What is "real"?

Well..actually IMO that famous saying is backwards. It should be ” I am, therefore I think!” lol
If you don’t exist, there is no thought to be thunk, sooo, in “reality”, one cannot experience consciousness reality if one does not exist.
The world of form aside, “reality” is consciousness and nothing else.

reality exists whether we are there to observe it or not.

@Coloma Or is it?

@marinelife So reality is material or immaterial or both?

Reality is material although we can’t perceive all of it.

Reality is what was there before you got here, and what will remain after you leave.

@whiteliondreams Well…everything is subjective, dependent on who’s doing the thinking. lol
A billion different minds = a billion different realities. ;-)

Reality is what you make of it I’ve heard once from a stoner os was it from a Futurama episode?

If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Reality is what is, before we interpret it and corrupt it.

The reality perception shows us is a subjective illusion. It is like the Matrix, it is a story told to us at second or third hand which doesn’t mean it isn’t convincing. But some day, sooner or later, we will all swallow the blue pill.

@Lightlyseared Thank you Morpheus.

Nothing. We’re just ephemeral beings dreaming within a dream. And no, I’m not high

@Coloma
It can not be “I am, therefore I think.” A rock is, but it does not think.

Reality is what it is. What it is, we will never know exactly.

@whiteliondreams I would say, only you can answer this question. As others (and yourself) have suggested, that doesn’t mean you’re in control of reality.. it just means that you dictate what is real.

For example, my statement: You (whiteliondreams) are wearing purple, fuzzy shoes. Regardless of how many scientists’ signatures I have on a poll claiming that they believe this statement is true, your opinion on the matter is the only one you will consider accurate.

Likewise, if I say: @whiteliondreams‘s login name is all lowercase. Again, your opinion on the matters is the only one you will consider accurate.

There’s more I could say but that’ll do i hope. Just note that time plays a part in it. Somethings might be real tomorrow that aren’t real today.

What is real? Whatever @whiteliondreams has been persuaded to believe is real. Nothing else is.

There is a difference between reality and perceived reality. Reality is real, what we think is real is not, it is thought.

@Bill1939, if that were true, then I would think you could perhaps name something.. anything!.. that is untrue in Reality but which you happen to believe is true merely in Thought at present.

@ninjacolin
Colour. You may think the leaves on a tree are green, but colour is nothing more than an interpretation of wavelengths your brain constructs. Colour does not exist in nature.

@whiteliondreams “what makes your logic any more real in an argument…”

If you can disprove the Laws of thought, I’m all ears.

@whiteliondreams sorry…couldn’t help myself

@gorillapaws:I’m all ears. . Not in my reality.

@gailcalled lol.

Love is real

the statement “i think therefore i am” i think says that thought at least partly is what makes us “alive”
and perception is how you experience something
if you weren’t thinking, about the stuff around you, it would not seem to exist, to you

I think not! *poof

Only is is “real”.

First of all, “I think, therefore I am,” or “Cogito ergo sum,” is just one concept of existence… There are others. This phrase, put forward by Renee Descartes, has been reiterated by philosophers around the world… Each with their own perspectives and therefore their own “versions” of this reality. To be quite honest, you can never prove nor disprove the existence of anything but yourself… Which you can only truly prove to yourself.

If you had woke up this morning, with everything you’ve ever experienced having been replaced by what you currently remember as being everything that ever was… You would have no way of knowing it was so. Reality is transient, while remaining constant. Reality… Existence itself… Is a paradox. : ) Just my thoughts on it~

Okay, here are my thoughts on what’s real:
Reality is not real. It is fake. Only death is true. That’s why the meaning of life is to die. Our true beings are hidden inside shells (or bodies). Because only fake coexist with fake and real can only coexist with real.
You must live to be able to die. If only death is true, then that means you must live to die.
That is why the meaning of life is to die.

That is what I consider ‘real’ in this world. Death.

