Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Your graphics can be interpreted in several ways - which is subjective to the observer. So what? Ever hear of the Rorschach test? Lots of questions about that test too.

Amusing. Can you account for what happens when you hit your finger with a hammer?

Or this:



I see objective reality man!

I never said anyone was seeing objective reality... but this vid only gave me a slight headache. What are you supposed to see or not when you look away?

Yes, it's an "object." So, what's your point?

I think it helps to look at a plain wall. I see a spherical/circular distortion. It looks like the wall expands from the point of focus outward. But it only last five to ten seconds. But what a trip. No, but its neat. And it does kind of hurt your head after a while.

There is no real point. Just continuing examples of neat visual tricks.

Yes I can, but I asked first !

Note that some perceptual phenomena (like yours) be considered to be "hard wired", but others (like mine) can not.

My example is nothing like the Rorschach test. This one gives a consistent response across observers.

You ought to clarify what more or less "solid" has anything to do with the problem...you counter his argument as if any of the opposing views was of any relevance to the matter...since you can't argue against the ratio without hurting your own position you go on making a digression on materialism naivety...yeah I know, its far better ground for you to play grammar jokey...

The issue is about the word "reality", not "solidity". I have not countered his argument. I have challenged him to use it to account for an example of a common perceptual phenomenon.

No Fresco there is no issue of reality being reality the issue is defined against undefined having foundation against not having it...solidity is of no interest for this debate...solidity is even bad wording for the problem of materialism, so I just don't get why you engaged in that bit instead of presenting a model that works...so far none of what you say is rationally explainable and thus you cannot be surprised people can't take you on your word alone...I said it before n I will repeat it, I am not here to straight out disagree anyone, all you have to do is present a working comprehensible module of your world view, which so far you haven't done. For instance you are to explain how can there be perception of change if no thing has any definite state no matter how short in time...you have been dodging and dodging all the serious question regarding your world view but if you do indeed want it to succeed you better come up with some rational answers...from the infinite regress observation problem to clarify the mechanics of change you have a lot of explaining to do I for one will listen, a miracle might happen and be the case you have something useful to say.

I agree, that's the heart of the matter... that is why reality 'is' ineffable. It's not permanent but (as you put it), 'no thing has any definite state no matter how short in time...' that is why there can be no expressible reality... nevertheless... appearances manifest... so reality is not non-existent.

Have you considered that there might be "working comprehensible models" that doesn't conform to yours? Could there not also be a model or two that is more efficient than yours?

I am questioning the assumption igm...you see without a defined state even if just for a nanosecond you cannot have change or to put in layman terms that which is not anything cannot be mesured become something else, you need identity...so it must be something.

That is a good comparison. I am a little surprised that 'reality' is such a controversial issue. I have encountered, in these threads, what could perhaps be referred to as 'materialist fundamentalism'.

To say that for change to occur there must be something--some substantive thing--to be the subject of change is to be constrained not by physical reality; it is to be constrained by grammar, i.e., the rule: a predicate must have a subject.

Even a sentence without an subject and verb is incomplete.

Interesting guesses. Why not call them guesses...rather than make it sound as though you are revealing some truth from on-high?