Reality from the view point of theists

@fresco,

Quote:

That's fine for mundane living, but breaks down when cross contextual boundaries of culture, field of inquiry or species.

To me you are speaking of beliefs and understandings which seem separate from reality to me.
Maybe you can help me to understand where this person gets it wrong in this short video.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Are you saying that you do not like to face reality?

1 Reply

@fresco,

This is what thinking is for RL, posting ridiculous videos. I've wasted 1 and 1/2 hours of my life watching conspiracy crap about how America is still part of the British Empire, and how the world is secretly controlled by Washington, the City of London and the Vatican. Like most people who watch RL's videos, once bitten twice shy.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

No, that's you. You are living under the illusion that you're very smart, in fact you're quite unintelligent. Sorry, but that's reality for you. I'm not trying to insult you, just telling you how things are.

Now, because you cannot see beyond that illusion, you misinterpret people's motivation. It's far easier for you to paint me as some grieving evangelical Christian, out to damn you for pointing out the truth. In your delusional state you believe you know the truth. What you can't comprehend is the truth. I disagree with a lot of what you say because you're quite unintelligent. You can't handle the truth.

The fact that you class a rather amateur discussion (on my part at least) between Fresco and myself about alternate dimensions and dark matter as some sort of Theist conspiracy shows how dim you really are.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's reality for you.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I don't pretend to understand the science, but I like to think I understand the concepts, maybe Fresco can back me up on this. As I understand it, there are lots of interweaving dimensions that each occupy the same time and space. Assuming that were true, it's possible for sentient life to exist in one dimension but not the other, so therefore it should be possible for sentient life to exist, and to not exist, in the same time and place, depending on which dimension you're in.

Izzy, let's say you are correct here. BUT that would mean that is the objective reality. It would not be necessary for there to be agreement...it would simply be the case. The reality.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

That video is merely giving the dummies guide to "naive realism". The first nail in its coffin came from Kant who pointed out that we never have direct access to noumena (the hypothetical objective world) but only access to phenomena (the subjective world in our head). This prompted the phenomenologists such as Hussrl to ignore noumena in favour of the study of phenomena which led some like Heidegger to discard noumena completely.
The compromise movement which transcended the difference between "subjectivity" and "objectivity" were the epistemological constructivists like Merleau-Ponty and Varela, who said that cognition was operating as a two-way dynamic interaction between inner and outer states (called structural coupling). Such a view has now been adopted by cognitive scientists and workers in artificial intelligence following the expensive failure of projects based on the assumption of an objective external reality.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Again lets say that what you are saying is accurate. Can you give layman's examples to demonstrate your points? I will give you my attention and I do not mind being wrong but you will need to use layman's examples so that we all can learn.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I've already said, I don't understand the science, just the concept, but aren't you shifting the goalposts? You stated something that was either a or b, and that was the objective reality. I suggested a situation based on my (extremely limited) understanding of quantuum physics, where it could be both a and b, then you said that was the objective reality.

If you want to discuss this particular issue you'd best talk to Fresco. I don't understand the science, perhaps he can explain.

1 Reply

RL…in either of the scenarios I constructed for discussion, the bottom line is: Either there are sentient beings on those planets (or are carbon based life forms larger than the largest carbon based life form known on Earth)…

…or not.

That is the objective reality.

Fresco knows that…and I suspect Izzy knows it also…but neither seems disposed to acknowledge it.

So…life goes on.

We will discuss this further or we will not discuss this further. That is the objective reality…whether Fresco and Izzy want to acknowledge it or not.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I've already said, I don't understand the science, just the concept, but aren't you shifting the goalposts? You stated something that was either a or b, and that was the objective reality. I suggested a situation based on my (extremely limited) understanding of quantuum physics, where it could be both a and b, then you said that was the objective reality.

Actually, Reality does not have to be either a or b. If the truth is that it is neither a nor b...or both a and b...then the objective reality is that.

That is why I said earlier in the thread that it can reasonably be argued that “there is no objective REALITY” is a definitional impossibility. If there truly is no objective REALITY…then that IS the objective reality. No amount of subjective considerations can change that.

No real need to understand physics to be realistic in this discussion, Izzy...and for the most part you have been.

It is a difficult area of thought...and Fresco, who apparently is very learned in this area, gets a kick out of presenting philosophical concepts in complicated prose in order to make it seem he has to be right, because he can use bigger words and more complicated phraseology.

That is not how it works, however.

You, Izzy, have to realize that there IS an objective REALITY about the presence of sentient beings or large carbon based life forms on the planets I mentioned. It simply is a YES or NO proposition.

Think about it.

