Definition of Reality

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;126872 wrote:

They would understandably assume that God caused their friends to disappear. As is often the first inclination when humans are unable to understand some phenomena.

Perhaps, yes. But you and I know what is really happening (as does the sighted man). The blind people are falling off of cliffs.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126875 wrote:

Why is that? I just believe (indeed know) there are mind-independent objects. That does not mean that there are unknowable objects.

... I would say that "thing-in-itself" and "mind-independent object" are synonyms ... "thing-in-itself" is not a synonym for "unknowable object" - after all, a thing-in-itself can be known through our sensory representations of it ...

EDIT: given the hair splitting with the word "know" in this thread, perhaps I need to retract (or at least qualify) the last half of that statement ... if to "know" requires "truth", then for an object to be "knowable" requires our sensory representations of it to be "true".

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;126878 wrote:

Perhaps, yes. But you and I know what is really happening (as does the sighted man). The blind people are falling off of cliffs.

You and I would be blind. The only man that would know what a cliff is would be the man with sight, but as far as we know, sight doesn't exist. We would naturally assume that the man with sight is crazy; concluding he is making up these crazy stories of giant plants and cliffs so large you can barely see the bottom. We would not be able to comprehend such an existence.

---------- Post added 02-10-2010 at 06:53 PM ----------

paulhanke;126879 wrote:

... I would say that "thing-in-itself" and "mind-independent object" are synonyms ... "thing-in-itself" is not a synonym for "unknowable object" - after all, a thing-in-itself can be known through our sensory representations of it ...

Right, knowledge, by definition, is what we know about the object existing-in-itself through sensation.

We need to get out of the mindset that all that can be known is what can be measured.

1 Reply

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;126880 wrote:

You and I would be blind. The only man that would know what a cliff is would be the man with sight, but as far as we know, sight doesn't exist. We would naturally assume that the man with sight is crazy; concluding he is making up these crazy stories of giant plants and cliffs so large you can barely see the bottom. We would not be able to comprehend such an existence.

But that wouldn't make the cliffs, or the consequences of stepping off of one of them, any less real. Would it?

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;126860 wrote:

... it almost seems that this would have to be the case - else "fallibility" would only be a remote possibility, would it not? ...

well yes, IF you find idealism convincing in itself that is. AND/OR you recognise that science has shown that human sensory perception has given us a false picture of reality. eg we cannot percieve 4d spacetime. So therefore our fallibility is largely explained by our nature.

There are it seems to me the possibility of 'mixed' scenarios.

Suppose there were creatures that had brains very similar to ours, but lived in an environment where time dilation and other gravitational spacetime effects were prevalant. Is it not possible that even with the limitation of our brains and senses that they could develope conceptual instinctive models of space time such that they could for example hunt successfully in such an environment? A bit like the fish spearer who learns to compensate for the way light bends in water and places the fish in a different place to where it actually is.

In other words the reason why we think classically and seperate space from time and don't account for atomic behaviour is not because our brains are classical and inadequate, but precisely because classical IS adequate enough to survive and create. Why develope non classical thinking and modelling, even in a mind capable of doing it, if it is superfluous to its environment?

But also, there may be varying degrees between classical and non classical information. Just because we don't have a complete internal external 4d clone of a coffee cup in our minds, does not necessarily imply that there isn't some non classical aspects to our relationship with the reality of it. It may be that the image you have of the room you are in at the moment, though non classically incomplete, may still be beyond classical modelling.

After all. Idealism still has a very difficult consequence from its own claim to the nature of reality. The room you now see is entirely in your head!! Step outside on a starry night and the 'representation' becomes immense!

So. Solipsism? I don't think so. The age old debate between naive realism and idealism can conceivably be resolved by using info realism....... Not to mention other contentious philosophical and profound scientific implications.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;126882 wrote:

But that wouldn't make the cliffs, or the consequences of stepping off of one of them, any less real. Would it?

Of course not, but we wouldn't understand the concept of cliffness, so we would attribute these disappearings to supernatural phenomena.

