Which one is right /lit/?

>>8954360
Both are wrong
Even though anything in the world might have a material basis, this does not mean these things are JUST matter. That's because the ultimate point of reference of the universe (at least when talking about what matters) is the individual. Not the 'dead' matter. Everything the individual experiences is real, and value is assigned to the world by the individual.

File: huh.jpg (34KB, 394x394px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 394x394px

>>8955253
JUST matter?

>>8955253
So how is Mickey wrong?

>>8955305
I don't know, but it's not really relevant.

>>8955318
Because I do think the scientific method is viable enough to show us that the material substructure of our brain exists of chemicals. But the fact that they are chemicals does not mean that the emotions they might form are valueless. If we assign value to them they have value.

>>8954360
The latter doesn't disprove or discredit the former and is, basically, irrelevant to the first statement.

File: 5b86866756819a3ce9da2cdeb9a051a1.jpg (35KB, 525x453px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 525x453px

>>8954360
>Which one is right /lit/?
both are right

>>8954360
Why can't they both be right?

>>8955253
But anon, nothing is real and nothing is the same from one moment to the next and everyone has a different perception/experience with each individual object of matter. It is always in flux. Nothing is real.

>>8955642
I disagree, everything that you experience is real.

>>8955651
What makes you so sure?

>>8955679
it's just a matter of definition no

>>8955683
Is that definition definitive universal truth and not just one of construct?

>>8955691
I'm not sure, I'm not very well versed in philosophy.

But to me it does seem that when having to chose between 'nothing is real' and 'my experiences are real' the latter seems more convincing and you cannot escape making assumptions. Even if the source of my experiences is not what I think it is, for example, if my whole life has been a simulation, these (perhaps disingenuous) experiences still form my reality.

>>8955705
Your experiences are hyper-real but they're also fleeting and non-existent

>>8955705
Your experience alone is not real, it is comprised of material, perception, sensations, mental formations, and finally all of these make up the conscious and the condition of those previously mentioned and consciousness are forever changing so your experience is a culmination of these aggregates are in a constant state of flux as is your recollection of your perceived and conscious state of experience. What appears real to you, appears real in a different condition to someone else, both are, however, experiencing the hyper-real where your real is more real than real.

This thread is stupid. Real is basically an honorific term, call shit 'real' or 'not real', whatever, man. You can't deny that there are atoms and that they're made out of protons, electrons, and neutrons unless you're brain-damaged in some way.

Just because chemicals in our brain tell us that we have chemicals in our brain (a massive oversimplification) hardly means we can't trust them to do so.

>>8955710
Which is it, anon? Are they fleeting, or do they not exist?

>>8955726
I guess I expounded upon my idea here, >>8955722 though I'd be more than happy to admit that I am wrong if you can show me

>>8955722
I didn't say my experiences and another person's experiences coincide. Two people have two realities. The things that are mutually apprehensible are mostly the things that belong in the scientific domain.

Also what the hell is hyper-real

>>8955745
But are realities anything other than constructs?

>>8955753
I think not
If I would discard philosophy I would still experience life
you cannot deny these experiences exist. It is irrelevant how they are formed.

>>8955732
What you're saying doesn't make that much sense, to be frank. As I said, 'real' is basically an honorific term, so it isn't very coherent to talk about 'your' real being 'more real than real'.

You're right that one's recollection of one's own experience isn't always accurate, but I'm not sure what bearing this has on the nature of reality. There are ways of checking on the accuracy of your experience (e.g. by running experiments replicating the conditions of the experience as closely as you can). There's a limit to the depth and detail of these checks in practice, but I don't see why that would make their results any less 'real'.

You're also right that events look different to different observers, but it's typically not too hard figure out what actually went down by comparing your experiences of the event, and carefully examining possible causes of the discrepancies. It's only hard when the experiences in question are extremely subtle or complicated and involve emotional or aesthetic concerns, but I think that's due more to the highly specific nature of the experience in question rather than a property of 'reality' as a whole.

>>8955642
Flux is reality. Its the one constant condition of reality. You, your consciousness, is part of this flux.
That you are flux therefore nothing is real is a non-sequitur.

>>8955759
>you cannot deny these experiences exist. It is irrelevant how they are formed.

Exactly, on that I will agree with you.

>>8955769
True, but is the way we take in the world around us real in the most common and accepted use of the term?

File: sp00ked.png (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>8954360
NOTHING IS REAL

EVERYTHING IS SPOOKS