Reality from the view point of theists

@fresco,

Quote:

Fido is doing a good job of dealing with "the issues", and as in my case they are unlikely to correspond to what you think they are, because like me he has put in some effort to read the literature.

He is???

Where is he doing it...I will go to that thread.

I honestly was not aware he was dealing with the issues elsewhere.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

loved that bit of subtle wisdom there Frank... In resume you are just asking what IS the case regarding his state of affairs on the acknowledgement of a position... Laughing

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

RL...

...I want to be sure we are in agreement that...

...we are talking about the REALITY of what IS...

...not our perceptions of what IS.

...a contradiction there Frank...if we are talking, we are talking of an X at best...although of course the point being that X suffices to make a case...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

loved that bit of subtle wisdom there Frank... In resume you are just asking what IS the case regarding his state of affairs on the acknowledgement of a position...

Thank you, Fil.

Just attempting to get him to give a "YES" or "NO" answer to a question that really only requires a "YES" or "NO."

Not the easiest thing to do with these guys.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...a contradiction there Frank...if we are talking, we are talking of an X at best...although of course the point being that X suffices to make a case...

I don't think so, but I will reflect on it a bit more. If you went to the links RL furnished, you will see the reason for my apprehension. The links go to the question of perceptions of the REALITY...rather than to the REALITY.

I am completely willing to stipulate that we do not (likely, CANNOT) know the REALITY of what actually IS. We do not (likely, CANNOT) define, describe, or transmit information about most of the components of REALITY.

But a REALITY exists. What IS...IS--whatever it is.

I am only discussing the REALITY that IS. It is objective...not subjective...unless, of course, it is subjective. But then "it is subjective" becomes the objective REALITY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

We are in full agreement...was not about the bottom line Frank...was about the apparent construction of the logical sentence by which if we are talking we necessarily refer to perception...now the indirect link as Kant defended is that such did requires an a priori master domain...Objective Reality which is a Master set cannot be compressed by a smaller set to the full to represent it (Knowledge)
...nevertheless the possibility and the attempt for knowledge is a good valid clue for such domain to be the case...after all non being cannot give rise to Being...

...the process, the phenomena of being there (Estar/estar ai/Dasein) is the search for completion...and a priori requires such completion for it to work as a process timely speaking...it requires Being or whatever is the case it requires a REALITY !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

We are in full agreement...was not about the bottom line Frank...was about the apparent construction of the logical sentence by which if we are talking we necessarily refer to perception...now the indirect link as Kant defended is that such did requires an a priori master domain...Objective Reality which is a Master set cannot be compressed by a smaller set to the full to represent it (Knowledge)
...nevertheless the possibility and the attempt for knowledge is a good valid clue for such domain to be the case...after all non being cannot give rise to Being...

...the process, the phenomena of being there (Estar/estar ai/Dasein) is the search for completion...and a priori requires such completion for it to work as a process timely speaking...it requires Being or whatever is the case it requires a REALITY !

Haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about here, but I would like to understand you. Allow me a few questions...and so that it does not become cumbersome for me, I'd like to do the questions one at a time...with follow-ups if I still do not understand.

First question:

Are you saying that REALITY is dependent upon (in any way) human understanding of (or observation of) it?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Not at all...
Just saying that what we know of reality is not complete, although it searches clings for completion...I also meant to use the term Reality in a ultra sense...Ultimate reality beyond time....what is the case at all times...(hope that helps)

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

.I want to be sure we are in agreement that...

...we are talking about the REALITY of what IS...

...not our perceptions of what IS.

That is a good question frank. It seems to me that everything we have to figure this out with, are words that we use to construct what we hope to be logical reasoning or some sort of truth.
If reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined what makes you empirically sure that reality can exist separate from an observer? If reality can not exist separate from an observer can you say that the objected reality is no reality at all? That sounds a little odd to me.
You have to admit that there are some spooky kind of things like, "how could all of this come from nothing or "if it did not come from nothing how could something have always existed? There are questions about what we call reality, that we are just to naive to know.

I do realize we have been taught that there should be something in space even if we did not exist but what proof do we have of this? Sure we have all sorts of evidence that might lead a person to think that after we are all gone rocks or something would still be around but the truth is, "we really do not know exactly what is going on with what we call existence, to make such a leap of faith.
Like I have said I am an agnostic atheist and I live as a naive realist but I do try to think in terms other than just what my mother may have taught me. I am not saying that I have the answers because I don't I am not an absolutist.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

just to make it clear when saying whatever is the case at all times intends to mean the sum of whatever is the case in each packet of X time, up to loop completion, in all the dimensional geometrical potential of combinations that are possible...Being !

0 Replies

My hat is off to the originator of this thread. No thread title could have been better designed to reel in Frank and Setanta, who are drawn to any thread with "theist" in the title, while it was equally certain that Fresco would be sucked into any discussion heralded by the word "reality" (and like Mary and her persistent lamb, where Fresco goes his faithful Indian companion, JLN, is sure to follow). So bravo, reasoning logic, it was indeed a masterstroke of genius to come up with the title "Reality from the view point of theists." The next thread I start will be called "Theist realists and the reality of theism." It will be all about gardening.

As for the content of the discussion, I'm still waiting for the first sign of it. Both sides are talking past each other, and I suspect at least one side does not fully realize it. Frank, despite his lack of citations to Kant or even Heidegger, is clearly talking about epistemology. If he is naive in anything, though, it is not in his realism, but in his belief that Fresco is talking epistemology too. That's clearly not the case.

When Fresco trots out his well-worn example* of the frog who disdains the dead flies, he thinks it's an example of the frog creating its own reality, when in truth its an example of a frog choosing whether to dine in or order out. Whether or not the frog recognizes the dead flies as food, on the other hand, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the frog recognizes them as real.

