Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IMO they're "real" in the sense that you're experiencing them, phenomenologically.
I would say that if we see a "real" tree, even then we're still experiencing a mental impression of that tree, and not the tree itself.Sure, but that's getting away from my prior point in that any hallucinations experienced are not representative of real, physical objects.
If I see a real tree, for example, I can independently verify its physical presence in the world.
If I hallucinate a tree, I can't.
-_- I just stated that the signals in the brain WERE real, and that in the case of an hallucination, do not convey messages that represent reality.I suppose it depends on your definition of "real" and "reality".
On the phenomenological level of reality, whatever I feel or experience in the mind is indeed "real" and "reality", as the experience more often than not affects my thoughts, perceptions, feelings, drives, motivations, etc. ... even if those things experienced do not exist on the physical level of reality.
I would say that if we see a "real" tree, even then we're still experiencing a mental impression of that tree, and not the tree itself.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out the existence of different levels of reality.-_- I just stated that the signals in the brain WERE real, and that in the case of an hallucination, do not convey messages that represent reality.
Any lasting influence a hallucination has on a person that doesn't demand that they fail to realize that they were hallucinating is pointless, and any that is the result of considering the hallucination to represent reality is more likely to do harm than not.
Consider this: if you had a stroke that made you forget cacti exist, would cacti cease to exist? No. But, if that same stroke removed all memories of any dream or hallucination you had ever had, would they cease to exist? Yes, because they only existed as ideas, and since they weren't based in actual events that occurred, there's no way for them to come into existence again.
Anything for which its existence depends solely upon the memories of those currently alive isn't real to me. Quantum physics could be rediscovered. Math could be made anew. But your personal hallucinations die with you and anyone else you tell them to. This is because YOU were their physical form. The connections in your brain that made that memory were the only aspect of it that was real.
It's not a different level at all, your brain is as much physical matter as the ground beneath your feet. All of your memories are physical, regardless as to whether it's of a hallucination or viewing existing matter. And they crumble into dust along with you after you die. The memory can be real while the event isn't, and a hallucinated event never becomes real just because you have a memory of it. The memory and the event are not one and the same.I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out the existence of different levels of reality.
I can't say I know that for sure, as I take an approach close to solipsism.It's not a different level at all, your brain is as much physical matter as the ground beneath your feet. All of your memories are physical, regardless as to whether it's of a hallucination or viewing existing matter. And they crumble into dust along with you after you die. The memory can be real while the event isn't, and a hallucinated event never becomes real just because you have a memory of it. The memory and the event are not one and the same.
I don't disagree with you either. Either way, we're still directly experiencing a mental object.
Since things we might consider to be "objective" (even things like "independent lines of evidence") are, IMO, still experienced subjectively, is there really anything truly "objective"?Sure. My prior point is simply due to the fact it's possible to hallucinate the appearance of a physical object is why I don't rank personal "experience" above independent lines of evidence.
-_- by that philosophy, nothing you are perceiving is real, just your memories of it. It's not the same as what you've been implying.I can't say I know that for sure, as I take an approach close to solipsism.
Since things we might consider to be "objective" (even things like "independent lines of evidence") are, IMO, still experienced subjectively, is there really anything truly "objective"?
Tbh, I don't know if my belief system is rational / reasonable, but it doesn't matter to me. It is what it is. And actually, I think I'm being intellectually honest with myself to admit that I don't want to believe some of the stuff I mentioned in the OP.Owkay.
So… do you consider that to be a rational / reasonable position to find yourself in?
Isn't this like... literally being intellectually dishonest with yourself?
I see it as finding lost keys. If you lost your keys, you search for them. But after you've found them you don't keep searching. I've found what I believe to be true, so I don't need to keep searching. In fact, I'm not even interested in searching further.It is typically true for fundamentalist theists. And to an extent, theists in general.
It's like Fox Mulder so famously said: "I want to believe".
Me? No. I want to believe as many true things as possible and the least false things possible. I care about what is actually true. I care about being justified in my beliefs. I can like or dislike reality, sure. But why would you consider that a factor in if you should be believing something or not? That makes no sense to me.
What good could possible come from not accepting something that can be 100% proven, because you don't "like" it?
How so? It is my perspective that the closest we can come to "reality" is the on the phenomenological level. Note that I'm not claiming that other things, e.g. the physical, aren't real, but we must ultimately grapple with the phenomenological at the core of all things.-_- by that philosophy, nothing you are perceiving is real, just your memories of it. It's not the same as what you've been implying.
By the definition of what solipsism is. That's the view that the only thing you can know to exist is yourself.How so? It is my perspective that the closest we can come to "reality" is the on the phenomenological level. Note that I'm not claiming that other things, e.g. the physical, aren't real, but we must ultimately grapple with the phenomenological at the core of all things.
Unfortunately this falls under the typical "you'll believe when you believe" circular reasoning that usually results in not having any other demonstrative evidence to support the existence of something.
It isn't a matter of your believing when you believe, the fact of the matter is, you are requiring a sign before you will even consider believing, that just ain't goin to happen.
I look at it like this: if there is an all-powerful supernatural deity that desires my belief/worship/whatever, then they will already know what it will take to convince me of their existence. Because otherwise they either don't actively desire my belief and/or they simply don't exist in the first place.
On top of that I find Christian theology fundamentally illogical. In fact, there are quite a number of religions I would consider over Christianity if I happened to be shopping for a new belief system. But I'm not, having already arrived at a philosophical viewpoint that I am comfortable with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?