ALine

real vs. imaginary

Recommended Posts

Related image

I would like to start a new discussion on the topic of what is defined as being imaginary vs what is defined as being real

However for this discussion I would like for you to only answer the following questions and then to compare and contrast personally with others who have also answered these questions.

the only rules and regulations of this discussion that I ask for you to follow are as followed

     (1) Post the answer to the question for others to see.

     (2) Compare and contrast your answered with others to find similarities and differences.

     (3) Do not question another persons definition of reality and/or imagination, this would negate the purpose of this thread.

     (4) if you wish to discuss a specific topic manner pertaining to a certain belief or if you wish to discuss anything further please do so outside of this thread.

     (5) all of science forums rules and regulations still apply so please take a look at them before post, the created of this website worked hard to develop them.

 

 

Q 1: what is the definition of something being real?

Q 2: what is the definition of something being imaginary?

Q 3: what is your definition of something being real?

Q 4: what is your definition of something being imaginary?

Q 5: how does the definition of something being real or imaginary compare with your definition of something being real or imaginary?

 

 

 

 

Edited by ALine
changed something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, studiot said:

What does the picture have to do with the thread?

It gives a aesthetic representation of the idea of what is being asked. Like a artistic poster describing an event which is to take place.

Its only purpose is to give someone something nice to look at while at the same time acting as comedic relief to introduce the reader to what is being asked.

If it is a problem I can remove it.

Edited by ALine
to change the spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ALine said:

Q 1: what is the definition of something being real?

Q 2: what is the definition of something being imaginary?

Q 3: what is your definition of something being real?

Q 4: what is your definition of something being imaginary?

Q 5: how does the definition of something being real or imaginary compare with your definition of something being real or imaginary?

I am not going to attempt to answer these, I'm afraid (I'm not in the mood to write 14,000 words to answer each of Q1 and Q2). But I am fascinated by the fact you make a distinction between "the definition" and "your definition". Would you like to explain why you did that? Or would you prefer to wait until there are some answers? (It will be interesting to see if/how people distinguish them.)

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

What does the picture have to do with the thread?

Fairly obvious, I would have thought.

4 minutes ago, ALine said:

It gives a aesthetic representation of the idea of what is being asked. Like a artistic poster describing an event which is to take place.

I think you should give a link/credit to the source...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ALine said:

It gives a aesthetic representation of the idea of what is being asked. Like a artistic poster describing an event which is to take place.

Sorry I am no wiser for that explanation.

 

It is however interesting that you have started this thread since I was thinking about starting a related one, spurred on by our Taiwanese member.

 

I often say that English is better than Mathematics as there is nothing you can say in Matheamtics that you can't say in English, but it is not true the other way round.

In particular, English has the concept of concrete and abstract nouns, which bears some resemblence to your real and imaginary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think you should give a link/credit to the source...

https://www.deviantart.com/verauko/art/Imagination-vs-Reality-2-213904268

here ya go 

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am not going to attempt to answer these, I'm afraid (I'm not in the mood to write 14,000 words to answer each of Q1 and Q2). But I am fascinated by the fact you make a distinction between "the definition" and "your definition". Would you like to explain why you did that? Or would you prefer to wait until there are some answers? (It will be interesting to see if/how people distinguish them.)

I would like to wait until there are other answers at this time, however we can talking about it more in another thread :D 

 

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sorry I am no wiser for that explanation.

Naw man, my fault for not using the correct language to fully convey my meaning. I need to work on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ALine said:

Q 1: what is the definition of something being real?

Something having verifiable existence and not an illusion.

Quote

Q 2: what is the definition of something being imaginary?

Something dreamed up in the mind, or imagined to explain something with absolutely no evidence as to its existence.

Quote

Q 3: what is your definition of something being real?

As per Q1

Quote

Q 4: what is your definition of something being imaginary?

As per Q2

Quote

Q 5: how does the definition of something being real or imaginary compare with your definition of something being real or imaginary?

10/10

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 But I am fascinated by the fact you make a distinction between "the definition" and "your definition". Would you like to explain why you did that? Or would you prefer to wait until there are some answers? (It will be interesting to see if/how people distinguish them.)

I await with bated breath!

Let me add clarification for my answers with some examples...Is space real? Of course! It is what exists between me and you....Is time real? Again, I believe it does...it is what stops everything from happening together at the same instant. Is spacetime real? Certainly, just as real as a magnetic field is real....we see the geometry of spacetime affected and reflected in the presence of mass/energy and the maths of GR. In reality, something need not be physical to be real, as long as convincing evidence exists to support the concept.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a task/study/research topic for a (psychology?) course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, nevim said:

Is this a task/study/research topic for a (psychology?) course?

