Reality

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

EDIT: Dec 11th 2012.

Assumption: Reality simply doesn't exist.

That's - with a little reflection - obvious, right? EDIT: Reality can't be known by anyone, as no one has ever convceived an distant object.

Reality:

In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Nothing we have ever seen or see atm is real - as it is separated from us in space, and more important also in time.

Argumentation:

An example... Looking at your hand: it isn't real (ie. isn't an reality - as by the above definition and common sense) as you don't see your hand as such, which is roughly say 0.4 meters away from you.

EDIT:

It's simply impossible to see objects that are distant. Any object that is distant in space is also distant in time for any perceiving individual.

The best example for this are perhaps stars. It is obvious that we don't see a reality when seeing stars. They are many, many light-years away, but we see them now. So it's clear that we don't see the actual far away stars. We see the emissions of these stars which have traveled many many years until they reached us. Some of these stars we see may in fact not exist anymore.

EDIT:

The same goes for the keyboard or screen in front of us. We don't see the actual real keyboard or screen. That is simply impossible, as they are separated from us in space and time.

Conclusion:

So it ends up that what we think reality is, is only the end-product of, so to say "past", emissions/radiation processed by the brain.

And it's a no-brainer to know that the processing of input done by the brain takes time (in addition to the time the emissions/radiation had needed to come to us from the stars or your hand or keyboard etc.).

So nothing we see (or hear etc.) is actually real, but only a delayed projection of an hypothetical reality which no one has ever seen. EDIT: All we see isn't reality.


PS: Also there is the issue of how the brain, as being a conglomerate of various atoms, can actually fabricate a projection of reality. And if the brain could do so, for whom is that projection visible and where does such an projection exist...

[basics]

" The same goes for the keyboard or screen in front of us. We don't see the actual real keyboard or screen. That is simply impossible, as they are separated from us in space and time."

Solemn Bystander,

Are you saying that if at the end of the keyboard is a musical genius, we only hear what we want to and not what he is interpreting through the music he plays? In other words what I hear is not in reality necessarily what he is playing?

[The Dude]

Your problem can be resolved by asking the question after identity. Namely, what is it?

An average.

We judge a person's identity by their average behaviour. The mean between extremes. Maybe they get angry on some days and happy on others, but between those two peaks we understand that there's a reasonable pattern of behaviour that we can count on running into every time we interact with a person. Bob is an easygoing, mild-mannered guy who doesn't really care for letting his voice be heard. Jessica is a generous girl with a kind heart who cares deeply about the suffering of others. We characterise people in this manner because it allows us to understand them. When they respond to us differently than we expect we say: "That's not the Bob/Jessica I know. That's someone else."

The same is true for physical objects. The keyboard I use to type also has an average mode of existence. It's arguably not the exact same keyboard since I bought it. It's hand-padding is fadding, letters have disappeared off the keys, its started to rattle a bit. Its exact composition changed. According to your argument, it's changing even as we speak. But between all that change there's an average. A constant that's recognisible enough that we dare to convince ourselves that it is in fact the same keyboard. Even if not literally, then at least practically.

That average is what we call reality.

[AqD]

That average is what we call reality.

reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

How do you know your average is not imagined?


A simple example are the dreams. In dreams we usually perceive things that we wouldn't believe they're real after we wake up, yet it's impossible for most of us to realize it's a dream until we wake up. So how do we know we're not dreaming now?


PS: I have recently experienced having dreams inside dreams a few times, quite weird.

[The Dude]

Now you're treading into the realm of true skepticism. How much can we know?

We can't truly know most things. All you can do is act on probable beliefs. If your probable beliefs yield practical results, good for you. If they don't, time to reassess your beliefs. Discussing whether or not anything is imagined, when the assumption that its not is practically viable, is a waste of time.

[Valden]

Hello Solemn Bystander,

Your issue can be summarized as follows: all our knowledge about the external world is gained through our sensory perception of it, however our sensory perception is indemonstrable because we cannot 'get outside' our senses in order to validate their reports, any attempt to validate our senses would consequentially use our senses and therefore commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. We simply have to take the truth of our sensory perception as a self-evident fact in order to function, it is a properly basic (axiomatic) belief.

Paradoxically you presuppose a great deal of knowledge about the natural world (radiation, emissions, temporal and spacial distances) when the consequence of your argument is that no facts can be known about the external world because our perception of it is fundamentally unstable. Your argument is therefore self-refuting, meaning it can be dismissed as false.

