Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?

[Rebonack]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

[Mx.Silver]

Does your life reflect what you believe?
Do you mean do I live my life in accordance to how I believe it should be led? If yes, then it's hard to say. I try to do that, but I'm not always able to live up to it.


If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?
Yes.


If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?
Yes.

[Recaiden]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

Yes. To the best of my ability

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?
Yes.

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?
Yes.

What was the point of this? There's no good reason to doubt whether our perception is relatively accurate. We have proof that it isn't, but no evidence suggests otherwise, and any claims that reality isn't real are unprovable and have little variance, so they are neither productive nor interesting to discuss.

[Quincunx]

I believe things which aren't real. I believe things which are true. I believe the hierarchy of qualities is real > holy > true > good > just > fair. Belief is chained to truth, and acceptance to reality. Belief is applied when there may be doubt. Reality is not to be doubted.

Until this thread started, I also believed nobody would ever abuse the word "really" more than I do.

[lindorm]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?
Ok, I'm confused.
Are you talking religion or the Matrix?

[Ichneumon]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

I try to live completely in according to what i view to be an ethical life.
Yes, we need to see life as clear and distinct as possible to make the right choices.
Yes.

[Telonius]

What if I believe that my beliefs aren't real? :smallbiggrin:

[DemonSlayer]

Does your life reflect what you believe?
Hard to say, since I don't believe anything :smallbiggrin:. But I live my life the way I think I should.


If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?
Ayup.


If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?
If it's 100% proven to be real, then yes.

[axarts]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

In as much as any belief system impacts life.



If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

Sort of inconsequential.



If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

Yes.
I didn't believe in mitochondria until earlier today.
But then I was informed.



What was the point of this? There's no good reason to doubt whether our perception is relatively accurate. We have proof that it isn't, but no evidence suggests otherwise, and any claims that reality isn't real are unprovable and have little variance, so they are neither productive nor interesting to discuss.

The above.

[Crimmy]

I must say, if what I believe is not true, I wouldn't want to know, mostly, because Ignorance is Bliss, and I'm happy with what I have.

If something I don't believe in IS true, then maybe, possibly I'd want to know.

[Mx.Silver]

I must say, if what I believe is not true, I wouldn't want to know, mostly, because Ignorance is Bliss, and I'm happy with what I have.
Even if this has negative consequences for yourself and/or others?

[Rebonack]

Do note that the topic title itself is also a question to be answered in and of itself. And one that is rather profound in its implications if you are willing to answer it honestly.


What was the point of this? There's no good reason to doubt whether our perception is relatively accurate. We have proof that it isn't, but no evidence suggests otherwise, and any claims that reality isn't real are unprovable and have little variance, so they are neither productive nor interesting to discuss.

The questions posed here aren't meant to call into question reality. Unless of course you happen to believe that reality is false. If that's the case I would argue that your behavior probably isn't reflecting that belief.

For those that answer 'yes' to the second two questions, I ask why?

[Crimmy]

How would it have negative effects on others?

To me, I understand it would make me look idiotic, but I really couldn't care less about it.

[axarts]

Do note that the topic title itself is also a question to be answered in and of itself. And one that is rather profound in its implications if you are willing to answer it honestly.

The questions posed here aren't meant to call into question reality. Unless of course you happen to believe that reality is false. If that's the case I would argue that your behavior probably isn't reflecting that belief.

For those that answer 'yes' to the second two questions, I ask why?

To the topic title: Yes, or I wouldn't believe such things, obviously.

Anyways, given the abstract nature of the question, and a lack of definition to the term "belief", and the fact that you use the word real nigh a bazillion times...
A questions of reality seems pertinent.

And, if you believe reality is false, what would you do exactly?
Stop reacting to it?
You -know- that the various role playing games played on these forums are false, and yet within those realities, you play out the role you've chosen.

As to the answers I gave to the other questions:
What I believe in a religious-esq sense doesn't need to be real to be believed in, so disproving such beliefs is meaningless. (Not to mention impossible.)

And why wouldn't I want to know that something I previously thought was not real is real?
I like learning.

[Jallorn]

Ok, I'm confused.
Are you talking religion or the Matrix?

Hey lindorm, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to stick this in my sig. With or without contet it is just plain hilarious.

[Recaiden]

Do note that the topic title itself is also a question to be answered in and of itself. And one that is rather profound in its implications if you are willing to answer it honestly.
It's not profound at all. If you don't believe that something is real, you have another reason to believe it. Obviously, that reasson is convincing enough to ignore reality. Is this a bad thing?
I do believe in the reality of what I believe in.


The questions posed here aren't meant to call into question reality. Unless of course you happen to believe that reality is false. If that's the case I would argue that your behavior probably isn't reflecting that belief.
If I believe this 'reality' is false, why would I act any differently? There are no means by which any 'actual' reality could be revealed to me. Might as well enjoy the dream.


For those that answer 'yes' to the second two questions, I ask why?
Because, like others have said, it could help or prevent harm to ourselves or others. And because I like the truth, and basing your beliefs and actions on the truth generally gives you a greater chance of success.

[Rutskarn]

I really believe that what I believe is real is unsubstantiated, but see no reason not to believe it anyway.
Hamsterjelly.

[Devils_Advocate]

Does your life reflect what you believe?
Of course my life is influenced by my beliefs. Of course my actions evidence some of my beliefs. Is there anyone who that's not true of?


If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?
What do you mean by "real"?

E.g. Middle Earth is very real to Frodo and Aragorn; is there some objective standard by which their perspective is incorrect and their world is fictional? Are the "forms" of things as or more real than the instantiations of those forms in the world we perceive? And so on.

[Jallorn]

All is real somewhre in this multiverse...

Also, if you don't believe that what you believe is real, why do you believe it? Belief by definition dictates percieved reality.

So yes, I believe that what I believe is real. That's why I believe it.

[snoopy13a]

If you didn't believe that what you believe in is real then you wouldn't believe in it in the first place.

[DamnedIrishman]

Yes.
I didn't believe in mitochondria until earlier today.
But then I was informed.


Hooray for feminism! And in-jokes!

[Flickerdart]

If you didn't believe that what you believe in is real then you wouldn't believe in it in the first place.
Hm...I'm not so sure.

I believe in chivalry, or have until recently. I am quite aware that it doesn't really exist. But in my actions, I bring it to happen. Granted, this is probably not at all what you meant, but I also believe in being a devil's advocate. :smallbiggrin:

[Murska]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

I believe that what I believe really does exist in some way, but I do believe that it might not be the way I believe it to exist in.

I live my life because not living it based on the fact that I cannot know whether what I sense is true or not is fruitless and thus I'd rather assume certain things are true and live my life believing they are than not live my life on the off-chance they aren't.

I'd like to know, in both cases, yes. I'm not sure I could take it, but I would want to know.

[Arachu]

Well, when you really, really, obsessively think about it (ahem :smallredface:), is everything not a contradiction?

For example; When you see something, you do not actually see it. You see light reflecting from it. And, because 'sight' is a window from the world into your mind, even that isn't entirely true; "sight" (as we understand it) is really your brain processing information. Information coded after perceiving light.

