Hi, I would like to explore this argument of reality vs illusion further. But first, one of my biggest concerns with that argument is that it begins from an already biased perspective. For example, just the question (from the OP) into the nature of illusion/reality implies a level of conclusive standpoint. That is, that you are not in an illusion questioning yourself; that those you question share to some logical degree your perspective of both reality and illusion; that you expect an answer you understand means that you believe/know you share that reality hence you can relate to their perspective of it; the evidence of correspondence, even just here at TPF, implies to a high probability our vastly similar and shared understanding of reality and illusion; as well as many other possible points of inference.

What do we make of this? What is the reality we perceive constituted of, does it exist in any meaningful sense if it is an illusion created by perceptual categories, etc.? — Nasir Shuja

My question to you would be, "Why assume that this reality we perceive stands a chance of being an illusion? And, if so, what would it mean with respect to having a prevalent-inherent-consensus of that perception of reality against a separate prevalent-inherent-consensus of the identity of illusion?

Hello, cool. Sorry I worded that question incorrectly. I don't assume we are in an illusion, but am merely trying to start from a place where I take it as a possibility. I do not think that I would so easily be able to know I was in an illusion if I was also, of course. After all, non-dual philosophy makes it clear that such things are not comprehensible outside of that context.

Hopefully that addresses your concerns. If not, please try to help me understand what you mean. I do want to explore to what degree (in language) I would be able to know I am in an illusion (were I in one), and whether this type of thought process is a valid way of inquiring into reality (I now am at a place where I find it hard to sort out between all the options and whether I should make a choice).

I do want to explore to what degree (in language) I would be able to know I am in an illusion (were I in one), and whether this type of thought process is a valid way of inquiring into reality (I now am at a place where I find it hard to sort out between all the options and whether I should make a choice). — Nasir Shuja

So, where do you start - reality?, illusion? Please explain.

Why assume that this reality we perceive stands a chance of being an illusion? — BrianW

Perhaps it would be better to say that we see only a tiny fragment of reality, and so the image we have of reality does not accurately represent reality, and is thus a form of illusion.

One response says that only our ability to talk/think about reality is limited. I agree with that, but the same question remains I think. Another response is that Hume and Locke argue against innateness convincingly; could someone explain this?

What do you mean by we perceive only a small fragment? I start by just looking at perception with an open mind - neither reality nor illusion; just perception. Is that possible?

Perhaps it would be better to say that we see only a tiny fragment of reality, and so the image we have of reality does not accurately represent reality, and is thus a form of illusion. — Jake

Then illusion is a part of reality...?

I start by just looking at perception with an open mind - neither reality nor illusion; just perception. — Nasir Shuja

Perception of what?

Any type of change in what we think of as the world, any type of thought, and body.

It seems to me that the role of philosophy is to develop a consistent framework for understanding all human experience: physical and intentional, effable and mystical. If this is so, our starting point must be experience. Language that cannot be cashed out in terms of some actual or possible experience is meaningless. That does not mean that language has to capture or limit experience. It can also point to what is ineffable.

we have these a priori/innately existing perceptual categories of: causality (eg Hume) & (multiplicity & form & change). — Nasir Shuja

Do we? I see no reason to think that our categories are developed my reflecting on experience. We see that these perceived events are similar to those in this way, but not in that way. This certainly seems to be how children learn. I think that in the above posit, you have already committed yourself to some form of Kantianism -- and unnecessarily so.

What is the reality we perceive constituted of, does it exist in any meaningful sense if it is an illusion created by perceptual categories, etc.? — Nasir Shuja

This question is not based on experience but upon an unargued theoretical commitment. If you think about it, what we generally mean by "reality" is the world we normally perceive. If this is so, what can it possibly mean to think of a world "more real" than reality? Isn't the very idea an oxymoron?

I am not denying that mystical experience, for example, might penetrate to the foundations of reality, but that the foundations are those of the reality we perceive.

Perhaps it would be better to say that we see only a tiny fragment of reality, and so the image we have of reality does not accurately represent reality, and is thus a form of illusion. — Jake

To see a part is not to suffer an illusion, it is just to see a part of reality and not the whole. All human knowledge is a projection (a dimensionally diminished map) of reality. It is an error to make divine omniscience the paradigm of human knowledge. "Knowing" names an activity humans actually do. When your theory concludes that humans never "know," you are no longer talking about what the rest of us mean by "knowing."

Thank you for the helpful response. So is what you are saying is that causality and the other categories do not exist in a meaningful sense, but are constructs we use it in certain contexts; so this diminishes the illusion argument; so mystical experience is not a breakthrough past illusion but is awareness of this reality. That would make more sense, it seems like a more solid argument.

To see a part is not to suffer an illusion, it is just to see a part of reality and not the whole. — Dfpolis

It's an illusion in the sense that we tend to confuse it with the whole. For example, when we look at the world with our eyes we typically think of that as observing reality. So we conclude things like, if there was a god we should be able to see it, and not seeing it is evidence of something.

It's an illusion in the sense that we tend to confuse it with the whole. — Jake

Yes, but it is an error we can come to avoid.

As far as the categories being a priori or not (tabula rasa), I would tend to say that they are filters we cannot escape leaving us to say that in perception, the brain, and evolution, they are potencies in matter (as a scientific abstraction or some cosmic energy, what have you, ~) that need to be actualized through experience. What does it even mean to say that there is causality in a context and there is randomness too? Patterns happen, so we think causally and numerically and etc and know in the conventional sense as argued above. Is it a matter of opinion that the patterns occur in such a structured way that we conclude that there is some form of causality going on? Perhaps that is a limit we find, to be seen from the wider context of philosophy (which I agree is the study of experience, perception, first and foremost). And I realize non dual experience is not just a formless unity, but is here now so is self and non-self, etc. I have only the preliminary experiences so I can't really comment on that fully. If this makes any sense..