If life is only in our conscious minds then: “Life is only a dream with the imagination of ourselves”.
You can’t really tell what part of the dream is real. Or if it is real or not.

What @josie and @marinelife said.

@ninjacolin said: ” I would think you could perhaps name something.. anything!.. that is untrue in Reality but which you happen to believe is true merely in Thought at present.”

@ragingloli said: “Colour. You may think the leaves on a tree are green, but colour is nothing more than an interpretation of wavelengths your brain constructs. Colour does not exist in nature.”

At present, then, you believe colour is “nothing more than an interpretation of wavelengths.” You haven’t named something that you believe is true that isn’t true in reality. To do that you would have to be saying something like: “I believe my username is kungfucolin when in actuality my username is ninjacolin.” Which (i believe) is impossible to do unless you’re joking, lying, or acting.

It’s a truism: You don’t believe anything that you consider untrue/unreal.

What is “real”?

Mayonnaise

If reality is perception, then without perception, would reality exist or would we be unaware of its existence?
...But we haven’t established that reality is perception, and indeed, this conclusion seems unlikely at best, since exploration (or even shifting about) reveals previously un-perceived reality. My perceptions at the moment tell me that I am in a chair in a large, cool room that has a computer in it. This is not the whole of reality, even if it is all that I am sensing, and I know it because I’ve experienced the other rooms here and remember doing so. Were this not enough, there’s the matter of the other people who do other things, even when I’m not looking. This is especially important at work, where I count on things being done without my supervision and get tetchy if they are not.

@BBawlight You make a reasonable case that the purpose of life is death, but that does not really relate to reality.

Where do you get that the purpose of life is death? True that all living things die (though a certain species of jellyfish gives the Reaper a run for his money), but all living things live, too, and have business that they go about in the meantime – this is part of the definition of life, unless I am mistaken. There must be more to concluding that life is for death than looking at what all organisms do.

Let us grant your premise that death is, indeed, the only reality. Death necessitates life, so we can assume that life is real, too, or else there could be nothing to do the dying. Life must have a place to do its living, so space must be real or else there’s nowhere to be alive in. There’s stuff that the living do as part of being alive, mechanical stuff like eating and reproducing. Those things must be real, since they maintain the life that does the dying. Eating necessitates the existence of food, either organic or inorganic, both of which require the existence of other things, some quite complex indeed, which require their own support structures.
And life cannot come from death, so where did it come from? Surely that which causes the life that dies (and so is real) must also be real, for without it there is no living, and so no dying.

You speak of true selves hidden within our bodies; are these real, if death is the only reality?

Why can’t fake coexist with real? We do it all the time; for instance, I am holding in my head both true and false ideas at this very moment.

I don’t know about you, but on those rare occasions when I dream, I know, in situ that it’s not real, even if my glands haven’t gotten the memo.

I remember having a great realization about the answer to this question one time during my first time with mushrooms… I don’t really know how to explain what I arrived at… But I can tell you that I cried the saddest cry that I’ve ever experienced… And laughed harder than any other joke could make me. : )

@Nullo Exactly, but life can be an everlasting dream. While you are dreaming, do you always know that you are, in fact, dreaming? Some people are lucid some are not. Life cannot be recognized as life without a counterpart. So I will give you the idea that life and death are both real. I think you are mostly right. But here’s the catch, humans are not evolved to this particular state of thought yet. So we don’t know yet. Ideas can swarm around for centuries without anybody reaching one mutual idea, but without that certain evolution of the mind, our ideas will stay ideas.
What is ‘real’?
To me real is something that cannot yet be comprehended by the mind. But everyone has their own perception.

@BBawlight: Actually… Interesting fact: When you die, DMT is released in your brain, which is what causes “your life to flash before your eyes.” The effects of DMT are as though entering a dreamstate. Perhaps when you die, DMT is released in your brain, and you dream a whole life… At the end of which you die, DMT is released in your brain, and you dream a whole life… At the end of which you die, DMT is released in your brain, and you dream a whole life… At the end of which you die, DMT is released in your brain, and you dream a whole life… :3

When I was a child “The Velveteen Rabbit” was real.

