Are We Real?

[aitm]

The vast majority of us believe that what we and every other living thing whether tree, squirrel, paramecium or strawberry "experience" is real to us, while a few believe that what we "experience" is the product of something unknown because....er....that would make it SO much more interesting to a life that is relatively boring. Sing it with me gang...WE ARE FAMILY....ALL MY SISTERS BROTHERS AND ME.........WE ARE FAMILY!!! I GOT ..ER........whatever the fuck comes next.

[PickelledEggs]

I am real. God is not. That's all I need to know.

Yeah, but do you occasionally go a full day without putting on pants like some of us?

[Berati]

If you want a red pill you can have one, it's not as easy just popping a pill in real life though. You have to dedicate time and effort to mastering a skill which is referred to "Self Induced Out of Body Experiences". You may need to spend up to six months in disciplined practice to achieve this, but when you do, you can "take Neo out of the illusion" as you say and evaluate the experience from this other perspective. Of course no one can convince that this are not just hallucinations and tricks of the brain, only you can make that determination after having experienced it for yourself.

Wrong. Out of body experiences are very easy to test and the test would be very easily repeatable but no evidence is has ever been found. Also, out of body experiences are easily simulated by physiological, psychological and experimental conditions. The easiest way to induce it is through oxygen deprivation.

So if you want a Red Pill, you have just been offered one. Now do you want it bad enough to spend the next several months in disciplined practice of a complicated skill? That is a choice no one can make but you. But don't claim that you were never offered your Red Pill, just admit that you weren't willing to do what it takes to accept it.

Wrong. You yourself admit it could easily be a hallucination and yet you put it out as "proof" that our material body is the hallucination. 
Are you even trying to be reasonable??

To postulate the world is virtual does not contradict science, but rather engages its spirit of questioning. Science is a method of asking questions, not a set of reality assumptions. Scientists are entitled to ask if what could be, actually is so.

Yes but you claim those scientists and there apparatus are an illusion when it doesn't suit you and that is hypocrisy.
 

[Casparov]

Wrong. You yourself admit it could easily be a hallucination and yet you put it out as "proof" that our material body is the hallucination.

The fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independent material is the proof that your material body cannot produce mind. That's the scientific proof at least.

The philosophical proof is that you cannot doubt that your mind exists but you can absolutely doubt that external objective material exists. Therefore, you know that mind exists, but you do not know that objective material exists. To assert that objective material definitely does exist would be an assertion which requires proof.

If you are going to hold to the claim that we exist in an objective material universe realize that you are making a positive claim that requires proof. Provide proof of your positive claim please. I have already offered plenty of evidence that suggests we should doubt that your claim is true, yet you refuse do offer any evidence to support your claim about reality. You simply assert it as absolute undoubtable unquestionable Truth. (much like a religious person)

Yes but you claim those scientists and there apparatus are an illusion when it doesn't suit you and that is hypocrisy.

What you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that "nothing is real" I am just saying that the better explanation for our observations is a virtual reality produced by information processing. This conclusion can be arrived at without the assumption of Materialism. Science only requires information and an accepted research method with which to ask and answer questions about the information in question. Assuming Realism and Materialism are not a requirement of science.

[Moralnihilist]

The fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independent material is the proof that your material body cannot produce mind. That's the scientific proof at least.

The philosophical proof is that you cannot doubt that your mind exists but you can absolutely doubt that external objective material exists. Therefore, you know that mind exists, but you do not know that objective material exists. To assert that objective material definitely does exist would be an assertion which requires proof.

If you are going to hold to the claim that we exist in an objective material universe realize that you are making a positive claim that requires proof. Provide proof of your positive claim please. I have already offered plenty of evidence that suggests we should doubt that your claim is true, yet you refuse do offer any evidence to support your claim about reality. You simply assert it as absolute undoubtable unquestionable Truth. (much like a religious person)

What you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that "nothing is real" I am just saying that the better explanation for our observations is a virtual reality produced by information processing. This conclusion can be arrived at without the assumption of Materialism. Science only requires information and an accepted research method with which to ask and answer questions about the information in question. Assuming Realism and Materialism are not a requirement of science.

WOW so much wrong int this post I don't know if I should bother correcting you but what the hell Ive got nothing else to do right now:

Actually your "proof" is NOT in fact proof. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. Your claim is also unbacked by any REAL science.

