The Half-life of Facts.

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The idea that objects depend on our conscience to exist is "less-assuming"???

If that is what you understood from my post you can't be paying much attention.

The way I see it, objects appear to us as we are capable of perceiving them. I imagine that is different for humans and for cows, for instance, but the perceiving is reality. We can not know if any of our facts are relevant outside the relationship of perception.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Code:If that is what you understood from my post you can't be paying much attention.

That, or you are expressing yourself poorly.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Might be. Either way, nothing I have said dictates that your clock should not exist were you not there to hear it ring.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

But you have to accept the limitations that your brain-in-a-vatness places on you - like, for instance, not having a basis for making fact-like statements that purport to be valid for anyone else.

I would argue that having experience, or existing, is the first and foremost basis for making fact-like statements. What other way of making fact-like statements do you suggest?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

nothing I have said dictates that your clock should not exist were you not there to hear it ring.

That's reassuring... but then I'm forced to conclude that my clock has an objective existence, independent of whether or not I am conscious of it...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

but then I'm forced to conclude that my clock has an objective existence, independent of whether or not I am conscious of it...

You are free to assume, of course.
But if it had objective existence, that would mean that any creature who came upon it would immediately know it as a clock and understand it's meaning.

But that's ridiculous. A dog does not understand the object "clock" and so to a dog no such thing exists, no matter how many rolexes it eats.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
but then I'm forced to conclude that my clock has an objective existence, independent of whether or not I am conscious of it...

You are free to assume, of course.
But if it had objective existence, that would mean that any creature who came upon it would immediately know it as a clock and understand it's meaning.

But that's ridiculous. A dog does not understand the object "clock" and so to a dog no such thing exists, no matter how many rolexes it eats.

Every religion...every "belief system" eventually requires that its adherents fall off the edge in order to defend absolute blather.

You would do well to finally come to grips with that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

This from a man who believes so strongly in his absolute reality that it's unprovable existence isn't even a matter of belief.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

This from a man who believes so strongly in his absolute reality that it's unprovable existence isn't even a matter of belief.

I do not do "believing", Cyracuz.

There is an ultimate REALITY...because there simply has to be.

The notion...there is no absolute REALITY...contradicts itself.

If there could be such a thing...that would be the absolute REALITY.

Surely by now you get that.

As the for the "clock thingy"...well a cat has no more comprehension of a clock than a dog...but almost every person devoted to caring for abandoned tiny kittens will recommend putting a clock or watch under a kitten's blanket to simulate the beating of the mother cat's heart. It calms the kitten.

The clock has a reality for the kitten despite not being able to know what it actually is.

You are forcing these absurd explanations because your belief system requires this bizarre defense of you.

You are better than this, Cyracuz. Any thinking person is.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There is an ultimate REALITY...because there simply has to be.

The notion...there is no absolute REALITY...contradicts itself.

There is a God...because there simply has to be.
The notion...there is no God...contradicts itself.

Sound familiar? How many times have you heard that through the course of your life?

I get what you are saying, Frank. But I don't buy it. You keep insisting that there has to be something beyond our senses, and you call that reality. Something that by definition we can never see or hear or sense or experience in ANY way.
Something you can only imagine exists.
And you think that is a more fundamental reality than our direct and immediate experience?

Sounds kind of... backwards.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
There is an ultimate REALITY...because there simply has to be.

The notion...there is no absolute REALITY...contradicts itself.

There is a God...because there simply has to be.
The notion...there is no God...contradicts itself.

Sound familiar? How many times have you heard that through the course of your life?

The two do not even resemble each other...and you know that.

If there is no absolute REALITY...then that would be the absolute REALITY. It is like the sentence: This sentence is false.

It cannot be.

But if there is no GOD...there is no GOD.

You are doing what I suggested before, Cyracuz...forcing these absurd explanations because your belief system requires this bizarre defense of you.

Quote:

I get what you are saying, Frank. But I don't buy it.

How can you not buy it?

Try making "There is no absolute REALITY"...work...without making that the absolute REALITY.

It cannot be done.

Quote:

You keep insisting that there has to be something beyond our senses, and you call that reality. Something that by definition we can never see or hear or sense or experience in ANY way.
Something you can only imagine exists.
And you think that is a more fundamental reality than our direct and immediate experience?

Sounds kind of... backwards.

I never said any of that stuff, but we can get to that after you at least try making...

"There is no absolute REALITY"...work...without making that the absolute REALITY.

If you can do that...we'll move on.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

But if it had objective existence, that would mean that any creature who came upon it would immediately know it as a clock and understand it's meaning.

Non sequitur. Objective existence just means that the clock continues to exist in the world independently of my conscience of it or lack thereof.

It doesn't mean it is understandable to all creatures in the same manner. A dog might find it funny to play with, a microbe may think of it as a nice habitat, and an antiquarian may assess its value on the market but I, personally, use it as a clock and call it a clock. But whether it is a toy for the dog or a house for the microbe, it keeps existing even when I, the dog, and the microbe forget all about it. It is a durable object, not a dream or a word or a theory.

In that sense, I am a realist, and if you think that my clock keeps existing when I am asleep, you're a realist too. Sorry about that.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I would argue that having experience, or existing, is the first and foremost basis for making fact-like statements. What other way of making fact-like statements do you suggest?

