Truth

>>17252381
>You can't prove reality is real

Prove that is true OP.

>>17252387
You can't prove this is not a dream. Also you can't prove dreams aren't real. even when lucid dreaming (being aware you are dreaming). you may think dreams aren't real and being aware you are in on you can convince yourself your dreaming . but the dream happened it "exists". but most consider dreams to be not real. reality has the same duality in question. so you can't prove it is real or isn't. same goes for most of the conspiracy theory's on the web. i've had sleep paralysis but cannot prove if it real or just my mind . i'm just looking for some truth Also trying to remind the X-philes that if you can't prove your b/s it's probably b/s. more accurately nothing can be proved so it's all b/s.

>>17252419
>you can't prove dreams aren't real.

So If I dream of a flying elephant made of ice cream THEN HOLY FUCK THERE REALLY ARE FLYING ELEPHANTS MADE OF ICE CREAM!!!!! No one can prove otherwise!!!!!!

File: ostre.jpg (58KB, 643x360px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 643x360px

If I punched OP repeatedly in the head no one could prove if it really happened or not!!

You know that you percieve.

>>17252437
I'll knock you out.

>>17252427
Well you have a memory of it. it exists in some form or another. dreams may be real, could be our soul in another dimension. but that's just a theory I cannot prove is real . but you cannot prove am I wrong. can you ? Same goes for reality I cannot prove it is real neither can I prove it is unreal.

>>17252381
You can't prove reality is real but you can sure experience it.
Keep on learning maybe you;ll gain the clarity of see it.

>>17252439
Good answer.

>>17252447
>I'll knock you out.

But you're not real. It's all a brain dream in a vat.

>>17252439
But if all you know is perception how you can prove what you perceive is real?

Dreams seem real at the time.

>>17252437
Good point you could prove it. As real in our reality(still you cannot prove or dis prove this reality's realness) so what else can /x/ prove?

>>17252459
kek

>>17252381
Word is a word that means word.

>>17252419
What if our dreams are just reminiscences or memories from another timeline or dimension ?

>>17252381
this thread is proof OP is fag

>>17252381
Define reality op. No point getting people to prove reality if you cannot even define the word.

File: Diogeneswin.jpg (173KB, 555x503px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 555x503px

Cogito ergo sum
I tink therefore I am

Be practical anons.

File: Brittney-Palmer-3.jpg (34KB, 428x642px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 428x642px

>>17252643
MOAR:

say for example we discover we're living in a hologram, by our standards that's not reality (why?)

say after we die, we go somewhere else, and assume that somewhere else is the actual reality (why?)

what distinguishes one reality from another in terms of legitimacy. what does reality mean?

In theory the only thing that can be proven is that each of us, as individuals, is "real" in the sense that we, as in our cognition, exists.
We can't prove that our cognition are ours and that we're not just a brain in a jar. We can't prove that anyone else is real and not just a figment of our imagination, so on and so forth.
Our best way to combat the nihilism that can occur from this realization is observation of action and consequence.
I had a period of time a few years ago where I was pretty sure I was in a coma, or a head in a jar, or something, so what I would do is randomly surf the tv or radio for news that was absolutely foreign to me, and then research in to it; It made me feel like there was a chance that things outside of my knowledge existed, and it made me feel better, or maybe it just occupied me enough that my psychosis had time to pass.

>>17252641
i have nothing to add so i'll be a fag: the post

File: idiot sandwich.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

I can prove that this thread is real dumb

>>17252381
The question I always ask people is, "Can you be surprised? Can and do things happen to you which you neither planned nor desired?" If the answer is yes, and it invariably is, then that should be all you need to ascertain the existence of both the self and something outside the self. How much more "reality" do you need?

>>17252676
>i have nothing to add so i'll be a fag: the post

i have nothing to add so i'll be a fag: the post

>>17252688
wow. you really got me there, anon. a real zinger.

none of you are real I am the single player.

proof: kill yourself.

ill gladly do it but I want euthanasia.

>>17252381
After I fried myself with DMT a few times, what if everyone now can only see in the 3rd dimension? Can only recognize it. Like when you use DMT you can see into other dimensions for a brief moment.

Woah

>>17252686
Using the subconscious as an example of things we know but don't perceive with our conscious thought, what reason do we have to suspect that any simulation we might live in isn't also compartmentalized from us to give the illusion of reality?

