12
   

The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

 
 
Hjarloprillar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 01:35 pm
@G H,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
None empirical or of any other definition.

There is evidence of other universes.
But none of other realities.

A reality is everything. you cant have two.
A universe is a thing. and thus there are many .
There is never just one of any thing except reality.

or..

If reality is a BIG word.. leave now

G H
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 01:42 pm
@Hjarloprillar,
Quote:
Im having trouble.. i have no idea who is talking to whom [....] It just seems posts are so scattered and i cant seem to link one to the previous...

Okay. You were responding to wrong post, maybe. Happens to me on hectic days, too, sometimes.
0 Replies
 
Hjarloprillar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 01:48 pm
Im having trouble.. i have no idea who is talking to whom

Maybe if we were civilised..
We would Put name
Hjarloprillar at top..
And thanks at bottom with parting words.
This may actually make us feel more human.
true im guilty as any

It just seems posts are so scattered and i cant seem to link one to the previous.. maybe im stupid

Prill
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 02:23 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Can you prove that each observer is experiencing the exact same reality?


Is it necessary for different observers' experiences to be exactly the same? If 100 people walk into a brick wall, I'm sure their experiences would not be identical. Some would feel less pain than others and, for all I know, some might even enjoy it. But unless any of those people manage to walk through the wall, the collective experiences, while not exactly the same, seem similar enough to persuade me that the wall might exist independent of anyone's experience of it.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 03:12 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

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.

I am open to being convinced but I'm not as yet convinced that we even understand the exact concept we are discussing. I have an understanding of what I believe the concept means but if others here have another but it is not defined then we will discuss and even argue because we misunderstand each other.
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.

joefromchicago wrote:

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

This is an example of what I mean... your definition of independence may allow for e.g. the apparent outside world, sight, light, nerve impulses and the visual cortex and the experience of phenomena to be independent. If that is correct then my definition of dependent is your definition of independent. But I and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain. So I still maintain that it all has to be inferred from phenomena.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 03:19 pm
@Shapeless,
No, but that doesn't make reality independent. The appearance of the wall is a dependent phenomenon and that's all we have to infer everything else from. We can decide to go with this for practical purposes. Science just assumes or did before QM that there is 'a thing in itself' out there independent and then gets on with science based on that axiom (maybe not for much longer).
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 03:21 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
I am open to being convinced but I'm not as yet convinced that we even understand the exact concept we are discussing.

What do you mean "we?"

igm wrote:
I have an understanding of what I believe the concept means but if others here have another but it is not defined then we will discuss and even argue because we misunderstand each other.

If you think this is simply a definitional problem, then you should disclose your definition.

igm wrote:
This is an example of what I mean... your definition of independence may allow for e.g. the apparent outside world, sight, light, nerve impulses and the visual cortex and the experience of phenomena to be independent. If that is correct then my definition of dependent is your definition of independent. But I and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain. So I still maintain that it all has to be inferred from phenomena.

How do you know that you and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain?
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 03:31 pm
@igm,
Quote:
We can decide to go with this for practical purposes.


That's the route I tend to take. I honestly can't think of a single person who, when push comes to shove, does not take this route.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 03:34 pm
@joefromchicago,
jfc: What do you mean "we?"

We, i.e. those discussing this thread.

Definition of dependent is something that depends on something else e.g. reality depends on the observer.

Independent is that which is not dependent. I can't find an example of anything that is truly independent. Everything is dependent.
+++++++++++++
jfc: How do you know that you and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain?

igm: I believe it because the majority of those in science and philosophy and my own first-person experience tells me that that is the case.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 03:44 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
Definition of dependent is something that depends on something else e.g. reality depends on the observer.

Independent is that which is not dependent. I can't find an example of anything that is truly independent. Everything is dependent.

Well, if you just define "independence" in such a way to foreclose the possibility of "independent reality," why would you even suggest that you would be open to being convinced by evidence to the contrary?

igm wrote:
I believe it because the majority of those in science and philosophy and my own experience tells me that that is the case.

Then why don't you believe in the reality of the brick wall that the majority of those in science and philosophy and your own experience (if you're being honest) tell you exists?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 04:03 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Well, if you just define "independence" in such a way to foreclose the possibility of "independent reality," why would you even suggest that you would be open to being convinced by evidence to the contrary?