@Kantieta That’s awesome! We are currently slowly dying, anyway. Now I can do whatever I want without real consequences! lol

@lloydbird When you say “Is” what do you mean exactly?

Clinton

@BBawlight
While you are dreaming, do you always know that you are, in fact, dreaming?
I always know that I’m dreaming. Not like a lucid dream (though I get those sometimes, too), but more like the dream is a low-budget movie that isn’t quite bad enough to turn off, so you watch it play out.

Life cannot be recognized as life without a counterpart.
Small children manage well enough, despite not yet knowing death. And there’s being awake and being asleep, for contrast within life.
You say that, “our true beings are hidden inside shells (or bodies);” are these immortal? If so, then what does that make Death? Is Death truth to you, or is it the revealer of truth?

humans are not evolved to this particular state of thought yet
that certain evolution of the mind
Could you please explain which state of thought that would be? I don’t think that it made it into your original post.

Why can’t reality be comprehended by the mind? Are you saying that there is more to reality than the senses can report on, or that we can comprehend?

IMO real is the agreement of many as to what is being experinced or sensed. If the majority concour then it is deemed to be so! Not my complete view, as many have different ideas about things, but we seem to agree on many things that are real we would not be able to post a message here if keyboards were not real

@Nullo No, I think I am living my dreams 99% of the time. Only very seldom do I preawaken and realize I am dreaming. I love dreams though, they take you to places only you can imagine.

@ninjacolin asked, ”... name something.. anything!.. that is untrue in Reality but which you happen to believe is true merely in Thought at present.” When my sister had her first psychotic break, she believed that she could understand what the birds outside her hospital window were saying to her. This does not answer your question, however, since it was not what I believed. Anything that I might think was true, I would believe was true in Reality, whether or not it was. Wouldn’t you agree?

Yes, I would have to agree. Which is why I don’t find the statement: “There is a difference between reality and perceived reality.” convincing. Rather I would say: There is a perceived difference between reality and perceived reality.

I presume that someone in your sister’s state would define bird-comprehension as, among other things, realistic. And if no other conscious mind existed to challenge that definition, then by definition she would be right since no one else is charged with the task of defining things. But typically, I know, we count all the rest of the humans on the planet in—peer review and all that—and then sure, democratically/statistically her definition of bird-comprehension is askew.

And in every individual’s mind perception is binding as the closest thing to reality. So, we just go with it.. But in the end, every decision “I” makes is an individual one. Which is why asking the perceived masses anything is itself going to be secondary in weight to your preconceived notions about reality. If I don’t give an answer you like, you won’t believe me. If I give one you do like, you believe me. The definition of reality is totally up to you, the individual.

That’s why I find that statement challenging to accept without further qualification. It begs the question a bit like: “says who?”

Take something simple like 1 + 1 = 2. Everyone agrees that this is true but is it true in reality? Or is it just a mathematical ideal that we impose on reality?

Scientists for nearly a century were certain that, like sound was propagated by air, light had to be propagated by an imperceptible substance they called aether. Later, evidence “proved” that light did not need a material for transmission. The reality they believed in did not exist in Reality. If one could perceive reality from God’s perspective, @ninjacolin, this would be Reality. However since we can only perceive reality from the limited perspective of a reality recreated within our minds, this reality could hardly be fully representative of Reality.

@Bill1939 Thank you.

Much earlier, ninjacolin said: “Just note that time plays a part in it.”

@Bill1939 said: ”Scientists for nearly a century were certain that, like sound was propagated by air, light had to be propagated by an imperceptible substance they called aether. Later, evidence “proved” that light did not need a material for transmission. The reality they believed in did not exist in Reality.”