On that tangent, you (the reader) are not really real, because your 'body', which appears to be a singular object, is in fact a unit-hive made entirely up of smaller living things; cells. And cells are made of molecules! And so on...

In fact, the 'words' on this 'page' are not real; they are collectives of squares that have no color suspended in a perceived section of an infinite plane that possesses every color. Hell, even 'colors' are classifications of wavelengths that your eyes receive...


Thus, I believe that what I believe in (belief=that known by me to exist) both exists and does not. Existence is neither true nor an illusion-it is an infinite number of things that are made up of an infinite number of things.


... That, or I shouldn't have eaten that hot pocket...

[Xyk]

Unfortunately it is ridiculously difficult to live Existentialism so my beliefs have been gradually shifting towards Humanism.

If I'm wrong, I would like very much to know so, though I'll likely argue some.

[Deepblue706]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

I live according to what I think is true.

To maintain the above, I need to know what is real. So, if I find out my beliefs aren't based on what is true, then I would need to learn the truth to make sure that I could follow what is real. And then, I could continue to live according to what is true.

If I wouldn't want to know the truth, yet originally lived according to truth, then I'm just being a dork.

[ghost_warlock]

Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?
In so far as beliefs are a mental construct put together to make sense of the world (physical reality, people and interpersonal relationships, etc.) and to assist in making informed decisions, yes. No belief is any more real than any other since all of them are intangible and exist only in our minds, though some beliefs are better at modelling the world than others.


Does your life reflect what you believe?
Yes, since decisions in my life are made based on my beliefs about the world.


If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?
Certainly, since a belief that doesn't accurately reflect the world is at best useless and at worst dangerous (e.g., "I believe it's safe to walk alone through dark alleys at night in large cities carrying a sizeable handful of cash in plain view").


If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?
Yes, since being unaware of a possible boon or threat could have large consequences for my life. However, I will evaluate claims based on what is being proposed and who is proposing it and reject claims that I deem nonsensical. For instance, if a trusted friend comes from Wal*Mart and tells me that they're having a sale on Pepsi, I will probably believe this. If someone I just met, who is wearing a styrofoam helmet, informs me that the FBI is pumping disco music into his head and may do the same to me unless I get a styrofoam helmet, too, I will be disinclined to believe him until he provides suitable evidence for this belief.

[Coidzor]

Hmm. Well, not much point in it if the sensate world doesn't exist because that means that I do not exist and am rather a very complex form of illusion.

So I'm obligated to believe in my reality and the reality of others.

Thusly, I don't much choose to do harm or other things to others when I am not being careless.

[ghost_warlock]

Hmm. Well, not much point in it if the sensate world doesn't exist because that means that I do not exist and am rather a very complex form of illusion.

If we are merely illusions, let us hope that killer gnomes are 'real' since, even if we're illusiory, a shade created by a killer gnome can essentially be 100% real. :smalltongue:

[Erts]

I have no choice in this matter. I have to accept what I believe as real, accept that there is something ethical, or we would lie on couches, being a nilihist with no morality.

In fact, we all do. Can you imangine not bilieving reality is real?

[Recaiden]

I have no choice in this matter. I have to accept what I believe as real, accept that there is something ethical, or we would lie on couches, being a nilihist with no morality.

In fact, we all do. Can you imangine not bilieving reality is real?

With a little work, yes. I imagine one could even live a mostly normal life. More fun to believe though, don't you think?

[Erts]

With a little work, yes. I imagine one could even live a mostly normal life. More fun to believe though, don't you think?

You would be unbelievebly depressed....

I encourage you only to do this for a week. Be extremely self centered, (why should I care about other's feelings?) have extremely poor hygine (why should I try to impress others?) and pig out (why not eat that third piece of cake? life is short, I should enjoy it.) This along with any thing you can think of.

Humans are programmed to have purpose, to believe in something more than them (do not confuse this with god, I mean, kinship, being a member of a country, etc,) remove it, and there is nothing more, except for raw entertainment. Gets boring after a while.

[ghost_warlock]

You would be unbelievebly depressed....
How is that any different than 'real' reality for some of us?


I encourage you only to do this for a week. Be extremely self centered, (why should I care about other's feelings?)
Because people, whether or not you believe in them, will react to your actions. Well, during the course of a week they might cut you some slack. But try this longer and see how many other people are around to interact with and how well the interactions go with people forced to interact with you. Simply ceasing to believe that other people are real won't make them disappear.


have extremely poor hygine (why should I try to impress others?)
Because I'd feel greasy and gross. :smallyuk:


and pig out (why not eat that third piece of cake? life is short, I should enjoy it.)
If I stuff myself with cake, I'm going to feel sick to my stomach.


Humans are programmed to have purpose, to believe in something more than them (do not confuse this with god, I mean, kinship, being a member of a country, etc,) remove it, and there is nothing more, except for raw entertainment. Gets boring after a while.
More than likely, the day-to-day concerns of allieviating unpleasant conditions (e.g., hunger, having to go to the bathroom, etc.) and seeking pleasurable conditions will keep a person just about as distracted as they do while believing in reality. Believing in something greater than oneself can add concerns to life, but it isn't the basis of everything most of us do on a regular basis.

[Erts]

What i mean is, do the bare minimum which you have to survive...
And while yeah, you will feel sick, I mean to eat as much as you want, whenever you want.

Or, be a scavenger.
And yes, people want to believe in something bigger. Be it a football team, neighborhood, religon, county, family, they want to put trust in it.

[Terumitsu]

Rebo! It's been ages! But yes, I suppose there is a topic which must be addressed here..

(Spoilered due to sheer length)

Now then, do I Really believe that what I believe is really real... Gonna process that in words for a bit so that the repitition doesn't get in the way of my trackless train of thought... Which is a dangerous train now that I think of it but that would be getting off track.. Which there is none but....

Um.. Anyway

So, do I hold to my beliefs according to what I feel is true? I think that's the intent here. If not, well, correct me but I think I'll go off with this as my starting point.

Now that I re-read the following text, I suppose I would best answer the core question by first answering the others. Perhaps it is my particular mindset that makes this feel easiest but perhaps not.

As for the second question of my life and how it reflects my beliefs. The short answer? No it does not. Sadly, as with all abbreviated answers, there is much that is left out. The full answer would be that while my beliefs are not upheld constantly and in paragon examples, they are, at least, pillars that I structure my life around. I know that as a human, I am fallible. However, I can at least try.

Perhaps to reiterate, I mean to say that while I do indeed fail in my attempt to reach the levels my beliefs are on, I at least make the attempt to hold true to what I hold true... If one would excuse the repitition.

Now as my beliefs are pretty much in Human Kindess and the Persuit of Knowladge, I personally feel that one would be hard put to decree those as unreal but if they were not real, well, I would wish to know.. Leading into a contradictory statement, I know, as if the persuit of knowladge isn't a truth.. Then wouldn't wishing to find out be a persuit of knowladge?

Sorry, sorry.. That was obnoxious.

