Reality

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

By the way, David, why do you exclude the INTERNAL WORLD from your definition of reality? Is my subjective experience somehow UNreal, and if so, how did you determine that? If the internal world is not part of reality then why should I (in my unreal subjective life) take your utterances seriously, given that they are the unreal expressions of your unreal internal life?

I've already implicitly included the internal world, ie, our consciousness+ I've explicitly mentioned that internal/mental entities can be said to exist.

0 Replies

no question is too immature to bring up around philosophers...its a well known fact that they have any proof to back up their arguments, and that reality is a think none of us are too sure about.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

Quote:
My point all along, David, is that simply because you assume REALITY is "the external world" -- does not mean that REALITY IS "the external world."

LOL, Frank, I'm not the only one who assumes it....and this is its definition, ie, the external world.....and you've admitted that it exists{Wall}.

Please note that I used quotation marks around "the external world." I have no idea if what we call "the external world" is real or an illusion -- and neither do you. As I said earlier, though, I am perfectly willing to accept what we perceive as real for the purposes of not crashing my head into walls -- and so that I can enjoy myself.

One other thought. Any reasonable definition of reality should acknowledge that there may indeed be components of reality that are not accessable to sensation. Reality is the totality of what exists -- whether we know or can sense that it exists or not.

So even if "the external world" exists -- it may not be the totality of what is -- and therefore, may not be REALITY -- merely a component of it.

Quote:

You're using a different definition of reality than I am, here's mine again..Reality=the external world known via our senses*

*ie, we receive raw data from the external world, we perceive this data, and "ideally" we effectively manipulate this data into knowledge...we use logic as the means to acquire truth about reality, that's what knowledge is, something specific and related to reality.

Really!

Well, this is a thread that is dedicated to the question: What is your definition of reality? So obviouosly there will be differing definitions.

Are we all supposed to say "Well, David says it is such and such -- and that ends it?" -- or can we discuss the issue?

In any case, I want to be very certain that you meant what you just said, because I'm going to hold you to it as this discussion progresses. I repeat that you said: "Reality=the external world known via our senses* -- *ie, we receive raw data from the external world, we perceive this data, and "ideally" we effectively manipulate this data into knowledge...we use logic as the means to acquire truth about reality, that's what knowledge is, something specific and related to reality."

In fact, since that definition specifically limits reality to what we can perceive -- I reject it out-of-hand.

Quote:

Now, I'm not intolerant of the notion of the transphysical, nor of intuition being a mode of knowing, but I demand that anything uttered for public consumption should be logically justified{regardless of how rare that is}...IOW, intuition "might" be a valid premiss, but one still must be logical and deduce something reasonable otherwise this knowledge should stay in one's own head.

If you read and accept what I actually write rather than trying to make it say what you want it to say in order to feel superior about your own guesses, David -- you will see that I am saying that I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE REALITY ACTUALLY IS. Whatever the REALITY actually is -- IT IS.

It may be exactly what our senses perceive -- and it may be something completely different -- something we cannot comprehend.

But you are insisting that you know exactly what REALITY is.

So if anyone is making the mistake of being unreasonable -- it is you, David.

Quote:

Quote:
The TRUTH may be that we simply cannot KNOW REALITY. It may, in fact, be unknowable. (I am not asserting in either direction on that question -- merely positing the possibility.)

Again it comes down to "your" definition.
If you have decided that the senses aren't a valid starting point, then it seems reasonable on that basis that you will reject the notion of knowing reality.

I HAVE NOT REJECTED KNOWING REALITY. I have stated that it MAY be that we cannot KNOW REALITY. I even say in my parenthetical that I am not coming down on one side or the other. Why are you ignoring all that and making inappropriate inferences from what I have written?

Quote:

Quote:
But the REALITY may be something not even remotely akin to "the perceptions" -- nor to the "assumptions" we make about those perceptions.

Well, this strikes me as an arbitary statement designed to support your prejudice,... which is that we can't know the external world.

You are the one with prejudices on this issue,. David. I am saying THAT I DO NOT KNOW. Why, in light of the very specific wording that I have used, are you asserting that I have a prejudice that we cannot know the external world?

I am saying "we may not be able to know" -- and you are asserting that I am saying "we cannot know."

That is a distortion.

What is that all about?

Quote:

I given my account of how we can know reality, you're just adding doubt, you're welcome to do so, but I need something in the way of reasonable doubt otherwsie I'm going to maintain certainty.

Yes, I can see that. And you are not going to let facts get in your way -- so if you have to distort what I have to say, you will do so.

I'm just not sure of why you are doing that!