Easy for you to say now, looking back into the past but at the time, there was no other way of seeing it. Without another explanation, Aether was exactly definable as realistic. Similarly, our current understandings of light could themselves one day be rethought and reexplained rendering our current understanding of “realistic” as “unrealistic”.. the future has that ability. But until such a time comes, what is to be defined as “real” must be our current set of beliefs. That is, there just isn’t anything else to label as “reality” besides our most current perceptions of things.

As a result, our present perceptions and the thing we define as “reality” are technically indistinguishable.

@Bill1939 said: “since we can only perceive reality from the limited perspective of a reality recreated within our minds, this reality could hardly be fully representative of Reality.”

Unfortunately, there exists no other options by which to define the term Reality besides our limited perspectives… Unless you wanted to say something like: Reality is that which will prove itself to be the case in the future, and reality (small r) is what we believe today. Would that suffice, @Bill1939?

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
—Philip K. Dick

The world is the way it is whether we know it or not and regardless of whether or not we’ve come up with adequate words to describe it. Even @King_Pariah‘s thesis describes a particular state of affairs that either does or does not obtain. Reality is all-encompassing, though, and not defined merely in terms of the bits most relevant or interesting to human beings. So even if we turn out to be figments of some imagination, there are still facts about that imagination that are part of reality. So reality is whatever happens to be the case—regardless of what anyone might think is the case. We might sometimes get it right, of course. Saying that reality is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks does not mean that reality must be something other than what anyone thinks. The point is just that reality does not depend on us getting it right.

By the way, the cogito argument does not say that thinking is why we exist. This is why, as I’ve explained to @Coloma before, the statement “I think; therefore, I am” is not backwards. The thinking is being used as proof of the existing because the existing comes before the thinking. Not all things that exist can think. Existing is a necessary condition for thinking, but thinking is not a necessary condition for existing. Thus “I think; therefore, I am.” Because existing is prior to thinking, anything that thinks must—a fortiori—exist. The reason that @Coloma gives for thinking the cogito is backwards is, in fact, precisely the reason why it is not backwards.

I think the question of what is real may be getting lost in semantics, @ninjacolin. I agree that the only reality we know is what we think we know. However, Reality will always be greater than the reality we know. The ancient Greek philosophers “knew” there were only four elements (earth, air, fire and water). This does not mean that the 117 distinct elements that at this time are known to exist did not exist then.

Meh, I wouldn’t say “lost” at all. I would say “thorough.” But I understand that sensation of fatigue.

My conclusion: The fact trail on what is real ends at the individual being the boss of the universe and all it’s subjective definitions and understandings. Any opinion on the matter is itself a subjective conclusion/assertion about the universe and ends up proving the point. It’s kinda like a trap of sorts. AKA., a truism.

What is real? What you think is real is real. Nothing else qualifies.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
—Philip K. Dick

A person who dies walking off a bridge thinking they can fly, dies confident that they could fly. At their death, along with their life, goes any potential for a changed opinion, a different understanding, an alternate reality. Unfortunate but apparently true.

“The point is just that reality does not depend on us getting it right.” – No, apparently it only depends on ME “getting it right”. :P

@ninjacolin Your reply seems to rest on a conflation of “it is true that S believes X” and “S’s belief that X is true.” The former says something about S (i.e., that he believes X); the latter says something about X (i.e., that it is true). That someone loses the ability to change their opinion in no way shows that their opinion was correct. The person who walks off a bridge confident that they could fly stops believing that—or anything else—when they die. What doesn’t go away is the fact that they couldn’t fly (and therefore died from the attempt). So the reality is that the person couldn’t fly despite their belief to the contrary.

If you believe that it is ever possible for someone to be incorrect—and you must think that insofar as you are disagreeing with others on this thread—then the thoroughly subjectivist view necessarily fails. We may be limited by and to our subjective opinions, but the possibility of those opinions being correct or incorrect requires there to be an independent reality for them to either reflect or fail to reflect. Yet if you believe that it is not possible for someone to be incorrect, then the throughly subjectivist view still fails because this would entail that everyone who rejects the thoroughly subjectivist view is correct in doing so.

