kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
I am saying is that you can accept that actual reality does not exist without your belief on it without becoming an idealist. Got it?
Sorry, no, since what you just wrote is not an English sentence. Could you please translate it into English? And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before. Are you a native English speaker? That may be a part of the problem. But if I think that trees don't exist unless they are thought about (or observed) then I am an Idealist. Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".
So if I imagine a different reality, for example, a different outcome for Obama's election, that "possible reality," for you, wouldn't be in English? Neither would it be the opposite of the actual reality of Obama being elected? Are you a native English speaker? In time: your citation of my sentence stripped out its first word, "what." Please take care with other people's English sentences.
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
I am saying is that you can accept that actual reality does not exist without your belief on it without becoming an idealist. Got it?
Sorry, no, since what you just wrote is not an English sentence. Could you please translate it into English? And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before. Are you a native English speaker? That may be a part of the problem. But if I think that trees don't exist unless they are thought about (or observed) then I am an Idealist. Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".
So if I imagine a different reality, for example, a different outcome for Obama's election, that "possible reality," for you, wouldn't be in English? Neither would it be the opposite of the actual reality of Obama being elected? Are you a native English speaker? In time: your citation of my sentence stripped out its first word, "what." Please take care with other people's English sentences.
What is actual reality?
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
I am saying is that you can accept that actual reality does not exist without your belief on it without becoming an idealist. Got it?
Sorry, no, since what you just wrote is not an English sentence. Could you please translate it into English? And be sure to mention what "actual reality" means. I have never heard the phrase before. Are you a native English speaker? That may be a part of the problem. But if I think that trees don't exist unless they are thought about (or observed) then I am an Idealist. Since I don't know what "actual reality" means, I don't know whether trees are, or are not, a part of "actual reality".
So if I imagine a different reality, for example, a different outcome for Obama's election, that "possible reality," for you, wouldn't be in English? Neither would it be the opposite of the actual reality of Obama being elected? Are you a native English speaker? In time: your citation of my sentence stripped out its first word, "what." Please take care with other people's English sentences.
What is actual reality?
The computer screen you are facing right now.
I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
Why did you ask me about "actual reality" and not simply about "reality"?
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
Why did you ask me about "actual reality" and not simply about "reality"?
Well, because that is the term you used, and I didn't know what you could mean by it. Apparently, all you meant by it was, "reality", and the "actual" was superfluous.
Does that mean that the Moon is four billion years older than the first human being or not? And, if it is, then how could its existence depend on being thought about? How about answering that question? I have asked it often enough. Have you a sensible answer or don't you?
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
Why did you ask me about "actual reality" and not simply about "reality"?
Well, because that is the term you used, and I didn't know what you could mean by it. Apparently, all you meant by it was, "reality", and the "actual" was superfluous.
All I meant by "actual reality" was "actual reality," as opposed to "possible reality," of which you asked me for examples, remember? Actual reality is this monitor you are facing right now, while possible reality is another monitor, one that you are possibly going to buy next year, for example. That is what "actual" is for: to distinguish something that is actually there from something that is not. Do I really have to explain you this? This is getting really tedious.
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
Why did you ask me about "actual reality" and not simply about "reality"?
Well, because that is the term you used, and I didn't know what you could mean by it. Apparently, all you meant by it was, "reality", and the "actual" was superfluous.
All I meant by "actual reality" was "actual reality," as opposed to "possible reality," of which you asked me for examples, remember? Actual reality is this monitor you are facing right now, while possible reality is another monitor, one that you are possibly going to buy next year, for example. That is what "actual" is for: to distinguish something that is actually there from something that is not. Do I really have to explain you this? This is getting really tedious.
