The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

@wandeljw,

Wandeljw, pardon me but I think you are not talking about INDEPENDENT reality; you are just talking about REALITY. Of course if there were nothing to refer to with the term "reality" we would have nothing to refer to, talk about and no way to increase our knowledge. But by "independence" I think you are refering to something other than separateness. Note that your concern is not with the separateness of all things outside of YOU; you are referring to their "outside-ness", i.e., their separateness FROM you. You are really talking about the reality of ego, of your independent self. Is that right?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Actually, I contend that there is a reality that is independent of any observer.

4 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Actually, I contend that there is a reality that is independent of any observer.

Then you'll need to show some evidence that there is a reality independent of an observer... can you?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Actually, I contend that there is a reality that is independent of any observer.

Then you'll need to show some evidence that there is a reality independent of an observer... can you?

I am not sure what would satisfy requirements for evidence. This is one of the reasons that I submitted this topic for discussion.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Well you've made an assertion so you'll need to back it up with... perhaps some logical proof. I'd say that if something is independent then it cannot be known because there is no interface or connection between the knower and the thing to be known. If there was then they would be dependent.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Yes, I should have seen that: you are referring to objective as opposed to subjective reality. Nevertheless, ego is the presupposition behind both perspectives. Objective reality depends on a separate ego at its center and subjective reality depends on a kind of solipsitic self.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Well you've made an assertion so you'll need to back it up with... perhaps some logical proof. I'd say that if something is independent then it cannot be known because there is no interface or connection between the knower and the thing to be known. If there was then they would be dependent.

One logical proof would be that if the exact same reality is observed by more than one knower, this would indicate a reality that exists independently of observation.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

No, Wandeljw, don't read IGM and JLNobody as dismissing or objecting to your post. It's a good one, raising a fundamental issue both in philosophy and A2K. IGM wants to look at your evidence for the independence of reality and I want you to consider the implicit delusion of self which I see (from my own perspective) as underlying such issues.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Surely the "reference point " you seek could be "that which we agree about".

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Independent reality?
If there was no ' objective' reality . there would be no subjective'
Independent means 'seperate' from us and our subjective perspective

Cogito ergo sum is touted as a qualifier
I think therefore i am. [ i reason therefore i exist] But his is too limited
I think therefore i am .. and thus a reality exists to support 'my' existence.
I cannot exist without a greater system.

But what is an independent reality?
yes other realities/universes can exist within framework of ALL
We think our universe as all. but. it may be a just one of many.
Philosophy and science have known this [ as a thing real] since the First singularities were found.
But . i think. it is not what the Original poster was talking of..

Too much hashish?

prill

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

One logical proof would be that if the exact same reality is observed by more than one knower, this would indicate a reality that exists independently of observation.

Can you prove that each observer is experiencing the exact same reality? You can only know your own experience. Also there are many examples of people reporting that they see the world differently e.g. shortsighted v longsighted, the longsighted person can know something about the world in the distance that a shortsighted person cannot. But when the shortsighted person moves closer he can confirm that when further back the longsighted person could indeed see some information that the shortsighted person did not know at that time. So confirming that reality is not identical to both.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

No, Wandeljw, don't read IGM and JLNobody as dismissing or objecting to your post. It's a good one, raising a fundamental issue both in philosophy and A2K. IGM wants to look at your evidence for the independence of reality and I want you to consider the implicit delusion of self which I see (from my own perspective) as underlying such issues.

Fresco makes a good distinction with "that which we agree about."

Anyway, it would break my heart to find out that all of us are not part of the same reality. Smile

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

"this would indicate a reality that exists independently of observation".

If it cannot be observed,Then how are you speaking of it?
How can you know what 'IT' Is
Aside from dream fantasy.
If it cannot be observed. And affects us in no way.
It does not exist any more than Valhalla or heaven
or hell.

These 'concepts' Are powerfull in our human world. More powerfull than reality in some cases.
Hell has bent our society and heaven bent it more.
These concepts.. hell and heaven are far more REAL. to humans than your independent reality.

good post, though scatterd with quasi science

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Anyway, it would break my heart to find out that all of us are not part of the same reality.

Some would say we all share in the true nature of reality but our mistakes about it are unique to us. That's why (they'd say we all (for now) live in our own imaginary self created reality and believe falsely that we are separate.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

What we agree about depends on common context. Our concept of ourselves as individuals (even if conjoint twins) implies that our range of significant contexts will always differ between us, but this does not preclude limited co-operation or joint significance. Such pragmatism is often highlighted in conflict situations where "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

0 Replies

@igm,

Well . i would shed a tear to discover you exist only in another reality.
Smile

The nature of reality is a topic philosophers have worried over for 3 thousand years. nothing you say is new. In fact i remember a fellow saying exact same thing a few years back..
Dont be depressed.
If we dont Look . we wont find.
ASk all the questions in your head
Somewhere a new question will happen
This is what happened to Einstein

Human beings are unique in that like quantum physics. ideas occur
based on complexity and meer happenstance.
Acausal Complexity.

These ideas lifted us from root grubbing apes to our present position as self styled masters of technology.

Fate, it seems is not with out a sense of irony [ Wink

]

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Well you've made an assertion so you'll need to back it up with... perhaps some logical proof.

Wandeljw questioned what sort of evidence would convince you that he's right. That's a legitimate query. If you won't be convinced by anything, then there's really no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.

igm wrote:

I'd say that if something is independent then it cannot be known because there is no interface or connection between the knower and the thing to be known. If there was then they would be dependent.

How does an "interface" between an observer and a thing observed make them both "dependent?"

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Objective reality depends on a separate ego at its center

How so?

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

It seems that some schools of philosophy dismiss independent reality. My view is that without independent reality, we would have nothing to refer to, nothing to talk about, and no way to increase our knowledge

In outer sense or perception, we've got a world that behaves independently of our wishes, that is interpersonally shared. Space and time are already given or exhibited as part of that reality (no need that they be abstract models open to skepticism). And reifying a general concept that is inferred (like causation) poses little problem since it seems to be what events of that world are indeed conforming to.

I suppose this disenchantment with "external experience" also being the external or "real world" stemmed from gradual realization of a relationship similar to that of a monitor and a computer. Where the appearance and organization of things on a monitor is found to be lacking or quite different in the computer.

A solution to that, though, is to stop calling the transcendent circumstance in this "computer" metaphor a world or reality. It's the "monitor" where the world exists for the first time, rather than being a cheap imitation of an archetypal reality (the "computer"). What's in the "computer" can be called anything but a world and still also be claimed to have something to do with events on the monitor (after all, the former becomes quite bizarre and "unworldy" in many theories).

Personal hallucinations sometimes becoming present in the shared, empirical world have been worked-out or discerned as such for ages, since they're not truly part of the "shared or public" aspect. If one's own perceptual / conceptual system is not agreeing with the rest of society, then one will soon learn about it. In fact, the system itself will indicate this soon enough if I misconstrue an angry dog as a fluffy bunny rabbit (one part of may be malfunctioning, but not all of it).

1 Reply

The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know