Reality

Reality is going as far as you can go.
Reality is that there is no cure for cancer.
Reality is that we need money to survive.
Reality is that none of us are spiderman.
Reality is that none of us can buy love.

Yes...reality exists...but can only be taken so far.

0 Replies

cicerone, thanks for all that information. The truth is philosophy and philosophers are a waste of time to me. They grope for truths and understanding that are right before the eyes, I don't quite understand their lack of obtaining answers.
Perhaps you should read the definition of reality again. As for the others who have gone on a dialogue search of their own "reality", well, they are enjoying their discussion.
Reality can be observed and is definate. In another part of reality someones reality can be quite different than our own. And we can believe that their conception of their reality is correct, adding to our own list of what is reality to each of us.
Now if someone posted a topic about metaphysical reality, well throw the philosophers out the door and argue on because not many people believe the metaphysical reality of another. That is something many people want proof of. Although the wise take into consideration the realities of everyone, everywhere.

Quote:

Despite the practical nature of Thales' philosophy, many came to see him as being somewhat out of touch with reality. Plato, born more than a hundred years after his death, suggested Thales "was so eager to know what was going on in heaven ((that he could not see what was before his feet,))"1 a problem,

0 Replies

Frank, You haven't answered my query...

Is God reality?

0 Replies

Sorry about this, McG. You must have submitted this post while I was responding to David earlier. I did not see it. When you mentioned that I had not responded, I looked back and found it.

McGentrix wrote:

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?

Forget the "human" thing then.

Substantiate that it is impossible for a thing to exist unless an "observer" has knowledge of it.

Quote:

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.

Okay, let's axe the "humans" element again.

And once again I ask you: Substantiate that it is impossible for something to be a part of REALITY unless someone or something has knowledge of it.

Quote:

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.

REALITY is whatever it is -- without regard to whether any "observer" knows about it or not.

Any part of REALITY which has not been encountered by an "observer" simply is something that has never been encountered or observed.

That does not make it any less a part of REALITY.

You may, of course, want to argue (I think you've already made an attempt at this) that until it is observed -- it doesn't exist.

Fair enough! You may be correct. But how about giving some sort of substantiation that that is the case, rather than simply asserting it.

(By the way, I consider this element of your argument to be especially absurd, but I want to be perfectly clear that I am not saying it cannot be so. It may be so. If it is, then it is part of REALITY. But as I said right from the beginning, I do not know what REALITY is -- I just know that whatever REALITY IS -- IT IS. And if it happens that one component of REALITY is that a thing simply does not exist before it is observed - then so be it. But to just assert that to be the case without any substantiation, makes no sense.)

Quote:

Is God reality Frank?

Beats the **** out of me, McG.

Can you answer that question?

0 Replies

David:

"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."

It could also be something that we can't identify.

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

If you are blind, you have no way to perceive optical illusions, or slide shows, or projections, or other things that are only observable visually. Does that mean they don't exist, since there are some people in the world who are blind? Doubtless, there are probably creatures elsewhere that can sense what we cannot, and just because we can't sense what they can doesn't mean that those things don't exist.

You don't have the right to be certain of what you know, but you have the right to be certain of what you experience. They're not exactly the same, though in the case of senses, they're usually very close.

David and McGent seem to be defining reality to mean that which can be observed - but what if some can observe it and some can't? Who determines what is real? Humans? Animals? The blind, perhaps? Everything in the universe, sentient or not, is an "observer" per se, because everything that happens and exists in the universe rebounds on everything else in it. We weren't around during the Ice Ages - but we can say that they probably happened, and there were probably mammoths and so forth because the land bears testament to what once existed and happened. But if human beings are the standard by which reality is real, than none of that is real - only the fossilized bones are reality. Yet, they prove that something else was once real too.

0 Replies

Frank, this forum is Philosophy and Debate, not Science and Debate. You are asking me to substantiate that which cannot be substantiated. I could pose the same question back to you. "Substantiate that it is possible for a thing to exist unless an observer has knowledge of it."

frank wrote:

Any part of REALITY which has not been encountered by an "observer" simply is something that has never been encountered or observed.