Quote:

Quote:
...what you perceive -- and the assumptions you make based on those perceptions -- are nothing more than that -- merely your perceptions and the assumptions you made based those perceptions.
The REALITY of existence may be worlds apart from all that.

Yes but I need only be logical and produce knowledge and I'll gain support from other rational thinkers.
Also what is your method of knowing or doubting based on?
If you have no reasonable objections other than the introduction of doubt for doubts sake, then you have said nothing, you've offered nothing reasonable, and I need reasonable doubt to alter my certainty...as should any reasonable person.

I offered my reasons -- but apparently you want to suppose that I have not. That is as much a distortion of my position as the distortion I mention up above.

I think the more rational thinkers in this forum will agree that the question is not as cut and dry as you seem to want to make it.

Quote:

Quote:
** Whenever I use the expression "We do not know...", please rephrase those words in your mind to read, "I do not know and I suspect others do not know either." It is a shorthand expression.

Yes Frank....but these others may be just as incoherent as you've been, you see, you achieve nothing by saying.."e-gawd, what David's saying doesn't sound right"......you have to produce a superior argument and introduce "reasonable" doubt.

I have no doubt but that my arguments ARE superior and better reasoned than yours, but you seem unable to see that. As far as I am concerned, that is a failing in you -- not in me.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, you've decided at the epistemological level that knowledge of the external world isn't possible, but you've offered nothing substantial to justify that stance other than doubt, doubt without supporting evidence is arbitary and is effectively worthless as far as motivating any evaluation of it.David.

There is absolutely no way an intelligent, honest individual can look at what I have written and come to these conclusions, David.

0 Replies

Quote:

Please note that I used quotation marks around "the external world." I have no idea if what we call "the external world" is real or an illusion -- and neither do you.

No Frank, I do know, and my knowledge is reasonable, hence I have certainty, certainty is not absolute, it's the absense of reasonable doubt after having undertaken critical thinking and realizing that my views do not contain any contradictions.

The fundamental difference between us is that you believe in the primacy of consciousness, whereas I correctly know of the primacy of existence.

Quote:

One other thought. Any reasonable definition of reality should acknowledge that there may indeed be components of reality that are not accessable to sensation. Reality is the totality of what exists -- whether we know or can sense that it exists or not.

Reality is the totality of what exists, but making arbitary statements doesn't prove the existence of anything.
If we can't know it, how can it EVER exist?....this is a meaningless assertion Frank ole boy!!
Existence is that which has indentity, and we identify that which exists via the faculity of consciousness.

Quote:

So even if "the external world" exists -- it may not be the totality of what is -- and therefore, may not be REALITY -- merely a component of it.

Reality is always going to be what we can know, if we can't know it, it is nothing.

Quote:

Are we all supposed to say "Well, David says it is such and such -- and that ends it?" -- or can we discuss the issue?

LOL, we sure can discuss the issue, but it must be logical, it must withstand rational scrutiny.
What have you given me but denial and doubt?

Quote:

In fact, since that definition specifically limits reality to what we can perceive -- I reject it out-of-hand.

If I can't perceive it, how do I know it??

Quote:

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE REALITY ACTUALLY IS. Whatever the REALITY actually is -- IT IS
It may be exactly what our senses perceive -- and it may be something completely different -- something we cannot comprehend.

Yes reality is, but I know it via my perceptual data transformed into knowledge,....no knowledge=nonsense..literally.
And I gave you leeway WRT other modes of knowing, IOW, other methods of receiving data, but reason is the final arbiter, and the assertion must be truth-based, not arbitary and effectively meaningless.

Are you know rejecting non-perceptual modes of knowing as well?

Quote:

But you are insisting that you know exactly what REALITY is.
So if anyone is making the mistake of being unreasonable -- it is you, David.

I've supported my case Frank, I've been reasonable, yet all you offer is doubt without any supporting evidence and IMO based on the faulty belief that consciousness has primacy.

Quote:

I HAVE NOT REJECTED KNOWING REALITY. I have stated that it MAY be that we cannot KNOW REALITY. I even say in my parenthetical that I am not coming down on one side or the other. Why are you ignoring all that and making inappropriate inferences from what I have written?

You're wanting latitude based on doubt, you want me to agree that there may be aspects of reality we can't know, but I'm suggesting to you all we can know is reality, all our knowledge is based on reality.
This hardly means we know everything, there's a difference between entertaining doubt based on sufficient reason and the arbitary doubt that you espouse.

Quote:

You are the one with prejudices on this issue,. David. I am saying THAT I DO NOT KNOW. Why, in light of the very specific wording that I have used, are you asserting that I have a prejudice that we cannot know the external world?