[Valden]

Hello Solemn Bystander,

Your issue can be summarized as follows: all our knowledge about the external world is gained through our sensory perception of it, however our sensory perception is indemonstrable because we cannot 'get outside' our senses in order to validate their reports, any attempt to validate our senses would consequentially use our senses and therefore commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. We simply have to take the truth of our sensory perception as a self-evident fact in order to function, it is a properly basic (axiomatic) belief.

Paradoxically you presuppose a great deal of knowledge about the natural world (radiation, emissions, temporal and spacial distances) when the consequence of your argument is that no facts can be known about the external world because our perception of it is fundamentally unstable. Your argument is therefore self-refuting, meaning it can be dismissed as false.

Sorry, but I did put this entire thread to bed in the first page

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

Sorry, but I did put this entire thread to bed in the first page

Sorry man, didn't I answer? My bad...

Your issue can be summarized as follows: all our knowledge about the external world is gained through our sensory perception of it, however our sensory perception is indemonstrable because we cannot 'get outside' our senses in order to validate their reports, any attempt to validate our senses would consequentially use our senses and therefore commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.

I guess the idea of us "knowing" any external world/reality can't be written down better than this. It's very detailed but also short and pregnant. Kudos.

We simply have to take the truth of our sensory perception as a self-evident fact in order to function, it is a properly basic (axiomatic) belief.

But now you presuppose the existence of 'sensory perception' which requires the existence of an external world. You yourself are making a mockery of your entire (good) first part?!

Paradoxically you presuppose a great deal of knowledge about the natural world (radiation, emissions, temporal and spacial distances) when the consequence of your argument is that no facts can be known about the external world because our perception of it is fundamentally unstable. Your argument is therefore self-refuting, meaning it can be dismissed as false.

Sorry... No, not really.

I don't "paradoxically presuppose a great deal of knowledge about the natural world (radiation, emissions, temporal and spacial distances) when the consequence of your argument is that no facts can be known about the external world"...

The thing is I'm arguing with ideas/knowledge that haven't any basis in any natural/external world.


An external world has never been confirmed or perceived. Or are you suggesting otherwise?

[Valden]

May I also note that your appeal to the physics of visual perception PRESUPPOSES that there is a reality external to us.

Irishman, I made this exact point in a concise and comprehensive way on the first page of this thread, and he has still ignored it unfortunately

Hello Solemn Bystander,

Your issue can be summarized as follows: all our knowledge about the external world is gained through our sensory perception of it, however our sensory perception is indemonstrable because we cannot 'get outside' our senses in order to validate their reports, any attempt to validate our senses would consequentially use our senses and therefore commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. We simply have to take the truth of our sensory perception as a self-evident fact in order to function, it is a properly basic (axiomatic) belief.

Paradoxically you presuppose a great deal of knowledge about the natural world (radiation, emissions, temporal and spacial distances) when the consequence of your argument is that no facts can be known about the external world because our perception of it is fundamentally unstable. Your argument is therefore self-refuting, meaning it can be dismissed as false.

[Irishman]

Assumption: Reality simply doesn't exist.

That's - with a little reflection - obvious, right?

Reality: Nothing we have ever seen or see atm is real - as it is separated from us in space, and more important also in time.

Argumentation:

An example... Looking at your hand: it isn't real (ie. isn't an reality - as by the above definition and common sense) as you don't see your hand as such, which is roughly say 0.4 meters away from you.

It's simply impossible to see objects that are distant. Any object that is distant in space is also distant in time for any perceiving individual.

The best example for this are perhaps stars. It is obvious that we don't see a reality when seeing stars. They are many, many light-years away, but we see them now. So it's clear that we don't see the actual far away stars. We see the emissions of these stars which have traveled many many years until they reached us. Some of these stars we see may in fact not exist anymore.

The same goes for the keyboard or screen in front of us. We don't see the actual real keyboard or screen. That is simply impossible, as they are separated from us in space and time.

Conclusion:

So it ends up that what we think reality is, is only the end-product of, so to say "past", emissions/radiation processed by the brain.

And it's a no-brainer to know that the processing of input done by the brain takes time (in addition to the time the emissions/radiation had needed to come to us from the stars or your hand or keyboard etc.).

So nothing we see (or hear etc.) is actually real, but only a delayed projection of an hypothetical reality which no one has ever seen.


