0
   

Definition of Reality

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 04:37 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;126244 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the point being made here. Is a masked reality somehow different than an unmasked reality?


It is masked. Whatever that means. I guess it is like Batman, who is, as we all know, Bruce Wayne.
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 05:31 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126251 wrote:
It is masked. Whatever that means. I guess it is like Batman, who is, as we all know, Bruce Wayne.


Who in turn was Adam West, who in turn was William West Anderson.
Curses! No matter how we try to cover it up, reality is always there,
in some form or another, no matter how many layers we peel away.

My mind travels back, way back, to post #2 . . .

kennethamy;121201 wrote:
"Reality is what remains when you have stopped believing in it" (Several attributions).






Optional Geek Link:
Adam West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 05:36 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;126262 wrote:
Who in turn was Adam West, who in turn was William West Anderson.
Curses! No matter how we try to cover it up, reality is always there,
in some form or another, no matter how many layers we peel away.

My mind travels back, way back, to post #2 . . .







Optional Geek Link:
Adam West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But it has to be deeper, and profounder, and more incomprehensible than that. Otherwise, how can it be philosophically true?
0 Replies
 
housby
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 06:40 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126179 wrote:
Why, on earth, would that be a reason for its being possible?

Do we really have to go over that again? Okay, briefly.
1.All we can ever know of the outside world comes to us from our senses. All of it. Everything. Even Kants apriori knowledge seems to rely on prior experience (forgive me if I'm wrong on that but I get a bit fed up reading "Critique....." because I find it terminally boring due to his use of overblown and flowery language - the man was a great thinker but he couldn't write worth a damn).
2.The senses are workings of the mind.
3.The mind is fallible (dreams, hallucinations, insanity, drugs, etc. can all alter our perception of what is real).
4.It follows therefore that the evidence given to us by our senses could be (I stress could be, not is) fallible.
5.This means that the evidence of an "outside world" may be itself fallible.
6.Arguments such as knowing the moon existed before people or carbon dating proving that things existed before humans are still only backed up by trusting the senses (which could be fallible).
7.Quantum physics is making our grasp on reality even more tenuous if you accept that sub-atomic particles, which make up everything in the known universe, don't seem to pass any test of existence due to the impossibilty of measuring them. Begging the question, "How can everything be made up from that which itself doesn't have any concrete existence as far as can be measured and quantified?"
I think that, in a nutshell, covers the bulk of my initial thread (digressions apart).
For one last and final time I will also add that I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible. Obviously there has been more to this thread than this but I believe that I have covered the basic theory (and that's all it is).
Incidentally, try this: take any object you care to and describe it to someone without using references that need prior experience gained from the senses. Let me know how you go on. Another one to liven up a party, especially after a few drinks.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 06:53 pm
@housby,
housby;126276 wrote:

For one last and final time I will also add that I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.


How does it follow that we cannot know that there is a world because we might be mistaken? It follows that we cannot know if we are mistaken, but it does not follow that we do not know because we might be mistaken. Unless, of course, you assume that knowledge implies absolute certainty. And that assumption is false. I have pointed out the difference between the possibility of error and the actuality of error several times before, but you still have not grasped the distinction. We do not know if we are in error, but not if we might be in error. We are not certain if we might be in error. But knowledge and certainty are different. So, what you say above is a non-sequitur since you are confusing knowledge with certainty. I really hope I need not explain this again. If you have an objection to my argument, please state it. But please refrain from simply saying that because you are fallible you cannot know, because that is, as I have pointed out, a non-sequitur.
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 07:22 pm
@housby,
housby;126276 wrote:

7.Quantum physics is making our grasp on reality even more tenuous if you accept that sub-atomic particles, which make up everything in the known universe, don't seem to pass any test of existence due to the impossibilty of measuring them.


But this doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles can't exist, does it?
And as far as the impossibility of measuring and quantifying them,
wouldn't it be more accurate to tack a "yet" onto the end of that
particular declaration?

After all, at one time it was considered impossible to measure
and quantify light values and intensities, but now, every time
we take a picture, the light meter in our camera does just that.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 07:30 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;126289 wrote:
But this doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles can't exist, does it?
And as far as the impossibility of measuring and quantifying them,
wouldn't it be more accurate to tack a "yet" onto the end of that
particular declaration?

After all, at one time it was considered impossible to measure
and quantify light values and intensities, but now, every time
we take a picture, the light meter in our camera does just that.


