Reality from the view point of theists

Fresco...you have not "answered" my questions with regard to the apparent motion of the sun, moon, and stars moving across the sky. I say it is an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis. No amount of "belief" that the sun,moon, and stars are moving across the sky will change the objective fact that the phenomena is an illusion created by the rotation.

In fact, you have suggested that I am wrong in this...and you made a feeble attempt to defend your position based on the "meaning" of the word "illusion."

C'mon...be out-front on this. The we can move on to other items.

Once more my "understanding" is that what we call reality is a dynamic function of shifting context. What constitutes a "thing" or an "event" must have contextual significance to an observer. You asked about "unwitnessed events". Our perceptual apparatus alone, which delimits what we can know of "an external world" can come up with countless potential events which I can arbitrarily place in your mind's eye, such as thousands of crabs being washed off rocks by thousands of waves second by second or babies sneezing...or... or....ad infinitum.. Yet none of those may qualify as part of an individual's reality because they are not part of his cognitive context. Now unless you can see that the only meaningful partitioning of "the world" must be context dependent, and that dynamic shifting context has specific functional and social dimensions about what to do next (like ease of prediction of the positions of planets etc), then you will be stuck with what philosophers call "naive realism", a belief in which has exactly the same status as theism.

Scientists produce models not "facts" which predict observations, and those models are always subject to revision or limitation of usage. Thus it is not a "fact" that the earth rotates, but it is a "fact" that the rotational model gives simpler results in the consideration of other astronomical phenomena or terrestrial phenomena ( e.g,weather rotation systems), than alternative models. But in the case of the apocryphal gardener which I took time to explain in ironic detail, in that context, the reality is that the heliocentric model never shows its face because it is contextually inappropriate. Thus the use of the word "illusion" is a naive category mistake.

Now I cannot put it simpler than that, and I will post no further comments. Respondents who wish to explore these ideas please feel free to pm me.

OK Fresco you have me convinced that you do know what you are talking about.

I would love to see the response of the "big brains" people to "it is not a fact that the Earth rotates", Fresco.

I'm almost speechless, but I guess I can get this out: Arguing with someone who will not even acknowledge that the Earth spins on its axis...probably is not the wisest thing to do. In a way, I am sorry you are abandoning ship here, Fresco, but considering the degree of stonewalling in which you are willing to indulge, it probably is for the best. I hope we can discuss other issues in other threads in the future...that is, of course, if you accept that there are other issues; other threads; and a time in the future.

You are very smart but you seem to be an absolutist about some issues.
If you lived a few hundred years ago I wonder if you might have spoken in absolutes about the suns movement around the earth.

I do not think that fresco has a better explanation than the earth's rotation but at the same time he does not seem to be so naive to speak as if it is an absolute truth. Do not get me wrong because it may be, but to close your mind to possibilities is to hinder progress at times.

That i don't know exactly what "it" is does not constitute evidence that "it" can be what i believe it to be. That's the crux of the questions you will not answer. You are attempting to assert that what people believed constituted reality, but it didn't. Frank adddresses this succinctly:



You are attempting so suggest that a description of reality is reality itself, andd that is simply not true. Nor have you been able to defend that point of view. Now you have sunk to calling it "Fresco-baiting," once again avoiding either providing a solid line of reasoning to support your claim that what people believe about reality is reality, or acknowleding that what you refer to are descriptions of reality, and by the evience, inaccurate descriptions of reality. Of course, you also suggest that because we don't agree with you, we don't understand you. We understand what you're saying, but we don't agree--and you have consistently failed to adequately address the objections.

(For the record, there is a problem with the "d" on this laptop. If there are too many 'ds" in any word i type, that is why.)

I completely agree with Frank's case. That i am unimpressed with some of the nonsense that people who style themselves philosophers put out is not evidence that i don't like them or philosophy. Call it what you will--you have not made your case, and i say that is because you cannot make the case.

Frank, I've been putting off responding to your post #4,919,230, but before you leave the thread let me say the following: First you make a very thoughtful and insightful argument. I cannot find fault with it, even though it does not say all that can be said about the nature of "Reality." I guess that would be impossible wouldn't it?
I see levels to the question of what is reality. It is partly an ontological question but also an epistemological one. In my everyday life, I am a de facto "naive realist", although I do not believe it is appropriate to philosophical (or even scientific) analyses. In this naive state of everyday consciousness reality is not a problem, at least we assume it is not. For practical purposes a kind of objectivism is adequate. In these everyday moments I see reality as--to paraphrase Reasoning Logic-- the state of things as they simply are. But what Reasoning Logic really said was "reality is the state of things as they ACTUALLY are, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." That is a step up the epistemological ladder. It is a philosophical proposition.
You go further. You show that no matter what one says, it affirms the existence of an objective reality. Even the proposition that is no reality merely describes the nature of reality (that it IS a non-existent reality?).
You're right; your logic is impeccable. But even an impeccable logic does not tell us the essential nature of things, it only shows the kinds of conclusions we must come to if we wish to honor certain logical rules and standards. But as buddhism puts it, reality is essentially empty, but that emptiness manifests as form--so it is both negative and positive at the same time. Here we see a mode of thought that is essentially--and impeccably--paradoxical, "both-and" rather than "either-or").
My perspective on the question of Reality is fundamentally different. When it comes to metaphysical matters of the ultimate nature of Reality I think we cannot go beyond the limits set for us by our physiological (forget our cultural) horizons . Even my so-called mystical "sense" of the nature of Ultimate Reality (whether objective or subjective) is indefensible in terms of language and logic. It is no more than the sense that I am one with it, it is not just my "context"; it is my "essence" (as well as yours).
Our discussions in this thread have been over technicalities, most of which go over my head. But that is of little existential significance to me.

