Reality

Quote:

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!

Yes because you're doing 2 things, although the major fault is with one thing and that is you're making an appeal to the arbitary, and effectively invoking another playing field to support your arbitary assertion.
Your assertion is arbitary as you can't provide any proof, you're introducing a hypothetical which, even if it was true, wouldn't be knowable by us as you've credited this lifeform with non-human qualities.....you have left the contexual nature of this discussion.

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 re-direct you to this statement, this statement is where you invoke an arbitary lifeform, a lifeform who has powers that are beyond our knowledge, it's beyond our knowledge because as you've framed it, it can detect what we can't and or has access to elements we can't even imagine.
This it exists only as a visual thought of yours, but this thought is arbitary and cannot lead to knowledge as you've framed it....thus you've invoked nothing of sustance, although I recognize you have doubts, but your doubts are NOT supported by plausible evidence, thus they are arbitary and have been rejected as mere noise.

The second fault you have is to assume that we are insignificant.....IMO, any lifeform that can know the Universe is not insignificant and is actuallly a creation of the cosmos, one can say that we have been created to know the cosmos, we are an expression of the cosmos.....there's nothing insignificant about that...nor is your criteria desirable,... you examine humans and make every attribute we have a negative, when for all we know, we "might" be the only intelligent life that exists.

Quote:

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

I have throughout this thread, I've explained that reality is the basis of our knowledge*, existence is primary and consciouness is secondary.

*Knowledge is that which has logical legitimacy, that which is some aspect of truth about reality.....you're arbitary visual aids are not knowledge, not unless they have some substance and are contextually applicable.

They exist as mental entities, but these entities are only visualizable by YOU, I cannot visualize something that we can't even imagine.

Quote:

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

You can only maintain this by your appeal to the arbitary.
I've explained previously how we know something, and this process leads to developed laws that govern realities behaviour, this enables us to visually extend beyond our solar limits, but our visualizations are based on knowledge, whereas yours are arbitary and without foundation.

Btw Frank....I consider this topic as "luxury" philosophy, there's really no loser in this battle of wits/twits, only 2 philosophers talking shop.
It's my assessment that our conversations on this issue have been exhausted, we aren't able to reconcile our differences and I'm sure you'll have a comeback...but IMO, you and I are worlds apart on this and any significant agreement appears unlikley.

IOW, don't over-exert yourself on your reply, as I'm not going to re-answer what I consider to have fully covered.
Look forward to speaking with you on other issues.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

if something exists that we can't observe with any of our senses, than it still exists but cannot be known.

Then it can't be classified as having existence, if we can't sense it or ever know it, it is nothing, it's the opposite of something, something has identity, it's identity was based on our ability to identify it.
Exactly what is it that can't be known?...A= it's nothing, if it was something, we could indentify it, as it would exist.

You're also using arbitary appeals to the concept of nothing as a reason for me to entertain doubt, I'm sure you can tell why that won't alter my certainty.

Quote:

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.

Please describe "one" object that can be said to exist without knowing any of it's characteristics, it's indentity.

Quote:

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.

Any sane individual is entitled to certainty when there is no reason to doubt....I don't have to know everything, I just have to be certain about what I know.
And if you read my response to Frank, you'll see that I touched on the extent of our knowledge beyond our solar limits.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

Quote:

Your assertion is arbitary as you can't provide any proof...

This really is an amazing assertion on your part, David, since "my assertion" is that I do not know what REALITY is and that REALITY may be something beyond my comprehension.

How does one provide proof of that?

You, on the other hand, are asserting that YOU DO KNOW what REALITY is...and yet you feel that you do not have to provide any evidence or proofs.

Wow!

Perhaps we ought to start another thread devoted to discussing the "reasoning" that goes into something like that!

Quote:

...you're introducing a hypothetical which, even if it was true, wouldn't be knowable by us as you've credited this lifeform with non-human qualities.....you have left the contexual nature of this discussion.

I have done no such thing. I have not posited any other life forms (don't know where you got that from) and obviously, since I have never posited any, I cannot have "credited them with non-human qualities."

I have merely stated that I do not know what REALITY is -- and I suspect neither does anyone else. The REALITY of existence -- the answer to the question "What is this all about?" -- is, in my opinion, simply not available right now.

What we humans see and feel MAY be all there is to existence and REALITY -- but there is absolutely no way to know that for certain. And the fact that you keeping asserting and insisting that it has to be so, does not make it so.

If you have any evidence that there IS NOTHING ELSE except what we humans can sense and comprehend -- you would have provided it by now rather than bemoaning and belittling the fact that I have suggested such a possibility.

Short of providing evidence that there is nothing else to REALITY except what we can perceive -- you ought really not to be making the kinds of statements you are.

The rest of your post seems designed to avoid dealing with the fact that you have no such evidence. I therefore assume your assertions amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation on your part (and insistence on that speculation) -- and that the other stuff (demanding that I provide PROOF that I do not know for certain what REALITY is) is merely a smoke screen to avoid having to acknowledge that you are simply incorrect in this instance.

