Sure, that distinction may not be ultimate. But I think that “real” as an idea only makes sense from the perspective of a “knower”. Without respect to any form of self it seems like everything would just be a “sea of being” without concern for “real”.
Discussion
Right, the self is subjective and the nonself is unprovable, so real is a quality of the self/subjective, and the objective may or may not conform, but also doesn't care. Though, if something is objective but not real it may be reinterpreted as real at a later date, I would think, and that may come back to the point about subjective experience and degrees of trust. In this sense, we can't know if bitcoin is objective, but it can be real depending on your perspective.
I think “real” is more about the relationship between the subjective and the objective and not specifically about one or the other. As far as bitcoin, isn’t it self-evident that it is real? I didn’t think that was being questioned.
I think its real, you think its real, but I am searching for a universizable definition for real. Its easy to assume something is real when you can touch it, but you can't touch bitcoin. I could say bitcoin is real based on assumptions about the node software, the block hash, the fixed supply etc., but that is a different set of requirements at first glance than how you would normally determine if a physical object is real, collectors items aside.
Any elaboration on the "relationship" between the subjective and the objective?
Hmm. Philosophical history probably tells us that your quest is somewhat futile.
Everything we experience has varying degrees of concreteness/abstractness and I think that determines how easy it is to tell if that thing is real.
I don’t think you’re going to come up with some magic criteria that will make abstract realities all-of-sudden obvious. As bitcoin is a little more abstract, it will always be harder to grasp than something tangible.
As far as the relationship, I think the unity between the self and non-self is deeper than the distinction. So that would mean we have a deep connectedness with that which is beyond us.
Hmm, yes it seems like this is one of those questions people have asked for forever and never settled on. The varying degrees of abstractness and what makes something obvious still leads me back to subjective experience and degrees of trust. More tomorrow if you want to add, time for bed, GN.
What do you mean by degrees of trust?
I have a high degree of trust that a video us real if I took it, slightly less is a family or friend took it and vouches for it, less if its on social media etc.
Gotcha, gotcha. I feel like the way you were using the word “subjective” earlier made it sound like you view it as something that is untrustworthy. Is that accurate?
I don't know if I would call the subjective untrustworthy, it could vary person to person but it doesn't have to, its just whatever you see something as, which could be influenced by drugs, experience, sleep deprivation etc.