Plato and other philosophers often suggest that reality is not what it seems.
(This is to say, that we are deceived in our perception of reality).

What is the likelihood of this?

Do you personally believe sense-perception is a fairly accurate representation of reality or not?

i think we are creating our reality... there is no "out there" when we are speaking of reality... there is only our minds that create our reality. whatever limitations are present in our minds also exsist in "reality" because we have placed them there. Sense perception is affected by what we are told certain things are supposed to be by outside sources, be it media other people around us, etc. in my opinion it is accurate according to what everyone else percieves but is it truly accurate to what reality is?

Perception is rather fun theory tossed out there amongst wannabe-philosophers, but in truth it is a highly flawed theory.

The idea behind perception has many roots in other philosophies, or rather many other philosophies have tid bits of the argument of perception in them . . . after all, the most basic of all philosophies (empiricism) and its fundamental aspect (knowledge learned via sensory intake) requires perception itself . . . (not only a posteriori [knowledge gained from an outside source: such as sensory intake], but a priori [knowledge gained from within oneself . . . thought] as well).

Anywho . . . being that perception is a rather informative and popular tool for all manner of philosophies, it must be done so very carefully. There are many counter-arguments on hand.

1. Empircism: as it is, empirical observations are in themselves highly flawed. For, empirically speaking, what one sees when one looks to the sky, is an orange circle of light that rises from the east, and sets in the west. Well, that orange circle of light is a giagantic ball of gas which we orbit around and blah, blah, blah. Now, it took other empirical observations (but with the aid of scientific instruments) to on cover the truth of this orange cirlce, but nevertheless, empiricism has its flaws.

2. Hallucinations: purely put, tricks of the mind. Chemical induced hallucinations are in themselves a reality, but not how the realists would like to argue.

3. Distorted memory / the amputee: Often times, the past as we can recall it is sometimes distorted. You remember doing this or that, but the time and place is forgotten. Such as the case with those who have lost an arm or a leg, who often complain that the phantom limb is itching.

4. Mirage: or plainly put, tricks of nature. Often times, mother nature seems to be what it is not. That's not a colorful arc you're looking at, it's just rain droplets and blah, blah, blah.


So, yes, tread lightly when arguing perception . . . I could discuss the subject some more, but I must be off to work.

We can't say all limitations are societal, or all kinds of wierd stuff would happen around babies; adults would see that the things they'd been told were impossible were possible, and there wouldn't be order anymore.

I think questioning physical existence as more than a mental exercise is silly.

well if all kinds of weird stuff happened around babies adults wouldn't even notice because of the limits that they HAVE placed on themselves.
and your right. people would see that the things they have been told were impossible were in fact possible, but i don't think everything would be chaos because your reality is just that. YOUR reality.

whilst my reality would be exactly that... it doesn't affect anyone outside of myself. it only affects me because i'm the one perceiving it and creating it...

the observer affects the observed

So what about using quantum mechanics to aid in that arguement?

So now you're wanting to bring in a physical science to speak on behalf of a metaphysical sub-science . . . please, enlighten me. (I'm not mockin' you, I'm actually quite curious.)

yes. quantum theory actually helps explain the nature of reality quite well. Or "metaphysical sub-science" if you will. that's what quantum mechanics does. It is a precise mathematical description of the behavior of fundamental particles.

as i edit this i will clarify that classical physics sufficiently explains large segments of the observable world but it does not describe adequetly all observable outcomes, thats where quantum mechanics comes in

i'm still learning myself, but this much i understand so far.

k wtf? you get me all excited about a fun discussion and then you ( six ) don't stick around for it? *pouting*

how?

what does the nature of reality tell us about reality itself?

reality changes according to how we wish to observe it

That's a bald-faced lie. Reality imposes upon our will far more than the other way round.

not according to quantum mechanics.. that's the kicker about "reality" . fundamental properties of the physical world are not fixed.
Reality is not fixed or a thing that our perceptions are affected by. It is a quantum field of possibilities that we affect. I suppose it would depend on your paradigm.

Oh, christ, shut up. Seriously. Spending five mintes reading Hawking and throwing big words you just learned but aren't sure about the meaning of like hotcakes isn't the way to go in life, trust me on this.

Disproving determinism in no way translates directly into, "Everything is exactly what we perceive it to be!" Not only is there no evidence for such theories, but they're self contradictory, because most people think reality is fixed.

Hmm...first off, I went to my folks for a few days...secondly, I still don't understand your relig--I mean, science babble :-)

Perhaps a new approach of what you're saying would help clarify...Flippy Panda Man seems to have some comprehension, but me...I uh, no.

I don't recall reading anything yet about determinism.. and i havn't read anything by Hawking, i don't even know who that is. all i'm saying here is i believe that we create our reality subconciously and if people were more aware of that and in control of that then they could make manifest a reality that they truly want rather than one that they feel they have no control over. Quantum mechanics helps explain that theory.

Don't know who Stephen Hawking is?! HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?!

I've heard the name but i don't know who he is or what he does