# What is real?



## spirit (May 19, 2005)

How would _you _ define "real".

(And I don't mean "post a dictionary definition".  )


----------



## Beleg (May 19, 2005)

The unreality of reality is real. 


:scratches head:


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 19, 2005)

spirit said:


> How would _you _ define "real".
> 
> (And I don't mean "post a dictionary definition".  )



I think since you first posed the question, you should have the honor of being the first to answer. And, what's wrong with the dictionary?

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 19, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I think since you first posed the question, you should have the honor of being the first to answer.



I agree, if only to get the ball rolling: although she (?) _did_ italicise "you."



> And, what's wrong with the dictionary?



The dictionary is a human construct, not a guide to absolute Truth. Also, I think spirit was trying to offset glib responses to the question "How do you *define* real?" 

It's a daunting question, spirit.


----------



## spirit (May 20, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I think since you first posed the question, you should have the honor of being the first to answer. And, what's wrong with the dictionary?
> 
> Barley



If I really wanted to find a dictionary definition of real, I can do that myself.  There would not be much point creating this thread.

Everyone has their own opinion, and I hoped people would share what they though.



> It's a daunting question, spirit.


Yes, it is. I tried to ask my mom (for a discussion and some "mother-daughter" bonding time  ) and she though this was some kind of homework and I was simply trying to take the easy way out?

I'll post my definition up later after I do some thinking about it... (and plus I've got to get to class...  )


----------



## Sammy Jankis (May 20, 2005)

From _The Matrix_:

*MORPHEUS* : What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain.


----------



## Zale (May 22, 2005)

This is my introductory post to the Forsaken Inn, so I'd best make it good 

The question of what is real or not is quite complicated, as you might imagine. The everyday layman will believe what his senses perceive, and accept that as reality.

Mr. Descartes had a really long think about this one. He thought, "What if there is some kind of powerful, malevolent being deliberately deceiving my senses? How can I tell, and how do I get around it?" I think he concluded that the only thing he could be absolutely sure about was that he was possessed of a reasoning mind, since knowing this doesn't require any senses (hence the famous _cogito ergo sum_; someone correct my Latin, please, if it's wrong). I think he even said he couldn't be sure about what his body actually was, seeing as he had to use his senses to perceive it. In the end (as far as I remember) he concluded, no idea how, that there must be a benevolent God to have given him this reasoning mind.

Which doesn't actually help very much, does it? Especially since there are certain abstract concepts (truth, logic etc) that cannot be "sensed" but are nevertheless real. What's real and what's not eventually comes down to belief of the perceiver, and some people will believe with less evidence than others.

When it comes down to it, I personally don't think it really matters if my everyday senses are somehow being deceived and the world is actually quite different; it works for me, and I can get along with it being this way. It's real enough, and I don't see how the above deception could be carried out - except by God, and if he's causing everything to be perceived this way, maybe it is this way?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 22, 2005)

Zale said:


> This is my introductory post to the Forsaken Inn, so I'd best make it good



You absolutely did! 

I have been waiting for a while before weighing in on this one, just letting my subconscious deal with it.

Now I think I'm ready to say something hopefully of worth (although that may be disputed by others). 

"Reality" is what we usually call "the waking state." We consider that state normal, and altered states (everything from being drunk to being on drugs to dreaming to deep meditation) as unreal — at least that's the way most in the Western world see it.

Taking a look at "reality," we find that what we consider normal consciousness is only a very limited rendition of That Which Is. We can only see a narrow range of colors, hear a narrow range of sound, bear a narrow range of pain (and of pleasure too I daresay), bear a narrow range of emotions. We can only live within a narrow set of conditions (the conditions of atmosphere, temperature, etc. that exist on this planet). 

Make it too hot or cold, too little oxygen, water, food, too much stress and disease, and we die. Notice: we only have five senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. I firmly believe that Reality contains qualities that are all around us (and probably even in us) that we will never detect because we don't have the equipment.

As a matter of fact, when we're healthy, we're not even aware of all the incredible processes that go on in our very own bodies every single second, even though our lives and health depend on them!

And there is this too: _we can only think according to the structure of our brain._ Although others argue otherwise, I say that thoughts — the functioning mind — the sense of being oneself — is the product of the brain. So _even the very nature of our thinking process_ has its limits. There are some who support the existence of mental telephathy, clairvoyance, contact with the dead, etc. That may also be a part of what can be done, but I don't intend to go any further with that aspect. My point is: _everything about us — mentally and physically — has its limits,_ which we can never transcend, but which we can gradually learn to utilize more and more fully.