Our brain’s capacity to simulate reality.

@mattbrowne That capacity is perhaps among the set of real things, but it can’t be an answer to the question of what is real (or what reality is) as it makes reference to a reality beyond itself of which it forms a simulation.

@SavoirFaire – My point is that we will never be able to find out what’s really out there, because we depend on our brains processing the input from our sensory organs which are perceiving our surrounding either directly or by using technical instruments. I’d call this a good approximation and it helps us survive. We can’t even be sure about the exact differences two people experience when observing “reality”. A proof that we are not part of a matrix program doesn’t exist. We will not know, unless there are some glitches in the software.

@mattbrowne Okay, but that point needs to be made in more than the six words you originally used. What you originally wrote was internally inconsistent. Your clarification, however, is a different matter. I’m not quite sure I agree with it—we may be able to deduce at least some of what’s really out there from what we know about ourselves, or perhaps transcendental arguments of the type Kant presented are available for various features of reality—but it is at least a respectable, defensible, and internally consistent position.

According to some physicists stuff only exists when it is being observed. see quantum theory for more info.

@Mr_Paradox Do you know of anyone who currently asserts such a thing? My understanding is that Schrödinger considered such an implication to be a reductio of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (as shown by his famous thought experiment about a cat in a box), and that Bohr replied to Schrödinger by insisting that the Copenhagen interpretation implied only that the existence of unobserved things is uncertain (though still subject to theorizing and assumptions). There may have been physicists in the first half of the century who believed that things only exist when they are observed, but I thought that notion had been replaced.

I can’t believe there are 60 answers to this. I am very impressed with everyones cooperation. You all provide spectacular insight and perspectives that I would never have known about in such a short period. I thank you all once more.

I wanted to mention that the other day I had one of those “deja vu” experiences of something I was going to say to my fiancee. I told her I was supposed to tell her something that I dreamt about, but in the dream I was in the same situation I was at that moment of telling her; however, in the dream, I was dreaming of the same situation. Sooooo messed up is the brain in fooling me thrice.

@SavoirFaire There are still some that believe this. I’m a little sceptical but it could be true

@Mr_Paradox In a world this large, you can find 50 examples of anything. What I am wondering, though, is whether you can name any credible physicist who holds an interpretation of quantum mechanics that says reality is observer dependent. I’m just curious about where this idea might be considered plausible.

The more I look at it, the more I feel certain I didn’t leave anything out, @SavoirFaire. But I’ll try rephrasing and see if this makes sense to you:

What you think is the “real” answer to @whiteliondreams’ question may seem different (to you) than mine.

At the exact same time, what I think is the “real” answer to his question may seem different (to me) than yours.

Neither you nor I think @Nullo‘s answer is the “real” answer.

So, what is the “real” answer? The “real” answer has certain properties:
1) It is unknown.

That’s about it really. What is real is unknown. End of story, almost..

What is really real may be unknown but what is believed to be real, however, is what is defined by the individual as “what is real” until new evidence coerces the individual to believe otherwise.

Voila: The individual is the ignorant boss of what is real.
AKA: What is real is what can be observed. Anything that can’t be observed simply isn’t something definable as real.

@ninjacolin your argument is abusing the term “what is real.” It is using it with one meaning in one premise and with a different meaning in another premise. This is called the equivocation logical fallacy.

Example from wikipedia:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

What are the two different uses you’re accusing me of?

@ninjacolin “what is real” in the objective sense, and “what is real” in the subjective sense.

No.. what I’m saying is there is no known objective sense to speak of except in the past.

@ninjacolin but you are making absolute claims, which implies an absolute, objective reality.

That’s not my fault. That’s just the way our limited laws of logic work.

@ninjacolin regardless of “fault” (philosophical arguments aren’t meant to be personal), it means that your argument is self-contradictory. Which makes it a tough sell.

