Definition of Reality

But doesn't the fact that we're here at all seem to verify that reality existed prior to H. Sapiens?

Or am I missing something.

The way that this thread has exploded into so many different but related arguments I think proves that what we all have in common with regard to this is:
A:a deep seated interest in the nature of reality and
B: a total lack of proof enough to convince others.
I can never prove that reality is all in the mind (and never would I want to) but no-one has convinced me that it is impossible.
Kenneth has never been able to prove that reality existed before people (how could he, no-one was there to know).
Religion seems to be a dead end without a massive leap of faith.
Discussions about reason and normality always seem to suffer when it comes to definition of what exactly is normal.
Reason and science have always told us that nothing comes from nothing, anything else would be contrary to the law of cause and effect. The idea of creating something from nothing lies in the realms of magic, which of course nobody believes in any more.
The only problem we have is that at some point, billions of years ago, everything came from nothing (whatever everything is), just look around and you are witness to it all. We can carry on with our circular arguments forever and maybe we will never have the proofs we need but the fact that "we" exist is magic enough, don't you think?

First of all, it is not necessary that a proof convince others. A sound proof that there was a Holocaust may not convince the president of Iran. But, so what? There are those who believe that the Earth is flat. No proof that the Earth is round will convince them. .

Well then of course there is the problem of people claiming that science proves this or that when in fact it does no such thing.

You could, I suppose, define reality as "the moment", or this moment. Because at each moment nothing is or can be real but what is in that moment. And nothing exists but the moment. There are 3 distinct divisions: what was, what is, what will be.
What was can and never will be again. And what will be has yet to arrive therefore is not yet.

when your only reality is an illusion then illusion is a reality. What exists in the moment is all you have access to. If you're dreaming that is reality in that moment. You cannot reach beyond a given moment to something else.

But 'this moment' is only intelligible because memory threads it like pearls on a string. If you completely lost all memory, including autonomic memory and so on, you would be to all intents and purposes incapable of consciousness.

There is another sense of 'this moment' that mystical teachers speak of - for example Eckhardt Tolle's Power of Now. Perhaps you had that in mind?

well I agree that that the sense of being 'weighed down by time' is a burden, and the sense of timelessness which comes when your really 'in the flow' with something is a real liberation - in that sense of 'being in the moment' I agree with you.

Well then of course there is the problem of people claiming that science proves this or that when in fact it does no such thing. Science does not prove or settle:
Rationalism vs. empiricism
Idealism vs. materialism.
the notion of free will as illusion
That hard determinism is true
That mind is an epiphenomena of matter or emerges from insensate matter.

In fact science does not prove or settle most of the issues which are of primary importance to traditional philosophy, religion or everyday human expereince it merely informs them. One should try to choose metaphysical assumptions which do not directly conflict with the facts of science in forming a more complete worldview. That stills leaves a lot of ground for rational speculation, some forms of religion and plenty of philosophical disagreement about the true nature of things. Philosophy is afterall rational (use of reason, taking science and facts into account) speculation (beyond physics, beyond science, areas of ultimate and human concern) about the "truth" and the ultimate nature of things.

Well I agree with your viewpoint but I don't think Kennethamy is making such claims for science as such. I think he is looking at it from a common-sense viewpoint (correct me if I am wrong.) I have already explained where I am coming from. And I think Housby, knowingly or not, is actually coming from something pretty close to traditional philosophical skepticism.

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

In a scientific sense, it is clear the moon and the universe preceded us by billions of years. But I take issue with the contention that therefore 'reality is what exists independent of what is perceived.' One can affirm the realist view on the one side, and still insist that reality, in the broader sense, is something that is always understood by a perceiving intelligence. This does not deny that the moon continues to exist when it is not perceived, but this 'continued existence' is again something that you and I are considering. If you were to say 'are you claiming that the moon does not exist if it not being perceived' then this non-existence is also something that is being entertained by the perceiving intelligence.

An observing subject can only know material objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization. The way that the brain knows determines the way that material objects are experienced.

not sure the point of any of what I said other than to say I think we can, if we apply continuous conscious effort, find ourselves in a better reality.

How could it be otherwise? What kind of 'reality' do inanimate objects inhabit? It is a meaningless question - they don't 'inhabit' because habitation is an attribute of living beings. I doubt very much whether the moon exists for lesser animals; it is the characteristic of H Sapiens that we are able to perceive such realities.

why not change the word "inhabit" to "occupy"? Is it still a meaningless question?

I think what the thread exposes is the problem with the concept of "reality". Reality is not a property of nature but a definition which we imbue with different types of meaning. Cetainly "our reality" our individual or our human reality must include our subjective perceptons. Other species would percieve different types and kinds of "reality". I as a process philosophy, panpsychists advocate think that perception (or prehension; a non sensory form of perception) is a fundamental feature of nature and so there is no real independent reality. Reality is always about relationship and becoming not about independent existence and being. What is real, is what is relative.

Interesting observation. But 'inhabit' and 'occupy' are not synonymous. Humans, and animals, inhabit environments, because they are capable of habituation. Objects occupy space, as distinct from inhabiting an environment. This does not say that objects don't exist but the nature of their existence is of a different order to that of human beings (and animals).

Interesting observation. But 'inhabit' and 'occupy' are not synonymous. Humans, and animals, inhabit environments, because they are capable of habituation. Objects occupy space, as distinct from inhabiting an environment. This does not say that objects don't exist but the nature of their existence is of a different order to that of human beings (and animals).

By the way, science is an attempt to tell a story that is true whenever it is told. But it's only a story. Also, science never proves anything. It only fails to disprove theories (stories) as to why the phenomena that we experience occur.

But where does this leave us in this hunt to define reality?