what is real in order to say something is an illusion because the term illusion is derived from the term real.

For sure, I was playing off of how you worded that earlier... or another poster. This is a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned... then again it may only be a literal or "semantic" observation.

This is fairly obvious as well when the less than microscopic topic of quantum physics is studied from the lofty heights of "emergent phenomenon". You have to conclude that both states exist, otherwise we'd not be able to distinguish between quantum and emergent.

 

[Serpentine]

I cannot prove it to you but I can prove it to myself. This is simply an extension of "I think therefore I am" where I know without any doubt that I exist but I don't know exactly what I am. Well, that table is the same thing. It may be a physical object external to my body or it may be nothing more than a misfired neuron inside my brain. But whatever it is, it matters to me and therefore it exists. I don't know for sure what it is but I do know that it exists.

By the way, even if it's only a misfired neuron in my own brain and you cannot see it, it does matter to you as well. This is because it affects me and in turn I affect you through my actions and/or my words which are influenced by my perception of this table. So indirectly, that table that I see matters to you as well because you are indirectly affected by it. The table exists for you too. You just don't know exactly what it is anymore than I do, and you may not even be aware of its existence if I don't tell you about it. But, want it or not, you are affected by it.

Yes well, i have always believed that beliefe itself is the death of intelligence. by having a firm beliefe in something you are trapping yourself to your own beliefe and when proved wrong you will stay trapped. Please proove to me this world is nothing but an illusion? i do not personally believe in this, i try and keep myself asking questions but whatever you experience happens inside of you therefore you cannot say that anything else( if there is anything else) is nothing but a figment of your imagination. yes an imagination where you imagine a God you don't understand, and an imagination that you learn from does seem strange, it does not have to deny God and learning from yourself still doesn't proove anything. you never experience anything outside your body, you never even actually touch anything for that matter. when you move something it is actually electrons around the object pushing away. most of these theories arent meant for us to be able to understand, and the only reason they have come so far, is because people who want to feel intelligent by proving others that they can not prove them wrong, will actually fall into this beliefe and therefore trap themselves.

 

[a4mula]

This is a semantical conversation. We are ill-fit to judge what is illusion or reality because both definitions are fuzzy at best. We perceive experience only by our own perceptions. This is relativity. Until we have a well defined expression for what reality is we'll continue to only debate the meanings of words.

If we live in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality" , is the table in front of you still real? Again, we can't answer that because of our own inability to differentiate our perceptions from reality. Even if every person shares a perception does that make it real? The Earth isn't flat, so we can rule out that "global" perception is an accurate indicator of reality.

The Hawkins quote does a great job of really stating what is key here. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if something is real or illusion. All that matters is that we continue to understand our surroundings while getting closer to predicting how our reality behaves regardless of it's true/untrue nature.

 

[baywax]

Its a matter of distinguishing between one's personal mythology and actual reality. It can be difficult because one likes to believe one is correct about most matters when in reality, one can be wrong all the time. This is because of change and one's limited perception. For example, the illusion of a happy ending neglects to take into account that it is an ending, with no room left to linger in happiness.

 

[Russell Berty]

I withhold “final” judgments – the future may always surprise us, as has been seen over and over. Is it real? Is it illusion? I live my life assuming real is good enough to be true. But that does not make it true.

What are the definitions of “real” and “illusion”? Tough one. Usually vague responses.
Definitions aside, I will play Devil’s advocate.

You are requesting that…

all of you illusionists need to provide some evidence for why you think every thing is an illusion.

If you want to put an end to the illusionists’ claim, then prove them wrong. Don’t wait around for them to give you a proof that “Everything is an illusion.” Prove the negation is true; prove “There is something that is not an illusion.” Just give an absolute, definitive, beyond all doubt proof, that “There is something that is not an illusion.” Be warned, no one ever has to date (yes, not even Descartes.)

 

[Sorry!]

