The Half-life of Facts.

@Thomas,

Quote:

They wouldn't perceive it, but it would still be real. Reality is one thing, its perception by creatures is another.

See now, that is an assumption. You cannot know that.

And in the case of rainbows, we know they exist only in perception. They are clearly visible, and as such they are real. And yet, without perception rainbows would not exist.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

What alternative are you proposing, cretin?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

The wall is "real," therefore, because everyone agrees that there's a wall

.
When was the last time the question of "the reality of a wall" arose in your life ? That is a a fundamental point about the transience of context and the everyday usage of the word "reality". IGM's reference to "ordinary language philosophy" illustrates the point. I suggest you listen to it. I could but won't extrapolate further since I doubt whether you would be interested .

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

When was the last time the question of "the reality of a wall" arose in your life ?

Yesterday evening. A friend's child hurt herself while falling against a wall in our apartment.

Everybody agreed the wall was real, including the poor child. But that's only because we all have **** for brain, right?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

See now, that is an assumption. You cannot know that.

I'm not claiming I know it. But I'm assuming it, and if it turns out to be false I'll change my mind.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Via experience we know reality.

I agree.

Cyracuz wrote:

Reality is the world we experience, and only through experience can we know it. Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. You're not making any sense. "Reality" can't be both the perception and the perceived, yet that's exactly what you're saying.

Cyracuz wrote:

When we separate "reality" from "experience" and present "absolute reality" we are dealing with something hypothetical.

I'm not sure what "absolute reality" is, but if you want to say that the world we perceive is hypothetical, I don't have any problem with that. Kant pretty much said the same thing. But he also believed that there was a noumenal world out there that was independent of observers.

Cyracuz wrote:

Let's use rainbows as an example. They are real. They exist in reality as pretty much everyone has experienced.
And yet we know that without eyes to perceive it, the rainbow doesn't exist.
A rainbow is a phenomenon that occurs when eyes detect light that is fractured in moisture in the air. Everyone who has eyes will perceive the rainbow, but any creature without eyes would not. Would the rainbow be real to those creatures??

Yes, it would, so long as they rely on the evidence presented by others to substantiate the reality of those rainbows. It's the same as the Taj Mahal. I've never seen it, but many people have and they have convinced me that the Taj Mahal is real.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

What alternative are you proposing, cretin?

The alternative that making the distinction between "reality" and "experience" is unwarranted. We have no factual basis on which to state that "reality" happens outside of "experience".

But if you hold to the materialistic bias, this idea will not sit well with you. In that case you are the cretin, resisting inquisitive thought on the basis of defending what's familiar.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

"Reality" can't be both the perception and the perceived

Can it be the "unperceived"? And if it's unperceived, how can you know that it's real?

Quote:

But he also believed that there was a noumenal world out there that was independent of observers.

And maybe there is. My opinion is that such a world does not qualify to be called 'reality', since 'reality' is whatever we are experiencing.

And thinking of reality as a phenomenon of "world being experienced" is consistent with any definition of 'reality' we have, in any language, even if it is not consistent with the intuitive understanding of most humans.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I see . You sat around negotiating whether there really was a wall or not, did you ?
I think you would do better negotiating whether you really had "**** for brain" !
LOOK WHERE THE WORD "REALITY" IS ACTUALLY USED IN LIFE'S EXCHANGES, NOT HERE

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

My experience of you is that you are a total cretin incapable of logic. I trust that reality will sit well with you.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Of course I disagree. You're not making any sense. "Reality" can't be both the perception and the perceived, yet that's exactly what you're saying.

You put that much better than I did.

1 Reply

@fresco,

'In life not here'? You mean 'here' is not really part of life? Are you dead? Am I talking to dead people??? That would explain the brain deadness of some of them...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

My experience of you is that you are a total cretin incapable of logic.

Since "unexperienced reality" is an impossibility for us to experience, we cannot know that reality can be unexperienced. Do you deny this?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It is not possible to prove that reality happens outside of our experience of it.
Do you disagree?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Can it be the "unperceived"?

I don't know what the article "the" is doing in front of "unperceived" --- but yes, there may well be parts or reality that noone has perceived yet.

Cyracuz wrote:

And if it's unperceived, how can you know that it's real?

I don't know it. Whether I can know it remains to be determined. So what?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

If you are unable to experience reality or to 'unexperience' it, that may well be because you are a total cretin. How do you know you're not severely handicapped mentally, as compared to the rest of us?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It is not possible to prove that reality happens outside of our experience of it.
Do you disagree?

Short answer: Yes, I basically disagree.

Long answer: That would depend on your standard of evidence. I believe that the negation of your conjecture, that there is no reality outside of our experience of it, can be ruled out beyond all reasonable doubt. As Joe pointed out, if reality is only what each of us experiences, there is no reason to expect any consistency between each of our individual experiences. Empirically, though, we find a great deal of consistency, demonstrating there is something independent of our perception causing that.

To me, this is proof beyond all reasonable doubt that some form of reality is out there whether we experience it or not. I'm not saying it's watertight beyond all possible reproach, but I do think it's good enough that your continuing objections amount to heckling.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

How about you answer the question?

My guess is you won't, as it will demonstrate that my position is indeed sound, and you have **** for brains.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I assert that the word "reality" never occurs outside philosophy except in cases of disagreement about "what is the case". There is then an appeal to "evidence" which also is subject to agreement about "common experience".
All that is going on this thread, except for one or two of us, is an assumption that the word "reality" means anything more than its normal contextual usage and its possible value, by appeal to experience.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Short answer: Yes, I basically disagree.

Then kindly demonstrate to me how we can detect any kind of reality outside of experience.

Quote:

To me, this is proof beyond all reasonable doubt that some form of reality is out there whether we experience it or not.

The problem is, of course, that anything and everything we know and perceive about reality comes through experience.
We have no means of proving or demonstrating that there is any kind of reality outside of experience.

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know