If you could detach yourself from whatever it is that is driving you at the moment, I suspect you would see all this very clearly.

I will end this post by restating my initial position:

Reality is -- whatever IS. It is the sum total of whatever IS -- and is not contingent upon whether or not humans can sense or comprehend it.

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.

Reality, in short, is the totality of what exists--whether we know or can sense that it exists or not

And although you have ASSERTED that you know better than that, David, I have seen absolutely nothing of any substance that would lead me, or anyone, to suppose that you actually do.

I do like your passion -- and I like the way you present your arguments (if not the content) and I do hope, as you do, that even if we do not discuss his issue further, that we meet in discussion on another topic at a future time. Looking forward to it.

0 Replies

Reality is "what is"? That seems rather theoretical.

Reality can only be defined as that which is observable. Until it is observed (by any of the senses of the observer) it cannot exist and therefore is not part of reality. It stays in the realm of theory and guesses and imagination. The atom, until observed was not part of reality. Mars, until observed by the aided eye was not part of reality.

The observer makes reality for the observed.

0 Replies

McGent, Have you ever heard that some people have seen things that are not physically there? That's their "reality?" Please explain.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McGent, Have you ever heard that some people have seen things that are not physically there? That's their "reality?" Please explain.

You answered your question.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Reality is "what is"? That seems rather theoretical.

I'm sure you said that just to be funny.

Thanks.

I enjoyed the laugh.

Quote:

Reality can only be defined that which is observable.

You obviously hurried the construction of that sentence, McG. It makes no sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to say -- but you definitely did not succeed.

Why not re-write it. I'd love to know what you had in mind.

Quote:

Until it is observed (by any of the senses of the observer) it cannot exist and therefore is not part of reality. It stays in the realm of theory and guesses and imagination. The atom, until observed was not part of reality. Mars, until observed by the aided eye was not part of reality.

Really!

And all this is so because you dreamed it up - or is there something back in the wings that you are going to trot out to back it up?

Quote:

The observer makes reality for the observed.

I think you ought to stick to beating up on Hillary.

Philosophy obviously is not your long suit.

0 Replies

How can something exist if there is no knowledge of it Frank? How can something be considered "reality" until it is observed. Until that time, it does not exist. It is only thought to exist, and therefore is not a part of "reality".

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How can something exist if there is no knowledge of it Frank?

Very easily.

Under any circumstance, I would like you to substantiate that it is impossible for a thing to exist unless humans have knowledge of it.

Quote:

How can something be considered "reality" until it is observed.

Very easily.

Under any circumstances, I would like you to substantiate that it is impossible for something to be considered real unless humans have knowledge of it.

Quote:

Until that time, it does not exist. It is only thought to exist, and therefore is not a part of "reality".

Sez you!

I have no idea of where you are getting this baloney from, but I would change deli's if I were you. This is not high quality stuff.

0 Replies

McGent's quote, "Until that time, it does not exist. It is only thought to exist, and therefore is not a part of "reality". McGent, I think you really don't understand this subject very well. Only MHO.

0 Replies

What is so hard about this question that is would merit such attacks towards David.
Look at the definition of reality,

Quote:

1 : the quality or state of being real
2 : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
- in reality : in actual fact

What is the problem. Why turn a simple question into a metaphysical concept? That is a whole other topic.

0 Replies

I like the term metaphysical. It gives a name to so much that is peculiar about alot.

0 Replies

Greetings to all.

If we examine how the word "reality" is used (after Wittgenstein) it is associated with "permanence", "social agreement" "prediction" and "viability". Given that "constant flux" is the essence of our experience and that "time" is a human cognitive construct, philosophical problems arise with all of these aspects, leading to pragmatic attempts to make one of them a priori. (My own leanings are towards "reality as a social construction"). A transcedent approach (which I also favour) is to define reality as a two way interaction between observer and observed, the structure of each reflecting the other. Others in this forum may even extend this transcendence to complete monism in which observer and observed are one and the problems of time and individual perceptions are bypassed.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

This really is an amazing assertion on your part, David, since "my assertion" is that I do not know what REALITY is and that REALITY may be something beyond my comprehension.

How does one provide proof of that?

One more for the road Frank.

I actually think our problem might be a simple misunderstanding, lets try this.

You may not know every detail of the totality, nor do I....but truth is knowledge of reality*, IOW, certain information about some aspect of reality, but not EVERY aspect of it....I'd have to be omniscient to know every apsect of reality, ie the Totality.

*that which we know exists.

My assertion of the Totality is effectively arbitary, but it's a concession to my human status....as I cannot know all of reality, I only have knowledge of reality and I'm certain of this knowledge...at least until I have cause to doubt.

So I've been arguing for knowing aspects of the totality, which still constitutes knowing reality, but not every aspect of it, whereas I think, that you feel I claim I know every aspect of it.

Quote:

I have done no such thing. I have not posited any other life forms (don't know where you got that from) and obviously, since I have never posited any, I cannot have "credited them with non-human qualities."

