Reality from the view point of theists

I was civil. I suspect that your definition of civility entails taking your word games seriously, and that if i describe them as word games--which is what they are--you will accuse me of incivility. That's no skin off my nose.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I agree that whatever IS is the reality; it is my most chronic intuition. But how should we respond to the phrase "whatever MAY be the reality MAY BE the reality"?
I try to remember that all is interpretation: each "raw" experience is originally "meaningless" until we assign meaning to it. This is a topic that I hate to talk about: it stimulates my brain fog

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Set, I do believe you thought you were being civil, at least that was your intention (we all express our personalities here). But perhaps you could consider raising your standard for "civility." This is difficult and philosophically important subject matter. It would be very nice if many of us were a bit more cooperative in our collective treatment of it. Not all philosophical discussion has to take the form of debate, especially combative debate. The desire to defeat the other is both distasteful and destructive of sincere effort.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Well, perhaps you could consider that i might sincerely disagree with his characterizations of reality, and that's it not about "defeating" anyone or anything, but about denying his claims with regard to reality. I am well within my rights here to disagree, and to point out the flaws of his position, including the mischaracterization of Einsteins comments on observation. Did someone tell you once that civility in debate entails not telling people that they are wrong? My standard of civility does not entail refraining from telling someone they are wrong if i think they are wrong.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Frank, I agree that whatever IS is the reality; it is my most chronic intuition. But how should we respond to the phrase "whatever MAY be the reality MAY BE the reality"?

Then we could say that "whatever MAY be the reality MAY BE the reality"....IS THE REALITY.

That is why I said earlier that a reasonable case can be made that “there is no objective REALITY” is a definitional impossibility. If there truly is no objective REALITY…then that IS the objective reality. Saying “there is no objective REALITY” is self-defeating, because it creates a logical inconsistency.

In direct answer, however, JL…IF "whatever MAY be the reality MAY BE the reality"…then, yes, “whatever MAY be the reality MAY BE the reality" is the objective reality.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I am just wondering if there is any such thing as a "raw experience". In order to perceive anything at all, the perceptual apparatus must be in some form of "receptive state" (minimally "switched on") but species specific physiology only responds to a subset of the impinging stimuli ( selection =processing?). In the constructivist model the body/perceptual system immediately responds by refocusing to maximize relevant input...but that refocusing is surely already a form of interpretationeven if it is a subconscious level.

But as Heidegger pointed out, we don't get to the level of "reality considerations" until things go wrong. There is no "hammer" or "self" within the interactive flow of hammering unless a finger is hit, say. (Indeed some other "self" might have been composing a letter to his mother at the time !) The implication is once more that the word "reality" only arises in life in connection with a conscious decision making procedure. And just to get back to the "theistic stance" , is it not conceivable that some "religious" hammerer, on hitting his finger, evokes "God's punishment on himself" for not writing to his mother ! Wink

2 Replies

@fresco,

Are we talking about Jesus?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco…I notice you have not responded to my last post…which was a response to your previous post.

I look forward to your responses, so I hope you do respond at some point.

And while you are at it, earlier in this thread I mentioned “the illusion of the sun crossing our sky” caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis. You took exception to my use of the term “the illusion of the sun crossing our sky”…so I mention that most people would agree with me.

You retorted that I could stick with "most people", but that you would go with “big brain” people.

In response, I asked you for some “big brain” people who would disagree that the supposed movement of the sun (stars and moon) across the sky is an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis.

You’ve never gotten back to me on that, Fresco. Any chance you can furnish the names of some “big brain” people (other than you, of course) who disagree with my characterization.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry I'll have to track your former post.

The reason "the sun moving etc" is not an "illusion" is because you cannot say a later scientific model is "correct" and a historically and pragmatically valid model "wrong". The point you are unable to concede is that all we "know" about reality is in the form of concepts/models. There is no right or wrong to models, there are only degrees of contextual applicability and predictive power, and all models are subject to revision if they fail in accuracy.

As for the word "illusion", if you think about an optical illusion say, like a mirage, what characterizes it is that the senses are "tricked" into predicting situation A, yet all we find when we check by consensual methods is situation B.

I cannot make it simpler than this. Any book about scientific progress will talk about acceptance, refinement or change of models to guide research and technology...NOT proof or truth.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Izzy,

It's difficult for an atheist like me to commune with "theistic reality". I can merely take a couple cues from films like Lawrence of Arabia ("....So it was written then....") or Fiddler on the Roof ( Tevya's conversations with God). The recent programme on Catholics was an eye-opener. I did not realize the significance of the mass in changing the "reality" of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ in the minds of believers.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Sorry I'll have to track your former post.

