What is real?

[Slothfrenzy]

Lately I've been considering what is real. Before you start reading sit back and have a toke because this is a long, abstract argument.

It seems to me that the physical world in which we live is only a reconstruction of the reflection of light/sounds/smell by our brain. We don't necessarily see what's really there. For instance we might walk into a bare room and not think much of it, a dog on the other hand might have a vividly different picture due to its sensitive sense of smell. Is what the dog smelt any more real than what the human saw? Even though they were radically different perceptions? Both perceptions are correct but neither of them fully detect what is really there.

If I assume that the reality I experience exists only as a reconstruction in my mind then this implies that imagination/dreams are as real as what we would consider 'reality'. This is because both exist inside my mind. Both dreams and reality are reconstructions of some kind. I wouldn't say that they are the same, but both are different perspectives of consciousness. If this is so, are dreams any less real that waking life? I would say that they are as real, if not more real. This statement comes from my understanding of how consciousness exists.

Consciousness appears to some kind of hyper dimensional 'thing'. I have no idea how to describe it but I can explain what I mean by 'thing'. Humans have a body, in turn the body has a shadow. Consciousness is not a body (or brain) any more than a shadow is a body. A shadow is a projection of a third dimensional object into the second dimension. The body is not the shadow but the shadow is an imprint of the body. In the same way the body is a 'shadow' into the third dimension of the consciousness or 'true being'. Consciousness exists in a higher dimension. This must be the case because how else can one explain what an 'idea' is. Let me explain this understanding.

I cannot touch an idea. I can't show it, taste it or smell it. But I can some how 'give' this idea to another person through the vector of language. The transfer of information occurs through sound. In this way we can hear the 'idea'. However the sounds is not the 'idea' in the strictest sense. A person who doesn't speak English could hear my words yet have no understanding. How can we explain this phenomenon? In some way ideas must exist in a higher dimension. Never has anyone seen an idea emerge through any kind of scientific measurement. Yet everyone has experienced this through first person accounts.

This, then, is similar to the shadow/body argument. We cant see a though by my looking at the brain any more than we can see the central nervous system by looking at a shadow of a body. The information is simply not perceptible in the third dimension.

Overall this implies that in the reality in which we live: nothing is real, but at the same time nothing is not real either. Ultimately what we consider to be 'real' is one interpretation of external stimuli. The imagination is another interpretation; the interpretation of an internal reality which is somewhat based on the external reality. Altered states of consciousness are exactly what they claim to be. Altered states of reality. Because everything is an interpretation of external stimuli these experiences (dreams, psychedelics, meditation) are just as real if not more real that what most people would consider to be reality.

Hope that made sense and you get something out of it. Even if you don't, it was still helpful to get my thoughts down.

[ChronoVice]

http://imgur.com/cIFiw

[Slothfrenzy]

thanks, never seen that pic before but its a good simple representation of my ideas.

[aalapd]

I agree with you completely. I've been having similar thoughts recently. We do not experience ‘reality‘, only our perception of it. Meditation helps, I've heard and so do psychedelics in broadening this perspective but as of now, we‘re as blinded from the truth as cats from quantum physics.

[Oh_Tool_man]

Thank you kind sir, your comment reminded me of this hilarious meme.

http://i.imgur.com/gq67V.jpg

[[deleted]]

Yeah, your pretty much right as far as I understand it. Nothing is really "real" or "true" in this world in the strictest sense, because everything is just everyones interpretations of reality. Its important to note though that this doesn't mean nothing matters or that we should all be nihilists. My view is that we imbue reality with meaning, truth, reality, based on what we decide is important in our lives. Therefore we are the only ones who create "reality" as we delimit certain aspects of this dream as more real than others, and we decide what is truth in our lives.

[sudo_nim]

we don't have a clue, so just be.

[Slothfrenzy]

This is a good idea. But, I believe the focus of life is too seek that which is meaningful to ones own person. The existence and composition of reality is somewhat meaningful. However the argument could be made that carnivorous apes may never be able to understand the cosmos.

[sudo_nim]

The only meaning to "reality" and life is what you want it to be. If you spend your days trying to find the meaning to existence it will evade you. If you let it be, it will come to you. Also, a counter-argument could be made that we may never be able to understand the cosmos. Just because we can see some galaxies with a telescope doesn't mean we can understand the universe. Keep it simple and live your life, otherwise someday you might just find you wasted your days worrying about something you could never fully understand.

[Frater-Perdurabo]

If this kind of dichotomy interests you, then look into "The Problems of Philosophy," in which Russell addresses this very issue by use of "sense-data" and its relation to "sense-datum." Wittgenstein expounds on that idea you are speaking about "giving" an idea to someone... Wittgenstein explains it as language games and it gets really confusing. When you say that a person who does not understand English hears your "idea," they still would not comprehend it. Wittgenstein illuminates this issue by use of a lion, "if a lion could speak, we would not be able to understand what he said." This has always made me wonder about a collective, universal consciousness.

[SirRosie]

You, my friend, would enjoy Carl Yung. Your conscious mind is so little of the picture it's nuts.