Does reality exist?

Reality is the sum of all things that exist.

Most people live in “bubble realities” and not real-reality. I’d guess around 99.999% of people. That means, that most people call their subjective reality “reality” but it’s not really so. Instead, people live trapped in bubbles. You can call it “autism”. That’s a good word for it. People are trapped in their bubble realities, and they don’t want to leave. It can also be called “virtual reality”, simulations, “the American Dream”. It goes by many names.

People don’t want to address, give attention to, or confront “real reality” because it’s scary. It invokes fear, anger, rage, hatred, all the “negative” topics and taboos that people run away from or cower before.

Humanity revolves around “good feelings”, good vibes, and want to ignore the “negative”, dark, bad, evil aspects of life.

Do I need to babble onward, or have I made my point?

Your point is clear. However, it is not on-topic.

That’s a simple but imprecise definition that presumes God’s point of view.
If you want to be precise you have to say that reality is the sum of all things that you think exist.

Now, ask yourself: does reality exist?
What does that mean?
Let’s try to translate it.

Does “the sum of all things that exist” exists?
By language alone, it appears that it does.
That which exists . . . exists.
Why the question then?
The problematic term is existence.
Here, the concept of existence is understood ontologically rather than epistemologically which creates certain problems.
On the other hand, if in the first instance of the use of the word “exist” we refer to ontology and in the second to epistemology, then the answer is NO because I am not aware of any God’s point of view that allows me to observe “the sum of all things that exist”.

Does “the sum of all things that someone thinks exist” exists?
That’s a clear YES.

I believe that it does, because once we agree that 99.999% of “reality” is subjective, and different from person to person, then we can move onto the topic of existence. If people are defining existence from within autistic, subjective bubble-realities, then obviously what “exists” to one person, in their own sheltered reality, probably does not exist in another person’s reality.

However, existence is based upon real-reality, objectively, and is not subjective. Therefore, existence is not a matter of reality. Reality is the matter of existence.

What exists are methods/ways/patterns of reasoning.
This is why I place emphasis on epistemology rather than on ontology.

Ontological concept of existence is the mystical “existence that is independent from what one thinks or perceives”.
Which strictly speaking is a non-sensical statement the sole purpose of which is to hide the fact that every claim that something exists (or that it does not exist) is a product of personal judgment.

I understand that people who do not think but merely parrot will disagree with this.
This is natural considering the fact that their opinions are not a product of their own judgment.
They use NO judgment of their own. They merely parrot. They merely repeat other people’s conclusions.
But the opinions they parrot can be no other than a product of someone’s personal judgment.
And not only that, but parroting itself is a pattern of reasoning, a personal judgment, which has the form of “X is true because some authority A says that it is true”.
A very primitive pattern of reasoning but still a pattern of reasoning that many use, and in fact, most of us use in certain situations.
There is, quite simply, no such a thing as “what is true regardless of what one thinks is true”.

If you want to be better equipped when dealing with these people, at least in the defensive sense of the word, as in in order to become more resistant to their bullshit, then you need to have precision in your thoughts.
I understand that it’s nearly impossible to change their minds. The point is to make yourself resistant to their bullshit. The point is to protect yourself from being confused by their shenanigans.
And that means not engaging the question “does reality exist?” because the question is meaningless.
To engage would mean to accept its incorrect premises.
You go outside of it and you say “look, you are confused, you need to clarify your terms” and then if they reject to do so then you just disengage them.

Do not underestimate the power of subjective reasoning and the length people will go to protect their bubble-realities from popping. People do not want to live in the “real-reality”, which means definitively, stepping backward in time, back to the stone age, living in mud and straw huts, hunting with sticks and spears. Civilization and humanity have progressed a long way. Much of that “progression” of society and civilization means: building walled cities, endless protections and securities, police, hospitals, military, mass media propaganda, television, which all lead to the formulation of bubble-reality. People live entire lives within the walls, within the bubbles, since that is where the majority of human population congregates, and they do not “return to nature”. They don’t see, or acknowledge, where civilization came from, and thus cannot see where it’s going.

To talk about reality, while living “in your own”, confounds language and meaning. It’s a delusional tactic and represents sheltered minds. People who can only talk about reality, real-reality, existence, hypothetically and theoretically, not from experience, not practically, and not pragmatically.

Such people have no concept of “objectivity” or “existence”. To people living in bubble-realities, “objectivity” means “My bubble is realer, truer, better, superior than yours and therefore I deserve more attention”. And “Existence” means “the sum of all bubble-realities”. But neither of these are true. The bubbles have to be popped, in order for people to understand. What happens when you pop somebody’s bubble? The immediately start blowing another one.

How do bubble-realities come into existence?
We know it has to do with the difficulty of accepting real-reality.
But what exactly creates this difficulty?

And what exactly is bubble-reality?
Would you agree that bubble-reality refers to conclusions (regarding the unknown) that are a product of very specific pattern of reasoning?
A pattern of reasoning that starts with the conclusion and then looks for evidence that supports it while ignoring the evidence that contradicts it?
A pattern of reasoning, which strictly speaking is not a reasoning considering how unreasonable it is, where premises are dependent values and conclusions are independent values?
A pattern of reasoning often referred to as ad hoc rationalization and top-down thinking?

