The Half-life of Facts.

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

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?

Yes. About the term "absolute reality"... If you are using it in such a way that Frank is using it, which is simply combining the meaning of the two separate words, there is no contradiction.

But if you use the term "absolute reality" such as it is commonly defined today, there is a contradiction between Frank's two statements.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
"Absolute reality", as it is defined by Merriam-Webster, is an assumption. Do you agree?

Answer the question if you want our discussion to continue.

Of course I don't agree. Two reasons:

First, Webster does not define the term "absolute reality". Webster defines the term "reality". It just so happens that Webster defines it as an absolute thing.

Second, a definition is just a definition. To define something is one issue, to assume that it exists (or not) is another. For purposes of lexicography, there may well be no reality as defined by Webster, just as there are no unicorns as defined by Webster. But that wouldn't change what these words mean, and wouldn't entitle you to change their meaning whichever way you please.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

First, Webster does not define the term "absolute reality". Webster defines the term "reality". It just so happens that Webster defines it as an absolute thing.

Wrong. Check it yourself. Don't take my word for it. There is one definition for "reality", and another for "absolute reality".

One thing is the meaning you get by adding the word "absolute" to "reality". The philosophical term "absolute reality" is something quite different. Frank seems oblivious to that.

Quote:

But that wouldn't change what these words mean,

Agreed.

Quote:

and wouldn't entitle you to change their meaning whichever way you please.

I have not done this. I have said that reality is this thing we experience. The situation we find ourselves in. This very moment, as I am writing this post is REALITY.

That is not "changing the meaning whichever way I please". Or are you perhaps saying that reality is not these things?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Wrong. Check it yourself. Don't take my word for it. There is one definition for "reality", and another for "absolute reality".

Fair enough. I am not a subscriber, so I did not see this definition.

Cyracuz wrote:

That is not "changing the meaning whichever way I please". Or are you perhaps saying that reality is not these things?

I was referring to your earlier posts, in which you insisted that reality and our experience of reality are the same thing.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I wasn't insisting. I was saying we can't know if there is a difference. Not with the certainty needed for it to be fact.
But can you say what the difference between reality and our experience of reality is?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

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.

Oh...Cyracuz...you are allowing the heat to get to you. Perhaps you best leave the kitchen for a while...and go to your room 'til you are able to play well with others.

Sorry you have so little control. You may grow out of that.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I wasn't insisting. I was saying we can't know if there is a difference. Not with the certainty needed for it to be fact.
But can you say what the difference between reality and our experience of reality is?

No...and no one has to.

Certainly not I.

I have been saying right along that what IS...IS...and that is the REALITY.

And you have been insisting. You have been insisting that REALITY is only the product of what humans sense and experience...and assertion for which you provide not one iota of substantiation.

Me...I do not know what REALITY is...and I suspect you don't either.

The main difference between us appears to be that I am man enough to acknowledge the I do not know...while you will continue to insist you know what it is...

...and when called on it, will pretend you have not been insisting.

Hey...it doesn't make you a bad guy.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You have been insisting that REALITY is only the product of what humans sense and experience

No Frank.
I have been insisting that every time we interact with reality, experience happens. In other words, we do not know if reality can happen outside of experience.

And the heat is by no means getting to me. I recall a post in which you had some things that "had to be said" about fresco. This is the same thing. You do sound like a broken record, and you act like a ******* clown.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I wasn't insisting. I was saying we can't know if there is a difference. Not with the certainty needed for it to be fact.

Yes we can, because future perceptions can invalidate past perceptions. For example, the Ptolemaic worldview got invalidated when Galileo Galilei built himself a telescope and started looking around. Granted, Galileo's observation didn't prove that the truth of his new worldview was objectively true. But it did tell us that Ptolemy's old worldview had been objectively false --- all along. And yes, he could say that with the certainty needed to establish it as a fact.

Cyracuz wrote:

But can you say what the difference between reality and our experience of reality is?

Yes I can. For example, Galileo didn't change the perceptions from which the Ptolemaic worldview was derived. But they did establish that Ptolemy's worldview was false. (Really false, that is.) From Ptolemy's point of view, then, his perception of reality had been knocked down as a delusion --- a figment of his imagination that wasn't real. If experience of reality and reality were the same, Galileo and Ptolemy would have merely had a difference of opinion.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Ah...the old heliocentric versus geocentric worldview issue. One "fact" is that the heliocentric view is mathematically more elegant, and easier to picture. Another was that it was antithetical to religious teaching at the time and therefore potentially socially disruptive. But that is as far as the facticity goes ! The word "reality" cannot be applied to anything other than its evocation in terms of social consensus about experience or projected experience.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

BTW. With respect to your "realism" have you considered that we have been doing what we call "science" for a ludicrously short time in the history of humankind ? Despite its apparent spectacular success in advancing technology we are now at the point where many physicists say 98% of the universe remains "unknown". Who is to say that some future "Galileo" will not find "evidence" that knocks current cosmology into a cocked hat, and assigns our current big bang/dark matter researches to a shelf in some future library labelled "Phlogiston, the Aether and other Paradigmatic Curiosities".

