Philosophy class, test I

[Acuzio]

How can you see the world as real if the self that is determining it to be real, it's intangible ?

[Prolix]

I stink therefor I am.

[zanzibar]

How can you see the world as real if the self that is determining it to be real, it's intangible ?

Reality isn't something you discover.  Reality is something you impart, grant, and project onto the outside world.

[khoridor]

Real doesn't mean tangible.

[Bamko]

ever see ahead, in the road, a shimmering of water on a sunny day, and when you get there, there is no water?  Or any other optical illusion?

You have experinced your senses are not always reliable.  So you need to make personal decisions about what is real and what isn't.  Most do this pretty well.  Some do not.

reminds me of a joke, 2 philosophy students are walking down a country road, one a pragmatist, the other a theorist.  The theorist says "see that logging truck barreling towards us? does it exist? How can we really know?"

The Pragmitist says: "well, maybe it does not really exist, but I am stepping out of the way anyways, just in case...."

[Parallo]

Reminds me of an anecdote I heard from my great uncle. Bishop Berkeley is out in Dublin visiting a contemorary of his (some other personality of the time but I don't recall who.) He knocks on the other man's door and after a moment it is answered. "Ah, George." says the man. He closes the door again and says, "Come in."

[khoridor]

ever see ahead, in the road, a shimmering of water on a sunny day, and when you get there, there is no water?

There is no water, but the image of water IS there.

[Bamko]

the point is, as I said, it is an optical illusion.  thus :"You have experinced your senses are not always reliable. "

keep up with us, eh?   If you "see" an image that is false then you can not ALWAYS trust your sight, can you?  I never claimed there was water there, but the fact an image of what we intrepret was water exist where no water exists is exactly my point.

(actually we do not see the image of water either, makes it sound like a.jpg floating out there.)  We see light being bent by the laminar layers of air that is at different temperatures, causing the light to bend, giving the appearance to us that bears the resemblence of what we expect to see when light interacts with water at a similar angle.  Our brains are notorious at "filling in the blanks" with what we expect to see.  In fact a cathode ray tube TV is blinking at about 60 HZ, but our brain fills in those gaps as well.  I believe this is why many stare with an open mouth, engrossed by it.  our brains know it is missing a lot of information, so it bears even more attention on it, to try to miss even less.  Or could be people are just easily entranced.

<<shrugs>>

[Xordan]

What is real is relative to the perceptions of the asker. The universe could be expressed mathematically.. many universes can be expressed mathematically. Are they all real? We are part of such a mathematically expressed universe, so our self-awareness isn't enough to prove that ours is any more real than the others, as that self-awareness is a product of that expression.

So 'reality' depends very much on the scope of your question. "What is real in this universe" is one. "What is real that I can perceive" is another. Both of these have the assumption that the self that is determining it to be real is real.
"What is real" does not have that assumption.

[Prolix]

I would go so far as to say that the self is real although the nature of the self may not be as it is perceived. I.e. I am real but I may not be as I imagine I am. You may or may not be real and/or may be a part of me that is real that I do not recognize as being me. You may just be my imagination, I am just that creative.

[rakshak]

Everything is real. Even non-real has "real" in it.

[khoridor]

the point is, as I said, it is an optical illusion.  thus :"You have experinced your senses are not always reliable. "

keep up with us, eh?   If you "see" an image that is false then you can not ALWAYS trust your sight, can you?  I never claimed there was water there, but the fact an image of what we intrepret was water exist where no water exists is exactly my point.

"an image that is false" means nothing. In your assumption, the image is there, and is very true. And your eyes are not reliable if/when you cannot see the illusion. Got it?
What the example of a mirage is good for is just to demonstrate the limitations of 1 sense to understand a phenomenon.

The thing is, you are still talking about perception, and not about reality. Although tangibility is also related to perception, this time to the touch, Acuzio's question is not "is it real because I perceive it?".

[Bamko]

wow.

Missed the point by a country mile.  Go ahead and lecture a philosophy minor what he means about an image existing.  If you preceive something, then the preception of the perception is "real" whether the image is "true" (as in reflecting reality, whatever that may be) or false.

Read Descartes first meditation on philosophy.  it is a short read, and is basic first month philosophy 101 stuff.  I esp like how you said"What the example of a mirage is good for is just to demonstrate the limitations of 1 sense to understand a phenomenon."  Um, yes, that is MY POINT that you disgree with before and after that comment.

I am not getting paid to tutor you, so I will let you believe what you like.  Who knows, Maybe you do not even exist. Or maybe, from your POV, I don't exist.

Feel silly disccusing such silliness with a bunch of people who do not exist yet? 

[khoridor]

Read Descartes first meditation on philosophy.  it is a short read, and is basic first month philosophy 101 stuff.

Maybe you should have stayed after the first month.
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you in any thread. You obviously have a very high Perception of yourself, and it's not the first time you try to show off or insult people. Pointless.