The Fine Line Between Reality and Imaginary

BidenPresident

Verified User
But a recent study I ran together with metacognition expert Steve Fleming at University College London’s Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, where I am a senior research fellow, affirms that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think.

As it turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think. If our imagination is vivid enough, we will think it is real and we use our imagination to create our perception of reality, which means, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/the-fine-line-between-reality-and-imaginary
 
Descartes' hope was probably not achievable - that we can have absolute and indubitable certain knowlege about observable reality in and of itself.

I am perfectly comfortable with a pragmatic posture of scientific realism: We can achieve knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.


scientific realism: Another idea that comes in several flavors, scientific realism has at its core the claims that scientific theories aim to correctly depict both unobservable and observable reality and that, in general at least, adopting a scientific theory involves believing what it says about all of reality. Realism (roughly) asserts that scientific theories can and sometimes do provide an accurate picture of reality, including unobservable reality.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?163038-Philosophy-of-science&p=4276989#post4276989
 
But a recent study I ran together with metacognition expert Steve Fleming at University College London’s Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, where I am a senior research fellow, affirms that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think.

As it turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think. If our imagination is vivid enough, we will think it is real and we use our imagination to create our perception of reality, which means, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/the-fine-line-between-reality-and-imaginary

In other words you have to work at it. The very first thing one must do if they are determined to see reality is to stop lying.
 
Descartes' hope was probably not achievable - that we can have absolute and indubitable certain knowlege about observable reality in and of itself.

I am perfectly comfortable with a pragmatic posture of scientific realism: We can achieve knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.

If there is no objective reality then the pragmatists are deluded.
 
Descartes' hope was probably not achievable - that we can have absolute and indubitable certain knowlege about observable reality in and of itself.

Descartes thought the imagination was just the mind reconfiguring of normal sense perception. He is not see imagination as fundamental in producing reality.
 
Descartes thought the imagination was just the mind reconfiguring of normal sense perception. He is not see imagination as fundamental in producing reality.

Concerning the topic of reality, Descartes' project was to begin by doubting anything is true, and then using reason to try to determine what knowlege we can be indubitably 100 percent certain in. He generally favored reason over empircism as providing access to knowlege and truth. . Descartes famously thought that he could prove the existence of God through reason.

Modern thought, especially scientific-thinking has pretty much abandoned Descartes' project of a quest for certain, indubitable truth. The pragmatic, realist tradition widely held today is that our knowlege is provisional, and always will be, but we can nonetheless acquire knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.
 
If there is no objective reality then the pragmatists are deluded.

I do not think the pragmatists and realists are saying there is no objective reality.

That was George Barklay's contention in the 18th century, but nobody today buys into Barkley's program.

We may never have direct access to truth and ultimate reality, but a realist approach posits that we can approximate objective reality.
 
Concerning the topic of reality, Descartes' project was to begin by doubting anything is true, and then using reason to try to determine what knowlege we can be indubitably 100 percent certain in. He generally favored reason over empircism as providing access to knowlege and truth. . Descartes famously thought that he could prove the existence of God through reason.

Modern thought, especially scientific-thinking has pretty much abandoned Descartes' project of a quest for certain, indubitable truth. The pragmatic, realist tradition widely held today is that our knowlege is provisional, and always will be, but we can nonetheless acquire knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.

I know about Descartes.
 
I do not think the pragmatists and realists are saying there is no objective reality.

That was George Barklay's contention in the 18th century, but nobody today buys into Barkley's program.

We may never have direct access to truth and ultimate reality, but a realist approach posits that we can approximate objective reality.

Right. I am saying pragmatists have no concept of the real beyond the useful.
 
But a recent study I ran together with metacognition expert Steve Fleming at University College London’s Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, where I am a senior research fellow, affirms that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think.