>>17252381
The frightening thing about knowledge is that it is always context-dependent

Luckily this reality at least appears to be very consistent

>>17252658
'Reality' means this perceptual experience in which we find ourselves. The experience existed before the word, the word describes the experience.

So yes, whatever this experience is, it's real.

>>17252725
But, I also think that this applies mainly to concrete knowledge, factoids (the application of patterns)

Understanding patterns themselves may still be context dependent but any pattern is interchangeable with itself, so if you know a pattern in one place you'll also know it in another

Language and definitions definitely muck the process up because you're infinitely dividing one whole thing into small, segregated conceptual microcosms

>>17252731
Calling it unreal can be a useful tool in making it become less real, though
Derealization/depersonalization can result

>>17252381
I believe that what you believe is true.
I believe that perception is auto-persuasion and that reality doesn't exist the way we perceive it if we are not here to perceive it this way.

File: arw9v.jpg (92KB, 550x825px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 550x825px

>>17252748
>I believe that what you believe is true.
I believe that what you believe is false

>>17252755
And then it is true in your reality, while it is unimportant in mine. Reality is subjective.

>>17252763
What if I believe that reality isn't subjective and that my reality supersedes your reality?

>>17252770
why would your reality supersede mine ?

>>17252748
>reality doesn't exist the way we perceive it if we are not here to perceive it this way
But my perception continues, albeit from a different point of view, so in a different way, but isn't 'reality' the arena in which we have our perceptual experiences and which persists whether we perceive it or not?

>>17252774
or mine yours ?

>>17252709
Compartmentalized by what and how? That would be a form of reality.

Where would the simulation come from? That would be a reality. A simulation, an illusion, a dream, etc. , they're all still "real" they're just distinct from what's perceived.

>>17252777
We have no proof that it still exists if we do not perceive it. If it does, then it might be in a state completely alien to what we know.
I am a firm believer that the "laws" of science are a commodity, and a great one, but that they are ultimately a product of the human mind, as are gods, demons, etc ...
And yet, while being human creations, both science and gods verify themselves, granted that you believe in them (this is also valid for science, physics, what have you)

>>17252743
It cannot be any less real than it is because 'reality' means reality whatever its nature.

>>17252777
>>17252800
or at least if it exists without us, it doesn't have the same assigned meaning (probably none) and what is imperceptible by a non sentient life-form theoreticaly wouldn't exist.

Anything we know is purely subjective to the way our human brain/senses interpret them.
We have no means of ultimately proving that everything is truly the way we say it is.

Every truth we know is simply human interpretation.

>>17252812
I find comfort in knowing that I'm not the only one. People look at me weird every time I bring it up.

>>17252812
How our human brains/senses interpret a thing is up to what composes the thing being interpreted and the nervous system interpreting

This doesn't mean that what we see isn't true, what it means is that what we see is only true in the context from which we see it. Everything we see has basis in objective reality, otherwise we wouldn't see it. The problem arises when we apply universality to what are very limited presentations of a phenomenon.

In other words, what we're really observing is an interaction between a "thing" and ourselves, and not the thing or ourselves themselves. We see and think in relationships. All of those relationships are true, or else they wouldn't happen, but they don't speak to every other possible relationship one object can have with the same object we are observing relative to ourselves.

>>17252800
>We have no proof that it still exists if we do not perceive it
but we can perceive it later and find it unchanged so it matters not.

>both science and gods verify themselves, granted that you believe in them
Nah man, science is a means of discerning the consistent parts of the perceived experience. The consistent parts of the system are consistent whether we believe in (or have even scientifically identified) them or not. Gravity was in effect before Newton described it.

>>17252861
>>17252861
>but we can perceive it later and find it unchanged so it matters not
agreed, but nothing matters ultimately

About gravity, things fell when they were dropped, gravity didn't exist

>>17252861
Science is simply a means of assigning terms and discovering new terms for things we don't know.
All are purely human interpretation and thought.
They may have existed before us, but we saw and set the rules as we fit.


The problem is, we have no way of proving we are correct. With our wording and view on things.
Even when our terms make the most sense to us.
There have always been things that end up defying the rules we've placed onto them.
Defying what we know as a species.

This where the questioning and the paranormal begins.

File: 1440685418316.jpg (126KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 480x608px

This pic may have been made as a joke, but it's damn true.

