|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
What criteria do you use to judge whether something is true and real, or is false and illusion?
Do you mean "in general" - or in something like online writing?
In life in general, I use reason and some form of "rules of evidence" (like they use in court). I need to see evidence and know there aren't "puzzle pieces" that aren't in place yet before I'll go with "real". If a few puzzles pieces are still out there, I'll "lean" toward "tending" to think something is real, but reserve judgment until all the puzzles pieces are in place and fit.
Online, and when it comes to judging whether what someone writes is true or not, I guess I go with whatever I can with the above approach; but if that isn't enough or can't be done, I go with an "overall instinct" with regard to how credible the person seems (in what he says, the overall impression he makes, etc.).
Illusions kind of scream that they're likely to be illusions, so I don't even worry about illusions. I don't tend to run into them, mostly (I guess) because I have such tough rules before allowing myself to form a conclusion. Unless/until I have enough evidence, everything remains a matter of withholding judgment.
experiential like physical, the world?
Truth, Is ... Real.
In. That, Physically ... Truth ... Is Uni-Formly ... Universal.
That Ideally ... Truth ... Is, our God Granted, Ability ... to Distinguish, the Right, from Wrong.
Thus, whatever, is not Truth, Is an Illusion ... Fallacy.
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer. Tell me if the pain is real, false or an illusion.
definately, and there is no truth either
any truth - everything is subjective - including what we think we see as real.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
It's all subject to the standpoint of your own sense of reality and the experiences as a result of, and even exclusive of your physical senses. For someone else to say your experience is not real, and an illusion is an invalidation of the experience you did have. And who has the right to say what you experienced is not real? As another person is not in your reality, they have no right to speak on your behalf and judge your experience is unreal or an illusion. Even a daydream is real from the standpoint of the dreamer.
We can go into a nihilistic frenzy and discount everything. We can deconstruct ourselves out of existence. Or we can just accept what our senses give us as immediate reality based on the fact we have no other experience to go off of, so why not accept the one we have.
I can believe what I experience.
I can not believe what I experience and believe something I make up instead, including that I myself am made up.
Given the choices: I'm going with the less absurd.
Intuition, knowledge, analytical skills, critical thinking skills, long forgotten mathematical concepts, gut feeling,
When in doubt, get a second opinion.
"Real" is subjective. Your reality and mine might not be the same. In how we view things, in how we respond to things, in how we interpret events.
I see a moth, you see the spirit of someone who has just died. Is my experience any more real that yours?
It depends on where you are, who you are, what you are.
Oliver Cromwell, for example, one of histories despised figures, yet for the Jews in Jamaica he was a saviour. The reality of those Jews being able to practice their religion, in public, for the first time in over two hundred years...
compared to the reality of the Irish who were sold as slaves to work on American plantations...
We tend to see 'our' real and dismiss the 'real' of others.
What You Believe is Real!
What You Believe is True,is True!
What You Perceive Is Reality wrestled from a cloud of Possibility that snaps into Singularity upon Observation!
Try to grasp Smoke!
"When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my Eye
I turned to look
But it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown
The Dream is Gone"PINK FLOYD
Wow. Call me, "simple-minded", but I'm amazed at the the trouble people seem to have with reality and truth.
I think there's always a truth - but we can't always see enough of the whole picture to know what it is.
There's also reality, and it's what happens minus how our experiencing it colors our view of it.
If there was "Mary" and "Fred", and Mary has, say, light brown hair - Fred says, "I think people with brown hair are ugly", but Fred was thinking Mary's light hair is blond and meant people with dark brown hair.
So then Mary thinks Fred insulted her. Fred doesn't know he insulted Mary, because he'd call her, "blond" and was talking about dark brunettes. In "reality" Fred didn't insult Mary's hair color, but Mary experienced it as an insult.
The reality is that Fred was thinking one thing that Mary didn't know about it, and he was seeing her hair color as something other than what she sees it. Just because Mary can't read Fred's mind it doesn't mind it wasn't reality. Reality if that Mary feels insulted when, if she could have read Fred's mind, she wouldn't have felt insulted. Reality is that Fred did essentially insult Mary (without intending to). Mary may think Fred is a giant jerk, but that's not reality.
If Mary knows that all she confidently say about reality is that Fred said "x" and she felt insulted, she won't run the risk of making up her own reality. If Fred knows he has made Mary feel insulted because he said x - he's got reality down. If they both talk about the incident, are honest, and reach a point where they concur about reality - chances are good they've both got the same reality even better understood.
qeyler's example of one person seeing a moth and someone else seeing a spirit is a good one. Reality is that the moth is either just a moth or else it's someone's spirit in the form of a moth (or may be something else in the form of the moth). Someone is right, and someone is wrong. It's one or the other. Neither may know who really is right or wrong, but there's one reality, no matter who thinks what.
What's real or what's truth is not subjective if people are careful not to call what IS subjective "reality" or "truth". With the two people who see that moth, all either knows, without doubt, is that it's a moth. That's reality. If they try to add what isn't certain to it and still call it "reality", then that's where they run the risk of being wrong about reality, or not seeing only what's real. Knowing when to call something "reality" and when to call it "my belief" is the best way to be sure you only deal in what's real and true, and recognize that our beliefs and impressions are in a different category.
There are things we can't possibly know, and recognizing that we only "believe" or "suspect" something, and that it may not be reality, is a way to "keep real" and stay grounded in what we DO know is real. If we know what to call "reality" and what to call "belief" or "opinion", then reality isn't the least bit subjective and it isn't confined to whatever goes on in our own, individual, heads. That's where reason, logic, and "rules of evidence" come in.
Lisa, that's the long version of what we said. People tend to interpret things as they chose. Sometimes they put spins on it that aren't even there and go with it.
Some people know that there actions can have different interpretations and strive to avoid misunderstandings. Others have no idea that one can read something in different ways.
This is the best example
What number is it?
Reality is subjective. My reality will be different from your reality, as we perceive things differently. A "catch-all" explanation of things that we consider to be real cannot therefore exist.
Or fart, smell it then set fire two it. Empirical evidence!
When it knocks you up side the head !!!!!!!!!
Bam instant proof ..............
by Ruben Rivera7 years ago
by gobible6 years ago
Looking back or even today, man always invented things for his own purpose and satisfaction. So why not think God as a creator and we as His creation and He made us for his own purpose. And why struggle to prove there...
by Threekeys20 months ago
What is a Truth? Can A Truth Be A Truth Without Evidence?
by Antecessor8 years ago
This thread is for the discussion of hubbers views on the origins of life and only on that subject. Please, if you wish to participate, pretend you are engaging in a debate. Make your statement, then back it up with...
by jerami7 years ago
Many people say that God is not real because for something to be real we have to be able to see, hear, touch, smell or taste it. And prove that we do. Let me ask YA... ...
by amer7864 years ago
What criteria can be used to establish evidence for the thesis of an All-Powerful God that supposedly created the universe, determined its physical laws, originated and sustains mechanism for living organisms, created...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.