Yes, exactly. Actual reality is just reality, and possible reality is not reality, but might, under certain circumstances be reality. So when you say that the monitor in front of you is "actually real" all you are saying is that the monitor is real. Or, to make it simpler: that there is a monitor in front of you. As I pointed out, "actual" and "actually real" are superfluous, since all you are really saying is that there is a monitor in front of you. Consider a different case. Suppose that you are trying to buy a diamond from a shady character, and before you purchase the diamond you ask him, "Is this a real diamond?" But all you mean is to ask, "Is this a diamond?" (As contrasted with something that resembles a diamond, but is made only of paste). So, after all, a real diamond is just a diamond. A real diamond is not a super-duper-extra special diamond. It is just a diamond. And, in the same way, an actual monitor is not a special, super-duper monitor. It is only a monitor. To say that X is "real" is not to say that it has a special feature that other Xs do not have. It is only just an X. The function of the adjectives, "real" or "actual" is only to deny that the X is not an X. If you come to think about it, to say that something is real or actual is not to assert anything about that something; rather is is to deny something about that something. So, when I say that this is an actual monitor (and when would I ever say such a thing?) all I would be doing is to assert that it was a monitor. I suppose you agree now. And to think that an actual monitor is anything else than just a plain old monitor, is to "be lost in the clouds".
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
Why did you ask me about "actual reality" and not simply about "reality"?
Well, because that is the term you used, and I didn't know what you could mean by it. Apparently, all you meant by it was, "reality", and the "actual" was superfluous.
All I meant by "actual reality" was "actual reality," as opposed to "possible reality," of which you asked me for examples, remember? Actual reality is this monitor you are facing right now, while possible reality is another monitor, one that you are possibly going to buy next year, for example. That is what "actual" is for: to distinguish something that is actually there from something that is not. Do I really have to explain you this? This is getting really tedious.
Yes, exactly. Actual reality is just reality, and possible reality is not reality, but might, under certain circumstances be reality. So when you say that the monitor in front of you is "actually real" all you are saying is that the monitor is real. Or, to make it simpler: that there is a monitor in front of you. As I pointed out, "actual" and "actually real" are superfluous, since all you are really saying is that there is a monitor in front of you. Consider a different case. Suppose that you are trying to buy a diamond from a shady character, and before you purchase the diamond you ask him, "Is this a real diamond?" But all you mean is to ask, "Is this a diamond?" (As contrasted with something that resembles a diamond, but is made only of paste). So, after all, a real diamond is just a diamond. A real diamond is not a super-duper-extra special diamond. It is just a diamond. And, in the same way, an actual monitor is not a special, super-duper monitor. It is only a monitor. To say that X is "real" is not to say that it has a special feature that other Xs do not have. It is only just an X. The function of the adjectives, "real" or "actual" is only to deny that the X is not an X. If you come to think about it, to say that something is real or actual is not to assert anything about that something; rather is is to deny something about that something. So, when I say that this is an actual monitor (and when would I ever say such a thing?) all I would be doing is to assert that it was a monitor. I suppose you agree now. And to think that an actual monitor is anything else than just a plain old monitor, is to "be lost in the clouds".
It is you the one to think that an actual monitor is anything else than just a plain monitor, not me. And I never used the expression "actual monitor" to hold such an absurdity. What I keep repeating again and again with apparently no result whatsoever is that an actual monitor, or actual reality, or actual truth is the opposite of a possible monitor, or possible reality, or possible truth. I can say just monitor, or actual monitor, depending on the needs imposed by the context. In the context we were, which was the one of distinguishing between actuality and possibility, there was the need of using "actual reality" to make the opposition to "possible reality" explicit. In the end, what you are trying to do is just to eliminate possible reality as pseudo-existence, but even if you succeeded in doing that, which you won't, you would still need to explain what such a pseudo-existence is and how it is, precisely, possible.
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
Why did you ask me about "actual reality" and not simply about "reality"?
Well, because that is the term you used, and I didn't know what you could mean by it. Apparently, all you meant by it was, "reality", and the "actual" was superfluous.
All I meant by "actual reality" was "actual reality," as opposed to "possible reality," of which you asked me for examples, remember? Actual reality is this monitor you are facing right now, while possible reality is another monitor, one that you are possibly going to buy next year, for example. That is what "actual" is for: to distinguish something that is actually there from something that is not. Do I really have to explain you this? This is getting really tedious.