Because it's accurate to do so,.... a prejudice is a deeply embedded irrational view, this is what you hold in realtion to the primacy of consciousness.

Quote:

I am saying "we may not be able to know" -- and you are asserting that I am saying "we cannot know."

I'm trying to explain how we do know, once you accept that, you can be on the path of the attainment of proper knowledge, PK never has interests in irrational views, your assertion that we cannot know is irrational.

Quote:

Yes, I can see that. And you are not going to let facts get in your way -- so if you have to distort what I have to say, you will do so.
I'm just not sure of why you are doing that!

Your problem now is to continue justifying your arbitary statements.
I've not distorted any of your views, I've examined them and determined their basis, and their basis is of an irrational kind.

Quote:

I have no doubt but that my arguments ARE superior and better reasoned than yours, but you seem unable to see that. As far as I am concerned, that is a failing in you -- not in me.

Obviously I see it as the reverse.

Quote:

There is absolutely no way an intelligent, honest individual can look at what I have written and come to these conclusions, David.

I've examined your statements, and deduced what was necessary to understand your thinking....it's now your turn to justify your arbitary statements once more....and it doesn't matter how many nuts bombdive into this thread with little paragraphs of support, as what is illogical is illogical no matter how many quasi-intellectuals regurgitate it.

0 Replies

David,

Okay, I will take just a few items from this long post and deal with them -- and then we can go on to the others after we've hashed these items out a bit.

You quoted me and responded:

Quote:

One other thought. Any reasonable definition of reality should acknowledge that there may indeed be components of reality that are not accessible to sensation. Reality is the totality of what exists -- whether we know or can sense that it exists or not.

Reality is the totality of what exists, but making arbitary statements doesn't prove the existence of anything.[/quote]

And I have not said that it does. I am not attempting to "prove" anything, David. We are having a discussion here -- sharing ideas and opinions.

But we'll look at your comment "Reality is the totality of what exists..." in greater depth at a future point. I think that is an important observation on your part.

Quote:

If we can't know it, how can it EVER exist?....this is a meaningless assertion Frank ole boy!!

Well, David, I'm sure you didn't really mean what your carelessly worded sentence actually says -- but I find it amusing that it says what it does.

And I agree. Your comment "If we can't know it, how can it EVER exist..." is indeed a meaningless assertion.

Quote:

Existence is that which has indentity, and we identify that which exists via the faculity of consciousness.

Ahhh...I was correct. You didn't really mean what your sentence actually said.

Well, apparently you like to think that REALITY (or as you have changed things here, EXISTENCE) is contingent upon whether or not we can perceive it.

I am simply saying that one cannot make that blanket statement.

It is quite possible that REALITY contains elements that cannot be perceived by this rather primitive animal called homo sapiens -- and in fact, it is quite possible that REALITY contains elements that cannot even be imagined by us.

But since you are asserting that REALITY is contingent upon humans being able to perceive and sense it -- perhaps you ought to bring some justification of that position to this forum.

All I see coming from you so far are assertions that you simply cannot back up.

So let's hear it, David. Explain to us all -- including the "nuts" and "quasi intellectuals" that you see us to be -- why you are so certain (whatever you want that to mean) that if a human being cannot sense it -- it cannot be a part of REALITY!

Justify your arbitrary statements, David.

0 Replies

truth
I've got to take a nap before trying to read the excessively long posts before me. But, FRANK, your quotable dictum: "Reality is the totality of what exists--whether we know or can sense that it exists or not" has won you a place in my intellectual Pantheon, no matter how many times you goof in the future. What I like about it is that, despite the problematical terms, "know", "totality", and "exists", the total sense of it, i.e., it's configuration, makes good human sense. It gratifies the intuitive, if not completely the logical and empirical, sense. I recall something said above about philosophical proofs. They are rarely satisfying. Proofs--logical or empirical--can usually be applied to relatively trivial statements. If a philosophical proposition is grand in scope it is usually accepted because it gratifies one's intuitive sense.
I think it is a general rule that rigour is applicable mainly to relatively insignificant truth statements. I prefer utterances that can't be proven, but that if they are true they are VERY significant. The former results in "rigour mortis", the latter in insights of great poetic meaning. They stimulate and excite us for a while at least. We are, after all, more poet than computer.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I've got to take a nap before trying to read the excessively long posts before me. But, FRANK, your quotable dictum: "Reality is the totality of what exists--whether we know or can sense that it exists or not" has won you a place in my intellectual Pantheon, no matter how many times you goof in the future. What I like about it is that, despite the difficult terms such as "know", "totality", and "exists", the total sense of it, i.e., it's configuration, makes good human sense.

