The Half-life of Facts.

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Here's a quote from earlier

Quote:
I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided.

And here is the definition of "absolute reality" again:

Quote:
: ultimate reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being

...

And as for what we are arguing, I believe you are the only one who has uttered words to the effect of " arguing that IT MUST BE THAT WAY AND CANNOT BE ANY OTHER WAY." Again I can refer you to that quote:

Quote:
I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided

How is that for paraphrasing?

An absolute or ultimate REALITY is a must. There is no way there can be anything else, Cyracuz. There is no belief in that...it simply is the way things are.

Let us suppose, for instance, that all of your guesses about REALITY are correct...that there is no reality without a human observer (or however else you want to phrase that)...

...THEN THAT WOULD BE THE REALITY.

There is no getting away from that.

There is no scenario you can devise that will eliminate an ultimate REALITY.

Try it. I think I challenged you to do so once before.

Create a scenario in which there is no ultimate REALITY.

It cannot be done.

Even the statement "There is no ultimate REALITY" would be describing an ultimate REALITY.

I do appreciate you actually quoting.

Now...work on correctly interpreting what was quoted.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

By the way...just got back from the golf course. Shot the best round in two months. I am walking on air! But I am going out to do the leaves...so that when Nancy gets home, I am not knocked off the air onto my ass.

0 Replies

Joe appears to be correct about Kant ideas on "reality", but Kant can also be considered to be an absolutist in spirit on the basis of ideas about "categorical imperatives" (aka "higher truths").

Cyracuz's argument about "a hypothetical Kant in the modern age" makes sense. Kant's impact was relative to his time. Recent philosophers of logic , such as Quine, have deconstructed Kant's views on the "meaning" of propositions to the extent that empiricists no longer feel themselves to be on solid ground. How Kant would cope with the "illogicality" of quantum physics is anybody's guess.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Joe appears to be correct about Kant ideas on "reality", but Kant can also be considered to be an absolutist in spirit on the basis of ideas about "categorical imperatives" (aka "higher truths").

The categorical imperative is a synthetic a priori proposition that applies to all rational beings. It's not a higher or absolute truth, in the sense of magnitude. It's a proposition arrived at from reason alone. At least, that's what Kant would say (or something along those lines).

fresco wrote:

Cyracuz's argument about "a hypothetical Kant in the modern age" makes sense. Kant's impact was relative to his time. Recent philosophers of logic , such as Quine, have deconstructed Kant's views on the "meaning" of propositions to the extent that empiricists no longer feel themselves to be on solid ground. How Kant would cope with the "illogicality" of quantum physics is anybody's guess.

Ah, the good old analytic - synthetic dichotomy. I remember reading Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" last year for my modern philosophy class. But, and this is what you seem to forget time and time again, Quine did not drive the final nail through the philosophical coffin of the ASD. It's alive and well my friend. Empiricists fashioned after the logical positivist movement may not find themselves on solid ground (as they should). But there's a whole slew of other positions you're just not taking into account that incorporate the ASD.

fresco wrote:

How Kant would cope with the "illogicality" of quantum physics is anybody's guess.

You can always ask some neo-Kantians. There are plenty around.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Good post. Yes, I think Rorty made the point of Quine "not driving the nail in".
Rorty's stance on the non-representational view of language allowed him to do some hammering himself. If I am not taking "certain positions" into account it is probably because my interest is in cognition (and the nature of observation), not "science" per se.

0 Replies

Re "reality", I've been staring at "hidden pictures" like this for years but have never, ever been able to see the pic inside, even when I'm told what the hidden pic is, eg "Happy New Year" so as far as I'm concerned it's all a big con trick because all i can see is a stupid wallpaper pattern.
Or maybe my superhuman brain refuses to be fooled?.. Wink

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/hny1.jpg~original

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Try crossing your eyes.

0 Replies

I've tried crossing my eyes and even my legs but no joy, it's as if my brain's telling my eyes- "On yer bike, you ain't fooling me!"

My brain in action-

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

I saw it instantly. I now have my eyes trained so that they go to the glazed position needed for this kind of viewing. I taught several people to view them...mostly by getting them to go very close up to the picture (almost nose touching) and try looking right through the pic.

I have no problem.

Of course, I do not have a super brain like yours.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

The part where you insist on Kant and Frank using the same terminology.

