A slightly different slant on the “what is reality” question.

Instead of asking “What is reality”, I’d like to start with the question “Do we perceive reality?”

If we always perceive reality then it is a very simple thing to determine what is real and what is not –what we perceive is always real.

If we never perceive reality, then there is no practical difference between reality and imagination.

If we sometimes do and sometimes do not perceive reality, then how do we tell whether or not what we perceive is real? (I think this is what the debate, if any, will center around.)

ever since i quit taking acid I've been trying to figure that out

I gather from that you hold the "sometimes do and sometimes don't" view.

And your example brings up different way of asking the last question: Do we have to know what reality is before we can determine if what we perceive is real? If so, how could we do that without perceiving it?

there really is no reality, really. we each perceive reality differently from our own place in the universe.

I think perceptions will influence how someone sees something, but not always the reality of what they see. I mean, if we are all standing around looking at a rock, I'm pretty sure that everyone of sound mind will be seeing a rock.

However, I always found it interesting how witnesses to a crime can describe an event that they all witnessed very differently. So, I'm betting how fast an event occurs will have an impact on what you perceive as reality. But, that doesn't answer the question either. Because no matter how many different versions you get, there is still only one reality of what happened.

So, sometimes we do not perceive reality.

Thanks for actually answering one of the questions Ruth.

And that answer leads directly to the last question in the OP: How is that “one reality” it determined?

I think that may be closest to the truth.

Perception is subject to the biases of the interpreter. Most of what we know about perception is based on the response(s)of the perceiver.

If a specific event is staged, and two or more people observe the event we might judge their perception of reality. We could do this by several means - observing their behavior, interviewing them, and then following up with another interview is one way. From this we might determine if all the people involved were actually interpreting what they perceived in expected ways.

Of course this can not possibley determine if the person was actually perceiving reality, it could determine if the perception was interpreted on a level equal to the reality of the event.

Two or more people may see the same thing - that is reality but they will perceive it with the bias of individual interpretation.


Was the vehicle red (yes) (no, it was rust) Was the person well groomed (yes) (no he had broken glasses) Did the person provoke the attack (no) (yes,that bum was asking for a handout)

Perception; is not reality, it is the interpretation we give to events. How we respond to our perceptions is not directly related to reality, but to how we interpreted reality.

I find this particular statement to be quite interesting and I have a question for you.

Do we perceive imagination?

If we do perceive imagination, then how does imagination differ from anything else?

If we don't perceive imagination, then how do we know that we even have an imagination?

i think percieve reality through pain and suffering.

This statement says much better what I was trying to say.

As for how reality is determined? I guess that depends on why you need to know what the reality is. If you are building a rocketship and sending people up in it, you better be sure of the reality of what you've built.

However, I have had many experiences in my life that I know were real, but I would never be able to convince another person of them. So, they are my reality alone.

And, that's the long way of saying, "I don't know".

First of, I have to beg pardon for introducing the term “imaginary”. That word has connotations of “creation” that were not really intended. What I should have said was:

If we never perceive reality, then there is no practical difference between what is real and what is not real.

Now to answer your question…

Personally, I think that what we perceive is reality.

From my point of view, the fundamental difference between reality and non-reality is based entirely on agreement.

If we all agreed on something, we call it “real”. If no one agrees on it, then we say it’s “not real”.

That seems to be the general concensus. Basically that we “sometimes do and sometimes don’t” perceive reality.

Now there are at least a half dozen statements in there that imply, or explicitly state, that there is a difference between “reality” and “what we perceive”.

And that is exactly what the last question in the OP is directed at.

How do we determine whether or not what we perceive is real? What is the process or methodology we use to determine reality?

I think you actually did answer the question, although in a roundabout way. The implication is that if you were able to "convince another person", then it would be real.

There is also the final sentence which uses the phrase "my reality", implying that there is more than one reality. To some, that may seem to go off on a tangent (i.e. the "multiple realites" question). But I think the OP question is just as applicable. That is, if reality depends on being able to convince another person", then it is clear that multiple realities must exist, so what determines which reality is which?

Strangely enough, I actually agree with that. But it would take an awful lot to explain my logic.

Well, I actually do believe that there are many realities sort of moving along side by side. However, I think that there is one reality that we are all sharing here for the most part. I think your answer that stated it depends on the "ability to convince another person" is probably accurate. Which goes back to my original thought of all the people standing around the rock and agreeing it's a rock. Of course, while we are all standing there looking at that rock, someone in the group looks up and sees a chariot fly across the sky. It's real to them, but no one else saw it. Different reality.

Hmmm...this was good. Cleared some things up in my mind. Thanks for the thread.

My guess is that there are too many to name.

Since I believe there is one for every entity that is able to perceive, I would agree.

Another way of looking at it is this…

Since it is generally agreed that “we sometimes do and sometimes don’t” perceive reality, then there are only two ways to determine which is reality and which is not

1) Logic.
2) Alignement with other’s perceptions.

The interesting thing here is that “logic” is a complete fabrication. It is a made-up set of rules regarding differentiation, association and identification.

So determining reality through logic is nothing more than using a made-up set of rules to determine something that is ostensibly not made up. Which kinda defeats the purpose of logic in the first place.

In other words, using logic requires a premise. But the question then becomes “Is the premise ‘real’”? Which leads right back to the question of how do you determine if the premise is “real”? So logic cannot, in and of itself, lead to a determination of reality.

So the only thing left is “alignment with other’s perceptions”.

And that, as far as I can tell, is the basis for determing reality.

We simply take a poll of all the perceptions of all the people involved, calculate the most common perception, and call that “reality”.

Which essentially makes “reality” nothing more than “agreed upon perceptions”.

I cannot recall what philosopher has coined that phrase, but it means there are OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE realities -- the former is determined by the collective agreement, while the latter (i.e. Subjective) ones are opened to personal interpretations...
Or, as Redykeulous mentioned,

At the same time, precisely those Subjective realities do form the basis for Objective reality:
* IF EVERYBODY AGREE UPON A MATTER (for instance, UP is DOWN) then so shall be...

In other words, Our perception is formed by the collective agreement which determines What's real! (although, sometimes, a stroke of genious may redefine that!)
Thus, if we ever in doubt whether or not our perception is at fault, all we oughtta do is consult a phisician (or a lawyer)!

P.S. Contrary to you, I do not reject the subject mater of your thread! * * *