Definition of Reality

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;126461 wrote:

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate!"

From the movie Cool Hand Luke! Do I get a prize?

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

...Is there a mistake or a misunderstanding, could someone be kind enough to clarify ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;126469 wrote:

...Is there a mistake or a misunderstanding, could someone be kind enough to clarify ?

I think it is both.

People make the mistake of believing that reality is mind-dependent.
They misunderstand when people try to explain why this is a mistake.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;126473 wrote:

I think it is both.

People make the mistake of believing that reality is mind-dependent.
They misunderstand when people try to explain why this is a mistake.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;126475 wrote:

we cannot know without a mind. But what we know is not mind-dependent.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126476 wrote:

we cannot know without a mind. But what we know is not mind-dependent.

What is, is not mind dependent at best, but what we know is, once we know it for ourselves...Knowledge is symbolic, is not reality, always address a someone's need...as a representation it has a goal, witch is to make someone aware of something...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;126479 wrote:

What is, is not mind dependent at best, but what we know is, once we know it for ourselves...Knowledge is symbolic, is not reality, always adress a someones need...as a representation it as a goal, witch is to make someone aware of something...

I know that Mars goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit. That Mars goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit is not mind-dependent, for that would be true even if there were no minds at all.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126480 wrote:

I know that Mars goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit. That Mars goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit is not mind-dependent.

With this I (might) agree, but they are different things, aldo one represents the other...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;126481 wrote:

With this I (might) agree, but they are different things, aldo one represents the other...

What are different things?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126482 wrote:

What are different things?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;126485 wrote:

T

One thing is something being true, another is something being known...

...)

Yes, truth is a necessary condition of knowledge, and not a sufficient condition of knowledge. And, as I already pointed out, knowledge is impossible without a mind, but what it is we know does not require a mind. So knowing is mind-dependent, but what we know is not.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126487 wrote:

Yes, truth is a necessary condition of knowledge, and not a sufficient condition of knowledge. And, as I already pointed out, knowledge is impossible without a mind, but what it is we know does not require a mind. So knowing is mind-dependent, but what we know is not.

...This in an empirical approach I fully agree...

What is, we (might come to) know, and what we know is different...Information itself, or information to our understanding...de-codification...HA ! :bigsmile:

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126487 wrote:

So knowing is mind-dependent, but what we know is not.

... but if we can know that the sky is blue, given that "blue" is a mind-dependent representation doesn't that imply that what we know is (often) mind-dependent? ... that is, isn't there a distinction between what we know (representation) and what our knowledge is a representation of (the thing-in-itself)? ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;126491 wrote:

... but if we can know that the sky is blue, given that "blue" is a mind-dependent representation doesn't that imply that what we know is (often) mind-dependent? ... that is, isn't there a distinction between what we know (representation) and what our knowledge is a representation of (the thing-in-itself)? ...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

interesting

the fallibility of knowledge can take the form of either that we think we know and we are entirely wrong, or that we only know approximately (in which case we are less likely to be completely wrong also).

But knowledge is not only filtered through the likes of the mind, it is also filtered by a narrative of understanding. There are those of us who believe that there is only one way to gain true knowledge, and those of us who believe there is no one way of gaining true knowledge. If we add to that the belief that all knowledge is prone to fallibility (completely wrong and approximately wrong), then we cannot know for certainty whether there is one true narrative way to gain knowledge or that there has to be many narrative ways to gain true knowledge.

Those who are certain that the multinarrative approach is the right way are the same as those who are certain that there is only one narrative that is the right way ..... in that their certainty is a strong commitment of faith. There are thus different meanings to the word certainty. However within the position of someone who has adopted the faith of certainty, then there is only mere 'academic' difference between the meanings because such an attitude reduces certainty to one meaning. Outside that faith (narrative), certainty is up for discussion and tentatively approached, and actively includes the different meanings of fallibility. Whereas within certainty of faith, all knowledge is only comparable to that certainty, as either right, approximately right or completely wrong to it. When these two different groups of people meet there are likely to be a lot of emotions flying around because our relationship to reality is fundamental to our lives and identity.

But knowledge about reality is only half the deal. The other half is how to act within reality. Great shifts in knowledge of reality can bring about great changes of action, and great changes of action can bring about great changes of knowledge through experience.

Great changes of knowledge and great changes in experience can be 'negative' in that they can undermine our relationship to reality while leaving us staring blankly out and at a radical new loss. These experiences and changes are often very unpleasant to start with. But with time hopefully we find a new relationship to reality. Thus time is a great healer.

