Does reality exist?

[I lost my notebook]

I have come to the conclusion that what we accept every day as reality does not in fact exist, and I will tell you why after explaining some underlying principles.

First of all, reality as we know it is simply a series of perceptions
Secondly, all things are perceived by the senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, sound)
Thirdly, these senses can be altered quite easily

Now, if you take that these three things as fact, one can come to the conclusion that there is no way to prove that anything perceived is true, therefore the grounds that reality exists, meaning that what we see and know is in fact true and not simply illusion, is false.

An example would be the use of hallucinogenic substances. One takes said substance (i.e. "magic mushrooms") their reality completely ceases to be our reality, yet it is no more real than ours.

Given the general assumption that a hallucination is, in fact, not real, and the fact that it is perceived as real, on reaches the conclusion that nothing is in fact real.

Taking the assumption that only "real" things exist and "unreal" things do not, reality can not exist.  

[Smartteaser192]

Let me add this to the list:

Rene Descartes had proposed about the Evil demon thing. This Evil demon refers to us people that we cannot distinguish easily reality from non-reality. In fact, we are all asleep controlled by a machine. If you seen the 1st movie of the Matrix trilogy, you will understand what I mean.

The alterations of perceptions from external stimuli is what you call Illusion. It is a factor of trickery that we don't usually realize.

Quote:

Now, if you take that these three things as fact, one can come to the conclusion that there is no way to prove that anything perceived is true, therefore the grounds that reality exists, meaning that what we see and know is in fact true and not simply illusion, is false.

Immanuel Kant said something about this:

'We cannot define [anything] in any real fashion, that is, make the possibility of [an] object understandable, without at once descending to the conditions of sensibility, and so to the form of appearances to which, as their sole objects, they must consequently be limited.' (Critique of Pure Reason: Book II, Chapter III [Brackets mine])

That was the Phenomena

The following is about the Noumena:

The word noumena is associated with the Greek word for 'mind' (nous). Kant believed the only way we can begin to understand the idea of a noumenal realm, is through the mind (or intellect).

For instance, although people can experience the same object as having a different shape, colour and texture, depending on where they stand in relation to it, this does not change the fact that (logically) the object must have a true form independent to the way they perceive it. For example, if we turn on a red light over a white sheet of paper we perceive the paper as being red, but this does not change the fact that the paper is still white, even though we cannot experience it this way (due to presence of the red light).

In the same way, Kant argued that there must (logically) be a ding an sich beyond our perception of things. Of course, this thing can never be experienced in the noumenal realm due to the fact that we are only capable of attaining knowledge of things as they appear to us as phenomena. However noumena must logically be there, if for no other reason than to make sense of the world we do (and can) perceive around us.

They are taken from the following website: http://www.thatphilosophywebsite.com/Articles/Theory_of_Knowledge/phenomena_noumena_kant.html

So, clearly, neither Perception nor knowledge can attain the universal basis of validity, accuracy and precision. This is where Skeptics come. Or even Nihilists.  

[Niniva]

Firstly I would like to point out I agree that our perceptions do not create an accurate depiction of physical reality and you are right to think that they can be decieved, that is quite easily done.

Does that then lead to the conclusion that reality does not exist?

No. This is just simply wrong headed thinking.

Let me illustrate with an example, I have never actually been to China, I've seen pictures of it, but those pictures could potentially not truely represent the thing that China is (an in point of fact they probably do not)....does that entail logically then that china must not exist? No. It merely entails that I can't know for certain much about China.

Another example is particle physics. I clearly cannot see an electron or even experience a single electron or how it spins, does that mean they do not exist? No. It does not.

The most you can conclude then is simply that the reality you percieve is not valid proof for knowledge, it does not follow from that conclusion that therefore nothing exists. Thats just silly.

Metaphysically things exist. Mathmatically things exist. Logically things exist.

Epistemically that does not entail that I can KNOW that they exist. So your proof is not proof that these things are non-existant, all it shows is that we cannot rely solely on our perceptions to grant us knowledge. That is the only claim you are entitled to make.

Both DeCarte and Kant claimed entirely seperate things then a skeptic or a Nihlist, in point of fact both men were attempting to respond to skepticism in order to prove it incorrect, and I think that Decartes and Kant actually succeeding in proving that some "things" must exist in some form. But neither of them made any claim whatsoever (save for Decartes perhaps though it was a poor claim and I think he knew that) against the idea that we can actually acquire any sort of useful knowledge ABOUT those things that exist.

