Define "Real"

from another discussion...

...courage...love...integrity...are real, and fundamental to human interaction

No actually those things are not real... These are...a paradigm we made up to classify a family of thoughts and actions, nothing more.

ok so i know that we basically take the debate format in these conversations, where each of us is "on a side" and then the "point of the game" is to "win"

and i present myself in that format often, simply because i dont usually find it all that worthwhile to post a reply that amounts to "yes i agree"
sometimes maybe, but for the most part its the things that i disagree with which i am most likely to respond to, so the "debate" is just the natural consequence of that

the problem with the debate format is that people are often more motivated to win the debate than to "win" by just exploring ideas and reaching a greater depth of understanding
whatever increase of understanding happens is almost in spite of the debate rather than as a consequence of it

i preface with all of that because i dont really know how to make my response to the above quote without it seeming a debate or a challenge
"challenge" in the sense of "reach the highest level you are able to" is great, but its usually felt more as "defend yourself from attack" and thats not what i mean here, and i want to express that before moving on

so its expressed, and now im moving on lol

hypothetically speaking, things can be divided in potentially infinite ways
the way i am about to divide the sentence is not the only way that it can be divided, but it is A way and it reveals something useful to the discussion

the sentence or idea "those things (love, integrity, and courage) are not real... These are...a paradigm we made up to classify a family of thoughts and actions" can be basically divided into
1) asserion
those things are not real
and
2) an elaboration on, or support for the assertion
"These are...a paradigm we made up to classify a family of thoughts and actions"

well, the elaboration disproves the assertion
the "family of thoughts and actions" exist as observable and experienced components of reality: thats why we made up words to classify them
if they didnt exist, we could not classify them

so thats a kind of formal / or technical / or semantical critique of the sentence itself (i learned everything that i know from youtube videos and internet memes, so i have no idea what the "proper" terminology is here) :laugh:

but my real reaction to the idea that was presented above came in three "blocks" so to speak

first


second


and most especially, the heart of it all lol


in the general sense, i am curious what people mean when they say "real" ?

does it mean "an object you can touch"?
or something more?
what does "real" mean?

What is real? As defined by our friend Webster, a simple definition would be actually existing or happening: not imaginary; not fake, false, or artificial; important and deserving to be regarded or treated in a serious way. The full definition is long, and covers a myriad of additional things that could be real or ways to use the word.

Okay, boring…

Real, as in the way I believe it is used most often in the communication of ideas, is being able to be experienced. Can I recognize it with some level of perception? See, taste, smell, hear and feel. Can I observe its effects on the world around me?

So is courage, love and integrity real? I can feel each of them when they occur… I can see their effects on others and the world around me… well, they seem real to me. At least as “real” as air, gravity or the Force.

But, I probably believe many things are real that others may not. That’s okay with me. I don’t need someone else’s experience to validate my own. Nor do I require that others believe in things they can’t see or maybe haven’t experienced. And even if they have experienced them they can still choose to believe those things are real. At least not real as I believe them to be. Just as grass does not need people to believe in it to exist; I don’t think any of these things needs people’s belief in how real they are to be real and play a role in each of our lives. No matter what others may label them.

I guess that’s really all I have to say on the whole thing. :blink:

:laugh:

the definition of the word is an important step. (i dont think its boring wescli )

in addition to wescli's "beeing able to be experienced" thought:
if two persons are in the same room and both are naked, it might be that one thinks it is colld and one that it is warm. but what is it? the perception makes the "reality" again in this case.
if both persons would tell the story of that room their friends there would be 2 different storys, both real.


ob1... so...
i think you are still seeing the word real as something wich is defined and mesurable. but those words are man made symbols. our use of language to make sense of our suroundings is a wired thing to understand and i think you have to understand thinking itself.
there is a really good podcast by radiolab on thinking without words and so on.. it might help
without this thinking mind there is no "reality".


but back into our thinking mind:
the word love for example. it is not the same for everybody. it is a group of feelings described in one word.
(like romantic love, mother-child love, love of one self, ...) all those thing are "real" because you can feel them. but different persons feel different or might not feel em at all (some persons are for example less aable to feel pain as well)
so there is no definded thing wich is real because we make things real. but yeah, if they are real to us, they are "real".

in the end i would say both quotes are real. even if they say something total opposite.

So, Wescli and Heut. You two kinda are blowing my concepts of reality out of the water right now, haha. I suppose I have always just never questioned the whole idea of "real" as just being something that you can prove to be universally true though measurable means and such. However; you two are starting to make me realize I've been kinda blind there. I do, of course, have a question though...