Thanks, JL.

:wink: :wink:

0 Replies

I agree JL, those were some lengthy posts. Luckily, I was able to grasp the main concepts that were stated. I have to agree with Frank on this. Curious George Rolling Eyes

happened to contradict himself and Frank was adroit enough to pick this out for everyone.

Quote:

Existence is that which has indentity, and we identify that which exists via the faculity of consciousness.

George claims that he knows what reality is. What is it? He says that reality is whatever we can conceptualize and come to know... If I am not mistaken? I must ask you George. Do you really thing that we can comprehend half the things that exist in this universe. As far as I know, the universe is inestimable in dimension. Even with the information gathered from the Hubble Telescope, we may not even have seen .000001% of this vast universe. Also, I can bring up the question... Are there other dimensions/universes that are parallel to ours? There are many things that exist that man will never come close to comprehending.

Quote:

It is quite possible that REALITY contains elements that cannot be perceived by this rather primitive animal called homo sapiens -- and in fact, it is quite possible that REALITY contains elements that cannot even be imagined by us.

I completely agree, Mr. Apisa.

0 Replies

"There are many things that exist that man will never come close to comprehending."

I have to ask - how do you know?

0 Replies

rufio, To begin with, we still do not understand the totality of this planet called earth.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

"There are many things that exist that man will never come close to comprehending."

I have to ask - how do you know?

I apologize. I should have replaced 'know' with 'assume'. It just makes sense to me that there are, possibly, depths in which the almighty human race cannot reach. For example, I have been taught that God is so powerful that us humans cannot fully comprehend his being. Does this imply that God is any less?

Another example... If the universe is infinite. It can never be proven by man. Why? We could travel through countless galaxies and never find a wall that says, "Universe Ends Here, And So Do You." It is impossible. No one can conclude that the universe is infinite for the boundaries could be just off the map. We could never prove an infinite universe. Does this imply that an infinite universe is unreal?

Yet another... Are there parallel universes? We, the beings in this univese, cannot prove them to be non-existent nor the reverse. Being in that they are 'parallel' they will never connect with our universe. Does this mean the beings living parallel to us are non-existent?

I believe my assumption was accurate enough. :wink:

0 Replies

CI, there is a difference between things that we do not know, and things that we cannot know. It is easy to point to things that we do not currently but could at some time in the future know, but I would think that if there were something we, as human beings, simply could not comprehend, we would know be able to know what it was either. You can point to anything really (the earth, the chair I'm sitting on, etc) and say that there may be things about that thing that we will never know, but you can never say what things precisely, because to name them is to know them at least partially. And I don't mean things that we will never know due to material problems with gaining the information - like, we will never know what's on some star or other because it's physically impossible to power a ship to get there. I mean things that, if given the knowledge, we could not understand.

Whether the universe may not be something that we have the material means to prove or disprove, but we certainly have the mental means to understand it, and it is, therefore, knowable. Similarly, parallel universes are knowable, once the term is sufficiently defined. You speak too soon to say that there is no way to get this information. One of the other knowable things that we do not yet know is how the various aspects of the universe interact with each other, and the effects that they have. It may not be possible to travel all over the universe looking for an end, but it may be possible to determine its status as finite/infinite by exploiting cause and effect pairs that we have not yet discovered.

0 Replies

rufio, I know exactly where you are coming from, but what I was trying to suggest was that we still do not completely understand how we perceive things that we call "reality." We understand some of the biology and chemistry of how our brain works, but we are still uncertain as to whether our perceptions are true reflections of our observations, and what we deem as "real." Whether it's our limitations by our senses, our intellect, or our inability to grasp facts from fiction are all philosophical questions that have been examined and discussed since early times in man's history. We can conclude like some people have that "reality just is." That leaves the burden to each of us to interpret and accept what reality is. That begs the question; what is reality for all of us as the human animal in this universe?

0 Replies

Well, as someone saif above, reality is everything that exists, whether we can know it or not. As I said, things that we can't know are real but not relevant to philosophy (or at least to human philosophy anyway). If something has a quality that can't be known, but can still be sensed in some way, that doesn't mean we can't know it - just that what we can know about it is limited. Like, a blind person can't know the color of an object, but can still know its shape and size and texture, etc. As for those things getting altered by our senses, that doesn't mean we can't know those things or can't trust our senses, because our senses are clearly responding to something, and they probably respond the same way to the same types of things. I don't think it matters if the color that I see as red is different from the color that you see as red if we can both look at any given object and agree on whether it's red or not. What's red look like without retinas anyway? It's rather pointless to speculate that our senses deceive us because senses are the only way to determine some of the characteristics. If we have the ability to determine something about an object, what does it matter what we interpret that quality to represent or what that quality means to us? If we can determine whether or nor something has a quality, we can know that quality - end of story.