Perhaps I would do better as to rephrase myself again. Now, if I were to be told that, say, the existance of human kindness is a myth created by my mind due to my optimism and amicable nature, I would wish to know why the speaker holds that as a truth. As I see it, Kindness has a logic in which that helping one's fellow human Builds trust and good will. These are bonds which are the basis of many, if not most, healthy relationships. The more relationships one has, the greater support one has. Now, those that are reading this, understand that the use of the term relationship is applicable to all friends, family, and anyone else one has an interpersonal bond with. It may be an obvious statement, there, but I dislilke being misunderstood. Now then, as humans are social beings (Another belief that is closely tied into this one) having a greater range of social contacts and relations aids one in ways manyfold. To name them all would be cumbersome but a few would be the introduction of new ideas and critisism of ideas generated based upon new information.

Now, to be told that Human Kindess (Not the best term, I know, but it fits) is false, I would wish to know why and what logic supports that...

Now that I think of it, I would be rather startled to be informed, without a shadow of a doubt, that logical thinking is a falacy in the workings of the universe. It seems nicely efficiant to me...

Anyway.

As for the fourth question.

If something that I don't believe in IS infact a truth, do I wish to be notified? Well, that's more or less the wording... Okay, so I've paraphrased most of the other questions.

Say, something like psychic powers do exist. I personally don't think they do but hypothetical statements were built for this sort of thing. If they did exist... As a skeptical person I would like to be given proof of such thing.. However, if said powers were a known thing and widely used, I would not need to disbelieve or believe them period. The last statement may seem odd but I am simply trying to illustrate that experiance plays a part in my beliefs.

Perhaps another statement to help rectify this would be as such: Say I had lived underground for all my life. If I was suddenly told that there was a place of infinite air and no celing that was as blue as blue could be that reached farther than my eyes could ever hope to see as well as drop water from itself at times from great fluffy, cotton-like objects that were actually insubstancial... I would be very skeptical. However, I would like to be shown and told.

Of course, the question is, how can one truly decide what may be infact true and what is the ravings of a mad person? That is the defining question there... But it's a completely different can of worms and I would rather not go fishing in that lake this late.

Now then. Back to the first question.
Do I hold true to what I hold true if I may paraphrase once more.... Well, as I have done so it's silly to ask for permission but you know my way of speach and its querks.

To answer... In order for me to live and function as I am and have been, I have to believe. To hold true to nothing.. To nihilism would be the denial of what I have built myself of and from. I would be essentially taking the cornerstone of my being and leaving no stone upon another of the construct of who or what I am.

However, to take it a different way, to hold true to other things than what I hold true to now... I would not be the person I am and thus I feel I can say that I would not exist. Physically, I would take up space, yes. But I would not exist as the entity I am. And though I have massive bias when I say this, I like being the entity I am.

Looking back, I may or may not have taken the course you primarily intended but I thoroughly enjoyed thinking this out and expressing myself as such. I think that is what I will take away from this as a whole, the thoughts and the ideas I have clarified in my writing. Now, I may not have been totally and completely logical in the expression of my ideas here but I tried to be so at least. And if I got off track, well.. That's just how I think. But you know this, Rebo

Oh, and though this wasn't your intent, thanks for the warmup on the old grey matter. I liked this kickstart to get me back into Town again. Anyway, see you around.


Oh! And one more thing, I got an idea for a fun eldrich-style plot that I want to talk over with you. IT's gonna be awesome. Anyway, Later Rebo!

[Thajocoth]

No. I do not believe that everything I believe is real is really real. This means that I don't believe some of the things that I believe. I simultaneously believe them and don't. This is a logical fallacy for sure, but the mind isn't a computer. It doesn't have to be logical.

[Quincunx]

I have no choice in this matter. I have to accept what I believe as real, accept that there is something ethical, or we would lie on couches, being a nilihist with no morality.

In fact, we all do. Can you imangine not bilieving reality is real?

That's not possible. The very definition of reality is that it happens, and continues to happen, all around you without your input. You can believe it's less important than other qualities (and violate my hierarchy) and attempt to abolish it, but not succeed. Even ascetics hunger.

[bibliophile]

Well, when you really, really, obsessively think about it (ahem :smallredface:), is everything not a contradiction?

For example; When you see something, you do not actually see it. You see light reflecting from it. And, because 'sight' is a window from the world into your mind, even that isn't entirely true; "sight" (as we understand it) is really your brain processing information. Information coded after perceiving light.

On that tangent, you (the reader) are not really real, because your 'body', which appears to be a singular object, is in fact a unit-hive made entirely up of smaller living things; cells. And cells are made of molecules! And so on...

In fact, the 'words' on this 'page' are not real; they are collectives of squares that have no color suspended in a perceived section of an infinite plane that possesses every color. Hell, even 'colors' are classifications of wavelengths that your eyes receive...


Thus, I believe that what I believe in (belief=that known by me to exist) both exists and does not. Existence is neither true nor an illusion-it is an infinite number of things that are made up of an infinite number of things.


... That, or I shouldn't have eaten that hot pocket...


There are no contradictions. Receving and interpreting the light reflected or emitted from an object is what sight is. I am certainly real, I am the totality of my components, my body and mind. If am I and the others on this thread are not real, who are you talking to? Why is color being what it is a contradiction?


Back to the a actual topic of the thread, I try to conform my actions to my beliefs, I don't always succeed, but I try to. If my beliefs contradicted reality in anyway I would, of course want to know.

[axarts]

Hooray for feminism! And in-jokes!

Yay!


Well, when you really, really, obsessively think about it (ahem :smallredface:), is everything not a contradiction?

... That, or I shouldn't have eaten that hot pocket...

If I say no, am I just proving your point?


Caliente Pocket!

[Recaiden]

You would be unbelievebly depressed....

I encourage you only to do this for a week. Be extremely self centered, (why should I care about other's feelings?) have extremely poor hygine (why should I try to impress others?) and pig out (why not eat that third piece of cake? life is short, I should enjoy it.) This along with any thing you can think of.

I fail to see the connection between not believing it's real and not caring.

@Arachu: I believe you are not using the same definition of real that the rest of us are. Reflected or emmited light from something hitting our eyes and activating neurons is what sight is.

A collection of cells is what any organism is. A collection of squares or pigments in certain arrangements is the physical reality of what words are.

Those things are all real and not contradictory.

[Devils_Advocate]

No. I do not believe that everything I believe is real is really real. This means that I don't believe some of the things that I believe. I simultaneously believe them and don't. This is a logical fallacy for sure, but the mind isn't a computer. It doesn't have to be logical.
Contradictions are never true. You can irrationally think that one is true, but that won't make it true. For example, you can't believe in something and not believe in it. You can think that you can, but if you think this, you are simply incorrect.

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what "don't" means? Saying that you don't do something means that it's false that you do it.

[J.B. Ganning]

I believe what I believe is real and that real things are there to be believed. If we did not believe in the real, then what would be real and what would we believe in?
Rutskarn

[Thajocoth]

Contradictions are never true. You can irrationally think that one is true, but that won't make it true. For example, you can't believe in something and not believe in it. You can think that you can, but if you think this, you are simply incorrect.

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what "don't" means? Saying that you don't do something means that it's false that you do it.

