Talk:An analysis of reality

Representations etc.

(Probably to be incorporated.)

I omitted treatment of representations, whether using words, pictures, diagrams, charts or other means. Thus, one says that representations either match (or correspond to) or do not match reality.

One might say: you painted a picture of the castle, and in the picture, the castle has two towers, but in reality, it only has one tower.

One might say: in your written testimony, you stated that the castle had two towers, but in reality, it only has one tower.

This use of language suggests one may want to use the word "reality" to something that is not reality. Since: these usages are possible even if all sensory experience is generated by Descartes' demon (or Matrix) and thus never corresponds to reality; thus the "real" castle is one that happens not to match the picture of it, although both the castle and castle picture just correspond to visual perceptions generated by Descartes' demon (or Matrix). I vaguely remember Bertrand Russell must have had a phase of philosophising when he treated objects as dispositions to perceptions, which would save objects from unreality generated by Descartes' demon hypothesis (I am not sure; needs verification.)

Video games are a form of quasi-representation, and one might ponder whether they shed some light on the concept of reality. So is virtual reality, where "virtual" is alienans. Then there is augmented reality. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)