"Reality is an activity of the most august imagination"

[crazedrat]

— n , pl -ties
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. See also conceptualism Compare appearance the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them
5. in reality actually; in fact

It exists independent of human awareness, but that doesnt mean we can't perceive it. It just means it doesnt rely on our awareness of it to exist. You're interpreting the sentence wrongly.

Also, it's not required you perceive all of reality in order to have glimpsed any of it.

Reality is not independent of perception. Perception is part of reality. Our perceptions are real. Reality is also a statement directly about perception. Without perception there can be no distinguishment between the real and the unreal, and the concept of reality would not exist. But its impossible for there to be a world without perception, so the whole discussion is flawed to begin with.

[krieger]

It exists independent of human awareness, but that doesnt mean awareness can't perceive it.

i never implied anything along those lines.

[crazedrat]

You said the OP quote was wrong because essentially we can not 'imagine' reality. But reality is actually defined by our imagination.

the only purpose of the term "reality" is that of distinguishing something from the mental.

This implies reality and perception are completely separate to the degree there is a contradiction in the OP. If that were true then we could never perceive reality. But reality and perception are connected to eachother.

Reality is defined by perception (which is what I explained in that post up there), and because of that there are multiple realities since there are multiple forms of perception. But beyond reality there is an underlying metaphysics to everything. That metaphysics isnt reality because it can't be perceived.

Since there are multiple realities, and multiple ways of perceiving reality, then reality is imagined.. So there is no contradiction in the OP. Also, reality has more purpose than just distinguishing from perception. Its purpose is to demonstrate an aspect of the metaphysical truth.

[Timmy]

"All phenomena are real in some sense, unreal in some sense, meaningless in some sense, real and meaningless in some sense, unreal and meaningless in some sense, and real and unreal and meaningless in some sense."

I like this idea. It jives with my ontological outlook. Though reality shines through bright as day to all of us in all areas of life at all times, every effort to pin it down, to conceptualize it, to put a name to it, are bound to fail. If we try to catch it, the thing in itself always escapes our grip and we are left holding a pile of dead sand.

[krieger]

i've lost interest in this discussion. any further attention paid to the exchange would just subsidize the behavior of a pair of degenerates with no intent of ever attain epistemic maturity. it's clear who the weakest links are here.

[crazedrat]

More dumb things you said:

when you bump your head against a wall, do you stubbornly keep walking into it arguing that nothing is ever real so this wall must just be a figment of your imagination that can be simply wished away? Or do you make the induction that the wall exists as an absolute apart from what you think of it and you have no choice but to adapt to it.

Imagination is not unreal. Your imagination draws on reality. Imagination is just your subjective perceptions. It cant be completely separated from reality. A person couldn't imagine they weren't feeling pain. You cannot imagine anything beyond the limitations of your senses, either. Thats not how imagination works. The imagination would be informed of the pain. You could imagine a scenario where the pain doesn't effect you beyond what you feel of it. But you cant imagine away the pain. There's no incompatibility between imagination and reality. Your imagination can never truly conflict with reality. The most pure imagination will do is confuse you with semantics. But you are always aware of your perceptions while using imagination.

Since imagination is part of reality, the distinction you make is meaningless.

Unclear thinking / being wrong is not the same as using imagination. Its not necessary to be wrong while using imagination. Yes being wrong occurs due to subjectivity, but when a person is wrong, their imagination is lacking. A good imagination finds itself in agreement with reality.

[krieger]

just stop talking. save yourself the pain.

[crazedrat]

EDIT: you are an arrogant dumbass.

[Timmy]

i've lost interest in this discussion. any further attention paid to the exchange would just subsidize the behavior of a pair of degenerates with no intent of ever attain epistemic maturity. it's clear who the weakest links are here.

Oh please. Spare me the dramatics. If you are no longer interested in continuing this dialogue, can't we just agree to disagree? Given the obtuse subject matter we're discussing, it's not exactly a huge surprise we're all misapprehending one another.

Thank you, labcoat, for giving me something interesting to wrack my brains over. Even if we're not seeing eye to eye, you've helped me to develop my ideas, and for that I appreciate your input.

[silverchris9]

i've lost interest in this discussion. any further attention paid to the exchange would just subsidize the behavior of a pair of degenerates with no intent of ever attain epistemic maturity. it's clear who the weakest links are here.