PS: Also there is the issue of how the brain, as being a conglomerate of various atoms, can actually fabricate a projection of reality. And if the brain could do so, for whom is that projection visible and where does such an projection exist...

Well you haven't shown that "Reality simply doesn't exist" have you? Even Berkeley, the pragmatists or Quine didn't go THAT far. All you have shown is that we have NO ACCESS to the "real" world. Or put another way, nothing is given without being, at the same time, taken.

What I think you can show rather easily is that our hang ups on finding the "real" world, as you define it, are fruitless because we have no access to the real world. However, that does not show to any degree that such a world doesn't exist. Now this is still an interesting fact in philosophy, and has lead many to adopt a definition of real which is defined as our experiences.

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

" The same goes for the keyboard or screen in front of us. We don't see the actual real keyboard or screen. That is simply impossible, as they are separated from us in space and time."

Solemn Bystander,

Are you saying that if at the end of the keyboard is a musical genius, we only hear what we want to and not what he is interpreting through the music he plays? In other words what I hear is not in reality necessarily what he is playing?

I guess you missed the topic of this thread / my OP. That's all I'lll say in response to your post.

Please fell free to read the OP again and in detail, and come back here again to submit.

Your problem can be resolved by asking the question after identity. Namely, what is it?

An average.

We judge a person's identity by their average behaviour. The mean between extremes. Maybe they get angry on some days and happy on others, but between those two peaks we understand that there's a reasonable pattern of behaviour that we can count on running into every time we interact with a person. Bob is an easygoing, mild-mannered guy who doesn't really care for letting his voice be heard. Jessica is a generous girl with a kind heart who cares deeply about the suffering of others. We characterise people in this manner because it allows us to understand them. When they respond to us differently than we expect we say: "That's not the Bob/Jessica I know. That's someone else."

The same is true for physical objects. The keyboard I use to type also has an average mode of existence. It's arguably not the exact same keyboard since I bought it. It's hand-padding is fadding, letters have disappeared off the keys, its started to rattle a bit. Its exact composition changed. According to your argument, it's changing even as we speak. But between all that change there's an average. A constant that's recognisible enough that we dare to convince ourselves that it is in fact the same keyboard. Even if not literally, then at least practically.

That average is what we call reality.

Are you responding to me or basics? I'm not sure.

How do you know your average is not imagined?


A simple example are the dreams. In dreams we usually perceive things that we wouldn't believe they're real after we wake up, yet it's impossible for most of us to realize it's a dream until we wake up. So how do we know we're not dreaming now?


PS: I have recently experienced having dreams inside dreams a few times, quite weird.

I'm not sure if you are sarcastic, but that doesn't matter.

Yup, dreams are a good example for reality being uncertain --> In dreams: people, objects, feelings etc. apear and they seem utterly true - only when we awake they seem unreal. But while dreaming the dream-reality is real for us.

How do we know this reality is real? We know dreams are existent - and they are made up by the brain...

So how can we be sure this reality is real. The laws of physics tell us that an object/atom that is seen isn't an reality, as anything seen is distant from the seer. And anything distant in space is also distant in time, so anything seen can't be real or an reality. As reality is the actual object/thing.

But nobody has ever seen an actual object/thing. Seeing such is simply physically impossible.

Now you're treading into the realm of true skepticism. How much can we know?

We can't truly know most things. All you can do is act on probable beliefs. If your probable beliefs yield practical results, good for you. If they don't, time to reassess your beliefs. Discussing whether or not anything is imagined, when the assumption that its not is practically viable, is a waste of time.

That's a good statement, but regarding the topic of the thread is't also non-relevant.

Hello Solemn Bystander,

Your issue can be summarized as follows: all our knowledge about the external world is gained through our sensory perception of it, however our sensory perception is indemonstrable because we cannot 'get outside' our senses in order to validate their reports, any attempt to validate our senses would consequentially use our senses and therefore commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. We simply have to take the truth of our sensory perception as a self-evident fact in order to function, it is a properly basic (axiomatic) belief.

Hello Valden,

that's a partially very good summary of what I meant to say. But I disagree with the last part: "We simply have to take the truth of our sensory perception as a self-evident fact in order to function, it is a properly basic (axiomatic) belief."
I'm not sure if that is your opinion or a very good criticism of my OP, but I guess there isn't much space for an 'us' or 'we', as reality isn't real.
In the end - and actually from the beginning - there is no 'I', 'we', 'us' or the like. Where would such be located?

