21
   

The Half-life of Facts.

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 04:16 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Given what I said about rainbows in my last post to you, in a reality where everyone was blind, would rainbows exist?


You are really beating this to death, Cyracuz…and it establish almost nothing of value in what is being discussed.

SOME THINGS require a human (or other species) in order to be.

A rainbow is only a rainbow if someone or something sees it. The light refraction will be there even if everyone is blind…but the rainbow requires an observer. A rainbow is not the light refraction…but the interpretation of the light refraction.

A tree falling in the forest may make sound waves (and light waves, for that matter) but if nothing living is around to hear and see them…then that part of the phenomena does not happen. The sound waves or light waves are not perceived…although every reasonable expectation is that the waves ARE there.

But because a few things fall into that category does not mean that a universal is implied. It does not mean that ALL things require an observer or a sensor.

There is no reason to suppose the center of a star can be perceived or sensed by any living thing…but we can reasonably infer that it is there. We can also reasonably infer that there are many things in this universe that no living thing has ever seen or sensed in any way.



Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 04:17 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I acknowledge regularly that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.


And yet you seem to know that it most certainly cannot be anything involving this experience, which from our perspective is inseparable from reality itself.


Where on Earth do you get this stuff from. When have I ever said or remotely inferred such a thing?

You have gone way off the edge on this thing, Cyracuz. I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYTHING THAT CAN REMOTELY BE CONSTRUED IN THE WAY YOU SUGGESTED IN THAT REMARK.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 04:19 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

That is a low trick you pull just because we have arrived at a place where my point is clearly communicated, and you see that it has merit.

A low trick? Not at all. I insist upon strict reciprocity when it comes to answering questions. Why would I do otherwise?*

Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
If "reality" is whatever we're experiencing, isn't that the same thing as "experiencing?" What's the difference?


I do not know. I have no way of truly knowing if there is a difference or not, because I cannot have reality without experience.

If there's no difference between "reality" and "experiencing," then you really are a brain-in-a-vat. As such, you have nothing to say that has any validity for me, considering that I am not a brain-in-a-vat.

Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
I know the Taj Mahal is real even though I've never perceived it. Do you think it isn't real?


No. I think the Taj Mahal is real. I think so because others have shared that experience with me, which was an experience in itself, in which I was made aware that there exists such a thing as the Taj Mahal.

I can't imagine why you'd put any credence in the reports of others. If "reality" and "experiencing" are the same, then what you haven't experienced isn't real, and it matters not that you can obtain experiences second-hand from others. You, after all, are a brain-in-a-vat; if you didn't experience it, it didn't happen.

Cyracuz wrote:
Those were your questions in your last post. Now will you answer mine?

Of course.

Cyracuz wrote:
Given what I said about rainbows in my last post to you, in a reality where everyone was blind, would rainbows exist?

That depends. Where is this land of the blind? Is it here on earth? Then I would say that rainbows exist, because it is a well-proven fact that rainbows exist on earth. Is it on another planet? Then I would say that it is unknown if rainbows exist. There are certain meteorological conditions necessary for the formation of rainbows that may not exist on other planets.

But whether rainbows exist is a different question from whether they are observed. You, evidently, don't think those are different questions, but then you still haven't come up with an adequate response to Thomas's example about bacteria before the invention of the microscope. A moment's reflection on that conundrum would demonstrate how faulty your reasoning is.


*That was a rhetorical question. Don't feel obliged to answer it.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 04:40 pm
@Cyracuz,
A loss for all of us? Oh now that's nice... but may I ask why? You really like **** for brain so much, huh?

And I am not 'but hurt', ****. I am appalled by my own naïveté... What was I thinking when I tried to patiently talk sense into you? I stupidly assumed that you were a rational and kind person, who would be worth discussing with. Imagine my disillusion when you started to resort to the lamest insults. Now I know, you're just a sad cretin.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 04:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
There is no reason to suppose the center of a star can be perceived or sensed by any living thing…but we can reasonably infer that it is there.