Depends on the valuer. Some will tend to take their own dogmas quite literally as a true representation of reality as it actually is—I think ILEs and LSIs are inlined towards this. I'm not sure that SLEs and LIIs are quite the same in that regard.

What type are you again, labcoat? It could be helpful for some socionics research.


@Ashton, I really liked your post. I was thinking about bringing up the cat. I think you're right: the cat is dead and alive. I think that in general, basically any label you attach to reality is true in some sense. Just some ways of looking at the world are more complete than others.

But then again, some things are factual. Like, Did O.J. Simpson kill his wife? Like, that's a question of fact. But as soon as you change it to "Did O.J. Simpson murder his wife," it enters that awkward true-false-maybe-both-either realm, 'cause there's a value distinction. And you can muddy up "Did OJ kill his wife too" if you monkey with the words and theory and stuff, but I dunno, some sentences everyone knows what they mean.

And yeah, hopefully LIIs aren't as dogmatic as they seem. Or I dunno, maybe not dogmatic, but something that I don't like.

Also, re: coherence/correspondence, I guess it's like Ni (esp. beta Ni) and solipsism. Sure, Ni tends towards the "you make your own reality" craziness, but most people who are thoughtful have sort of gotten beyond the simple form of that, just like most thoughtful Te valuers and Ti valuers have gotten beyond simplistic ideas of coherence and correspondence.

Still, no matter how thoughtful you are, I wonder how far you can escape from socionics-y stuff? Like, what are the elements that Te and Ti valuers just don't see in their own psyche that affect their epistemology? Can you ever think through it so far that you get past your own biases that arise from how you process information?

Concilience sounds interesting, but I don't quite understand it from the wikipedia article. Are there some other sources to look at?

@everyone else, didn't anybody read my incredibly long-winded explanation of what the quote means? He's not talking about reality, he's talking about experience, which most people unthinkingly take to be the same as reality. Of course, the only way to demonstrate that is to cherry-pick quotes from his other poems... but I do think that the quote is more interesting if it is not merely solipsistic.

[krieger]

What type are you again, labcoat? It could be helpful for some socionics research.

is there a need for this question? what type do you think i am.

[silverchris9]

is there a need for this question? what type do you think i am.

Did you actually miss the joke or is this some sort of counter-irony?

Regardless, I don't really give a shit what type you are. I generally find your attitude rather elitist and your opinions rather incorrect, but I've gotten to the point where I recognize that this doesn't necessarily mean you're in an opposing quadra or value IMs that I don't.

[krieger]

Did you actually miss the joke or is this some sort of counter-irony?

[crazedrat]

No one's laughing with you, labcoat. You have zero friends on this forum. You won't acknowledge any criticism of your narrow interpretations of language, which makes discussion with you impossible. Instead you respond by demeaning people and inflating your own intelligence.. but you're not as smart as you believe you are. Regardless, your point in this thread remains flawed, and since you've refused to address that you can kindly fuck off.

[krieger]

No one's laughing with you, labcoat.

i'm not laughing. this thread has been a source of irritation to me.

You have zero friends on this forum.

thank god!

You won't acknowledge any criticism of your narrow interpretations of language, which makes discussion with you impossible.

i've been extremely patient in this thread.

Instead you respond by demeaning people and inflating your own intelligence.. you're a snide, arrogant prick.

i can not be blamed for it if statements of fact are demeaning to you.

Regardless, your point in this thread remains flawed, and since you've refused to address that you can kindly fuck off.

i don't need crude verbal encouragement to leave this thread to it's misery.

[crazedrat]

No, you dismissed the flaw that was shown to you, and now you're hiding in your own little world thinking you're the only one who knows anything. But really you're just another random asshole who ignores people and calls them names like a fucking 4 year old. If you really had anything to offer you'd jump at the opportunity to show people their mistakes. You don't know what you're talking about here. You're just a phony. This whole intellectual front you put up is a way for you to get your kicks in at people, nothing more.

[krieger]

i have nothing further to add to this thread.

[Timmy]

Just take the higher ground crazedrat. Labcoat has obviously taken all of this very personally. He will not concede your point no matter what you or anyone else says. For him it's about maintaining self respect at this point. I say let him. There's no harm in leaving a man his dignity.