Paradoxically you presuppose a great deal of knowledge about the natural world (radiation, emissions, temporal and spacial distances) when the consequence of your argument is that no facts can be known about the external world because our perception of it is fundamentally unstable. Your argument is therefore self-refuting, meaning it can be dismissed as false.

You are right, but also wrong. As I say there can't be ANY reality - neither internal nor external.

Using ideas that propose an external (or internal) reality, to disapprove reality as such doesn't presuppose any kind of reality. I'm simply using reasonable/scientific ideas to disprove reality.

PS: Using religious ideas would be tedious and futile, as religion is non-logic and based on superstition.

PPS: I'm a non-religious person, but also a sceptic. The non-existence of reality can be demonstrated by using terms and ideas of reality. We are atm doing that...

Well you haven't shown that "Reality simply doesn't exist" have you? Even Berkeley, the pragmatists or Quine didn't go THAT far. All you have shown is that we have NO ACCESS to the "real" world.

That what I'm saying.

And also I don't restrict my thoughts or thesis by what anyone else said. I don't know Berkely or Quine, and really, what makes their thoughts better than mine or yours?

What I think you can show rather easily is that our hang ups on finding the "real" world, as you define it, are fruitless because we have no access to the real world. However, that does not show to any degree that such a world doesn't exist. Now this is still an interesting fact in philosophy, and has lead many to adopt a definition of real which is defined as our experiences.

If we have no access to reality, and what we see is at the most an deduction of a hypothetical reality... then we have NEVER seen an reality.

To assume the existence of an reality, knowing that any projection of such is not real, is religion. Or not?

[Modestus]

=Solemn Bystander

So it ends up that what we think reality is, is only the end-product of, so to say "past", emissions/radiation processed by the brain.

And it's a no-brainer to know that the processing of input done by the brain takes time (in addition to the time the emissions/radiation had needed to come to us from the stars or your hand or keyboard etc.).

So nothing we see (or hear etc.) is actually real, but only a delayed projection of an hypothetical reality which no one has ever seen.

thats our reality then.

[Irishman]

That what I'm saying.

And also I don't restrict my thoughts or thesis by what anyone else said. I don't know Berkely or Quine, and really, what makes their thoughts better than mine or yours?

I'm not saying you should limit your thoughts, just that your arguments have been played out before. All I'm saying is that your first sentence of your first post: Reality simply doesn't exist. Is not proven by anything you write below it.

If we have no access to reality, and what we see is at the most an deduction of a hypothetical reality... then we have NEVER seen an reality.

Which is different from claiming reality doesn't exist.

To assume the existence of an reality, knowing that any projection of such is not real, is religion. Or not?

This question makes no sense. Is it religion? No. What we should glean from this insight is that we shouldn't be caught up with REALITY but with making a coherent explanation of the experiences which we have. Whether that explanation captures the essence of reality is a moot point. As long as it explains the phenomena, we have done our part.

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

thats our reality then.

Well, what anyone takes for real is real and his (or our) reality.

But reality per se can't be proven, as it doesn't exist.

And also I don't restrict my thoughts or thesis by what anyone else said. I don't know Berkely or Quine, and really, what makes their thoughts better than mine or yours?

I'm not saying you should limit your thoughts, just that your arguments
have been played out before.

If that's so, it doesn't make them invalid.

... All I'm saying is that your first sentence of your first post: Reality simply doesn't exist. Is not proven by anything you write below it.

As you must know: a negative can't be proven, but logic and knodlegde of physics/science tells us, that nothing we have ever seen was real.

If we have no access to reality, and what we see is at the most an deduction of a hypothetical reality... then we have NEVER seen an reality.

Which is different from claiming reality doesn't exist.

Yes, but in science you have to prove a positive/thesis, and not disapprove a negative.

To assume the existence of an reality, knowing that any projection of such is not real, is religion. Or not?

This question makes no sense. Is it religion? No. What we should glean from this insight is that we shouldn't be caught up with REALITY but with making a coherent explanation of the experiences which we have. Whether that explanation captures the essence of reality is a moot point. As long as it explains the phenomena, we have done our part.

And what if that experiences is an illusion, similar to what we experience when we dream (= all people, objects etc. we see in your dreams are real - untill we awake)? And also there is no explanation for this phenomena - THIS here and now. Or have you one?