I don't think that the number three can be measured (whatever that may mean). But the number three exists. Therefore, some things that cannot be measured (whatever that means) exist.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 07:36 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126397 wrote:
I don't think that the number three can be measured (whatever that may mean). But the number three exists. Therefore, some things that cannot be measured (whatever that means) exist.


Hi kenneth !
(no joke) In what sense do you say that number three cannot be measured ? Physically ? Because number three can be compared witch is a form of measurement...
0 Replies
 
housby
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 08:06 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126277 wrote:
We do not know if we are in error, but not if we might be in error. We are not certain if we might be in error. But knowledge and certainty are different. So, what you say above is a non-sequitur since you are confusing knowledge with certainty. I really hope I need not explain this again. If you have an objection to my argument, please state it. But please refrain from simply saying that because you are fallible you cannot know, because that is, as I have pointed out, a non-sequitur.

I have read your first sentence here and cannot make any sense of it grammatically. I do know the distinction between kowledge and certainty and I have no objection to your argument, just your apparent closed mind to some ideas that don't seem to fit in with your view of the world. Fallibility is lack of certainty not lack of knowledge. Certainty is exactly what it says on the tin, knowledge is what may be fallible.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 08:19 am
@housby,
housby;126410 wrote:
I have read your first sentence here and cannot make any sense of it grammatically. I do know the distinction between kowledge and certainty and I have no objection to your argument, just your apparent closed mind to some ideas that don't seem to fit in with your view of the world. Fallibility is lack of certainty not lack of knowledge. Certainty is exactly what it says on the tin, knowledge is what may be fallible.


Yes. That isn't very clear. What I should have said it this:

If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know. Being mistaken is incompatible with knowing. But the mere possibility of being mistaken is compatible with knowing. For example, it is possible that I am mistaken that the Nile is the longest river in Africa. But that does not mean that I am mistaken about that. If I were mistaken about that, then, of course, I would not know. But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.

So, indeed, fallibility is the lack of certainty, not the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we may be mistaken about the nature and the existence of reality. But that does not mean that we do not know that there is a reality, and what its nature is, as you claimed. And I think you claimed that because it was possible that we are mistaken about it.

I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

You did write that, didn't you?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 08:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126413 wrote:
Yes. That isn't very clear. What I should have said it this:

If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know. Being mistaken is incompatible with knowing. But the mere possibility of being mistaken is compatible with knowing. For example, it is possible that I am mistaken that the Nile is the longest river in Africa. But that does not mean that I am mistaken about that. If I were mistaken about that, then, of course, I would not know. But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.

So, indeed, fallibility is the lack of certainty, not the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we may be mistaken about the nature and the existence of reality. But that does not mean that we do not know that there is a reality, and what its nature is, as you claimed. And I think you claimed that because it was possible that we are mistaken about it.

I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

You did write that, didn't you?


...So, what your saying is that certainty is not needed to Know...and its well defended...

Still:

To Know there must four things: Someone, a medium, information and something to be known...

...Confirmation to the Agent is to my understanding a Necessary key for him to Conscientiously acquire the knowledge...without it he stays in a sort off limbo...Knowledge implies Conscience, therefore if in doubt, then something must be missing, something has to had failed in the process, consequently the knowledge is flawed even if it comes out by coincidence to be true afterwards...in my view Certainty is absolutely necessary...
Knowledge as to be a Positive affirmation and not a possibility !
housby
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:03 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;126289 wrote:
But this doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles can't exist, does it?
And as far as the impossibility of measuring and quantifying them,
wouldn't it be more accurate to tack a "yet" onto the end of that
particular declaration?

After all, at one time it was considered impossible to measure
and quantify light values and intensities, but now, every time
we take a picture, the light meter in our camera does just that.

I agree with you totally. As with all other things we can't say they don't exist because we can't measure them. I also agree with the "yet" factor. The only problem here is that everything I have read on this seems to point to the impossibility of ever measuring both the position and velocity of the particle. Most physicists seem to agree on this. I must say I'm probably more with you on this, on the basis of "never say never".

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 03:09 PM ----------

kennethamy;126413 wrote:
Yes. That isn't very clear. What I should have said it this:

If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know. Being mistaken is incompatible with knowing. But the mere possibility of being mistaken is compatible with knowing. For example, it is possible that I am mistaken that the Nile is the longest river in Africa. But that does not mean that I am mistaken about that. If I were mistaken about that, then, of course, I would not know. But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.