This ties to perception and experience. You can never get around that.
The core of a star cannot be experienced in the same way sunlight is experienced on earth, but measurements can be taken that allow us to experience data about the conditions inside the sun.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 04:59 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
What was I thinking when I tried to patiently talk sense into you?


At what point does this condescending attitude merit anything but a smack in the face?
You come in here and interpret my examination of an axiom to mean that I don't understand it, and must be educated.
You apparently don't understand the meaning or purpose of philosophic discussion, and have taken it upon yourself to "talk sense into me" as if you were the missionary of truth itself.
I take back what I said about a loss for all. You are just a butt hurt, sad little hater, as is becoming more and more clear the more you post.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 05:19 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
There is no reason to suppose the center of a star can be perceived or sensed by any living thing…but we can reasonably infer that it is there.


This ties to perception and experience. You can never get around that.
The core of a star cannot be experienced in the same way sunlight is experienced on earth, but measurements can be taken that allow us to experience data about the conditions inside the sun.


Cyracuz...every scientific discovery made during the last several thousands of years...is an example of something we did not sense before; know about before; and often didn't even suspect. Thomas' bacteria comment is an example.

Every indication is that the things discovered existed before we knew about them and sensed them.

You are on a losing roll here.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 05:29 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
You apparently don't understand the meaning or purpose of philosophic discussion

Oh please please enlighten me. What is the meaning and purpose of philosophical discussion? Beside the intellectual masturbation, I mean.

According to you guys, philosophy remains in the boudoir... It doesn't mix well with real life. No wonder it's not realistic.

Serious philosophers, on the other hand, consider that the purpose of philosophy is not to have fun with concepts in a gratuitous way, nor to questions things just for the fun of it, nor even to confuse the 'lay people' and make fun of them... but to teach us how to live. How do you live differently than a 'naive realist'? Anything you do that a 'naive realist' wouldn't do in REAL life?

If not, keep wanking.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 06:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
every scientific discovery made during the last several thousands of years...is an example of something we did not sense before; know about before; and often didn't even suspect.


...and each of these discoveries was not considered reality until they were actually made.
Never was it said that "what we know for truth now is wrong, but we will live by it until we uncover the actual truth".

Your reasoning sounds backwards to me.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 07:30 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
every scientific discovery made during the last several thousands of years...is an example of something we did not sense before; know about before; and often didn't even suspect.


...and each of these discoveries was not considered reality until they were actually made.
Never was it said that "what we know for truth now is wrong, but we will live by it until we uncover the actual truth".

Your reasoning sounds backwards to me.


I can understand that...because you are thinking backward, Cyracuz.

Who cares whether they were "considered" reality or not?

THEY WERE a part of REALITY no matter whether humans considered them part or REALITY or not.

You are arguing against your own position here.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 07:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
No, you are arguing from a position of "absolute reality". A premise we have previously agreed is non-factual, or assumed.

The way I understand you, you are saying that what kept us on the ground was the same thing before and after gravity was described, and therefore, gravity is part of reality regardless of whether or not humans can describe it.
That sounds reasonable.

But what if our idea of gravity is wrong?
What if a new theory is proposed in fifty years, making it plain that our old understanding of gravity, while functional in our current situation, is ultimately flawed?
That would mean that gravity was never part of reality. It was just assumed by us humans during a certain period of our history, and that was in fact the only place the idea of gravity ever held the status of 'reality'.

Do you see the problem?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 08:28 pm
@Cyracuz,
You are arguing that perception is reality. Our perceptions of how gravity works may change but it doesn't mean that the force we now call gravity no longer holds us on the earth simply because our perceptions have changed.

Perception is not reality, not matter how you try to spin it. If perception is reality then we could never predict anything simply because we have yet to actually perceive it. But we know that isn't true because it is easy to predict things.