A wise man once said, "it's clear who the weakest link is here."

[Korpsy Knievel]

Look what I found across the street:

My immediate response was to think of the immaterialist idealism of Berkeley, who held that objects, while truly existing only within minds, remain extant when unperceived by mortals by being ever kept in the omniscient thoughts of God.

Secondly, I recalled the panpsychism of Spinoza, who held that material existence was merely emergent extension of an immanent, transcendent Deity's universal, supervening Mind.

My third thought was that this echoes the latter-day nerdwank of those who bonghittedly ponder whether we're all within the Matrix maaaaaan, and if all of what appears concrete and real is actually just a vast and tricksy computer simulation.

Fourth and last, since it was suggested that Wallace was given to solipsism, this paean could be an instance of the writer laying lips upon his own ass.

[mfckr]

@everyone else, didn't anybody read my incredibly long-winded explanation of what the quote means? He's not talking about reality, he's talking about experience, which most people unthinkingly take to be the same as reality. Of course, the only way to demonstrate that is to cherry-pick quotes from his other poems... but I do think that the quote is more interesting if it is not merely solipsistic.

Yes, it makes perfect sense. I'll add another twist to it here.

@Ashton, I really liked your post. I was thinking about bringing up the cat. I think you're right: the cat is dead and alive. I think that in general, basically any label you attach to reality is true in some sense. Just some ways of looking at the world are more complete than others.

Naturally, all of this is true. But there's yet further craziness I can add here.

As the thought experiment goes: Unobserved cat in box with a random decay process that has a 50/50 chance of rendering cat alive/dead. Now, what if you took literally that the unobserved cat—in actuality—was simultaneously both alive and dead? That the cat really exists in some probabilistic state of pseudo-existence—that is, until somebody opens up the box to check the result, at which point the system collapses into a single discrete real-world observable outcome of dead cat XOR alive cat.

This has been an ongoing scientific dilemma for nigh on a century. I'll try to keep the science lecture uncomfortably brief since anyone can reference Wikipedia for the extended version(s). But suffice to say, measurements/observations conducted on properties of any physical system, appear in part subject to fundamental randomness (see 'particle-wave duality' and 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle') at the quantum level, thereby inducing behavior which can only be predicted probabilistically (modeled as a 'Schrödinger wave function'). When dealing with micro-scale objects like electrons or other subatomic particles, the influence of this uncertainty can be significant (see 'electron tunneling'). Whereas with macro-scale objects, especially things visible to the human eye, the uncertainty threshold is so infinitesimally low that it's causally irrelevant. The system as a superposition of many Schrödinger wave fxns mutually cancels out random probabilistic behavior, converging it towards an otherwise familiar deterministically predictable outcome. Which is why of course we don't see uncertainty effects at this level of reality, even though technically they are there. And ultimately the observed measurable outcome of any causal event will at least in some small part be subject to genuine inescapable uncertainty—I don't mean of a kind reflecting ignorance or lack of knowledge about conditions of the universe, nor merely some byproduct consequence of measurement device interactions. But fundamental uncertainty in the sense that nature really is (apparently) like that. And though Einstein in his idealistic convictions of a Deterministic universe protested that, "God doesn't play dice," the weight of empirical evidence present at least very much suggests a possibility of, "well… why not?"

Yet the dilemma: What is a system really doing when nobody's looking at it, what is it actually like in that dubious gap between measurements/observations? Here the question of "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is no longer just a laymen's amateur philosophical quandary. And has sprung forth a legion of theoretical interpretations attempting to address the problem of 'wave function collapse'. The most widely-endorsed view, the 'Copenhagen Interpretation', basically formalizes ontological agnosticism regarding the question as irrelevant, while other approaches in POV consist roughly along the lines of:

1) This is a lot of hokum and we should've just listened to Einstein to begin with ('Hidden Variables').
2) It's just random, that's that, end of story, nothing causes so-called wave fxn collapse ('Copenhagenist Realism').
3) All possible outcomes for any event that can happen, do happen—in their own separate universes branched off from ours ('Many-Worlds').
4) The observer in and of itself triggers wave fxn collapse ('Consciousness Causes Collapse').