Yes, exactly. Actual reality is just reality, and possible reality is not reality, but might, under certain circumstances be reality. So when you say that the monitor in front of you is "actually real" all you are saying is that the monitor is real. Or, to make it simpler: that there is a monitor in front of you. As I pointed out, "actual" and "actually real" are superfluous, since all you are really saying is that there is a monitor in front of you. Consider a different case. Suppose that you are trying to buy a diamond from a shady character, and before you purchase the diamond you ask him, "Is this a real diamond?" But all you mean is to ask, "Is this a diamond?" (As contrasted with something that resembles a diamond, but is made only of paste). So, after all, a real diamond is just a diamond. A real diamond is not a super-duper-extra special diamond. It is just a diamond. And, in the same way, an actual monitor is not a special, super-duper monitor. It is only a monitor. To say that X is "real" is not to say that it has a special feature that other Xs do not have. It is only just an X. The function of the adjectives, "real" or "actual" is only to deny that the X is not an X. If you come to think about it, to say that something is real or actual is not to assert anything about that something; rather is is to deny something about that something. So, when I say that this is an actual monitor (and when would I ever say such a thing?) all I would be doing is to assert that it was a monitor. I suppose you agree now. And to think that an actual monitor is anything else than just a plain old monitor, is to "be lost in the clouds".
It is you the one to think that an actual monitor is anything else than an actual monitor, not me. And I never used the expression "actual monitor" to hold such an absurdity. What I keep repeating again and again with apparently no result whatsoever is that an actual monitor, or actual reality, or actual truth is the opposite of a possible monitor, or possible reality, or possible truth. Is that so difficult to understand? Of course I can say just monitor, or actual monitor, depending on the needs imposed by the context. In the context we were, which was the one of distinguishing between actuality and possibility, there was the need of using "actual reality" to make the opposition to "possible reality" explicit. In the end, what you are trying to do is just make this an excuse to eliminate possible reality as pseudo-existence, but even if you succeeded in doing that, which you won't, you would still need to explain what such a pseudo-existence is and how it is, precisely, possible. There is no escape from possibility, just as much as there is no escape from actuality.
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I imagine you are giving me an example of actual reality. Can you now tell me why is is actual reality and not just reality? What is the function of the adjective?
The function of the adjective "actual" is just distinguishing that actuality from a possibility, like an imagined computer screen, a future computer screen, or a much better computer screen that you cannot afford.
I would like to open a parenthesis here to refer you all to an article on J. S. Bell, someone who I believe anyone interested in philosophy today should know about. The article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25442/.
But whoever even suggested that the computer screen was imagined? I didn't. And why should I say that the computer screen in front of me is "actual" when no one has even suggested that it is imagined?
Why did you ask me about "actual reality" and not simply about "reality"?
Well, because that is the term you used, and I didn't know what you could mean by it. Apparently, all you meant by it was, "reality", and the "actual" was superfluous.
All I meant by "actual reality" was "actual reality," as opposed to "possible reality," of which you asked me for examples, remember? Actual reality is this monitor you are facing right now, while possible reality is another monitor, one that you are possibly going to buy next year, for example. That is what "actual" is for: to distinguish something that is actually there from something that is not. Do I really have to explain you this? This is getting really tedious.
