Even within philosophical discussions, I think "real" is generally just a term to describe the inner world of the person speaking. It's a projection of a personal predisposition unto a public conversation about private experience. This perhaps goes back to my critique of your interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

Would you not then say that elections and other particles are not real since they do not concern our day to day lives? Or have I misunderstood?

People say that ...

1. The Eiffel tower is real
2. Sri Xi Jinping is real

3. Monsieur Sherlock Holmes is not real
4. Fairies are not real

Why?

Of course Sherlock Holmes exists (is real) as a character created by A. C. Doyle. Just don't count on him solving your mystery. Contra Clark, the imaginary is "real" (as imagined reality. Middle Earth, like any well-done imaginary world, feels "real" (despite it being 100% fantasy) because it is consistent within it's imaginary territory."

4. Fairies are not real — Agent Smith

So, what am I, chopped liver?

Having objective independent existence — T Clark

Your #1 definition is closest to what "real" sound like to me. The expansive physical properties of the world which make up the 'solid ground of our being' are real. Our "reality" is tested on those properties. "Testing" has, over time, reduced the scope of the "imaginary world" of spirits. True enough, many people count spirits as real, but fewer now count on their alleged power--physical, chemical, and surgical cures beat out magical cures.

Ok. Create a list of what you believe is real and unreal things for my benefit then; also I merely mentioned what is widely held to be true.

You don't need a list from me. I think you are a competent reality tester.

Sherlock Holmes and the old fashioned Celtic 'fairies' are not real because (per Clark #2) they have no existence independent of mind. Zeus, Brahma, Allah, God, Beowulf, Hogwarts, et al are hatchlings of the imagination. They are not real -- they have no existence apart from mind.

The reason why I bring up these "non-existent beings" is that they may be very important to us (Jesus, for example). Their place in our imaginations can be very central -- and may be as real as actual persons--maybe more so.

That we value what are imaginary beings is... real. It a paradox.

True mon ami, true!

The reason God isn't real is not because He doesn't exist!

The reason God isn't real is not because He doesn't exist! — Agent Smith

come again?

come again? — Bitter Crank

It follows from what ya said, monsieur!

Ah. Got it.

Ah. Got it — Bitter Crank

:up:

Austin, especially in Other Minds, addresses "real".

But is it a real one? When you ask if it is real, what are you sugesting? No, it's a fake; it's an illusion; it's a forgery; it's a phoney, a counterfeit, a mirage... What is real and what isn't is decided in each case by contrast; there is no single criteria.

The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin

Even within philosophical discussions, I think "real" is generally just a term to describe the inner world of the person speaking. It's a projection of a personal predisposition unto a public conversation about private experience. This perhaps goes back to my critique of your interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. — Noble Dust

Are you saying there is no external world outside human experience? I don't think you are, but I'm not sure. I could make the case that is true if I had my Lao Tzu hat on, but that wasn't my intention in this thread.

In discussions of the Tao Te Ching, I remember you commenting that any interpretation by a modern westerner would not be credible. I don't remember any other critique you made.

Would you not then say that elections and other particles are not real since they do not concern our day to day lives? — invizzy

A case could be made that phenomena that don't behave according to classical principles don't exist. I'm not sure I would agree with that.

One of the reasons I came up with the criteria for reality I did was that in several discussions posters claimed that quantum behavior at atomic and subatomic scale called into question the reality of phenomena at human scale. I reject that idea.

Are you saying there is no external world outside human experience? — T Clark

Not quite? I don't like the binary question. I think individual human experience determines our perception of what we think is "reality"; why else would we all disagree so much and with so much brash confidence? Our personal algebra leads us to beliefs about reality that solidify over time to the point of being nearly unmovable. Whether these ossified perspectives have anything to do with some "objective" external world would, then, logically, be something we couldn't know about. Theoretically. Based on this given framework. So, within this view, how can I move to the point at which I have knowledge about some sort of external objectivity?

In discussions of the Tao Te Ching, I remember you commenting that any interpretation by a modern westerner would not be credible. — T Clark

I don't think I said that; just that a modern westerner, when reading it, is trying to interpret an ancient esoteric text, translated from an ancient and obsolete language, the content of which is arcane and mysterious to ears hearing it thousands of years later through an unknown amount of filters that have distilled it to what you're reading in the English in the year 2022. Anyway.

Contra Clark, the imaginary is "real" — Bitter Crank

You have misstated my position. I wrote:

Example - an apple is real. A memory of an apple, an imagined apple, or the taste of an apple may or may not be real. — T Clark

The expansive physical properties of the world which make up the 'solid ground of our being' are real. Our "reality" is tested on those properties. "Testing" has, over time, reduced the scope of the "imaginary world" of spirits. — Bitter Crank

I think this expresses the position I was advocating very well.

