Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@Olivier5,

Your sarcasm to Cyracuz is unfounded. He acknowledges his and our role in constructing the reality we perceive and in so doing he's consistent with Nietzsche's denouncement of absolutism, i.e., God is Dead.
Nevertheless, I can understand both the position of objectivist realism--that reality includes more than humanity's constructions--and subjectivist idealism--that the experiential character of that reality is what we make of it. Moreover, in addition to this stereoscopic portrayal I also acknowledge that a brain is needed for the experience of consciousness. But the very notion of a brain is a mental creation. Dualism is of little value here.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

How do you know that you are not involved somehow in the ongoing creation of the universe?

You ridicule me for thinking that we might be involved, and yet you seem to agree that the only thing you have to counter my assumptions is different assumptions.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

You wrote,

Quote:

Moreover, in addition to this stereoscopic portrayal I also acknowledge that a brain is needed for the experience of consciousness.

But what does that entail for you? Is there human reality as we perceive it or not?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I think there are two views about humans are involved in the creation of the universe.

The first is that humans do impact the universe in many ways including wars, pollution, technology, inventions, structures, transportation, flight, roads, bridges, agriculture, art, music, religion, politics, economics, domestication of animals, planting greenery or other animals and insects other than their natural environment, and that's the environment in which humans live - and thus our "universe."

At the other end of the spectrum is that humans only use what's already available and any changes are only natural to our species.

Those are only MHO.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Different assumptions may explain the world more or less effectively. While i understand the need for philosophy, i do believe it's important not to detach oneself too much from science, and no, it does not give human beings the sole responsibility of observing and languaging the universe into existence (other than metaphorically, to mean: becoming conscious or minful of stuff by speaking or thinking of them). And yes, it speaks of and studies times during which there were no humans around. Quite a long time actually.

I do contribute to this world, like I think everybody, by my deeds and my words.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

That problem is no more solvable with any of your preferred assumptions.

Actually I agree with this. Life and consciousness are two fundamental mysteries which science cannot explain yet.

But I bet it will one day.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

He acknowledges his and our role in constructing the reality we perceive and in so doing he's consistent with Nietzsche's denouncement of absolutism, i.e., God is Dead.

I agree we construct "the reality we perceive", but that's not what Cyr is saying. He is saying that without observers there is no "real" reality, that "reality is JUST a perception".

Quote:

also acknowledge that a brain is needed for the experience of consciousness. But the very notion of a brain is a mental creation

Everything and nothing is a mental creation, if you go there. Real brains actually exist, and yes they seem to do a lot of thinking. We just don't know how.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

I've seen Cryacuz' posts for years now, and he always says, as far as I can tell, that without enculturated observers there are no experiences of human reality, which is all that we should care about.
Moreover, no brain no mind and no mind no brain--just a who-knows-what(?) about what-knows-what(?) (molecules, atoms, quarks, etc., whatever we call choose to call them and theorize about them.
Sartre says we are "thrown" into a "readymade" world. Only partly true; we also find ourselves in a world of our making

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Reality exist because we may die, but others will experience life as we did. That's reality.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Sartre says we are "thrown" into a "readymade" world.

Or, as the bible says it, put into it by god. That may be a key point.

Many, in abandoning religion, don't really abandon the beliefs. They merely swap out the words within the same conceptual frames religion supplied. Notice how the separateness of humans from everything else, for instance; a notion established firmly by christian beliefs, is carried along into our secular views.

You are also right in how I relate to 'reality'. Only the part of it that is accessible to us, the part we participate in, is available for us to speak of. Anything 'beyond' our 'outside' of that is assumption. But, as you know, I am not afraid of making assumptions and saying 'what if'. I only feel it is important to not get to self-righteous about it.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I also think that more answers will come.
But it might turn out that life and consciousness is only one fundamental mystery, and it may even be that life and consciousness are more fundamental building blocks of 'reality' than we generally assume. I guess time will tell.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Real brains actually exist, and yes they seem to do a lot of thinking. We just don't know how.