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Yes we can, because future perceptions can invalidate past perceptions.

Only so far as there is experience in which perceptions happen.

Even Ptolemy's model would still appear sound if we had no telescopes or any of the other things that allowed Galileio to perceive more than Ptolemy.

Quote:

If experience of reality and reality were the same, Galileo and Ptolemy would have merely had a difference of opinion.

Not a difference of opinion. A difference in perception. Galileo and Ptolemy didn't have identical perceptions.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You have been insisting that REALITY is only the product of what humans sense and experience

No Frank.
I have been insisting that every time we interact with reality, experience happens. In other words, we do not know if reality can happen outside of experience.

So now you are claiming that all you have been doing is arguing that when we experience something…we experience something!!!!

That sounds desperate even for you, Cyracuz.

If you actually had been arguing that, nobody would be giving you any static.

But, since you do not have the ethical wherewithal to simply acknowledge that you have been wrong all along in what you have actually been arguing…and instead prefer to change your stance…I guess we can agree that (WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING ALL ALONG) neither of us knows what the REALITY is but whatever the REALITY IS…that IS what it IS!

Quote:

And the heat is by no means getting to me.

Actually, it does seem to be getting to you...and rather severely.

You just are not yet in a position where you can acknowledge it.

Quote:

I recall a post in which you had some things that "had to be said" about fresco.

Ahhh…I have said things about you that I have also said about Fresco!

Isn’t that a coincidence?

Sorta like me saying something to Tweedle dee and then saying it to Tweedle dum. What I am saying is: You guys obviously work for the same snake oil company…and I am saying I ain’t buying to you both.

No coincidence!

Quote:

This is the same thing. You do sound like a broken record, and you act like a ******* clown.

Perhaps. But right now I am doing it with a lot more class than you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you actually had been arguing that, nobody would be giving you any static.

True. No one except dimwits who misunderstand what I am saying because of their own vested interest in 1) having no beliefs, and 2) not being wrong, and 3) covering up the fact that said dimwit's conduct demonstrates his lack of comprehension.

What I have been saying ALL ALONG is that if every piece of knowledge we have of reality comes to us via experience, we cannot state as fact that there is such a thing as unexperienced reality. We can only assume it.

This is what I have said ALL ALONG, CONSISTENTLY and IN NINE MILLION DIFFERENT WAYS.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes. About the term "absolute reality"... If you are using it in such a way that Frank is using it, which is simply combining the meaning of the two separate words, there is no contradiction.

So Frank is consistent with his own terminology? Then what's the problem? If you can make up definitions, why can't he?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If you actually had been arguing that, nobody would be giving you any static.

True. No one except dimwits who misunderstand what I am saying because of their own vested interest in 1) having no beliefs, and 2) not being wrong, and 3) covering up the fact that said dimwit's conduct demonstrates his lack of comprehension.

I certainly am not a dimwit...and you really ought to work on class a bit. (Yeah, I know you hid what you were saying by not addressing it directly to me. An amateur move!)

Cyracuz, I do not do "believing."

I often am wrong...and I have no problem with acknowledging when I am.

My comprehension is fine.

I have not misunderstood you...you move your arguments all over the place when they are shown to be invalid...and then pretend that your new position is the position you have held all along.

Bad habit to get into, Cyracuz.

Quote:

What I have been saying ALL ALONG is that if every piece of knowledge we have of reality comes to us via experience, we cannot state as fact that there is such a thing as unexperienced reality. We can only assume it.

Actually, you have gone much further than that...and often. But rather than go back and show you that you have, I will enjoy the fact that you have to stick with your new position.

This new position I like much better than that other nonsense. Maybe you actually are starting to see the light.

Quote:

This is what I have said ALL ALONG, CONSISTENTLY and IN NINE MILLION DIFFERENT WAYS.

No you haven't. You have agreed with Fresco's position...and he goes way, way beyond that. This new position is a relatively new one...apparently occasioned by the fact that you are actually beginning to see through that other nonsense.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

So Frank is consistent with his own terminology? Then what's the problem?

It is a simple term that signifies a simple concept. Frank's usage is consistent with the general rules of language, but his usage is not consistent with the definition that has been supplied. That's when there is a contradiction.

Now he's catching on and making it out as if I've been saying something else. I'll let him get away with it too, if it can move on the conversation.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

This new position I like much better than that other nonsense. Maybe you actually are starting to see the light.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you perceive this new position to be, and we'll go from there.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It is a simple term that signifies a simple concept.

So is "reality," but you seem to think reality is the same thing as "experiencing." Don't kid yourself that Frank's the only one who seems to be having trouble with simple concepts.

Cyracuz wrote:

Frank's usage is consistent with the general rules of language, but his usage is not consistent with the definition that has been supplied.

Supplied by whom? By the dictionary? You're having trouble with that yourself, so I wouldn't be too quick to point fingers at Frank.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Supplied by whom? By the dictionary? You're having trouble with that yourself, so I wouldn't be too quick to point fingers at Frank.

What's the trouble, Joe?

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know