I most surely would NOT have. But that is my point, RL...that no matter what I or anyone else back then would have said about the apparent motion of the sun, moon, and stars across the sky...THE REALITY would be that it is caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis.

That essentially has been my point throughout this thread.

I think round about 1800 most people thought the Earth orbitted the Sun, and not the other way round.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, JL.

I think if you look carefully at your response, you will see that it tends once again in the direction of questioning whether we can KNOW the REALITY…or if we can describe or explain the REALITY.

That is not what I have been addressing here…nor has Setanta. Both of us acknowledge that the ultimate REALITY of existence may be beyond what humans at our stage of evolution can understand…and certainly beyond what we can describe.

We are talking specifically about whether or not there is an OBJECTIVE REALITY…or if REALITY is subjective.

Actually, although I have not even attempted to make this case—it is my opinion that there is no such thing as SUBJECTIVE REALITY. I have, in effect, left it at: “The concept ‘there is no objective REALITY’ is definitionally impossible.”

Whatever IS…IS…no matter how bizarre it may seem. Even if all that we consider "the material world" is an illusion...that would hold. That would be the objective reality.



I realize I CANNOT make a contribution to an explanation or a definition of the “essential nature of things”, JL, so that is not where I have aimed in this discussion. I have kept my focus on disputing the proposition advanced by some here that all of REALITY is subjective. I have countered with “ALL OF REALITY IS OBJECTIVE.” The so-called “subjective reality” reduces to considerations about REALITY. Guesses about REALITY...and attempts to explain REALITY...are erroneously referred to as "subjective reality."

(Keep in mind that I am not saying the subjective considerations of reality are wrong or inaccurate, but rather that right or wong, they are just subjective considerations. I acknowledge that some may accurately describe the Objective REALITY.)

In any case, as regards,



I am not leaving the thread, JL…and I suspect there is more to go here. I know I did not reply to each point you made in your response, so if you still have something you want me to comment on further, just raise it.

This is why I feel that most philosophy of existence is just a pile of rubbish. According to these philosophers , we have a collection of instruments all concieved and built to further the illusion that reality , and the measurements of its components, wre all conspired against us by having all these instrruments give us surprisingly overlapping consistent data of our world.

Even instruments based upon the quantum world overlap when fed the "unknown quantities" of matter that we wish to decipher.
The age of the planet is expressed in units that recognize how radioactive decay proceeds, how magnetism works, how sediments accumulate, and how life appeared.
What a conspiracy!! However, if its so, then someone must have been in charge and was futzing with all this reality to throw us all off. Its the concept of a world made of "vis Plastica" as the Muslim natural "philosophers" used to express.

Rubbish.

It is hard enough to find objectivity in history, let alone in reality... Truth, Reality, and existence are of a class I would call moral forms, and others have called transendent concepts... There is a physical element to such forms as truth, reality, and existence; but because they are infinites we cannot be objective because we are in no position to consider them as objects...

Our responses to experience rest on our perspectives and interpretations. And I'm talking about events and situations before our eyes, contemporary phenomena. As the sociologists of the 50s used to say: We respond not so much to situations but to our definitions of situations.
This applies more than doubly to historical events and situations that may have occured before our lifetime. History (or historiography) IS a process of disciplined interpretation.

...is n´t our definition of situations a situation in itself ? ...and if you agree why would you doubt "situations" at large ?
...no harm intended but my opinion is that you are running in circles...

The closer you are to an event spaciallythe less you see, and the further you are away from it in time, the less you know...

Yes, and ALL perceived events are in part subjectively defined situations. You and I are making up one right now. And are we not defining it from our own perspectives?

What makes you think that you would have not spoken in absolutes about it?
You do think that the earth rotates and you will speak in absolutes about it wouldn't you? Meaning that the effect that you see is caused by the sun remaining still in relation to the earths rotation.
fresco has acknowledge that some models are factually, "simpler explained" than others but who's to say that in the future that some of the things that you think to be absolutely true will be discovered to be different than what you had believed.
The reason I say this is because it seems that throughout history people believed in many things that were not correct and if this is a trend, I think that people like me and you may fall victims to such trends.

.THE REALITY would be that it is caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis.

I wonder what you would have told your 6 year old son the reality was 300 years ago? if you lived back then.

Which of these philosophers have agreed that this is the case?

I have gone back and read what you wrote originally…and obviously when I responded, I had misread your words.

I thought you were asking if I would have insisted that the apparent movement of the sun across the sky was due to the Earth spinning on its axis.

That was the reason I said I most surely would NOT have. My guess is, back then I would have been just as convinced as almost everyone else that the sun moved about the Earth; that there was no illusion; that the Earth was the center of things; and that the moon and the stars also circled the Earth.

My bad for misunderstanding the thrust of your question. I acknowledge that it was a careless mistake.

But my next words should have given you a clue that I had indeed misread them, because I wrote:
But that is my point, RL...that no matter what I or anyone else back then would have said about the apparent motion of the sun, moon, and stars across the sky (that I, like all the rest, would have been wrong)...THE REALITY would be that it is caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis.


THE REALITY would be that the phenomena are caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis.



As I said above, I most likely would have told him that the REALITY is that the Earth is the center of the universe…and the sun, moon, and stars circle the Earth. (Unless I my name was Galileo or Copernicus, of course. )

BUT I WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG…and so would all the other fathers telling their sons that same thing. We would have been wrong!

The REALITY still would have been that the Earth rotating on its axis causes the illusion of which we speak.