i just came up with this tonight, so let me know what you think. it takes me a long time to come up with a statement that i can agree to be true, but i did tonight, so i'm pretty stoked. yeah...

1. reality = the totality of all things real.

2. in order to be real, a thing must have verifiable existence.

3. in order for its existence to be verified, a thing must be perceived.

4. according to 2. and 3., a thing must be perceived in order to be real.

5. therefore, reality = the sum of all things perceived.

I used a dictionary when I was first starting, but only to help clarify, because I believe that connotative definitions are more important here than lexical or even stipulative ones. I don't want this to turn into a meaningless "definition game", but I do try to remain as objective and consistent as possible with my definitions.

i guess it seems weird for me to say i'm being objective when this such a relativist statement to make, but i think you know what i mean. i'm not talking about normative ethics here, folks.

i just realized that deductive reasoning could also be used to verify a thing's existence, but only in the strictest sense of the word. in fact, i think it would be impractical to try and do so without a thorough understanding of logic.

just because you dont perceive something to be real doesnt necessarily mean that something isnt real

simply put, reality = existance

There is no reality, only perceptions.

tell that to photons... because whether i see them or not, they still traverse the universe.

You mean the whole "If a tree falls in the forest..." crap?

Exestensilists exist too you know

one persons reality, is another persons dream...

WAKE UP!

but, but, you're there! and you look really good in pink

the idea that photons exist is technically unproven... but we do perceive the interaction of photons with the world around us, making it reasonable to presume that they exist.

evan the brave,

I agree with the first two premisses of your argument, but you make a slight change in wording in premiss three that I disagree with.

In premiss two you use "verifiable" which implies possibility.

In premiss three you use "verified" which implies completion.

Using the stipulated definition, verifiable existence would mean possibility of being percieved.

I would rewrite you argument as such:

1. reality = the totality of all things real.

2. in order to be real, a thing must have verifiable existence.

3. in order for its existence to be verifiable, a thing must have the possibility of being perceived.

4. according to 2. and 3., a thing must have the possibility of being perceived in order to be real.

5. therefore, reality = the sum of all things possibly perceived.

i hate rewrites... and ill tell you why.

women = time * money

money is the root of all evil, money = evil^(1/2) or money^2 = evil

time = money

women = evil^2, therefore

women^(1/2) = evil, women are the root of all evil...

...

i hope my point on rewriting is clear.

you mind as well should have rewrote asd's post....again

i've denied concepts of reality and i believe if i deny one i deny them all. Sooo im currently forcing my unconscious mind to recognize itself.

i agree with you, asd, but i intended this as aworking model, not just a hypothetical one. therefore i don't feel that the difference between "verifiable" and "verified" would have any practical relevance. a thing's future verifiability would have no meaning because i cannot consciously perceive the future. i was trying to keep it simple, because it is so hard for me to find a model of reality that i can agree with. instead of rewriting, i think i'm just going to start over from scratch and try to figure out the relationship between reality, perception, and consciousness.

i would also say that a thing does not become real until it realizes its own potential of being perceived.

I don't believe that with the destruction of humanity or life that the stars and the planets will cease to be. Perception is a concept of thought not existance, not all things that exist can percieve. A rock does not percieve a human standing on it yet that human exists.

The human viewpoint should not be the starting point for a model of reality.

so if reality should not come from the minds of humanity, where else would reality come from?

Reality 'As it is' the understanding of what 'exists' to most is a measure of how much they know exists. The scientific concept of reality is anything that exists whether we are aware of it or not. There will always be things that exist that we will not know about but this is an uncomfortable thought as it means we can never be sure that some new threat won't emerge to kill us all.

Yet again this fear of the unknown is an emotional concept and not grounded in reality.

Existance = Everything that 'is'
whether we are aware of it or not.

hence a non-direct negation of the foundation of atheism.


except in war

I disagree. You had said connotative defintions are more important than lexical and stipulative ones when constructing such an argument, and I agree with you. Taking that into account, "verified" and "verifiable" are much different connotatively. Things with "verified existence" consists of all object that are percieved, excluding all objects not being percieved. Things with "verifiable existence" consists of all objects possibly percieved, excluding all objects not possibly percieved. The distinction is relevant because the set of all things possibly percieved is much, much larger and inclusive that the set of all things percieved.

But what if that thing subsequently is no longer being percieved? Is it then no longer real? If so, and reality is entirely contingent upon perception, is it safe to say you're a Subjectivist?