Comment on Hello Human by umneem
It is up to you to call or not to call a mental construct in your brain Pinkie Pie. My point is that there is no physical mare named Pinkie Pie which we can consider real. The only thing a person could have is a mental construct in the brain based on the information from the show, fan fiction and other sources. We can name it Pinkie, because writers of the show scripts and some other people would do so. Or we can do like you suggest, use the name only for the whole body of knowledge about Pinkie Pie.
P.S. And there is one thing we shouldn't do: dispute definitions.
P.S. And there is one thing we shouldn't do: dispute definitions.
Yeah only mathematicians have a reason to dispute about definitions. But I ask you one thing: Aren't the show, our minds and everything both contain real? If something is not real, wouldn't that mean that it does not exist? This is the problem with the very loose definition of reality. I tend to say that everything that can be imagined can potentially be considered real. The opposite would mean that you can only be sure about your own reality as you depend on your senses and of course your brain. The world of somebody with hallucinations is not less real to him than our world is to us. But at the same time it is "not real" by our standards. The problem I'm having is, where is the line between "real" and "not real"?
A possible solution of this issue is to accept that something can be real for one person and not real for another. But it is not the only way.
I know good definition of delusions, as written in "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM):
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary."
As an opposite of delusions you can find what the real things are. I like this approach because it is very practical.
I know good definition of delusions, as written in "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM):
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary."
As an opposite of delusions you can find what the real things are. I like this approach because it is very practical.
Still a very problematic definition if you ask me. This would mean that Galileo Gelileis ideas would've been delusions by the standards of his time. Today we know, he was right. But that's as good as we can get I guess.
Galileo confirmed Copernicus' prediction about full set of Venus phases, based on the the heliocentric model. So he had proofs and his opponents should be considered delusional because they ignored obvious facts.