11
   

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:31 am
@fresco,
Quote:
We all operate on the assumption of "permanence of entities".

Yes, including you, and my point is this assumption is far more likely to be true , most of the times, and far less problematic philosophically than the rival assumption of the "impermanence of entities".

You never woke up to find yourself metamorphosed into a giant cockroach, have you?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:38 am
@fresco,
I agree; without some sense of the "permanence of entities," we would all be living in chaos and non-direction. But, that's not the case. Many people make decisions that impact their lives in one way or another - believing in the "permanence of entities."

If any individual decides to go to college, he must have the confidence that colleges will be available to attend.

It makes no sense, otherwise.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:43 am
@Olivier5,
On a definition of "truth" as "what works" for everyday purposes, I must agree with you. Any other definition of truth you imply would make no sense to me.
EDITED
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:58 am
@fresco,
Define "truth" as you want to, if's only a currency anyway, right?

But "what works" is a good-enough definition I suppose. Better than "what doesn't work", which could be an apt definition for naive irrealism.

Now that we agree that somethings don't change that much over time, can I speak to the fresco who changes his mind often now, just to reassure myself that something in you can actually change? Wink
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:


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.

Your position is that you KNOW reality is objective... even though you don't know the arguments against this and have not offered any refutation but have still 'told' others that they must hear you repeat yourself until they 'understand' your truth in the same way you do... ci for example.

Can you explain why you are doing this when there is a contrary position which is also plausible?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:55 pm
@Olivier5,
Philosophy is about asking questions about assumptions and this is a philosophy forum... a chat about 'what works' can be done with the guys in a bar... but normally it is so obvious that more interesting topics are discussed.

If anything becomes permanent for even a moment then it is as if it was frozen... how could it then unfreeze and change... everything (philosophically and logically) is completely and utterly impermanent... like it or not.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:58 pm
@igm,
You're talking about the impermanence of time; not about our belief system and our perceptions about what we deem to be our reality.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:59 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Philosophy is about asking questions about assumptions and this is a philosophy forum... a chat about 'what works' can be done with the guys in a bar...

Philosophy is a mean to an end, no? Depending on what that end is, some philosophies will work better than others.

Quote:
everything (philosophically and logically) is completely and utterly impermanent... like it or not.

Yet they all stay the same, most of the time... E.g. when is the last time you changed your mind about a philosophic idea? Last week, last year, last decade?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You're talking about the impermanence of time; not about our belief system and our perceptions about what we deem to be our reality.

No, I'm talking about the impermanence of phenomena or objects... they can't have momentary permanence because they could not move from that state to impermanence... there could be no change whatsoever and obviously there is.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:03 pm
@Olivier5,
As for me, my philosophical understandings about life happened over many decades. However, I knew early on, in my mid-teenage years, that our families religion was wrong, because I observed discrimination against others.

Not only that, but my older brother beat me up if I didn't go to church - and he never went.

He's a christian today.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:05 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Yet they all stay the same, most of the time...

They don't and I've just explained why in my last post to you. Tell me how a permanent thing can change... by definition it is unchanging. It has to always be impermanent in order to change.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:08 pm
@igm,
Of coarse there's change. My car is a 2006 Acura, and it now has over 40,000 miles on it. That's change. Most material things change in their atomic structure except for the few we know of such as diamonds.

We observe change - over time. I have seen dramatic change from the time I was aware of my environment as a youngster living in Sacramento to today. Our elementary school, Lincoln School, is no longer there, but I know it existed at one time on 4th and P streets. Those are my "real" observations of my reality and perceptions.

Many others who lived during that time and now can confirm that Lincoln School was a "real" place.

I can even find a picture of that school on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Historic-Lincoln-School-Street-Sacramento/dp/B006XNBA1Q
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:08 pm
@Olivier5,
Just a minute. I'll get him....

I note what was written by one of my selves above and he has reminded me to tell you that he did not agree that permanence of objects is independent of the functional contexts in which they are evoked. The assumption of permanent objects is generally a successful modus operandi (i.e.it works) but its occasional failure (catastrophically in the case of the structure of a plane for example) is sufficient to remind us that of the assumptive nature of that permanence.

