It really is. Dreaming occurs when you’re lying in bed asleep, and not when you’re physically interacting with other elements of reality. Even if all life were a dream, or we’re in the matrix etc., pain, happiness, and other positive and negative outcomes seem real enough. Certainly dreams are also an aspect of reality, but they have a limited bearing on other aspects, which have to be considered independently.
I don’t understand you. There are a host of ways the existence of a bus coming down the road can be independently confirmed.
I think there’s more going on with reality than that. Take away our perception, and things will still be here.
I have a question. If gender is a social construct, social construct are just agreed upon things we as a society make to nagivate society? For example, if I say I’m American. we all basically know I’m saying I’m from the USA or at least a citizen of the United States. Therore that identity I identify as is useful in society. Even though it’s pretty weird for many reasons if you break it down like americas being 2 huge continent and etc. But we all know what it means to identify as American and basically agreed upon it to some degree to make life easier. Basically I’m saying it’s useful in society.
If people can’t identify a persons gender, is it really useful in society? Because as it seems, it doesn’t seem natural and useful. People don’t understand it and make sense of it. It seems like pretty weird that everyone has to relearn something and overlook biology to agree with someone’s identity based on what gender I’m feeling. And it seems a gender neutral person said themselves they’re tired of being a women? So I have to change the way I identify you every time you feel tired of being a women and change and back and forward?
Freud and Jung (and many tribal societies) would vigorously disagree with this.
If I were to come to lying on the street with blood spurting out of my severed leg, I would tend to agree with this interpretation. Until then, the jury is out.
You’re entitled to think whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true (necessarily). And if our perception is taken away, there’s absolutely no way for us to prove that “things” will still be “there.” In fact, it will be completely irrelevant.
It’s irrelevant because dreams are based upon a reality that is absolute. Let’s take it a step farther and say we are in a simulation which is possible. There is still a reality outside of the simulation no? At any point, something still has to be based on reality or none of it would even be possible or make sense.
I doubt that. It’s limited in some way or another. There may be disagreement about the extent of those limits, but I think this is getting away from the main issue anyway.
That can’t be true. For a start, when you cross the street, do you look first? Or do you amble forward senselessly and wait to see if you come to with a bleeding leg or worse?
What happens when a person dies? Is reality somehow altered by the loss of their perception of it? What was here before humans evolved our current set of perceptive abilities?
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to see and hear it. Did it happen?
If you’re argument is that reality and truth can’t be proved because our senses are limited and that we aren’t omnipresence, that’s a bit ridiculous. But I guess maybe theologians would just say truth is what corresponds with reality as perceived by God and God is prime reality. And unless you are omnipresent and basically god, you can’t falsify this claim can you?
Where is this “absolute reality,” and how do we prove it exists? If we’re in a simulation and there’s a reality beyond that, that could also be a simulation with a reality beyond that, ad infinitum. Which one of those is the “real” reality? How would we know?
Like most people, I operate under the heuristic that if a big shiny object is headed toward me at speed, it’s best to wait for it to pass by first. Unless it turns out I’m in a dream, where I may just leap over it. I find this heuristic useful, but it’s not necessarily a reflection of any ultimate “reality.”
These are all good questions, ones that philosophy (natural and otherwise) have been trying to answer for centuries. Lots of interesting theories have been devised, but nothing conclusive so far.
philosophers have been asking this for a while and there is a long long list of different answers. But the mere fact that we basically have to prove reality exists in reality should suffice as a short answer. Meaning we still have to say reality exist or doesn’t exist in reality…which wouldn’t make sense if there isn’t reality in reality. I don’t want to go out of my dept with epistemology, but thats a short answer and you can already see how it gets deep.
You basically said it, at some point there would still be the absolute real no?
And lets say i’m holding an apple in this simulation. What is this apple based on? This object apple must be based on something that exist no?
