Definition of Reality

@Fil Albuquerque,

i would love to see richard dawkins have a conversation with david deutsch. What i like about deutsch is that he sticks to the scientific idealist paradigm and states for example that no christian has ever seen a bible, only a representation of a bible constructed in the brain. Implied therefore, is that to know about a real bible requires scientific study inspired by the simulcra of it. ie Only science can reveal truth beyond the surface sensory inspired simulcra. ....... I would love to see how dawkins reacts to that.

How on earth would dawkins be able to convince people to give up something as daft as spirituality ....... and replace it with scientific knowledge that undermines "the appearance of reality created by your brain"? lolol Of course he wouldn't mention this crazy scheme if he were aware of it. His mission is to undermine religious based reality, not sensory based reality. Best to skip and not mention that bit Smile

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;132321 wrote:

i would love to see richard dawkins have a conversation with david deutsch. What i like about deutsch is that he sticks to the scientific idealist paradigm and states for example that no christian has ever seen a bible, only a representation of a bible constructed in the brain. Implied therefore, is that to know about a real bible requires scientific study inspired by the simulcra of it. ie Only science can reveal truth beyond the surface sensory inspired simulcra. ....... I would love to see how dawkins reacts to that.

How on earth would dawkins be able to convince people to give up something as daft as spirituality ....... and replace it with scientific knowledge that undermines "the appearance of reality created by your brain"? lolol Of course he wouldn't mention this crazy scheme if he were aware of it. His mission is to undermine religious based reality, not sensory based reality. Best to skip and not mention that bit

I don't think that Dawkins believes he is a clinical psychologist, so I don't suppose that he thinks he is in the business of persuading people that bizarre beliefs are false.

0 Replies

@housby,

Dear kennethamy,

I'm sorry for my delay in following up on this, but we were without power for two days because of the storm here in upstate New York. I hope that didn't happen to you.

A few pages back you posted the following definition of the word "real":

kennethamy;131838 wrote:

What is real is independent of mind. What would exist even if there were no minds.

But even earlier in this thread you had posted the following:

Quote:

One of my experiences last night was being in India, riding on an elephant, and shooting a tiger. I wonder how I got into my bed the next morning.

I assumed you were talking about a dream and I asked you if it was a "real dream" or an "imaginary dream," and you responded:

Quote:

No, I really had that dream. But, of course, nothing that happened in that dream was real. I have never been in India.

And then when I tried to pin you down further you said:

Quote:

Of course it was a real dream. What is [SIC] wasn't was real.

I assume that in the second sentence you meant to say "What it wasn't was real" and pointed out the apparent contradiction, which you did not respond to, namely:

Quote:

You appear to be saying:

1. A dream is a real dream
2. A dream isn't real.

How do you explain this apparent contradiction?

And if your dream was a "real dream," does it mean that it would be "independent of mind" or "exist even if there were no minds," as you define "real" in the first post quoted above?

The same question would apply to thoughts, memories, feelings, hallucinations, and even sensations. Are they "real"? Are they "independent of mind"? Would they "exist even if there were no minds"?

Your friend,

longknowledge

:flowers:

PS: Today my view of the earth from where I sit and also of my driveway is that it's "snowy."

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;132256 wrote:

the question that challenges the idealist is simple. Is everything you see constructed from data in the brain?

I agree. I think that a man like Kant saw that concept without intuition/sensation is blind. His so-called transcendental idealism is actually a form of representational realism. I think the existence of language, which is only conceivable as being socially generated, is already argument enough against solipsistic idealism.

2 Replies

@Reconstructo,

yes i agree the non private nature of language is important.

I was wondering the other day how to resurrect idealism....

Suppose that there is a non conscious set of dimensions to the world. This could even be as few as one dimensional but in order to remain non controversial lets make it four. ie spacetime GR. In this non conscious 4D (called NC 4D) there exists physicality. Now let a collection of matter in NC 4D become conscious. When this happens at least one conscious dimension (called C1) is created and attached to the NC 4D being. The creation of conscious dimension is what happens when matter becomes conscious, though the conditions for it to occur from NC 4D are special. In the case of humanity lets say that it is 4 dimensions, but euclidean. Thus when a human being is conscious, C4 is created by the physicality of the being in NC 4D. C4 is like an extra dimensional bubble attached to any conscious physicality.

Further, language is accomodated within C4 and developes between humans both physically and in conscious conception. Language is thus a part of NC 4D and C4. ie it is physically and consciously existent. Through evolution of culture and language a mathematical model of NC 4D is developed, recorded (physically manifested) in NC 4D and can be read in C4. eg science.

Any attempt to model C4 however would necessarily be recursive, since the interpretation of the model occurs in C4. It would be like trying to interpret interpretation. Anything existent in C4 being an interpretation. ie All representation would be interpretation, even if the interpretation is confusion, redundancy, inane, colour, sound or whatever.