How can it be part of reality if it has never been encountered or observed. That's like saying that Martians exist because they do. Until observed, they do not exist and remain a theory or guess.

Rufio,
Have you ever seen me? No. Yet I remain a part of your reality. You have observed my writting here, thus making it real. All your examples are based on observations. We have seen the dinosaur bones, thus there were dinosaurs. What color were they? No one can say, but we know they existed because we can observe the evidence. We can say without doubt that the Ice Age happened because we can observe the results.

Frank wants reality to just be. I say reality is what is known. Be it by humans, horses, ants or Sq'edar on planet Foargh't. Reality is what we make it.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank, this forum is Philosophy and Debate, not Science and Debate. You are asking me to substantiate that which cannot be substantiated. I could pose the same question back to you. "Substantiate that it is possible for a thing to exist unless an observer has knowledge of it."

Try to slow down. Your posts start falling apart when you get steamed and try to hurry things.

That sentence was an abomination.

In any case, if you cannot substantiate something, you really shouldn't assert it as fact.

Quote:

frank wrote:
Any part of REALITY which has not been encountered by an "observer" simply is something that has never been encountered or observed.

How can it be part of reality if it has never been encountered or observed.

Same question you asked earlier. Same answer.

Easily.

It can simply BE -- and never have been encountered.

But since you are so insistent that a thing cannot exist unless it has been observed -- just give us some substantiation of that. Why are you maintaining it so strongly when even you acknowledge that what you are advocating simply cannot be known or substantiated?

You are confusing "what we know" with "REALITY."

They may not be the same thing.

Quote:

That's like saying that Martians exist because they do. Until observed, they do not exist and remain a theory or guess.

That is almost comically absurd.

You are in way over your head here, McG. You really should consider going back to insulting Hillary Clinton -- and leaving this kind of discussion to people who can handle it.

Quote:

Frank wants reality to just be.

That is not what Frank wrote.

Quote:

I say reality is what is known.

Well that probably has to do with the limits of your ability to conceptualize. In any case, simply because you say that it what it is -- doesn't mean that is what it is!

Quote:

Be it by humans, horses, ants or Sq'edar on planet Foargh't. Reality is what we make it.

Yeah, sure. REALITY really depends on you or horses or ants or Sq'edars in order to be!!!!

Wake up!

0 Replies

McGentrix,

I don't feel like indulging in a debate with you, but let me just say this. What you have defined reality as, is what has been observed. You mixed it up a bit. You are defining the observer's knowledge. Things that have been observed have simply been observed, that is all. Everything that I have observed is part of MY reality, not reality. Everything that I have observed has been molded and shaped into what I want to think about it. Therefore, MY reality is an interpretation of THE reality. Once something has been interpreted it is no longer genuine except within the observer's reality.

From what I've absorbed from your posts, you say something comes into reality once observed. What reality?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Frank, this forum is Philosophy and Debate, not Science and Debate. You are asking me to substantiate that which cannot be substantiated. I could pose the same question back to you. "Substantiate that it is possible for a thing to exist unless an observer has knowledge of it."

Try to slow down. Your posts start falling apart when you get steamed and try to hurry things.

That sentence was an abomination.

In any case, if you cannot substantiate something, you really shouldn't assert it as fact.

The only abomination here is your simplistic view of reality. I believe that is the child like view mentioned earlier. Your pickled brain can obviously not grasp what I am saying. You keep asking me to substantiate my view on reality by echoing the same garbage over and over.

Quote:

Quote:
frank wrote:
Any part of REALITY which has not been encountered by an "observer" simply is something that has never been encountered or observed.

How can it be part of reality if it has never been encountered or observed.

Same question you asked earlier. Same answer.

Easily.

It can simply BE -- and never have been encountered.

But since you are so insistent that a thing cannot exist unless it has been observed -- just give us some substantiation of that. Why are you maintaining it so strongly when even you acknowledge that what you are advocating simply cannot be known or substantiated?

You are confusing "what we know" with "REALITY."

They may not be the same thing.

How wonderfully simplistic. "It can simply BE"...

Quote:

Quote:
That's like saying that Martians exist because they do. Until observed, they do not exist and remain a theory or guess.

