I'm saying how can you claim everything you know is false and then tell someone you have the magic pill to seeing reality? Wouldn't you necessarily question the reality of the magic pill? That being the case, just pick the ride you'd rather be on. You can't expect either to be more real or more authentic.

That's just silly.

No it's not. It's mind blowingly deep. There is no way out of the Descartes evil genius thought experiment if you admit there really is an evil genius.

No it's not. It's mind blowingly deep. There is no way out of the Descartes evil genius thought experiment if you admit there really is an evil genius. — Hanover

It leads to solipsism, though.

You are just reinforcing the same doubt, but how that parallels with reality is nonsensical, however even if it were so, the question is about what you do given that possible reality, which is the point of the thread.

I said what I'd do, which is to take the ride that seemed most fulfilling, but my decision wouldn't be based on one being more real than the other because the premise eliminates knowing that.

I understand that, hence what the schism of opinions are all about since either pill may take you on the ride that seems most fulfilling. One, however, actually is.

I don't believe there is a hidden reality, I think that what's phenomenal is reality and everything else is an abstraction from that. — Cavacava

Abstractions aren't hidden. They're in plain view everywhere. Aren't you yourself an abstraction?

True, but so would the monks who stay in the monastery — Janus

Monks are always feeding the poor and taking in stray schnauzers. Hermits become useless to society.

Misery in the domain of the real!

Well, I don't know if I'd call it misery. But I'd want real power and money, as opposed to dream power and money. And besides that there are other more important things which would be similar -- whatever we care about I'd want something real rather than a simulation of what is real. What is real matters to me.

Why?

I'm not exactly sure. I just know what I'd choose.

First I'd be curious. What in the heck are you talking about? Sure, I want to see what that's all about. And then I'd sort of feel like I was caged, just taking the premise of the film at face value, and I would want to remain free.

So you have freedom in this real world. What does that mean to you? (Real question, not rhetorical) What comes of that freedom?

I'd take being King Solomon over Job in this instance. The real/dreamworld division doesn't seem to matter unless an awareness of it somehow reduces the quality of your existence in the dreamworld or elevates it in the real world, but that circumstance is mitigated against in the phrasing of at least half the dilemma. The choice is between being miserable (not being pretend-miserable but really happy because you are fulfilled and authentic) vs being wealthy and powerful (and maybe still miserable because it's just a dream? But at least you've got a shot at not being so, and even if you do end up being miserable because of your realization of the fake-dreaminess of your existence, it'll still just be fake dreamy-misery with the cherry of some hard cash on top to ease the nerves.)

That's taking the dilemma at literal face value though. If the real (serious) message regards the choice of giving up what is authentically important to you for money and power then no, because that would lead to emptiness, and it's better to be just miserable than to be miserable and empty.

Abstractions aren't hidden. They're in plain view everywhere. Aren't you yourself an abstraction?

No, I would say that I'am a particular social construction, not an abstraction.

@frank

If you prick Cavacava, does he not bleed?

Asking the easy questions today? :D

There's a funny thing about the question "What does that mean to you?" There's a couple of senses of "mean" that come out, when I read it -- in one way you are asking me the simple linguistic meaning, or the meaning of the concept of freedom in a descriptive sense. In the other sense you are asking me what freedom means to me as in why is it meaningful or important to me. And maybe you are really asking both questions. If you meant anything besides that then you'll have to explicate a bit.

Freedom is a negative condition -- in the sense that you only lose it because you are being coerced. But there is nothing specific to the condition of freedom just by virtue that you could be doing any number of things while being free, and you could even being doing those same things while being unfree. Freedom isn't an action, but a mode of action. And in a simple sense it just means a lack of coercion. But what counts as coercion? That's where you'll have people disagree. I'd say that a fantasy-land of realistic feeling pleasures is coercion -- a coercion I'd take over fear and pain as tools of coercion, by all means, but coercion all the same.

What comes of freedom is up to the actor. That's the whole point. So it can't be specified, really. But there is something worthwhile in owning your own actions, rather than doing them because someone is enticing you to do them. From my perspective, at least, I'll take a world of pain where I am not being coerced over a world of pleasure where I am. Because the pain coming from the world is something you can contend with, you have the ability to act and learn how to deal with it. But in a world where you are the object to be controlled you have no such recourse. You're alienated even from yourself.

Plus, in a more practical manner, it's not like the world the Matrix created was all that great to begin with :D. Pain and suffering are just part of life. There's no eliminating that. But if you are free you can learn to be at peace with it.

No, I would say that I'am a particular social construction, not an abstraction. — Cavacava

You're a person. You're at least part abstraction.

If you prick Cavacava, does he not bleed? — Baden

His body probably would. Is he nothing but a body? What is the difference between Cavacava and a hammer?

So it can't be specified, really. But there is something worthwhile in owning your own actions, rather than doing them because someone is enticing you to do them. — Moliere

This is the heavy-weight answer, I think. To be or not to be, right?

Unless you're some kind of dualist, he's both.

What is the difference between Cavacava and a hammer? — frank

Hammer has better raps.

We don't need no metaphysics.

Hammer has better raps than you too. :)

MC Hammer?

Is a dollar bill just a piece of paper or is its value based on our consensus, which is not abstract, it is the product of mutual agreement. A person, I think is in a some what a similar way constituted (or say instituted) by the consensus of associations we interact with.

And they hurt :rofl:

Oh, yes. :point:

Money is a good example of a social construction. I have no idea how a person is constituted or instituted. That the idea of a person is logically tied to groups of such persons doesn't help us make the case that we're not abstract.

I did back down somewhat, I guess. We're partly abstract.

Hammers have a purpose. A person doesn't. A hammer doesn't reflect upon its own existence. More Heidegger dammit!

stay in the dream. Reality is real but a happy dream is better than the miserable truth. If its in context of being overly optimistic in a clearly piontless awful situation than I would choose truth to escape my hell.