But you want proof that the universe is material, I propose a test. You go outside and run in front of a speeding truck and will yourself to not be hurt or killed, if you are right nothing will happen, IF the universe is in fact a material one you will be splatted all over the trucks front grill and the road.

I'll wait....

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You have to dedicate time and effort to mastering a skill which is referred to "Self Induced Out of Body Experiences".

TIL acid trips disprove a material universe.

[Casparov]

But you want proof that the universe is material, I propose a test. You go outside and run in front of a speeding truck and will yourself to not be hurt or killed, if you are right nothing will happen, IF the universe is in fact a material one you will be splatted all over the trucks front grill and the road.

I'll wait....

So people in the matrix don't get killed by getting hit by trucks? Everybody in the matrix could just say, "Hey look, people that get hit by trucks get hurt or killed, therefore, this logically PROVES that we are not in the matrix."?? Your test would not effectively test whether we live in an objective or virtual reality.

"Either Materialism is true, or the laws of physics no longer apply," is a False Dichotomy. If this is the best counter-argument you can come up with then I am very very pleased.

From "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf:

Doesn’t common sense deny that the world which appears so real to us is a virtual reality? Philosophers like Plato have long recognized that the reality of reality is not provable. Bishop Berkeley’s solipsism argued that a tree falling in a wood will make no sound if no-one is there to hear it. Dr Johnson is said to have reacted to that idea the world is created by the mind by stubbing his toe on a stone and saying “I disprove it thus”. However VR theory does not claim that the world is unreal to its inhabitants, only that it is not objectively real.

To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unreal”, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.

A true test of the claim that we exist in an objective material reality would be to test if material objects exist independent of observation, to test if material objects obey the principles of Locality and Causality without exception. To test if space-time is continuous rather than discrete. To test if reality is directly correlated and indistinguishable from information. In fact if there were a single thing about reality that was uncalculable via information processing this would be undisputable proof that the universe could not virtual, and yet every thing about reality is calculable.

There is no proof POSSIBLE for the positive claim that we exist in an objective material universe (besides weak arguments like, "go kick a rock" or "go get hit by a bus" but these are not even good apologetics, not to even mention actual evidence or proof). And yet there is direct proof that Materialism is incompatible with modern Quantum experimentation and that every thing we ever observe about reality is consistent with a virtual reality model of the universe.

What have you to offer besides weak apologetics?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Casper, run for political office as a tea party darling. You use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing worth reading. Just think of the speeches you could give in Mississippi where everything you say would be gospel because not one thing you say makes a lick of sense.

[Casparov]

Why don't you try it and find out if they are not proof? Because you know damned well they are not mental in the world of reality, and only in your head by creating what you experience from an objective universe's data, like every other living thing reacts to. If the world is only mental then anything is possible, and it is obvious it isn't because not everything is possible. Can you walk on water? Can you put "your" hand through a wall? Even though everything is made of sub atomic particles that can do things that objective particles can't doesn't make them mental. They are still particles. Even light is made of particles called photons that have mass. Even space time is made of particles that make it bend from massive objects. Bite on a piece of tin foil and feel the individual electron particles go through your tongue. Or press on your eyes and see the individual photons makes light flashes you can see. Objective reality itself is proof it is materialistic and not mental, as is your physical body. "There are none so blind as those that refuse to see." Solitary

All of this is still true if the world is virtual instead of objective. Casparov

[Moralnihilist]

So people in the matrix don't get killed by getting hit by trucks? Everybody in the matrix could just say, "Hey look, people that get hit by trucks get hurt or killed, therefore, this logically PROVES that we are not in the matrix."?? Your test would not effectively test whether we live in an objective or virtual reality.

"Either Materialism is true, or the laws of physics no longer apply," is a False Dichotomy. If this is the best counter-argument you can come up with then I am very very pleased.

From "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf:

A true test of the claim that we exist in an objective material reality would be to test if material objects exist independent of observation, to test if material objects obey the principles of Locality and Causality without exception. To test if space-time is continuous rather than discrete. To test if reality is directly correlated and indistinguishable from information. In fact if there were a single thing about reality that was uncalculable via information processing this would be undisputable proof that the universe could not virtual, and yet every thing about reality is calculable.

