Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@fresco,

Quote:

this "sense of ownership" you speak of is rarely present.

It is nevertheless present and you cannot account for it. Wink

@fresco,

What are your comments on for example: hammering? What I mean is that to me a nail at any point in time has either been hammered or is about to be hammered and no 'hammering' actual takes place but is imputed retrospectively. The verb, 'hammering' is useful but it hides the problem of action-over-time.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

This "sense of ownership" you speak of is a set of fluctuating relationships operating between the concept of an indidual, that of an object, and that of the rest of society. It arises when my "rights" are infringed (theft of object for example) or my "obligations" are enforced (demand by police for my insurance certificate for example). There is no accounting for any concept except in relationship to other concepts, and all concepts are socially constructed.,

1 Reply

@igm,

(Will get back to you shortly)

0 Replies

@tomr,

Quote:

But aren't we limited to concepts that can be constructed in the mind. A concept like "reality" came out of the mind and is meaningless when taken out of that context.

I've been pushing this argument for a while now. It seems it falls on deaf ears, and now I know why.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

If REALITY disappears...that becomes the objective REALITY.

I am not sure if this is a case of language on holiday. It seems that way to me, because it sounds kind of strange to say that if there is no reality, then that is the objective reality.
If this is true, then words are just meaningless sounds...

1 Reply

@fresco,

You keep missing the point. How in this fluctuating universe of your can you keep a sense of ownership for anything over a long period of time?

Same with social relations. Are you married/engaged/with a girlfriend? If yes, how fluctuating is your sense of faithfulness?

Turns out things don;t change that fast, most of the time. And you're not ready to let go of much...

1 Reply

@igm,

What I understand of Heidegger's position is that neither "self" nor "hammer" nor "nail" has existence during smooth hammering unless or until something goes wrong....head flies off hammer ..man hits thumb...nail bends.. etc. At that point the "self" is brought into existence (perhaps from some state of reverie or suspended consciousness)and verbalises (internally or externally) something about the perceived relationships between components of the hammering. Note that the "continuity in time of the hammering" is being verbalised by a hypothetical third party observer who has his own relationship between the components of the scenario. Those who be sceptical about this idea of "existence" should attempt to observe themselves doing something "automatic" like pressing the brake pedal in a car. There is normally no verbalization like "now where's that pedal in order to press it". The car+driver are functionally a single entity and it is verbalization the currency of conceptualization which is defining "reality" from moment to moment.
The idea of persistence is involved with our expectation of continued functionality. The head flying off the hammer is equivalent to a failure of "existence" of the hammer as a functional component within the flow.
(There are Heidegerrian sub-issues about "at-handedness" of technology which need not concern us here)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I thought I explained "continuity" pages ago. Since "words" persist like "one's name", they structure what we consider "reality" to be. Note for example how different names a person might adopt (nick names, formal titles etc) structure social reality differentially. In the extreme Dr Jekyll is always faithful, but Mr Hyde is anything but. This fluctuating composition of committee does not have complete existential autonomy but is subject to shifting physical, psychological and social forces with which it has to deal on a daily basis. Indeed different committee members may exist to deal with such shifts.

Now I realize that all this is antithetical to a concept of "an integrated personality" with which you might have a particular interest in promoting. I like to think rather in terms of "an efficient committee" perhaps with a strong chairman. Maybe we can compromise somewhere along those lines.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Thank you for showing that I was correct. You have arbitrarily discounted the possibility that REALITY can be completely independent of human perspectives and perceptions.

And I truly do find it incredible that someone as ostensibly intelligent as you can do that without cringing from it.

Yes you would be correct. If hanging onto every conceivable/unconceivable possibility can be considered to have been being correct.

I do not think I have arbitrarily discounted something. I have given you my reasons for discounting a reality independent of a perspective. I think that it is okay to discount "possibilities" with reason (I did even do some cringing in coming to that conclusion (guess)). I also do not think reality is the **** of a hornless unicorn. Do you have to hang on to this possibility too?

I think you are clearly intelligent, but just as you have difficulty with me here, I find it hard to see the point in hanging onto all these possibilities and not using the reasoning power at your disposal to disregard some cases.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I have no problem with the committee approach, with or without strong chairmen. My only beef is with this naive overstating of impermanence. Most things, including most committees, remain essentially the same as they go along and superficially change here or there. Plus ça change et plus c'est la même chose. Your sense of ownership is not affected by the rusting of your car nor by the aging of your multiple selves, for instance. I bet your opinions on these matters haven't changed for quite some time...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I think you evoking a premise which I don't require. As far as I can remember, I have not been conscious of a "sense of ownership" since the week I bought the car, up until we raised the issue here. This point bears some resemblance to the Heiddeger position I have described above. Namely, without active verbalization/conceptualization there is no "existence". Of course this is a smack in the face for traditional "realists" and they tend to counter with an accusation about "hilarious idealism". But idealism is NOT the only opposition to "realism" as reference to the literature will show.
LATER EDIT
The persistence of "functionality" need not imply the persistence of "objects".
Shoes can function as hammers. Functionality is system specific rather than component specific.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The very fact that anybody can describe what they think reality is in fact proves there is reality. We are alive, and able to determine what it is - although our ideas of it may be subjective to some degree. Most can agree on what is objective when we "see it." The sun always remains the sun; it doesn't matter who perceives it or interprets it. If you're dead, there's no more reality for you. The brain is dead and so is your ability to think.

