Philosophies On Consciousness/Reality

[Kontrolz]

What do you guys think is real?

I personally think that it is impossible for an objective view of reality to exist. In order for something to exist it must be perceived. In order for something to be perceived there must be a "perceiver". In order for that perceiver to exist though there must be another perceiver perceiving it. It will continue in that loop to infinity. Unless you use the liar paradox's self-reference to say, I exist because I perceive myself, but that is a known logical paradox.

Using that logic to me it is obvious that the only reality you can ever really "know" is the one inside your head. If that is true then there is no difference between truly believing something and something "actually existing". So if you truly believed you could fly, then you would. Even IF there was an objective reality, in your head you'd be flying and it would be as real as anything you've ever experienced (although you might look insane to someone else assuming there is an objective reality).

I know some of you guys have to of formed your own deep opinions/philosophy on this subject. So what do you guys think is real?

[Bioture]

The easiest one to argue for me is that reality = truth.

[za gophar]

i believe that i am "the one" and im gonna fly around beating the fuck out of people.

[RednaZ]

Unless you use the liar paradox's self-reference to say, I exist because I perceive myself, but that is a known logical paradox.

I refer you to the buddhist teaching of Anatta.

[Fluffz]

Using that logic to me it is obvious that the only reality you can ever really "know" is the one inside your head.

its funny that when 2 people agree on the colour of a car both could see a totaly different colour.

If that is true then there is no difference between truly believing something and something "actually existing". So if you truly believed you could fly, then you would. Even IF there was an objective reality, in your head you'd be flying and it would be as real as anything you've ever experienced (although you might look insane to someone else assuming there is an objective reality).

if you believe in the concept of a god you have an absolute truth. if this universe follows this truth than gravity stops you from flying. if than god gave you the chance to understand this truth (like by giving you a soul) you would know you can not fly no matter how hard your brain tells you you are flying.

[Ayano]

I think therefore I exist. Silly subject. :P

[DoTheFandango]

Vaginas.
~~ your neighborhood philosophy major.

[NewbOfTW]

Everything is real.... thats y anything is possible :P

[DoTheFandango]

No, the only reason anything ever happens is because you live in a virtual reality system that you can never escape from and will never know existed.

Fucking 14-year-olds.

[flibb]

So can i just believe a pizza for dinner? That would save me money

[Jack]

Yes you could and you'd be fully satisfied until you die from starvation and since you've been eating pizza for the time you were starving to death you'd probably blame it on Ebola.

[inaphyt]

Regardless of your opinion, we will never know we are only human.

[DoTheFandango]

Yay, fatalism!

WHY LIVE WHEN WE'RE JUST GOING TO DIE. FFS.

[Kontrolz]

I think therefore I exist. Silly subject. :P

That would be the example of the liar paradox I was talking about. It's a flaw in logic because it uses self-reference to define itself.

It's not a valid argument to say "I think therefor I am", the statement justifies "I am" as being true by referencing the same "I". That would mean you already assume you exist before you make the judgment in that statement of whether or not you exist, so it can't be used as a reason. The statement "I think therefor I am" is only a redundant effect of already believing you exist.

I'm not asking you what the obvious objective idea of reality is, that is obviously apparent to all of us or else we wouldn't be posting on message boards. I'm asking what you think could be the simplest truth a human could logically comprehend.

[Fluffz]

It's not a valid argument to say "I think therefor I am", the statement justifies "I am" as being true by referencing the same "I".

It is hard to describe in a 2nd language but "I think therefor I am" is a conclusion of "you must be to think".

In order to draw the conclusion from "you must be to think" to "i think so i am" you must have tought. so now that you have a proov that you are thinking other than "you are" and if you must be to think, you are. it is not the sentance alone that prooves "you are" but also the fact that you think by drawing a conclusion.

However, this does not proove that you must be to think...