We do not know if we have minds because we have brains, or if it is reversed; we might have brains because we have minds.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I've seen Cryacuz' posts for years now, and he always says, as far as I can tell, that without enculturated observers there are no experiences of human reality, which is all that we should care about.
Moreover, no brain no mind and no mind no brain--just a who-knows-what(?) about what-knows-what(?) (molecules, atoms, quarks, etc., whatever we call choose to call them and theorize about them.
Sartre says we are "thrown" into a "readymade" world. Only partly true; we also find ourselves in a world of our making

To my surprise, I found myself agreeing with many of the remarks you were making to Olivier...and then you went and posted this.

Quote:

...that without enculturated observers there are no experiences of human reality, which is all that we should care about.

If all YOU care about is the human perception of REALITY...fine. To suggest that the rest of us also feel that way, or SHOULD feel that way, is a step too far.

I am interested in REALITY...not just human perceptions of REALITY. And I think that an essential ingredient in EXPANDING human understanding of REALITY is to continue to discuss and explore (to the limit of our capabilities) what the nature of REALITY actually is.

REALITY may be nothing more than what humans perceive (as some of you people seem to think it is)...humans may be a hell of a lot more important to REALITY than I blindly suppose they are. But they may be as inconsequential to REALITY as they are to the structure of what we call THE UNIVERSE. A bit of living tissue on a minor planet circling a relatively insignificant star in a relatively insignificant galaxy.

In any case, JL...a great deal more than that has been suggested here by many people, including you. Let's not get disingenuous at this stage of proceedings.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If all YOU care about is the human perception of REALITY...fine. To suggest that the rest of us also feel that way, or SHOULD feel that way, is a step too far.

I think what JL means is that 'human reality' is the only kind of reality we can have knowledge about. Any reality that may be beyond our perception is effectively beyond our reach, and thus we cannot have knowledge about it. We can only make our own theories and suggestions and then put more or less weight behind them.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If all YOU care about is the human perception of REALITY...fine. To suggest that the rest of us also feel that way, or SHOULD feel that way, is a step too far.

I think what JL means is that 'human reality' is the only kind of reality we can have knowledge about. Any reality that may be beyond our perception is effectively beyond our reach, and thus we cannot have knowledge about it. We can only make our own theories and suggestions and then put more or less weight behind them.

I understand...and I am not getting on your case or on JL's.

I do have a problem with the term "human reality." It seems to me a more accurate phrase would be "human understanding of REALITY."

Supposing there is a "human reality"...and that "it" is the only kind of reality we have knowledge about...seems to be making an unnecessary and inappropriate guess about REALITY.

Which, of course, is the reason for what I said.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I understand. And I agree that the term 'human reality' might imply things that are unwarranted.

Despite what may be the impression some people have, I do not believe that 'reality' vanishes when I die. I believe that we can only ever experience that which is within our perception, and therefore we are not equipped to make the assertion that there is 'reality' outside perception.
We can only assume that there is a difference between 'reality' and 'experience'. We can't experience it.
But I agree that all things considered, it is a pretty good assumption.

But this language is a little awkward. Even the phrase 'within our perception' creates a distinction that is perhaps problematic. It serves to fortify the division we perceive between internal/external reality.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

We do not know if we have minds because we have brains, or if it is reversed; we might have brains because we have minds.

In a Darwinian manner of speaking, we have brain because our minds help us survive and multiply. Thus it's indeed the latter: we have brains because we have minds. The idea of mind as an epiphenomenon is unscientific.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I've seen Cryacuz' posts for years now, and he always says, as far as I can tell, that without enculturated observers there are no experiences of human reality, which is all that we should care about.

Ok, if that's what it is he is saying, but the OP seems more radical than that.

I think the experience of animals is also important (e.g. animal welfare issues). Any mystic should agree to that, especially a Buddhist.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I think humans have the ability to go beyond human perception. We humans study the behavior of other animals and living things, and can pretty much predict what they will do in certain seasons or environmental changes, and how they react to other animals.

It's the study of "their reality."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes. But we can only do so to the extent that these other animals come into our experience. So we are not going beyond it. We are merely extending it whenever we encounter new things.

3 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know