Does reality exist?

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 . . .

Listen to a Croat speaking:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6RhFScgL8k[/youtube]

Then listen to a Serb speaking:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GneHJEmoORg[/youtube]

Reality is relational, contextual.

“That’s a real mirage; a real illusion.”

Everything is real in some way.

Real is about utility, utility implies relational.

“Is a real”

and

“exists as”

are synonyms with different syntax.

Serbs are the niggers of Europe.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyV1BTelPhY[/youtube]

I hope this thread will not turn into another Balkan conflict.:confused:

Magnus…there is no need for that…

You’re right. There isn’t.

Yes reality exists. What the fuck kind of stupid question is that?

I don’t know. You tell me.
You are the smartest person in the room.
Right behind Fixed.

Right behind your mom.

Moja serbian krv kaže da te jebem! Hrvati su sranje, to je jasno.

That’s a very bad translation, Wendy. You just told him something you didn’t really want to tell him. What you said is “My Serbian blood instructs me to fuck you.” Never ever mess with Google translators.

The correct translation is:
“Moja srpska krv ti kaže da se nosiš u tri lepe pičke materine.”

Use the correct swearwords and you can never go wrong.

Someone please quote me because I’m on Wendy’s foe list so she can’t see this.

Wendy, Maggie wanted you to see this.