Sherlock Holmes and the old fashioned Celtic 'fairies' are not real because (per Clark #2) they have no existence independent of mind. Zeus, Brahma, Allah, God, Beowulf, Hogwarts, et al are hatchlings of the imagination. They are not real -- they have no existence apart from mind. — Bitter Crank

I wasn't necessarily endorsing any of the definitions in the list I provided. I was just trying to give an idea of the range of what people normally mean.

Not quite? I don't like the binary question. I think individual human experience determines our perception of what we think is "reality"; why else would we all disagree so much and with so much brash confidence? Our personal algebra leads us to beliefs about reality that solidify over time to the point of being nearly unmovable. Whether these ossified perspectives have anything to do with some "objective" external world would, then, logically, be something we couldn't know about. Theoretically. Based on this given framework. So, within this view, how can I move to the point at which I have knowledge about some sort of external objectivity? — Noble Dust

I have no problem with what you've written. I've made the case many times that the idea of objective reality is a convenience that allows us to talk about the world we live in. I think it also reinforces an important and reassuring idea - that our world is consistent and endures over time. That's probably indispensable for animals trying to predict the future.

I don't think I said that; just that a modern westerner, when reading it, is trying to interpret an ancient esoteric text, translated from an ancient and obsolete language, the content of which is arcane and mysterious to ears hearing it thousands of years later through an unknown amount of filters that have distilled it to what you're reading in the English in the year 2022. — Noble Dust

I don't have any problems with that. As I wrote in our previous conversations, I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle.

The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin

I'm not sure whether or not this contradicts what I wrote. I suspect not.

|Seems to me to compliment it.

SO you say

I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. — T Clark

...while Austin shows that it has different meanings (uses) depending on context - it's not a real dollar note, it's a forgery; it's not a real tree, it's an illusion; and so on. The pattern is "it's not a real X, its a Y". Austin goes on to add a tool for analysing metaphysical notions of "real", by finding a more appropriate word, or dismissing the argument if one be not apparent.

So, to implement this:

I think "real" is generally just a term to describe the inner world of the person speaking. — Noble Dust

To understand what "real" is doing here we ask what it is to be contrasted with, and what other term might replace "not real". Use pattern is "it's not a real X, its a Y" - "it's not a real world, its... what? imagined? fake? counterfeit? Nothing seems to fit. So we can pass such an unfounded musing by. Language on holiday.

I have no problem with what you've written. I've made the case many times that the idea of objective reality is a convenience that allows us to talk about the world we live in. — T Clark

All well and good. The point of departure for me is, despite all I've said, that an objective reality does, most likely, exist. So it would appear I'm now disagreeing with myself. I'm fine with that. What's important is that whatever seems to be "real" to me is, again, a product of my own personal world. The possibility that something "more real" might exist outside of my perception is not only plausible, but probable, given my own failure (within my own limited framework) to perceive or derive any sort of plausible objective relativity. My own inability to derive the objective says nothing about the reality of the objective; and the sheer way in which we speak about philosophical problems presupposes the existence of the objectively real. Call it apophatic Theology if you like. We are dumb creatures of hubris.

I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle. — T Clark

I don't either, but I feel the need to make us aware of it.

instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin

Almost seems a deflationary version of 'the real'. I like it.

My position - I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. — T Clark

I am sympathetic to this. I don't find myself needing or using the world real much in the 'real world'.

3. Monsieur Sherlock Holmes is not real
4. Fairies are not real — Agent Smith

Curiously Sherlock Holmes creator, AC Doyle, did believe in fairies in a rather notorious episode of credulity. The Cottingley Fairies hoax of 1917.

Curiously Sherlock Holmes creator, AC Doyle, did believe in fairies... — Tom Storm

Of course faeries are real. I keep finding their skulls in my garden.

Ah, empirical evidence! I'm now convinced.

My position - I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell in their homes, at work, hunting. — T Clark

This "idea" is pragmatic, or existential.

Here are some of my own attempts ...

Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. Thus, it's the ur-standard, or fundamental ruler, against which all ideas and concepts, knowledge and lives are measured (i.e. enabled-constrained, tested). — 180 Proof

What is reality?
— Eremit
The encompassing of reason that necessarily cannot itself be encompassed by reasoning, — 180 Proof

The real is that which hurts you badly, often fatally, when you don't respect it, and is as unavoidable as it consists in whatever preceeds-resists-exceeds all (of our) rational categories and techniques of control (e.g. ambiguity, transfinitude, contingency, uncertainty, randomness). The real encompasses reason (Jaspers) and itself cannot be encompassed (Spinoza / Cantor) ... like 'the void within & by which all atoms swirl' (Epicurus). — 180 Proof

Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof

So I use "real" to indicate some X is ineluctable, subject-invariant and/or which exceeds-our-categories.

The idea of “real” or “reality” comes up frequently on the forum, often in relation to quantum mechanics. It has struck me the concept is not usually defined explicitly or carefully. — T Clark

In quantum mechanics realism usually refers to counterfactual-definiteness, which is "the ability to speak 'meaningfully' of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured)."

