Can Perceived Reality be differentiate from Actual Reality?
In all likely, the fact that I am typing this message means that this is actual realtiy? However, how do I truly know that this is not perceived reality, for example displayed in the Matrix or Shutter Island?
Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore, I am."
Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence. "The simple meaning of the phrase is that if one is skeptical of existence, that is in and of itself proof that he does exist."
Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been unreliable. So Descartes determines that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted. Descartes defines "thought" (cogitatio) as "what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it". Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which he is immediately conscious.
Can this statement confirm that I am living in reality rather than a dream world?
YES
Side Score: 8
|
 |
NO
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
I think the right question is to ask whether or not actual reality is perceived reality. In other words, can there be an actual reality that isn't perceived? The answer to the question as it stands is, of coarse. Perceived reality is always different from "actual" reality. Everything that you see, hear, feel, taste, smell is a construct of your mind through your limited ability to sense the actual reality. Everything that you know of exists inside of your mind, as a product of your mind, with help from sensory input. You are already in a matrix. Side: yes
1
point
In some crazy matrix sense, no. It could sure, but there is absolutely no point in wasting an ounce of braincell considering such a view and it should be nothing more than a thought exercises for teenagers first learning logic. Adults should abandon these types of silly theories. That said though, if you look out a 3rd story window, or even if you are in an airplane, we perceive the world is flat, when in fact it is round. This type of perceived v reality discrepancy happens all the time. Side: yes
2
points
It could sure, but there is absolutely no point in wasting an ounce of braincell considering such a view and it should be nothing more than a thought exercises for teenagers first learning logic. Adults should abandon these types of silly theories. It is these very kinds of phenomenological issues that help us think about and create languages to describe our experiences with the world - and ultimately how accurate our frameworks and languages are. Even "adults" have to deal with these questions, or people like Locke, Berkley, Hume and Kant wouldn't have to discuss them, so as to arrive at a practical science. Psychologists and Psychiatrists have also utilized these kinds of philosophic questions in attacking the problem of disclosure (and consequently self-discovery) in therapy or ways of doing research to make theories more accurate. They pose real and practical, ongoing problems that people are working through to the benefit of others. That said though, if you look out a 3rd story window, or even if you are in an airplane, we perceive the world is flat, when in fact it is round. Both are merely descriptions of our observations, and each observation is accurate, relying on our perception of a phenomenon at relative distances or loci. At a certain distance, the world appears to be flat. At a greater distance, it appears to be spherical. At even greater distances, it's a pale, blue dot (to cite Carl Sagan). Are you going to assert that only one is correct, and for what reason? Side: No
phenomenological issues that help us think about and create languages to describe our experiences with the world - and ultimately how accurate our frameworks and languages are I would need an example of this. I fail to see how wondering whether one is really a lizard dreaming about an elephant dreaming about a human and that everything is an illusion would help describe one's experiences. Psychologists and Psychiatrists have also utilized these kinds of philosophic questions in attacking the problem of disclosure (and consequently self-discovery) in therapy or ways of doing research to make theories more accurate Perhaps I can see how while sitting on a psychiatrist's couch, this type of thing may be helpful to an individual with supressed memories or the like, but I don't understand what type of theories would be more accurate. It just seems like asking someone to use their imagination to me. Both are merely descriptions of our observations, and each observation is accurate, relying on our perception of a phenomenon at relative distances or loci This is precisely it, they are not both accurate. It is impossible for both to be accurate and endlessly annoying that anyone would say that the earth must be flat because that is what it looks like. One thing cannot be two contradicting things at once. It is an example of perception not being reality (yes until you get far enough away) still though, it is one thing looking like something it is not. It is not the case of something being two contradicting things at the same time. Are you going to assert that only one is correct, and for what reason? YES! This IS the point. lmao the point I'm trying to make is that two grown people should not be spending their time arguing whether or why the earth cannot be both flat and round at the same time! I refuse to be sucked further into that rabbit hole Side: rabbit hole
When we dream, there are occurences of awareness, or lucidity. This is when, in some degree, you realize you are dreaming. This can be as simple as finding a fault within your dream, or as complex as altering your dream to your desire. Reality, as I have experienced it, has given me no such leadway. Side: yes
1
point
I firmly respect Descartes vision of actual reality, I think, therefore, I am; therefore, if someone is unable to understand the difference between perceived reality and actual reality, then more than likely, they are mentally unstable, which is a major factor in some violent crimes. Side: yes
|
2
points
I think that I think, therefore I think that I am, I think. This disproves that point. How do I actually know that I am thinking? What if I am the only person that can think, and all other people are 'hallucinations' of sorts? I read about a Yale philosophy professor who theorized that we are all 'living in the matrix', that is, we are all characters (AI) in a computer program written by those whom we think of as The Future. Side: No
In Psychology there are two theories that are used to explain an individual or social groups perception of reality, which are perceived and actual reality. Most peoples perceived reality is different to how another person believes their reality is. Actual reality could be where a social group, such as a government, has decided that they will portray society to be as they want it to be perceived by other individuals or a community. The media has a huge influence on an individuals or groups perception of actual reality and perceived reality. Mainly secondary socialisation rather than primary (childhood) socialisation can often play an important role because the belief system, such as religion, can also establish how others perceive reality to be which is considered important in the socialisation process by many, but mainly occurs during secondary (adulthood) socialisation. Side: yes
|
