11
   

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 12:08 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

I'm doing this:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/be-pissing-in-the-wind

I'll leave the subject and stand by my last post.


I do not envy you on this, igm. Defending your thesis IS pissing in the wind.

I admire your advocacy...although you know I disagree with you substantially on this.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 12:55 pm
@igm,
I believe our reality is everything and anything in how we perceive it; it's "our" experience.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I suspect that you have decided that REALITY can only be what a human can experience.

I, on the other hand, consider that absurd.


I have accepted that I can only experience reality in the context of "human being".
I cannot know anything about any reality beyond or outside of this context.

This is not the same as saying that "REALITY can only be what a human can experience".

It is saying "The only kind of reality we can have knowledge of, is reality as it appears to humans".

Do you disagree with that last claim?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I believe our reality is everything and anything in how we perceive it; it's "our" experience.


That comment illustrates one of the reasons I prefer not to use "believe" in contexts of this sort.

Here it is with other words: My guess is that reality is everything and anything in how we perceive it; it's "our" experience.

To which I would say: Okay.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:18 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I suspect that you have decided that REALITY can only be what a human can experience.

I, on the other hand, consider that absurd.


I have accepted that I can only experience reality in the context of "human being".
I cannot know anything about any reality beyond or outside of this context.

This is not the same as saying that "REALITY can only be what a human can experience".

It is saying "The only kind of reality we can have knowledge of, is reality as it appears to humans".

Do you disagree with that last claim?


Not at all. Our understanding of REALITY is limited.

Your point is?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:27 pm
@Olivier5,
A surveillance camera, any sensor or measuring apparatus, must be thought of as extensions of our senses.
They do not allow us to bypass our senses. They merely translate information to something that is within the range of our senses, for instance by magnifying something that would otherwise be too small to see, or recording images that are monitored from somewhere else. I do not think we can circumvent subjective perspective via the use of sensory technology.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:29 pm
@JLNobody,
I actually thought of that anecdote in connection to this thread.
Western natural science disregards the moving of the mind completely.
Eastern philosophy claims that everything begins with the moving of the mind.
At least, that is how I understand it.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:32 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
I do not think we can circumvent subjective perspective via the use of sensory technology.

We don't indeed, but cameras may document the permanence of things in time, even when there are no observers around, no?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:43 pm
@Olivier5,
It depends on what we believe about observation.

Looking at an object is pretty easy to classify as observation.

But if you leave the object, and then, when you're somewhere far away from it, you still think about the object sitting right where you left it... Does that constitute observation of the object?
Are you still observing it when you are only thinking about it?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 01:57 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Are you still observing it when you are only thinking about it?

I would say no to that -- but what's the connection with surveillance cameras as a way to prove that stuff don't disappear once nobody's observing them?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 02:06 pm
@Cyracuz,
That's true. It doesn't matter what medium of observation we use, it's still perceived subjectively by the individual.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 02:29 pm
Obviously, some people want very much to guess that humans...and human observation...is very important to REALITY.

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 02:41 pm
@Olivier5,
You still have to look at the images, which is essentially observing the object via the camera.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 02:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Since you don't have any reality, and they are only guesses, we can ignore what you say about "our" reality.

My reality includes my ability to communicate with people on a2k. It's not a guess; it's factual as far as I'm concerned. I have wife and two sons; that's also a fact, and not guesses on my part, and it's all part and parcel of my reality.

Our son flew in from Austin last Friday, and will be leaving at about noon tomorrow to return to Austin. We picked him up at the San Francisco International Airport, and brought him home. We will be driving him to the airport tomorrow; all factual plans of "our" reality. Not guesses.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 03:02 pm
@Cyracuz,
Sure, but you can do that after the images were recorded. If you look at the video, say two years later, and see that objects didn't disappear when no one was looking at them, doesn't that mean they did not disappear at recording time?

Or does that imply that your looking at the video in 2013 changed what happened in 2011?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 03:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Do you have some vested interest in competing against that notion?
It's not even true. That isn't even remotely what I am proposing.

For some reason, when I say "we cannot know anything about reality beyond our experience of it", what you hear is "there IS no reality beyond our experience of it".

Please take the time to get that right. And if you still want to argue, argue the point, not something you make up because you have such nice arguments prepared.
I am not talking about "objective reality". I am talking about what we can perceive via our experiences.

Now, when you contemplate the experience you are currently having, what makes it real?
The tangible things around you. Is that reality?
Or is reality the experiencing of it all?

Do you agree that reality is an experience? (Not excluding anything else it might be)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 03:10 pm
It's pretty sad if someone needs a dictionary to explain pissing in the wind to them. I'd say that's one of those experiential things. Remind me never to go drinking with igm.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 03:10 pm
@Olivier5,
You're looking at the event at the time and place it was recorded. Anything could have happened to that "scenery" after it was filmed. Remember the twin towers in NYC? There are still movies with the twin towers in tact, but most people know what happened on 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 03:16 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Do you have some vested interest in competing against that notion?
It's not even true. That isn't even remotely what I am proposing.

For some reason, when I say "we cannot know anything about reality beyond our experience of it", what you hear is "there IS no reality beyond our experience of it".

Please take the time to get that right. And if you still want to argue, argue the point, not something you make up because you have such nice arguments prepared.
I am not talking about "objective reality". I am talking about what we can perceive via our experiences.

Now, when you contemplate the experience you are currently having, what makes it real?
The tangible things around you. Is that reality?
Or is reality the experiencing of it all?

Do you agree that reality is an experience? (Not excluding anything else it might be)



Well since I seem to be "misunderstanding" you so much...with what single specific of mine do you disagree with most.

Let's discuss that...so you can help get me back on track.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 03:25 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Or does that imply that your looking at the video in 2013 changed what happened in 2011?


It only means that via the camera you have the means to verify that your objects are there easier than going over to see for yourself.
The camera adds nothing new, merely more versatility to something we already use. Vision.
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 08:58:27