I think the term 'exist' is relative as well...

To me saying that something 'exist' is subjective... because as was pointed out earlier if we perceive something then we know it MUST exist. But that is only based upon our perceptions.
We however CAN'T have knowledge of what 'exist' OUTSIDE our perception abilities... we may develop tools etc to enhance our perceptions or change how we perceive them but we can not know what's OUTSIDE them in what I would call the 'fundamental reality'.

I wrote a paper on this for my philosophy course... the stuff in it blew even MY mind away it's kind of a weird feeling.

Anyways to conclude this I would say that we may or may not be existing in said fundamental reality BUT we can never know since knowing this is outside our abilities PERIOD and to speculate upon it is futile. (Got A LOT OF RED INK ON THIS ONE haha. Said that if that's true then my paper is pointless too :p smartass teacher.)
We should turn our attention elsewhere.

This does of course leave open that what my reality is is completely MINE and everything might be made up or an illusion... regardless as I said before... it all still exist. Can we have differing realities (assuming we exist together...)why not? Our perceptions are different we have different knowledge bases etc... so it probably is so. Neither of us will know of the fundamental reality though.

ok I am done i tried covering all bases so that way if anyone posts about this i'll have less questions to answer :P

As a side note I don't think that this topic should be banned. I think that topics about reality in philosophy are really important and probably bring up some of the most interesting discussions :P

 

[baywax]

“There is something that is not an illusion.”

Illusion is not an illusion. Illusion is a function of cognition that can be verified using several witnesses and an FMRI machine.

Illusion is a concept (physical function of the brain) that softens the blow of reality on a fragile psych. Its an excuse to view the world through a personal mythology that is constructed by the person in an attempt to regulate and control nature. In this way, illusion is not an illusion other than the fact that it describes itself.

 

[WaveJumper]

Illusion is not an illusion. Illusion is a function of cognition that can be verified using several witnesses and an FMRI machine.

Illusion is a concept (physical function of the brain) that softens the blow of reality on a fragile psych. Its an excuse to view the world through a personal mythology that is constructed by the person in an attempt to regulate and control nature. In this way, illusion is not an illusion other than the fact that it describes itself.

Then by this definition reality, as we experience it, is in fact nothing but an illusion. There is no solid stuff anywhere in the known universe. Even we humans, outside of our twisted perception of reality, are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon than entities made of solid stuff(electromagnetism being by FAR the largest contributor to what we are experiencing as an objectively existing universe; and gravity to a somewhat lesser extent).

 

[AUMathTutor]

Talking about reality is silly... you can't prove there is any reality unless you presuppose the conclusion (try it!)

 

[baywax]

Then by this definition reality, as we experience it, is in fact nothing but an illusion. There is no solid stuff anywhere in the known universe. Even we humans, outside of our twisted perception of reality, are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon than entities made of solid stuff(electromagnetism being by FAR the largest contributor to what we are experiencing as an objectively existing universe; and gravity to a somewhat lesser extent).

So, are you suggesting electromagnetic activity is a state of illusion? Because its not. It is electromagnetic activity. EM is a basic component of reality.

People tend to build their own cognitive mythology out of what they can perceive of the EM spectrum. It is a survival trait and a modification of the behaviour of the neural net. What has evolved out of this survival technique of "making sense" of all the EM waves and haze are two phenomena I'm calling "collective mythology" and "personal mythology".

 

[junglebeast]

Er... I work with electrons all the time, since that is the particle I try to accelerate. Can you tell me where I'm worrying about them, or their "interpretation"? In none of my papers that dealt with electrons, be it in a particle accelerator or photoelectrons that hit a detector, there were NEVER any argument or disagreement that these WERE electrons.
Zz.

In the scientific community on vision, it is widely accepted that our visual perception is an illusion. In other words, our eyes (sensors) make a few sparse measurements and then our brain extrapolates, interpolates, and deduces a complete picture of what we are "seeing," as well as a meaningful interpretation of what we are seeing actually based in terms of our world knowledge.