Nope, just curious to see how people compare with one another.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, studiot said:

What does the picture have to do with the thread? (...) Sorry I am no wiser for that explanation.

This illustration shows that some people see what they want to see. e.g. somebody in reality is obese, but he/she doesn't think about himself/herself as being fat.

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer is "don't know" to all of the questions. I don't know of "the" definition of virtually anything. If I need one, I look it up, and don't always agree with what I find.

When it comes to real and imaginary, I form an opinion in each case, if I need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo when you observe (or measure) reality, then your imagination leads to understanding of  the reality.

 

Einstein said: "Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Interesting video:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2018 at 9:49 AM, Itoero said:

Imo when you observe (or measure) reality, then your imagination leads to understanding of  the reality

Yes but what if that understanding of reality leads to the defining of reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ALine said:

Yes but what if that understanding of reality leads to the defining of reality?

It clearly DOES in terms of our language and how we define things.  What it DOESN'T do is actually ALTER reality in any way what so ever. You can imagine what you want, define it how you like....  it won't change the 'real' thing....  unless that real thing is a cartoon character of your own imagination or something....  but that is clearly not what you are talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DrP said:

It clearly DOES in terms of our language and how we define things.  What it DOESN'T do is actually ALTER reality in any way what so ever. You can imagine what you want, define it how you like....  it won't change the 'real' thing....  unless that real thing is a cartoon character of your own imagination or something....  but that is clearly not what you are talking about

Yes I was refering to simply the development of language and not actually changing a "physical thing." That would be nieve to believe in such a case. Unless you consider moving your arms or the act of writing or building a car or drawing a picture to be a method of altering reality by using your imagination to develop a new language to add to your knowledge which can be used to add to your imagination to physically alter your surrounding reality which loops again and a result of such a looping could be used to make say technology things to physically alter our surroundings in order make ourselves more accustomed to our surrounding reality.

Edited by ALine
Changed something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/11/2018 at 6:28 PM, ALine said:
On 04/11/2018 at 6:18 PM, studiot said:

Sorry I am no wiser for that explanation.

Naw man, my fault for not using the correct language to fully convey my meaning. I need to work on that.

 

Well ignoring your picture what about commenting on the rest of my post?

This did, after all, address your topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Well ignoring your picture what about commenting on the rest of my post?

This did, after all, address your topic.

Oh yes, sorry about that.

On 11/4/2018 at 1:18 PM, studiot said:

Sorry I am no wiser for that explanation.

 

It is however interesting that you have started this thread since I was thinking about starting a related one, spurred on by our Taiwanese member.

 

I often say that English is better than Mathematics as there is nothing you can say in Matheamtics that you can't say in English, but it is not true the other way round.

In particular, English has the concept of concrete and abstract nouns, which bears some resemblence to your real and imaginary.

I did not think about that. When I began this topic thread, it was for thinking about languages from the perspective of an observing "a self" vs.( i am using vs. as a symbol for comparison) other selfs who also formulates languages which I am defining for this specific case as being "a selfs environment" and how those perspectives gave rise to a "precieved reality." That precieved reality being either seen as being imaginary to some while being real to others. However I have not considered the english language as being both abstract and defined. So would that mean that our precieved realities are a combination of both real observations and imaginary observations?

I am defining real in this specific instance as being self observed and imaginary as being environmentally observed and then that environment informs a self being an observing person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ALine said:

So would that mean that our precieved realities are a combination of both real observations and imaginary observations?

Yes I would agree with that, using your definitions of real and imaginary.

(Note this does not coincide with the definitions of abstract and concrete for nouns in English).

You are making the same point I sometimes make that sensory input and internal thoughts both drawing on past experience and one's own thinking capacity are not separate processes, After all they are going on in the same noddle.

In fact I suggest our world model is constructed by filtering sensory input through our past experience and our own rational thought.
It is not a faithful reproduction of our sensory input alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, studiot said:

In fact I suggest our world model is constructed by filtering sensory input through our past experience and our own rational thought.
It is not a faithful reproduction of our sensory input alone.

But what else do we have if not our sensory input? If for this specific instance we define sensory input as being the observations of external systems interacting with....ourselves. Ok before we continue, I have a very bad habit of using words in the wrong places so you will have to please excuse me of this. What do you define as being "rational thought" and "sensory input"? Are you defining rational thought as being the use of previously obtained knowledge for the purpose of preventing miss interpretation between you and a person you are speaking with? Or are you defining it as just being that rational thought. Also are laking more of a literal of figurative look at sensory input in regards to making a generalizing relationship between it and philosophy? 