Another self (the academic linguist evoked by that mention of failure) has also pushed me a note about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (language determines thought) regarding assumptions of states of affairs. Whorf ( the former insurance assessor not the Klingon !) pointed out that many accidents were happening at petroleum refinaries because workers were smoking near an area which was signed "Empty Petrol Cans". The word "empty" was valid for petrol liquid per se but not for petrol vapour. Here then is another example of how languaging leads to incorrect predictve assumptions about observer-observed relationships.


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:22 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:


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.

Your position is that you KNOW reality is objective... even though you don't know the arguments against this and have not offered any refutation but have still 'told' others that they must hear you repeat yourself until they 'understand' your truth in the same way you do... ci for example.

Can you explain why you are doing this when there is a contrary position which is also plausible?


I will be delighted to explain...if first you explain what the "contrary position" is to...WHATEVER ACTUALLY IS...IS.

I have not heard a reasonable "contrary position"...and using my imagination, I cannot even dream up a "contrary postion" to that.

Whatever the truth about what IS....that is what it is.

You CANNOT be more objective than that.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:25 pm
@igm,
Can't you see it's a gradient, a continuum between permanence and impermanence?

In order to be able to think the concept of "change", you have to be able to conceive of a counter-factual: permanence. Now, if you slow down change to 0, you have absolute permanence. If you accelerate change to infinite speed, you have a totally unstable reality. In between those two extremes, you have most stuff.

Most stuff change, some very very slowly, like a stone that may be affected by erosion, over thousands of years, and others very fast, like a liquid flowing. But they never change completely in a split second, and generally keep some characteristics pretty stable over time. Even water flowing does not change into oil.

How much has the sea level risen over the past century? A few cm or something. It does change, mind you, but so slowly that nobody in his lifetime will see a difference.

Did you ever come back at night to the apartment or house you had left in the morning, only to find it occupied by some other family or dude you've never seen before?

You never changed sex, have you? Did you ever become a horse or a bird? Did extra arms grow on your shoulders at some point, or an extra head?

When is the last time you surprised yourself? Or your wife?

When is that last time you changed your mind about something important?

Impermanence is largely a wish, a dream of infinite possibilities. Life is more complicated.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:33 pm
@Olivier5,
Elementary my dear Watson. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I knew early on, in my mid-teenage years, that our families religion was wrong, because I observed discrimination against others.

Ok so your views on religion where, shall we say, embryonicaly shaped when you were a teenager... Same for me, I still hold the exact same position on God than when I was 15, i.e. 34 years ago...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:48 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I knew early on, in my mid-teenage years, that our families religion was wrong, because I observed discrimination against others.

Ok so your views on religion where, shall we say, embryonicaly shaped when you were a teenager... Same for me, I still hold the exact same position on God than when I was 15, i.e. 34 years ago...


Olivier...could you explain to me why "...discrimination against others"...means a particular religion is "wrong?"

What if the religion directs (let's say, via the revelations of its god) that "discrimination against others" is an impritive...and must be observed. And what if the god of the religion is actually GOD.

Why does the fact that a religion "discriminates againt others" necessarily mean it is "wrong?"
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:54 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
he has reminded me to tell you that he did not agree that permanence of objects is independent of the functional contexts in which they are evoked.

Maybe your co-self can try and define these "functional contexts" which appear quite often in his prose... Also, what is the functional context of all functional contexts?

Quote:
The assumption of permanent objects is generally a successful modus operandi (i.e.it works) but its occasional failure (catastrophically in the case of the structure of a plane for example) is sufficient to remind us that of the assumptive nature of that permanence.

Yeah yeah, plane crash and people die. But even the structural collapse of a building or plane or body can only be understood in terms of the sort of stress the existing structure, with its pre-existing strengths and weaknesses, was put under. So even in this catastrophic case of impermanence, you need the hypothesis of the permanence of things to be able to understand what exactly happened. It's not like planes disappear into thin air for no reason.

Quote:
languaging leads to incorrect predictve assumptions about observer-observed relationships.

In other words, some signs are pretty dumb...
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You'd have to ask these questions to Ci, I only quoted him.
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 12:42:01