The question is: why do people “think” in this way?
What’s the reason?

You can say because their pattern of reasoning has degenerated . . . in other words, they no longer know – they forgot – how to think.
But is this a cause or a consequence?

I think that this kind of reasoning is a product of inertia.
It’s a product of habits that are too strong.
These habits then, due to their strength, lead to the degeneration of thought.

Let’s say you have some goal and you have some means you think would help you reach this goal.
Then one day you realize, thanks to your reason, that your means won’t work.
What do you do?
Do you accept this and then adjust accordingly?
Or do you deny it by ridiculing reality? by accusing it of being deceptive?
When you’re used to doing things certain way then it becomes difficult to break out of the pattern when it becomes necessary to do so.

Either way, this isn’t exactly the subject of the topic.
But I’m responding to your point because I want to show that it is the pattern of reasoning that is problematic and not whether you think there is reality or not.
That is a consequence.

Again, what there is are patterns of reasoning.
The concept of reality, in most cases, is meaningless.

Well, that is a good question to ponder. It’s always a good thing when someone comes along and puts a glitch into the situation, causes one to think more out of the box, so to speak.
But couldn’t we say that because we are speeding up so fast, when we run into that brick wall, which is also speeding up so fast at its own frequency, there is the illusion of solidity?

I’m not saying that it is built in stone, I mean, the thoughts/theory, but couldn’t it be as simple? Occam’s razor? Truth to tell, perhaps that perspective could be built in water and proven not to be the case with certain certainties.

It’s the product of sheltering, of living entire lives, multiple generations of kin and children, within a jail cell. Staying inside, not testing ideas against reality. The modern world encourages more sheltering and escapism. Mass media and propaganda have become very sophisticated and invasive, marketing, commercialism, a television screen in every home, in every room, on every wall. The world is selling you something, everybody. Movies, fantasies, the demand is real, and people are willing to pay for it.

It’s easy to live in one’s own mind: autism. It is difficult to become social, test ideas, argue for what you believe in, speak, listen, challenge, accept, deny. It is even more difficult to apply ideas directly. Attempt to change the world, and see how quickly you meet resistance. Try to chop down a tree with an ax. See how quickly you get tired. Laziness, indolence, gluttony, hedonism, pleasure seeking, are all core factors that create and recreate bubble-realities.

Bad habits are hard to break.

The types of ridicule you mention, invoke the recent, western political and ideological movements. Feminism, gay rights, liberalism in general, the election of Trump, basically there are a lot of delusions being confronted, many people for the first time, and they can’t handle it. They call it “micro-aggressions” for example, when the bubbles start bumping into each-other.

Just as the new world and frontier society dried up quickly in history, so too will the virtual realities and bubble spaces. Even those too are going to run out of room. Thus some bubbles merge together into bigger bubbles (social justice crusades, ideological, political conflicts), and others will be popped.

The question does reality exist may appear incredibly trivial but it serves a more fundamental purpose. Namely that one should never assume some
thing just because it appears to be self evident. Assumptions are not always accurate so need to be confirmed in order to establish their truth value

We know that some things exist, since we are inevitably in interaction with them, whether we want to be or not. Reality is just a name that we use to denote all of these things. I think you’re making this unnecessarily complicated.

This is true.
On the other side of THAT coin though, those same things which some are inevitably in interaction with, may not exist since they are delusions, hallucinations, et cetera.
Can these things still be thought of as real though they are only within the mind of some and probably have no * real* existence?

It’s important not to confuse “what’s difficult for me” with “what’s complicated”. What’s simple is often difficult to grasp for people who think that what’s complicated is easy to grasp.

There is nothing simple about AutSider’s statement that “we know that some things exist because we are inevitably in interaction with them”. One need only to ask him to define interaction to see this.

What there is – what can be observed – are observations and interpretations (or assumptions.)

Observations refer to what is known.
Assumptions refer to conclusions regarding what is unknown (perhaps never to be known.)

Observations are independent values.
This means that under no circumstances should their value change.

Assumptions are dependent values.
This means that their value is dependent on some other value.
This other value is that of observations.
Assumptions are generalizations of observations.

As our set of observations changes through time, ideally by acquiring new observations, so are our assumptions expected to reflect this change.

S57 has a point in that questions such as “does reality exist?” in many cases mean nothing other than “are assumptions independent or dependent values?”

Such questions are good questions because many people act as if, if not think that, assumptions are independent values.

There is no need to use the term “reality”.
There is even less need to affirm or deny that “reality exists”.

And I have to note that as of yet noone has defined these terms.

Existence is objective and does not require human consciousness, awareness, nor senses to exist. Before there were any humans, or if all humans died at once, then existence would continue existing forever. Existence is the infinite universe, beyond and before humanity, outside humanity. Existence does not bend to human willpower. Because from the “point of view” of existence, if there were such a thing, humans and all other organisms are at one within it. There is no separation, no mind-body duality. All things exist, always have, always will. Because the past does not and cannot change. Once a thing, an event happens, then it has happened for all time. That humans had existed once, means that humans exist for an eternity within the infinite universe.

