Reality - thing or phenomenon?

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/1/17130/facepalm-L-3P9ME7.jpeg

0 Replies

Apparently the "there is no self" group is also certain that there is no REALITY without agreement of humans. They have absolutely nothing to back this up...and the "logic" they use as an excuse is singularly lacking in logic.

This is not to say that logic must be present for a comment to be shown as true.

A tautology really is not actually logical…it is very difficult (probably contrived) to put it into a syllogism.

But it is a tautology.

The Fresco/ci axis seems to think it sufficient to just assert that REALITY must be blah, blah, blah…and cannot be blah, blah, blah.

I do not know what the REALITY is…and can think of several plausible scenarios that actually contradict each other…each of which may be the REALITY. I also can think that the ultimate REALITY is far too complex for the likes of Homo sapiens to comprehend. We may in fact be viewing it…and not realize it. It may not be available for sensation to discern.

Why, Fresco and ci…are you two so intent on having your guesses about the nature of REALITY…and how it HAS TO BE viewed…prevail?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'll engage in discussion about reality with almost everybody except Frank. I hate merry-go-rounds. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'll engage in discussion about reality with almost everybody except Frank. I hate merry-go-rounds.

So why are you riding one?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

I suggest "reality" is (simply) a state of affairs with which those present in a particular context agree.

In these terms, I guess the question would be; what constitutes "reality"? The 'state of affairs' or the 'agreement'?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

. The fact that I can answer that I eat food and not the word "food", says nothing about the range of meanings/contexts that "food " can imply.

I have no interst in exploring the varied meanings of the word "food". All I wanted is confirmation that you know the difference between words and the things they refer to.

Since apparently you do, no more word games now. Do you think there was a universe before the apparition of life on this planet, yes or no?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
. The fact that I can answer that I eat food and not the word "food", says nothing about the range of meanings/contexts that "food " can imply.

I have no interst in exploring the varied meanings of the word "food". All I wanted is confirmation that you know the difference between words and the things they refer to.

Since apparently you do, no more word games now. Do you think there was a universe before the apparition of life on this planet, yes or no?

I guess that depends on the meaning of the words "yes" and "no." Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Do you think there was a universe before the apparition of life on this planet, yes or no?

Do you agree that either answer would be an assumption?

4 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cryacuz, I support your position against what is obviously the heart of naive realism. The "universe" as we perceive it did not and could not exist before we constructed it. Granted the raw existence of "something" has always existed, but that something is--for us--amorphous and meaningless before its construction by humans. Absolutists assume that what we humans perceive takes its meaningfulness (its human reality) not from us but from some independent "creator." In reality, we are the creators of our world, and I don't know why they should want to deny it.
This may be what Schopenhauer meant when he proclaimed "The world is my idea."

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Probably, but nobody really knows. This planet is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old, and life forms about 3.5 billion years old. Evolution has done wonders, but we don't have any idea how life came to be. They are all guesses.

The people who study this planet tells us that when this planet came into existence, it was impossible for life forms to exist on it.

JLN, Indeed! We are the creators of our own realities for whatever that's worth.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Re: Olivier5 (Post 5368280)
Quote:
Do you think there was a universe before the apparition of life on this planet, yes or no?

Do you agree that either answer would be an assumption?

The first would be a rational and logical assumption to make, the second an irrational and illogical one. I don't equate magic thinking and rationality, sorry.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I am not talking of the world as bacteria, squids or rats perceive it, nor of our mental, virtual world. I am talking of the world in which we all live. The real universe "out there".

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

O.K., "the world out there"--that's what I mean by naive realism. It's all a matter of perspectives and interpretations. Your half-world out there is only half-real. In my interpretive version I am talking about the dynamic interaction between the real universe "out there" and the real universe "in here"...their combination is my real world, a least for now.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

SORRY THIS SHOULD BE A REPLY TO OLIVIER

Quote:

Do you think there was a universe before the apparition of life on this planet, yes or no?

Notice that your demands for yes/no answers are demands for agreement and that is all the usage of the word "reality" is about.

Insofar that that proposition makes sense for current scientific/paradigmatic purposes . I can agree with it. BUT I am also aware that most of the subcomponents of that statement like "life" and "before" and "universe", are subject to the same nebulousness as any conceptual reference (food being an example). Therefore the only "reality" involved is constituted by my current contextual agreement. None of the components refer to "reality" in isolation, because no such agreement can occur without predication about a state of affairs. In other words it is meaningless to state: "The universe just IS" . We can only say "The universe is a concept involving X,Y,Z etc as agreed by current human beings".

And JLN's point with which I concur, might be stated in a form such as " transcendent reality"is constituted at the dynamic interface of inner and outer states, which co-define each other."

1 Reply

When someone has a religion that demands certain blind guesses be taken as facts...you can beat them over the head with the truth...and all they will see are the "facts" that their religious beliefs demand them to see.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

The "universe" as we perceive it did not and could not exist before we constructed it. Granted the raw existence of "something" has always existed...

This is a good angle. We think in terms of raw existence being "processed" through human awareness to become the universe as we perceive it.
Or processed through cat awareness to become the universe as cats perceive it.
But what if it's processed through no awareness at all?
Could such a hypothetical thing rightly be called "reality"?
From this perspective it seems to me that it's the 'processing' that constitutes reality. Both object and awareness become like yin yang, evoked by one another. To speak of either on it's own is meaningless.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

When someone has a religion that demands certain blind guesses be taken as facts...you can beat them over the head with the truth...and all they will see are the "facts" that their religious beliefs demand them to see.

Let me say this again:

When someone has a religion that demands certain blind guesses be taken as facts...you can beat them over the head with the truth...and all they will see are the "facts" that their religious beliefs demand them to see.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

When Frank has a religion that demands use of the word "guess" and leaves him ignorant about "facts" being constructions ...he will beat you over the head with this for several years...and all he will see is his certainty that his religious beliefs demand him to see. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

When Frank has a religion that demands use of the word "guess" and leaves him ignorant about "facts" being constructions ...he will beat you over the head with this for several years...and all he will see is his certainty that his religious beliefs demand him to see.

But as we all realize by now...Frank (Moi) does not have any beliefs. Name a single “belief” I have offered for consideration!

You do, Fresco—you do have “beliefs.” And they wear poorly on you.

All the "constructions" and "agreement" nonsense is offered just because it is needed for the argument to work.

Ptolemy did that back in the day. He invented all sorts of movements and physics that were needed for the Ptolemaic notion of the Solar System to work. It was bull.

Unless you are asserting that there was no REALITY...which is to say no Earth, Sun, planets, other stars, other galaxies...before Humans came on the scene to give their agreement...

...your "stuff" falls flat on its face. It doesn't need someone "ignorant" as (you think) I am to laugh at it and show it to have insurmountable defects. It falls on its own account.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The first would be a rational and logical assumption to make, the second an irrational and illogical one.

This is a matter of perspective, as I see it. In the context of old western natural science, I agree with you. You also seem to realize that rationality and logic aside, both answers to your question are assumptions.

1 Reply

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know