The paradoxon of 'time - space - object - observer'... indicates that there is no reality.

[Modestus]

Well, what anyone takes for real is real and his (or our) reality.

But reality per se can't be proven, as it doesn't exist.

Reality is how you perceive the universe and it does not matter if the light from a star is from a million years ago the reality for you is what you can see when you look up at the sky.

Is it real? The star could have exploded 100,000 years ago and at the moment in time your looking it does not exist but does that make what your looking at unreal? The source of the light is gone but the light is indeed light, it is not fictitious or imaginary it is really light.

I suppose your suggesting that because there is delay between the effect on you and the cause of the effect there is no such thing as reality, you seem to be suggesting that reality is only when the the viewer and the object are outside the effect of time.

Not sure what type of universe that would be, would you be like a God sitting in the middle of a motionless universe?

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

Reality is how you perceive the universe and it does not matter if the light from a star is from a million years ago the reality for you is what you can see when you look up at the sky.

Is it real? The star could have exploded 100,000 years ago and at the moment in time your looking it does not exist but does that make what your looking at unreal? The source of the light is gone but the light is indeed light, it is not fictitious or imaginary it is really light.

I suppose your suggesting that because there is delay between the effect on you and the cause of the effect there is no such thing as reality, you seem to be suggesting that reality is only when the the viewer and the object are outside the effect of time.

Not sure what type of universe that would be, would you be like a God sitting in the middle of a motionless universe?

The star-allegory/examle... given! I won't argue and give it up. It was only meant as an example anyhow.

But understand, that anything we see isn't an reality (ie. the actual real objects).

All that we see isn't real - it's input processed by the eyes, ears etc. and then further processed by the brain, right?

But the brain is simply an conglomerate of atoms. It get's the input and processes it... but can the brain project the result of any of such processs to someone?

Where in the brain is the processed input displayed, and can it be displayed at all? And is there actually an processed and final product in the brain? Or isn't rather that the brain processes and then directly outputs it's result to the body, it's limbs, organs etc?

Tell me: Where in the brain could anything be displayed? And to whom?

Also anything seen isn't real, as all that is seen has to be apart in space (and thus time). Or is it possible to see something now, that is one meter away?

And how can there then be reality?

[Modestus]

The star-allegory/examle... given! I won't argue and give it up. It was only meant as an example anyhow.

But understand, that anything we see isn't an reality (ie. the actual real objects).

All that we see isn't real - it's input processed by the eyes, ears etc. and then further processed by the brain, right?

But the brain is simply an conglomerate of atoms. It get's the input and processes it... but can the brain project the result of any of such processs to someone?

Where in the brain is the processed input displayed, and can it be displayed at all? And is there actually an processed and final product in the brain? Or isn't rather that the brain processes and then directly outputs it's result to the body, it's limbs, organs etc?

Tell me: Where in the brain could anything be displayed? And to whom?

Also anything seen isn't real, as all that is seen has to be apart in space (and thus time). Or is it possible to see something now, that is one meter away?

And how can there then be reality?

I understand what your saying you look at a dog and your eyes and brain process it as a fish then what is a fish or a dog?

First there would be serious problems with your processor to actually turn a dog into a fish.
Second the dog would be a fish in your reality and in someone else’s reality it would be a dog.We could go further and say that in everyone’s reality it is a fish.

OK we are now edging close to the idea that there is no reality but we are still at a point where reality is subjective, to go over the cliff and have no reality the dog would have to ignore the laws of physics and breath under water.

Reality bites or in this case drowns.

[Irishman]

As you must know: a negative can't be proven, but logic and knodlegde of physics/science tells us, that nothing we have ever seen was real.

Nonsense. A round square doesn't exist. Proved a negative . Seriously though, I'm just saying your claim was overstated. It is a big leap to jump from "we have no experience of reality" to "there is no reality"

And what if that experiences is an illusion, similar to what we experience when we dream (= all people, objects etc. we see in your dreams are real - untill we awake)?

So what if they are? We have no evidence to support it and there would be no difference in explanation.

And also there is no explanation for this phenomena - THIS here and now. Or have you one?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean?

[Solemn Bystander (+)]

As you must know: a negative can't be proven, but logic and knodlegde of physics/science tells us, that nothing we have ever seen was real.

Nonsense. A round square doesn't exist. Proved a negative. I'm just saying your claim was overstated.