Not being able to prove a thing as existing the way I percieve it does not at all lead to the statement "Therefore that thing must not exist" you are adding a premise that is faulty....you are assuming that in order for a thing to exist metaphysically you must be able to percieve it but I don't think you're going to want to say that kind of thing. It is not logically consistent to say that it is a necessity of existance that a thing be percieved by human senses.

So in conclusion, you have shown that we cannot acquire actual knowledge that is undoubtable through our senses yes, but what you have failed to do is show how that then PROVES that those things then "must" not exist. Just because you cannot epistemically know it, does not mean it cannot exist.  

[Smartteaser192]

Quote:

Let me illustrate with an example, I have never actually been to China, I've seen pictures of it, but those pictures could potentially not truely represent the thing that China is (an in point of fact they probably do not)....does that entail logically then that china must not exist? No. It merely entails that I can't know for certain much about China.

Another example is particle physics. I clearly cannot see an electron or even experience a single electron or how it spins, does that mean they do not exist? No. It does not.

What you are trying to say is that, we rely on our own intuitions for such existence. Pictures are like the superficial layer covering the essence of reality. A picture is a picture not China. We only know about their existence through other knowledge, not ourselves. The sciences are expanding because of the expanded collaborative knowledge of millions of bright scientific minds.

Quote:

Metaphysically things exist. Mathmatically things exist. Logically things exist.

How can things mathematically exist if we invented the symbols and the meaning to it? Invention is not a natural creation but merely an innovation to a creation. What is the basis of mathematics? How would 1 + 1 really becomes 2? That's where the problems regarding epistemology comes along. How can we verify the essence of being? So, you see there are many unaswered questions we still have to deal with. Don't be too justified because "The ends does not justify the means".

Mysteries! Mysteries! Mysteries! still linger in the minds of man when it comes to philosophy. Nothing is certain for sure, but we can only speculate the fact that man will never find the answers on the existence of the supreme being and the epistemological basis. There are theories out there that will never become a law. Like the theories of personality and the Super-string theory. The truth is in the essence and we will never find the essence of a thing. Why? Because our knowledge of all things are not based on the essence but on our intuitions and mental processes.

"will never find the answers on the existence of the supreme being" - I will elaborate on this. Let me replace your Electron example with the supreme Being (God) example.

We would say that "I clearly cannot see GOD or even experience GOD or his existence, does that mean he doesn't exist? No. It does not." Would you call this FAITH?

So, what say you on this? The atheists rely on logic and reasoning. It is easier to say God does not exist but there is one more thing. How can we deny the existence of God if we do not intially acknowledge his presence? Therefore we will never know in this lifetime whether if he exists or not.

Things get complicated when it comes to this kind of topic. Nothing here is irrefutable.

So, Those are my counter-arguments. Thank you for catching my self-contradictory and fallacious arguments. I appreciate that.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

Thank you for catching my self-contradictory and fallacious arguments. I appreciate that.

Thats what I'm here for.

Quote:

What you are trying to say is that, we rely on our own intuitions for such existence. Pictures are like the superficial layer covering the essence of reality. A picture is a picture not China. We only know about their existence through other knowledge, not ourselves. The sciences are expanding because of the expanded collaborative knowledge of millions of bright scientific minds.

This is true, but in particular a picture is a picture....of a thing. Now it doesn't give us the whole, or even the most acurate depiction of a thing, we can make no assumptions about the thing itself save that it was there to be photgraphed. This of course has certain flaws but I would contend that it is not within the realm of human intuition or thought to consider that nothing exists. If no "thing" exists then how can we think? We couldn't as though entails a thing to do the thinking unless you ascribe "thingness" to the thought itself (which you certainly could)

Quote:

How can things mathematically exist if we invented the symbols and the meaning to it? Invention is not a natural creation but merely an innovation to a creation. What is the basis of mathematics? How would 1 + 1 really becomes 2? That's where the problems regarding epistemology comes along. How can we verify the essence of being? So, you see there are many unaswered questions we still have to deal with. Don't be too justified because "The ends does not justify the means".

You are speaking of the symbols we assign to concepts not the concepts themselves. 1+1=2 is always true so long as the thing that is represented by 1 added to another thing accurately represented by 1 would equal the thing that is accurately represented by 2. Don't get caught on the terms think of the thing they represent. Cancel the terms out, hold up "this" many fingers and it's still "this" many, replace "this" with 5 and it doesn't mean I'm holding up all the fingers on one hand, it may be that I've called only what you call three fingers 5, but does that mean we are talking about different things? Not at all...so the THING itself....exists we just see it differently. Mathamatics is nothing more than logic applied to calculations of ammounts of things.

