Reality

Well what are you saying, McGent? Who has to see reality to make it real?

0 Replies

Look at it this way:

I may observe something, thus bringing that something into reality. It may be a sound, something I see, something I smell, whatever. That object is now a part of my PERSONAL reality. Frank, whom I have never had the pleasure of meeting, also see's observes things, bringing those things into HIS personal reality. On the first hole, Frank hits a worm burner and as he walks the 25' to his ball, he observes a worm. He now has a connection to that worms observations, though the worm has no way of conveying it's observation's to Frank, he has now shared observations with that worm. Now, Frank, the worm and myself all share a community reality. Combine that with every person, animal, plant, fungus on earth and you now have a rather large community reality. We are now observing the universe at great depth and we are adding to our expanding reality. We have theories explaining that there are planets orbiting stars out there and we have evidence of that through our scientific endeavers. We are bringing those things into reality from theory.

Does that help?

0 Replies

McGent, Is there any difference between your waking hour reality and your sleeping hour reality? If so, why? If not, why?

0 Replies

If the worm wasn't in existence before Frank saw it, how did it oberve anything?

0 Replies

CI, I don't know.

Rufio, It had it's own reality, it was only introduced to Frank's reality upon his observing it. Together, they then share a community reality.

0 Replies

So you're saying there's a reality outside of frank's reality and a reality outside of the worm's reality, at least. But why are they necessarily they same if there isn't a real reality?

0 Replies

But they aren't necessarily the same. To say the worms reality is the same as Frank's reality would be quite a stretch. Each has their own reality, but they share a reality as well.

0 Replies

Obviously, some of you people have not taken The Matrix to heart.

Its possible nothing we observe is real. Reality could be just a big computer simulation going on in our heads while we lie stacked up in rows of cylinders.

How can we ever know unless we take the right pill?

0 Replies

Greyfan, Precisely! Our perceptions and conclusions of what we see, smell, hear, and touch are not always dependable. Our brain is not that dependable. Our beliefs, emotions, feelings, ideas, and everything we think are truth may be nothing but an illusion. Our genetics, language, and culture pretty much directs our ideas about what our environment is all about. How dependable is our emotions? Do we cry at a good movie as much as we cry for a lost family member? What's the difference, if any? What is depression? Why can drugs change our mood, our intelligence, our inability to understand right from wrong, see images that are not there, and pray to a god we can't see? What is reality?

0 Replies

It's possible, greyfan, but something would still exist to provide the simulation (the computer, if you will).

McGent, what reality do they share? How is that different than an objective reality?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Greetings to all.
I accept that an aspect of "cognition" to to seek to predict/retrodict and control and that this "need" evokes a concept of relative permanent structures.

fresco...this is my repsonse to you from the ridiculous Is Black White thread.

My simple question is....do you believe the dinosaurs existed 65 million yrs ago?
Now if you answer yes, then you must accept that the earth{the structure which the dinosaurs lived on} has a past, and yes I know it in conjunction with my mind's eye....but unless you can usurp science, I'm entitled to rely on the knowledge it has provided me WRT the various isotopic dating techniques.

Quote:

However, such structures are transient and species specific. "Earthness" for men is not " Earthness" for ants. I put it to you that "the Earth" you are talking about is in your minds eye, i.e. YOU are the "missing observer". There can be no structure without he who structures.

When I visualize the earth or a structure of the past, of course I use my minds eye, but my "knowledge" of it's past is based on the science and any prehistoric remains that I can examine, and unless you can prove science as incorrect{not just question it's validity without justification}, then I'm justified in accepting it's verdict.

Quote:

(NB Much of this is appropriate on the "reality thread" but there is so much low level word salad going on there that I have little to add to my single post which you may have spotted).

At this stage....you aren't really making any sense to me...so with respect, and until I've made an unequivocal judgement, your own contributions are of similar merit....although I appreciate that you aren't being a juvenile.

CI is already horrified by my presence in this forum, and he sent his no1 Hitman over....Mr F Apisa....LOL.

0 Replies

David Henry,

For me, the word "existence" means "that with which we interact" and the word "reality" is equivalent to "interaction". In as much that I may interact with "dinosaurs" and "the past" then they "exist"....but so do "unicorns" because I can draw them, and so does "God" even though I am atheist, because I interact with "believers".
Where "science" scores in all this is that it tends to be socially neutral and uses a culture free language (mathematics) in its descriptions of "the world". (See "Reality is a Social Construction" for more on this)

0 Replies

David, I'm not "horrified" at your presence or contributions to A2K. Frank is not my "hitman," but I agree with much of what he says - not always, but the majority of the time. Frank is not anybody's hitman. He stands on his own merits.