Hah, hah!... Irishman: a 'round square' isn't a square. You are trying to get anything to prove me wrong, but instead show up with meta-objects (round; square) to prove me wrong, when I say that there is no reality... and what you use for your wrong argument are: (non-real; eg. non-physical) ideas - aka meta-objects.

To prove a 'round square' not being existen is, well... not rather smart.

To repeat my above statement - "As you must know: a negative can't be proven, but logic and knowledge of physics/science tells us, that nothing we have ever seen was real."

And what if that experiences are an illusion, similar to what we experience when we dream (= all people, objects etc. we see in your dreams are real - untill we awake)?

So what if they are? We have no evidence to support it and there would be no difference in explanation.

I wasn't making a statement here. I was questioning standard views.

But are dreams different from not-dreams (= being awake)?

Anyhow, you want to disprove me - without any arguments or facts - I may say (-> have a look at my OP again perhaps)

But for a moment think the other way... what's the evidence for reality?

And also there is no explanation for this phenomena - THIS here and now. Or have you one?

This makes no sense. What do you mean?

To put it simple: Can you explain why there are atoms/matter/energy? And why there is awareness?

[Irishman]

Hah, hah!... Irishman: a 'round square' isn't a square. You are trying to get anything to prove me wrong, but instead show up with meta-objects (round; square) to prove me wrong, when I say that there is no reality... and what you use for your wrong argument are: (non-real; eg. non-physical) ideas - aka meta-objects.

To prove a 'round square' not being existen is, well... not rather smart.

To repeat my above statement - "As you must know: a negative can't be proven, but logic and knowledge of physics/science tells us, that nothing we have ever seen was real."

Funny. You call it "not rather smart" without even understanding the point. You claimed a negative existential claim cannot be proven, yet it seems easy to prove a negative existential claim about a contradiction. For instance, there does not exist a married bachelor.

That is beside the point though, it was just a digression. The point was the claim that "nothing we have ever seen was real" and "reality doesn't exist" are TWO VERY DIFFERENT CLAIMS (and you are not entitled to the latter).

I wasn't making a statement here. I was questioning standard views.

But are dreams different from not-dreams (= being awake)?

Anyhow, you want to disprove me - without any arguments or facts - I may say (-> have a look at my OP again perhaps)

I'm not trying to disprove you. I'm only claiming that your conclusion is overreaching. I agree with you that we have no direct access to reality, but that doesn't allow you to leap to "reality doesn't exist".

But for a moment think the other way... what's the evidence for reality?

Well phenomena of course. Though we do not have UNMEDIATED access to reality, it is a rational posit to explain the uniformity of experience. IS IT INFALLIBLE? No. We could be wrong, but phenomena can still be evidence for the existence of something if you do not have direct access to it (black holes or dark matter for instance).

To put it simple: Can you explain why there are atoms/matter/energy? And why there is awareness?

Now you are asking why questions? Where did this come from? We posit atoms/matter/energy as an efficient explanation of experience. They are not meant to be infallible.

The star-allegory/examle... given! I won't argue and give it up. It was only meant as an example anyhow.

But understand, that anything we see isn't an reality (ie. the actual real objects).

All that we see isn't real - it's input processed by the eyes, ears etc. and then further processed by the brain, right?

But the brain is simply an conglomerate of atoms. It get's the input and processes it... but can the brain project the result of any of such processs to someone?

Where in the brain is the processed input displayed, and can it be displayed at all? And is there actually an processed and final product in the brain? Or isn't rather that the brain processes and then directly outputs it's result to the body, it's limbs, organs etc?

Tell me: Where in the brain could anything be displayed? And to whom?

Also anything seen isn't real, as all that is seen has to be apart in space (and thus time). Or is it possible to see something now, that is one meter away?

And how can there then be reality?

It's really not that hard. There is a reality completely distinct from our experience. We posit that it causes our experience, but simply having no access to reality doesn't let you claim that there is no such thing.

You really don't seem to understand that the problem isn't in your argument for the FIRST claim (this has been well trodden in philosophy- Quine, Pragmatists, Berkeley, Hume, Kant all have done something along these lines) but you cannot jump from that to the POSITIVE CLAIM that there is no such thing as reality. The JUMP is where your argument fails.

The ancients had no evidence or access to electrons, but that doesn't change the fact that they existed. What we have access to or evidence of is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from what really exists. What exists exists independently of our access to it.