Yes, exactly. Actual reality is just reality, and possible reality is not reality, but might, under certain circumstances be reality. So when you say that the monitor in front of you is "actually real" all you are saying is that the monitor is real. Or, to make it simpler: that there is a monitor in front of you. As I pointed out, "actual" and "actually real" are superfluous, since all you are really saying is that there is a monitor in front of you. Consider a different case. Suppose that you are trying to buy a diamond from a shady character, and before you purchase the diamond you ask him, "Is this a real diamond?" But all you mean is to ask, "Is this a diamond?" (As contrasted with something that resembles a diamond, but is made only of paste). So, after all, a real diamond is just a diamond. A real diamond is not a super-duper-extra special diamond. It is just a diamond. And, in the same way, an actual monitor is not a special, super-duper monitor. It is only a monitor. To say that X is "real" is not to say that it has a special feature that other Xs do not have. It is only just an X. The function of the adjectives, "real" or "actual" is only to deny that the X is not an X. If you come to think about it, to say that something is real or actual is not to assert anything about that something; rather is is to deny something about that something. So, when I say that this is an actual monitor (and when would I ever say such a thing?) all I would be doing is to assert that it was a monitor. I suppose you agree now. And to think that an actual monitor is anything else than just a plain old monitor, is to "be lost in the clouds".
It is you the one to think that an actual monitor is anything else than just a plain monitor, not me. And I never used the expression "actual monitor" to hold such an absurdity. What I keep repeating again and again with apparently no result whatsoever is that an actual monitor, or actual reality, or actual truth is the opposite of a possible monitor, or possible reality, or possible truth. I can say just monitor, or actual monitor, depending on the needs imposed by the context. In the context we were, which was the one of distinguishing between actuality and possibility, there was the need of using "actual reality" to make the opposition to "possible reality" explicit. In the end, what you are trying to do is just to eliminate possible reality as pseudo-existence, but even if you succeeded in doing that, which you won't, you would still need to explain what is pseudo-existence and how it is, precisely, possible.
A possible monitor is not a different kind of monitor. It is not a monitor at all.
I am glad you finally agree with me that "actual" and "real" are not the names of properties that objects have, but those terms have a very different function, namely to deny that what is said to be an actual or real X is not a standard X. There are no possible monitors. There are only monitors. A possible monitor is not a different kind of monitor. It is not a monitor at all.
kennethamy wrote:A possible monitor is not a different kind of monitor. It is not a monitor at all.
You agree that an actual monitor must remain possible, don't you? Then an actual monitor "is not a monitor at all," since it is also a possible monitor. Or are you saying that for you a possibility must never be an actuality? Unfortunately, a possibility that cannot be an actuality is rather an impossibility. And how about the necessary possibility of an actuality? Let me guess: you will say it is not a possibility at all. This would be nice.
Sure, whatever is actual is possible. But that does not imply that there is such a thing as a possible monitor over and above a monitor. All monitors are both actual and possible. You keep thinking that actual and possible monitors are different kinds of monitors. They are not. There are different kinds of monitors. Different sizes, for example. Or different colored monitors. But not actual and possible monitors. (I have no idea what a necessary possibility of anything would be). It may be that in modal logic there is a theorem that states that whatever is possible is necessarily possible. I am not sure, but that sounds right. There is a theorem that states that whatever is necessary is necessarily necessary. (The reiteration of necessity). You seem to be interested in modal logic. Why not learn some? You can find some elementary discussion on the Internet.
kennethamy wrote:Sure, whatever is actual is possible. But that does not imply that there is such a thing as a possible monitor over and above a monitor. All monitors are both actual and possible. You keep thinking that actual and possible monitors are different kinds of monitors. They are not. There are different kinds of monitors. Different sizes, for example. Or different colored monitors. But not actual and possible monitors. (I have no idea what a necessary possibility of anything would be). It may be that in modal logic there is a theorem that states that whatever is possible is necessarily possible. I am not sure, but that sounds right. There is a theorem that states that whatever is necessary is necessarily necessary. (The reiteration of necessity). You seem to be interested in modal logic. Why not learn some? You can find some elementary discussion on the Internet.
Your insistence in transforming a possible monitor in a kind of actual one is almost comic. A possible monitor is different from an actual monitor: possibility remains irreducible to actuality, despite their being somehow the same. It is you that weirdly sees "possible monitors" existing side by side with "actual monitors" as if they were all actual monitors. This is ridiculous, despite being just a consequence of only recognizing actual reality as truly real.
In fact, as already noted, if it is actual then in must be possible, although not conversely.