If we delve into the idea that "reality" is subjective then is there truly even a point to using the word? If the results of how one interpenetrates something defines the reality of said person then what makes "reality" different than "belief"? For example, lets say I put a bag of garbage on my front porch every night and in the morning I wake up and the bag is torn open and garbage is everywhere (no I don't know why I keep putting it out there if it just makes a mess everyday but just roll with it). Based off of some small scratch marks on the porch and the fact that what was torn into was garbage I conclude that a raccoon is getting into the garbage. However, in truth it is just some annoying kid coming through every night and making a mess at my expense. Does the fact that I believe wholeheartedly, based on my own deductive reasoning and experience with the aftermath, that a raccoon is the one causing this mess... does that make the troublesome raccoon a part of my reality? Even when in "truth" there is no raccoon?

Maybe I'm just overthinking things here... but I'm interested in seeing what you have to say nonetheless.

KaKitsune wrote: Does the fact that I believe wholeheartedly, based on my own deductive reasoning and experience with the aftermath, that a raccoon is the one causing this mess... does that make the troublesome raccoon a part of my reality? Even when in "truth" there is no raccoon?

It's all irrelevant and inconsequential, until you decide to go out hunting raccoons to keep them away from your garbage.

mhh okay. so i think with your example the only "real" things, because observable, are that you see the torn open trashbag every morning. everything else is speculation on your side. you dont know if you idea is real. if you are sure your thoughts are real, without beeing able to step back and analyze them that they might not be, it would be something we call "delusional".
speculation and thoughts can be felt as very real by a person. like paranoia feels very real.

the definition of reality that it is obseravable and measurable is very helpful we need that here. but we shouldnt make the mistake to take that for the 100 percent reality. check this video and you might understand that a little better

"What is Real? (Plato's Allegory of the Cave) - 8-Bit Philosophy" on youtube (2:48min)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDaSgyi3xE

Heut wrote: "What is Real? (Plato's Allegory of the Cave) - 8-Bit Philosophy" on youtube (2:48min)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDaSgyi3xE

Ahh I see, yeah that does help. I suppose I was just kinda making assumptions and "blanket defining", if you will, a bunch of stuff there. Thanks! ^.^

I read a book once, I can't remember the author but he said there were things that were real, and things that were true. This clicked with me. Characters like Archie Bunker (for those who are older than dirt) are true, but they aren't real. This to me applied to things like the Bible. I think a lot of it is true, but not real. We can get truth from fiction a lot, from comics, from movies, poems. A lot of works of fiction I think bear this idea of being true, but being fiction aren't real. The truth of them, is why they leave an impact with us. We recognize those truths in them.

I guess its causative footprint is a measure of how real something is, but I'd still personally consider subjective reality as distinct from objective reality just for practical reasons - even though one is the vessel for knowing and acting in the other.

Using that, I'd probably define delusion as a measure of belief in contradiction between them, and perhaps insanity the measure of belief in a contradiction within one (or the other).... in terms of causality.
:blink:

Of course in dreams the whole concept of causality tends to go out the window half the time, but I guess that might be the point if its a maintenance type function to exercise parts of the brain which don't get much work in waking activity.

Wescli Wardest wrote: So is courage, love and integrity real? I can feel each of them when they occur… I can see their effects on others and the world around me… well, they seem real to me. At least as “real” as air, gravity or the Force.

Actually, "One of these things is not like the others, Can you guess which?" :silly: Air is made up of physical elements of nitrogen, oxygen and so forth. Gravity is one of the four basic forces of nature and its carried by physical particles called gravitons. But what is The Force made of? Is it physical? Who knows, but probably not since its never been detected.

Along those same lines courage love or integrity are not physical either. In addition, there is no question this fact will ever be overturned, making them also not real. Reality is the state of something as it "actually exists" not how it may appear or might be imagined. This is contrasted with the imaginary, delusional or abstract. Unicorns exist in our minds and yet they are not real. They are imaginary. Thoughts are the same way. We are each aware of our thoughts, so in that sense they appear real to us. And yet, our thoughts do not exist outside of our awareness. There is nowhere else where the thought that is appearing to you at this moment is actually occurring. They are abstract.

Ideas like courage love and integrity are also an abstraction. Abstractions are general rules and concepts that are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples. We see specific sorts of behavior in others and we tend to want to classify and group certain ones. For example we see examples of others making a choice and having a willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation and we hold those examples together in a paradigm called courage. The acts themselves are physical but the classification is not. Courage is nothing more than a symbol we use to represent a pattern we see in nature. It is simply an abstraction and so the concept of courage is not real.