That, alas, is the question that Frank wants answered, but I can assure him that no such answer will be forthcoming, for Fresco isn't interested in the reality of the flies so much as the meaning of the flies -- a question about which, I suspect, Frank couldn't care less.

In short, when Fresco talks about reality he is talking about psychology or linguistics or maybe sociology, but definitely not epistemology. As long as that fact remains unrecognized, that is how long this thread will go on its merry, unproductive, albeit entertaining, way.

*All of Fresco's examples are well-worn. Although he is constantly hectoring others to "read the literature," his meager store of examples (I'm still waiting for the onslaught of Einstein quotations) suggests that his own familiarity with "the literature" is superficial at best.

4 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

So bravo, reasoning logic, it was indeed a masterstroke of genius to come up with the title "Reality from the view point of theists."

"How hardened and removed from reality must a person be, to be touched by a thread I started?

Tell me Joe. " What is Reality from the view point of joefromchicago?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, thank you for the response.

My question to you was:

"Are you saying that REALITY is dependent upon (in any way) human understanding of (or observation of) it?"

Your answer:

Quote:

Not at all...

We are 5 x 5 here…I think. There is the possibility of some word play, however, so let me set this out the way I read you…and see if you have any objections to my understanding, which I will state as an agreement opinion:

I also am of the opinion that REALITY is not dependent upon human understanding of it…nor of human observation of it. Whatever the REALITY of existence IS…it IS—and it is what it is whether we understand it (or observe it) or not.

Quote:

Just saying that what we know of reality is not complete…

As I have said dozens of times in this thread…I am not discussing what we do or do not know about reality. I am not discussing if we understand it. I notice Joe has joined the thread…and he correctly mentions that I am not dealing with what we do or do not know (or observe) about REALITY...and I am not dealing with any considerations we have about it. I do not anxious to discuss what we know or do not know about the REALITY...

Quote:

…although it searches clings for completion...

...that notwithstanding, however, I have tried to make sense of this grouping of words…and been unsuccessful. Any chance you can say what you were saying using other words? I do want to understand you.

Quote:

I also meant to use the term Reality in a ultra sense...Ultimate reality beyond time....what is the case at all times...(hope that helps)

I am using the term “REALITY” to mean reality. In fact, to avoid discussing what I mean by it…I have been using the term “what IS.” Whatever IS…whatever makes up what actually IS in existence…that is what I mean when I use the term REALITY.

Are we on the same page…and in the same book?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

That is a good question frank. It seems to me that everything we have to figure this out with, are words that we use to construct what we hope to be logical reasoning or some sort of truth.
If reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined what makes you empirically sure that reality can exist separate from an observer?

It really does not matter to my point, RL. I am dealing with whether or not there is an Objective REALITY. If the REALITY needs an observer to be…THEN THE OBJECTIVE REALITY is that it needs an observer to be!

There would still be an objective REALITY.

But I wonder why, other than as an act of faith, you would posit the need for an observer in order for whatever exists to exist.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Thanks for coming to the fray, Joe. You have a way of explaining things in clear language...and if there is anything needed in this thread, "clear language" is that thing.

I hope you stick around. I have some questions that you may be able to help me with...although I suspect many of the answers will be variations on "...but I can assure him that no such answer will be forthcoming, for Fresco isn't interested in the reality of the flies so much as the meaning of the flies -- a question about which, I suspect, Frank couldn't care less."

I'm 75...long out of school. Lots of this is beyond me...and I am attempting a pragmatic discussion of subjects that may not be amenable to that process. But the topic interests me...and I am not about to break off discussion at this time.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am dealing with whether or not there is an Objective REALITY. If the REALITY needs an observer to be…THEN THE OBJECTIVE REALITY is that it needs an observer to be!

If reality needs an observer would it be subjective reality?
Subjective to the one observing it. Why not call it subjective reality?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I can downgrade my intervention to a more simple status if that proves to be more useful...yes we are on the same page but I wanted to go a bit further then the common approach upon this matter...
I am trying to provide a justification upon the purpose of minds and the reason for the search of knowledge here...As I see it knowledge at large and reporting to reality at large is always a low resolution representation of the actual thing and can never be equivalent to the actual thing reason why its representational after all...what does that mean you wonder ? Consider set theory and set membership on which the search for knowledge of reality is here portrayed as a subset of reality itself, a process within a process, and as such the inevitable recognition that it can never be fulfilled to completion or equal reality given its sub set status...Beyond the phenomenology or beyond the unfold of the process in space time state of affairs of all stuff, one can well reason recognize a sum of all the potential state of affairs and combinations of the arrangements of atoms of this Universe/Multiverse whatever distributed by N dimensions of geometrical and temporal possibility on which one can derive an ultimate field of potential...Reality in the ultra sense, Ontological completion ! And that was what I was aiming at Frank...but we can leave it aside n have a more down to earth more pragmatical approach, one step at a time is definitely better indeed...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...obviously my approach requires the option for the discrete rather the continuum hypothesis regarding the nature of space and time as matter and energy...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Tell me Joe. " What is Reality from the view point of joefromchicago?

I've made my position pretty clear in other discussions. I take a purely pragmatic approach to reality. As long as everyone agrees on the basic contours of what they consider to be "real," it doesn't much matter whether reality is objectively "real," or a collection of noumena, or a series of Berkeleyan perceptions, or a mass delusion, or whatever. As I've said elsewhere, as soon as Fresco and a bunch of others of his ilk start flinging themselves into active volcanoes, in the manner of Empedocles, I'll be open to believing that reality is a social or linguistic construction.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Well Fresco, it appears that Joe is on our side. I KNEW we were right Exclamation

2 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know