The unconscious would be either a disconnected C4 from another C4 (without direct access to language), or NC 4D brain/body processes that do not enter C4 directly and can only be derived as existent indirectly through C4 interpretation space. Further, it may be impossible to model C4 since such a model may not be made manifestable in NC 4D, because it may necessarily be a different type of space to C4. However, manifesting a model from C4 into NC 4D of NC 4D is possible, as in virtual reality. In addition it may be possible to manipulate NC 4D such that C4 artificially arises.

is this barmy?

....... and i was thinking. Does that make mathematics part of the nature of C4 or NC 4D or both?

1 Reply

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;132609 wrote:

Dear kennethamy,

I'm sorry for my delay in following up on this, but we were without power for two days because of the storm here in upstate New York. I hope that didn't happen to you.

A few pages back you posted the following definition of the word "real":

But even earlier in this thread you had posted the following:

I assumed you were talking about a dream and I asked you if it was a "real dream" or an "imaginary dream," and you responded:

And then when I tried to pin you down further you said:

I assume that in the second sentence you meant to say "What it wasn't was real" and pointed out the apparent contradiction, which you did not respond to, namely:

How do you explain this apparent contradiction?

And if your dream was a "real dream," does it mean that it would be "independent of mind" or "exist even if there were no minds," as you define "real" in the first post quoted above?

The same question would apply to thoughts, memories, feelings, hallucinations, and even sensations. Are they "real"? Are they "independent of mind"? Would they "exist even if there were no minds"?

Your friend,

longknowledge

:flowers:

PS: Today my view of the earth from where I sit and also of my driveway is that it's "snowy."

That is a good question. What I mean by X is "mind-independent" is that X's existence is independent of any mental attitude like, belief, fear, hope, or wish. Obviously the mind is itself not mind-independent since the mind could not exist unless it existed. And that entails that the Moon could exist even if no minds existed.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

actually modelling C4 is possible to some extent as in virtual reality glasses nowadays, that don't model NC 4D

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132612 wrote:

I think the existence of language, which is only conceivable as being socially generated, is already argument enough against solipsistic idealism.

Interesting. Why do you posit that the existence of language is an argument against solipsistic idealism?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your terms, but wouldn't it seem that if one were to buy into the whole Solipsistic Idealism Vacation Package that the illusion, as it were, of a society from which language arises necessarily be included in the deal? That is, in the solipsistic idealist world, couldn't language be conceived of as "talking to oneself as a group activity"?

Or has my over-indulgence in caffeine this morning caused me to revert to my native language of Gibberish?

Just asking.

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;132777 wrote:

Further, language is accomodated within C4 and developes between humans both physically and in conscious conception. Language is thus a part of NC 4D and C4. ie it is physically and consciously existent. Through evolution of culture and language a mathematical model of NC 4D is developed, recorded (physically manifested) in NC 4D and can be read in C4. eg science.

Interesting thoughts. C4 is arguable equivalent to (human) Time, in which the future takes precedence, as desire+concept (project). The future is imposed on the spatial dimensions according to concepts acquired in the past. Future --> past --> present.

I see what you mean by recursive. The conceptualization of conceptualization is just the synthesis of the concept for/of concept.

The evolution of culture would be "time penetrating time," or the acquisition and synthesis/negation of concepts/science.

0 Replies

@housby,

kennethamy;132796 wrote:

That is a good question. What I mean by X is "mind-independent" is that X's existence is independent of any mental attitude like, belief, fear, hope, or wish. Obviously the mind is itself not mind-independent since the mind could not exist unless it existed. And that entails that the Moon could exist even if no minds existed.

So are you saying that "mental attitude[s], like belief, fear, hope, or wish," are not real? And that "the mind itself" is not real? And what about the other "mental" phenomena that I listed: "thoughts, memories, feelings, hallucinations, and even sensations"? Are they real?

And how can somenthing be "mind-indpendent" if there are no minds for it to be independent of?

:flowers:

1 Reply

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;133141 wrote:

So are you saying that "mental attitude[s], like belief, fear, hope, or wish," are not real? And that "the mind itself" is not real? And what about the other "mental" phenomena that I listed: "thoughts, memories, feelings, hallucinations, and even sensations"? Are they real?

And how can somenthing be "mind-indpendent" if there are no minds for it to be independent of?

:flowers:

I didn't say that. Of course thoughts are real. They are independent of any particular (individual) mind. My thought exists whether or not you believe it does. And your thought exists whether or not I believe it does.

How can something be unicorn- independent if there are no unicorns for it to be independent of? But, I suppose that you think you are unicorn- independent. You don't require unicorns to exist for you to exist, do you? (At least, I hope not).

Of course, I am not saying there are no minds. I am just pointing out a flaw in your logic.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122637 wrote:

For instance, when I say that the oasis is real, am I not saying that the oasis would exist even if everyone thought it was not an oasis, but a mirage?

Yes, that's the everyday meaning of the word.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133143 wrote:

Of course thoughts are real. They are independent of any particular (individual) mind. My thought exists whether or not you believe it does. And your thought exists whether or not I believe it does.