You are correct, contradictions are never true. However, the brain is not a computer, as I previously mentioned, and doesn't have to follow the rules for logical fallacy. Most people have flawed logic in their minds somewhere. (Vast majority, really.) So I can easily argue both sides of an argument in my head, firmly believing both sides as I'm arguing their conflicting viewpoints.

[JerryMcJerrison]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

Quite the opposite; I form my beliefs after observing the world around me, so my beliefs reflect my life, or at least my perspective of it.

Is the truth any better than my life now? Can I actually remove myself from my false life to join the better one? Is there actual proof of said better life? If all three questions get a yes, then yes.

See answer to question 2.

[DamnedIrishman]

What i mean is, do the bare minimum which you have to survive...
And while yeah, you will feel sick, I mean to eat as much as you want, whenever you want.


...

Just because you don't believe reality is real doesn't mean you would choose not to interact with it. I know that my dreams aren't real, but I still try to dream lucidly as often as I can. It's enjoyable.

When it comes right down to it: it doesn't matter whether reality is real. If reality isn't real, then chances are we aren't real either, so why worry?

Also, try reading Albert Camus' L'etranger (the Stranger). Meursault is untroubled (amongst other things) by the problems and nature of reality - he just exists within his whims and pleasures. No depression... though he is executed at the end. Moral of the story: Don't Shoot People.


I'm an post-nihilist absurdist, by the way. I still have a happy life and an ethical centre in our meaningless existence, because I can and I choose to.

[Falconer]

I believe the scenario described is the "brain-in-the-jar" scenario. That is, how do you know that everything is an illusion? Unless I'm wrong, I believe Descartes first described such a scenario, asking how he could know whether or not everything was an illusion projected by evil spirits.

Personally, I've never liked that question. It is, so to speak, a philosophical "dead end". It's unanswerable. Indeed, you simply can't know whether or not you are a brain in a jar somewhere, and even if you are, there's nothing you can do about it. If the answer is 'yes', the question is moot, because if you're a brain in a jar there's no means of ending the illusion and no means of escape. If you're not a brain in a jar, well...the entire question is moot. There is nothing to be gained from it. Thus, because I believe philosophy to be about a progression of though, not a dead end, I assume the question to be moot and useless.

Answering other aspects of the OP, yes, I do try to live according to my beliefs, though not always to the extent I wish I could. Oh, there's certainly plenty I could be wrong about: that's what happens when you spend so much time philosophizing about the nature of existence and its cosmology. But the cards I have drawn I have drawn myself, not handed to me.

(Yeah, I know. But philosophy is my thing. Really.)

[bibliophile]

...

Just because you don't believe reality is real doesn't mean you would choose not to interact with it. I know that my dreams aren't real, but I still try to dream lucidly as often as I can. It's enjoyable.

When it comes right down to it: it doesn't matter whether reality is real. If reality isn't real, then chances are we aren't real either, so why worry?

Also, try reading Albert Camus' L'etranger (the Stranger). Meursault is untroubled (amongst other things) by the problems and nature of reality - he just exists within his whims and pleasures. No depression... though he is executed at the end. Moral of the story: Don't Shoot People.


I'm an post-nihilist absurdist, by the way. I still have a happy life and an ethical centre in our meaningless existence, because I can and I choose to.


Even if our sense perceptions do not accurately report reality, I still know I exist. I experience almost everything indirectly, through perception. The only things I experience directly are perception itself, and my own thought. I have to exist because if not, who is thinking? Cogito Ergo Sum.

On the subject of the book you mention; I have never read it. Your description and a hastily read summary* would seem to to agree with the conclusion that Meursault is a psychopath.


*No I don't think this is any way to do a novel justice

[Hannes]

HAIL XAOS!


What you perceive is real, and you can change what you perceive.

[DamnedIrishman]

Even if our sense perceptions do not accurately report reality, I still know I exist. I experience almost everything indirectly, through perception. The only things I experience directly are perception itself, and my own thought. I have to exist because if not, who is thinking? Cogito Ergo Sum.

On the subject of the book you mention; I have never read it. Your description and a hastily read summary* would seem to to agree with the conclusion that Meursault is a psychopath.


*No I don't think this is any way to do a novel justice

Meursault is anomic - more a sociopath than a psychopath. He allows life to happen to him, guided largely by his pleasures. My favourite description is that he is 'a social monster - not because of his actions, but because he refuses to give society the explanations that it craves for his actions'. It's a wonderful work, and good translations are available.

Arguably, thought is itself a perception, merely an interior sense like proprioception (awareness of one's body position) - one might describe the process of thinking as the ghost of conversation. You think you exist - but it's the thought that provides the evidence. You might as well state vides ergo sum - that you exist, because you can see, and who is doing the seeing?

Apologies for my probably dodgy latin there, by the way.

[bibliophile]

Meursault is anomic - more a sociopath than a psychopath. He allows life to happen to him, guided largely by his pleasures. My favourite description is that he is 'a social monster - not because of his actions, but because he refuses to give society the explanations that it craves for his actions'. It's a wonderful work, and good translations are available.

Arguably, thought is itself a perception, merely an interior sense like proprioception (awareness of one's body position) - one might describe the process of thinking as the ghost of conversation. You think you exist - but it's the thought that provides the evidence. You might as well state vides ergo sum - that you exist, because you can see, and who is doing the seeing?

Apologies for my probably dodgy latin there, by the way.


Wikipedia would seem to suggest that a sociopath is the same thing as a psychopath. It would appear to me that he is a monster because of his actions. He killed an arab why, exactly? Killing a man for no good reason makes a monster to me.

If thought is perception, what are you perceiving with it?


You said:"You think you exist - but it's the thought that provides the evidence." Yes exactly. If thinking happens, what is thinking? If your perceiving something, even if the perception does not accurately represent reality, there most be something reciving the perception, namely, you.

[DamnedIrishman]

Wikipedia would seem to suggest that a sociopath is the same thing as a psychopath. It would appear to me that he is a monster because of his actions. He killed an arab why, exactly? Killing a man for no good reason makes a monster to me.

If thought is perception, what are you perceiving with it?


You said:"You think you exist - but it's the thought that provides the evidence." Yes exactly. If thinking happens, what is thinking? If your perceiving something, even if the perception does not accurately represent reality, there most be something reciving the perception, namely, you.

Thought? The prefrontal cortex, I think. I'm not a neurologist.

Don't judge Meursault until you read the book. He doesn't just decide to shoot somebody - it's part of a complicated scenario, and the first shot he fires is an accident anyway.

I try to avoid the term 'psychopath' because of the connotations it has with 'psychosis'. One might argue that Meursault has a dissocial personality disorder, but he lacks the majority of the symptoms, as is a calm and rational person.
In fact, he is purely calm and rational - anomic, in fact. You might describe him as the poster child of the Renaissance, as he is not affected by emotion.

[bloodlover]

This thread has a big MATRIX aura around it. It depends on what would one consider real. {Scrubbed} So in the end everybody gets to believe what other people believe and you just don;t have time or don't care to make your own belief as an individual. Usually people define real things as something they can see, smell, touch etc. I know my keyboard is real because I feel it and see it, but I can't see or touch the air, still the air is real .

