Existence is only as real as you are?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

how real something feels, can only be as real as you are. Your reality denotes the quality ‘reality’.

Where you feel this iron weight and I also feel it, and it is measurably the same, then its reality is at least equal to that presented to the experiencer.

It is more likely that our experienced reality is only a proportion of the given external reality, this because we experience in terms of proportions respective of the senses utilised.

On the other hand, the external non-conscious world does not experience [its] reality.

Are there two or more reals – kinds of reality, where the worlds reality is a non experienced reality, but that is a different thing to our consciously experienced reality.

If they are the same then is the world experiencing its reality, and without the need for that to be a conscious experience. Indeed can we say that the reality in our conscious experience, is down to that reality. This where the world is what is real and experiencing itself, and our consciousness is making a subjective twist upon that reality with its reality.

_

2

If I understand you correctly, beyond conscious reality , if there is another, then between that another and so down the line, those realities, are not yet different from each other. Difference, evolves alongside with through acquisition of perception.

But since we cannot know the stages, only acquire them per differance, such perception is hypothetical difference, where, the acquired perception of difference is the only qualifier of existence.

Only repeating patterns of differential perception can qualify existence, and the question is not if there may not prevail repeating patterns of latent qualifiers, but that these do not become appearent res difference, only through repetition.

The hypothetical apprehension is an ex post reductive process, where, there is no final difference, as say in the qualifier as :is/isn’t, because of a certain phenomenological horizon, where, below that treshold, only a unity of sorts can be presupposed, and below that, even that unity disappears.

On that level, only the basic structure of : ‘thingness’ can not be known in any sense, and all knowledge is supposition all and hypothetical.

The original mistake of epistemology was converting a supposed reality as an absolute, where ‘thingness’
was pre-supposed.

Here questions were supposed to have ground, in an absolutely reducible yes/no, either/or, wherein this ultimate reduciability was not warranted. Therefore
such constructed could not be posed, supposedly with certainty. Therefore no difference could be even supposed, no less posed, on any level, between different realities.

One could only speak of possibilities and potentialities for differentials. It took some 1,500 years to begin to sense this from the days of classical philosophy.

3

Indeed, it [contextual reality] is perhaps more of a flow of change within the greater reality [where that is the whole].

If we can know the most intimate stage ~ where a reality is being experienced in the moment, then that corroborates with that of other experiencers and devices, then the stages can be known. The world refreshes all contextual content, so we are on a continuous journey of renewal of knowledge, but that doesn’t mean there is no knowledge. Especially if we agree there is a reality outside of our own, as that sets a precedent qualifying worldly things as the same as experienced things. There is always a degree of ambiguity in that, but not enough to assume we cant say anything about anything.

Indeed. One reality cannot be less or more real than another, only different.

I’m not drawing that same conclusion here. For the mind to experience a reality, then a reality has to make an imprint upon it ~ like the needle to the record! I understand that the brain also makes some of the music up such to produce a continuous ‘rolling’ world, but it does that predictively and hence based upon previous similar experiential realities. Don’t we find that the mind quickly adjusts to the new sensations, even given that the first tactile contact takes a few milliseconds to reach the brain, then some more to be processed. Ergo the mind makes the world up as it goes along, based upon former instances of similar or the same sensations, then adjusts relative to new information.

There is I think, a distinction between thingness and realness. An orange is a thing but its reality is energy arranged in a pattern, and then it is fuel to organisms that eat it. So yes it is a mistake to think of things in terms of the absolute and not in the relative, and the relative can be measured as variables.

Perhaps there are only ‘subjective realities’, but there must also be a ‘whole reality’ to make sense. Though I wouldn’t want to qualify that ‘wholeness’ any further.
_

4

5

^^ derivative information! [is the difference between our constructed world, and a matrix style constructed world] everything else is faff.

6

When people are in shock they begin to wonder if it all is just a dream. Too much to bear for them out there.
The Matrix movie has an interesting premise, that people in their pods are an important source of electricity for the machines, that their dreaming state is beneficial for the machines, that their dreaming state is sustainable, worthwhile to be sustained.
It’s not, that’s just a fantasy, a dream for a certain kind of man and a nightmare for another.

7

They could have just built solar panels lol. If they view our dreams as having worth, then humans would have worth, but why would they think that?

The shock thing is interesting, I remember in my youth glue sniffers would dribble and slur their words, yet inside they felt as or more intelligent than when sober, even though their brain was in a mess. It makes me wonder if the brain attempts to match the intellect of the soul, and true intelligence [more than info and analysis] is in fact spiritual. Our bodies are thus merely vehicles for the spirit to make utility of.

8

The movie explains that those bodies in those pods produce electricity which sustains the machines. They can’t use solar power because after a nuclear fallout? or something like that, the earth is permanently covered in a cloud of ash, for 100s of years. Neither man nor machine could survive/run in such a scenario, except through nuclear power or maybe a tidal power station. Either way the human battery story is not possible according to the understanding of thermodynamics.
Haven’t watched the movie in a long time but wouldn’t surprise me if they’d suggest that humans need to dream to produce that energy for the machines.

Reminds me rather of the Dunning–Kruger effect where unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority.
That’s also a way of coping and a path to some social success. Being an imbecile and having no con-fidence is not a good recipe for social status.
Bottomline with the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who suffer from this illusory superiority are essentially too stupid to recognise their failing. Or too cowardly as well but that’s my addition to their theory. Likewise the glue-sniffers might simply be too impaired in their judgement to understand their failing reasoning.

Or maybe it hints at something positive as you’ve said, like their intelligent good soul which can’t shine because their body is holding it back.

I think that there is no soul distinct from the body.

9

Neat photo. This matrix we live in currently doesn’t revolve around electricity so much as it does with taxes.