I think you've laid out the types of situations that have to be evaluated in determining what is and what isn't real. As I noted, everyday, humdrum reality is my benchmark. The others should be evaluated in relation to that. That's what's important to me. I don't think the other situations, e.g. mental states or fictional phenomena, matter as much in themselves.

However the tension you raise with option 3 arises is especially acute with the Wigner's friend thought experiment. From the friend's point-of-view, she observes a definite result. From Wigner's point-of-view, he observes interference effects which indicates indefiniteness. — Andrew M

I've read through an explanation of Wigner's friend twice and can't figure it out how it applies beyond just plain old "quantum weirdness."

The term 'real' is used in various ways and to some extent it may come down to commonsense picture, or that which is confirmed intersubjectively. Even within psychiatry, while there is some acknowledgement of cultural beliefs and differences, there is an adherence to a general realist worldview. This is the basis for ideas of what is delusional and, for example, if one believes that they have magical powers they are likely to be seen as delusional. To some extent, there may be a shared understanding of delusion in the psychiatric and philosophy perspective in Western culture. — Jack Cummins

I came at this question from a philosophical rather than psychological perspective, although I think your point is relevant. As you note, "adherence to a general realist worldview" is a baseline against which other ways of thinking about reality can be compared. That being said, I don't necessarily exclude delusions, hallucinations, or other mental processes from consideration as real. I left that question open in my OP.

Yeah, my bad. I was speaking from an ontological perspective (reality is....), you were speaking from an epistemological perspective, (making sense by relation). — Mww

Can you not articulate what the potential difference is? — frank

As I noted, that is the subject of this thread.

What's the difference? — frank

That's the subject of this discussion.

For something to be true.. It must exist. — Benj96

As I noted elsewhere, truth applies to propositions, not to things in general. I think that's an important distinction. How can an apple be true?

For something to be true.. It must be knowable. — Benj96

Hmmm... I'm not sure about this. I think you'll probably hear from people who disagree.

the truth doesn't change. — Benj96

Well... sure it does, depending on how you look at it. The statement "Today is Tuesday," is true here in the eastern US as I write this, but it won't be true tomorrow. You talk about

And such a fundamental constant/ law/ principle as truth - which is unchanging.. Must therefore be inaccesible to systems that change/are under the influence of change. — Benj96

What kind of thing is not subject to the influence of change? Can you give some examples. Fundamental rules of reality, e.g. the law of conservation of matter, have to change when we find out new things, e.g. nuclear fusion. Nitpicky things like my example about what day it is change.

And because the truth cannot change fundamentally or it wouldnt be true - it must have something to do with energy and time — Benj96

I don't understand this.

Since science is epistemic, not ontic, I don't see what "QM" has to do with "reality" as such (i.e. map (QM) =/= territorry (reality); therefore, interpreting one in terms of the other seems to me a category error), and puzzles me why (the Mods allow) so much pseudo-quantum graffiti to deface these fora. — 180 Proof

I agree, which is one of the reasons I brought this whole thing up. How much of quantum "weirdness" is metaphysics and how much is physics?

Reality is that aspect of being we notice. — Moliere

Or maybe it is the aspect of being we can notice, even if we don't right now.

Being is that which has no distinction. If it were distinct then it'd be individuated then it wouldn't apply to some existence. — Moliere

Funny - "that which has no distinction" is what Lao Tzu would probably call "non-being."

And, more generally, we are free to set out what we mean by reality. It changes depending upon the philosopher. — Moliere

Agreed. I guess that's the point of this discussion - if you're going to use the words, make sure you let us all know what you mean.

OK, call it a pragmatic point of view. Philosophy as a way of life...
You don't need to buy it. — Amity

No, but I'm allowed to express an opinion.

what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument."

What about the definition are you questioning? — frank

"What is generally accepted as reality" is not necessarily the same as reality as viewed from a philosophical perspective.

The words on the page of the Tao Te Ching or the Bible are open to interpretation as literature. We can read and share what the words or The Word mean to us if anything.

Hallucination: a sensory perception not accessible or real to those other than the sufferer.
Delusion: a fixed, false conviction in something that is not real or shared by other people...

It's important to recognise the distinction between different kinds of reality and their consequences. — Amity

I recognize the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure I buy it, at least not from a philosophical point of view.

Aren't delusions unreal by definition? — frank

That's one of the questions on the table.

