Reality (realness) showcase

I was motivated to make this thread because of another one made by Faust.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=171158

I’m going to invite you all to post your take on the “reality” (or what is “real”), and also I’ll pick up, quote, and comment posts of others that show their take on the matter.

If you post by yourself, PLEASE provide how you feel/sense “reality” or “realness” and/or the definition of “reality”/”realness” you usually use, and please include examples.
Also. if you are aware enough, please provide why do you care about “reality”/”realness” or use the words such as “real", “reality" in the first place.
What is the motivation, presumptions, expectation, desire, or fear behind/beneath the term (and /or perspectives represented by the term)?

To give the example of what I want from you, I’ll provide my own take on the matter (although I have already written about it elsewhere).

EDIT:
As the thread is getting a bit long, I decided to add the summary of what’s being said and how I see, in this OP.

To begin with, I do think the word “real” is similar to “true/truth”, “fact” in the sense it usually expresses “positive” feeling/evaluation held by the speaker, and I think it expresses “authentic”, “genuine”, “reliable”, “tangible and usable”, “solid and dependable”, type of notion, (usually subconsciously).

People care about “real”, “truth”, and/or “fact” because they (want to) base their thought and resulting action upon something sure certain and dependable, I’d say.
They provide at least the the feeling of dependable solid ground in the (subconscious and mostly emotional but pretty compelling part of) mind of those who use them.
And that’s important for them because the lack of solid ground/basis means they don’t know if they are good/right/certain/safe/positive/etc and thus it makes them uncertain and uneasy of the possibility that they are bad/wrong/unsure/in-danger/etc.
(I think this is what Faust is saying with “I generally care about the real because I don’t want to perish”, because he seems to think that he has more risk of perishing if he does not make the distinction of “real” and UNREAL. Personally, I’m not so sure if the distinction really contribute to the better chance of survival for him or not.)

In other words, I think there is a (probably often subconscious) connotation of positive and very solid certainty attached to the usage of these words regardless of declared/undeclared definition of them, in most cases.

So, we may see these terms as “assertion/affirmation” tag that shows the “special status” of certainty/dependability attached to the thing these terms accompany with.
But the attached certainty/dependability is often only imagined and probably excessive in most cases, IMO.
It’s as if the speaker is stamping the matter with the “seal” of authenticity and certainty, just like we see all sorts of “organic” and other “certification seal” in supermarket and elsewhere.
For example, the seal of “iso9002 certified” may mean something for the quality control and/or what else I don’t know.
But in the case of “real”, I think it just shows the speaker (subjectively) adds the attribute of certainty, probably hoping that others would take and accept it (without questioning) and confirm and strengthen the imaginary degree of certainty on the matter for him.

Related thread of mine: On Certainty viewtopic.php?f=1&t=171217

Now, taking the example of the Faust’s reply, he equated the “real” with “physical”.

Anon has repeatedly asked Faust the reason for employing “real” instead of “physical” if they are identical, but Faust (selectively and repeatedly) avoided to answer the question at first and then trenched in the “it’s philo 101“ and “historical fact” type line of (poor) defense to dodge the question.

I suggested the possibility that the very notion of “real” is the product of of UNREAL domain, and Faust tried to avoid it by “people are real” and “it’s people who think” without getting into what part of people this thinking is taking place and if it’s “real” or not according to the very distinction he claims to make.

As he manifested he is too bored, we may never know if he is “really” able to make the distinction he claims too be making and if the distinction is precise/solid/sure enough or not in the first place.

But I think it’s pretty common among many people to take “physical material” as something very dependable/solid and attribute special status in certainty scale.
Personally, I think these people are overrating the certainty/solidity of “physical material” just like religious people would worship and overrate the certainty of god/etc because of what Faust calls “metaphysical lust” or the desire to see the absolute/certainty/etc in something that does not qualify for.

Moving to the reply of Dreamscaper, I don’t think his version of definition means a lot because everything is “real”. In other words, he isn’t making the distinction of “real: and UNREAL that the usage of the word is (logically) meaningless. However I do think he wants to express his hope and seal of certainty with the word, nevertheless.

As for the iman’s case, I think it’s based on religious belief of some sort. Personally, it was a bit hard to read and not very interesting.

Objects measurable in space-time are real. Nothing else is. That which is real is experienced through the senses. I do accept the narratives of others, if they align with my basic definition. Which is to say that I am skeptical when someone says they have experienced God, for instance, by a stirring of their soul.

I generally care about the real because I don’t want to perish, but that criterion becomes extended rather easily to “I want a real blueberry tart and not an imaginary one”, even if I am in no immediate danger of starving. The satisfaction of carnal desires generally fits the bill.

I don’t think intense pain is qualitatively different from mild hunger and so don’t base my view of reality on any melodramatic Schopenhauerian angst.

So you use the word “real” as a synonym for the word “physical” - which is fine of course. But isn’t “are only physical things real?” the more interesting philosophical question? In which case “real” has to mean something different than “physical”.

sorry but your definitions of reality sense is wrong, pain is never real unless you are aware from it of your negative reality as living one, but then it is not reality but it is a negative living sense attached to negative reality life fact

reality is always to truth life, so it is to absolute reality concept of truth being its sources so living truth

first it is important to note here the means of my perspective about reality being related directly to life concept, it results that reality is the space that positive different element are absolutely moving as existing separate identities while together without frictions or merges but freely in a same space

now the way it comes to us down as real goes like this, in three dimensions of life

first the role of source of life, to us it is not the truth but of course all is always related and of too but directly it is what we call gods life sources of reality from their love in doing what they realize as creations realities life

then the second dimension is the reality whole absolutely itself that we perceive from ourselves realities attachements to as living,
to me the second dimension is the whole world ground living positively of gods life sources but also within the extensions of what myself consider positively existing from being existing myself
that second dimension is the objective reality living which i call it then, present reality

the third dimension is the subjective reality living that is detached of the whole reality life objective puting a self between, that is the reality of the awareness freedom life that i would call, potential of living reality like abstract life still looking for concrete life from self opportunity, in depth it means future absolute reality self one living by itself autoresources alone by understanding its positive moves still to do always

Correct, anon. Major revelation, I know. Philosophy isn’t really all that difficult.

