Reality from the view point of theists

@reasoning logic,

The definition of "mentally ill" is that the patient's concept of "reality" is dysfunctional. In USSR "mentally ill" was a term used to incarcerate dissidents because they were "dysfunctional" with respect to to their view of society. In Africa the one we might call psychotic was often made the witch doctor thereby giving him a function in that society.

Its all a matter of contextual consensus.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Fresco is insisting there is no such thing as an independent, objective reality. Reality, in his belief system, is merely something people agree on.

I think he is correct in saying, " there has to be a conscious mind {if that is what he is saying} in order to construct the concept of reality but even so I do think there are some things closer to being reality than others in relation to the definition of our constructed reality.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The definition of "mentally ill" is that the patient's concept of "reality" is dysfunctional. In USSR "mentally ill" was a term used to incarcerate dissidents because they were "dysfunctional" with respect to to their view of society. In Africa the one we might call psychotic was often made the witch doctor thereby giving him a function in that society.

Its all a matter of contextual consensus.

Once again, Fresco...you are confusing "defining" or "identifying" REALITY...with the actual reality.

You can have all the "agreement" you want...but if the agreement is not the actual REALITY...it is simply incorrect agreement. The REALITY is still the REALITY.

In the context of a discussion of: "There is a GOD"--or--"There are no gods"...

...the bottom line is that either there are gods or there are no gods. That is the REALITY.

Why do you continue to insist otherwise?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Its all a matter of contextual consensus.

Seems that way but there seems to be a belief system at play as well.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I think he is correct in saying, " there has to be a conscious mind {if that is what he is saying} in order to construct the concept of reality but even so I do think there are some things closer to being reality than others in relation to the definition of our constructed reality.

We are not discussing "concept of reality"...we are discussing REALITY.
Fresco is saying there is no Objective REALITY.

I am saying there is. Whether we can accurately describe it or not...THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

There has to be an observer. Consciousness is specifically involved in differential structuring of reality which is what we do in discussion. We are not normally conscious of the reality we take for granted. (You weren't aware of the feel of your chair, were you, before I typed this ? In a sense the chair did not have existence until I drew your attention to it ! Therein lies the dynamism of construction)There is reality for non-human observers which we can assume is different from ours due to different physiology.

2 Replies

@fresco,

I'm acutely aware of my chair, it's broken.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am saying there is. Whether we can accurately describe it or not...THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY.

That is how I see it as well but just because we agree on something does not make it true.
I have seen the arguments and studied both sides and I have yet seen something having 2 realities. I have seen examples like what fresco presented from a culture full of superstition but I would like to see something that has 2 realities in a science culture.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am saying there is. Whether we can accurately describe it or not...THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY.

You keep quoting the layman's "belief system". Repetition is not debate.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

That is how I see it as well but just because we agree on something does not make it true.

BINGO!

There is an objective reality to whether it is true or not...and our agreement will not impact on that objective reality.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

You keep quoting the layman's "belief system". Repetition is not debate.

Nice try...no cigar. Thanks for indulging me, though, Fresco. I am truly enjoying this although I recognize we will more than likely not reach agreement.

Consider this, though (a version of which I presented earlier):

Is there sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol?

There is an objective REALITY…either there is sentient life on one of those planets or there is not.

There is no way we can say with certainty…and even using common probability protocols, we cannot come up with a reasonable estimate…the sample is too small.

People on Earth could discuss this for as long as they want…and come to an agreement one way or the other, but the REALITY is independent of the agreement. Either there is sentient life there or there is not.

The question of “what is sentient life” does not impact on this. Define it as you will (unless you just get absurd)…either sentient life as you define it exists on those planets…or it does not. There IS an objective REALITY on the question.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I would think many things are happening at the same time in reality but I do not see how that changes reality, "other than ones experience of it. but inst it the same reality with different experiences within it?

0 Replies

How is it that Scroedinger's Cat has not yet entered this discussion (before this mention, of course)?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You want science ? Look up wave-particle duality in physics !

Note that when you use the word "superstition" you are merely adopting a Western chauvinist stance on "reality". We Westerners think we have a superior hold on the functioning of the world after a mere couple of hundred years of science. If the history of humanity were the length of a toilet roll, Western science would probably occupy a fraction of the last sheet, and the latest findings are as weird as any myth !

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

You want science ? Look up wave-particle duality in physics !

Can you think of a layman's example that everyone here could see?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

How is it that Scroedinger's Cat has not yet entered this discussion (before this mention, of course)?

I think you shared this with us a few months back or maybe it was someone else.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I think you shared this with us a few months back or maybe it was someone else.

It may have been me...but I do not remember doing it in this thread. The cat usually pops up in these kinds of threads.

IN ANY CASE...I am interested in what Fresco has to say about the REALITY of life on those other planets...about whether there is an objective reality or not.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, the status of your reality of "life on other planets" question involves a hypothetically agreed concept with a hypothetical method of observation. (Given that the next planetary system is more than 4 light years away)

First, define "life" ...you first !
Second, specify the technology required for the observation.....you first !

Now if either of those aspects cannot be agreed, you end up with a futile question similar to trying to prove the existence of "gods".

However, let us suppose the first part can be agreed, and technology advances such that "wormholes" can be exploited. Note that the existence of "wormholes" would completely alter today's view of space-time ? (today's reality). So would that negate the "truth" of today's view of reality (which is a good 100 years old !)....of course not because the poor Joe in the barbers shop "never hoid of space-time in the foist place."

2 Replies

@fresco,

I was exercising on one of the Jane Fonda steps, and while doing so I noticed my image in a glass door. I saw myself stepping up and down the steps "from the outside". In other words, that reflected image was "objective" for me, but at the same time I was feeling my body exercising "from the inside" . In other words, the sensations were "subjective." The same when I look at you; you make up some of my objective reality but you are your subjective reality. The world is both objective and subjective depending on perspectives.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Frank, the status of your reality of "life on other planets" question involves a hypothetically agreed concept with a hypothetical method of observation. (Given that the next planetary system is more than 4 light years away)

First, define "life" ...you first !
Second, specify the technology required for the observation.....you first !

Now if either of those aspects cannot be agreed, you end up with a futile question similar to trying to prove the existence of "gods".

However, let us suppose the first part can be agreed, and technology advances such that "wormholes" can be exploited. Note that the existence of "wormholes" would completely alter today's view of space-time ? (today's reality). So would that negate the "truth" of today's view of space-time (which is a good 100 years old !)....of course not because the poor Joe in the barbers shop "never hoid of space-time in the foist place."

Define life as you will, Fresco. The bottom line is that any speculation about what is or is not on any of those planets is pure speculation...BUT there is an OBJECTIVE REALITY of what is there.

Are there any carbon based life forms of a size larger than the largest carbon based life forms currently known to exist on Earth on any of those planets?

There is an objective reality to that. Either there are larger...or there are not.

The answer is the objective reality.

You know that. Now we are at a point where you simply will not acknowledge it...so you will play the pedantic game.

C'mon, Fresco. Don't do that.

2 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know