I used to think of reality as having a relationship to existence as having a relationship to being, where "the real" refers to lived experience, existence refers to judgments of statements, and being does not refer but is the most fundamental -- one might be tempted to say there's a Hegelian relationship between being and the other two. Something rougly along those lines. — Moliere

I don't think I understand the distinctions you're making. After some thought, I generally think of "being" and "existence" as the same thing. As I noted in the OP, I see "reality" as being related but not the same. I didn't define how they are the same and how they are different because I'm not sure I can. Maybe I think of "existence" and "being" as more abstract than "reality." "Reality" is somehow more normal.

To stretch my mind a bit -- I might say reality is related to the self in the selfs projects or pictures, or more fundamentally, in the selfs enjoyment of grasping the world for itself. — Moliere

I don't understand this.

So of course, the philosophical question that comes to one is: how do I know I'm not in Ketamine? — frank

An alternative philosophical question - to what extent is the delusion real?

"Real", as is used in English is an honorific word, adding little substance to what is being discussed. — Manuel

You may be right, but it comes up often in our discussions here on the forum. That's why I started the thread.

Are unicorns real? Well, they're not objects in the world, but people can surely speak about them without much problem, within an appropriate context (mythology, storytelling, etc.) — Manuel

Yes, this is the kind of question that usually comes up when we talk about what is real. I haven't taken a position one way or another.

Reality is that which corresponds to a sensation in general; and that, consequently, the conception of which indicates a real being in time, that is to say, a representation of that sensation, and the sense it makes is proportional to the manifold of representations contained in the conception, and the relation of them to the sensation, and to each other. — Mww

I didn't say and I don't believe reality is what corresponds to sensation. I said reality only makes sense in comparison or relation to sensation. Yes, my way of saying it is vague and weaselly, intentionally so. I wanted to leave it open what exactly the relationship is.

Because I say so, yes, and it is knowledge a priori that I say so, but knowledge of reality, by means of sensation, is of empirical objects, so not a priori knowledge. — Mww

Sorry. This was intended as a joke.

I’ll define “reality” as the state of being real.
— T Clark

Agreed, in principle, the caveat being the state of being real does not necessarily imply reality. Non-reciprocity kinda thing, doncha know. — Mww

I don't understand.

If reality only makes sense in relation to human sensations, then why wouldn't you be concerned with the sensations themselves, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling? — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't say that the sensations themselves aren't real.

If the sensations are what are real, then we have two conditions, that which is sensing, and that which is sensed. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think the sensations are "what are real", i.e. all that is real. I think they are the measure, or at least one measure, of what is real.

If we start from human sensations, shouldn't that which is sensing be just as real as the thing sensed? — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you asking if we, our selves, are real? It's a good question. I didn't address that in my OP, but I didn't intend to exclude it from the discussion.

Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations.
There is nothing we can say, hypothesize or theorize beyond that "ability" of "real things". — Nickolasgaspar

I think this definition is a good one. It gets at some of the confusion about the reality of quantum events. What's real is what's "registered by our observations."

A brain state is real and can be observed... So the mental experience of an apple is real, but a physical apple doesn't exist in there. — Nickolasgaspar

This makes sense, although I'm not sure it answers all the questions. I think for some, it is not only the mental state that is real, the imagined apple is too.

Oops - apologies, TC, if I've been clogging your OP with unrelated frivolities. — Tom Storm

Thanks, although I found the back and forth inoffensive.

For me when I ask myself what is "real".. I think of that which is "true". That which exists. — Benj96

I think "real" and "true" mean very different things. I came across a discussion of the difference on the web while putting together the OP. Truth applies only to propositions. If you buy the correspondence theory, the truth of a proposition is determined by its consistency with reality, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. I don't think that's a nitpicky distinction.

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. — Amity

I think it might be reasonable to include hallucinations and delusions as real. They certainly exist here at everyday human scale. That's one of the things for discussion in this thread.

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? — Amity

I see you are making a distinction between delusions and experiences associated with reading fiction. If I understand correctly, the difference is that fiction is open for examination by everyone while delusions are purely personal. I'm not sure I buy that distinction.

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)." — Andrew M

I'm trying to decide the best way of dealing with the ideas of "real" or "reality" are, given quantum mechanics. The options, as I see them 1) Reality only applies at the classical level. 2) Reality exists at the quantum level, but it is a different kind of reality. 3) There is a broader meaning of "reality" which encompasses both classical and quantum scales. 4) There is no such thing as reality.

I'm willing to go with 3 as long as we keep in mind that it has to remain consistent with our everyday reality. I'm not even sure that's possible.