So — "what is real" is not _really_ real in the objective sense! It's a _rendition_ of reality. Hindus and Buddhists have known this for thousands of years. They have spent millennia refining the techniques of meditation and body control until it is down to a fine art and science, which needs many years of training in order to become proficient.

One of the things they have concluded is this: NOTHING is "real" in the waking state, and what is perceived in altered states is much _closer_ to Reality, if not Reality itself. This has led them to come to conclusions which differ dramatically from the Western world in religion and philosophy.

(Experiences are one thing — _the conclusions drawn from them_ another. Conclusions can be right, or they can be _wrong_, and can be taken as religious Truth for thousands and thousands of years.) 

Some books that come to mind: "Dreams, Illusions and Other Realities" by Wendy O'Flaherty —a study of the various levels of consciousness lived all the time by practicing meditators, and the study of nested dreams: dreams within dreams within dreams, just like those little Russian dolls.

"The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James, discusses various altered states of mind coming out of religous experiences, and the conclusions flowing from them. (By the way, did you know that in the 19th century, ether was their version of LSD? People used to get high on it — it was the hallucinitory drug of choice. James discusses it in a fascinating way.)

"I and That" by Alext Comfort, a physician's attempt to explain the biomechanics of altered states.

"The Tibetan Book of the Dead," a book that truly terrifies me, because it is based on the hallucinations we have during anoxia, which the brain is dying.

Why are we "built" as we are? My answer is simply that we are the way we are because this particular model of mind/body is a successful survival model for this planet. Anything that lives on earth does so because it is capable of physical survival and procreation. Anything that lives on this earth lives because over millennia it has evolved to survive. Once our physical survival is assured, then everything else is gravy.

Okay, that's all I can think of for now. 

Barley


----------



## chrysophalax (May 22, 2005)

Hmmm, ok...this maybe very simplistic, but here goes. Reality from my point of view is everything my senses can perceive...which doesn't mean that everything not within my immediate eyesight fails to exist...that would be bizarre! (To paraphrase, does a town still exist if no one's there to live in it?)

Each of us have only our own perceptions upon which to base said reality. For example, two people spend a night out partying. One is the designated driver, drinking only soda, et al...the other proceeds to drink himself under the table. Two different realities are then perceived by this people at the end of the night.

On the other hand, we all have shared realities also. I've never known someone to mistake a table for, say, a hamburger.  

*goes to find aspirin, wondering why people think of questions like this...cursed philosophers...grumble*


----------



## Zale (May 22, 2005)

I think most people while intoxicated _know_ that their perception of reality is being seriously skewed, most likely away from the truth. I have been blind drunk a good many times (I'm a student ) and I've never felt that it led me closer to "the truth". I just knew I wasn't functioning properly.

Mr. Butterburr: do you remember, from ages ago, the thread "Creationism vs. Evolution"? I'm fairly sure you were involved. We touched on bits very close to this subject, and I remember someone bringing up the argument that our reasoning power is limited by our physical nature. Might be worth linking to 




chrysophalax said:


> Each of us have only our own perceptions upon which to base said reality. For example, two people spend a night out partying. One is the designated driver, drinking only soda, et al...the other proceeds to drink himself under the table. Two different realities are then perceived by this people at the end of the night.



I'm hoping you mean they both perceive reality in different ways. Having two realities would indeed be strange, and maybe impossible 



> On the other hand, we all have shared realities also. I've never known someone to mistake a table for, say, a hamburger.



Question of how skewed the perception is. I'm sure some hard drug abusers have experienced weirder things.




Barliman Butterbur said:


> You absolutely did!



Thank you.



> "Reality" is what we usually call "the waking state." We consider that state normal, and altered states (everything from being drunk to being on drugs to dreaming to deep meditation) as unreal — at least that's the way most in the Western world see it.



Er. The state of the observer shouldn't affect the nature of reality (we'll ignore quantum effects ).



> One of the things they have concluded is this: NOTHING is "real" in the waking state, and what is perceived in altered states is much _closer_ to Reality, if not Reality itself. This has led them to come to conclusions which differ dramatically from the Western world in religion and philosophy.



Not sure about this. Although I suppose that the best way to get a good picture of reality is to view it from as many different perspectives as possible. I don't think that anything perceived in any one state can be considered closer to real than from any other state, though. Any examples of these conclusions?


