"How do you actually know you're real?"

[KichigaiNeko]

I may or may not be real...then a gain I could be just a pigment of your imagination... yeah sucks to be me

[Mister Agenda]

I take my word on it.

[killybob]

"I think therefore I am" ~René Descartes~
OK, so all of us are plainly each an individual consciousness, and that part of us exists at least. To deny that is to truly lose your grip on reality (lol see what I did there?). As for our physical bodies, and the physical world, that's harder to prove the existence of, if someone does suggest that it's an illusion.
While it's literally impossible to prove the existence of our reality sue to the nature of the suggestion, all I can say about it is this. Whatever the physical word is, fake or not, it adheres to a certain set of physical laws, which we have observed through science. This shows that, while it may not be real, it is consistent.
Also, we can interact with other things in this universe that can be observed, without exception. That is all we really need to know about the matter.

As we can see, there has never been any signs to suggest that what we can sense is fake, and the fact that this world is so consistent (and we all seem to see the exact same things as each other which rules out separate hallucinations) seems to show that this is no mass hallucination, nor somebody else's dream. To be honest this question is nonsensical. There is not a smidgen of evidence that suggests that this is not really reality, and even if it is, why should that affect us? we couldn't escape it if we wanted to, and I'm quite happy living in this world.

This is why I think philosophy shouldn't be a career. It causes people to waste time thinking about a lot of senseless ideas that are entirely inconsequential to anybody (unless they dwell on the idea and get upset by it). Just think, some of those genius philosophers could have applied their knowledge to something USEFUL like science and actually HELPED us progress.

Deep thinking is often good, but philosophy takes it too far.

BTW, sorry for the wall of text. I won't mind if you say "tl;dr"

[Darkstar]

(Anything I would have said in a serious response has already been covered.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh. Sorry, I had a brainfart when I was reading your post, something didn't translate well to my brain in it.

I see what you mean, it's just...how DOES one convince someone that thinks that the argument that the five senses are not enough to be definitive proof of one's own existence that, in fact, it is all that you have and all that is needed? If you can at all? And is it valid to think that way? Or is it just idiocy masquerading as deep thought that rejects any semblance of tangibility in favor of arguing the inarguable? Take a guess which one I think it is. My concern is just, am I biased? SHOULD I be considering this viewpoint as valid, or...is common sense just working in my favor on this one?

How indeed. The truth is that you cannot, and that solipsism is technically valid. I matters very little, in the end, if it's all an illusion. It's just a shift in qualifiers. It isn't really idiocy masquerading as anything. It -is- "deep thought", and it took us a long time to come to it, but it isn't useful or productive thought. The bit where ignorance gets involved is when someone proposes it as a detriment to your viewpoint and a support or defense of their own (specifically in attacking yours - as is usually the case). In truth, it's a scorched earth. Two opposing viewpoint may both be incorrect once solipsism is invoked, but one may still be less incorrect than the other. In the context of an atheist debating a theist, an appeal to solipsism is a concession of defeat on the part of the theist. Simply agree with them, you can't prove any of it, it's all an illusion - including their god. You're a figment of their imagination offering up their own doubts, or vice-versa. The delusion isn't collective, but the collective nature of the delusion is delusion itself, etc etc etc.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Why is it in these sort of questions, "real" and "fake" never seem to be defined?

[jonb]

Does it matter, to me if I am "real" or not?
Does it matter to me if I am "I"?
what is happening are a set of incidents, which I am reacting too. I can postulate this is a dream, but given the situation "I" am in there is no other course than to be part of the narrative.
If anybody does wish to post evidence of an alternate reality, which I could try out I will of course listen to them.

[Cephus]

While there's no way to prove anything to any degree of absolute certainty, there are lots of reasons to think that individuals are real. However, even if there weren't, we all need to act as though we are real in order to survive, thus whether or not we actually are is largely irrelevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

Deal with it the Sam Harris way: Why should anyone listen to a solipsist in the first place?

[KichigaiNeko]

I can only prove that I am a pigment of your imagination.....






I'm in Technicolour...maybe.