No physicist questions the reality of the experimental equipment that they are using when performing these experiments, or of the measured outcomes. — Andrew M

I wonder if that's true.

This "idea" is pragmatic, or existential. — 180 Proof

I have been accused of being a pragmatist.

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

"Ineluctable" is defined as "Not to be overcome by struggling; irresistible; inescapable; inevitable.
Impossible to avoid or escape; inescapable, irresistible." And yet, here we are struggling and resisting. I guess that makes us philosophers.

I don't find myself needing or using the world real much in the 'real world'. — Tom Storm

Probably because of the sense of permanence and solidity regular people feel and don't see the need to undermine with philosophical folderol.

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. — Noble Dust

As I've said enough times to drive even me crazy, I don't think whether or not objective reality exists is a question of fact. I think it's a metaphysical question with no truth value. Please everyone, I don't want to go into that here. On the other hand, the question "Is this apple real?" asked as I hold up a normal everyday apple, has a meaning and an answer. Not to keep you in suspense, yes, the apple is real.

[Deleted]

...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. — Banno

Yes, I agree. Real has lots of different meanings or shades of meaning. For what it's worth, it was not my intention to exclude imaginary or conceptual phenomena from this discussion. On the other hand, I think "Is that tree real" is a different question than "Is that a real tree." Seems to me the first causes more philosophical agita.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is not how I see philosophy. I don't do it that way either, not when I do it right.

What do you expect to receive as responses and get as a product from this discussion? — Alkis Piskas

Have you read the rest of the posts on this thread? If not, why are you pontificating here. If you have, I think you'd see what @Universal Student is getting at.

But, no. Y2K didn't happen, 2011 didn't happen. Therefore, this is just more hype, you can safely ignore it. — hypericin

My point was only that you should have contingencies in place in case the world as we know it doesn't end.

Perhaps knowledge that is overly identified with, held fast to and solitary instead of used wisely as an aspect the whole navigation process through life is the danger?

An idolization of knowledge, if you will. — Universal Student

I was an engineer for 30 years. I've got knowledge coming out of my butt. I know lots of things and I take pleasure and satisfaction from that knowledge. I don't see any contradiction between that and the quotations from Lao Tzu. Why not?.... Good question. I'm not sure I have a good answer.

Awareness comes first. I guess it comes down to whether your knowledge makes it easier or harder to be self-aware. That's the best I can do for now. I need to think about it more.

I'm late to the game in getting around to these responses but the energy and effort is still bouncing around in here and wants to move! — Universal Student

For some reason, none of your tags of my name show up in my "Mentions" page. If I don't respond to a comment of yours, that may be why.

I feel a smidge out of my league. — Universal Student

It doesn't seem that way to me.

I have the sense that I am on the younger end of the spectrum of folks here — Universal Student

The average age of forum members is 86. We call anyone under 60 a youngster. Anyone under 45 is a whippersnapper.

If I may, how would you describe the experience of awareness from the outside? — Universal Student

Your opening post and most of the other posts on this thread are looking at awareness from the outside.

This is interesting. I'll have to think more about these distinctions. How did you come to the...awareness, that awareness is pre-verbal? This brings up quite a bit for me. — Universal Student

I can experience something without putting it into words. Wait for a second.....There, I just did it. From there, I can either just let it go or I can put it into words.

Would we say then that awareness is the knowing that there is something occurring within ourselves — Universal Student

I don't think awareness has anything to do with knowing. For me it has to do with paying attention.

Is awareness in whatever degree of clarity you happen to experience it really yours or are you experiencing awareness and privy to something outside of yourself, within yourself? — Universal Student

It's happening in my mind. Yes, it's really mine.

I made no mention of your motivation. I indicated your position's similarity to Christianity and then pointed out the well known difficulties with that position, namely its inability to adequately condemn unresolvable evil. — Hanover

I thought about that when I was writing my response, but I wanted a way to show you and Universeness are similar. I figured that would annoy you.

What I should have responded was "I remain skeptical of your sincerity."

This is a Christian notion of evil within humanity, which relies upon an ever present love of one's enemy, turning the other cheek and viewing all as capable of salvation.

I know you didn't suggest all that with your simple comment above, but it is part of that tradition. — Hanover

You're the second person today I've had to ask to respond to my argument, not to my motivation. You and Universeness are peas in a pod.

That is, to the extent we must understand our enemy, let us understand they are evil. It could be that simple. — Hanover

And yet it's not.