However, #1 and #2 both lack compelling evidence despite many decades of concerted efforts by some of the world's most brilliant minds. And nobody's figured out a way to make #3 falsifiable yet (how to measure something in another universe?!). While following #4 to its logical terminus evokes all sorts of unsettling implications: Is there something important about the conscious awareness of whatever's doing the observing? Could it be that subjective experiential states intersect somehow with developing courses of objective events, and influence their tendencies? So on, so forth.

Maybe. FWIW, some physicists like Heisenberg, Pauli, and Bohr (privately) considered such views plausible and took serious the notion that the observed-observer divide was somewhat illusory—that the observer themselves is literally an active participant, at some very root generative metaphysical level of reality, in the 'drama of existence' and creation of the observed. Surprisingly, at least some bizarre findings do exist suggesting this sort of thing. Like those from the former PEAR Lab…

Still, no matter how thoughtful you are, I wonder how far you can escape from socionics-y stuff? Like, what are the elements that Te and Ti valuers just don't see in their own psyche that affect their epistemology? Can you ever think through it so far that you get past your own biases that arise from how you process information?

I suspect no hard limitations on that. Now of course, I can see how IEs can influence epistemological outlooks and what not, and its intuitive that certain IE values may tend conducive to certain kinds of outlooks. But IEs are only means, not ends—they only parse info, not determine conclusions. I see them as something like subjective lenses which polarize reality-info and imbue it with qualitative shades native to one's valued IEs, such that the info can be experientially mapped onto the psyche in a way more conducive to one's understanding. Obviously I don't see IEs as part of the natural world; I see their relevance to reality as beginning and ending with human constructs—human perceptions, ideas, behavior, speech, writing, art, inventions, society, etc. Outside of that cross-section, reality has no inherent IE bias. Which I think further implies that epistemological biases aren't necessarily hard-wired in firm.

Concilience sounds interesting, but I don't quite understand it from the wikipedia article. Are there some other sources to look at?

Hmm, none off the top of my head. Try looking up anything by Edward O. Wilson. His conceptual-ideas on it are what I'm going off.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

If you're convinced reality is cold and cruel and harsh, then it will be.

Nature isn't cruel, it's only people. Is nature really out to get you or is it doing what is best for its own self?

If you're convinced that your dreams won't come true, that they are just these faggy imagination-nothings, then they will always stay that way.

If you think that you're some sort of hero of the downtrodden, and if you hold onto your pain like it means something, but in the end you know you'll 'work it all out', then that's the story you write for yourself- and that's what reality will present it to be as.

It's what the best philosophers got right: Reality is simply how you write it! And how you write is what you think about. You attract by the power of your thoughts!!!

You don't attract bullying because you want to be hurt, you attract bullying in your own vibration because it makes you feel like a righteous human. You think there's a mystical payoff, and you write your life where this is the case. Bullies of course, are writing a different story. Or maybe that's the sad part: They're not writing much at all. Instead they're just playing video games or sports.

You think a lot of things based on genetics and what you were told to think, but the truth is you have the power to guide your thoughts to be and do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate some other law of the universe. (It's not like the law of attraction is the only force in the universe but it's a pretty potent one) But then we have another problem of the world:

If you have a trillion dollars from following the law of attraction, and the best house & car in the world- you would drive yourself crazy if you didn't also have spiritual love. There's nothing wrong with wanting nice things, but that's not what its about. The love beyond society's veils and materialism is the only thing that can save your soul. People who set out to become Gods only make themselves their own worst enemies! Know this truth well, potential shaman: What you give with your heart, selflessly, not for any monetary gain or comfort, you will get back in equal shared spirit. So be artists!!!

Don't just drown in middle class safety and conformity! Don't allow your soul to be bought. You know you're only gonna truly be satisfied if you try to help other people, so try to help others- the best way you can! That's the only way to free your own soul!!!

[Gilly]

1) This is a lot of hokum and we should've just listened to Einstein to begin with ('Hidden Variables').
2) It's just random, that's that, end of story, nothing causes so-called wave fxn collapse ('Copenhagenist Realism').
3) All possible outcomes for any event that can happen, do happen—in their own separate universes branched off from ours ('Many-Worlds').
4) The observer in and of itself triggers wave fxn collapse ('Consciousness Causes Collapse')

I've been on this crap since high school, and the only conclusion I find any support for is the assumption I started with: that, at the bottom of the matter, at the limit of our quest to understand the world as humans, any "concrete" studies on the matter can't yield any results that go beyond recursive knowledge of our own methods of perception. It's kind of a frustrating predicament, but I think the only way we can really deduce anything is simply by observing how things coincide; trying to tap into the "real nature" of reality by poking and prodding and trying to unearth some kind of constant factor is just asking to have your questions slung back into your face. It seems almost like a hopeful limiting factor on our technological progress: we can only advance in science insofar as we understand our own nature, or are at least forced to develop our understanding of ourselves and the world in tandem, as is only fitting, IMO.