----------



## greypilgrim (May 22, 2005)

Real is a 9-5. Bummer huh?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 22, 2005)

> *Barley:* "One of the things they have concluded is this: NOTHING is "real" in the waking state, and what is perceived in altered states is much closer to Reality, if not Reality itself. This has led them to come to conclusions which differ dramatically from the Western world in religion and philosophy."
> 
> *Zale:*"Not sure about this. Although I suppose that the best way to get a good picture of reality is to view it from as many different perspectives as possible. I don't think that anything perceived in any one state can be considered closer to real than from any other state, though. Any examples of these conclusions?"



Hmmm. OK: One is _always_ viewing reality from different perspectives. Trouble is, it's always the same self (the individual) doing the viewing. If I could get inside of _you_ (and thousands and thousands of others) for a moment, maybe we'd have something closer to what I think you're getting at.

Examples: My years spent following a path of Hinduism. I have had strong visions at times during meditation. They were strong enough so that were I in the right frame of mind I might have concluded that they were more real/valid than my waking state. This is constantly happening with people who are meditation adepts. Hinduism _nurtures_ the idea that such is true. You might look up a book called "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yogananda, the founder of the Self-Realization Fellowship (which, BTW, is not the path I was involved with). In it, he describes a vision of his guru, who'd recently passed on. In it, his guru appeared to him just as in life, solid, in the flesh. They hugged, they held each other, and Yogananda describes it as totally real.

Such visions are called "hypnogogic imagery" by Carl Jung, and they probably have other names by other people. The thing is, many people have such visions — especially those brought up in cultures where such manifestations are accepted as another variant or level of reality, such as in India and other nations where Hinduism is a strong influence.

Another Hindu spiritual leader, Muktananda, describes a vision of "Hindu Heaven and Hell" that he had, in which he described himself as walking through this _loka,_ describing its sights, sounds, tastes and smells. (Interestingly enough, visions match the culture of the meditator: Muktananda didn't see any rabbis or priests — only swamis and other _sanyassis_ and _sadakhas_.)

Some people have a natural "talent," for lack of a better word, for having such visions. All of us have leanings toward being gifted in certain respects, including having visions to one degree or another. In the technologically-minded West, they are generally called "hallucinations," and the person who has them is generally taken either to be crazy, or a prophet.
I'm saying that one man's hallucination is another man's divine revelation. 

I must here say a word about ego strength. A schizophrenic person's ego structure is such that he cannot control the visions, and they come unannounced, are uncontrollable, tell him/her to do bad things, and are generally therefore terrifying. Such a vision is classified as an hallucination. Such a person may benefit from drug therapy.

But I am referring to an otherwise normal person with the ego strength to handle these visions, and to profit from them. In Hinduism he is taught precisely how to do that very thing. 

I've probably left you with more questions than answers! 

Barley


----------



## Zale (May 23, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> [...]



Not at all, this is something I'm reasonably interested in. I'll have to do some research. Google is my friend 

Anyway: I doubt that seeing the world from another human's viewpoint would help much, as we're all fundamentally the same, with the same brain structures etc. What we need is a different species with the same (or higher) level of reasoning & deductive powers, then we might get somewhere. Unfortunately it ain't going to happen, so we'll just have to think laterally.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 23, 2005)

Sammy Jankis said:


> MORPHEUS : What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain.



Epileptics such as myself--depending upon whaat type of epilepsy we have--experience what is known as an "aura" in the moments before a seizure. The "aura" differs with each sufferer--but I usually hear a radio playing--and it's not as if the radio is playing in my mind: it actually drowns out any other noise. It's really quite exquisite, as Kramer would say. I'm not sure what all of this has to do with the topic, but I thought I'd share it.


----------



## scotsboyuk (May 23, 2005)

Reality is whatever you choose to make it. We each have a slightly different concept of reality, which makes us individuals. Understand yourself and you understand reality.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 23, 2005)

Zale said:


> ...What we need is a different species with the same (or higher) level of reasoning & deductive powers, then we might get somewhere.



Exactly so! We have only ourselves to go by. We have never been able to compare ourselves with Something Other. It will be the biggest, severest culture shock in the history of mankind the day we make First Contact!

Most people think that other intelligent life has to be something like us, but I don't see why. I entertain the possibility that another species of intelligent life could be so unlike us, so alien, that we couldn't even detect it, let alone understand it — and yet they may be so equipped that they actually understand The Nature of Reality and Its Beginnings. We might be to them as diatoms are to us...

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (May 23, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Exactly so! We have only ourselves to go by. We have never been able to compare ourselves with Something Other. It will be the biggest, severest culture shock in the history of mankind the day we make First Contact!


 
That's a big fat "if" there, Barley. But I'll guess you're saying that "It will be the biggest, severest culture shock in the history of mankind the day that something happens to totally redefine reality for us". I can identify with that.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 23, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> That's a big fat "if" there, Barley. But I'll guess you're saying that "It will be the biggest, severest culture shock in the history of mankind the day that something happens to totally redefine reality for us". I can identify with that.