1 Reply

Fresco do you agree with the law of identity or that A is A ? If not what is there, that is not what it is eh ? oh n please...spare me about permanent change, as you should be well aware that in order for something to change it needs first be something else, which again points out that A is A...lets just drop the subjective/objective coinage as it seams confusing for some folks around and address the problem in the above terms...so, do agree with it or not ? ...and if not gives us a clear explanation on how it works with logical rational terms...if you rather drop a logical debate, out of coherence you should drop any classical logical arguing of your views...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The problem lies with the "is", which takes on different connotations according to context. Consider the textual phrase
T/-\E C/-\ T
(in which I am trying to convey a symbol half way between an A and an H).
If we ask the question of whether that symbol remains "the same" the answer is both "yes" and "no" since readers will dynamically interpret the phrase as THE CAT without any conscious problem.

Okay so what has "changed" if not the symbol. Lets try to call it the observational state of the observer. But such states have been "set up" by a set of acquired functional rules with respect to social communication. We cannot talk about identity without evoking agreement about set membership, which boils down to agreement about social functionality.

I have argued here (logically or otherwise) that set membership can fluctuate such that A dynamically may differ from A . In that sense I
am arguing against the law of identity which has a covert premise of static permanence independent of observer states. It follows (logically or otherwise) that such a law cannot be evoked as a substrate for a dynamic "reality".

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, in everyday life, we can agree on what is objective.
But if I were standing on a different planet, this sun might only be another star in the night sky.

Quote:

If you're dead, there's no more reality for you.

There are many beliefs about that. I guess we will all have to wait and see. May we all wait forever!

But is the brain really what's thinking?
We can measure activity in the brain when someone is eating, but that doesn't mean that "food" goes anywhere near the brain.
I ask here out of ignorance. It's been a while since I read up on brain/mind philosophy. My 'fact' may be outdated.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

without active verbalization/conceptualization there is no "existence"

That premise is naive and unnecessary, like the hypothesis that things disappear when they are not observed. Just because you don't think or speak everyday about some idea doesn't mean it's not there, memorized, still present unconsciously, and ready to get discussed in committee (aka conscience) when the need arise.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

With a little understanding of biology and medicine, we know that some parts of the brain works a little bit differently. Brain waves can be measured, but unhealthy brains cannot register what is considered normal.

As for the "afterlife" I'm an atheist with no belief in gods, heaven, or my spirit living in another world. That's the conclusion I've drawn from observing people of religion, the history of religion, and what my subjective perceptions tells me.

As for observing the universe outside of our planet's, those are speculations without any real human experience; science fiction for now.

Yes, the brain is thinking - no matter how erroneously or mis-perceived of reality. We are the product of our genes and environment.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

We all operate on the assumption of "permanence of entities". That's the naivity which works for everyday functional predictive purposes. And that s where the concept of "reality" has currency. The problem arises when you attempt to use "reality" outside of that context and you need to evoke "unconscious states".etc On analysis, those states turn out to be concerned with contextual relationships not entities. It is this which delimits use of the word "reality" to a statement about social agreement about mutual concerns, rather than allowing it to be a reference to an observer independent existential world.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
...and he took my advice and made reality disappear...

Actually, that illustrates the beauty of my position, Cyclops. ("Beauty" used the way a mathematician would use it to describe a mathematical construct.)

If REALITY disappears...that becomes the objective REALITY.

I cannot get over someone ostensibly as intelligent as Fresco not getting it. His "not getting it" is more a mystery to me that some of his absurdly worded posts.

How about all the other eminent philosophers who don't agree with you.. arrogant still... Frank... arrogant. You know that they are all wrong... how? Your position is a layman's guess.

My position is that I do not know what REALITY is. I am not wrong on that.

As for the position of any "eminent philosophers"...bring 'em on and I will discuss this with them.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You don't seem to have noticed that the majority of posters here (and I include Olivier in that) are actually "doing philosophy", not stating platitudes which attract successively less attention with each repetition. (See work on degradation of repetitive neural signals over time for empirical evidence of this).
Yet, you may have a point that this "fresco the poster" may be wasting its time on this forum casting pearls (occasionally artificial) before swine (occasionally real). Maybe "fresco the martyr" and "fresco the lazy" are swaying the fresco committee. And perhaps "fresco the public speaker" has a hand in it too

As I said:
I find it hilarious that you would consider a sub-forum of forum A2K as an appropriate spot to "do philosophy" of the sort you appear to be pretending to be doing.

1 Reply

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know