If you want to discuss this particular issue you'd best talk to Fresco. I don't understand the science, perhaps he can explain.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I have thought about it Frank, and I can't fault your logic, but I'm not a scientist. Either the guys that built the Hadron Collider are perpetrating some massive con on the rest of us, so they can look clever on threads like this, or they're telling us the truth when they say reality is much more complicated than we non-scientists believe it is.

I'm willing to accept the latter, and put my non-scientific reason on hold, or I could gen up on quantum physics to see what all the fuss is about. I think accepting I don't understand something is easiest. Sometimes you have to accept that certain people know more about something than you do.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We will discuss this further or we will not discuss this further. That is the objective reality…whether Fresco and Izzy want to acknowledge it or not.

You don't get it. In this reality we may discuss it or maybe we wont, but in another reality it may never even be brought up for conversation, and in another reality we have not evolved enough to even contemplate the idea, and in all of the other realities, that you can think up well.....

Now the objected reality is what ever takes place in all of those realities but to be honest with you I have never experienced any of those other realities so I am not going to concern myself with them unless time travel happens soon then all of this wont be grandiose thinking.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

There is no such thing as independent "data" (observer independent reality)
Consider a game of monopoly. The dynamic progress of the game involves the constant interaction between board states (internal) and dice states (external), such that throwing a 3 say has a different significance (reality contribution) at different times. The 3 is only "perceived" by the board if the board is in a receptive perceptual state,(remember the poor frog)and then it can signify different courses of action. The 3 has no "objective reality" of its own. And don't try to argue that "the dice has reality" because its the 3 that "matters" and could be generated by any number of arbitrary devices.

I think I have now given you (free of charge Smile

) a useful introduction to several contemporary issues surrounding the word "reality".

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You and Moe's wife know all you want to know about reality ! Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

You are no dummy and I do realize that, but you do know of other intelligent people that you disagree with on issues don't you? Have you found other people in your same field that disagree with you on this issue? I will think harder about what you said and I will see if I can come to what you see.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

You don't get it.

Thank you for your opinion on that, however, it is my opinion that you are wrong about that.

Quote:

In this reality we may discuss it or maybe we wont, but in another reality it may never even be brought up for conversation, and in another reality we have not evolved enough to even contemplate the idea, and in all of the other realities, that you can think up well.....

Okay…BUT THEN THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY. RL. If the REALITY is that there are multiverses and multidimensions…then THAT is the objective reality. Do you really not get that?

Fresco is not getting it because he simply doesn’t want to. I have no problem with that…we all can be stubborn at times.

But “what is so” IS the objective REALITY .

Quote:

Now the objected reality is what ever takes place in all of those realities but to be honest with you I have never experienced any of those other realities so I am not going to concern myself with them unless time travel happens soon then all of this wont be grandiose thinking

.

Whatever. Just because you do not care about it does not mean it is not the objective REALITY, JL.

And in my two scenarios dealing with what exists or does not exist on the planets circling the 5 nearest stars to Sol...whatever exists or does not exist there is THE OBJECTIVE REALITY. No thoughts or agreement here will change that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I was only joking with you on that issue, I was just making things more complicated, playing around with you is all.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I understand completely what you are saying there, Izzy, and I appreciate it. I am enjoying trading thoughts on the issue with you and the others.

Fact is...this is a stimulating and interesting conversation that I cannot imagine having anywhere else. I could get into a million bar conversations without getting into one that holds a candle to this one. I could play a billion rounds of golf and not have a "we're waiting for the green to clear" conversation that comes close to this.

So we don't resolve it...so what.

Having the discussion...using the noodle is value enough to have participated.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Either the guys that built the Hadron Collider are perpetrating some massive con on the rest of us, so they can look clever on threads like this, or they're telling us the truth when they say reality is much more complicated than we non-scientists believe it is.

Two comments I'd like to make on this paragraph...and I hope you consider the implications of those comments carefully.

One...it is entirely possible for REALITY to be MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more complicated than we non-scientists suppose it to be...and there can still be an objective reality. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Because it is more complicated than we think...DOES NOT MEAN that an objective REALITY is impossible.

Two...how much do you know about what the guys who built the Hadron Collider actually think regarding an Objective REALITY...and from whom did you get most of that information? Is it at least possible that some of those guys might agree more with me than with Fresco...or is that, in your opinion, an impossibility?

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Sure. I meet up with "naive realists" on a monthly basis. Usually their dissent is a smokescreen to cover up their lack of reading. Alternatively they may feel their "self integrity" is being threatened because maybe they've published something which could be open to demolition. There are gaps in my reasoning which I can think of but they are technically well beyond "elementary" deconstruction of dichotomies like subjectivity and objectivity.

A story is told of Einstein wondering what it would take to convince "the establishment" of his iconoclastic relativity theory . His colleague remarked "you will have to wait until most of them are dead".

0 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know