You misunderstand. I hadn't even mentioned Kant until you brought him up.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am merely pointing out to you that your use of the term "absolute reality" is not consistent with the definition.

Just as you pointed out to me that my use of the term "reality" was not consistent with the definition, except that you were wrong about that.

Quote:

Even the statement "There is no ultimate REALITY" would be describing an ultimate REALITY.

Except if the term is defined to mean something specific. You keep ignoring this.

1 Reply

Frank Apisa proudly proclaimed:- "I saw it instantly. I now have my eyes trained so that they go to the glazed position needed for this kind of viewing. I taught several people to view them...mostly by getting them to go very close up to the picture (almost nose touching) and try looking right through the pic"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alas, my eyes are like cats, they're untrainable. I'll psyche myself up to have another shot at it but generally speaking we holy men don't do "getting very close up to the picture (almost nose touching)" in case the electromagnetic radiation fries our brains

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

It's easy but it takes patience at first. Crossing eyes won't do it. You have to do the opposite: focus BEYOND the image, at approx. twice the distance of the picture, as if you were trying to see through the pic something located behind it. Allow the pic go all blury, don't allow your (reflex) focus on the picture. The desired effect happens when your brain superposes the left and right eyes' images IMPROPERLY, because you're not focussing on it but at a longer distance. It takes time and patience to make that 'improper superposition' thing work.

0 Replies

Olivier said; "It's easy but it takes patience at first....The desired effect happens when your brain superposes the left and right eyes' images IMPROPERLY.. It takes time and patience to make that 'improper superposition' thing work"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suddenly I'm..(gulp).. afraid..
I might give it a go, but as a migraine victim I don't like messing around too much with my holy eyes and brain in case it triggers another firework display in my eyeballs, so if anything happens my mates will be round to sort you out when you least expect them-

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

No pain no gain.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I am merely pointing out to you that your use of the term "absolute reality" is not consistent with the definition.

Just as you pointed out to me that my use of the term "reality" was not consistent with the definition, except that you were wrong about that.

Quote:
Even the statement "There is no ultimate REALITY" would be describing an ultimate REALITY.

Except if the term is defined to mean something specific. You keep ignoring this.

Cyracuz...whatever actually IS...IS. And whatever IS...is the absolute REALITY.

I do not know what the REALITY is...it may be one of the things we have discussed here; it may be a combination of them; it may be something so different from anything we can imagine that we have not even come close. But whatever it IS...that is what it IS.

The notions proposed by some philosophers which have humans (and their perceptions and considerations) at the center of REALITY seems to me to be on a level with the thoughts that once suggested that planet Earth was pancake flat and at the center of the universe. But...who knows???

I have no idea why that would be so difficult for you to grasp...unless it violates a tenet of a belief system that you consider inviolate.

I've been thinking you are simply refusing to get it because you consider me one of the lesser intellects here on A2K. But there are people way further up the ladder in that department than I who are also trying to get through to you...JoefromChicago, for instance.

Stick with your insistence if you must...our theistic colleagues do that. But if you are as logical as you suggest you are...you might consider re-evaluating your position.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Oh well... Rolling Eyes

The thing is just that when I referred to reality as "that which we experience, the situation we find ourselves in", which is true unless you believe you live in a fantasy world, you resorted to the definition of "reality" to argue against it.

You even had a name for it. For "defining a word to back a claim". Perhaps you could go back through the pages and look for it, because now it applies to you.

******* clown. Drunk

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You misunderstand. I hadn't even mentioned Kant until you brought him up.

I know you didn't. But, in response to me when I brought up Kant, you asked if he was using the same terminology as Frank. I don't see how that's relevant. Kant was using Kant's terminology. Does that make a difference?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Oh well...

The thing is just that when I referred to reality as "that which we experience, the situation we find ourselves in", which is true unless you believe you live in a fantasy world, you resorted to the definition of "reality" to argue against it.

You even had a name for it. For "defining a word to back a claim". Perhaps you could go back through the pages and look for it, because now it applies to you.

But what you are doing is to define REALITY in a way that simply suits your purpose...you are saying: Reality is what we experience...therefore reality is what we experience.

I am saying that REALITY IS...whatever IS.

Quote:

******* clown.

Sorry the strength of my argument is causing you to get so crude.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It is not the strength of your argument. It is the weakness of your comprehension.

Quote:

I am saying that REALITY IS...whatever IS.

Ye, you're like a broken record... made by a parrot.

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know