Now then, before I start this, knowing full well that many of you more scientific minds will attempt to answer it, you should probabaly understand something. This question cannot be answered nor should it, and this thread is simply for the intellectual enjoyment of its readers. If you do attempt to answer the question, you'll simply be ruining it for everyone else who might enjoy this trip into confusion and utter dumbfoundedness. Let us begin.



What is real? It seems such a simple question right? But when one really begins to think about the concept, it starts to spiral into madness. That question is one of the most confusing questions of all time. It rivals the Meaning of Life and the Creation of the Universe as one of the most impossible querys of all time. Before I explain the workings of this question, I'll try to show you some of basics for why its so confusing.

The Human mind is one of the most mysterious and intruiging things on Earth. To this day, science can still not explain the very thing that makes it all possible. However, we do know several things about the how the brain intakes and translates information. Our brain hates it when we are confronted with something we do not understand, or when facts or important details are left out. For example, have any of you ever seen the Blair Witch Project? Its almost a 99% chance you walked out of the theater thinking that was one of the worst movies you ever saw. Why? Because the end of the film is the Climax, or point where all the action comes together. The end of the film leaves the veiwers with nothing, they do not know if the legend is real or not because the movie simply ends before we can find out. This is why you hated it. Your brain cannot stand the notion that the story was not completed, your very mind is fighting the concept that that is the end of the story. Now that we understand why we hate questions we cannot answer, and why we strive to answer them, let us begin with the meat and potatoes of this thread.



What is real? How do you know if something is real or not? Can you prove it? Can you give me a viable definition of what real is without going against the opinions or beliefs of others? How do you know you are real? Youve never seen your entire self...you've seen pictures and reflections, but you've never actually seen yourself. If your not real, who's to say that your friends and family arn't real, that your workplace or school isn't real. If none of this is real, how do know whats after "death". Is whats after death real, or is that fake too? Is there an all powerfl being at the end of the tunnel? Are there many all powerful beings? Perhaps there is nothing? Even if one of these paths is true, how do you know thats real? Maybe we're just being imagined by someone? Maybe they arn't real either, and their being imagined and so on and so on. Is money real? What worth does it have? Its jus metal and paper right? nd if your not real, how do you know money is real, which means it has no worth...right. Maybe all of this is real, but even if it is, you can't prove it. There is no scientific test or formula that can prove if something is real or not. If you are real, then why cant the characters you read about in book, or play in games be real to? In short...what is real?





I hope you enjoyed that, and once again, please DO NOT TRY TO ANSWER THIS! It is not meant to be answered or understood, it is meant to be enjoyed and pondered quietly.

42



















not the right question but still =D

Actually... I hated Blair Witch because it was a bad movie. I love Firefly, and very little of that story was ever resolved.

Your obviously part of that 1%

Do you really expect me to not pontificate at the opportunity?

The inquiry into the nature of reality is a big one. Countless minds have dedicated the whole of their existence to that very discourse. Ultimately I think what is considered real is in a constant state of flux. If we look back, throughout our history, what has been defined as real has utterly transformed itself. Let's take a look at the view of the anatomy, for example (forgive the feminist diatribe that is about to ensue).

For many centuries the female anatomy was actually seen as inverted male anatomy, with horns. Up until recently this was reflected in anatomical drawings. This is not something that was inferred, but actually observed through autopsy of the body. The contemporary eye does not see this inversion, nor does it see horns. We have two medical observations that differ completely and totally. Which eye is seeing the truth (obviously I am inclined to agree with the contemporary view)? (that wasn't so painful now was it?)

My point is that reality is a construct. We are informed by culture, both intimate culture and world culture. In many ways we are blind to see anything outside of what we have been constructed to see. There is a discussion regarding the ages of man. The first age was the archaic, where everyday was the first day. Following that was the age of magic, man sought to be free from the mercy of nature and sought to exert will onto the world. This birth the age of legend, mythologies and empires were born in this age. Finally we have the contemporary age, the age of technology. The mind of each age cannot reconcile with the of the past ages, we have been constructed to see and think to differently. This discourse argues that when the age of legends clashed with the age of technology the power of the age of legends could not affect the age of technology simply because that power was not real to the mind of the technology age.

By looking back merely a century or two we can see a wholly different construct of reality. What we may now see as myth and superstition was at one point reality. In many ways belief defines reality. People with strong spirituality are proven to heal faster. Is the belief that Spirit will heal the body actually making that a reality that affects the body.

Ultimately you are right, that question is unanswerable. Still I hold to my argument, reality is a construct.

Then the purpose of this thread is for you to offer your view, but not to allow that of others?

Kinda goes against what I understand as the definition of a "thread" ...

But I'll abide by the rules and say thus:

1 -- The question IS answerable

2 -- The answer would differ from person to person, based on expoerience and/or education (or lack thereof)

3 -- Babaloo, you yourself just proved this theory ...

Nietzsche > Descartes

I think that pretty well sums it up.

Good pernt, Addy !!

But add Schroedinger to that mix ...

But let's not forget about Plato, Lacan, and Derrida.
Though the list of contributors to this discourse is long, as the question of reality is inquired in nearly every form of discourse.

*places a cat in a box behind closed doors*

I appreciate your attempts to make sense of this. Nimu did what I was looking for. She answered it anyway.

Admiral... I fail to see how I answered it. I am simply stating that no answer is truley correct. You cannot say your answer is the truth, because to someone else, it isnt. Therefore, yes Admiral, it CAN be answered, but NO, it CANNOT be answered correctly.

I think you wanted to talk to Wyrmsting. He's the one with the Wyrm under his name. I have the witch-king with a lightsaber

Truth isn't subjective. If there's a difference between what I say is real and what someone else says is real, one of us is wrong. Maybe both. Saying nonsense about how everyone is right might make people feel better, but it advances knowledge and understanding not at all. There very much IS a right answer. We may not know what it is, but it's out there, and no one will ever figure it out by pretending there isn't one.

Therefore you are how you would say "wrong".

I appreciate your enthusiam in trying to prove that I am indeed a moron, but I assure you, truth is only a perception. You may say there is no god, and another may say there is. Surley you cannot think that person doe not think their idea is the true one. Stop thinking so literally and look at it from a different aspect. Its all based on opinion, regardless of what you say, you just won't let your mind wander past what you have been told is the truth. Expand your thinking and maybe we can have a pleasant agreement instead of a ridiculous argument in which neither side will prevail.

Oh...and Admiral...sorry...Witch King with Lightsaber...awesome...

...but your opinion does not define reality. I'm not trying to make you look like a moron, but if you think the only way to have a pleasant conversation is to agree, then you're wrong. If one person believes in a god, and another person believes in a nother god, and a third person says there are no gods of any kind at all, at least one of them has to be wrong. More likely two. No matter how honestly and completely they all think they are right, it's simply impossible for all three to have the "truth."

You can let your mind wander and pretend everyone is always right about everything if you like, but I'll take understanding and knowledge, myself.

By the way, you might want to do a quick Google search for "Logical Fallacies" before trying to continue a discussion of either logic or philosophy. You might particularly want to pay attention to the entries for Straw Man, Begging the Question, and False Dichotomy.You're also teetering on the edge of Argument ad Hominem, but so am I as a general rule... just thought I'd warn you before you step over that edge.