Reality is the subjective perspective of a human being, “waking up” as consciousness, using evolved senses, awareness, and navigation as an autonomous organism. What one human calls “real” may not be “real” for another human being, therefore, reality is subjective and inter-subjective. The “greater reality” or “realest reality” would be, hypothetically, all the subjective realities merged together into one, a “god consciousness” so to speak. And that is what many Abrahamic and Judeo-Christian people mean by “God” as an omnipresent, omniscient entity. They mean, literally, all the human consciousnesses added together, the sum of all subjective realities.

There is no “objective reality”, unless you want to call it existence. Some humans want to tap into “objective reality” or “objective morality”, usually as a sneaky way to gain undue authority in life. People want to claim that “my reality is realer than yours”. But this is childish bickering and political plays, movements. People also, instinctively, try to suppress each other and suppress other people’s “realities”. Your “reality” is less important and significant than mine. Your “reality” should answer to my reality.

would it be a bubble reality or what I would call a pocket eternity?

How people interact, determines inter-subjective reality. Let’s say you have two people communicating from a long distance away via radio. Person A describes the environment and setting, then Person B describes a different environment and setting. Which is “realer”? Is reality dependent on who has superior senses, consciousness, intellect? Is reality dependent on language and communication, the ability to describe? Is the “reality” of a lesser animal, a pig, a bird, a fish, also a lesser reality? Is reality based on knowledge, if yes then how and why?

Reality is what is observed. Observations and interpretations exist within reality. People will talk a lot and lie a lot, pretending they don’t understand what interaction means.

Then as soon as you start interacting with them they demonstrate with their actions that they know very well what it means, and that the words they say are, simply, lies.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITgKLIWs5xY[/youtube]

Could the fag have made Bane’s hand go away by saying “you’re not interacting with me”?

Could he make Bane go away by saying “you don’t exist”, “you’re not real”, “reality doesn’t exist”, “reality isn’t real”, or whatever other demented nonsense cowards will come up with?

If you think that words should be connected not to reality, but to other words by infinitely defining things and never referring to reality, I say you’re a sheltered coward and your philosophy is as worthless as you.

That’s my final.

Observations (associated with Dionysus) are more fundamental than interpretations (associated with Apollo.)
Because of this, we often associate observations with “reality” while associating interpretations with “mind”.
We call the former concrete and the latter abstract.
This isn’t disputed.

If what you mean is that observations and interpretations are “what is observed” then I agree. I prefer the term “experienced” though because the term “observation” is too narrow. But that’s another story.

Understanding what interaction is intuitively is not the same as understanding what interaction is rationally.

For example, I can understand what computers are without understanding how they work.
Or I can understand what it means to move my limbs without understanding the underlying physics.
There’s a massive difference between the two.

What you’re doing here is you are evading defining the concept of interaction with the excuse that there is some kind of conspiracy taking place behind your back where I am intentionally or unintentionally lying to you about not knowing what interaction is.
As if I don’t know what interaction is . . . intuitively or rationally.

You’re being a paranoid retard.
Or maybe you’re just being a retard, I don’t know.
I do, however, sense some degree of paranoia.
Everyone must be conspiring against you.
The slightest suggestion – such as that the concept of reality makes no sense – appears very capable of triggering this fear in you.

I know relatively well what interaction is.
I know what it is intuitively and I know what it is rationally.
The question is: do you know what interaction is? Not intuitively but rationally. Do you? What is the degree of precision with which you understand the phenomenon of interaction? Pretty low, right?

So that’s what you find worrying . . .
The possibility that I am saying that there is a strong, perhaps even absolute, causal relation between what one says and what happens.
In other words, that I expect, or predict, that whenever someone says “I am eating” that they would immediately be fed.
Okay.

Here’s a little exercise for you.
Dig through my posts in this thread and take a note for every paragraph or sentence that makes you think that I am suggesting the above.
Then I am going to explain to you – yes, I am going to hand hold you – that in no way, shape or form am I saying any such thing.

Let’s have fun, okay?

Words are supposed to be connected to observations.
That’s what it means to define a word: to describe the sequence of events (or observations) it refers to.
That’s what I am asking you to do with the word “interaction”.
I want you to tell me what that word means i.e. I want you to describe to me the exact sequence of events it refers to.
Not just tell me “well, I know what it means [intuitively]”.
Lots of people will tell you that “I know what God is [intuitively]”.
Are you a mystic or a rational person?
What are you, AutSider?

My point – even though your attitude does not deserve my explanation – is that the concept of interaction exists only on the higher level of abstraction – on the level of interpretations. On the lowest level of abstraction, on the level of observations, there is no such a thing. There are only observations. There is only a sequence of observations (among them interpretations.)

Riječi su za pićke, pićke vole riječi, da ne znam govorit drko bi ti u usta jer sam veći.

Croatian language is very gay. Both written and spoken.
It’s piČke, moron, not piĆke.
Preference for soft consonants should tell you everything you need to know about a people . . .