Reality from the view point of theists

@reasoning logic,

Frank has established that it is logically necessary that reality IS, not matter what may be its form(s). But I intuit that its form(s) necessitate observers in order for it to express its infinite variability. Reality for a bacterium is different from that of an elephant, and both differ from the possible shapes it may have for humans. Reality exists "objectively" but it is protean in its response to all that gives it its "subjective" forms.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I believe Fresco has already mentioned Einstein. Certainly he has been very busy in the appeal to authority line.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

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

That's obvious to us but not to him ! Since he has given me the honour of the title " psychologist" I would be pleased to counsel him (free of charge) on the issue of "perceptual set". And I must say that Phil has made some interesting comments about our inability to "close off" a concept of reality albeit much of what he says is opaque to say the least.

Physics suggests that we are three dimensional beings who appear to us to exist in what they call "space-time", yet they advocate at least 10 dimensions (to date) required to account for what we so far regard as "data". All talk of "is-ness" in this inextricable interactive soup in its potentially infinite soup bowl is like trying to punch our way out of an impenetrable sack and sticking our heads out to describe the "view". Hence all we can talk about, as Joe correctly says, is how the word "reality" is used in "ordinary life".

(Forgive the mixed metaphor of soup in a bag ! Smile

)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Sorry Fil, I called you "Phil" above.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I wonder as filing clerk for fresco's metaphors and references, whether you can tell me whether I've used the "Monopoly" analogy previously ? By the way, I've got another good one about "railroad networks" which you haven't heard yet so do me the favour of prompting me on the next philosophy thread you are kibbitzing and I'll trot it out for you.

2 Replies

@fresco,

...no problem Fresco its ok ! I am glad that despite my always passionate approach and despite our differences on how we analyse the problem the conversation is being civil enough...

0 Replies

@fresco,

You have used monopoly, you've yet to use hungry hungry hippos.

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.

Reality is our perception of it, and in this the idealists were correct... Our understanding of reality and our concepts of reality change at the same moment... Just as Schopenhaur could say: The World is My Idea, so can we all say: The World is My idea... Think of all we do not know, or all that touches upon consciousness without rising to the level of phenomenon...And what of phenomena??? If we have only one of a thing, such as humanity, or reality then we cannot classify it by way of idea, or form... Without the ability to classify, what can you say you know??? Certainly we have differences of perspective even within the same classification... What if we have no classification to begin with... What if we know we are seeing only the near side of an infinite... What judgment can we make in regard to such phenomena???

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I take a purely pragmatic approach to reality.

I think most of us would like to think we use the pragmatic maxim but I do question that at times.

Quote:

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.

You see this as well! Isn't it amazing what your environment can get you to believe? If you were born in Afghanistan logic may tell you, "that you would most likely not have an interest in the bible but rather an interest in the Koran. This is not absolutist thinking only a probability. The same thing holds true in the USA.
You probably are not going to have an interest in studying the Koran.

Quote:

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.

I am not sure what you mean by this because you seem to have already acknowledged that reality can be a social or linguistic construction in your previous quote above.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I'm working on "Twister". Keep tuned !

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I wonder as filing clerk for fresco's metaphors and references, whether you can tell me whether I've used the "Monopoly" analogy previously ?

Of course.

fresco wrote:

By the way, I've got another good one about "railroad networks" which you haven't heard yet so do me the favour of prompting me on the next philosophy thread you are kibbitzing and I'll trot it out for you.

Who knew that Einstein ran a railway network?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Thanks for that "monopoly" ref. (Where have 5 years gone !)

Einstein merely played with the trains !

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by this because you seem to have already acknowledged that reality can be a social or linguistic construction in your previous quote above.

Not at all. I am quite certain that we don't construct reality merely by talking about it or even agreeing to it. You may see a wall as protection, I may see it as an obstacle, but we both walk around it. Our different interpretations of the wall, therefore, doesn't obviate the fact that we both agree on the reality of the wall. That's what I'm talking about when I say that people have a basic agreement on the general contours of reality. So your example of different perceptions of the Koran doesn't say anything about reality -- nobody is saying that the Koran is an illusion -- it just says something about sociology or psychology.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Would you agree that the issue of the "reality of the wall" is unlikely to arise in most cases. And in the cases that it does, its "reality" is always contextual with respect to what significance it has for future action ?

(EDIT: Note that the issue is always selective, for if not, what shall we include in that issue ?....the state of the mortar...the ants nest on the second row of bricks....etc,etc)

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Would you agree that the "reality of the wall" is unlikely to arise in most cases.

Not at all. The reality of the wall arises in all cases where the wall is perceived.

fresco wrote:

And in the cases that it does, its "reality" is always contextual with respect to what significance it has for future action ?

No. The wall's reality isn't contextual. You're confusing the reality of the wall with our reactions to the wall, just as you confuse the reality of flies with a frog's dining choices.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

See my edit, and note that the frog cannot perceive the flies (It does not have the perceptual equipment.....and are we not frogs by another name ?)

2 Replies

@fresco,

No, that's the other side of the channel, we're le rosbifs donchaknow.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Quote:

Reality is our perception of it, and in this the idealists were correct...

Am I supposed to accept this because YOU say it is so...because some GOD says it is so...or because "the idealists" say it was so?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

See my edit, and note that the frog cannot perceive the flies (It does not have the perceptual equipment.....and are we not frogs by another name ?)

It's possible that the frog cannot see the flies, but that says nothing of its ability to hear, feel, taste, or smell them. To confuse one sense perception for perception is a pretty elementary mistake. You may need to make more edits.

0 Replies

At several points in my life I have had people do a version of: I did not do such and such…and besides, there were good reasons for why I did. When it happens (and it happens more often than one would guess it does)...I am amazed. Well, after a fashion, it is happening here in this thread.

Here in this thread I have suggested that what actually IS…IS. Whatever the REALITY…that is the REALITY…and it is an objective REALITY.

We seem to have people saying, “No, you are wrong. The actual REALITY is such and such.”

Do those of you doing that not see the illogicality of that?

If you are correct about what REALITY actually is…as opposed to what you think I suppose it to be…you are corroborating my take on the matter. If it actually IS what you say it IS…rather than what you are supposing I am saying it IS…you are confirming what I am saying that it IS.

I am saying it IS whatever it IS…and that is an objective REALITY.

0 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know