Numbers are another thing that are not real. They are another paradigm we have created to represent patterns we see in nature. If all human thought went away those patterns would remain, however the paradigm of "numbers" would disappear.

@Kyrin
i think what youre saying is that you consider a pebble or a random grain of sand to be more real than courage or integrity

i find odd the idea that we should accout things which are basically insignificant as being REAL, while discounting as "NOT REAL" things which are absolutely fundamental to the quality of our lives

when we say "this is real" and "that is real" what we are doing is drawing out conceptual maps of reality as we encounter it or as we understand it

by idenifying things as real we say "this belongs on my map"

and maps are what we use to orient ourselves and to navigate terrain, and so a useful map is one that accurately represents the lanscape we have to traverse

but as living beings with thoughts and emotions, we arent only traversing and navigating a physical world

it might even be that the physical aspect of the world is often the least important dimension of what we are navigating

i mean, we are navigating our lives, our circumstances and motives, our ambitions, fears, and needs, ect

obviously we need a physical ground to walk on, but beyond that, its pretty irrelevant just how many pebbles we encounter or all the grains of sand we trod as we traverse the terrain of our lives

which is all the terrain a- all the reality- that we can actually connect with as individuals; there may be some purely objecive reality "out there" separate from us, but we'll never, ever encounter it
in fact we cant encounter it
we are by definition always limited to orienting and navigating from within the bubble of our own subjective experiences

so basically i dont see how a map with pebbles but no courage could be considered accurate or useful to someone who wants to orient themselves and navigate the reality of their subjective experience

OB1Shinobi wrote: @Kyrin
i think what youre saying is that you consider a pebble or a random grain of sand to be more real than courage or integrity

i find odd the idea that we should accout things which are basically insignificant as being REAL, while discounting as "NOT REAL" things which are absolutely fundamental to the quality of our lives

when we say "this is real" and "that is real" what we are doing is drawing out conceptual maps of reality as we encounter it or as we understand it

by idenifying things as real we say "this belongs on my map"

I am not saying that a rock is more real than courage for example. I don't put a weight to it in this way. Instead I'm saying that a rock exists and courage does not. I think you have missed half the mysticism of the human experience in your world view. I don't use a "map" to navigate my world. A map is a representation or symbol of some other form in reality. But how do you map love or wisdom? If a map exists it should state that I follow the path of "x" and "y" and "z" and eureka! I get to Wisdom! Do you really feel that you can just "document" wisdom in this way? I think not. Because wisdom or courage are not real they cant be quantified in this way.

A man is walking on the beach and sees another man drowning in the ocean. The man on the beach cant stand to see the man in the water struggling to stay alive and so decides to rescue the drowning man even though the man on the beach can barely swim himself and does not have any sort of flotation device. He goes out into the water to rescue the drowning man but because he can barely swim the panicked drowning man drags him down and both men drown. Was what the man on the beach did an act of courage or an act of foolishness?

The concept of Courage is an abstraction of individual actions we find a specific related significance in called courageous and so we group them together. But where do these individual actions come from and how do we decide if they are "courageous" or not? Well for each individual they come from the mind in the form of a brain state. We first have a thought about the action before we judge or perform the action. The action is evoked by the previously held thought and so "courage" is not a physical action. The physical action is a result of the thought.

So is a thought physical or otherwise "Real"? Well that's the real question and there are several different philosophical positions about this. Without getting to far down the rabbit hole here, I happen to ascribe to a position pretty close to property dualism. Basically that is the position that there is only one single physical reality but within that reality certain functions can have two sets of properties, namely physical and mental. I believe consciousness is not a single thing that can be pinpointed in the brain but is a collection of a multitude of evolved processes all functioning in concert together and as a result produce a causally emergent state we experience as consciousness.

Consciousness is a non-physical set of mental properties, such as beliefs, desires and emotions that inhere in the physical substance of our brain. These things are "true" for us as we experience them as phenomena but they don't really exist in reality. Our perceptions of brain properties are essentially spatial while our perceptions of consciousness are not. Because of this disparity it makes it impossible for our minds to ever truly understand what consciousness or "non-reality" is. It would be analogous to a mouse trying to understand quantum physics. But that does not mean we will not try anyway. And so there are differences of opinion on the subject of "reality". However for me Its like trying to fit the ocean into a pop bottle.