It’s a bit like saying “everything I’ve ever said is a lie.” Which can never, ever be true.

lol, well it’s where the logic train ends in this case, I’m afraid. If there were any better conclusions available, I assure you, I would totally opt for them.

“Everything I’ve ever said is a lie” is a joke or a lie.
“Everything I believe is true is subjective” isn’t a joke or a lie. It’s reality to the best of our subjective understandings.

It confounds us, but it doesn’t fit into that category of things we consider “untrue.” As far as we can tell, it is real.

@ninjacolin & @gorillapaws Colins argument was subjective from the get-go. Claiming that reality is empirical is not evidential or objective. The other fact is that he was correct in stating differences in individual assumption and presumption. It is true simply by logic and not objectivity or subjectivity because neither are relevant.

@ninjacolin First, answers themselves cannot be real or unreal. Answers are correct or incorrect. We agree that what I think is the correct answer to the question may be different from what you think is the correct answer to the question. That does not entail, however, that there is no single correct answer. At best, it entails that we do not know what the correct answer.

This connects to what you say about the “real” answer (by which I take it you mean “correct answer,” since answers cannot be real or unreal). What the correct answer is may be unknown. I do not personally think it is. Just because you haven’t figured it out doesn’t mean I have not. Let’s just say that neither of us knows what the correct answer is, though. That would mean that its only known property is that it is unknown, but that would not mean that “it is unknown” is its only property simpliciter. To say otherwise would be to equivocate.

Moreover, you seem to equivocate between “what I take to be real” and “what I define to be real.” I take it that the chair on which I am sitting right now is real. What I define to be real, however, is anything that has certain properties. If I could be convinced that what I take to be a real chair did not have those properties, then I could be convinced that there is something wrong with what I take to be real without changing what I define to be real.

I may be the boss of what I take to be real—though I have my doubts, since I don’t remember deciding to believe that my chair is real—but that does not entail that I am the boss of what is real. The latter only follows from the former if we equivocate on “what I believe” and “what really is.” These things can come apart, as must be acknowledged by anyone who has ever changed their mind, and so your argument does not work.

@whiteliondreams said: “Claiming that reality is empirical is not evidential or objective”
Not sure if you’re disagreeing with me or not, but I just wanted to suggest:

Empirical studies/observations are used by the individual (or group) to determine what fits into the definition of reality.

@SavoirFaire said: ”...and so your argument does not work.” – Which argument?

@SavoirFaire said: “Let’s just say that neither of us knows what the correct answer is, though. That would mean that its only known property is that it is unknown, but that would not mean that “it is unknown” is its only property simpliciter.”

Disagree. It would mean exactly that. We have no other information on what is real besides that it is unknown. What other properties could you possibly suggest?

What is the difference between what you believe to be real and what really is?
The difference is unknowable in the present.

@SavoirFaire said: “I may be the boss of what I take to be real—though I have my doubts, since I don’t remember deciding to believe that my chair is real—but that does not entail that I am the boss of what is real”

As for your doubts: Well, I wouldn’t suggest that you were necessarily in control of what is real, just that you determine what is real. You are the mechanism for determining reality but you aren’t anymore in control of reality than a cog is in control of a massive machine.

Since “what is real” is subjectively decided upon in the present, the two cannot be distinguished in any given present moment. There is never a time when you can say: “I am currently wrong about whether or not I am wearing socks.” Rather you would say: “I was wrong about whether or not I was wearing socks.”

@SavoirFaire said: “The latter only follows from the former if we equivocate on “what I believe” and “what really is.” These things can come apart, as must be acknowledged by anyone who has ever changed their mind, and so your argument does not work.”

Across time, yes, these “can” come apart. I accept your theory about the future. Right now, however, in the present you can’t name one thing you’re completely wrong about. Tomorrow you can probably list all kinds of things you were wrong about yesterday, in the past.

But right now, right this instant, the only thing definable as real to you.. is whatever you happen to believe at this moment T. Yes, in the future you might perceive an “apartness” between what you believed to be real in that moment T and what you would now (T + x seconds) define as real but that apartness does not perceptibly exist in the present moment.