>>17252802
Right, and seeing reality as unreal can change its nature to the point where, from your perspective, it isn't real. If you decided to start calling every apple a pear and every pear an apple, every apple from your perspective -would become- a pear, and every pear from your perspective -would become- an apple. It doesn't change anything on the physical level, it's just a symbolic, cognitive trick. Not trying to imply that it would necessarily change objective reality, but what it can do is change perspective to the point where you end up observing objective reality from a totally different angle, making your previous point of view less "real" in the present than your present point of view (which is what is presently real)

>>17252930
>every apple from your perspective -would become- a pear, and every pear from your perspective -would become- an apple

And I'm talking about symbolically/semantically here, I doubt it would impact your actual perception of an apple/pear so that one switches with the other from a sensory perspective, but what you consider to be an eye a spanish person considers to be an ojo, right? Each requires a different set of characters to convey, possibly has their own segregated associations with other words, etc. Looking at the same thing in different ways.

>>17252930
>from your perspective
thats where we differ, I'm talking about objective reality and you're talking about perspective.

I'm not sure anyone ever actually disagrees on anything other than the meaning of words.

>>17252381
the real question is: why give a shit?

If I murder you, do you cease to exist in this reality? Let's try it out, since nothing is really real! XDDDDD

Fuck you OP, you are the cancer of the world. Why waste your time and energy postulating these stupid questions instead of just living? Whether this is "reality" or not doesn't matter. If it wasn't, it's not like you could change it and wake up from this supposed dream, or whatever you believe this existence may be

TL;DR op is retarded, just live your life

>>17252731
How do we know the experience existed before the word? We can't prove any of this. You're basically saying "I think therefore I am" which doesn't prove anything.

>>17252780
It doesn't matter where the simulation comes from, the creator of the simulation for all it knows is in the same position we are.

There's little point in a "false" reality if those inside it are able to poke holes in it using their feeble brains made of meat.

>>17253007
In my experience, spending time pondering this has helped me realize how reality being unimportant allows you to "just live".
For some, like me, this "waste of time and energy" is actually a libertaing process that allows to live better.
And also talking about this makes me kind of high on my own mind.

>>17253023
Or hologram meat.

>>17253023
>It doesn't matter where the simulation comes from, the creator of the simulation for all it knows is in the same position we are.
Because the creator of the simulation is the one experiencing it

>>17253007
>Why waste your time and energy postulating these stupid questions instead of just living?
First and foremost, postulating questions that you may think are stupid is a part of living. So OP is living either way, your definition of living seems arbitrary if I'm clear on it. Why waste your time and energy doing anything?

>Whether this is "reality" or not doesn't matter
To you. Your motivations may differ from OP's.

>If it wasn't, it's not like you could change it and wake up from this supposed dream
You can't prove a negative statement like this, because the proof would only lie in it having never been done before. You might be right, but you can't say for certain that you know you are, and asking questions is how one can get closer to knowing whether or not you/they are.

>>17253029
maybe, maybe not

>>17252655
>>17252670
>>17252812
Only rational posts ITT

What a lot of you people are failing to grasp is that reality is a purely subjective concept, i.e., there is no reasonable method of assigning objective qualities to corporal objects.

Of course, this makes proving the existence of the physical world extremely problematic. Unless, of course, you define "existence" in direct terms of "reality", giving both a subjective nature. As Berkeley would say, "To be is to be perceived".

You guys should really read up on Descartes and Berkeley if you want to learn more, they had some cool thoughts that give some possible answers to OP's question.

There may be as many realities as there are people on earth

>>17252381
Slap yourself. Hurt? Good, you fucking moron.

>>17252427
If dreams are somehow real, then yes. Wherever the dream took place, it would be real. Obviously not in the "conscious world" you live in everyday. anything you dream of technically did happen. Just not physically.

say you have a thought. But thoughts are just in your head so does it mean the thought wasn't real, or that it didn't happen? No... so think about it.

We're taught to think whatever is in our head isn't real. Because it's not physical. Nobody else experienced it but you.
>you literally experienced it though (technically)
maybe all I said was just crazy bs.
I have no idea what to make of it, but it'd be cool if there was something big and mystical behind everything, like our thoughts, dreams, hallucinations, etc etc.
But in this world it's all meaningless. Because each individuals thoughts are isolated to each single person. So none of it matters to anybody but you. You could have an extremely vivid dream of having sex with the celebrity of your dreams, and it'll feel like you actually experienced it. But nobody else cares? cuz it was a dream.
But to you it was a real experience (or at least felt like one)