[Trevor]

but I think the only way we can really deduce anything is simply by observing how things coincide;

Is this related?? This question goes to anyone.

[Gilly]

It's called intelligence...but basic concrete phenomenology/correlative study generally falls in the realm of Te, in terms of the basic level of perception. Obviously anybody can do this, though, and actually it's contrary to my nature to advocate such an approach; typically I insist on establishing a true foundational connection between two things to say that they are "related," but in the case of this kind of meta-science, where such answers aren't really available (and, indeed, it is my belief on a much deeper, intuitive level that the very nature of human existence and perception makes this so), there's really only so much you can do, so you do what you can.

As far as Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and co.'s business is concerned, I tend to believe what the results speak to, which is, ironically, also something I've believed from a young age but have somewhat conditioned myself out of(/tried to ignore), which is that perception does, indeed, affect reality, at least in some capacity. It's not a belief that I find easy to integrate into the way I've come to understand the world; I certainly can't explain it better than anyone else. All I can say is that it's something I've always felt, and have all but programmed out of myself, mostly because people who believe such things ardently tend to be insane, while those who believe the inverse to the extreme are, generally speaking, rational people, if not the most ingenuous. I've rather sought to overcoming this polarizing kind of thinking, which is another innate weakness of mine when it comes to thinking in a healthy, rational manner, but unfortunately the middle ground as our knowledge stands nowe seems rather wishy washy and not entirely coherent, rather a bit messy and full of exceptions and excuses when juxtaposed with the propensity of our world to function in an orderly fashion on some level; it simply seems to be of too high an order of consequence, considering that we can develop relatively consistent models for things like gravity, wave functions, etc, to have such drastic influence, and yet produce fairly predictable results on a smaller scale.

Really the only comfort, if it can be called that, is that knowing is more of a process than a goal, just like everything in life, and although I find myself incapable of fully integrating that perspective into my own set of rules for the world, in that it is neither conducive to my own personal objectives (namely the advancement of my own knowledge) nor gives my mind any ease, it is at the very least a simple, rational condolence that I save for those moments when I simply cannot handle "not knowing."

[The Ineffable]

any philosophy that denies the existence of an independent reality is irreconcilable with practical and ethical action and for that reason void of convincing power. this undermines the very purpose of ever engaging in philosophy in the first place.

What Stevens is saying is that what constitutes reality is dependent on the individual who observes it. In some respects I can understand this to be true, because people have their own biases or cultural upbringings, everything that makes a person an individual. But where I'm finding a road block is that the individual in fact cannot determine what is reality because that is not how reality is defined. Reality is everything about the world that exists and functions independent of how the individual thinks it works. Reality doesn't care what an individual thinks it is; reality is going to function the way it does, and for a person to base their conclusions about reality on what they think about it personally does not constitute as reality. That is an interpretation, not the thing itself.

This thread made me remember a conversation in the chatbox. A certain member was basically arguing, "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, then there is no tree!" although he didn't word it as cleverly. I left saying, "I'm going to go stab some babies," because that is some fucking nonsense.

Lol if there was no one true reality all theories we have would be false or non applicable which is not the case. It is true that noone can conceive accurately of the whole reality but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And surely you can't say consensus creates the one true reality, that's just silly.

Honestly, it makes no sense to me. I don't know what he's trying to say. There's reality, and there is individual perceptions of that reality, but that does not make reality a product of the imagination. Reality is something outside of imagination, regardless of how our imaginations shape how we view reality.

It's kind of a frustrating predicament, but I think the only way we can really deduce anything is simply by observing how things coincide; trying to tap into the "real nature" of reality by poking and prodding and trying to unearth some kind of constant factor is just asking to have your questions slung back into your face.