You appear to have shifted your definition of reality from "what exists independently of mind" to "what exists independently of any particular (individual) mind." Please explain, if possible with an example.

And if thoughts are "independent of any particular (individual) mind," how can they be "my thoughts"?

:flowers:

2 Replies

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;133335 wrote:

You appear to have shifted your definition of reality from "what exists independently of mind" to "what exists independently of any particular (individual) mind." Please explain, if possible with an example.

I don't see these statements as being fundamentally different from one another. If anything, the second statement adds specificity to the first. I read this as something along the lines of "The perception of reality of mind X, while it may differ in understanding or translation from that of mind Y, does not affect the reality of mind Y, and vice-versa." That is, what we term consensual reality is unaffected by individual minds.

This is how I read Plato's Allegory of the Cave. I could be wrong though.

longknowledge;133335 wrote:

And if thoughts are "independent of any particular (individual) mind," how can they be "my thoughts"?

How could they be the thoughts of anyone else?
We can share thoughts and ideas, but your thoughts are independent of my particular mind, and mine are independent of yours. Thankfully. Otherwise, we'd all be of one universal mind. Which some people argue is the case.

P.s. I realize this question wasn't addressed to me, but I felt compelled to jump in anyway.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133323 wrote:

Yes, that's the everyday meaning of the word.

Good. What other meaning is it supposed to have?

We are under the illusion that what is peculiar, profound, essential, in our
investigation, resides in its trying to grasp the incomparable essence of language.
That is, the order existing between the concepts of proposition, word, proof,
truth, experience, and so on. This order is a super -- order between -- so to
speak -- super -- concepts. Whereas, of course, if the words "language",
"experience", "world", have a use, it must be as humble a one as that of the words
"table", "lamp", "door".
98.
On the one hand it is clear that every sentence in our language is in order as it is.
That is to say, we are not striving after an ideal, as if our ordinary vague
sentences had not yet got a quite unexceptionable sense, and a perfect language
awaited construction by us. -- On the other hand it seems clear that where there
is sense there must be perfect order. So there must be perfect order even in the
vaguest sentence.

(Wittgenstein. PI)

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;134132 wrote:

How could they be the thoughts of anyone else?
We can share thoughts and ideas, but your thoughts are independent of my particular mind, and mine are independent of yours. Thankfully. Otherwise, we'd all be of one universal mind. Which some people argue is the case.
.

What evidence do you have that we are not all of one universal mind?

0 Replies

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;133335 wrote:

You appear to have shifted your definition of reality from "what exists independently of mind" to "what exists independently of any particular (individual) mind." Please explain, if possible with an example.

And if thoughts are "independent of any particular (individual) mind," how can they be "my thoughts"?

:flowers:

You asked me to explain what I meant, so I did.
I wasn't talking about just my thoughts.

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 12:50 PM ----------

MMP2506;134137 wrote:

What evidence do you have that we are not all of one universal mind?

When someone presents an argument to that effect, I'll consider it. What evidence have you that you are not fir tree in a large forest?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;134139 wrote:

You asked me to explain what I meant, so I did.
I wasn't talking about just my thoughts.

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 12:50 PM ----------

When someone presents an argument to that effect, I'll consider it. What evidence have you that you are not fir tree in a large forest?

The only evidence against me being a fir tree, is that I have never met a person that saw me as a fir tree, therefore, I have never considered myself one.

I have met people who believed that we are all particulars of one universal mind, and they have given very good reasons to support it. In my opinion, the rationale behind a universal mind makes more sense than individual disconnected minds, as no consciousness can exist disconnected from at least one other consciousness.

The majority of philosophers have, to some extent, agreed that there is some intellect greater than the individual mind which contributes to the process of life. The essence of that mind may differ throughout time, however, it still exists in one form or another.

2 Replies

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;134149 wrote:

The only evidence against me being a fir tree, is that I have never met a person that saw me as a fir tree, therefore, I have never considered myself one.

I have met people who believed that we are all particulars of one universal mind, and they have given very good reasons to support it. In my opinion, the rationale behind a universal mind makes more sense than individual disconnected minds, as no consciousness can exist disconnected from at least one other consciousness.

The majority of philosophers have, to some extent, agreed that there is some intellect greater than the individual mind which contributes to the process of life. The essence of that mind may differ throughout time, however, it still exists in one form or another.

A universal mind may serve as a good metaphor for human interaction. However, if you are talking about some sort of telepathic connection between people, I have heard of no evidence for that.

Do you have any studies that present such evidence that you could point me to?

1 Reply

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;134200 wrote:

A universal mind may serve as a good metaphor for human interaction. However, if you are talking about some sort of telepathic connection between people, I have heard of no evidence for that.

Do you have any studies that present such evidence that you could point me to?

I would say it's traditionally looked at as more than a metaphor for human interaction.

Its probably more historically accurate to say that the word "mind" has become a metaphor for individual brain activity.

1 Reply

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know