Yes that may have been a stretch on my part, but I assumed that when you said that there may be things we can't even imagine, you were implying a non-human form knowing something, but this knowledge was not available to us.

Quote:

The REALITY of existence -- the answer to the question "What is this all about?" -- is, in my opinion, simply not available right now.

Well...this depends on whether you're strictly refering to what is the structure of all matter, or why are we here?
I realize knowledge of one can improve knowledge of the other...but may not enable certainty.

Quote:

What we humans see and feel MAY be all there is to existence and REALITY -- but there is absolutely no way to know that for certain.

No, we can be certain at this point, as we have no competing evidence that would dissuade us, only arbitray appeals to there being more, based on doubt...although I cannot consider this doubt as reasonable, as such I have certainty....non-omniscient beings are entitled to certainty, whereas the concept of omniscience excludes the validity of a notion of certainty...certainty would be replaced with absolute knowledge.

Quote:

Short of providing evidence that there is nothing else to REALITY except what we can perceive -- you ought really not to be making the kinds of statements you are.

On whose authority Frank?
I claim that we are entitled to arbitary doubt, but in the absense of knowledge or reason to assume the gaining of knowledge via non-perceptual modes, we are left with our current modes of knowing, and the arbiter of those modes: reason.

Now did any of that do anything for you?...LOL.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Until that time, it does not exist. It is only thought to exist, and therefore is not a part of "reality".

Thoughts can be part of reality, not in a physical sense, but as visual representations, but unless they are intelligible, ie, constitute knowledge, they are virtually meaningless as far as "knowing" anything.

The difference is to rely on "feelings" of doubt backed by arbitary statements, that there might be more, and claim some sort of certainty....these is NO justification for knowing anything beyond our capabilities, IOW, if we can know it, we may discover it...but if it can't be known, then it's a worthless assertion.

Impulses minus knowledge=ZERO knowledge.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
How can something exist if there is no knowledge of it Frank?

Very easily.

Under any circumstance, I would like you to substantiate that it is impossible for a thing to exist unless humans have knowledge of it.

You are hung up on the human thing. I never mentioned humans, I said observer. Can you substantiate that something does exist if it remains unknown?

Quote:

Quote:
How can something be considered "reality" until it is observed.

Very easily.

Under any circumstances, I would like you to substantiate that it is impossible for something to be considered real unless humans have knowledge of it.

Again, you are projecting humans when I say observer. I would say that the tunnels that an ant works in is real to the ant because it can observe the tunnel.

Quote:

Quote:
Until that time, it does not exist. It is only thought to exist, and therefore is not a part of "reality".

Sez you!

I have no idea of where you are getting this baloney from, but I would change deli's if I were you. This is not high quality stuff.

The only one selling baloney around here is you, Frank. I have never bought any of it either.

Is God reality Frank?

0 Replies

David

Let me take your last question first:

David Henry wrote:

Now did any of that do anything for you?...

Yep!

It confirmed that I enjoy hearing from you on this issue -- and it confirmed that we probably will never reach agreement on many aspects of what we've been discussing.

Interesting thing, David. I went back to look over my first post in this thread -- and at the same time, I noted your first post.

Here they are in their entirety:

ME:

Quote:

Reality is -- whatever IS. I certainly do not know what reality is -- and every indication is that neither does anyone else.

YOU:

Quote:

Reality is typically considered the universe and everything in it, including mental entities, ie, mental entities exist. When someone says there is no such thing as reality, you immediately have access to the reality of a child, ....children often ignore reality and can suffer greatly.

Remove the gratuitous insult you sent ci's way -- and there actually is very little disagreement in our initial impressions.

I'm saying "Whatever is -- is" and you are saying "REALITY is (everything that exists)."

I add that I do not know (everything that exists) and you tacitly acknowledge you do not know (everything that exists).

We are in essential agreement -- although we have expressed our positions using different wording.

Then, somehow, we got very, very far apart - and when that happened, a bit of unfortunate acrimony developed.

Now, I've read over everything you had to say in this last post.

Without commenting on any of the specifics yet -- I'd like to ask you this:

What, specifically, in this last post of yours -- (or indeed, in any of your earlier posts) -- is in disagreement with what I posted initially?

I really would like to clean that up.

I remind you: The essentials of what I said initially were (a tautology) "Whatever is -- IS" -- and an observation (or acknowledgement/admission) -- I, as a human, do not know 'what is.'"

(We'll get to the implications of that in a bit -- although obviously the question that will arise is: Since I know so little (I'd like to think that will be taken by you as "relatively speaking" :wink: ) -- is REALITY, in your opinion, limited to what I know about it -- or is REALITY a combination of what I (and others) KNOW about it -- plus -- what actually exists despite the fact that we do not yet know about it?)

0 Replies

Eklof said...

Quote:

I wonder if this is where Hesse got the idea for Siddartha

0 Replies

"Knowledge dwells in heads replete with thoughts of other men, wisdom in minds attentive to their own."--------Cowper

"She (knowledge) is earthly of the mind, but wisdom heavenly of the soul."---------Tennyson

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know