Moreover I find it impossible to convince myself that I...who am a thinking thing...don't exist. I am thinking after all am I not? You may not be convinced that I exist, I could be a mistake of your perceptions after all, but can you be a mistake of your OWN perceptions? You are the one percieving are you not? If there is no reality then you are not real, but are you not percieving things (even if they are wrong)? Wrongly percieving is still doing an action, action has to have an agent to DO that action that truely exists so the act of percieving (even if it's incorrectly) requires SOMETHING to exist.

In other words in order for your perception to be fooled your perceptions must first exist. This is just re-wording Kant in a more lei sense.

Quote:

Nothing is certain for sure

What about that statement? Are you so certain that nothing is certain? Sounds circular to me.

Quote:

We would say that "I clearly cannot see GOD or even experience GOD or his existence, does that mean he doesn't exist? No. It does not." Would you call this FAITH?

No, I'd call that logic. Is it not true that you are not entitled to claim God doesn't exist simply because you have had no experience of him? Logically it is true. What you have said above is logical.....the real troubling question comes when the question of "Yes but God is intrinsically a being your COULDN'T possibly EVER have any experience of....isn't that akin to mystic mentalities and not logical?" I don't know if it's not logical persay, but it is certainly much more troubling.

Quote:

So, what say you on this? The atheists rely on logic and reasoning. It is easier to say God does not exist but there is one more thing. How can we deny the existence of God if we do not intially acknowledge his presence? Therefore we will never know in this lifetime whether if he exists or not.

What say I to this? I say that since God is a being that you could never possibly experience then logic can only show us what we are entitled to say about his existance, but since we couldn't ever possibly experience him then the logic works equally on both sides. So logically I am not entitled to say he does exist, but an atheist is also not at all entitled to claim that by simply using reason and logic God doesn't exist. So based solely on an impass an atheist is a fool for believing logic and reason are capable of allowing him to say God doesn't exist...but no more then a person of any sort of faith.

Quote:

Things get complicated when it comes to this kind of topic. Nothing here is irrefutable.

Thats true, what I can tell you is that it is either one or the other...not both. God cannot both exist AND not exist so one or the other is correct. What I can also tell you is that but no logical....or reasoning method can we come to a conclusion either way. So the arguement itself is refutable. What we need in order to make a decision is something besides reason and logic (which is unfortunate for a guy like me) but essentiall other things need to be weighed in such as personal experience (which we've already said could be wrong) science (which is logical and reasonable but also is interpretable) and of course pyschology (how you were brought up has a profound impact on your moral character).

Thats all I got for you for now.  

[I lost my notebook]

I feel I should say, now since I seem to have misrepresented myself, that I never said "things" do not exist, with the exception of the statement I made regarding things which are universally recognized as unreal, i.e. imaginary, not existing. It would be foolish to assume that no things exist.

I said reality as we know it can not exist. Reality is not, in effect, a thing but rather an idea, and a flawed idea at that.

With that said, however, I would also like to congratulate many of you for proving my statement while attempting to disprove what you perceived it to be(Which as I see it is further proof of my thesis in and of itself).

Quote:

In the same way, Kant argued that there must (logically) be a ding an sich beyond our perception of things. Of course, this thing can never be experienced in the noumenal realm due to the fact that we are only capable of attaining knowledge of things as they appear to us as phenomena. However noumena must logically be there, if for no other reason than to make sense of the world we do (and can) perceive around us.

Now as I also said, reality as we know it is "simply a series of perceptions". Since what we perceive and what truly is are not the same thing, known reality is false.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

Now as I also said, reality as we know it is "simply a series of perceptions". Since what we perceive and what truly is are not the same thing, known reality is false.

Rewording what you have already said doesn't make it any more correct.


It is still not logically consistent to say that reality as I perceive it is totally incorrect, you don't know that. Just as you can't know that the one you perceive IS....correct.....you also could never prove that it isn't.

It is as useless to say as saying that you can or cannot prove the existence of God.

You have not changed your argument by changing your words around and making them sound different....I'm no fool, epistemically you CANT KNOW IF THE REALITY YOU EXPERIENCE...is real.....NOR...CAN YOU KNOW....if it isn't.