For example, you may see a spot on the wall for a brief moment which was not actually there, but rather caused by a mistake in your brain's extrapolation. Or you might think you saw a person in the woods, but when you look closer, you notice it's just a large stump -- your brain made the best guess it could at classifying that object, which happened to be wrong, and caused you to think that you see something which you didn't really.

If some of the receptors in your eye become damaged, this region will be interpolated based on the surroundings. Stare directly at a wall with a bright red dot on it which lines up with that missing portion of sensors, and it will appear to you that it is a perfectly white wall: that is an illusion.

The more evidence we get about the physical world, the more confident we can be that we have the correct perception of it. For example, by taking a second look at that stump, we gathered more information and were able to make a better judgment. But to be precise, we can never be absolutely 100% positive about anything because 100% can only be approached asymptotically, and we have only finite amounts of evidence.

I think this is what people generally mean when they say that things are an illusion.

 

[AeroFunk]

I thought Berkeley, Hume, and Kant already dealt with this.

What does it mean for something to be an illusion? What does it mean for something to exist? How do we determine reality from fiction?

We can have no knowledge of 'things in themselves' all we can sense is 'things as they appear to us'. We are unable to determine if objects have properties that are independent of our sensing them, "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound?"(No). All sensory information could be false, the only way(well one of the ways) to tell dreams from reality is that reality has coherence, reality follows natural laws. Strictly speaking all we see are 2D color patches, that seem to connect together through time. There is no direct sensory evidence for 3D space, it is something we infer. There is no way to tell if material substance has an independent existence outside of perception, or to put it another way, no way to tell if objects have existence outside of minds. We just observe regular connections among our ideas(our sense inputs), and using inductive reasoning we infer many things, like cause and effect, and the conservation of matter. And, as I'm sure you all know, there is a big problem with inductive reasoning.

So if reality is defined as an existence outside of perception, then of course it can't be known, how can you prove the existence of things outside of all perception? In this case everything could be an "illusion". But this is trivial, what does it matter.

If reality is defined as sense experience that is generated independently of our own will, or imagination, then a better definition of illusion develops. "Illusion" becomes sense experience generated by the mind. But here there is a problem. Take crazy people who see things, are what they see part of "reality." Whose reality is correct? The only method you have is comparing the crazies claims to all your other experience, and than adjust your probability distribution for what is real accordingly. The method for determining reality from fiction is to observe the world, trying to find patterns and correlations in sense experience (although not causality), so you can have more knowledge, more accurately adjusting your probability distributions for what is real.

I hope I wasn't rambling on too much and I got across some of the points I wanted to make (its hard to write about deep philosophical questions concisely and clearly), there is a rich philosophical history on the nature of reality, and it isn't as simple as, of course nothing is an illusion or everything is real.

 

[WaveJumper]

So, are you suggesting electromagnetic activity is a state of illusion? Because its not. It is electromagnetic activity. EM is a basic component of reality.

People tend to build their own cognitive mythology out of what they can perceive of the EM spectrum. It is a survival trait and a modification of the behaviour of the neural net. What has evolved out of this survival technique of "making sense" of all the EM waves and haze are two phenomena I'm calling "collective mythology" and "personal mythology".

I said "reality as we experience it" is an illusion(of the mind). The illusion that we are touching things is very powerful and convincing, when in fact no one has ever touched anything over the last 14 billion years. The impression that we get that we are standing on floors is also an illusion. We are hovering at 10^-8 metres above the floors and the illusion is very strong. Most people, who aren't affiliated with physics or aren't interested in physics, will tell you that you are crazy when they first get acquainted with these facts.

So to sum it all up, while energy in bound states may or may not have an objective existence prior to measurement/observation(depending on the preferred interpretation), reality and the universe the way experience them is purely an illusion(creation) of the mind.