[bibliophile]

Thought? The prefrontal cortex, I think. I'm not a neurologist.

Don't judge Meursault until you read the book. He doesn't just decide to shoot somebody - it's part of a complicated scenario, and the first shot he fires is an accident anyway.

I try to avoid the term 'psychopath' because of the connotations it has with 'psychosis'. One might argue that Meursault has a dissocial personality disorder, but he lacks the majority of the symptoms, as is a calm and rational person.
In fact, he is purely calm and rational - anomic, in fact. You might describe him as the poster child of the Renaissance, as he is not affected by emotion.


Stating that the prefrontal cortex is related to thought does not in any way answer my question.

Why exactly does he shoot a guy? Self defense? Robbery? What? If he is rational, why did he shoot someone, when he knew it could get him killed, as it did?

Since when exactly was the Renaissance about ignoring emotion? Are we talking about the European Renaissance? Circa 1300-1600 AD?


As usual, we are driving the thread off topic, perhaps we should start a new one.

[LurkerInPlayground]

You would be unbelievebly depressed....

I encourage you only to do this for a week. Be extremely self centered, (why should I care about other's feelings?) have extremely poor hygine (why should I try to impress others?) and pig out (why not eat that third piece of cake? life is short, I should enjoy it.) This along with any thing you can think of.
Reason #1 as to why discussions of nihilism annoy me. People never bother defining what they mean by "nihilism."

1) "Nihilism" doesn't automatically come with the understanding that it is a rejection of all values.
2) Some people can use "nihilism" to mean that there is no providenced meaning to these biological impulses. Even morality is merely another biological impulse.

Unfortunately these two definitions are the most popular because telling people they're an accident is offensive for reasons that escape me.

It doesn't follow that selfishness is anymore nihilistic than altruism. Ask a narcissist if he doesn't ascribe meaning to his self-interest.

You can be the most meticulous, sober and ascetic person on the planet and still be a vile human being. Having Values =/= Higher Good.


Humans are programmed to have purpose, to believe in something more than them (do not confuse this with god, I mean, kinship, being a member of a country, etc,) remove it, and there is nothing more, except for raw entertainment. Gets boring after a while.
Why is "raw entertainment" any less of a purpose? Presumably there is entertainment that is wholesome and grants a sense of purpose. What you're really saying here sounds like a generic decrying of modern consumer culture.

As you yourself seem to realize, "purpose" has no existence anywhere outside of our minds. And being purposeless isn't nearly as great a crime as people seem to think. It doesn't follow that apathy leads to crass "hedonism" or a complete anarchic rejection of all the things a human might care to value.

At any rate, the OP questions are a pretty epic fail. The title of the thread alone approaches self parody.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I believe the scenario described is the "brain-in-the-jar" scenario. That is, how do you know that everything is an illusion? Unless I'm wrong, I believe Descartes first described such a scenario, asking how he could know whether or not everything was an illusion projected by evil spirits.

Personally, I've never liked that question. It is, so to speak, a philosophical "dead end". It's unanswerable. Indeed, you simply can't know whether or not you are a brain in a jar somewhere, and even if you are, there's nothing you can do about it. If the answer is 'yes', the question is moot, because if you're a brain in a jar there's no means of ending the illusion and no means of escape. If you're not a brain in a jar, well...the entire question is moot. There is nothing to be gained from it. Thus, because I believe philosophy to be about a progression of though, not a dead end, I assume the question to be moot and useless.
My answer is that the question itself defines itself. Thinking is a process the mind does. Calling that action an "illusion" is a vast oversimplification. The very act of living is simply self-contained and self-valued. Go and injure yourself. The personal and social pain is still very real -- it doesn't matter that it is an "illusion." I doubt there are many people that could really suspend their disbelief well enough to think of a debilitating handicap as anything else. It is no longer a matter of will or perception but entirely a matter of how your mind is structured. It's not something that you really have control over.

Solipsism seems to be considered something of a joke with serious philosophers -- including the natural sort that we call "scientists." And you can know things simply by assessing and measuring those things which are not subject to your will. Some things cannot be changed merely by willing yourself to perceive it differently.

The wall is a wall no matter how many times you bang your head against it. Wishful thinking can only do so much to suspend your understanding of reality. You can delude yourself about it, but the reality of that fact will still permeate and influence your actions. Barring that, it can still destroy you. It's not about you or your ego. That's why it's called "objective" reality. It exists outside of you and it doesn't need you to keep doing what it does.

Yes, even the Matrix simulation program had objective realities about its operation.

So yes, a tree falling in a forest with nobody around to hear it makes a sound.

[axarts]

So yes, a tree falling in a forest with nobody around to hear it makes a sound.

But no one is there to hear the sound.
The sound does not even have deaf ears to fall upon.
Without deaf ears, where will the sound land?

Clearly it can't exist without someone on the outside looking in going "yup, that's a sound."

Unless the person is also blind.
A pinball wizard did it.

[LurkerInPlayground]

But no one is there to hear the sound.
The sound does not even have deaf ears to fall upon.
Without deaf ears, where will the sound land?

Clearly it can't exist without someone on the outside looking in going "yup, that's a sound."

Unless the person is also blind.
A pinball wizard did it.
Cute. But the soundwaves exist.

You dirty postmodern hippy.

[axarts]

Cute. But the soundwaves exist.

You dirty postmodern hippy.

Don't hate me because my hair is beautiful.

I'm just saying, prove the sound exists.
Or is this Wood Sound related to the Celestial Teapot?

[DamnedIrishman]

Stating that the prefrontal cortex is related to thought does not in any way answer my question.

Why exactly does he shoot a guy? Self defense? Robbery? What? If he is rational, why did he shoot someone, when he knew it could get him killed, as it did?

Since when exactly was the Renaissance about ignoring emotion? Are we talking about the European Renaissance? Circa 1300-1600 AD?


As usual, we are driving the thread off topic, perhaps we should start a new one.

I thought your question was: if thought is a perception, where is it percieved? In which case, prefrontal cortex does answer your question as it (I think, as I said I'm no neurologist) is the percieving part in the same ways your eyes percieve light. If your question was: what is using these organs to percieve, then that is a more difficult question.

I didn't mean the Renaissance at all, I meant the Enlightenment. Idiot mistake. The Age of Reason, if you will - the philosophical period of logic and cold science that would eventually be rejected by romanticism.

As to why Meursault killed the arab? From wiki:


Subsequently, on a beach, they encounter the spurned girlfriend's brother and an Arab friend; they confront Raymond and wound him with a knife during a fist fight. Later, walking on the beach alone, Meursault, now armed with a pistol he took from Raymond so Raymond wouldn't do anything rash, encounters the Arab friend and the trigger gives. Despite killing the Arab man with the first gun shot, he shoots the cadaver four more times; later, the police easily deduce who committed the murder, and arrest Meursault.

[bibliophile]

I thought your question was: if thought is a perception, where is it percieved? In which case, prefrontal cortex does answer your question as it (I think, as I said I'm no neurologist) is the percieving part in the same ways your eyes percieve light. If your question was: what is using these organs to percieve, then that is a more difficult question.