The simplest way to explain this is by analogy to a coin. If a coin is randomly flipped, but hidden from view, we regard it as nonetheless having a definite state (i.e., either heads or tails) independent of measurement. We might not know whether the coin's state is heads or tails, but there is no contradiction with it having a definite state.

In quantum mechanics, the analogous quantum coin can be randomly flipped (placed into a superposition of heads and tails) and seems not to have a definite state independent of measurement. That's because assuming it does have a definite state (given other plausible assumptions) leads to contradiction per Bell's Theorem. However when measured, the coin will have a definite state (per the famous collapse of the wavefunction).

One of the reasons I came up with the criteria for reality I did was that in several discussions posters claimed that quantum behavior at atomic and subatomic scale called into question the reality of phenomena at human scale. I reject that idea. — T Clark

As you should. No physicist questions the reality of the experimental equipment that they are using when performing these experiments, or of the measured outcomes.

Curiously Sherlock Holmes creator, AC Doyle, did believe in fairies in a rather notorious episode of credulity. The Cottingley Fairies hoax of 1917 — Tom Storm

True that. I completely forgot, but perhaps my subconscious didn't. Muchas gracias.

My position - I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell in their homes, at work, — T Clark

This too is how I tend to view 'reality'. What is 'real' to someone, e.g. experiencing hallucinations, is only real to me in that I understand the person believes their 'sense', 'perception'. Also, any belief or delusion that they are God or have a special status or knowledge e.g. receiving messages from the television.
However, the actual content of this mental state is not 'real' to me; I can't access what the other person sees.

Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof

I like this. It reminds me of something I discovered yesterday when talking to @Agent Smith.
His profile has numerous quotes, including:
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
— Philip K. Dick

I wondered at the time whether it was something Dick said, or one of his characters. Either way, the actual message is transmitted.

His novel, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon involves a questioning of what it is to be human and of what reality is. The story also has a theme of guilt, as the memories of the passenger are spoiled by the guilt he retains about his past actions. — wiki

Whether fictional or no, the content is 'real'. This time it is accessible. We can read and 'feel' it...there is a mental connection. Of course, our own experience/interpretation can be compared and perhaps found wanting by others but it's real, no?

Austin, especially in Other Minds, addresses "real".

But is it a real one? When you ask if it is real, what are you sugesting? No, it's a fake; it's an illusion; it's a forgery; it's a phoney, a counterfeit, a mirage... What is real and what isn't is decided in each case by contrast; there is no single criteria.

'The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real'
— Austin — Banno

[ my bolds]
I keep meaning to read Austin. This makes sense to me. I hadn't thought of it this way before, thanks.
The deciding factor in specifying 'reality' is by contrast, 'not what I shall have to show it is'.

Interesting that Austin suggests we can find a less 'fatal' word to replace 'real' depending on context.
So we don't die on the hill of a single meaning.
Trying to think of an example: [*]
Is that for real? > Is that true?
Perhaps substitution detracts from the sense? Does the truth lie in the 'tone' or emphasis of disbelief...?
Why do we make a mountain out of a molehill?

[*]

Actually being or existing
Officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards
Free from any intent to deceive or impress
Rightly so called
Important or serious in nature
Absolute in nature
(informal) Honest in a blunt manner
(informal) To be under no illusion, or to be serious about a matter
Not romantic
Essential, innate or inherent to something
Characterized by the lack of artificial additives or preservative treatment
Used to emphasize the extent of something unpleasant or bad
Of, or concerned with, the actual doing or use of something, rather than with theory and ideas
Denotes a humble and unpretentious attitude towards life
In bodily form
Legally, officially or formally in effect
Having all its feathers
Most intimate or private
Still in existence — wordhippo

Always found it interesting that the creator of the most ruthlessly rational figure in fiction was himself a flake. :razz:

Having objective independent existence — T Clark

For me when I ask myself what is "real".. I think of that which is "true". That which exists.

1). I know my subjective experience is true. I have feelings and emotions. They exist. (my mind)

2). I know I am an object. My body exists. I am observable.

3). I know that others are objects in the physical world/universe. They are observable.

4). But I also know that these objects (people) are also subjects like myself (they have a mind).

The issue is:
Only if you agree with all four of these statements you and I are the exact same thing qualitatively and quantitatively from every perspective. We are equals. It would be ethical and rational.

If you disagree with statement 1: i have a mind - then who would you be communicating with right now? It would also be hurtful to my own feelings saying I have no mind of my own. It would not be ethical

If you disagree with statement 2: I have a body - then where am I? (Not rational)

If you disagree with statement 3: others are objects - then where are others bodies? Where are they? (irrational again)


If you disagree with statement 4: other objects are subjects: then again you would be (unethical) where are other people's minds?

That's what is true/ real.

Always found it interesting that the creator of the most ruthlessly rational figure in fiction was himself a flake. :razz: — Tom Storm

I don't know how to explain that.