That is almost comically absurd.

You are in way over your head here, McG. You really should consider going back to insulting Hillary Clinton -- and leaving this kind of discussion to people who can handle it.

What a wonderful insult! That does tend to be your M.O., insult when you can't refute. Instead of trying to argue on the nerits, you just barrel down into the dirt and drag the conversation with you. Not this time. If you have nothing further to add, stop trying.

Quote:

Quote:
Frank wants reality to just be.

That is not what Frank wrote.

Yeah, it is, you said: "It can simply BE ", "Reality is -- whatever IS. It is the sum total of whatever IS", "I'm saying "Whatever is -- is" " Maybe I am missing something in translation. What is all this supposed to mean?[/quote]

Quote:

Quote:
I say reality is what is known.

Well that probably has to do with the limits of your ability to conceptualize. In any case, simply because you say that it what it is -- doesn't mean that is what it is!

Refute me then, instead of insulting me. Prove to me that something exists in reality without first observing it. Then you can gloat and prove to me that you are more than just the golf playing liberal that I think you are.

Quote:

Quote:
Be it by humans, horses, ants or Sq'edar on planet Foargh't. Reality is what we make it.

Yeah, sure. REALITY really depends on you or horses or ants or Sq'edars in order to be!!!!

Wake up!

Yes, reality DOES depend on observers, Frank. To deny that, denies reality. Now, go back to sleep.

0 Replies

McGent, We can't separate philosophy from science, or the other way around. It's an impossible task.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Frank, this forum is Philosophy and Debate, not Science and Debate. You are asking me to substantiate that which cannot be substantiated. I could pose the same question back to you. "Substantiate that it is possible for a thing to exist unless an observer has knowledge of it."

Try to slow down. Your posts start falling apart when you get steamed and try to hurry things.

That sentence was an abomination.

In any case, if you cannot substantiate something, you really shouldn't assert it as fact.

The only abomination here is your simplistic view of reality. I believe that is the child like view mentioned earlier. Your pickled brain can obviously not grasp what I am saying. You keep asking me to substantiate my view on reality by echoing the same garbage over and over.

I love you, McG. If you were not here, I'd probably try to invent you.

Do keep this last paragraph in mind when we get down to the part where you lecture me on Internet decorum.

My guess is you will get a huge laugh out just as I did.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
frank wrote:
Any part of REALITY which has not been encountered by an "observer" simply is something that has never been encountered or observed.

How can it be part of reality if it has never been encountered or observed.

Same question you asked earlier. Same answer.

Easily.

It can simply BE -- and never have been encountered.

But since you are so insistent that a thing cannot exist unless it has been observed -- just give us some substantiation of that. Why are you maintaining it so strongly when even you acknowledge that what you are advocating simply cannot be known or substantiated?

You are confusing "what we know" with "REALITY."

They may not be the same thing.

How wonderfully simplistic. "It can simply BE"...

Now you got it, McG!

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
That's like saying that Martians exist because they do. Until observed, they do not exist and remain a theory or guess.

That is almost comically absurd.

You are in way over your head here, McG. You really should consider going back to insulting Hillary Clinton -- and leaving this kind of discussion to people who can handle it.

What a wonderful insult! That does tend to be your M.O., insult when you can't refute. Instead of trying to argue on the nerits, you just barrel down into the dirt and drag the conversation with you. Not this time. If you have nothing further to add, stop trying.

Ahhh...your attempt at an insult was just so so. And I note that you are not trying to argue on the "nerits" either. But the real humor of this statement really has to do with the fact that it is a lecture on not insulting -- filled with insults.

You are a card. I love ya, man.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Frank wants reality to just be.

That is not what Frank wrote.

Yeah, it is, you said: "It can simply BE ", "Reality is -- whatever IS. It is the sum total of whatever IS", "I'm saying "Whatever is -- is" " Maybe I am missing something in translation. What is all this supposed to mean?

[/quote]

Two different things here, McG. But you gotta have a brain to differentiate -- and...ahhhh...well...ya know.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
I say reality is what is known.

