>An extension of the On Religion thread. I plan on using this as a new introduction to the paper I've talked about for a while, hence the "this conjecture" references.
>
>This draft is pretty rough and early in its stages, so any type of corrections or comments or criticisms or concerns are welcome.
>
>On Reality
>
>For starters, look around you.
>
>That is your conscious experience.
>
>You have an observation; you have a thought, or a theory; you have an emotional feeling, or a physical sensation; you have language and cultural laws and scientific laws.

>
>From within this consciousness, emerging out of your unique collection of observations and knowledge, there is a world.

If I say "that corvette is a cool car..." it could be that only in my own little world, it is a cool car.

But, if I say "that corvette has four wheels..." then this statement is either right or wrong.


>
>But human beings have long supposed, perhaps many even unknowingly, that beyond this subjective world is a world external to the one in our minds.
>
>So we have both an objective and a subjective world. One of the questions that might be worth asking is "which one is reality?"

A world in our imagination don't count. For example, I can say to you "the Effiel Tower is in Paris France" and be in the reality, even though I've never been to Paris France. I'd be even a bigger idiot if I didn't know that it's in Paris France.


But if I say "I saw a fluffy white rabbits building a time machine to travel the Universe", I'd be in LA LA land. :)

>
>To tackle this question thoroughly we need to assume that the words "exist", "existence", "real", "reality", and "something" are all refering to the same thing. Anything that is something is real, it exists; reality is made up of everything in existence.
>
>So back to the question. Is existence subjective or objective or both?


If it truly exist and it can be verified, it exist.


>
>It is common to assume that existence should be objective. After all, the subjective experience is merely an individual's personal and inaccurate view of the objective world. How could reality be flawed by perception?

Existence is objective only to those that have too much time on their hands.
:)


>
>But if it is true that existence is objective this also means that our observations of the world are not real; our feelings and emotions are only real in the sense that they are chemical reactions, and the unique way that we experience them is not real.

Getting hit by a 95 mph fastball is not objective, is it? The ball is real and the pain is real.

Crashing your car going 60 mph is not objective, is it? Or we wouldn't need insurance or doctors.


>
>Is that something I should agree with if my conscious experience seems pretty real to me?

Don't know. Are you a psychopath? ;)

>
>Also, consider the consequences of this decision on the existence of other things, such as knowledge. If something is objective, then human beings know nothing. On the other hand, if something is subjective, then human beings do know something, but its not absolute, which leaves reality somewhat fragile.


Sort of... Nothing in the world is forever, except time, that's for sure.


>
>Personally, I think that knowing something that is probably wrong is a more optimistic take than knowing nothing, if only because it allows something to evolve into something better.

Ok...


>
>Its important to realize that the word "real" is just a label. We invented it as a tool, and we should be using it in the way that it serves us best.

1 + 2 = 3. This is always real, isn't it?


>
>This conjecture applies the label real to our subjective worlds. What you see, what you feel; what seems real is real.

Like the great Flip Wilson said "... what you see is what you get...".