0 Replies

@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?)

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

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.

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.
Here's a test for you Kenneth. Explain exactly how you come to the conclusion that this quote is in any way opposed to me saying that knowledge is fallible. There is no mention of "knowledge", implied or otherwise. I mention belief, which can be fallible, and evidence, which can also be so. There is no contradiction here, just your reading of it wrong, yet again.

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 11:50 PM ----------

kennethamy;126476 wrote:

we cannot know without a mind. But what we know is not mind-dependent.

Of course it is, what else could it be?

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 11:53 PM ----------

kennethamy;126480 wrote:

I know that Mars goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit. That Mars goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit is not mind-dependent, for that would be true even if there were no minds at all.

Here we go again, round and round, a bit like Mars I suppose. You really can't get away from the "it is because it is" mind set can you?

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 11:58 PM ----------

paulhanke;126491 wrote:

... but if we can know that the sky is blue, given that "blue" is a mind-dependent representation doesn't that imply that what we know is (often) mind-dependent? ... that is, isn't there a distinction between what we know (representation) and what our knowledge is a representation of (the thing-in-itself)? ...

Absolutely. Whether or not anything exists in reality without observation, the fact is everything we "know" is mind dependent.

1 Reply

@housby,

housby;126576 wrote:

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.
Here's a test for you Kenneth. Explain exactly how you come to the conclusion that this quote is in any way opposed to me saying that knowledge is fallible. There is no mention of "knowledge", implied or otherwise. I mention belief, which can be fallible, and evidence, which can also be so. There is no contradiction here, just your reading of it wrong, yet again.

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 11:50 PM ----------

Please explain what it is you mean by, but it can only ever be a belief.

"Only" a belief as contrasted with what?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126631 wrote:

Please explain what it is you mean by, but it can only ever be a belief.

"Only" a belief as contrasted with what?

Absolute truth (if it exists) or anything approaching it.
Also, Kenneth, I must clear up a point I made which, on reflection, could be vague or mis-understood. When I spoke of "mind dependent" I did of course mean in the subject as opposed to the object. I know you would not fail to pick up on that error.

1 Reply

@housby,

housby;126712 wrote:

Absolute truth (if it exists) or anything approaching it.
Also, Kenneth, I must clear up a point I made which, on reflection, could be vague or mis-understood. When I spoke of "mind dependent" I did of course mean in the subject as opposed to the object. I know you would not fail to pick up on that error.

I don't understand what contrast there is between truth (absolute or not) and belief. But I do know that there is a contrast between belief and knowledge. There is an important relation, of course, between knowledge and truth. It is that knowledge implies truth, but truth does not imply knowledge. What contrast do you think there is between truth and belief. Of course, some beliefs are true, and some beliefs are not true. But I do not think that is what you have in mind.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

with regards to mind dependence and knowledge.

We could describe knowledge as not the thing in itself, and therefore knowledge is something else (eg a representation). We could then further say that knowledge because it is not the thing in itself is mind dependent. eg the manual for fixing a motorcycle. This knowledge is on the one hand not the motorcycle in itself AND that it is mind dependent because without a mind it is not knowledge. (in either its writing or reading).

Alternatively, we could say that knowledge is the thing in itself AND that it is mind dependent. In other words when the thing in itself is in the mind it becomes knowledge in the context of mind. Knowledge is thus a mind charged context of the thing in itself. This scheme is not popular in modern intellectualism at the moment, and the former is preferred.

The reason why idealism rejects this scheme is the interpretation of when something is in the mind. Idealism cannot conceive of this phrase "in the mind" as not being spatial and temporal. ie if it is in the mind it is not in the same space as something outside the mind, and therefore it cannot be the same as the thing outside the mind. So the concept of a representation is created to distinguish between them. In the very modern context (based upon relativity) the same arguement can be used to show that in time the thing in the mind is different in time to the thing outside the mind. Thus another reason for believing that the mind holds representations of outer/other things.

However, there now exists the possibility that idealism can be overthrown intellectually by info realism. In info realism everything (including space and time) is information. (non classical information). This reopens the possibility of intellectually understanding that the thing in itself (and reality generally) can be in the mind. Thus the second scheme is resurrected ..... but in a different way to naive realism.

Of course there are other schemes, such as knowledge is not necessarily mind dependent. But that is not being discussed here.

2 Replies

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know