So, indeed, fallibility is the lack of certainty, not the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we may be mistaken about the nature and the existence of reality. But that does not mean that we do not know that there is a reality, and what its nature is, as you claimed. And I think you claimed that because it was possible that we are mistaken about it.

I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

You did write that, didn't you?


Absolutely, Kenneth. I think the main problem you and I have had in all this is a failure to understand what the other is saying. Guilty as charged on my part. I think a few hours together and a few drinks would be highly entertaining. Pity there's a small matter of about 5 thousand miles (real or otherwise).
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:14 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;126427 wrote:
...So, what your saying is that certainty is not needed to Know...and its well defended...

Still:

To Know there must four things: Someone, a medium, information and something to be known...

...Confirmation to the Agent is to my understanding a Necessary key for him to Conscientiously acquire the knowledge...without it he stays in a sort off limbo...Knowledge implies Conscience, therefore if in doubt, then something must be missing, something has to had failed in the process, consequently the knowledge is flawed even if it comes out by coincidence to be true afterwards...in my view Certainty is absolutely necessary...
Knowledge as to be a Positive affirmation and not a possibility !



If what is believed is well justified, it is not coincidence that it is true.

I know that is your view. But don't you have some reason to believe it is true. (What on earth does knowledge implies conscience mean? Or that knowledge is a positive affirmation, and not a possibility?)

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 10:21 AM ----------

housby;126430 wrote:
I agree with you totally. As with all other things we can't say they don't exist because we can't measure them. I also agree with the "yet" factor. The only problem here is that everything I have read on this seems to point to the impossibility of ever measuring both the position and velocity of the particle. Most physicists seem to agree on this. I must say I'm probably more with you on this, on the basis of "never say never".

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 03:09 PM ----------



Absolutely, Kenneth. I think the main problem you and I have had in all this is a failure to understand what the other is saying. Guilty as charged on my part. I think a few hours together and a few drinks would be highly entertaining. Pity there's a small matter of about 5 thousand miles (real or otherwise).


But what you said in that quote is directly opposite to your just telling me that knowledge is fallible. I don't think that even a few hours together will make a contradiction all right. What you need is to be consistent. But, of course, one can be consistently wrong. So, although consistency is a necessary condition of truth, it is not a sufficient condition of truth. But you might, at least, start with consistency.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126437 wrote:
If what is believed is well justified, it is not coincidence that it is true.

I know that is your view. But don't you have some reason to believe it is true. (What on earth does knowledge implies conscience mean? Or that knowledge is a positive affirmation, and not a possibility?


Well that depends on what one accepts as a good justification...Confirmation is good justification ! Possibility it is not...Conscience of something implies confirmation to where I stand...Do, I think I clearly understood what you have said.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:38 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;126445 wrote:
Well that depends on what one accepts as a good justification...Confirmation is good justification ! Possibility it is not...Conscience implies confirmation to where I stand...Do, I think I clearly understood what you have said.


It doesn't matter "where you stand". What matters is whether you are justified in standing where you stand. That something is possible is not good justification. That is right. But we have excellent confirmation for many of the things we believe. For example, I believe that I was born. I am not saying that since it is possible that I was born, I was born. I am saying that since I have excellent confirmation that I could not be alive unless I was born, that I was born.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126448 wrote:
It doesn't matter "where you stand". What matters is whether you are justified in standing where you stand. That something is possible is not good justification. That is right. But we have excellent confirmation for many of the things we believe. For example, I believe that I was born. I am not saying that since it is possible that I was born, I was born. I am saying that since I have excellent confirmation that I could not be alive unless I was born, that I was born.


In that case you might not be in error therefore you know...glad that we finally agree.

The problem is not with belief, but with belief without confirmation...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:04 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;126451 wrote:
In that case you might not be in error therefore you know...glad that we finally agree.


I doubt it, since I really don't know what you are saying. But it hardly matters.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:11 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;126452 wrote:
I doubt it, since I really don't know what you are saying. But it hardly matters.


I will remind you if I may...

kennethamy;126452 wrote:
If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:55 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;126455 wrote:


"What we've got here is a failure to communicate!"
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 11:16 am
@Zetherin,
kennethamy;126452 wrote:
But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.
...This sentence was the root of the problem to me...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/11/2024 at 03:26:51