I don't disagree, but the problem you have as a brain-in-a-vat is that you can't make those kinds of fact-like statements for anyone other than yourself. So, for instance, when you state:

Cyracuz wrote:

We cannot know that there is an objective reality. We can only know that we experience a reality that seems to persist with or without us.

the inevitable response is: who is this "we" you are talking about? It may very well be that you, as a brain-in-a-vat, can't know that there is an objective reality -- indeed, I'm quite inclined to agree that you can't -- but you also can't presume to know that there isn't an objective reality for anyone else. In fact, you can't presume that everyone else is likewise a brain-in-a-vat. As you must concede, your brain-in-a-vatness prevents you from knowing whether anyone else is similarly situated. For all you know, you are the only brain-in-a-vat. That limits you to making fact-like statements about yourself -- and those fact-like statements are, as you admit, largely unreliable.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How can you not buy it?

Try making "There is no absolute REALITY"...work...without making that the absolute REALITY.

It cannot be done.

This is semantic trickery. If the absolute reality is that the idea we call REALITY refers to the immediate experience we all agree we're having, it is not immediately a given that there is any kind of reality outside such experience.

That is not to say that there is nothing, only that whatever that might be in no way merits the description REALITY. It is fantasy. Belief.
REALITY is what we can access and experience, and the accessing and experiencing is what makes it real, not it's mythological status of absoluteness.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
How can you not buy it?

Try making "There is no absolute REALITY"...work...without making that the absolute REALITY.

It cannot be done.

This is semantic trickery. If the absolute reality is that the idea we call REALITY refers to the immediate experience we all agree we're having, it is not immediately a given that there is any kind of reality outside such experience.

That is not to say that there is nothing, only that whatever that might be in no way merits the description REALITY. It is fantasy. Belief.
REALITY is what we can access and experience, and the accessing and experiencing is what makes it real, not it's mythological status of absoluteness.

You are letting your belief system run you, Cyracuz.

Whatever actually IS...IS.

That is the REALITY.

The person playing word games and fooling with semantics here is you, Cyruacuz...and you are only fooling yourself.

Try making:

"There is no absolute REALITY"...work...without making that the absolute REALITY.

You will see that you cannot do it!

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

the problem you have as a brain-in-a-vat is that you can't make those kinds of fact-like statements for anyone other than yourself.

Quite so. The best I can do is describe what I experience, then compare that to what others have described, and so we arrive at the most efficient descriptions and truest statements.

Quote:

That limits you to making fact-like statements about yourself -- and those fact-like statements are, as you admit, largely unreliable.

Which is why it is good to have a method requiring any experiment to be repeatable by anyone, and only if the results are as predicted the majority of the time can we allow ourselves to speak of fact.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You will see that you cannot do it!

I just did. Pay attention. Here it is again:

Quote:

If the absolute reality is that the idea we call REALITY refers to the immediate experience we all agree we're having, it is not immediately a given that there is any kind of reality outside such experience.

Did you get it?
Let me rephrase it. If reality is defined as a relationship, then that relationship is the absolute reality. Then you cannot speak of any reality outside of that relationship. Whatever might be outside that relationship would not be in the category REALITY.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You will see that you cannot do it!

I just did. Pay attention. Here it is again:

Quote:
If the absolute reality is that the idea we call REALITY refers to the immediate experience we all agree we're having, it is not immediately a given that there is any kind of reality outside such experience.

Did you get it?
Let me rephrase it. If reality is defined as a relationship, then that relationship is the absolute reality. Then you cannot speak of any reality outside of that relationship. Whatever might be outside that relationship would not be in the category REALITY.

Cyracuz...are you asleep?

If what IS...IS that if reality is defined as a relationship (very arbitrary, by the way), then that relationship is the absolute reality.

Yeah...in that case, that would be the absolute REALITY.

How is this useful in you showing there is no absolute REALITY?

Quote:

Then you cannot speak of any reality outside of that relationship.

Okay...then just don't. I haven't so far.

Quote:

Whatever might be outside that relationship would not be in the category REALITY.

Don't know what that means.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How is this useful in you showing there is no absolute REALITY?

It is useful in establishing reality as a phenomenon of relationship.
It is useful in explaining why anything outside that relationship would be outside the domain or claim to relevancy of any fact known to humans.

That is why we can say that without humans, there would be no objects or events. We are not speaking about whatever is perceived as objects or events.
What it means is that the categories and criteria we know and use would not exist without us. And without these categories and criteria, how do you propose to identify anything as object or event?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

If reality is defined as a relationship, then that relationship is the absolute reality.

You keep doing this. You seem to think that you're entitled to define terms in a debate to suit your thesis, and that you can therefore contradict others on that basis. That's nonsense. It's especially nonsense as English is not your native language.

This is Merriam-Webster's definition of reality:

Quote:

the true situation that exists : the real situation

: something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc.

More than that, when they break down a more detailed definition, their definition number two, b. reads:

Quote:

b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

As i pointed out before, you don't get to have your own definitions. What's pathetic is your question begging. You adopt a position, and then you simply define your terms to support your thesis.

You've got nothing here without your idiosyncratic and wrong definitions.

0 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know