@whiteliondreams asked: “did you have to think to have been”

Technically, I would guess so. Being doesn’t seem to happen any other way but seemingly. Mind you, now that I’m here the universe also seems to have existed ahead of me and seems like it might go on after me. Still though, these are just my subjective conclusions. Can’t seem to escape them..

@whiteliondreams said: “I would like to know, what makes your logic any more real..”

Because my thoughts are mine and I’m the solipsist of the universe! :)

@ninjacolin:

“Which argument?”

The overall argument for subjectivism.

“Disagree. It would mean exactly that. We have no other information on what is real besides that it is unknown. What other properties could you possibly suggest?”

First, I disagree that we have no other information. I think that your global agnosticism is unwarranted in the first place. Even if I accepted it, however, it is a matter of basic logic that “I don’t know if X is true” does not entail “X is false.” Thus we cannot get from “I don’t know anything about reality except that it is unknown” to “nothing is true about reality except that it is unknown.” To argue this way is irrational, but to take part in a discussion (such as this one) is to accept reason as a way of evaluating arguments. Thus your argument cannot be accepted.

“What is the difference between what you believe to be real and what really is?”

Beliefs are propositions about states of affairs. Reality is the state of affairs about which beliefs are formed. My beliefs can be mistaken. Reality cannot be, however, as it is what it is—whatever it is. Indeed, it’s not even the kind of thing that can be true or false. Only statements about it are truth-apt. That’s the difference.

“The difference is unknowable in the present.”

No, it isn’t. I just explained it.

“As for your doubts: Well, I wouldn’t suggest that you were necessarily in control of what is real, just that you determine what is real. You are the mechanism for determining reality but you aren’t anymore in control of reality than a cog is in control of a massive machine. Since ‘what is real’ is subjectively decided upon in the present, the two cannot be distinguished in any given present moment.”

The last sentence here contradicts the previous two. Deciding is intentional in a way that determining is not. Regardless, what can or cannot be done in any given present moment is not the whole story. No one can build a rocket ship in any given present moment, but this does not mean that rocket ships cannot be built. Furthermore, beliefs are not decided on in single moments. They are the result of experience and deliberation over time. Thus the present moment seems doubly irrelevant.

“There is never a time when you can say: ‘I am currently wrong about whether or not I am wearing socks.’ Rather you would say: ‘I was wrong about whether or not I was wearing socks.’”

Yes, this is Moore’s paradox. That we cannot rationally assert X while simultaneously denying it or otherwise failing to adhere to the norms of assertion tells us that we cannot (rationally) have second order beliefs that deny the first order beliefs they are about. This does not tell us, however, that our first order beliefs cannot themselves be mistaken (and thus fail to reflect reality).

An important feature of this kind of sentence, after all, is that it is potentially true despite our inability to rationally assert it. I cannot rationally assert that I am currently mistaken about whether or not I am wearing socks; but I can, in fact, be currently mistaken about whether or not I am wearing socks. Thus there are no grand conclusions about epistemology to be drawn here.

“Across time, yes, these ‘can’ come apart. I accept your theory about the future. Right now, however, in the present you can’t name one thing you’re completely wrong about.”

As shown above, however, this is irrelevant. Moreover, I can presently doubt beliefs I hold even if I cannot simultaneously accept and reject them. That is, I can say “I believe X, but X might not be true.” This already shows a distinction between beliefs and facts at work.

… or so you believe anyway.

I’ve been answering the question “What is definable as real?” because it happens to be a fact that nothing else happens to ever be defined as real besides that which we subjectively and presently deduce/assert as such.

I said: “We have no other information on what is real besides that it is unknown. What other properties could you possibly suggest?””

You didn’t list any. And you can’t.. because (i believe) it’s impossible to. There are no extra properties to list or speak of about reality except what you happen to believe about it. It’s circular that way. Nothing we can do about it really. Sorry.