A man is walking on the beach and sees another man drowning in the ocean. The man on the beach cant stand to see the man in the water struggling to stay alive and so decides to rescue the drowning man even though the man on the beach can barely swim himself and does not have any sort of flotation device. He goes out into the water to rescue the drowning man but because he can barely swim the panicked drowning man drags him down and both men drown. Was what the man on the beach did an act of courage or an act of foolishness?

To know his ability, the circumstances and that he may very well die… and to attempt to save the drowning man anyways… very brave. And foolish. And if there was no threat to his own life; how brave or how much courage would he have shown? It was far more courageous because it was foolish. That is part of what makes it courageous or the brave thing to do.


The words are descriptors that have no meaning in and of themselves. But convey real ideas and acts that we experience. The reason I chose what I did is because throughout history those things could not always be proven. Could not always be measured. But over time we learned what they were, how to define them and even a way to appoint measurements to them. So they became more than ideas and far more “real.”

What is real… a continuation of thought.

What is real is simply confined to a person’s understanding of the experiences they have during their existence. An example of this is, show me the number two. The number two is very real. But no one can show me the number two because it is a conveyance of an idea. I can be shown two something’s or a scribble that represents the idea two but never the actual number.


Is a rainbow real? Can it be touched? Measured? Smelt? Aspects of it can be. I can measure the refraction of light; the distance it appears to cover; the intensity of contrast; an entire myriad of data can be gathered from the perceived phenomenon. But is the seen event real? Is there any part of the rainbow itself I can touch, weigh, smell, taste or anything physical other than seeing it or aspects of it that I can measure. Like a horse. I can touch, weigh, smell, taste, poke, ride; I mean there is no doubt that the horse is real.

Chemical responses to courage can be measured. Neuro activity in the brain can be measured. Actions can be observed. To me courage, love and integrity are just as real as rainbows.

I am not trying to convince anyone that they are real. I am merely trying to make it clear how I see it. What and why I believe the way I do. Anyone here is welcome to disagree. Call me a fool for believing as I do. But these are just as central to my belief system as honor, compassion and natural law. I believe that it is important to the soul to have faith. Believe in things that can’t be proven or measured. Just as art can’t be measured, neither can the strength that ideas convey. And they are vital to our existence as whole people and our experience of the universe. Otherwise, I feel we belittle ourselves to not much more than biological computers. And I feel like we, at least I feel I am, more than that.

Wescli Wardest wrote:

A man is walking on the beach and sees another man drowning in the ocean. The man on the beach cant stand to see the man in the water struggling to stay alive and so decides to rescue the drowning man even though the man on the beach can barely swim himself and does not have any sort of flotation device. He goes out into the water to rescue the drowning man but because he can barely swim the panicked drowning man drags him down and both men drown. Was what the man on the beach did an act of courage or an act of foolishness?

To know his ability, the circumstances and that he may very well die… and to attempt to save the drowning man anyways… very brave. And foolish. And if there was no threat to his own life; how brave or how much courage would he have shown? It was far more courageous because it was foolish. That is part of what makes it courageous or the brave thing to do.

Ahh but in this case he exceeded his ability and thus his act was one of pure foolishness. An act of courage would have been one to not ignore the drowning man (ignoring him would be cowardice) but to also have the foresight to know his limitations and better explore his options. Courage would be to acknowledge the man in the water and then proceed to find a life guard, or a flotation device of otherwise get help that could actually be effective towards saving the man. His lack of wisdom doomed them both and it resulted in nothing more than folly. This is the very definition of a subjective view of the situation and exemplifies the point that "Courage" is not a part of objective reality the way the drowning man or the ocean is. Anyone can recognize the ocean or a drowning man and they have the choice to ignore them or not. But not everyone will recognize courage because it does not exist except as a part of our subjective view.

And just because I'm saying these things are "not real" does not also make them "not true". Absolute truth exists outside reality as the ultimate form and reality is simply a reflection of this. We will never know absolute truth but we can know subjective truth as we are relegated to subjective reality and in this context how we each individually interpret reality defines how we view actions and their subsequent symbols as either true or not true. So for you, the mans action was one of courage and for me it was not one of courage. Both are subjectively true but neither are "real" because they both cant be absolutely true.

His lack of wisdom doomed them both and it resulted in nothing more than folly. This is the very definition of a subjective view of the situation and exemplifies the point that "Courage" is not a part of objective reality the way the drowning man or the ocean is. Anyone can recognize the ocean or a drowning man and they have the choice to ignore them or not. But not everyone will recognize courage because it does not exist except as a part of our subjective view.