There is no proof POSSIBLE for the positive claim that we exist in an objective material universe (besides weak arguments like, "go kick a rock" or "go get hit by a bus" but these are not even good apologetics, not to even mention actual evidence or proof). And yet there is direct proof that Materialism is incompatible with modern Quantum experimentation and that every thing we ever observe about reality is consistent with a virtual reality model of the universe.

What have you to offer besides weak apologetics?

Actually shithead I simply wanted you to get hit by a speeding car. Frankly you have yet to offer one microgram of evidence to suggest ANYTHING other than materialism as being a viable alternative. See shithead heres how science REALLY works, IF you want to prove something you must be able to test the theory. Now shit-for-brains, according to the matrix(movies, really this is your basis for this "theory"? REALLY??) if one is aware that the matrix is nothing more than a simulation one can adjust the "rules" of said matrix, so needledick since you claim that the world does not exist outside of your pathetic little mind, again I invite you to run in front of a speeding truck. Since the universe doesn't exist outside of your empty little head, and you are aware that it is a simulation, you should be able to reprogram the laws of reality to bend so that your precious little life won't end.

Or are you simply another braindead little fuckstain with no balls to prove what you are saying?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

What have you to offer besides weak apologetics?

Don't talk about weak apologetic when you've yet to offer a single shred of evidence for your own point of view. You can offer "disproofs" of what you call materialism until you're blue in the face, but you will not sway one single damned person here until you present a viable alternative accompanied by evidence.

[PickelledEggs]

If we're not real, all the craps and farts I logged in to the crap and fart thread was for nothing. Right? What is the point????

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Yes.

NEXT QUESTION!

[Berati]

The fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independent material is the proof that your material body cannot produce mind. That's the scientific proof at least.

It is not a fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independant material. That is your conjecture and nothing more. It has not been scientifically proven and I would appreciate if you stopped lying about that. It doesn't become scientifically proven just because you keep repeating the same lie over and over.

The philosophical proof is that you cannot doubt that your mind exists but you can absolutely doubt that external objective material exists. Therefore, you know that mind exists, but you do not know that objective material exists. To assert that objective material definitely does exist would be an assertion which requires proof.

We've already discussed this:

When referring to "I think therefore I am" you said " From there my only real next logical move is solipsism" and now you admit that you were wrong and that there are other logical assumptions. (In fact more logical than solipsism)
Materialism is in fact far far more logical than immaterialism. Why?

La Dolce Vita already pointed this out to you as follows:
"You do admit it "appears that way". That is all that count. If it appears a certain way then that's the most logical position to have. You need good reasons to deny something that clearly appears a certain way, and you do not."

Let me repeat what I've proven and that you continue to deny in vain... You have the burden of proof.  Just accept it and move on.

So once again, you have the burden of proof when claiming something is an illusion.

If you are going to hold to the claim that we exist in an objective material universe realize that you are making a positive claim that requires proof. Provide proof of your positive claim please.

If you are unable to pass your hand through what I claim is a solid material object... that is proof of its MATERIAL solidity. The proof of materialism is literally all around you.
If you claim that the solid material object is in fact "just an illusion"... YOU NOW HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR YOUR CLAIM OF ILLUSION.

I have already offered plenty of evidence that suggests we should doubt that your claim is true, yet you refuse do offer any evidence to support your claim about reality. You simply assert it as absolute undoubtable unquestionable Truth. (much like a religious person)

You have not offered any proof at all. You have only offered bold conjecture. Nothing more. I have offered proof. The experiment of passing your hand through a solid material object.
This is where your hypocrisy kicks in. You will now assert that this is not evidence because the illusion (which you just assume) is so compelling that we can't trust these "physical things" and yet, you offer up evidence from these same material things (like the apparatus used to test quantum) as proof that there are no physical things. It's hypocrisy whether you admit it or not.   

What you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that "nothing is real" I am just saying that the better explanation for our observations is a virtual reality produced by information processing. This conclusion can be arrived at without the assumption of Materialism. Science only requires information and an accepted research method with which to ask and answer questions about the information in question. Assuming Realism and Materialism are not a requirement of science.

Science is not philosophy. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The testing always involves material reality. That you really on interpretations of the results of these tests when it suits you and reject them out of hand when it doesn't is hypocrisy.
 

[Thomoose]

Do we exist? If the answer is yes (which it is), I say we are real.