0 Replies

That's strange. You know I swear there was a very recent post here by David Henry.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

That's strange. You know I swear there was a very recent post here by David Henry.

There was, and it was in response to a misunderstanding WRT Mhatte's post, so I deleted it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, apparently you like to think that REALITY (or as you have changed things here, EXISTENCE) is contingent upon whether or not we can perceive it.

Frank

Reality is existence, and consciousness is dependent on existence.
What is the alternative to reality not being existence?

Quote:

It is quite possible that REALITY contains elements that cannot be perceived by this rather primitive animal called homo sapiens -- and in fact, it is quite possible that REALITY contains elements that cannot even be imagined by us.

If it can't be perceived or imagined, how can it EVER be said to exist?

Quote:

But since you are asserting that REALITY is contingent upon humans being able to perceive and sense it -- perhaps you ought to bring some justification of that position to this forum.

I know reality through the faculty of consciousness, which manipulates perceptions into concepts and knowledge.....reality is knowledge of something, this something must have an identity, consciousness transforms our perceptions into something{knowledge}, but existence/reality is the basis of our perceptions, as such, existence has primacy.

Quote:

So let's hear it, David. Explain to us all -- including the "nuts" and "quasi intellectuals" that you see us to be -- why you are so certain (whatever you want that to mean)

I want it to mean precisely what it should mean, and that is "NO REASON TO DOUBT", thus it's not absolute certainty, it's just a position of certainty until I've reason to doubt.

Quote:

that if a human being cannot sense it -- it cannot be a part of REALITY!

If we can't sense it, how can we know it other than by arbitary assertions?

Quote:

Justify your arbitrary statements, David.

I'm not in the business of making them Frank. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Well, as someone saif above, reality is everything that exists, whether we can know it or not.

No Sir, if we can NEVER know it, it can NEVER exist except as an arbitary and subsequently useless statement, the statement has no value, other than the expression of doubt, but this doubt is baseless, as you phrase it..."know it or not", therefore I'm entitled to have certainty about what consitutes knowing reality, and that is the conceptualization of my perceptions leading to knowledge of what exists.

Quote:

If something has a quality that can't be known, but can still be sensed in some way, that doesn't mean we can't know it - just that what we can know about it is limited. Like, a blind person can't know the color of an object, but can still know its shape and size and texture, etc. .

This example is ok, because we have SENSORY data transformed into concepts leading to knowledge......there's difference between limited amounts of data/knowledge and ZERO amounts of data, as would be the case if we couldn't sense it, we wouldn't be able to conceptualize it, so an appeal to it would be an appeal to nothing.

0 Replies

Are you talking about general knowledge, or empirical truth? I meant the latter... if something exists that we can't observe with any of our senses, than it still exists but cannot be known. As far as subjective concepts that require a thinker to think them, than without a thinker capable of thinking them, they indeed don't exist. But objects do not require a subject to observe them in order to exist.

Since when are you "entitled to have certainty about what consitutes knowing reality"? That is, if you're refering to ALL reality, and not just SOME reality. I would agree with the latter.

0 Replies

David

You are asserting that the REALITY of existence -- "what actually IS" -- is contingent upon the ability of humans to perceive it.

You are saying that unless the primitive piece of protoplasm that presumes to conceive of itself as an "intelligent life form" on this tiny speck of dust circling this not especially impressive star located in this not especially imposing galaxy...

...unless that paltry piece of pomposity can sense, detect, and comprehend it...

...it CANNOT be an element of REALITY. It cannot exist!

That is so ludicrous I have difficulty conceiving of an obviously "intelligent" individual like yourself allowing it to become an essential part of an argument you are making in full view of other "intelligent" individuals. (Irony in the use of the word "intelligent" intended!)

In any case, since you are the one who initially raised the question of providing justification for assertions that appear to be little more than idle speculation...

...I think it is appropriate for you to provide such justification for this half-baked, human-chauvinistic notion.

I, on the other hand, will simply maintain that I see absolutely no reason to suppose that OUR ability to comprehend ANYTHING is, or can be, a limiting factor of any kind on WHAT CAN OR CANNOT CONSTITUTE REALITY.

With all the respect in the world, David, I think your position is untenable.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know