I didn't mean the Renaissance at all, I meant the Enlightenment. Idiot mistake. The Age of Reason, if you will - the philosophical period of logic and cold science that would eventually be rejected by romanticism.

As to why Meursault killed the arab? From wiki:

I think perhaps you are confusing the Enlightenment with Spock. The Enlightenment certainly embraced reason as a method of understanding nature, but it never advocated the denial of emotion.


Why is it a difficult question as to what thought perceives? Can't you just think, and tell me what you perceive, just as you can look and tell me what you see, or listen and tell me what you hear?


"now armed with a pistol he took from Raymond so Raymond wouldn't do anything rash, encounters the Arab friend and the trigger gives"

This isn't clear, was it an accident?

[DamnedIrishman]

Why is it a difficult question as to what thought perceives? Can't you just think, and tell me what you perceive, just as you can look and tell me what you see, or listen and tell me what you hear?


That's not what I meant - thought is percieved in the way that the eyes percieve. The difficult question is "what is this me that has the eyes and ears and brain?"



"now armed with a pistol he took from Raymond so Raymond wouldn't do anything rash, encounters the Arab friend and the trigger gives"

This isn't clear, was it an accident?

Yes, it was an accident. Though he then shoots the corpse.

[Arachu]

Sound waves are disturbances in the air (basically). Meanwhile, sound is something we hear.

Therefore, would a sound wave count as a sound, if it were not heard?

:roach:

[DamnedIrishman]

Sound waves are disturbances in the air (basically). Meanwhile, sound is something we hear.

Therefore, would a sound wave count as a sound, if it were not heard?

:roach:

That's just facetious.
:smalltongue:

[Jack Squat]

Therefore, would a sound wave count as a sound, if it were not heard?

No. If it's not received, it's just a vibration in the form of a compression (longitudinal) wave. There's plenty of these outside our frequency range, and not all of those count as sound.

[DamnedIrishman]

No. If it's not received, it's just a vibration in the form of a compression (longitudinal) wave. There's plenty of these outside our frequency range, and not all of those count as sound.

We can't naturally percieve radio waves, and yet they're still described as 'noise'.

[bibliophile]

That's not what I meant - thought is percieved in the way that the eyes percieve. The difficult question is "what is this me that has the eyes and ears and brain?"



Yes, it was an accident. Though he then shoots the corpse.

You make it sound like thought is something external to yourself. Do you think or not?

[DamnedIrishman]

You make it sound like thought is something external to yourself. Do you think or not?

Do you see or not? What is the you that is seeing? If cogito ergo sum, does vides ergo sum? If perception doesn't prove that a percieved object exists, then how does it prove that the percieving party exists?

[bibliophile]

Do you see or not? What is the you that is seeing? If cogito ergo sum, does vides ergo sum? If perception doesn't prove that a percieved object exists, then how does it prove that the percieving party exists?

Because there must be something receiving the perception, or doing the thinking. Perception requires a perceiver. Thinking requires a thinker

[DamnedIrishman]

Because there must be something receiving the perception, or doing the thinking. Perception requires a perceiver. Thinking requires a thinker

Semantics. I may as well say: Perception requires a perceiver. Viewing requires a viewer.
How are you even sure you are doing the thinking rather than perceiving thoughts which your brain produces as reactions to circumstances?

I agree though, there must be something recieving the perceptions. But what is that thing?

[bibliophile]

Semantics. I may as well say: Perception requires a perceiver. Viewing requires a viewer.
How are you even sure you are doing the thinking rather than perceiving thoughts which your brain produces as reactions to circumstances?

I agree though, there must be something recieving the perceptions. But what is that thing?

The thing I call "Me". I can tell I am receiving perception, because I am. Perception is something we cannot doubt because we experience it directly, unlike our knowledge of physical things, which we experience indirectly..

[DamnedIrishman]

The thing I call "Me". I can tell I am receiving perception, because I am. Perception is something we cannot doubt because we experience it directly, unlike our knowledge of physical things, which we experience indirectly..

But every perception you have is of something. Without the thing, there would be no perception: perception is a reflection of the thing. And if you're percieving nothing, you're not percieving. If you're not percieving anything, then are you existing?

[bibliophile]

But every perception you have is of something. Without the thing, there would be no perception: perception is a reflection of the thing. And if you're percieving nothing, you're not percieving. If you're not percieving anything, then are you existing?

Even if you are in complete darkness you still perceive darkness. Your eyes still send you a signal about local light conditions. You are always perceiving something.

That being said perception is not a logically necessary component of existence. It is not impossible for a being to exist that had no perception of external reality.

Absence of perception would not kill you. Why would it?

[Arachu]

Without perception, without the ability to craft a world together, would this "me" have ever existed at all? No coherent thoughts, no feeling, no existence; the body would always exist, while the "self" might not even form.


... Or, the "self" might create its own existence. It might create a world in and of its own being, for the sheer point of existing at all. This 'custom reality' might be completely different from anything imaginable, or it might utilize the five senses in ways that 'make sense'. Regardless, this 'fake reality' would make perfect and complete sense to the one in that state.

Creepy, eh?

[DamnedIrishman]

Even if you are in complete darkness you still perceive darkness. Your eyes still send you a signal about local light conditions. You are always perceiving something.

There's a difference between perceiving darkness as there is no light to percieve, and being blind.



That being said perception is not a logically necessary component of existence. It is not impossible for a being to exist that had no perception of external reality.


If you are percieving nothing, how do you know you exist?



Absence of perception would not kill you. Why would it?

Funnily enough, it eventually does. Research extreme sense deprivation - people go incurably insane, and eventually die (though most commit suicide first). Your brain cannot take absense of sensation.

[SoD]

Do I beleive that what I beleive is real? Of course. No offense, but it seems like a silly question. If I didn't beleive it was real, then I don't beleive in it.

[bibliophile]

There's a difference between perceiving darkness as there is no light to percieve, and being blind.



If you are percieving nothing, how do you know you exist?



Funnily enough, it eventually does. Research extreme sense deprivation - people go incurably insane, and eventually die (though most commit suicide first). Your brain cannot take absense of sensation.

Even the blind feel, propriocepte(what is the verb?), and touch.

Even if you perceive nothing thinking shows you you exist.

Five minutes casual research fails to back up your claims. Would you care to provide a link?

[DamnedIrishman]

Even if you perceive nothing thinking shows you you exist.

But thought is itself percieved - if you're percieving nothing, how are you thinking? That's what I was arguing a few posts back:


Arguably, thought is itself a perception, merely an interior sense like proprioception (awareness of one's body position) - one might describe the process of thinking as the ghost of conversation. You think you exist - but it's the thought that provides the evidence. You might as well state vides ergo sum - that you exist, because you can see, and who is doing the seeing?

And as for:



Five minutes casual research fails to back up your claims. Would you care to provide a link?

No, I can't. However, you might find the following interesting reading:

Psychiatric effects of solitary isolation. (http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf)

Even solitary isolation has severe metal effects. Sense deprivation is an effective method of torture.

