Where did The Bible originate from?

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Physically real isn't what we are talking about, is it?

You asked if I could name anything that was unreal. If you now want to restrict this discussion to things that aren't physically real, we can do that, but I wish you'd make up your mind.

Cyracuz wrote:

We are talking plain real, and in that sense of the word everything that is experienced is real. Whatever our respective viewpoints on that may be, if we were to reach an agreement on it in the course of our discussion that agreement would form what we would regard as "the fact of the matter" or reality.

If you define "real" as "anything that we can conceive of, including purely imaginary things" and you define "reality" as "everything that is 'real,'" then I suppose "reality" is the product of one's imagination. But then you would be begging the question.

Cyracuz wrote:

You are not discrediting unicorns, but you are disputing their reality by imposing conditions that are superfluous in deciding if they are real or not.

On the contrary. I'm disputing the existence of unicorns. I am not disputing the existence of images of unicorns. Both unicorns and images of unicorns have conditions by which we judge whether they are "real" or not. A unicorn is "real" if it has a physical existence. On that basis, unicorns are not "real." That is not a superfluous condition. It is essential.

Cyracuz wrote:

Physical reality is not all of reality. Some concepts, like fantasy creatures, are considered real by all of us even though they are not physically manifested. They are familiar to us as fictive creatures in an imaginairy world, and in that sense they are real. Other concepts start as conscious movement that then manifests physically. Ideologies, for instance.

Or, in other words, fictive creatures are real in the sense that they're not real. Frankly, your humpty-dumptyism with regard to your definitions is becoming rather tiresome, not to mention confusing. I'm not sure if you even know what you're talking about any more.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

It is clear that you do do not know what I am talking about at least.

You claim I attempt to restric this to non physical real, when it is actually you who are attempting to restrict it to physically real.

You don't seem to grasp the implications of my points, and in regards to the term real, from where I'm looking it is you who are inconsistent. You can't equate real with physical.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Everything that you can possibly experience has existence of some kind. Are you suggesting that some aspects of existence are not real, or take place outside reality?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It is clear that you do do not know what I am talking about at least.

You claim I attempt to restric this to non physical real, when it is actually you who are attempting to restrict it to physically real.

You don't seem to grasp the implications of my points, and in regards to the term real, from where I'm looking it is you who are inconsistent. You can't equate real with physical.

This is really very simple: things are "real" insofar as they satisfy the conditions of reality for things (e.g. that they have a physical existence), images are "real" insofar as they satisfy the conditions of reality for images (whatever those conditions might be), and so forth. A unicorn, therefore, is "real" only insofar as it satisfies the conditions for reality of things, while the image of a unicorn (or the idea of a unicorn or the concept of a unicorn) is "real" only insofar as it satisfies the conditions for reality of images (or ideas or concepts). You, however, think that a unicorn and the idea of a unicorn are the same thing, and that they, therefore, are "real" insofar as they satisfy the same conditions for reality. That is manifestly untrue.

Cyracuz wrote:

Everything that you can possibly experience has existence of some kind. Are you suggesting that some aspects of existence are not real, or take place outside reality?

That depends on how you define "existence."

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Now you are starting to categorize within real. Are you suggesting there are degrees of real? What an absurd notion. If it's there it's real. The distinction you are trying to make is actually that of physical presence as opposed to only present within consciousness. I agree that it is a useful distinction, but it has little to do with real or not, and more to do with locations where concepts manifest.
Would you say that a rainbow is real in the physical reality sense of the word?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Now you are starting to categorize within real. Are you suggesting there are degrees of real? What an absurd notion. If it's there it's real.

No, what is absurd is the notion that, if one thing is "real," then something entirely different must be "real" as well. Thus, according to you, the idea of a unicorn and a unicorn are the same, and so if the idea of a unicorn is "real," then so too is a unicorn. That is absurd.

Cyracuz wrote:

The distinction you are trying to make is actually that of physical presence as opposed to only present within consciousness. I agree that it is a useful distinction, but it has little to do with real or not, and more to do with locations where concepts manifest.

If you think that "real" is only an aspect of consciousness, then I suppose you can make that claim. Of course, that sort of Berkeleyian idealism is completely indefensible, but if that's what you want to believe I won't stop you.

Cyracuz wrote:

Would you say that a rainbow is real in the physical reality sense of the word?

I've asked you several questions in this discussion, largely in connection with the basis for the assertions that you've made, that you have not answered. I don't feel obligated to answer your questions until you start showing me the same courtesy.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I have actually been trying to answer your questions.

What I am failing to communicate is perhaps that the idea of a unicorn is all there is to it. The physical unicorn was introduced to this discussion by you.

Based on your knowledge of physical objects you assert that all concepts must neccesarily have a physical reflection in order to be part of our reality. But that is really nothing more than an assumption.

A poem for instance. Is it not part of reality when the writer has thought it up but not written it or spoken it yet? In the case of a poem all physical representations of it, in writing or sound or whatever, are means to accessing the aspect of the poem's reality that has any value. And it is not the physical aspect.

And if you imply that "real" is anything more than an aspect of consciousness it seems to me you are also implying that there is a reality outside of consciousness. This may seem like a defendable position. There may even be one, but I will be so bold as to say that I think it is only an assumption.

2 Replies

The argument as usual boils down to the emphasis we chose to place on the concept of "physicality" with respect to the concept of "existence". Those would would state "the physical" as an a priori condition for "existence" and consequently for "reality" are correctly termed "naive realists" because they assume that physicality is an aspect of "an object" per se whereas a simply consideration of comparative physiology of "the senses" would seem to indicate that it is a function of the relationship between "observer" and "observed". The intricacies of this relationship are further compounded by the fact that the observer is active not passive, and seeks to "make sense of the world" according to a hierarchy of needs....hence the perception by some of "faces" in clouds, or even the "hand of God" in events.