Let me give you an example of how we can make a prediction. If you put 20 apples in a closed room that only has one door, you would predict that those 20 apples would still be in the room 20 minutes later if no one enters the only door. When you close the door are there still 20 apples in the room? If not, then why would 20 apples appear when you open the door? Can you give us one instance of the closed room ever producing less than 20 apples when the door is opened?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 08:57 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Perception is not reality, not matter how you try to spin it. If perception is reality then we could never predict anything simply because we have yet to actually perceive it.


Good thing I'm not arguing that perception is reality then.

Can you name one thing that has ever been predicted without having first been perceived in some manner or form?
Nothing, not even prediction, precedes experience.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 12:23 am
If my understanding of gravity ever comes to change in the future I can most certainly assure people I wont be throwing myself out of building windows because of it... Laughing
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 06:45 am
@Olivier5,
Masturbation feels good and has a natural purpose.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 07:09 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

No, you are arguing from a position of "absolute reality". A premise we have previously agreed is non-factual, or assumed.


I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided. Whatever IS…IS. That is the REALITY. There is absolutely no way to avoid it…because whatever the actual REALITY IS…that is what it IS.

Quote:
The way I understand you, you are saying that what kept us on the ground was the same thing before and after gravity was described, and therefore, gravity is part of reality regardless of whether or not humans can describe it.
That sounds reasonable.

But what if our idea of gravity is wrong?


In that hypothetical…our understanding of gravity would simply be wrong. Whatever is discovered new would be the REALITY. In that hypothetical…our current “understanding” of REALITY would simply be wrong. It would not effect the REALITY in the “then” or “now” context at all.

Quote:
What if a new theory is proposed in fifty years, making it plain that our old understanding of gravity, while functional in our current situation, is ultimately flawed?


That kind of stuff does happen in science. We think the world is pancake flat and at the center of the universe…and it is proven wrong. The REALITY was NEVER that the world was pancake flat and at the center of the universe…

…UNLESS THINGS ACTUALLY ARE THAT WAY.

Either way…whichever it is…that is what it is and always has been.

Quote:
That would mean that gravity was never part of reality.


Look at that sentence, Cyracuz, and see how close that comes to doing the kind of thing a theists does when cornered on some bizarre necessity of his/her belief system.

Quote:
It was just assumed by us humans during a certain period of our history, and that was in fact the only place the idea of gravity ever held the status of 'reality'.

Do you see the problem?


Yes…and I wish more than you can imagine that I could find a way to communicate it to you! But devotion to belief system, such as you are experiencing, is like a Star Fleet shield system…very difficult to penetrate.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 07:46 am
As the so-called “expert” originator of this thread I feel, rightly or wrongly that I should summarize what I consider to be the salient dynamic points about “facts” and “reality” which I have gleaned from my reading . Those who think I am a philosophical windbag should leave now, but those who stay may understand some of the issues better.
I have omitted references to ease the presentation.


As cognate animals we have a larger degree of control over the praxis of living than other animals appear to have, partially due to our use of a complex language. “Reality” is about successful control. When things go “right” we have no need to vocalise aspects of “the world” …this road…that car…my wife…etc. Such vocalizations only occur which the praxis of living is interrupted. Most of the time we run on automatic, unaware of a requirement to consider “reality”. Arguable most other animals are on automatic all the time. So most of the time it is as though this dynamic system call “oneself” is running like a train on well worn communal tracks we might call “reality”. Note that the tracks are not “the world” but only those bits of the world which matter to our smooth running. Our control mode kicks in when the experience of the flow is interrupted …we come to a junction in the track or even a dead end. At that point we enter into vocal dialogue (with others or ourselves) in which possible expectancies as denoted by words serve in our forward planning negotiation. In short, words are the internal manifestation or map of subsequent route options.
Thus words like “rock” and “spade” might be vocalised if we are digging a garden and our spade work is impeded. The context specific meaning of the word is related only to how to solve the functional interruption. Can the “spade” alone tackle it (notice that “spade” operates now as a possible “rock remover”rather than “a soil digger)….or shall I dig elsewhere (notice that the word “spade” need not be evoked in this case). In short the realities of “rock” or “spade” only arise in the praxis of our specific attempts to control our progress through the world. Without such attempts, segmentation of the world via language into “things” is meaningless because such segmentation could be limitless without the functional focus of the human involved.
So “reality” is concerned with the functional persistence of potential “things” (aspects of the track) as denoted by language, and “facts” are statements about successful route specification at junctions within our tracks. It is not about “the world” which allows for a theoretically limitless redevelopment of the track network.
Why do “facts” fail ? Because contexts/junctions of life shift as the track network (aka “reality”) develops or we (the locomotives) develop . Such development is the province of epistemology.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 08:09 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

