Reply to comment

Why differentiate at all? Perhaps it all boils down to the same thing--after all, how can we invalidate one cellular/molecular process from another? Are the processes occurring in a schizophrenic less tangibly "real" on a molecular level than in a "sane" individual? The fact of the matter is that a process is occurring, period. The process is "real" in a purely scientific sense and this very fact should translate into a "real" reality for the schizophrenic. It is also important to acknowledge that our understanding of the terms "real" and "fake," in relation to our current dialogue, are the product of an innate human propensity to label and define the world around us. I'm thinking that "reality" is really not as black and white as the reductionist within us all might like it be. To me, the issue is not a clarification of the "fake" and the "real". I don't think a single one of us equipped with the capacity to do that. After all, we create convenient “realities” for ourselves on daily basis, “real” or not. Many of us choose to be complacent to issues of social injustice. Our “reality” is set in wealthy main line, at a prestigous institution called Bryn Mawr College, where virtually all basic comforts are provided to us; the crisis at hand is the rigor of an intense academic setting. Is this a pragmatic view of reality? When nearly half the world’s inhabitants live on less than two dollars a day, I beg differ. But who am I to say? My point is that the very phrase “real reality” makes me itch. “Real” is relative—subjective, and I have a hard time basing the sum of my studies on the essence of "reality" and what it means to be "real" on a body of subjective data.

Are our attempts futile? I'm starting to think so. Honestly, I’m ready and willing to retire--to except the possibility that the extent of my perceived experience is fabricated, for whatever reason. In saying that, I also wish to express that this possibility does not necessarily invalidate the human experience.