Well that probably has to do with the limits of your ability to conceptualize. In any case, simply because you say that it what it is -- doesn't mean that is what it is!

Refute me then, instead of insulting me. Prove to me that something exists in reality without first observing it. Then you can gloat and prove to me that you are more than just the golf playing liberal that I think you are.

Ahhh..yet another lecture about not using insults! Jeez!

Anyway...I do not have to prove that something exists in reality without first observing it. I am simply suggesting the possibility that such is the case. You, on the other hand, are INSISTING that a thing cannot exist unless it has been observed.

What is the substantiation for that remark?

Why are you saying that the only things that exist are things that have been observed?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Be it by humans, horses, ants or Sq'edar on planet Foargh't. Reality is what we make it.

Yeah, sure. REALITY really depends on you or horses or ants or Sq'edars in order to be!!!!

Wake up!

Yes, reality DOES depend on observers, Frank.

Well you keep saying that, but I am still waiting for some substantiation. Is there ever going to be any forthcoming?

Quote:

To deny that, denies reality. Now, go back to sleep.

Yeah, sure.

Hey McG -- I do love ya, man. You are more valuable to me than you can possibly imagine.

Try not to get so upset.

It's not good for your health.

0 Replies

All that and you still have not refuted me. My case is substantiated by your inability to prove me wrong.

Prove to me that something exists in reality without first observing it.

Frank wrote:

I do not have to prove that something exists in reality without first observing it. I am simply suggesting the possibility that such is the case. You, on the other hand, are INSISTING that a thing cannot exist unless it has been observed.

Yes, I insist that this is the case, and until it can be refuted, I will continue to do so.

0 Replies

"I say reality is what is known. Be it by humans, horses, ants or Sq'edar on planet Foargh't. Reality is what we make it."

But I ask again, known by who? There are things we can never directly know, but they make imprints on the universe because the universe "knows" them in that way.

"Prove to me that something exists in reality without first observing it."

You've never observed donosaurs, only bones, yet you conclude that the dinosaurs were alive at some point and necessarily had things like skin and muscle, which you haven't observed.

0 Replies

Yes, we have observed their bones. That is my point.

0 Replies

But you never observed them.

0 Replies

In fact, I doubt you've actually personally observed any dinosaur bones either. How do you know somone isn't making it up and it's not a giant Darwinist conspiracy or something?

0 Replies

McG,

I'm curious to know if you read my last post. I'd like to see your comments. It was added right before you placed your post so I am not sure if you read it. Please answer my question.

0 Replies

That's silly Rufio. You are implying that for something to be part of reality that I, personally, have to observe it. That's not what I am saying at all. You are mistaking personal reality for community reality.

Oh, and I have seen fossilized dinosaur bones...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

All that and you still have not refuted me. My case is substantiated by your inability to prove me wrong.

Prove to me that something exists in reality without first observing it.

Frank wrote:
I do not have to prove that something exists in reality without first observing it. I am simply suggesting the possibility that such is the case. You, on the other hand, are INSISTING that a thing cannot exist unless it has been observed.

Yes, I insist that this is the case, and until it can be refuted, I will continue to do so.

I'll tell you what surprises me, McG. I am shocked that some of the folks who were arguing the position you are now taking -- are not coming back into the thread and asking you to go be on someone else's side.

You really are dense.

But, you've managed to jump off into deep water -- and I guess the only thing you can do is to thrash about hoping not to drown.

You wouldn't recognize a logical argument on this issue if it bit you on the ass. But it is a delight to watch you try.

Keep at it.

Maybe someone else will try to penetrate.

Frankly, I rather try to explain quantum mechanics to a ferret! :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix,

Quote:

That's silly Rufio. You are implying that for something to be part of reality that I, personally, have to observe it. That's not what I am saying at all. You are mistaking personal reality for community reality.

I noticed you used the terms personal reality and community reality. Please explain the difference. It's not that I don't know. I just like to know what's going on in your head. Because your definition of reality is somewhat close to my definition of MY (personal) reality. The definitions shouldn't be alike. Whatever is observed becomes parts of someone's, so called, 'personal' reality. Once again I ask you. What reality are you talking about?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know