Reality is what we mentally create through experience.

I am thankful for the definitions, but the problem is that this is an attempt to define a new paradigm of all these things. Not that that necessarily invalidates them, but that is why I won't spend much time on them. As far as the definition of real goes I will talk about that for a moment. Things that are ostensible and nominal I hope I have not used. The main jab of this definition is, if I understand it correctly, linked to the presentations of the phantom limb and the optical illusion, which I discuss later, but would now like to prime by stating that as far as the pain of a missing limb is concerned it is by no means nominal only (the patient feels it and produces the biological symptoms of pain) and the optical illusion though admittedly, by this definition, is not moving the result is an abstraction of motion which was intended. My point is not whether the pain is real. Sure it is. But is the foot sending out pain signals real? And not just pain. Patients having phantom limbs wake up in the middle of the night to scratch their foot, only to realize it isn't there. So by this, all I want to say is that though they've scratched their foot earlier (which gave them experience), the sensation of having a foot which needs to be scratched is no longer real. So experience does not create reality fully. The actual argument that you make is that reality can encompass no new things (I hope that isn't over simplified) if it is based on past experiences, but the problem with that is that past experiences themselves are an ever growing group (i. e. what just happened when you read the last sentence is now a past experience). The result is that my idea actually explains the production and discovery of new things as the raw materials of reality grow over time (I am not suggesting though that what we didn't know about didn't exist before, but rather I am suggesting that it has become more visible as experience accumulates through history and writing). As for imagination it is not exactly like reality, but is very similar to it. When we read a book not only do we build the reality inside it, but afterwards what we built is like an experience that we extrapolate lessons or facts from (for this is true even of technical non-fictional writing) it later. To say that imagination is dislike reality without qualifying this statement makes reading, writing, art, and music useless to any individual even on practical level (a diagram of something, a mathematical model etc. all have no meaning without the use of the mind to build these imaginary realities or experiences). Your argument is very hazy, to put it politely. Past experiences grow in quantity, true, but what about events like getting punched on the nose for the first time, experiencing an orgasm for the first time or even being kicked in the nuts for the first time? You have to experience such things personally to know what they really are like. No amount of reading theory or watching instructional videos on these three issues (the mental creation) will give an idea of how their reality is like. And as far as imagination goes, what is written in a book CANNOT, and I repeat, CANNOT be taken as reality. Sure, they may be true stories, but there is also a genre called FICTION, which is basically rehashed and recycled experiences of writers which is a mental creation, but NOT REALITY. Here I would like to use Searle's Chinese Room in a semi-non-conventional way to express better how the optical illusion functions. The set-up is that some one creates a computer that can write in perfect conversational Chinese (i. e. it can pass a Turing test 100% of the time convincingly) and places it in a room where people write to it and it writes back. Then we say that instead of a computer we have a man with all the books, pencils, pens, paper, etc. that are needed for him to reproduce the same algorithm and that the man dose not understand an iota of Chinese. The final question is: where is the mind that understands Chinese? I propose that the mind that understands Chinese made the algorithm and that it passed along process of doing this without giving the interior knowledge to do so. So is the optical illusion; to the question, "where is the movement? " I posit that it exists in the creator's mind and he used this to pass it to our minds through his creation. He has effectively used reality to communicate a "non-real" idea through a medium of reality, or, in other words, he created a reality from the abstractions of his mind that we all experienced. . My argument still holds good. When you say 'using reality to communicate a non-real idea through a medium of reality" you are communicating something which is not real. It passing through a medium of reality, using reality does not hold the slightest importance. You see something moving because you are tricked by the illusion. And what appears as reality, similar to previous seen similar motion (the experiences) is not in fact real. Thanks.