Haha, ok.

Reality is the laws of nature…that doesn’t mean that it needs to exist as “physical material”.

its kind of ironic that in order to the question reality is based on our , your existence in the first place

get the hint

Ideas of space and time are existent only as concepts. They have no existence outside of the human. These concepts help us manipulate the world but have no reality outside of human conciousness.

Space an time are measurements. The objects I speak of are those which are measured.

By the way, are humans real?

They are measurements of qualities of things which humans can understand. Humans understand that there is something which can be measured. This measurement is of something which they concieve to be measurable. Such conception is human. Yes, humans are as real as they think so.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

Those are the somethings that I am talking about.

Again, that doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

Humans are real. The stuff is real. I see no problem.

Then we are in complete agreement.

Using your idea of real.

I define reality as objective objects, events, and properties that can be perceived directly, or which the effects/results of can be perceived. Under this definition, everything is real except for the lack of something. If my backyard lacks trees, I cannot perceive any effects from a lack of trees, only a lack of effects. I also agree with Faust that anything real has to exist in four-dimensional space. But where we part is that I believe that thoughts exist in four dimensions as well. So thoughts are real, and things imaginary are real also.

However, I am not so sure about ideas or form. Form and meaning are the two things that seem to transmute from the non-physical to the physical. The reason I say this is that form itself has no form, and neither do ideas. While form is necessary for physical existence in a dimensional universe, form itself does not physically exist, and therefore is not real. So to be clear, security has no form, so it is not real. Dexterity has no form, so it is not real. A unicorn has form, so it is real. A monster has form so it is real. Dimensions have an abstract form, so they are real. But the lack of trees in my backyard does not have a form, nor can I attribute one to it. If I were to ask you “what does a lack of trees look like?” you might say “like your backyard”. However, there is a lack of trees in outer-space, and it has absolutely no resemblance to my backyard. So to say that a lack of trees looks like my backyard is entirely inaccurate.

What does this mean to me? Things that are not real are metaphysical but still exist. They just don’t exist on our plane of existence. I think that there are a separate set of dimensions overlaying ours which are ethereal by nature. It is from these dimensions that self-awareness, intelligence, free will, the necessary ingredients for life, etc come from. The physical universe or “reality” is entirely causal and deterministic by nature. One of the forgotten core tenets of philosophy that has been forgotten is determining the meaning of life. I hypothesize that the meaning of life is to add form, meaning, and observation to the universe. Your body contains life, so we say it is living. The universe contains life, so why don’t we say it is also living. It contains intelligence as well. In fact, it contains ALL life and intelligence, so the universe is more alive and intelligent then any one of its constituent parts. We are inseparable from the universe, so we are permanent parts of it. Since we are alive and we are functioning parts of the universe, we could be considered organs of the universe. That would make the universe an organism which is what I believe. I also think that the universe itself is alive and intelligent. But the life and intelligence of the universe is a singular deterministic life and intelligence. We are the free will counterparts to the deterministic universe.

Finally, I want to note that there is a difference between reality and what is real. Reality is a perception of the universe. We all each have our own individual realities, where we decide what is real and what is not. However, besides those realities, there is what I call actuality. Actuality is as they say “where the rubber meets the road”. What I mean by that is that there is a certain series of events which are true events. All realities are a combination of true and false. Some are more false then others, but none are entirely true. Actuality is the only one true reality, and nobody knows everything that actually happens. Actuality differs from reality because it is one shared reality that is not false. It is partly our interpretations that make actuality, and partly predetermined events. So it is a combination of all realities and the great reality that form actuality. Actuality and truth are synonymous. Actuality is what most people call “objective reality” however I like to note a difference between the two. Objective reality is that which everyone agrees is true Actuality is that which actually is true as determined by the universe. And while we do have an influence on actuality, the universe has the final say so in determining what is actual, hence there is determinism and causality, the action, reaction that is a main axiom of the universe.

What about measurements of those objects? Could you call them real if they were standardized rules and functions and what have you from which the measurements, or descriptions by way of reference to terms signifying a measure of a thing that’s made of matter given that there in your experiences with the matter in question all times every time the descriptions would have been accurate according to their own definitions?

I mean it doesn’t seem like you couldn’t call them real at least, but whether you’d be calling them real in the sense that you agree now that they are objects according to the above definitions, or with some stipulation that you do it for practical purposes.

Or would you do an all out refutation of my notion that descriptions of objects can themselves be real?

Ok just read some more of the thread…are you guys covering this stuff already? I think so…

No. Measurements aren’t real. There is nothing real about an acre or an hour. Only a few egghead philosophers think there is.

I would do an all-out refutation of you and everything you stand for as a person and as a thinker. And your friends and family. And any pets you might have. All-out, baby.

Hmm, I’m behind so I’m confused. Faust, what does real mean?

Measurable in space-time.

That just means physical, right? Like… you can’t measure the relative value of different types of thoughts with a ruler?

Yup. Philosophy is not difficult.