(January 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm)Shell B Wrote: I define it as neither. What is real is what exists. How I, or others, perceive it or even if we perceive it is irrelevant. Do you think the sun was here before you were? Well, I do. I don't have to see something for it to be real. However, I handle those things with scales of likelihood. For example, it is highly unlikely that a giant green monster encircles the Earth. It is slightly more likely that there is such a thing as the Loch Ness monster and so on.
I see, so if it isn't too daring of me to make this leap - to identify something as existing, truly and concretely, what is required? I would say conscious perception of said item (which we then fall into a difference in perception, but let's assume that our perception does not alter so greatly). From this is it possible to make the assertion that conscious perception of things existing presupposes consciousness from which conscious perception arises? Thus meaning that consciousness is real for the simple fact that it exists?
Brevity is the soul of wit.