Edited by ALine
Removed the term "simply"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is not a faithful reproduction of our sensory input alone.

I might go further and say: It is not a faithful reproduction of our sensory input at all. 

I think it can be argued that what we perceive is based on sensory input but is almost entirely a creation of the brain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ALine said:

But what else do we have if not our sensory input? If for this specific instance we define sensory input as being the observations of external systems interacting with....ourselves. Ok before we continue, I have a very bad habit of using words in the wrong places so you will have to please excuse me of this. What do you define as being "rational thought" and "sensory input"? Are you defining rational thought as being the use of previously obtained knowledge for the purpose of preventing miss interpretation between you and a person you are speaking with? Or are you defining it as just being that rational thought. Also are laking more of a literal of figurative look at sensory input in regards to making a generalizing relationship between it and philosophy? 

Last post, I said I agreed using your definitions.

But I also deliberately used different terms because your definitions reverse the normal usage.

Normally people speak of the sense data coming from the real world as real and the model in the brain as the imaginary part.
You have reversed this.

Quote

I am defining real in this specific instance as being self observed (= model in the brain) and imaginary as being environmentally observed ( = sense data) and then that environment informs a self being an observing person. 

My words in brackets

So what else do we have?

Memory

Ingenuity (I would like to say imagination but that has been used for soemthing else)

Cognition

I expect I could think of some more.

My last post was also offering the more converntional usage of real (sense data) and imaginary (internal thoughts, however generated)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 1:02 PM, ALine said:

Related image

I would like to start a new discussion on the topic of what is defined as being imaginary vs what is defined as being real

However for this discussion I would like for you to only answer the following questions and then to compare and contrast personally with others who have also answered these questions.

the only rules and regulations of this discussion that I ask for you to follow are as followed

     (1) Post the answer to the question for others to see.

     (2) Compare and contrast your answered with others to find similarities and differences.

     (3) Do not question another persons definition of reality and/or imagination, this would negate the purpose of this thread.

     (4) if you wish to discuss a specific topic manner pertaining to a certain belief or if you wish to discuss anything further please do so outside of this thread.

     (5) all of science forums rules and regulations still apply so please take a look at them before post, the created of this website worked hard to develop them.

 

 

Q 1: what is the definition of something being real?

Q 2: what is the definition of something being imaginary?

Q 3: what is your definition of something being real?

Q 4: what is your definition of something being imaginary?

Q 5: how does the definition of something being real or imaginary compare with your definition of something being real or imaginary?

 

 

 

 

Q1: I don’t know 

Q2: I don’t know 

Q3: It is real 

Q4: It is imaginary 

Q5: I can only imagine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 1:02 PM, ALine said:

Related image

Q 1: what is the definition of something being real?

Q 2: what is the definition of something being imaginary?

Q 3: what is your definition of something being real?

Q 4: what is your definition of something being imaginary?

Q 5: how does the definition of something being real or imaginary compare with your definition of something being real or imaginary?

Q1: ADJECTIVE actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. "Julius Caesar was a real person" · [more]synonyms: actual · existent · nonfictional · nonfictitious · factual · historical · [more](of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine. "the earring was presumably real gold" synonyms: genuine · authentic · bona fide · pukka · honest-to-goodness 

 
 
Q2:  ADJECTIVE existing only in the imagination. "Chris had imaginary conversations with her" synonyms: unreal · nonexistent · fictional · fictitious · pretend · make-believe
 
 
 
 
 
Q3:  Something that is causal.
 
 
 
Q4:  Thought that is potential.
 
 
 
Q5:  I think that my definitions are more general, but no less accurate.
 
 
You know, if you cover up the words, imagination vs reality, in the above captioned picture, what is left are two representations of the same person in different moods or states of mind. Emotions or moods are very real. The word "imagination" over one of the pictures, implies that that picture may represent a deception. Was that your intent?
 
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 2:06 AM, Gees said:
 
You know, if you cover up the words, imagination vs reality, in the above captioned picture, what is left are two representations of the same person in different moods or states of mind. Emotions or moods are very real. The word "imagination" over one of the pictures, implies that that picture may represent a deception. Was that your intent?
 

Originally I wanted to attempt to prove something with an idea that I had. Now that I look back on it I guess it did not have any real meaning behind it, just an activity with observation of others responses while also being an open ended question to be further explored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now