0 Replies

Quote:

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 --

Hi Frank

I think we agree that neither of us knows the "totality".
I think what might be the case is that when I say reality is what exists, I mean that to have existence is to know something, therefore, what does exist is by virtue of our knowledge of it.

Anything I can't know, can NEVER exist by definition....as I can't identify it with my perceptions, so whilst there might be a totality, all we can know is reality, and that is what exists....if it exists, it's because I've identified it and it has become part of my knowledge* bank.

* knowledge is precise, it's definition is secure,....and without reason to doubt it's validty, I have certainty. It's basis are "our" perceptions, these perceptions have been transformed into concepts via the process of logic under the stewardship of reason.

Quote:

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

On the proviso that you understand and agree with my above paragraphs, then we may have broad agreement.

Quote:

"Whatever is -- IS" -- and an observation (or acknowledgement/admission) -- I, as a human, do not know 'what is.'"

If you're saying you don't know what the totality is....then OK.
If you're saying that you doubt reality{that which we "can" know}...then not OK...lol.

Quote:

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

If we are using the same epistemic methods, and properly utilizing logic and ensuring no logical contradictions exist, then we should reach broad agreement.

Quote:

-- plus -- what actually exists despite the fact that we do not yet know about it?)

That which we don't know, doesn't exist....without existence we have no-thing.
What I "know", constitutes my knowledge, my knowledge can be expanded, but any additional knowledge will still conform to previous methods of knowing.....but if I don't know it, it's nothing, regardless of whether I anticipate more.
Thing is, this "might" be our last paradigm....how are we to know?...so it seems reasonable to be doubtful based on past episodes in scientific history, but that doubt has no validity until realized...if ever.

Not sure if this cleared things up Frank....if it hasn't, lets talk about Tennis.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

CI is already horrified by my presence in this forum, and he sent his no1 Hitman over....Mr F Apisa....LOL.

No one "sends" me anywhere, David. Nor am I a "hitman" for anyone -- except at times, for myself.

I might call your attention to the fact that I posted on this thread even before you got here -- and I have been monitoring it ever since.

Your remark, like so many of your petty insults, was uncalled for -- and demonstrably wrong.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

David Henry wrote:
CI is already horrified by my presence in this forum, and he sent his no1 Hitman over....Mr F Apisa....LOL.

Your remark, like so many of your petty insults, was uncalled for -- and demonstrably wrong.

I meant it as a joke....we've had a rocky past, so I thought that sort of humour would work.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

For me, the word "existence" means "that with which we interact" and the word "reality" is equivalent to "interaction". In as much that I may interact with "dinosaurs" and "the past" then they "exist"....but so do "unicorns" because I can draw them, and so does "God" even though I am atheist, because I interact with "believers".

The fundamental difference is of course evidence...I have evidence of the earths past...what evidence do you have of God* or Unicorns?

*you obvioulsy have none.

That which exists must be conceptualizable, I can conceptualize the earth of the past, thus I have knowledge of the earth of the past.

Quote:

(See "Reality is a Social Construction" for more on this)

The basic fundamentals are not social constructions.
Regardless of whether or not gravity{the concept} is ever modified, it applies to all cultures, it is a basic undisputable concept and aspect of our knowledge....and until...or if ever the concept of gravity is modified, it has validity as a factor in scientific theory/experiments.

0 Replies

Ruach wrote:

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.
]

There's a problem here...no1...what you consider as obvioulsy this, others may consider obviously that....so your comments work both ways.

no2...philosophy IMO should be about the maximization of the human condition, we should indentify what we consider as most valuable, and philosophers should be dedicating themselves to this task.

Now as I'm a practioner of proper knowledge, this forum will be the beneficiary of some of my undisputable truths relating to optimal dietary requirements, IOW, I'll eventually teach you how to eat properly, and the knowledge you gain will be undisputable.

Both psychological and practical benefit should be outcomes of proper philosophy, if you've worse off after attaining what you consider to be knowledge....then you're studying an inadequate pool of knowledge.

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
David Henry wrote:
CI is already horrified by my presence in this forum, and he sent his no1 Hitman over....Mr F Apisa....LOL.

Your remark, like so many of your petty insults, was uncalled for -- and demonstrably wrong.

I meant it as a joke....we've had a rocky past, so I thought that sort of humour would work.

Ooops!

Okay, then I take it all back. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

[
Ooops!
Okay, then I take it all back. :wink:

Cool...catch you later.

PS...let me know your thoughts on my last post, even if it's the same as before.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know