No "if" for me HS — _when_ — in some far distant future I expect — humankind collides with another intelligent life form — that will shake the human race from top to bottom (if they don't eat us or enslave us first). For one thing, all the mainline religions will go out the window, because when they began, they never figured on anything like it. There goes the sanity of everyone who just isn't capable of getting their head around it. Assuming of course that such a species is willing to allow itself to be detected. As I said before however, we may to as unnoticed by them as one-celled life goes unnoticed by us in our normal lives. When we finally meet up with 'em, all bets are off, sez I!

Barley


----------



## Zale (May 24, 2005)

Erm hang on, why would religion go out the window?

Possibly contact with another form of intelligent life would be spoiled because we wouldn't have a clue how to communicate, and working it out might take a while.


----------



## scotsboyuk (May 24, 2005)

Apply common sense to this aline business ...

Beings incredibly more advanced than us may not even bother with us if they consider us too primitive and not just in the technological sense. We may not have any way to detect or interact with such beings as we understand such things.

A species more advanced than us, but which are still identifiable to us and who operate within terms that we can comprehend again may not wish to have anything to do with us. They may have good intentions towards us and either leave us alone or contact us to help us. They may also be warlike and decide that they want to exterminate us or conquer us.

A species at the same level as we are will undoubtely not me encountered until we have the means to travel beyond our solar system. Any species in nearby system that are broadcasting messages like we are may be encountered though.

A species at a lower stage of development than us will again not likely be encountered until we can mobe beyond the Solar system.

A very primitive species may not be noticed by us if it exists in such a way that we cannot detect or if it does not operate within our terms of reference. The difference between such a species and an incredibly advanced species is not all that much.

Religion would have to change to accomodate any new life that we encounter, especially intelligent life. Of course only those religions, which do not already take such things into account would have to change.


----------



## Hammersmith (May 25, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> No "if" for me HS — _when_ — in some far distant future I expect — humankind collides with another intelligent life form — that will shake the human race from top to bottom (if they don't eat us or enslave us first). For one thing, all the mainline religions will go out the window, because when they began, they never figured on anything like it. There goes the sanity of everyone who just isn't capable of getting their head around it. Assuming of course that such a species is willing to allow itself to be detected. As I said before however, we may to as unnoticed by them as one-celled life goes unnoticed by us in our normal lives. When we finally meet up with 'em, all bets are off, sez I!
> 
> Barley


By the same token mate, if - or as I am equally convinced _when _- certain religiously related events take place (I'll refrain from hijacking this thread completely) then you would be just as hard pressed to get your head around it.

Like I said; it's pretty much everyone who will say "no if for me". It's who's proved right that matters.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 25, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> ...if - or as I am equally convinced _when _- certain religiously related events take place (I'll refrain from hijacking this thread completely) then you would be just as hard pressed to get your head around it.



I'm waitin'! 

Barley


----------



## scotsboyuk (May 26, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> By the same token mate, if - or as I am equally convinced _when _- certain religiously related events take place (I'll refrain from hijacking this thread completely) then you would be just as hard pressed to get your head around it.
> 
> Like I said; it's pretty much everyone who will say "no if for me". It's who's proved right that matters.



You are assuming that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' in the matter, I don't see that there is. My own beliefs show me such things as you are waiting for everyday, I have no need to wait for it to happen, I can step outside the front door and see it happening already. Perhaps putting so much stock in waiting for such things to happen prevents one from seeing that they are happening already and have always been?


----------



## cardanas (Jun 3, 2005)

spirit said:


> How would _you _ define "real".
> 
> (And I don't mean "post a dictionary definition".  )



To be honest I dont believe there is a reality. " I think therefore I am"
Its a cliche but its true, the only thing you can prove is your own existence and it is impossible to prove to anyone else. This leaves you with three choices:
1 carry on as normal, does the definition of reality actually affect day to day life
2 become a nihilist, if this isnt real then you might as well enjoy it.
3 sit in your room and go insane trying to figure it out.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 3, 2005)

cardanas said:


> To be honest I dont believe there is a reality. " I think therefore I am"
> Its a cliche but its true, the only thing you can prove is your own existence and it is impossible to prove to anyone else.



You contradict yourself. If you can't prove your existence to anyone else, then you by definition have no proof. But that doesn't matter, because our individual existences are similar enough that we agree — as a matter of simple appearances — that we are all here. And if I punched you in the nose, would you not agree that I exist? 

Barley


----------