[Devils_Advocate]

Man, what's this "existence" stuff that people keep going on about, anyway?

A fictional character can think to himself "I think, therefore I am." Does this prove his existence?

Yeah, you could say that he's not really thinking that because he and his thoughts aren't real. But isn't that begging the question? The point is, by what standard are he and his thoughts merely hypothetical and you and yours actual? Is it all subjective, with each of you existing from your own perspective?

[Renegade Paladin]

The question the title asks the answer to a truism; if you don't believe what you believe, then you don't believe it. The answer to the question is yes, and it is a given that it is yes; the answer literally cannot be otherwise.

[OwlbearUltimate]

Solipsism is the way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[LurkerInPlayground]

That being said perception is not a logically necessary component of existence. It is not impossible for a being to exist that had no perception of external reality.
Sure. If you're a rock or a corpse. We're talking about sustaining sentience.

[averagejoe]

We can't naturally percieve radio waves, and yet they're still described as 'noise'.

Are they? I've never heard them referred to as such, except in the cases where your signal receiver is picking up radio waves that you don't want it to pick up, in which case your argument does this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

Granted, this doesn't seem to be a very relevant line of inquiry with regards to the whole argument. I'm more demonstrating that philosophers might be good at philosophy if they bothered to learn a bit of science. :smalltongue:


Solipsism is the way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I say we go punch a solipsist and tell him, "Stop imagining punching yourself." (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=972)

Also... (http://www.alessonislearned.com/index.php?comic=34)

Lastly (http://cowbirdsinlove.com/549) (it's the one at the bottom.)

I don't know what it is about Solipsism that brings cats to mind.

[thubby]

I don't know what it is about Solipsism that brings cats to mind.

Schrodinger's cat probably.

[bibliophile]

But thought is itself percieved - if you're percieving nothing, how are you thinking? That's what I was arguing a few posts back:



And as for:



No, I can't. However, you might find the following interesting reading:

Psychiatric effects of solitary isolation. (http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf)

Even solitary isolation has severe metal effects. Sense deprivation is an effective method of torture.


Thought is not perception. Perception is not needed for thought. Tearing out your eyeballs doesn't mean you can't think does it?

[LurkerInPlayground]

Are they? I've never heard them referred to as such, except in the cases where your signal receiver is picking up radio waves that you don't want it to pick up, in which case your argument does this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

Granted, this doesn't seem to be a very relevant line of inquiry with regards to the whole argument. I'm more demonstrating that philosophers might be good at philosophy if they bothered to learn a bit of science. :smalltongue:
Just drop it. If any of you thought you're being original by bringing this up, I already thought of it before. The philosophers you mock probably has as well.

It's just not particularly germane or to the point to point out that sound waves and sound are different things. The point is that the signal exists whether or not it is recognized as such.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Ugh. This roundabout back-and-forth is really grating on my nerves.

Sense is not entirely defined by the raw engines that do the work of seeing or smelling etcetera. There needs to be a centralized place to integrate it.

There are known cases of people who have "nothing onscreen" in terms of vision, but still abstractly know that a cat is standing in front of them because their optic nerves and eyes are intact. This occurs entirely as a matter of one part of the brain working while the other works normally.

In the case of sensory deprivation, your mind integrates the signal that there is no light. It's still information. And your brain is still processing it. It is still perceiving.

Whether raw abstract thought is a perception is overly pedantic. They're both qualities we ascribe to a sentient mind. Although one could argue that "meaningful" thought, as we know it, only occurs as a consequence of things like self-awareness and the more concrete five senses.

[averagejoe]

Just drop it. If any of you thought you're being original by bringing this up, I already thought of it before. The philosophers you mock probably has as well.

It's just not particularly germane or to the point to point out that sound waves and sound are different things. The point is that the signal exists whether or not it is recognized as such.

I'm not sure where you're getting either of those claims. I never claimed to be original, and I said nothing about sound waves and sound being different things. My intention was to correct a misunderstanding of the word "noise" as it applies to radio waves, or perhaps learn something new (if radio waves are indeed known as "noise" in the manner which he said, a possibility which I can't discount, not knowing everything about the English language.)

If you would, please, point out where I said that sound waves and sound are different things, so I can avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

As to my actual opinion on the matter, I find the question itself (whether sound exists independent of the listener) to be self indulgent, silly, and not particularly relevant to anything. It is, by its very nature, unanswerable and irrelevant to people, and not particularly useful to think about. In short, I have no opinion on the matter and see no reason to form one.

[Devils_Advocate]

Ah, the Standard Definitional Dispute (http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/)...

"Sound" is a vague and ambiguous term. It can refer either to auditory perception or to phenomena capable of causing auditory perception. I'd guess that the intuitive concept of sound actually conflates the physical phenomenon and the experience of it; they're so closely related that it's only obvious upon reflection that they're actually distinct from each other.

Or to put it another way, we use the term "sound" to refer to both the physical phenomenon of sound waves and to auditory perception, since in a case where we recognize one to occur we usually also recognize the other. The question is just which of those "sound" covers explicitly and which is one referred to implicitly. But that's a distinction not even made in normal usage of the word! People aren't continually consciously aware of how their perceptions merely imperfectly reflect reality. We intuit our perceptions as being the things-in-themselves being perceived.

Or so I theorize.

[DamnedIrishman]

Thought is not perception. Perception is not needed for thought. Tearing out your eyeballs doesn't mean you can't think does it?

What you refer to as 'thought' is percieved thought - as opposed to unconscious thought. If a thought is perceived, it is a perception.

And no, tearing out your eyes doesn't mean you can't think, but then that's not the involved sense organ. If we cauterised certain areas of the brain, on the other hand...

[Devils_Advocate]

As Kant wrote, "I therefore have no knowledge of myself as I am, but merely as I appear to myself."

[DamnedIrishman]

As Kant wrote, "I therefore have no knowledge of myself as I am, but merely as I appear to myself."

Works for me.

Viva la absurd!

[bibliophile]

What you refer to as 'thought' is percieved thought - as opposed to unconscious thought. If a thought is perceived, it is a perception.

And no, tearing out your eyes doesn't mean you can't think, but then that's not the involved sense organ. If we cauterised certain areas of the brain, on the other hand...


You make it sound like thought is something that we simply watch happen. It would make no sense to speak of a thought that was not perceived. We can forget we had a thought, but we are aware of what we think. Thought is not external to our minds, it's something we do.


My comment about eyeballs was to answer your question about weather perception of external things was needed for thought.

[DamnedIrishman]

You make it sound like thought is something that we simply watch happen. It would make no sense to speak of a thought that was not perceived. We can forget we had a thought, but we are aware of what we think. Thought is not external to our minds, it's something we do.


My comment about eyeballs was to answer your question about weather perception of external things was needed for thought.

Thought is not simply something we watch happen - but then, neither is any perception. If you move your arm, you only know that you have performed the action due to the perceptions created - proprioceptive perceptions, balance perceptions, perhaps seeing your arm move. In much the same way, although thought is an active process it is not until a perception of it is generated that we realise that we have thought.