I agree that courage or the perception of courage is not objective but rather subjective. I just don’t think that takes away from its ability to be real. Just as love and integrity is subjective and entirely up to the one experiencing them. And happiness, sadness… they are all subjective and rely on the one experiencing them to exist for that person. And we can see the effects on the person and in their lives and that is how we will experience their subjective experience.

But for me, that doesn’t make it less real. Just makes it a different experience for each person. :laugh:

Taste… we can place the exact same ingredients in the same food, or eat parts of the exact same food and come away with different interpretations of what it taste like. The overall flavor will be the same. But I may focus on the subtle hints of this or that while your focus is on the zest experienced as you first bit in to it. Objectively, it has the same ingredients and was prepared the same way for both of us. But our subjective interpretation is different.

And that is the difference, subjective is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. And objective is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I guess what I am trying to say is just because something is subjective doesn’t make it less real for the individual experiencing it. I believe I understand where you’re coming from in your expression of what is real. I’m just not sure I am coming across in what I am talking about.

I will admit though, I completely fail to see how an error in judgment, or a foolish choice, negates ones courage. Or maybe I’m not completely understanding your reasoning or outcome.

I will say… I know of people that have done incredibly brave, courageous things, in combat despite how foolish we may have thought it to be. And not every person possesses the capacity to go forward under the circumstances and they are not always successful. But I will never doubt their courage or their heart. No matter if they made it or not. In that moment, they were the bravest person I had ever known of.

Wescli Wardest wrote:
I guess what I am trying to say is just because something is subjective doesn’t make it less real for the individual experiencing it. I believe I understand where you’re coming from in your expression of what is real. I’m just not sure I am coming across in what I am talking about.

I think you are getting your point across and I can see what you are saying. I agree that the experiences we undergo are felt as real to us and from our subjective point of view that is reality. When you see courage or love someone those are real experiences for us that go right along with joy and suffering and a myriad of other physiological and psychological changes. The combination makes the experience as real as the rock we just stubbed our toe on. My only point is that it is a subjective reality that we can not map out to any sort of absolute or logical truth. A rock is a rock and cannot NOT be a rock. However courage is not something that can be defined in this way because we each have a unique "experience" of it so from that standpoint the concept looses its corporeal standing.

My thought on that would be that we have common definition of each of these things. But how we experience each of them is what makes it more real for the individual. An example would be, an elephant. We can read about them, see pictures… but actually touching one; riding on it; smelling it; adds a level of “real ” that one never gets from a book or documentary.

So courage could be defined as the act of taking action despite fear. Or the ability to face fear. But actually doing it, or witnessing it adds dimension to the thing thus making it more real to the person.

So maybe there is an objective way of looking at it? Strictly text book definition, and in this manor it lacks what can be perceived as real. But once one has a personal experience with it depth and dimension is added via experience and it becomes real on a personal level.


At this point I just start rambling...
I left it because some might find it interesting.


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


I actually find this all very interesting. And it helps to understand, or for me to figure out, how others view or how they think. :laugh:

I find it quite interesting as well. When you discuss topics like this it causes you to carefully examine your own beliefs and conceptions and when you have to defend them the result is either a reinforcement of them through a finer definition or evolution of them to something greater.

Its funny that you bring up "God". After my last post I was just contemplating that same thing. Is the experience of God a real experience or not? Lets call it "A spiritual experience" to generalize it better so we can include things like "The Force". If we have a spiritual experience we would think that in order for that experience to be real the thing we are experiencing would also have to be real. i.e. for a Christian that would be the Abrahamic God and for a Jedi that would be "The Force". But are those things really separate things? It would seem impractical that reality would also be infested with an infinite set of spiritual components to experience. So we can conclude that what we perceive as separate things must actually be specific manifestations of one single thing. That thing, if it exists, must have definite properties and characteristics. So why is there so much disparity when it comes to our personal interpretation of spiritual experience - for example between christian and Jedi? It would seem that if a thing exists we would be able to come to a concrete consensus about it. Since we cannot that must mean it does not exist as a thing. Instead it exists as an experience only and not a different component of reality - i.e an entity or an energy field etc.

LOL my rambling...

For me I view that sort of stuff as exceeding our capacity to interpret, and so we get a hodgepodge of familiar attributes presented by our subconscious in some attempt to hang a huge painting with a tiny frame. Then on top of that there is the exertion of conscious analysis and understanding of what the subconscious has tried to throw up. That is how I rationalize the differences with similarities, to allow further experimentation and exploration.