18
   

Reality from the view point of theists

Forums: Science, Religion, Education, Psychology, Psychosis
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 03:43 pm
@JLNobody,
....well that´s far better J...I can live with that.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 04:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
WE could pour every word in the dictionary down the throat of reality and it would not gain an inch... It is pointless...


What is "pointless", Fido, is refusing to acknowledge that whatever happens to be...whatever the REALITY actually is...IS what it IS.

It is an objective REALITY.

Not sure why that is so troubling to you or the others arguing as you are, because it doesn't really say very much. It is a tautology.

This has become a scene from an act in the theater of the absurd.

Try the experiment I offered to JL. Produce a hypothetical scenario where the REALITY is subjective rather than OBJECTIVE.

Then let's discuss it and see if it is actually subjective rather than objective.

Here...let me give it a try:

Okay...let's say that the only thing that exists is what we humans sense exists...and that there is NO OBJECTIVE REALITY WHATSOEVER. NONE...ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTIVE REALITY WHATSOEVER....the only thing that constitutes REALITY is subjective realities.

NOW THE ANALYSIS;

But then the OBJECTIVE REALITY is that there is no objective reality.

Fido...on the question of REALITY...the proposition "there is no objective REALITY" defeats itself. If there is no objective reality...THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.


I simply cannot say I know what I know not; but one thing I do know is that any quasi concept representing more my ignorance than my knowledge is not worth calling a concept to begin with... I guess there is some kind of reality beyond the part of it I know, and after that I know nothing... Once more; this concept of reality is but a mirror to my ignorance... It is how I reveal all about myself I would prefer to hide... It is worthless, and worse...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 04:45 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Frank I see that every thing is what it is but that says nothing other than, "the state of things are what ever they are". To me it is almost meaningless. There may be a sanario where "Is what it Is" has great utility but I can not think of one at hand maybe you can.
Not a definition or an argument for one... His quasi concept is mere tautology...It is what it is??? Does that include all it might almost be...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 04:49 pm
@Fido,
That´s where you get confused...who told you that you must define what reality is for reality to be what it is ? Have you forgotten the basics ? Your very questioning assumes X !!!
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 05:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Is reality a man made concept? Are man made concepts objective? If reality is what it is, "Is it a man made concept or not? I am not talking about parts of reality, I'm talking about the concept that we use to talk about the parts of reality.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 05:24 pm
@reasoning logic,
Man made concepts are the product of man real circumstances...that is, whatever is the case we perceive we perceive it out of objective reasons for such...whether what we believe reports what we intend to know its an entirely different matter...

The concept of reality it is not man made but man experienced, just like reality...
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 05:27 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Do you consider time to be objective as well?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 05:35 pm
@reasoning logic,
...if what you mean to ask is if there are objective reasons for time to behave the way it does then my answer as much as I can vouch for causality is yes...
of course none of it explains what time is nor if time is, on its own right, an anything beyond phenomenal illusion...whatever the case, seems reasonable to assume that there are objective causes for such, and if not "causes", then at least certainly objective circumstances...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 06:05 pm
Frank wrote to Fido: "Try the experiment I offered to JL. Produce a hypothetical scenario where the REALITY is subjective rather than OBJECTIVE.
Then let's discuss it and see if it is actually subjective rather than objective."

Frank, it doesn't have to be hypothetical. This discussion we are having now is part of Reality and WHILE IT IS HAPPENING it is a subjective and inter-subjective phenomenon. Then, afterwords, when we attempt analyze, deconstruct, interpret, it. Our recollection of it becomes--from our perspectives--an object of discussion, i.e., objective reality. Here, the dimension of objective reality takes its meaning in juxtaposition with the subjective dimension.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 06:29 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

That´s where you get confused...who told you that you must define what reality is for reality to be what it is ? Have you forgotten the basics ? Your very questioning assumes X !!!
The definition of the word Cat is the concept of a Cat...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 06:37 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Is reality a man made concept? Are man made concepts objective? If reality is what it is, "Is it a man made concept or not? I am not talking about parts of reality, I'm talking about the concept that we use to talk about the parts of reality.
All concepts are man made out of bits of knowledge and truth. If a concept does not tell us truth it is worse than no idea at all.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 08:01 pm
@Fido,
A concept without reality is not even a concept...just as the abstract idea of a cat without a cat is nothing but an empty word...informs nothing !
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2012 11:46 pm
@Fido,
I haven't read this thread in toto. In fact, I've barely read this thread at all, but:
Fido wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

That´s where you get confused...who told you that you must define what reality is for reality to be what it is ? Have you forgotten the basics ? Your very questioning assumes X !!!
The definition of the word Cat is the concept of a Cat...


Definition is a proscriptive activity, conception is an inclusive one. Thus the concept of "cat" may include the historical oddity "reportedly sucks the breath from infants" while the definition rightfully excludes it.

Fido wrote:

All concepts are man made out of bits of knowledge and truth. If a concept does not tell us truth it is worse than no idea at all.


That is not to say that all of those bits of knowledge are true...many concepts are made of "facts" that are not verifiable, certainly not experimentally or experientally so, -- its "truth value" aside.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
A concept without reality is not even a concept...just as the abstract idea of a cat without a cat is nothing but an empty word...informs nothing !


Does a concept require a concrete manifestation to exist? Even an hypothetical object may have effects, which suggests the relationship between concept and object is more complicated than that of representation, or even correspondence.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 02:54 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
Does a concept require a concrete manifestation to exist? Even an hypothetical object may have effects, which suggests the relationship between concept and object is more complicated than that of representation, or even correspondence.


