These are my favorite quotes about the nature of reality.
I think Dick’s quote should be followed up with something like “Things that do not appear if you start believing in them, are not part of reality.”
Lincoln’s quote is great provided you do not get hung up on the rather unnecessary debate about the definitions of words. Playing the “well, not by YOUR definition of a leg” card, gets you no where. A leg’s a leg.
This is my favorite quote about reality; yours pales in comparison! 
Great and funny quote.
But of course for the subjectivists and anarchists (same difference), the dog has four, five or 79 legs depending on your own worldview or if you just want to blow up the world–respectively.
Hey!
Reality is your sensed experience reguarding the relation between you as subject to object, Experience of coarse is biologically dependent, so, necessarily is reality.
Its not as simple as “what you experience”. What about the case of people who “sense” or “experience” that the claims made by and within the texts of their religion (the ones that are spcific to their religion) (and particularly about how it is structured and operated, and who/what controls it) are what “reality” is? We’ve got Mormons this, Jews claiming that, Scientologists claiming this thing, Christians claiming that thing, and Muslims claiming all sorts of other things, all of which refer to the same universe yet with different descriptions of how things have gone been and how things are going and how things will go.
Granted me picking the differences between religions might be a little overdone, but its the best example I could come up with right now because each religion for the most part claims that they know whats up. Not only that but they usually claim that everyone else’s theory is wrong. Obviously they can’t all be right. Only one can be right, if any at all.
If A, B, C, D and E all have exclusive claims about reality, either only ONE can be right, or ALL of them are wrong and they simply all have yet to get the right reality.
There is only one reality. You can’t rightfully say “how i perceive the world, thats my reality” because it might conflict with what is ACTUALLY the case. I could say that I perceive my reality in such a way that I have $10,000 in my pocket. Its my reality. This sounds silly for a very good reason: because it is silly. The only way for this claim to actually be reality is if i ACTUALLY have $10,000 in my pocket.
Just because the emperor thinks he’s wearing clothes, doesn’t mean he really is. Calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t mean the dog has 5 legs.
Reality is what is and is what isn’t and isn’t what is. I think.
Rorschach tests are subjective and are in no way indicative to the status of the universe. A bunny to you might look like a hot woman to me if we’re looking at ink blots. What something looks like isn’t necessarily what the thing actually is (this is especially true for ink blots). Only when people come to the same conclusion INDEPENDENTLY (independent research is critical to the scientific method) can a definitive conclusion be drawn.
The first of the three statements here is the only one that makes sense. The inclusion of the other two just make you sound stupid, and that you are trying to make a really deep statement, when in fact its so deep that you cant see any light at the bottom.
Or you’re just confused about what I mean.
Could you please elaborate upon what you meant?
Except me.
I like it when everything’s got heaps of flavour.
After weeks of contemplating. And numerous telephone contacts. Hiring of the personel . The business plan has become a reality.
There is no reality without people living to reinforce it.
That’s partially true, but nevertheless, this doesn’t change the true state of what reality is.
Knowing what reality actually is is a different issue than realizing that whatever we think it is, there can only be one reality regardless of people’s varying experiences and perceptions.
Think of it like this: pick up a book that you have heard of but have not read. You have a general idea of whats in it, and that might be enough to get you through the day if someone asks you about it. But the degree of accuracy of your description of it does not change whats printed within the book. The book has only one way that it is written. All you’d have to do is read the whole thing. Now you must be careful not to equate your interpretation of the text, with what the text physically says.
Its the difference between what is, and what is perceived/interpreted. Do you see the difference?
To view reality in its wholeness and totallity would require an omniscience… and that would make you a god.
So I claim, I’m finite. I can see a car accident on the top floor of a building, but can’t really fully visualize it when I’m three blocks away.
Reality, in a subjective term, is seeing an objective thing from your perspective.
It’s just that tired old philosophy line about language and reality and uncertainty and identity. I could elaborate, but why?
Because without elaboration the statement itself is contradictory and lame.
Also, because I nicely asked you for an elaboration.
That would take way too long. Why not just trust me on this one? I’m right, I assure you.
Please don’t. You risk exposing the emptiness in your head.
Please just insinuate that you know what the hell you are talking about. It’s more safe.
Pass the bong maaan.
Shut up loser. If this was real life you’d be crowding my space trying to pick up my leftovers. Get a life.