Toy ducks are not real ducks. But toy ducks are real toys. Hallucinations are not real, but Macbeth's hallucination of a dagger in Shakespeares play was a real hallucination (in the play). What does the adjective, "real", mean?

I suppose that for something to be real, it must be something that is available to the senses in one form or another. A hallucination, while not real to an outside observer, is a real hallucination to the individual experiencing the hallucination, and as such is treated as a real experience.

But hallucinations are not real, and yet they are still "available to the senses", aren't they?

And toy ducks are not real ducks, but I can see them on the shelves of the toy stores. But I don't think that we see or hear hallucinations. We have hallucinations.
And, don't some people have real hallucinations? They are not pretending to have them. Maybe we should distinguish between the contents of the hallucinations, and the hallucinations themselves. The dagger Macbeth hallucinated was not real. But his hallucination was real enough.

And toy ducks are not real ducks, but I can see them on the shelves of the toy stores. But I don't think that we see or hear hallucinations. We have hallucinations.
And, don't some people have real hallucinations? They are not pretending to have them. Maybe we should distinguish between the contents of the hallucinations, and the hallucinations themselves. The dagger Macbeth hallucinated was not real. But his hallucination was real enough.

. . . but when we're having hallucinations we hear and see things that aren't real.

This is just the thought I was going to post, that there is a difference between the contents of hallucinations, and hallucinations.

And agreed, we don't see or hear hallucinations, but rather have hallucinations . . . but when we're having hallucinations we hear and see things that aren't real.

When we say toy ducks are not real ducks, we are using "real" as a synonym for "genuine" or "authentic". We are clearly not questioning the toy duck's existence by calling it fake.

When speaking of hallucinations we are using "real" to mean, "being or occuring in fact or actuality; not imaginary".

If one were to say, "But his hallucination was real enough", one would simply be saying that whomever's experience was authenic, or genuine. That is, he or she wasn't faking the hallucination (like a child may do, for instance). But we all know that hallucinations are not real, but rather that the experience of having an hallucination can be (again, using different notions of "real").

Just as effects contain a ratio of root cause, so does the range of any extension of potential energy.

Maslow modeled this in idea-to-actualized hierarchical scale. Platonic Form to current transformational genomics and behavioral sciences, evolve the same foundational physics.

"Real" and "unreal" are tough words. J.L. Austin writes that it is "unreal" that "wears the pants". He means by that that we say of something that it is real only when we are denying that something is not real. When we assert that is a "real diamond", we are not saying it is some kind of extra-special diamond, we are simply saying it is a diamond, and denying and suggestion that the diamond is fake in any way. That is, that is deviates from being a normal diamond. We are not saying that the stone has some extra property that makes it real. A toy duck is not a real duck, which is to say, it is not a duck. It is a "deviant" duck. Of course a fake toy duck (maybe made of paper instead of wood) is a "deviant" toy duck. Not a real toy duck.

It may seem to us that we see or hear what is not real. Asin Joan of Arc.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 02:46 PM ----------



"Real" and "unreal" are tough words. J.L. Austin writes that it is "unreal" that "wears the pants". He means by that that we say of something that it is real only when we are denying that something is not real. When we assert that is a "real diamond", we are not saying it is some kind of extra-special diamond, we are simply saying it is a diamond, and denying and suggestion that the diamond is fake in any way. That is, that is deviates from being a normal diamond. We are not saying that the stone has some extra property that makes it real. A toy duck is not a real duck, which is to say, it is not a duck. It is a "deviant" duck. Of course a fake toy duck (maybe made of paper instead of wood) is a "deviant" toy duck. Not a real toy duck.

"Not a real toy duck", makes sense. It means that the toy duck is not authentic, according to whatever standards for authenticity there are for toy ducks.

I don't think this is quite correct, as it lacks specificity to say this.

One would have to say something like "this is not a real toy duck from the 17th century," for standards of authenticity to apply.

In other words, the toy duck is still a real toy duck, it's just not a real antique toy duck. Similar fakes are often revealed to people on "Antiques Roadshow."

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.

What do you think the phrase, "Not a real toy duck", would mean then? Here, I would think, we are using "real" as a synonym for "genuine" or "authentic". Generally speaking, when we apply the descriptor "authenic" to an object, we are referring to standards which make the object "authenic". For instance, I could say this is not a real yankees baseball cap if it does not have X logo and I would mean it's not an authenic yankees baseball cap (here I may also be referring to quality when I say "genuine" or "authentic"). I'm obviously not debating the cap's existence, though.

Let's clarify what we mean when we say that something is real, because there are clearly different contexts in which the word can be used. When I say that something is real I mean that it is true, actual, and not alleged or ideal. When I speak of reality, I am speaking of matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike and unwilled relations in space-time.

Hallucinations in themselves are real experiences that some people have, but the experience isn't a true representation of reality.

Are you sure you are on the right thread, or right forum?

That is a special view of what reality is. Plato did not have such a view, and neither did other philosophers, or, for that matter, many mathematicians.

Did you go to the link "foundational physics"?

Or are you that bent on suppressing higher value addition here?

I think we ought to note the difference between placing the adjective "real" before the substantive it qualifies, and after the substantive it qualifies. A real X is just not a deviant X (a real diamond is just not a paste diamond). But to say that this X is real is to deny that it is imaginary or hallucinatory. But, "real" is a "negative" term. It means not fake (deviant) or not imaginary. It is not a positive term.

Did you go to the link "foundational physics"?

Or are you that bent on suppressing higher value addition here?

So reality doesn't ultimately consist of matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike relations in space-time? Reality isn't everything that exists?