I thought you would have noticed the role of concrete and abstract in that particular sentence...it was an ironic double spin...mind you that I am sympathetic with the idea that reality is Information and that all abstract concepts are therefore very real concrete things...means by which all those things that are potentially real are after all very much factual and the so mentioned "abstraction" ends up being the hypothetical denial of the phenomena we use to call cat, a word without meaning...you see from my point of view concepts are nothing else but reductive sets of information about information that suit the extent of our needs in the asking...whether the "world" is internal to a subject, or a set of subjects in the subject, or as a set of subjects that itself behaves as a subject, or simply includes subjects in its informational process, the world keeps up being a relational entity no matter what...not has the product of intention and conscience and thus not as a rational orchestrated construction given away by minds or a great mind...but some place where mind or minds are allowed to be the case from the potential to the formal and phenomenal...The world keeps up being the world after all and subjects a part of it...mind does not justify mind although it explains the world somehow, the same world that mindlessly, gives away something as beautiful as a mind...
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 06:57 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
The concept of reality it is not man made but man experienced, just like reality...


It seems to me everything that man does is experienced by man's senses, "taste feel, see, hear and so forth.

Quote:
...if what you mean to ask is if there are objective reasons for time to behave the way it does then my answer as much as I can vouch for causality is yes...


What I asked was, "Do you think that "time" is a man made concept?
The reason I ask is because the way I see it, "Is this way.

We use the rotation of the earth for the hours in a day, the earth's orbit around the sun for seasons and we made up a reference point for the year from Jesus's birthday, "that was a myth.
Surly we are able to experience the earth's rotation but without us using a concept of language along with our observation of it, I do not see where it would have any meaning.
It may all be in motion, but without observations and words like time, hour, minute, elapse, day, night and so forth, time would not seem to be all that it is.

Do you think that man's observational ability plays any role in what reality is?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 07:22 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Do you think that man's observational ability plays any role in what reality is?

Sure... whatever is the case I am observing is really happening inside my head...there are objective causes for whatever I experience...and whatever I experience is a chunk of reality in itself...whether as belief it corresponds to some other chunk of reality is an entirely different matter...but more important then that what I question is the ability of man creating reality when reality itself must first be the very condition of man and anything else...
...you see if we engage down the road you propose we may end up with a schizophrenic debate between 2 characters inside the same brain upon what is real or not...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 07:47 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...the problem with idealists and rationalists in their critique by suggesting at best we just get bits and pieces of reality is that they seam to forget that bits and pieces are exactly the result we aim to achieve in our very demands, and I ask how more objective then that can we go ? I mean if I ask for an ice cream I am certainly not asking for the atoms in the ice cream and so fourth...is it the ice cream less real on that account ? No ! A complete description of the ultra object was not meant to be asked in there...obviously the only thing that can totally correspond reality is reality itself, and reality does not need to question what it already is, we do, and we don´t ask for reality as a whole even when we say we intend to, we would have to be such whole in order to be entitled...again the very act of questioning is inherently be looking for certain pieces and bits which at some point turn out to be relevant for our interests and needs...our interests and needs play a role on what we can know and on how we came to know it but they don´t change the essence of what is potentially there to be experienced...whatever comes to happen in our minds is not justified on conscience will or mind alone and it can only be justified by the whole of reality...certainly the whole of reality is not minds talking about minds, we have other then minds to talk about, so the potential of reality can never be the result of minds although minds deal with the potential of reality one bit at a time...
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 08:13 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
The approach you are taking does seem to be the sane approach. You and others have really given me some things to consider. Thank You
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 03:30 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

I haven't read this thread in toto. In fact, I've barely read this thread at all, but:
Fido wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

That´s where you get confused...who told you that you must define what reality is for reality to be what it is ? Have you forgotten the basics ? Your very questioning assumes X !!!
The definition of the word Cat is the concept of a Cat...


Definition is a proscriptive activity, conception is an inclusive one. Thus the concept of "cat" may include the historical oddity "reportedly sucks the breath from infants" while the definition rightfully excludes it.

Fido wrote:

All concepts are man made out of bits of knowledge and truth. If a concept does not tell us truth it is worse than no idea at all.


That is not to say that all of those bits of knowledge are true...many concepts are made of "facts" that are not verifiable, certainly not experimentally or experientally so, -- its "truth value" aside.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
A concept without reality is not even a concept...just as the abstract idea of a cat without a cat is nothing but an empty word...informs nothing !


Does a concept require a concrete manifestation to exist? Even an hypothetical object may have effects, which suggests the relationship between concept and object is more complicated than that of representation, or even correspondence.
Definitions exclude no fact essential to our understanding..
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 03:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

A concept without reality is not even a concept...just as the abstract idea of a cat without a cat is nothing but an empty word...informs nothing !
All ideas are abstractions of reality, but quasi concepts are not even that.. I guess that means I agree with you...
Quasi concepts do inform about the nature of them who hold them as truth...
 

Related Topics

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion? - Discussion by wandeljw
New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
New species of hominid discovered - Question by FBM
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
More (much more) dinosaur soft tissue turning up - Discussion by gungasnake
Must Scientific Knowledge Be Considered Relative? - Discussion by wandeljw
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Reality from the view point of theists
  3. » Page 47
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 08:25:47
▲ ▼