Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: What is real?, A philosophical question inspired by MVR< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Mar. 07 2011, 18:24

Ugo, I sent you an email about this about a week ago - I don't know whether you received it. Seriously, this question has no hope of being addressed anywhere near adequately in the sort of space we have here. You're really asking for the entire philosophy of ontology (one of the three main areas of philosophy, the other two being epistemology and ethics) to be summarized and resolved in a few paragraphs. If anyone is really interested in this question, consider taking a degree in philosophy. I'm not being facetious. Typically, if you asked this question of a philosopher, the reply would be "Explain to me exactly what you mean by 'real'". Nevertheless, as a starter, if you want to read a paper that deals explicitly with virtual worlds like Tr3s Lunas, check out Jerry Fodor's "Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology". You'll find copious references to it on the web.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Milamber Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2263
Joined: Feb. 2010
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 00:21

Question.
Is it possible to escape reality (and I'm not referring to stimulants or meditation/astral travel or a blow to the head).

Playing Video games is a form of escape, like a movie or book.

But is anything virtual a reality at all or just entertainment ?
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 00:51

Quote (Milamber @ Mar. 08 2011, 00:21)
Question.
Is it possible to escape reality (and I'm not referring to stimulants or meditation/astral travel or a blow to the head).

Playing Video games is a form of escape, like a movie or book.

But is anything virtual a reality at all or just entertainment ?

The academic reply would probably be that "reality" is being used in a different sense in your first and third sentences. In the first, it's being used in the true fundamental sense of "being", whereas in the third it's being used more to mean "non-frivolous". To segue between the two different senses is called a "fallacy of equivocation".

Another problem, with the first sentence, is that the word "escape" is typically used to describe states of affairs within reality: the man escaped the war zone; the woman escaped the burning house, etc. To apply the word "escape" to reality itself commits what's called a "category mistake": you can put the words together but they don't really make sense. It's a bit like saying "All Tuesdays are purple", only more so.

That's the incredibly frustrating thing about philosophy. It's not so much finding the answers as realising how difficult it is to phrase the questions meaningfully in the first place
Back to top
Profile PM 
Milamber Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2263
Joined: Feb. 2010
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 01:01

Fair enough got that.

How would an academic then phrase the first question?



Oh and how DO you escape reality I still need an answer, stop dodging

 :D

And just so you know last Tuesday was purple smartee pants :)
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 01:18

Quote (Milamber @ Mar. 08 2011, 01:01)
Fair enough got that.

How would an academic then phrase the first question?



Oh and how DO you escape reality I still need an answer, stop dodging

 :D

And just so you know last Tuesday was purple smartee pants :)

A first stab might be: "A space-time that bears no ordering relation to our space-time continuum and from which an individual receives all sensory information."  "No ordering relation" means you can't relate the distances in the virtual world to those in our own world - as in Tr3s Lunas. To be a true escape, though, the question of how you got in the virtual world would have to be meaningless: as soon as you knew you were in a dream machine, for example, you'd have a connection to the world you'd left, and it wouldn't be a true escape.

I hope you're not seeking to escape, Cam? May I suggest a cup of tea?  :laugh:
Back to top
Profile PM 
Milamber Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2263
Joined: Feb. 2010
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 01:26

Thanks for that (Seriously) :) , Now where's my Medicare card ... Same time next week ...See you then:) .

Are you sure you've never read J.L Chalker?

No not trying to escape... I just had that thought reading through the various reply's here .
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 04:41

Quote (Ugo @ Mar. 07 2011, 22:38)
My question was to give a definition of what is real - of what is reality made of. And none of you, so far, actually answered it.

But that, as nightspore rightly says, is because although the question looks answerable enough, we can't make any headway until we all agree on the meaning of the word 'real'. And philosophers don't agree about that.

The question is thousands of years old, but we might take a couple of examples to illustrate the problem:

1. We'd have to consider the notion, surprisingly widely held today, that the only reliable information we have about the nature of reality comes through scientific enquiry. If you think that's correct, then the answer to your question presumably lies in that direction (though many people wouldn't accept the basic premise).

2. Given the problem about defining words adequately, there are those who would say that the very question contains a fundamental misconception; that our primary concern is with unraveling the meaning of the language we use. (But there are those who'd say that our relation with 'reality' extends beyond language.)

One problem is that invariably these approaches exclude alternative views. Scientism, by its very nature, doesn't acknowledge the reality of other forms of acquiring knowledge about the world. The philosopher of language thinks it's absurd to discuss any possible 'meaning' conveyed by any means other than through language.

The upshot is that one can do no more than read the various philosophers who've tackled these issues, and take your pick. Or reserve judgement. Or say 'a plague on all their houses', and get back to playing Tr3s Lunas.
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 07:17

Quote (Alan D @ Mar. 08 2011, 04:41)
Or say 'a plague on all their houses', and get back to playing Tr3s Lunas.

Sounds good to me!  :laugh:
Back to top
Profile PM 
HR lover Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: Sep. 2010
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 08:20

DON'T SAY THE NEVERENDING STORY IS A SHITTY 80S MOVIE.
Sorry for my crudeness but this pisses me off (no offence). The Neverending story is probably one of the best movies ever made.


--------------
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 08:20

Thanks to everybody for your answers - in particular thanks to Alan, I think that his answer above (and the one at the very start of this thread) are a perfect summation of the whole matter, so, Alan, thanks a lot. ;)

@ Daniel/nightspore: I didn't get your email about this. Thanks for your reply and for your suggestion, I shall definitely check it out. However, all I was asking for was a very basic definition. If there isn't one (and, judging from everything I've read here, apparently there isn't one), I will just content myself with the fact that there isn't one. :)

@ HR lover: not if you read the book. The movie is absolutely nothing like the book - IMHO it's very very inferior to the book.


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Milamber Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2263
Joined: Feb. 2010
Posted: Mar. 09 2011, 01:54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfWDilXZQEo&feature=related

For Ugo :D  :D  :laugh:
Back to top
Profile PM 
30 replies since Feb. 27 2011, 07:11 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net