Supernatural phenomena that we encounter today, such as aliens, is merely that in which we can't understand. That doesn't mean these phenomena do not exist; just probably not how most people believe they exist.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;126883 wrote:

In other words the reason why we think classically and seperate space from time and don't account for atomic behaviour is not because our brains are classical and inadequate, but precisely because classical IS adequate enough to survive and create.

... which is how Kant and Schopenhauer view space and time - that is, it seems entirely possible (and to Kant and Schopenhauer, entirely obvious) that each of us enters into the world with a predisposition to comprehend the maelstrom of raw sensing via an innate (but classical) subconscious notion of space and time (similar to how we enter into the world with a predisposition to use language) ...

pagan;126883 wrote:

But also, there may be varying degrees between classical and non classical information. Just because we don't have a complete internal external 4d clone of a coffee cup in our minds, does not necessarily imply that there isn't some non classical aspects to our relationship with the reality of it. It may be that the image you have of the room you are in at the moment, though non classically incomplete, may still be beyond classical modelling.

... and what would our representations of a thing-in-itself be like if we were to construct prosthetic senses able to peer into the "non classical"? (he wondered out loud) ... would we be able to perceive, or would "non classical" perception be beyond our evolved subconscious abilities to organize raw sensing? ... given that we can't even turn off this subconscious ability when faced with an illusion, it seems likely that our comprehension of the "non classical" may only ever be achievable intellectually, not experientially ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Quote:

paulhanke
... given that we can't even turn off this subconscious ability when faced with an illusion, it seems likely that our comprehension of the "non classical" may only ever be achievable intellectually, not experientially ...

ah! well there i would have to disagree with you Smile

I have come to find idealism so unconvincing that it verges on a joke ..... nevertheless a joke of immense power, seduction, creativity and pragmatism. Further i can only give you my word that it can be undermined experientially.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;126888 wrote:

ah! well there i would have to disagree with you I have come to find idealism so unconvincing that it verges on a joke .....

... you're preaching to the choir Smile

- as Schopenhauer puts it, solipsism is only taken seriously in a madhouse ... but what makes you certain that if we could devise a prosthetic sense that could peer into the "non classical" that the limitations of our minds would allow us to fully experience the raw sensing coming from the prosthetic sense? (as opposed to it being just a scrambled mess of data that can only be interpreted intellectually, as is the case with many of our existing prosthetic senses) ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Quote:

paulhanke
... but what makes you certain that if we could devise a prosthetic sense that could peer into the "non classical" that the limitations of our minds would allow us to fully experience the raw sensing coming from the prosthetic sense? (as opposed to it being just a scrambled mess of data that can only be interpreted intellectually, as is the case with many of our existing prosthetic senses) ...

i don't think we need to develope such a prosthetic sense. We have our own senses. They may be fallible and incomplete, but i don't subscribe to the idealist viewpoint as complete, and i suspect that david deutsch is only scratching the surface of post ideal scientific possibilities.

In fact i seriously doubt we can, but anything is possible i suppose. QM computers are very tetchy in theory..... and are likely to be far more so in practice. How else would we collate the information?

2 Replies

@housby,

It would be hard to find someone who believed that the world did not exist outside their minds. It would also be hard to find someone who believed that our brains do not pre-process sense data automatically, giving it a manageable structure. It seems like the only live debate on the issue is the nature of this structuring.

There are many who expect that the annihilation of their brain is the annihilation of their experience of the world.

In my opinion, consciousness remains mysterious. Even if associated with this or that part of the brain or called an epiphenomenon. Why is there something rather than nothing? An old question.

1 Reply

@pagan,

the definition of reality , to have dimension (the ability to manifest) , to have depth , to have length and to have breadth , and movement ( time for some )

1 Reply

@north,

north;126900 wrote:

the definition of reality , existence of things and life

Points for being terse. Now all you have to do is define existence and life.

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;126894 wrote:

i don't think we need to develope such a prosthetic sense. We have our own senses.

