Which one is right Veeky Forums?

I disagree, everything that you experience is real.

What makes you so sure?

it's just a matter of definition no

Is that definition definitive universal truth and not just one of construct?

I'm not sure, I'm not very well versed in philosophy.

But to me it does seem that when having to chose between 'nothing is real' and 'my experiences are real' the latter seems more convincing and you cannot escape making assumptions. Even if the source of my experiences is not what I think it is, for example, if my whole life has been a simulation, these (perhaps disingenuous) experiences still form my reality.

Your experiences are hyper-real but they're also fleeting and non-existent

Your experience alone is not real, it is comprised of material, perception, sensations, mental formations, and finally all of these make up the conscious and the condition of those previously mentioned and consciousness are forever changing so your experience is a culmination of these aggregates are in a constant state of flux as is your recollection of your perceived and conscious state of experience. What appears real to you, appears real in a different condition to someone else, both are, however, experiencing the hyper-real where your real is more real than real.

This thread is stupid. Real is basically an honorific term, call shit 'real' or 'not real', whatever, man. You can't deny that there are atoms and that they're made out of protons, electrons, and neutrons unless you're brain-damaged in some way.

Just because chemicals in our brain tell us that we have chemicals in our brain (a massive oversimplification) hardly means we can't trust them to do so.

Which is it, user? Are they fleeting, or do they not exist?

I guess I expounded upon my idea here, though I'd be more than happy to admit that I am wrong if you can show me

I didn't say my experiences and another person's experiences coincide. Two people have two realities. The things that are mutually apprehensible are mostly the things that belong in the scientific domain.

Also what the hell is hyper-real

But are realities anything other than constructs?

I think not
If I would discard philosophy I would still experience life
you cannot deny these experiences exist. It is irrelevant how they are formed.

What you're saying doesn't make that much sense, to be frank. As I said, 'real' is basically an honorific term, so it isn't very coherent to talk about 'your' real being 'more real than real'.

You're right that one's recollection of one's own experience isn't always accurate, but I'm not sure what bearing this has on the nature of reality. There are ways of checking on the accuracy of your experience (e.g. by running experiments replicating the conditions of the experience as closely as you can). There's a limit to the depth and detail of these checks in practice, but I don't see why that would make their results any less 'real'.

You're also right that events look different to different observers, but it's typically not too hard figure out what actually went down by comparing your experiences of the event, and carefully examining possible causes of the discrepancies. It's only hard when the experiences in question are extremely subtle or complicated and involve emotional or aesthetic concerns, but I think that's due more to the highly specific nature of the experience in question rather than a property of 'reality' as a whole.

Flux is reality. Its the one constant condition of reality. You, your consciousness, is part of this flux.
That you are flux therefore nothing is real is a non-sequitur.

>you cannot deny these experiences exist. It is irrelevant how they are formed.

Exactly, on that I will agree with you.

True, but is the way we take in the world around us real in the most common and accepted use of the term?

NOTHING IS REAL

EVERYTHING IS SPOOKS