Pretty much my thoughts on this matter.
---

Also, onto the term "reality" you've imposed a narrow definition that most would not support if they carefully considered that definition's implications. Who, for instance, precludes love from their conception of reality? Not a lot of people do in my experience.

What definition of reality do you use, in fact? Reality is defined as what exists independently of our observations. If you have a different definition, then you talk about something else, a different concept to which you assigned the same name. That's called equivocation, a fallacy.

However, you may argue that "most people" have a different understanding in it. But if you claim that a "real" thing is a mere product of your imagination, how do you know what a "real" thing in the first place? It's impossible to discern reality from imagination if they're the same thing.

Furthermore, IMO, the summary of your circular reasoning is this: "[it is real that] reality is imagination as [it is real that] most people know [it is real] that reality is imagination". You justify your claim using the assumption that those people who use that alleged meaning are real, which invalidate your position. If they're not, then your argument is false. I give you the chance to clarify: is that majority of people who do not support labcoat's definition real or not?

[Gilly]

Bolty boy, you're kind of illustrating the point here, I think. Some people naturally take a kind of solipsistic view on life; it doesn't mean they literally believe that nothing exists independent of their own perception (though some do), but rather that their concern is with the manner in which they see reality operating from their own perspective, as opposed to being interested in consensus methods of definition; they see and define the world according to their own terms. It's actually a rather bluntly honest way of looking at the world; some might find it preferable to the perpetual uncertainty of the alternative, even if it is a step towards psychosis...

[The Ineffable]

Bolty boy, you're kind of illustrating the point here, I think. Some people naturally take a kind of solipsistic view on life; it doesn't mean they literally believe that nothing exists independent of their own perception (though some do), but rather that their concern is with the manner in which they see reality operating from their own perspective, as opposed to being interested in consensus methods of definition; they see and define the world according to their own terms. It's actually a rather bluntly honest way of looking at the world; some might find it preferable to the perpetual uncertainty of the alternative, even if it is a step towards psychosis...

That is fine, which is also the purpose of the OP to find out. My intervention regards the claims appearing in the ensuing debate (a separate point no?), disputing whether accepting reality as independent of our perception is justified in others. It's simply unfeasible for them, Timmy using fallacious arguments, implicitly asserting that reality independent of the parties exists, to mask the fact that they are not backed by any solid reasons.

I think the two views are antagonist and can't interact with each other, or use a common framework, though there are quite some relativists/solipsists/whatever around who attempt to establish that "none of us knows" based on such alleged rational justifications.

[Gilly]

Your argument is wholly semantic in nature. "Reality," in this case, refers to "what actually exists."

[Creepy-]

I am agnostic towards the existence of reality. However, it makes more sense to me that some sort of external reality exists. Shared experience and whatnot.

However, interpretation of reality = nobody knows what reality actually is. Any claim is conjecture. "Reality," perhaps, in the sense of what all humans perceive. But, maybe not "true." Everything works as it does in a human's perception of reality. The truth must be, though, that reality is meaningless without something to perceive it. However, because everything which perceives reality presents biases and inadequacies in their own perception, what is "reality" to one may be "fantasy" to another.

Basically: True reality may exist, but the perception of that reality is entirely subjective. Or something like that.

EDIT: It's all symbols anyway.

[The Ineffable]

Your argument is wholly semantic in nature. "Reality," in this case, refers to "what actually exists."

That's what I meant, actually. In simple terms: you can't claim, without contradicting yourself, both that nothing exists beyond one's perception and that there exists evidence for it.

[Gilly]

That's what I meant, actually. In simple terms: you can't claim, without contradicting yourself, both that nothing exists beyond one's perception and that there exists evidence for it.

If I have a speck of dirt on my hand, it could be evidence that I touched the ground. Does it mean I touched the ground? No. Maybe dirt was on something else that I touched. Still, it's evidence that I touched the ground.


The fact that we see other people and interact with the world could be considered evidence that a world outside of our perception exists, but it is not conclusive. Not all evidence is conclusive. In this case, there is evidence for both sides, but neither is conclusive.

[mirrorsoul]

I think it means that the most potent imagination is the one that changes reality.

Basically, that dreamers who learn how to turn their dreams into reality, have a greater imagination than those who merely allow their dreams to remain dreams and give up on them because they're unrealistic.