The relationship situation is now further complicated by the abstract theories of science, leading to the design of complex transducers to "assist" the senses in our quest to "understand the world". Naive realists simply fail to take into account Heisenberg's point that we "never observe the world, only the results of our experiments to attempt to observe it", nor do they understand that the "reality" of scientific concepts like "electrons" is assessed not according to physicality, but by our agreement as to their utility in a web of inter-relationships only some of which having what we call "physical attributes".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Correct..."concepts" are all we've got....only some of which lead to expectations of "physicality".

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I have actually been trying to answer your questions.

No, you've been mostly dodging my questions.

Cyracuz wrote:

What I am failing to communicate is perhaps that the idea of a unicorn is all there is to it. The physical unicorn was introduced to this discussion by you.

I was right -- you're just recycling Berkeleyan idealism.

Cyracuz wrote:

Based on your knowledge of physical objects you assert that all concepts must neccesarily have a physical reflection in order to be part of our reality.

Nope. Never said that. Not even close.

Cyracuz wrote:

And if you imply that "real" is anything more than an aspect of consciousness it seems to me you are also implying that there is a reality outside of consciousness. This may seem like a defendable position. There may even be one, but I will be so bold as to say that I think it is only an assumption.

It may be an assumption, but it is a particularly robust assumption, and nothing else explains "reality" quite as well.

0 Replies

@fresco,

It seems to me that within reality consciousness is more fundamental than physicality. We percieve the physical through consciousness.
That consciousness manifested in humans via physical evolution is, when it comes down to it, an assumption. It is perhaps just as likely that it happened the other way around.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It seems to me that within reality consciousness is more fundamental than physicality. We percieve the physical through consciousness.

That's rather like saying that, because we see a person in the viewfinder of a camera, the person must be inside the camera.

Cyracuz wrote:

That consciousness manifested in humans via physical evolution is, when it comes down to it, an assumption. It is perhaps just as likely that it happened the other way around.

Eh, whatever.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

This seems to follow a definition of "consciousness" in the "awake versus asleep" sense, as being ultimately enlisted to judge what constitutes "physicality"

Quote:

Consciousness is unfolded in each individual. Clearly, it's shared between people as they look at one object and verify that it's the same. So any high level of consciousness is a social process. There may be some level of sensorimotor perception that is purely individual, but any abstract level depends on language, which is social. The word, which is outside, evokes the meaning, which is inside each person.

Meaning is the bridge between consciousness and matter. Any given array of matter has for any particular mind a significance. The other side of this is the relationship in which meaning is immediately effective in matter. Suppose you see a shadow on a dark night. If it means "assailant," your adrenaline flows, your heart beats faster, blood pressure rises, and muscles tense. The body and all your thoughts are affected; everything about you has changed. If you see that it's only a shadow, there's an abrupt change again.

David Bohm in conversation with David Peat.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

No, not really. We do not percieve consciousness through the physical. I know that because if we did there would not be any concept or aspect of existence without physical manifestation.

If you are unwilling to even explore the notion that is your choice.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

No, not really. We do not percieve consciousness through the physical. I know that because if we did there would not be any concept or aspect of existence without physical manifestation.

If you are unwilling to even explore the notion that is your choice.

Typically dismissive response I've come to expect in these types of discussions. The fact is that I have explored the kind of idealism that you're advocating. I just reject it.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

And

Quote:

Eh, whatever

is not a dismissive response?

1 Reply

@fresco,

But how can we be sure matter isn't just something within consciousness?
Why is the accepted view that consciousness exists in a physical world? Why not the other way around?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

And

Quote:
Eh, whatever

is not a dismissive response?

Yes, I suppose it was, but it was dismissive because your remarks about the evolution of consciousness were completely irrelevant to our discussion. It was more an expression of bored indifference than anything else. In contrast, your "you just don't understand" response was intended to end the discussion and evade addressing the points that I raised.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I thought I had addressed the points you raised.
I think we disagree on too many premises to find much common ground.

This started when I said choice is a mechanism in deciding what is real. Perhaps it is better explained in terms of probable outcomes of an event.
Basically we can say that when we observe an object we make quantum measurements. It is not a passive process of absorbing information but an active one of quantifying sensory input. Out of all probable observations the one you actually end up making is the choice, which is committed to memory to form a sense of coherency.
Each time an observation is repeated new measurements are made, but they are seen in contrast to what is committed to memory. But memory itself is also quantum measurement.

Ironically, this approach to reality sort of puts the meaning back into the objects. Everytime you experience something relating to a particular object, be it thinking of the car you are going to buy or actually driving it, you are actually interacting with it. There is no concept, just the continuous measurement from which we form our illusory concepts.

So there is no distinction between an object and it's concept. When I'm out driving and I'm hungry and looking forward to a hot dog, what appears to me as thoughts of a random hot dog I am going to buy in the near future is actually quantum measurements of the actual hot dog I will eat beginning the moment I make the choice to get one.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Ops, looks like I hit reply before I was done..

According to this idea what appears as a physical object is merely a case of quantum measurements resulting in nearly identical choices every time. The more divergent measurements are the less substantial they will appear in our reality. While thinking of food is interacting with it in a way that is just as real as actually eating it, it just seems less real because the quantum measurements do not result in the same choice with as high a frequency.

0 Replies

Where did The Bible originate from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know