This is a philosophical question so bear with me...
We would first need to define what we mean by "real". I'm not being terribly rigorous here, but, in the general use of the term, though, we often distinguish between things that are real and unreal, or, imaginary, in that things in "reality" are observed by more than one person. Two people can look up in the sky and confirm that they see the moon, and take a picture of it. There's a difference between objective vs. subjective experiences. Since there is no such thing as a neutral thought detection machine that can read your mind, I'd always be dependent on you telling me what you're thinking. You're the only one who is experiencing your own mind, so the experience of thought is totally within you and it is necessarily subjective.
It may still be real, though. But that would then mean that there are things that are real which are not objective facts nor reachable by science, wouldn't it?
On the other hand, it could be that thoughts are real, and we just don't have the technology to decode them yet. That would mean that in the future, unless we are limited by some aspect of quantum physics which prevents it, it should be possible to read minds by detecting neural patterns?
So how do you distinguish between what's real and unreal?
I don't have the answer. I just find it fascinating to contemplate.
We would first need to define what we mean by "real". I'm not being terribly rigorous here, but, in the general use of the term, though, we often distinguish between things that are real and unreal, or, imaginary, in that things in "reality" are observed by more than one person. Two people can look up in the sky and confirm that they see the moon, and take a picture of it. There's a difference between objective vs. subjective experiences. Since there is no such thing as a neutral thought detection machine that can read your mind, I'd always be dependent on you telling me what you're thinking. You're the only one who is experiencing your own mind, so the experience of thought is totally within you and it is necessarily subjective.
It may still be real, though. But that would then mean that there are things that are real which are not objective facts nor reachable by science, wouldn't it?
On the other hand, it could be that thoughts are real, and we just don't have the technology to decode them yet. That would mean that in the future, unless we are limited by some aspect of quantum physics which prevents it, it should be possible to read minds by detecting neural patterns?
So how do you distinguish between what's real and unreal?
I don't have the answer. I just find it fascinating to contemplate.
If only you knew how bad things really are.