Our Perception of Reality

[Rabbit55821]

Ask yourself a question; what does our perception of reality rely upon?

Our perception of reality has a dual meaning; how we understand reality, and also how we view it ourselves. Reality, as we understand it, has a simple meaning; everything. Every feeling, emotion, object, thing, and idea is all part of our reality. You view reality through the use of your eyes, your nose, your brain, and your ears.

Returning to the original question, I believe that our perception of reality relies on a single thing: Trust.

How, you ask? Consider this. You are the only one that truly knows that you are conscious. What if everyone and everything is a creation of your mind? Something that you've created to entertain yourself. What if this all an illusion, and at the moment you're in, say, a coma? We already know that our eyes and brains can trick us, so what if this is one great trick?

Why should you follow the rules, if this is all an illusion, and nothing is real? Because whether or not it is real, you still exist inside it, and this reality has rules to bind you.

So ask yourself; What is real?

[Iskar]

Intrinsic consistency.

No need for trust. I could be in a coma or a brain in a vat or a butterfly dreaming it is a scientist. It does not matter. As long as my perceptions work as if I was consciously living my life in what we call the real world, I can treat it as such.

The distinction between reliable constructions of the mind and "real" objects is metaphysical and has no epistemological value.

[Himster]

Why should you follow the rules, if this is all an illusion, and nothing is real? Because whether or not it is real, you still exist inside it, and this reality has rules to bind you.

Well we follow rules because we're programmed to do so. One might interpret this in a number of different ways: God wrote his word on our hearts, minds and bodies, OR the all powerful robots from our historical future literally programmed us that way and thus the Universe truly is a holographic projection, OR we're an all powerful collective consciousness experiencing itself subjectively and these rules are a necessary component of such an arrangement, OR we're biological constructs, the result of a history of complex chemical interactions, from that history we have been imprinted with automatic reactions that have proven beneficial to our continued existence........... anyone should be able to think of a dozen different reasons as to why we are subject to rules, be they moral, physical or whatever.

It doesn't matter how the Universe is constructed, if it "actually" exists or not, whether we're rats in a maze or not. We exist to a certain extent, we are as important as we are, and that's that.

So ask yourself; What is real?

You don't need trust, as Iskar said. It doesn't matter if the Universe is "real". The Universe is what it is: it is the Universe. And our perceptions of and reactions to this Universe are also what they are: perceptions of and reactions to what we call the Universe nothing more and nothing less.

[Gallus]

Consider this. You are the only one that truly knows that you are conscious. What if everyone and everything is a creation of your mind? Something that you've created to entertain yourself.

If that is the case, I must say that I'm doing a pretty poor job. Why couldn't I make myself a stunning looking billionare dammit?!!

Ask yourself this: Does it make any difference if your life is real, or simply a dream of a little pink giant?

[Gallus]

Consider this. You are the only one that truly knows that you are conscious. What if everyone and everything is a creation of your mind? Something that you've created to entertain yourself.

If that is the case, I must say that I'm doing a pretty poor job. Why couldn't I make myself a stunning looking billionare dammit?!!

Ask yourself this: Does it make any difference if your life is "real", or simply a dream of a little pink giant?

[Diamat]

The OP's very point of origin - the notion "perception of reality" - is flawed and philosophically biased. To talk about "perception of reality" assumes the existence of a purer thing beyond the realm of mind, the Kantian Ding an sich. Hence I would prefer the Hegelian position, according to which one cannot talk about reality beyond mind (Geist), for everything that appears (erscheint) is by necessity real. That which exists beyond mind is not reality, since it does not, in its unchanging state, undergo the baptism of spirit (Geist). Reality is spiritual (geistig). That which is not real is that which the mind does not touch. One must carefully distinguish between existence (ontology) and knowledge (epistemology). The OP seems to conflate the two. I take the epistemological position here, that is, I am merely talking about the realm of knowledge, the realm of spirit. If the OP desires an argument along the lines of ontology, then it is advisable to avoid unproved epistemological claims.