Prove to me reality is real

If the premise is that reality is real, then reality contains itself since it is one of the "real" things.

Is reality real then? For reality not to be real, there has to be some part of it which is not real, but reality consists only of that which is real.

You can't "prove" anything involving reality, least of all that it is real.

Unlike physical sciences, you can't even gather something akin to "evidence" in a situation like this.

You actually have to believe reality is real, that's all you can get.

It's the first step of having a belief system that allows you to function like an actual human being and not end up in an asylum.

Every sane person, even atheists, have a belief system. Usually it starts with things like this:

1) Believing that the reality and senses you experience are in some way "real."

2) Believing that other human beings (and perhaps animals as well) have feelings, emotions, and independent thoughts of their own.

etc.

If you choose not to do believe things like that, you basically give up your ability to come up with any meaningful conclusions.

Assumptions are the predecessor to conclusions. You have to assume things in order to come up with conclusions, without that you can't have anything.

It would be like trying to do Mathematics without setting down axioms first. You can't logically conclude anything.

"

tikitaki wrote:

You can't "prove" anything involving reality, least of all that it is real.

Unlike physical sciences, you can't even gather something akin to "evidence" in a situation like this.

You actually have to believe reality is real, that's all you can get.

It's the first step of having a belief system that allows you to function like an actual human being and not end up in an asylum.

Every sane person, even atheists, have a belief system. Usually it starts with things like this:

1) Believing that the reality and senses you experience are in some way "real."

2) Believing that other human beings (and perhaps animals as well) have feelings, emotions, and independent thoughts of their own.

etc.

If you choose not to do believe things like that, you basically give up your ability to come up with any meaningful conclusions.

Assumptions are the predecessor to conclusions. You have to assume things in order to come up with conclusions, without that you can't have anything.

It would be like trying to do Mathematics without setting down axioms first. You can't logically conclude anything.

This is not true.

Then please, show me an example of a logical conclusion that can be drawn without first starting with base assumptions.

"

conall88 wrote:

there is no litmus test for reality.

The matrix has a great scene that talks about reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgBViHeiSKM

"what is real? how do you define real? if you are talking about what you can feel,smell, taste & see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

The origin of this concept actually goes back to Plato, the "Allegory of the Cave."

Basically the concept was, to have people permanently chained inside a cave, just deep enough so that they can still see the shadows of people walking in front of the cave (or any light source -- I think he specifically used the example of shapes passing in front of a fire)

The point being, over time that the people inside the cave believe that the shadows are actually the people, and their reality is an interaction with nothing more than those shadows.

It's primitive, but it's the same concept.

It's a very old idea.

our universe and we humans are just a tiny part of something big, like an Animal. I expect we humans and our earth are some kind of cells / as big as micro bacteria


when u zoom in with an microsope to explore the inside of humans - you could to the same on our universe just from a different point of view far away -


planets and big bangs dont just randomly happen, its the organizm creating cells etc etc-


there is a god, its the big creature we are living inside as microbes



there are many theories about this spread on the internet, btw dont take my words hard im pretty sleepy and wrote this quickly

The brain is a knowledge hungry machine incapable of living in reality. It would rather create an illusion where knowledge is a possibility then create a reality where chaos runs wild.

As for the question of the OP, shut down your ego, and reality unfolds. When there is no ego to cling to knowledge u can realize the true nature of being.

Reality cannot be explained with words, since it is an experience one has to go true in order to understand. Reality is also a subject to chaos, making it impossible for the brain to comprehend, since the brain cannot concern itself with chaos.

It is stated that to become enlightened, one must first study the self outside, true this portal one comes to knowledge of the inner self. After this realization one comes to know the self that is beyond the physical self(the self that has not moved once in your life). At this stage, all knowledge of this must be abandoned and one will go crazy(embrace the true chaos nature of reality). After one has stepped into chaos, realized it is omni-present in all structures, normal rules of society are no longer applicable to him. For he feels reality.
At this stage, a master is necessary to guide the pupil back to his center. It must be stated that at this time the sole purpose of the master is to shower the pupil with love for it is the hart that holds the key, not the brain.

To disregard duality one must go to the hell on earth, and visit the heaven on earth, with an open hart. Contemplate both and realize that the one cannot live without the other.

If there is love in the world, so will there be hatred.

As far as u go arpgfan, i don't believe you are sincerely on a journey for reality. And even if u where, it would have the opposite effect of what you would be trying to achieve.

The buddha (note : i don't really believe in him but the quote is right) could kill a man and still remain outside the wheel of karma and this is the true nature of enlightenment.

"

tikitaki wrote:

Then please, show me an example of a logical conclusion that can be drawn without first starting with base assumptions.

I have a hunch you're going to fall back on illogical reasoning but lets give this a shot. There are these principles called constants, or "laws of reality." They are the foundation of our perception on reality. Remember that we weren't asked to perceive where reality originates from. So, despite what you believe gives birth to reality it is very much tangible and empirical. We can even study it to see how it functions. As I said before and Philip Dick before me.

"

Reality is that which exists whether I choose to believe in it or not." - Reworded to be less cryptic than the original statement.

"

reboticon wrote:

If Descartes couldn't do it I sort of doubt the forum can.

He did what he could; at least he gave us one conclusion, that is immune to skeptic attacks. That is more than anyone else did, before or after him.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

There are these principles called constants

A principle is not and cannot be a simple constant. If you mean the constants involved with the sophisticated theories that have been developed in response to empirical measurements, then sure.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

or "laws of reality." They are the foundation of our perception on reality.

No. This is not true. People have and do have foundations and perceptions of reality that have nothing to do with physical theories such as the theory of gravity or the expansion of the universe (the kind of things I assume you are referring to.)

Keep in mind these theories are invented. The theory of gravity is no more "real" than say, a figment of my imagination. If it happens to line up with reality most of the time, then it becomes a useful tool to do things such as design bridges and tools.

But it's not a "real" thing. A theory, or a constant, does not physically exist - they are abstractions that the human brain creates (assumptions, essentially)

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

Remember that we weren't asked to perceive where reality originates from. So, despite what you believe gives birth to reality it is very much tangible and empirical. We can even study it to see how it functions. As I said before and Philip Dick before me.

The concept that reality is "tangible" is very much an assumption - one of the first of many required to draw conclusions.