I see no need to read anything more than that into it. It seems to me like you're all over-analyzing it... a LOT.

[Timmy]

What definition of reality do you use, in fact? Reality is defined as what exists independently of our observations. If you have a different definition, then you talk about something else, a different concept to which you assigned the same name. That's called equivocation, a fallacy.

However, you may argue that "most people" have a different understanding in it. But if you claim that a "real" thing is a mere product of your imagination, how do you know what a "real" thing in the first place? It's impossible to discern reality from imagination if they're the same thing.

Furthermore, IMO, the summary of your circular reasoning is this: "[it is real that] reality is imagination as [it is real that] most people know [it is real] that reality is imagination". You justify your claim using the assumption that those people who use that alleged meaning are real, which invalidate your position. If they're not, then your argument is false. I give you the chance to clarify: is that majority of people who do not support labcoat's definition real or not?

What gives a word its meaning Bolt? That's a complicated question, but I can confidently say that dictionaries do not. Dictionary editors do not impute meaning to words. Rather, they attempt to deduce what speakers of a language most often understand words to mean. The speakers of a language are the ones who imbue words with meaning. Dictionaries, moreover, often fail to do justice philosophically loaded words like "reality." Such words tend to convey extraordinarily subtle concepts, ideas and impressions that cannot reasonably be reduced to one sentence definitions. Therefore, I believe it entirely valid for me to appeal to "common understanding" before dictionary definition for correct interpretation of a word's meaning. In cases where multiple common interpretations of a word's meaning seem to exist, I tend to favor the one(s) that is (are) most coherent and logically sound.

I do not believe that "reality" and "imagination" are ordinarily thought to mean the same thing, nor that they should. I believe that "reality" and "imagination" are best thought of as mutually exclusive subsets of awareness. Reality refers to the components of awareness that an individual considers most fundamental. Imagination refers to the components of awareness than an individual does not consider most fundamental. Since awareness is specific to the individual, so too must be reality and imagination.

As I'm sure you're wondering, by "fundamental" I mean the following: occupying a high position on a hierarchy of perceived significance, meaning or worth.

That's what I meant, actually. In simple terms: you can't claim, without contradicting yourself, both that nothing exists beyond one's perception and that there exists evidence for it.

I don't believe I made this claim. Maybe I'm just not understanding you.

[The Ineffable]

I don't believe I made this claim. Maybe I'm just not understanding you.

I think you did, it's that appeal to the majority or "common understanding", as an argument to convince the others that the definition of "reality" is actually different than the one in the dictionary.

In order to understand what you mean by these, please answer my question: does this "majority" or "common understanding" exist outside your personal awareness or not?

[Timmy]

In order to understand what you mean by these, please answer my question: does this "majority" or "common understanding" exist outside your personal awareness or not?

I don't know. I don't think that question can be answered.

[krieger]

Reality is the aggregate of factors independent of awareness or belief. Reality is not an ambiguous term. The only question is whether any individual person manages to interface with the concept and understand it or not. When a person starts engaging in all kinds of obfuscatory ramblings upon being asked what reality is, it is clear which side of the divide they fall on.

[Timmy]

Reality is the aggregate of factors independent of awareness or belief. Reality is not an ambiguous term. The only question is whether any individual person manages to interface with the concept and understand it or not. When a person starts engaging in all kinds of obfuscatory ramblings upon being asked what reality is, it is clear which side of the divide they fall on.

Oh labcoat, how I wish I could interface with reality like you do! how I wish my impoverished, awareness-bound sub-species had the capacity to escape the narrow confines of our pitiable minds. Things must be so much nicer on your side of the divide!

[krieger]

I'm glad you finally see reason.

[Beautiful sky]

Reality is the aggregate of factors independent of awareness or belief. Reality is not an ambiguous term. The only question is whether any individual person manages to interface with the concept and understand it or not. When a person starts engaging in all kinds of obfuscatory ramblings upon being asked what reality is, it is clear which side of the divide they fall on.

Ti and giving definitions

[Timmy]

I'm glad you finally see reason.

Me too! How unfortunate then that I, living in a relativistic universe built of my own perceptions, will never be able to conceive of the transcendental significance or value of reason.

Today, I imagine reason to mean cow-pies! Ha, I see cow-pies! Days when I see cow-pies are good days. Today will be a good day!