As the so-called “expert” originator of this thread I feel, rightly or wrongly that I should summarize what I consider to be the salient dynamic points about “facts” and “reality” which I have gleaned from my reading . Those who think I am a philosophical windbag should leave now, but those who stay may understand some of the issues better.
I have omitted references to ease the presentation.


As cognate animals we have a larger degree of control over the praxis of living than other animals appear to have, partially due to our use of a complex language. “Reality” is about successful control. When things go “right” we have no need to vocalise aspects of “the world” …this road…that car…my wife…etc. Such vocalizations only occur which the praxis of living is interrupted. Most of the time we run on automatic, unaware of a requirement to consider “reality”. Arguable most other animals are on automatic all the time. So most of the time it is as though this dynamic system call “oneself” is running like a train on well worn communal tracks we might call “reality”. Note that the tracks are not “the world” but only those bits of the world which matter to our smooth running. Our control mode kicks in when the experience of the flow is interrupted …we come to a junction in the track or even a dead end. At that point we enter into vocal dialogue (with others or ourselves) in which possible expectancies as denoted by words serve in our forward planning negotiation. In short, words are the internal manifestation or map of subsequent route options.
Thus words like “rock” and “spade” might be vocalised if we are digging a garden and our spade work is impeded. The context specific meaning of the word is related only to how to solve the functional interruption. Can the “spade” alone tackle it (notice that “spade” operates now as a possible “rock remover”rather than “a soil digger)….or shall I dig elsewhere (notice that the word “spade” need not be evoked in this case). In short the realities of “rock” or “spade” only arise in the praxis of our specific attempts to control our progress through the world. Without such attempts, segmentation of the world via language into “things” is meaningless because such segmentation could be limitless without the functional focus of the human involved.
So “reality” is concerned with the functional persistence of potential “things” (aspects of the track) as denoted by language, and “facts” are statements about successful route specification at junctions within our tracks. It is not about “the world” which allows for a theoretically limitless redevelopment of the track network.
Why do “facts” fail ? Because contexts/junctions of life shift as the track network (aka “reality”) develops or we (the locomotives) develop . Such development is the province of epistemology.



If this is what you think summarizes what has gone on in this thread...you need serious help.

In any case, whether "philosophical" or not...you are a windbag. And for dead certain you ought take Howard Cosell's advice:

Eschew obfuscation!
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 08:17 am
@IRFRANK,
Masturbation is fine as long as you don't invite too many people to partake. Intellectual masturbation is the same...

But in fact, the post-modern have done far worse than just waste time. They have made possible a world in which truth is negotiable, up for grabs, and sold to the highest bidder. See how big oil manipulates the truth about climate change for instance. And it's logical: if truth is negotiable, then the guys with the deepest pocket and strongest negotiating position - ie big corporations - will negotiate it to their benefit.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 08:38 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Nothing, not even prediction, precedes experience.

Of course things precede experience. Things exist before you experience it. Life is filled with multiple examples of people being surprised.

Let me do another example with the apples.
If you put 20 apples in a room with only one door and then I walk in and carry out 5 apples, you can predict there are 15 apples left in the room. That is perception.

However what happens if you walk into the room and there are only 14 apples in the room? Your prediction based on your perception was wrong. The 14 apples left in the room existed when I walked out of the room, did they not? In that case the fact of 14 apples being left in the room precedes your experience.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 11:56:59