The trouble with your argument is that you fail to realize that what you are claiming cannot be claimed about anything....not "things" or even "perceived reality". Are you suggesting you know that the reality that every person experiences is incorrect? What about every particle? Are they all wrong too?

What you are suggesting is absurd. You are making the incredibly strong assertion about reality.....that the reality we experience is incorrect while I am telling you that is logically inconsistent.

I'll quote what you said again.

Quote:

Now as I also said, reality as we know it is "simply a series of perceptions". Since what we perceive and what truly is are not the same thing, known reality is false.

Prove that this is true without being circular and I will understand....but you cant. Do you know why you can't? If you'd read what I wrote above and applied it to your own argument you'd know that no matter what proof you provide I could use the EXACT same proof to say that the reality I experience is just as likely to be the correct reality as it is to not be.

How do you KNOW...reality is a string of perceptions? How is it that reality is based on perception if I can calculate the spacio-temporal relationship and location of a particle and/or event in space-time exactly...and it be the same from every reference frame, (meaning from every possible sense experience) then how is that not real tried and true reality that exists beyond perception? What you are saying is armchair philosophy but it is not supportable by science nor any university level philosophy since the existential movement.  

[Noetical]

I lost my notebook

I have come to the conclusion that what we accept every day as reality does not in fact exist, and I will tell you why after explaining some underlying principles.

First of all, reality as we know it is simply a series of perceptions
Secondly, all things are perceived by the senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, sound)
Thirdly, these senses can be altered quite easily

Now, if you take that these three things as fact, one can come to the conclusion that there is no way to prove that anything perceived is true, therefore the grounds that reality exists, meaning that what we see and know is in fact true and not simply illusion, is false.

An example would be the use of hallucinogenic substances. One takes said substance (i.e. "magic mushrooms") their reality completely ceases to be our reality, yet it is no more real than ours.

Given the general assumption that a hallucination is, in fact, not real, and the fact that it is perceived as real, on reaches the conclusion that nothing is in fact real.

Taking the assumption that only "real" things exist and "unreal" things do not, reality can not exist.

Yet again, you have good premises, but you fail to recognize the loose definition of Reality as a concept in itself.

What constitutes reality?

If 'our reality' is all we know, and it cannot be proved false even though it may be, is it not true or as close to true as something can be? Does it really matter that it might be false if it is beyond our control to discern its falsity in all possible ways and if even knowing that it was false would not change our unavoidable engagement in it? To rephrase, suppose you knew youre reality was false.. what then?

Like in the movie the matrix for example, if you know the world you live in is a lie, but you have to live in it anyway (assuming you arent unplugged) what use is knowing that it isnt real if you cant escape from it? (assuming their are no action-film benefits like.. hacking reality to jump further..)
And how do you know the reality outside of the matrix is not a reality within a reality, is it really worth your concern? It is an interesting and fun concept, but not necessarily a significant or useful one.



Can reality exist? It depends what specifically you are referring too when you say reality.

Can there be more than one reality? Yes?
Could their be infinite realities? Yes...

I am living in my reality, therefore, my reality exists...  

[Skanky Randy]

Short and sweet: I'm going to say that as far as we can sense, reality is an illusion. And I dream so much that my dreams over-lap with my memories so that some of memories become screwed up and hard to recollect properly.  

[27x]

I've seen about a billion threads with the same statement you just made.

My awnser is, and always will be, "This world may be a lie, but it's a pretty damn good one. I think I'll enjoy my stay."  

[Phatts McDangle]

Why would we have evolved senses that do not accurately perceive reality? What would be the point of that, and how would it be an advantage in passing on our genetic material? (Alternatively, if you believe in creation, why would we have been created with senses that do not accurately perceive reality?)  

[Niniva]

Phatts McDangle

Why would we have evolved senses that do not accurately perceive reality? What would be the point of that, and how would it be an advantage in passing on our genetic material? (Alternatively, if you believe in creation, why would we have been created with senses that do not accurately perceive reality?)

Because reality is quite simply impossible to fully percieve. I'm pretty sure that answer fits right into your questions and fully answers them. It may not be truth but it's a plausible answer to these questions which I'm assuming you asked because you thought it wasn't logical that we would have sensory ability that could potentially not be sensing reality.

Accept.....we see illusions and hear things all the time.