As it turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think. If our imagination is vivid enough, we will think it is real and we use our imagination to create our perception of reality, which means, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/the-fine-line-between-reality-and-imaginary

Real time is relative to genetic reproductions mutually evolving in a series parallel ancestral position of everything alive now. Relative time logistics is breaking down details that existed to existing in real series of ancestral results occupying time geographically present geometrically part of the whole numbers mutually living among generations present.

Society defines people by how they behave occupying space spontaneously here and describe each person by race, creed, color, gender, choices they are willing to die for that don't match simultaneously alive as spontaneously here. Philoosophies and psychologies are physical methods to keep people debating power of suggesting life cannot be eternally separated as biologically here.

Everyone serves their contextually defined character like tomorrow depends upon changing behavior achieved to date. Syllables over substance, mind over matter, language is the means to communicate brain to brain while mutually evolving as conceived to decomposed apart now.

Kinetically self evident since each reproduction survives this mutual adapt or become extinct moment. Contextual history is the means people chose to ignore how and why biology eternally separates living in this atmosphere anywhere laws mandate obey context or else be removed from all practices of vernacular trigalism.

Reality limits intellectual choices where everyone is mandated to ignore the simplicity of compounding DNA conversion of ancestors timed apart now.

Is that that fine line between does happen and interpreting how life should move socially forward imagery and reality by majority of we against anyone being instinctively honest about occupying space mutually evolving here now?

Gee what does it take to have such means to an end of organizing people to work against life physically self evident in kinetic motion of adapting to space biologically timed apart now? Think outside the box philosophy looks like what intellectually and how does living remain navigated instinctively from each brain mutually alive now?

Picture-170.jpg Here is what my instincts mapped out from the contextual history of mankind making believe we aren't being eternally separated as biologically present. Within a box there are twice as many inside angles as outside edges of 6 equal sized sides and 8 corners with 7 axises 3 perpendicular and 4 diagonally. The image on the left keeps secrets, the one on the right keeps everything real self evidently timed apart now as ancestrally changing forms shaped since conceived here. that damned thermal dynamics, specific gravity, kinetic, static energy, motion and stationary event horizons shared by each type of objects occupying space at the same time spontaneously separate cycles evolving currently here.

All the vocabulary and all the power, wealth, fame doesn't change actual results, just interpretation of what it all means to those never accepting life being "It is what it is.".

Oh, here is my instinctive mapping of 5 generations where original lifetimes at inception became 1 of 16 great great grandparent generation, that added 8 great grandparent generation, which reproduced 4 grandparent generation, giving birth to parenting generation of great great grandchildren that may grow up to become 1 of 2 parents, 1 of 4 grandparents, 1 of 8 great grandparents, 1 of 16 great great grandparents and this thinking really changes the differences between those that do and those never became a parent cradle to grave.

Accountability rule of law doesn't tolerate in social debate controlling everyone's personal income in social circles of a global economic practice of selling biological time to serve pretending reality is all anyone needs to know about cradle to grave to become immortal by context of human behavior repeating the arts of self deception as greater good scenarios.

separation of sole displacement from contextual soul of social identity. Gender vs character role playing socially, globally.
 
Last edited:
It rained on my parade.

Don’t get my fish wet.

There’s a mango tree out front. When the mangos
get over riped they fall to the ground. The ducks
come and eat the mangos.

Ducks like the rain.



 
But a recent study I ran together with metacognition expert Steve Fleming at University College London’s Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, where I am a senior research fellow, affirms that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think.

As it turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think. If our imagination is vivid enough, we will think it is real and we use our imagination to create our perception of reality, which means, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/the-fine-line-between-reality-and-imaginary

is this your feeble defense of the fantasies you maintain?......

do not cross the street alone if you believe it is difficult to perceive reality.......
 
is this your feeble defense of the fantasies you maintain?......

do not cross the street alone if you believe it is difficult to perceive reality.......

Perhaps you are too unsophisticated to understand what David Hume and other philosophers are questioning.

Does the color red actually exist independent of human perception?

Or is the color red simply a manifestation of chemical-quantum sensory effects in our visual perception as it is processed by our brains?
 
Back
Top