Reality is no more important than Fantasy.

I too am unsure as to the purpose behind the imagination, but as this is a fun exploration, I will share my informal observations, as you have done. The best place to start is consciousness/selfhood, which originates from our realizing what we are not (as opposed to some intrinsic 'I'ness) via experience that teaches us that our instinctive motive (internal), holds no influence over the external world e.g., the mere desire for food, does not result in satiation. So I belive this is where the 'I' versus 'other' comes from, along with the realization that we must engage the 'other'/reality to preserve the self. So for me, it remains a mechanism for survival. As we have become less preoccupied with securing our immediate safety, man has been able to ruminate more which allows us to ponder questions on meaning, reality,etc., but our hardwiring retains the same end (at this point in human evolution). We have simply moved toward the preservation of our intangible selves/personality.Let us look at Reality if it was missing Fantasy...If mankind could not imagine, would we be any different than a rock? What separates us from animals is our ability to think in depth...Fantasize. So if we could not do that, would we just be robotic organisms that follow our basic instincts? I accept the distinction that our ability to reason/rationalize (which is included in our definition of fantasy for the purpose of this debate) sets us apart. What is problematic for me is when you go on to say, "..if we could not do that, would we just be robotic," and " if Reality had no Fantasy, there would be no point," and also further down, "Reality holds no importance without Fantasy," or "...if there was just Reality, we would be lost. Without Goal...no difference between You and a Rock." But this is not, at all, the picture we get of animals and nature. There is indeed a point, as animals have specific motive. Animals are not robotic, nor are they like rocks, awaiting the external world to act upon them. They search for food, they procreate and nurture their young, and they adapt to many changes in their environment, so if we agree that this is what is separates them from man, then its seems to me that our species would indeed still have a point, i.e., survival, and as stated above survival which requires us to procure what we need from the external world (outside ourselves).If nothing physically existed, could we have something, a concept, possiblities. Could they exist? I am not sure on this. Do to the fact that I cannot draw a conclusion on whether Fantasy can be independent or not, means there is a better chance this is more viable.Because we have yet to verify the existence of pure consciousness, I believe the existence of a desembodied mind is improbable. Now if this is you view, then I would love to see evidence of such (I would lap it up :-), however, without proof, I find this line of inquiry to be, appropriately, just fantasy..lol. Fantasy seems independent because it does not look to reality to validate itself. Whatever we can conjure, can be entertained at length our minds, because they are abstractions, and we know they are abstractions precisely because they haven't been tied down. This is how fantasy enraptures and consumes us. However, we must also note our compulsion toward reality i.e., that however lovely the flights of fantasy, we crave their realization. This I believe, is why so many things that were once only imagined, have become a reality. It may be beautiful, but it is not real to us until we engage the outside world, until we and others can see the products of our mind out in the light of day.Reality is a lot like Minecraft...you don't have a goal. I think there is definitely a goal in Minecraft, It is so close to what we do in reality that it seems nonexistent, but it is just tacit. We take raw materials from our environment and make our material world; it is plays/activates our survival instinct, hence its popularity. I also don't believe that goals can exist without reality. Goals are those things that we want make 'occur,' 'happen' or 'realize'. When we establish a goal, we simultaneously apprehend the possible actions and consequences required to reach the goal. These actions and consequences or cause and effect,are the rules of engagement with the real world. You may think that what is physically done and proven is more important than something thought up and not accomplished. ...so what in regards to the fact of something being done in Reality. Why does it matter if something actually happens?... These are all things that Reality cannot answer. So if you reject the validity of reality, then I must ask you how do we learn. Do new persectives or knowledge just crop up in our heads, or are they the product of some engagement with other people or things? I know there have been those cases where people have a perspective so unique that we are puzzled as to where the knowledge came from, but these were definitely not people stuck in a dark whole with no contact with the external world. I believe in some subjectivity of reality, but I don't believe it is wholly subjective. I say this because if reality if it were so, a person who lacks one or more senses would never come to recognize and adapt to accommodate the lack of that sense. So when you say, ...Sight, The Idea of Sight. Is it physical? No it is not...imaginary image of "Sight". I must ask you how a blind person, who can (at most) only conjure mental images, must still yield to the physical world i.e, just because he cannot see the car does not make him able to dismiss its physical presence. This is something that blind people know and adapt accordingly. If I hold an image of a car in my hand, will my perception allow me to pick up an actual car between my thumb and forefinger? This is what I mean by the anchoring of subjectivity with actions and consequences. The blind man may not even know it is a car, but he will have to reason that something is blocking his path. Do we know that Fantasy requires Reality? Some theories state: "Consciousness creates reality". “It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics ... without reference to consciousness.” (Eugene Wigner) I don't see how this contradicts with my definition of the construction of reality. I see it as a precursor to them both. As stated above, a degree of subjectivity is not at all problematic. Total subjectivity (total mental fabrication) however, creates the question of the senses. Knowing the economical-tendencies of nature, why would we have so many sensory receptors when it was not necessary for us to survive or if we could obtain the means of sustenance from our minds, what is the point of all the knowledge we have gained via these receptors?"I think, therefore I am."... Me being Real does not cause me. It is my thoughts that create me. The presupposition of this assertion is consciousness i.e, even before one 'thinks' to affirm his existence, he must be conscious i.e, he must be self-aware (the 'I'). Consciousness is the awareness of reality (the external world) we cannot have a self without an awareness of other. So even before 'think' he has said I which is an acknowledgement of reality.Fantasy being what makes Reality explains Religion, Atheism, or any belief out there....Time is something that is Man-Made. So if we can create a system of Time.. I never thought that religion was the result of fantasy, but rather our rationalization to understand the world. Man makes his material world to survive,and then generalizes his 'maker' tendencies to nature. Man didn't make nature, so some greater maker, must've made man and nature. Time is also based in reality. We saw the movement of the sun/moon and the change of the seasons and measured it for practical purposes. Just because minutes and hours (increments) didn't exist does not mean that we were unaware of changes in nature over time...