Okay, thanks. You can trace it back from here.

http://able2know.org/topic/185542-6#post-4915772

I am still willing to get people (us common folk) who will agree that my characterization of the sun moving across the sky...is an illusion.

I really would like you to present some "big brain" people who would take issue with that on any meaningful basis.

As for the more recent post….that can be found at:

http://able2know.org/topic/185542-20#post-4918826

Thanks for taking the time.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Please know that I was not referring to the substance of what you say--generally it is, like Fresco's, uniquely constructive. Civility is more a matter of style.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, the "big brains" can be found in any philosophy of science book which will substantiate the "models" argument.
You are begging the question because you have not taken on board 1.Kant's point that we have no direct access to noumena (independent reality) and 2. The phenomenologists argument that there is no methodological reason for even assuming an independent reality (Occam's Razor). Now you can dissent from those powerful arguments with counter arguments but NOT because of your conditioning alone , which is what you do by reiterating "there IS an objective reality". Now put all this together with the fact that cognitive scientists are now thinking "my way" (references available) and you are well up against it!
BTW These historical red herrings that have been introduced in an effort to account for "the unexpected" can simply be countered by a "failure in prediction of interaction" clause. My argument does not eliminate an external world, it merely says it has no "reality" in its own right.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The reason "the sun moving etc" is not an "illusion" is because you cannot say a later scientific model is "correct" and a historically and pragmatically valid model "wrong".

Fresco…the sun appears to move across the sky. Use whatever word you want to describe the phenomena…it still is illusionary, even if you will not concede the words “an illusion.”

Once again, I ask you to furnish any names of “Big Brain” types who will suggest that my reference to “illusion” used where it was and in the context in which I used it…was inappropriate, as you termed it.

My guess is you will never do so.

The statement as written and delivered in the context of this kind of discussion in an Internet forum is totally appropriate.

You were incorrect.

You can prove me wrong by furnishing two names of “big brain” people who agree more with you on that item than with me.

Quote:

The point you are unable to concede is that all we "know" about reality is in the form of concepts/models. There is no right or wrong to models, there are only degrees of contextual applicability and predictive power, and all models are subject to revision if they fail in accuracy.

I DO NOT CARE WHAT WE CAN KNOW ABOUT THEM OR HOW INADEQUATELY WE CAN DESCRIBE THEM…and by now you should know that.

We are talking about the REALITY…not about the human capacity to understand, define, or communicate about it.

As I said earlier, Fresc0, there are times you remind me of the theists who so often inappropriately over-evaluate the significance of humans to this world. Maybe…JUST MAYBE…the world and reality doesn’t give a damn what we humans think about it…or whether or not we do a capable job of understanding and defining it.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Frank, the "big brains" can be found in any philosophy of science book which will substantiate the "models" argument.
You are begging the question because you have not taken on board 1.Kant's point that we have no direct access to noumena (independent reality) and 2. The phenomenologists argument that there is no methodological reason for even assuming an independent reality (Occam's Razor). Now you can dissent from those powerful arguments with counter arguments but NOT because of your conditioning alone , which is what you do by reiterating "there IS an objective reality". Now put all this together with the fact that cognitive scientists are now thinking "my way" (references available) and you are well up against it!

My guess is I could do a doctorate in all these things and not find one individual who would suggest it was inappropriate for me to characterize the phenomena of the apparent movement of the sun, moon, and stars across the sky as illusionary.

If you say I am wrong...point to a spot where such an individual has addressed the issue.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Other than that last para I have nothing further to add.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

No, i can't agree with what you're saying about civility. Fresco consistently either implicity, or, more rarely, explicitly states that reality does not exist independently of human cognition--and he uses terms such context and consensual to describe the human perception nature of reality. I am saying the reality exists independently of human cognition, and that ought to be self-evident. After, if reality only exists because of human cognition, that implies that there was no reality until humans came along--so how did humans come along in the first place? Referring to such silliness as silly, as chin music, as word games is not incivility. By a criterion as feeble as that, every time Fresco trots out, often with a sneer, his ex cathedra assertions and his appeals to the authority of well-known philosophers, one would be as justified in calling that incivility.

Frankly, i don't think Fresco can sustain the argument without appeals to authority, and so he no longer wishes to discuss it. Accusing me of incivility gives him what he considers an honorable exit.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Other than that last para I have nothing further to add.

I don't blame you.

0 Replies

@fresco,

No I meant, when God made him whack his thumb for not calling his mum, sounds like Jesus. Jesus was a carpenter, and his mum had been bending his dad's ear. Maybe he was crucified for forgetting mother's day.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

All good candidates ! Smile

0 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know