Not to mention, have you never seen the matrix? Or heard of the Brain in a Vat theory? You might be sensing things that are 100% non existent and the reason could be any among an infinite amount of perfectly logical and consistent ones that answer your question.

Why would it happen? It would happen because our minds are simply not capable of viewing reality as a whole but only in part...it would happen because some scientist is a b*****d and stuck you in a vat of slimy liquid in order to study your brain, it would happen because we just simply aren't evolved ENOUGH to be percieving the true reality of our situation. It would happen because..........ad infinitum.

These are all perfectly consistent and logical answers to your questions which are precisely the SAME question as was orriginally asked.  

[Phatts McDangle]

Niniva

Because reality is quite simply impossible to fully percieve.

Oh, I agree that we do not perceive the entirety of reality. Obviously our eyes can't pick up ultraviolet light or x-rays, for example. But that doesn't mean that the parts of reality we do perceive are false.

Niniva

Accept.....we see illusions and hear things all the time.

But just because the senses can be deceived does not mean they are always being deceived.

Niniva

Not to mention, have you never seen the matrix? Or heard of the Brain in a Vat theory? You might be sensing things that are 100% non existent and the reason could be any among an infinite amount of perfectly logical and consistent ones that answer your question.

I love how "The Matrix" has become THE pop-culture reference used to describe this idea. And it's true, some b*****d scientist could have my brain in a vat, and everything I think is real could be a false construct. However there can never be any proof of that, so asserting it is essentially no different than asserting that God exists. I would invoke Occam's Razor and say that the simplest explanation is the most likely: there is no "evil scientist," and our senses are perceiving reality more-or-less the way it really is, respecting our mental limitations.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

I am not sure if I agree; I am not sure If I disagree.

Descartes posed a similar (if not the same) idea. Descartes "wax" analogy states that wax has the ability to morph and warp into a million shapes and more though, it is nearly impossible for the individual to fathom every single one and even though this is so that does not necessarily mean that the forms which we cannot fathom don't exist.

He too did not trust the senses.


My initial reaction to the wax analogy was, although it is true that a million and one different forms may exist, and I can fathom some but as long as I do not fathom the 'x' amount of forms I may have missed then in my reality they are nonexistent. This is restricted but not limited to other realities (other peoples perceptions) that may have fathomed the 'x' amount of forms they acknowledge the existence of.

However, I do believe that we may fathom and believe that other forms exist without fully envisioning them in our minds. The only problem here is, we have no proof that they exist. Now apply the simple 'wax analogy' to something bigger, like life.

This is also a similar idea to that of Michel De Montaigne that is expressed through his essay On Experience where he explains that only through ones personal encounters should be a determinacy of what is real, others cannot be trusted with this. For instance if someone you meet through your hike tells you that there is a lake at the clearing of the forest, sure you can take their word, but the only way for you to truly know it exists is if you yourself come across it.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

Oh, I agree that we do not perceive the entirety of reality. Obviously our eyes can't pick up ultraviolet light or x-rays, for example. But that doesn't mean that the parts of reality we do perceive are false.

Of course it doesn't, but that is not my argument at all. My argument is merely that you cannot trust that they true based on the evidence you are not entitled to make that inference.

Quote:

But just because the senses can be deceived does not mean they are always being deceived.

Of course it doesn't....again....yet if they were always deceived would you know the difference enough to be able to tell what was real and what was not? Again the point is not that they are ARE false, but that they COULD be false and so trusting in them to provide facts about the world is fallacy. You are not entitled to call them facts if you have no proof that their source is reliable.

Quote:

I love how "The Matrix" has become THE pop-culture reference used to describe this idea. And it's true, some b*****d scientist could have my brain in a vat, and everything I think is real could be a false construct. However there can never be any proof of that, so asserting it is essentially no different than asserting that God exists. I would invoke Occam's Razor and say that the simplest explanation is the most likely: there is no "evil scientist," and our senses are perceiving reality more-or-less the way it really is, respecting our mental limitations.

The Matrix is just a simple example of how this might be possible. Now you have brought up and interesting point, the simplest explanation is the best. Provided of course that it covers everything completely and actually is a solution, now tell me how saying that your senses are reliable when we know very well they are not (we see mirages on a daily basis just on the road as we drive, we hear things, remember things incorrectly, taste things long after they are actually in our mouth ect.)? If your senses are so easily deceived how can they be a solution? Occam's razor is not applicable since your solutions isn't actually a solution at all. You are shown to have put trust in your senses when it is not rational to trust them.