That's the nature of discussions. I have a definition ready for you to refute.

joefromchicago wrote:

Then why don't you believe in the reality of the brick wall that the majority of those in science and philosophy and your own experience (if you're being honest) tell you exists?


I'm not denying the existence of the phenomena 'brick wall' neither is science or philosophy in most cases. I'm denying that 'Independent Reality' can be known to exist.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 04:23 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
That's the nature of discussions. I have a definition ready for you to refute.

Where is it?

igm wrote:
I'm not denying the existence of the phenomena 'brick wall' neither is science or philosophy in most cases. I'm denying that 'Independent Reality' can be known to exist.

Are you saying that the brick wall only exists because it is observed?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 04:36 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
Science just assumes or did before QM that there is 'a thing in itself' out there independent and then gets on with science based on that axiom (maybe not for much longer).


By "QM" do you mean Quantum Metaphysics?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 04:57 pm
@joefromchicago,
igm wrote:
That's the nature of discussions. I have a definition ready for you to refute.

joefromchicago wrote:

Where is it?

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, if you just define "independence" in such a way to foreclose the possibility of "independent reality," why would you even suggest that you would be open to being convinced by evidence to the contrary?

You've already said I've made a definition... so in answer to 'Where is it?' it must be the one you've previously referred to.
igm wrote:
I'm not denying the existence of the phenomena 'brick wall' neither is science or philosophy in most cases. I'm denying that 'Independent Reality' can be known to exist.

joefromchicago wrote:

Are you saying that the brick wall only exists because it is observed?

No I'm saying the phenomenon appears and the independent existence of a brick wall cannot be found only the phenomenon with the attached concept 'brick wall'. The dependent phenomenon can be used in every practical way but cannot be truly referred to as an independently existing object.

For practical purposes the world appears as it does but when examined it is impossible to know there is an independently existing reality and you haven't been able to show that I should doubt that it's impossible to know that there is one.

Can you convince me there is one?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 05:09 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

igm wrote:
Science just assumes or did before QM that there is 'a thing in itself' out there independent and then gets on with science based on that axiom (maybe not for much longer).


By "QM" do you mean Quantum Metaphysics?


No, QM as part of the Standard Model:

Acronym Definition:
QM: Quantum Mechanics

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/quantum+mechanics

Even when an electron wave field changes it is said that all electrons everywhere must change so that none are identical... everything is dependent there is no independence whatsoever that can be found using deductive or inductive reasoning, empirical or otherwise.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 05:13 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
You've already said I've made a definition... so in answer to 'Where is it?' it must be the one you've previously referred to.

Do you have an inability to see the word "if?" I said "if" that's your definition, I didn't say it was. Now stop playing these silly word games. If you have a definition, you should give it.

igm wrote:
No I'm saying the phenomenon appears and the independent existence of a brick wall cannot be found only the phenomenon with the attached concept 'brick wall'. The dependent phenomenon can be used in every practical way but cannot be truly referred to as an independently existing object.

So are you suggesting that the brick wall as noumenon cannot be known?

igm wrote:
For practical purposes the world appears as it does but when examined it is impossible to know there is an independently existing reality...

Examined? In what way?

igm wrote:
Can you convince me there is one?

I don't know. That's what I'm trying to find out.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 05:41 pm
@joefromchicago,
Me "in here" and everything else (the world of objects) "out there." Do you feel it?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 05:41 pm
@joefromchicago,
Me "in here" and everything else (the world of objects) "out there." Do you feel it?

And of course one can go futher. One can see his own internal sensations as "objective" in relation to his (absolutely internal) "self".
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 06:09 pm
@igm,
Joe, it seems that Igm wants to use half of Kant, the appearance/phenomena part but not the reality/noumena part. THIS is what Igm means by independent reality (correct me, Igm, if I'm wrong) . I mean by "independent reality" something that is fundamentally (even metaphysically) separate from a "me". I see everything as ulitmately united, at EVERY level not just at that of noumena (that would not be unity).
I guess the concept of a noumenal level of reality could be one of unity--and this may be Igm's position--if the world of phenomena is seen as illusory and reality exists only noumenally.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 06:22 pm
@fresco,
Is Fresco's "reference point"--culturally constituted, as that which we've jointly learned to accept as real? I have learned to see many things as "real" but not as "reality", the former has to do with conventional reality, as not being false in any practical sense and the latter as fundamentally or metaphysically part of my actual reality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 02:59:25