I didn't say perception of external things was required for thought: I was saying the the idea cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am, makes about as much sense as vides ergo sum - I see therefore I am. I challenge your assumption. Without perception of our thoughts, we do not think, so how can the perception of a thought be proof that you exist if perceptions in general are not a reliable measure of reality?

[bibliophile]

Thought is not simply something we watch happen - but then, neither is any perception. If you move your arm, you only know that you have performed the action due to the perceptions created - proprioceptive perceptions, balance perceptions, perhaps seeing your arm move. In much the same way, although thought is an active process it is not until a perception of it is generated that we realise that we have thought.

I didn't say perception of external things was required for thought: I was saying the the idea cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am, makes about as much sense as vides ergo sum - I see therefore I am. I challenge your assumption. Without perception of our thoughts, we do not think, so how can the perception of a thought be proof that you exist if perceptions in general are not a reliable measure of reality?


If we think, we have thoughts. Even if we "perceive" thoughts, a notion I reject, merely having thoughts is thinking regardless of weather we are aware of them.

Perception, true or not, shows we exist because there must be something to recive the perceptions. You admit as much in post #69 of this thread. You ask what that thing is that receives the perception. That is the thing called "I". You know this because you actually receive the perception.

1) Perception exists

2) There must be something to receive the perception

3) You receive perception

4) You exist

[DamnedIrishman]

If we think, we have thoughts. Even if we "perceive" thoughts, a notion I reject, merely having thoughts is thinking regardless of weather we are aware of them.

Perception, true or not, shows we exist because there must be something to recive the perceptions. You admit as much in post #69 of this thread. You ask what that thing is that receives the perception. That is the thing called "I". You know this because you actually receive the perception.

1) Perception exists

2) There must be something to receive the perception

3) You receive perception

4) You exist

Dear sir, of course I admit such. I am quite happy in the belief that whatever I percieve is real. I merely play devil's advocate.
'I' therefore exist because I percieve myself. My challenge to you is to seperate perceptions from that which is percieving. Without perceptions, the perciever does not know itself exists - the self is given shape by perception.

[bibliophile]

Dear sir, of course I admit such. I am quite happy in the belief that whatever I percieve is real. I merely play devil's advocate.
'I' therefore exist because I percieve myself. My challenge to you is to seperate perceptions from that which is percieving. Without perceptions, the perciever does not know itself exists - the self is given shape by perception.

I'm afraid I don''t understand what you are asking. Could you be more clear?

[DamnedIrishman]

I'm afraid I don''t understand what you are asking. Could you be more clear?

Clear? This early in the morning? Probably not, but I'll try.

I believe that perception is the ultimate test of reality, and what I percieve is what is 'real'.

I was under the assumption that you, contrarily, discount perceptions as the validifier of reality and believe instead that only the thinking self truly exists, and that perception is flawed.

However, I argue that the thinking self cannot be aware of itself without perceptions, and that perception of the thinking self is what verifies it's existence. How would you counterargue?

[bibliophile]

Clear? This early in the morning? Probably not, but I'll try.

I believe that perception is the ultimate test of reality, and what I percieve is what is 'real'.

I was under the assumption that you, contrarily, discount perceptions as the validifier of reality and believe instead that only the thinking self truly exists, and that perception is flawed.

However, I argue that the thinking self cannot be aware of itself without perceptions, and that perception of the thinking self is what verifies it's existence. How would you counterargue?


I'm so glad we clarify what we're talking about after days of discussion.

I believe that thought alone is enough to prove that we exist. I also believe what is reported by our perceptions is the correct reflection of external reality. Things are, for the most part, what they appear to be, aside from hallucinations, optical illusions etc.

Perception of what? Self-perception, or of external physical reality?

I don't mean to keep you awake. I'm in the eastern US and it's 8:45 here. I didn't realize how late it must be for you (1:45?), sorry.:smalleek: We can resume this discussion later.

[DamnedIrishman]

I believe that thought alone is enough to prove that we exist. I also believe what is reported by our perceptions is the correct reflection of external reality. Things are, for the most part, what they appear to be, aside from hallucinations, optical illusions etc.


I would argue that what you call 'thought' is actually a perception - you percieve the thought in your head (whether this is in the form of a 'ghost conversation' or a 'ghost image' - now I feel like saying 'visuo-spatial sketch pad' and 'audio-phonological loop' so my psychology A-level wasn't a complete waste of time).
An action itself is only reported to the brain via perception, whether a thought or an arm movement. If it is not percieved, we cannot know it occurred, and thus we must assume it didn't until presented better evidence.



Perception of what? Self-perception, or of external physical reality?


Both. Self-perception (ie perception of one's own thoughts) and perceptions of external reality - as we perceive our own existence relative to external reality.




I don't mean to keep you awake. I'm in the eastern US and it's 8:45 here. I didn't realize how late it must be for you (1:45?), sorry.:smalleek: We can resume this discussion later.

Don't worry, I regularly torture myself in this manner. As Sid Meier was often misattributed to saying: "SLEEP IS FOR THE WEAK!"

[bibliophile]

I would argue that what you call 'thought' is actually a perception - you percieve the thought in your head (whether this is in the form of a 'ghost conversation' or a 'ghost image' - now I feel like saying 'visuo-spatial sketch pad' and 'audio-phonological loop' so my psychology A-level wasn't a complete waste of time).
An action itself is only reported to the brain via perception, whether a thought or an arm movement. If it is not percieved, we cannot know it occurred, and thus we must assume it didn't until presented better evidence.



Both. Self-perception (ie perception of one's own thoughts) and perceptions of external reality - as we perceive our own existence relative to external reality.




Don't worry, I regularly torture myself in this manner. As Sid Meier was often misattributed to saying: "SLEEP IS FOR THE WEAK!"


I would say the thought is something we do directly. Other things we do indirectly such as moving our arm. We don't need feedback to know we're thinking.

[Cryssandra]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

Q1:
Most of the Time
Q2:
Please
Q3:
Very Much So

[DamnedIrishman]

I would say the thought is something we do directly. Other things we do indirectly such as moving our arm. We don't need feedback to know we're thinking.

How do you know when you've thought, if you get no feedback?

[Devils_Advocate]

Isn't one by definition unaware of subconscious thoughts?

[DamnedIrishman]

Isn't one by definition unaware of subconscious thoughts?

So how do you know you have them?
In which case, do you really have them?

[Avilan the Grey]

Does your life reflect what you believe?

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?

1) Yes.

2) Depends. Are we talking "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" or "I believe this is an actual, physical, reality"? If A) then Yes. if B) No. Just wake me up.

3) Of course.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Does your life reflect what you believe?
Depends on my mood.

If what you believe isn't real, would you want to know?
Yes, except if we're discussing Santa.

If something that you don't believe is real, would you want to be informed?
Yes, so long as we're not discussing garden gnomes. They're creepy enough as cheap ceramic beady-eyed statued gremlins.

[bibliophile]

How do you know when you've thought, if you get no feedback?

If you wish to continue this discussion we should start a new thread. We're off topic, and there are people actually trying to be on topic.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think that you're still on topic. You're talking about how to possibly tell if something that you believe in is really real, aren't you?

[FoE]

I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.