"Reality is an activity of the most august imagination"

[Timmy]

Oh, and by the way, the concept of reality is very simple to me.

I am that which exists beyond awareness; I am reality; I am your god; I am you.

Bow down before thyself.

[krieger]

the thesis that there was something mentally wrong with you has now been conclusively proven.

[Timmy]

the thesis that there was something mentally wrong with you has now been conclusively proven.

Yay! It's as though I've won an award or something! I knew today would be a good day!

[The Ineffable]

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

Your argument was built around that, you don't know if that's real implies you don't know if you're right. You're therefore unjustified to convince others what the real definition of "reality" is.

[Timmy]

Your argument was built around that, you don't know if that's real implies you don't know if you're right. You're therefore unjustified to convince others what the real definition of "reality" is.

Wrong, my argument implies that questions like that cannot be answered. My argument is not inconsistent. You are begging the question. You designed that question in such as way that no matter whether I answered in the affirmative or negative, you though you could catch me in an inconsistency. However, your ability to trap me would have been predicated upon a set of assumptions about the world that I have not made and that do not logically follow from whatever assumptions I have made. In fact, my argument quite explicitly rejects those assumptions you now seem intent on using as a means of undermining my argument. Sorry Bolt, that's not an acceptable tactic.

My premise may be one with which you are uncomfortable, but you have not, and cannot show that it is internally inconsistent. It is not. That doesn't mean my premise is equivalent to truth, much less the one and only truth, but it does mean you cannot "prove" it wrong.

Bolt and Labcoat, the two of you need to learn to embrace a little conceptual uncertainty every now and again. It is therein you will find your truth, ineffable though it may be.

[The Ineffable]

However, your ability to trap me would have been predicated upon a set of assumptions about the world that I have not made and that do not logically follow from whatever assumptions I have made. In fact, my argument quit explicitly rejects those assumptions you now seem intent on using as a means of undermining my argument. Sorry Bolt, that's not an acceptable tactic.

You don't need to acknowledge your fallacy, the existence of those people was implicitly contained in one of your premises. Get over it, this matter cannot be settled without committing circular reasoning, because one has to make appeal to the existence itself to *prove* it to someone else.

[Timmy]

You don't need to acknowledge your fallacy, the existence of those people was implicitly contained in one of your premises. Get over it, this matter cannot be settled without committing circular reasoning, because one has to make appeal to the existence itself to *prove* it to someone else.

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, and perhaps that's the source of our contention, but I think we can both agree that continuing this discussion would be senseless.

[The Ineffable]

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, and perhaps that's the source of our contention, but I think we can both agree that continuing this discussion would be senseless.

The debate on who's right, yes. Would be good to have more opinions of people on how they view reality, regardless of what "camp" they're in or definitions.

[Timmy]

The debate on who's right, yes. Would be good to have more opinions of people on how they view reality, regardless of what "camp" they're in or definitions.

Agreed.

[silverchris9]

Everything Timmy says

+59.375

Double bonus points for:

Bolt and Labcoat, the two of you need to learn to embrace a little conceptual uncertainty every now and again. It is therein you will find your truth, ineffable though it may be.

Also, Bolt, stop being smart and holding opinions I disagree with. You were a lot easier to deal with when the things you said where silly and poorly reasoned rather than disagreeable and well-reasoned [/backhanded complement (or forwardhanded insult?)

[Timmy]

Thanks Silverchris. Now that I think about it, I may have stolen that conceptual uncertainty idea from something you wrote a while back in a different thread. Obviously I've been appreciating your thoughts too!

Also, I believe the term you're looking for is "backhanded insult"

[silverchris9]

@Ashton, that video is interesting. I was afraid it would be all "what the bleep do we know"-y, but it's like real science. But you know, everything destroys itself eventually---it seems like science shows that science can't explain everything (and poetry is obsessed with how it can't represent everything).

But yeah, it's fascinating, and it is quite different than what I was thinking. It seems to me that a good way to see it is that, whether you believe that it's a deity or simply the laws of nature, there's some force that keeps things flowing in a particular order, but the human mind also has some degree of that force, and so can bend it very slightly to the right or to the left. But only very slightly, imperceptibly, even.

I think that there is probably some degree of interaction between intangible and tangible, and it goes both ways. The brain (obviously) affects the mind/soul (I mean, that's what being drunk/high/tripping is, right, your physical state affecting your mental state?), so why should the mind/soul affect the brain. That's just one example, but you get the general principle.

I don't go in for the notion of wholesale terraformation of reality, like if I wish for good, good will come to me, especially on the basic, boring conscious level. I think that whatever relationship the intangible part of people have to the tangible part it's like... yeah, secret-y, subconscious-y, like they said, more beginner's luck than something you can consciously manipulate, etc.

I went to the Psyleron website, and I was pretty sad to see that they're turning this research into cheap commercial tricks like mood lamps.


Also, @Timmy, gracias. If you got it from me, I got it from Keats or some shit, so you know, I don't get any credit, lol.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Although the evolutionarily, evidence-based exercise in epistemo-ontological error-reduction that is science wishes to explain everything, it's only the fallacy of scientism that expects it to.

Among other things, experiments like these hint at the illusory nature of the subject-object divide, which seems likely to be a passing linguistically-derived fad provided we last a few more thousand or million years.

[Gilly]

Although the evolutionarily, evidence-based exercise in epistemo-ontological error-reduction that is science wishes to explain everything, it's only the fallacy of scientism that expects it to.

Among other things, experiments like these hint at the illusory nature of the subject-object divide, which seems likely to be a passing linguistically-derived fad provided we last a few more thousand or million years.

I like this guy. Where did we find him?

[InterPrizeWes]

Yes, Imagination tours a wiggling and blazing tickle spree of hugs and wormholes echoing a chimney of Ho-Oh!!

[Baqer]

I have read literally nothing other than the post that started this thread, since reading other people's opinions is boring and It's 1 am.

Is reality imagined?
Ya basically, all our experiences of reality only happen in what I'd call our "experience", or consciousness, the stuff that we know is connected to our head somehow, but don't really know how the 2 are linked. We can only see reality through our senses and our experience it with our conscious, so reality might as well be an extremely prevalent collective delusion.

So ya, "reality" is just a product of the mind, when you consider the fact that we can never have any "true" reality, as everything is just an interpretation of the senses.