@SavoirFaire said: “Indeed, [reality is] not even the kind of thing that can be true or false. Only statements about [reality] are truth-apt.”

This is where we agree but I guess you don’t see how you are contradicting your contradiction against my point and I don’t know how to make it any clearer to a smart person like yourself. Reality has proven to be a subjective experience. 6 billion people on the planet and not all of them agree and worse, the smartest ones don’t even think they’re always right. “Reality” is what we think it is. It’s the whole reason why we can argue about a topic at all! “Reality” is not any more real than an opinion. It IS an opinion. There is nothing else to reality except our subjective experience of it. Really, we have 0 evidence to the contrary and at least our own lifetimes as evidence for it.

Now, yes, our subjective experience SEEMS to suggest that there is something more than just our opinions going on. Totally agree. I believe it too. But I’m into this philosophy mumbo-jumbo to explore technicalities and unfortunately those seeming-truths like that there is more to the world than what I believe to be true are themselves subjective opinions. It’s inescapable. To assert that “well, since it seems like reality is more than just in my head, it must be true” only proves my point:

What is real? Whatever you believe is real is the only thing definable as “real” until further notice. We cannot define anything else as real besides what we believe to be real. In fact, we don’t define anything else as real besides what we believe to be real. It’s just how things are. I don’t know how to be any more emphatic about this point. I’ve used bold as much as I’ve deemed reasonable.

If you’re asking what does God think is real.. well, you’d have to ask him ‘cause only he would know better than me. All I can tell you about reality is what I happen to believe about it. I trust you’re in the same boat as I am and that you’ve done no better than that throughout this discussion.

…
Odds and ends: (I tend to skip replying to criticisms when I feel they might deviate the conversation into irrelevant territory but I’ll just make a few comments so you know I’m not ignoring you and that I love you)

“Deciding is intentional” – Nah, intentional isn’t even intentional. Hard(est) determinist. No need to argue it in this thread, but just so you have more context for my position.

“I cannot rationally assert that I am currently mistaken about whether or not I am wearing socks; I can, in fact, be currently mistaken about whether or not I am wearing socks” – In the future, sure. In the present. Never. Someone else, sure! “They” can “be” mistaken in the present. Not “I”. That’s impossible. Hence, my concentration on “the individual” throughout the discussion.

“I can presently doubt beliefs I hold even if I cannot simultaneously accept and reject them. That is, I can say “I believe X, but X might not be true.” This already shows a distinction between beliefs and facts at work.” – X might not be true is itself an opinion. I can say: “I’m driving the wrong way” But really it always breaks down to: “I believe a better way is possible.”

You can also be presently “uncertain”: “I believe a better way is possible but I also believe I have no idea what that way is.”

But you can never be presently “wrong”: “I believe a better way is possible and I’m wrong about that.” Other people can be, however. That’s always great. And no, it isn’t a language trick either. It’s a matter of propositions and truth values.

“No one can build a rocket ship in any given present moment, but this does not mean that rocket ships cannot be built.” – Not the same thing. We aren’t discussing rocket ships. The subject (“reality”) has different properties than rocket ships.

one more:

@SavoirFaire said: “Even if I accepted it, however, it is a matter of basic logic that “I don’t know if X is true” does not entail “X is false.””

It means X is undefined. Hypothesized as True does not entail that X is true and it doesn’t mean X is false. X is undefined.

Chuangtse and Hueitse had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, “See how the small fish are darting about! That is the happiness of the fish.”

“You not being a fish yourself,” said Huei, “how can you know the happiness of the fish?”

“And you not being I,” retorted Chuangtse, “how can you know that I do not know?”

“If I, not being you, cannot know what you know,” urged Huei, “it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know the happiness of the fish.”

“Let us go back to your original question,” said Chuangtse. “You asked me how I knew the happiness of the fish. Your very question shows that you knew that I knew. I knew it from my own feelings on this bridge.”

One of my favourite quotations.