... maybe I'm missing the point of your space-time creature thought experiment then - I thought it was intended to illuminate the fact that our inborn notions of space and time are adapted to our situation and do not cover all possible situations, and that alien (and unthinkable) forms of experience may be possible (e.g., experiencing space-time as opposed to experiencing space and time as distinct) ... at any rate, what would our body of knowledge look like today if it weren't for our toolkit of prosthetic senses such as electro-magnetic detectors, electron microscopes, particle accelerators, etc.? ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Quote:

paulhanke
... maybe I'm missing the point of your space-time creature thought experiment then - I thought it was intended to illuminate the fact that our inborn notions of space and time are adapted to our situation and do not cover all possible situations, and that alien (and unthinkable) forms of experience may be possible (e.g., experiencing space-time as opposed to experiencing space and time as distinct)

yes.

Quote:

at any rate, what would our body of knowledge look like today if it weren't for our toolkit of prosthetic senses such as electro-magnetic detectors, electron microscopes, particle accelerators, etc.?

ah sorry. by prosthetic sense i thought you meant as in adding new devices to our brains.

With regard to knowledge through science i celebrate it. Great stuff. I think science through its intellectual models has a direct effect upon the philosophical perspective of people generally. Further it creates technology that alters our lives profoundly too. Although i do not think the idealist model of perception is complete (in fact its patently ridiculous in some ways) nevertheless it is extremely powerful.

Idealism is fallible. Naive realism is fallible. Info realism i believe will be fallible. All complex narratives i believe are fallible because i am a post modernist. But as has been noted before, fallibility does not exclude knowledge.

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;126897 wrote:

Why is there something rather than nothing? An old question.

... an old philosophical question ... so are "why" questions like this ("Why is there gravity?" "Why is there a strong nuclear force?") part of a philosophical definition of reality? ... that is, is a definition of reality that restrains itself from going beyond the limits of science a philosophical definition or a scientific definition? ...

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

ONE !!!

Witch reminds me I really like the sentence, "no mind never matter..."(neither Energy Space or Time...all functions and parameters, in an Info Unified Reality)

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;126879 wrote:

... I would say that "thing-in-itself" and "mind-independent object" are synonyms ... "thing-in-itself" is not a synonym for "unknowable object" - after all, a thing-in-itself can be known through our sensory representations of it ...

EDIT: given the hair splitting with the word "know" in this thread, perhaps I need to retract (or at least qualify) the last half of that statement ... if to "know" requires "truth", then for an object to be "knowable" requires our sensory representations of it to be "true".

Better reread Kant. The noumenon is the unknowable. We can know it exists, but not what it is.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 01:54 AM ----------

Reconstructo;126897 wrote:

It would be hard to find someone who believed that the world did not exist outside their minds. .

What does "outside" mean in the phrase, 'outside our minds'? Do you just mean "independently". If so, why not just say so?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126957 wrote:

Better reread Kant. The noumenon is the unknowable. We can know it exists, but not what it is.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 01:54 AM ----------

What does "outside" mean in the phrase, 'outside our minds'? Do you just mean "independently". If so, why not just say so?

You can reread Kant as much as you'd like, but the fact remains that dualism is an unsupported concept in this era of relative space and time. Even Kant admitted that if Euclidean Geometry was ever reputed, then he would change his entire philosophy. Well I wish Kant was around to meet Einstein. Because he turned Euclidean mechanics on its head. And the only support you can find these days for positivism are those still under the impression that Euclidean Geometry still runs the world.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;126718 wrote:

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.

This is a difficult one I think. I can only say what I think but others may think differently. Belief is probably the easiest to categorise.
Belief is something that relies on faith (not necessarily in the religious sense) and probably could be construed as "a matter of opnion". Someone may have a firm and committed belief in an afterlife but another person may "believe" that is nonsense.
Knowledge is that which is given to us via data input (via the senses) and, regardless of whether we "believe" it or not, it is all we can ever know.
I agree that knowledge implies truth. You are also right, I think, about truth not implying knowledge because knowledge must come before truth (I think).
Is it possible that there is a hierarchy that runs along the lines of:
A. Belief
B. Knowledge
C. Truth
I don't know if this is right. Opinons?
By the way I didn't realise this thread was going to explode like this, I'm about 3 pages behind and I only viewed it last night.
Thanks to all who have posted.

1 Reply

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know