The Half-life of Facts.

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

My point is that each of these can only be determined by experience. That you exist and experience is a prerequisite for determining any of these things.

So I am not defining 'reality' as equivalent with 'experience'. I am saying that for all practical purposes, due to how we humans are, experience is a prerequisite of reality.

So you are saying there would be no reality without humans to experience it? Reality does not exist on undiscovered planets or moons?

0 Replies

I would say that the word "reality" is meaningless outside of human usage of it.
You are playing a psychological game when you remove "humans" from "undiscovered planets" because you are the human who is observing them "in your minds eye".

1 Reply

@fresco,

I think we are confusing awareness and existence. To say something does not exist because we cannot be aware of it is a bit arrogant. Did the world exist before I was born? I can't say with absolute certainty, but it that seems a valid conclusion. I understand the argument otherwise, it just seems like a moot point to me. The world would be way too complex for it to be otherwise.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

What IS...IS.

If reality is something then, what it is 'is' something.
If reality is something else, then what it is 'is' something else.
If reality is both something and something else, then what it is 'is' both something and something else.
If reality is neither something or something else or neither both something and something else, then what it is 'is' neither something or something else or neither both something and something else.

If language is ultimately meaningless then, 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless. Language as a tool to describe reality is useless and therefore meaningless and therefore 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless.

Unless you can prove that language is ultimately meaningful, when used to describe reality...

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Negotiation about what constitutes a mutually agreed statement of "what is the case" usually with respect to "what to do next".

Well, that's meaningless. You are, in effect, saying that people negotiate about the topic of their negotiation. That doesn't tell me anything.

What is the basis of their negotiation? In other words, from what basis can they start negotiating about "what is the case?" How do they know enough about "what is the case" to negotiate about it in the first place?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You define the context and I'll give you a possible scenario in which the word "reality" has meaning.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

I am saying that "existence" is relative not absolute, because that would beg the question of "reality". In short, what we call "self" and "world" are co-existent and co-extensive. (the non-duality position). Don't forget the "mind's eye" argument if you argue for " a world without observers".
Part of our experience of "the world today " is predicated on an acquired image of "a world before self was born". But note that time (as in "before") is a psychological concept associated with human experience.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

fresco wrote:

Negotiation about what constitutes a mutually agreed statement of "what is the case" usually with respect to "what to do next".

Well, that's meaningless. You are, in effect, saying that people negotiate about the topic of their negotiation. That doesn't tell me anything.

What is the basis of their negotiation? In other words, from what basis can they start negotiating about "what is the case?" How do they know enough about "what is the case" to negotiate about it in the first place?

I took you a while but finally you got to the heart of the matter on what they are not willing to discuss, and this is probably the reason why there is no point (there never was) in pursuing the debate any further. You will lack honest interlocutors on the opposite side to make it worth the trouble. I am in fact surprised you show up around in a sort of "la cage aux folles" thread, you must be getting soft...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You are confusing our perceptions of REALITY (actually, our ability to perceive REALITY) with REALITY.

Don't lay your confusion on me, Frank.

I was talking about your confusion, not mine, Cyracuz.

Quote:

Our actual ability to perceive reality is the only ruler by which we can possibly determine if anything is real or not.

Not sure how many times we will have to inform you of the difference between what you (or any humans) can determine...and what actually IS.

There MAY be stuff that no human will ever experience. Any stuff that does exist that humans cannot experience is still a part of REALITY.

Are there any living creatures on any planets circling any stars in the Andromeda Galaxy, Cyracuz.

Are you actually saying that any that MAY exist are not a part of REALITY because we puny humans cannot "experience" them?

I am delighted the entertainment value of your arguments is so great. That makes the interaction worth while.

Quote:

There is a difference between a projector and a projection.
That does not mean you can get a projection without a projector.
Perception/reality may exist in a similar relationship.
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying it might.
We cannot know.

Quote:
You, on the other hand, are limiting REALITY to only that which humans experience or can experience.

Why???

Because that is all we can be definitely sure certain exists. Everything else is fantasy!

In other words you are reverting to that past silly argument of yours that anything that humans cannot be certain exists...is fantasy???

C'mon, you are more intelligent than that. Or am I over-estimating your intelligence?

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You define the context and I'll give you a possible scenario in which the word "reality" has meaning.

I'm not asking about the meaning of "reality." You said that we don't have "objectivity," all we have are people negotiating about "what is the case." So, how do they know what they're negotiating about? How do they even know they're negotiating?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

What IS...IS.

If reality is something then, what it is 'is' something.
If reality is something else, then what it is 'is' something else.
If reality is both something and something else, then what it is 'is' both something and something else.
If reality is neither something or something else or neither both something and something else, then what it is 'is' neither something or something else or neither both something and something else.

If language is ultimately meaningless then, 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless. Language as a tool to describe reality is useless and therefore meaningless and therefore 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless.

Unless you can prove that language is ultimately meaningful, when used to describe reality...

This was really cute, igm. Wink

Anyway...whatever REALITY actually IS...that is what it IS...without regard to whether I am able to describe it.

Deal with that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

What IS...IS.

If reality is something then, what it is 'is' something.
If reality is something else, then what it is 'is' something else.
If reality is both something and something else, then what it is 'is' both something and something else.
If reality is neither something or something else or neither both something and something else, then what it is 'is' neither something or something else or neither both something and something else.

If language is ultimately meaningless then, 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless. Language as a tool to describe reality is useless and therefore meaningless and therefore 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless.

Unless you can prove that language is ultimately meaningful, when used to describe reality...

This was really cute, igm.

Anyway...whatever REALITY actually IS...that is what it IS...without regard to whether I am able to describe it.

Deal with that.

Also...

What you've said, 'whatever REALITY actually IS...that is what it IS' would work 'if' reality was a permanent unchanging thing but we are confronted by constant change i.e. impermanence... therefore, what is... never remains long enough to be labeled 'is'.

2 Replies

@igm,

No igm no...What reality IS IS in fact makes sure that it will be true that whatever IT WAS IT WAS...there is no contradiction. In fact change itself it is what it is. Change doesn't change. If anything change can only operate when you have an ESTABLISHED GROUND to work with.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No igm no...What reality IS IS in fact makes sure that it will be true that whatever IT WAS IT WAS...there is no contradiction. In fact change itself it is what it is. Change doesn't change. If anything change can only operate when you have an ESTABLISHED GROUND to work with.

If you understood the consequences and ramifications of impermanence you wouldn't say that... if there is 'no' duration then there is nothing substantial to label in the past, present or future... if you disagree that's ok... I'm not looking for your agreement but I won't be agreeing with your position as it isn't correct... ultimately... as something to say to pass the time it's fine.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Okay. I'll make it simple for you.

In the context of a murder trial (in the West) the members of jury assess what they have been presented with as "facts" or otherwise, and negotiate a verdict concerning the "reality of the guilt" of the accused, That verdict is part of a social decision procedure about what to do next.

But in the context of an Azande murder trial where "bewitchment" constitutes part of cultural reality, the guilt or innocence of the accused is (was) established by examining the entrails of a ritually slaughtered chicken, irrespective say of any witness statements about the accused perpetrating a murder. Neither the accused, nor the judges accept the "reality of guilt" unless their ritual rules out bewitchment of the accused by a third party.

The contrast of "reality of guilt" in these two context is not as diverse as it would seem at first because "mitigating circumstances" in case 1 such as "balance of mind disturbed" serve to inform the decision "what to do next". In short, "reality" applies not merely to "guilt", but to the social functionality of the whole trial process. And that process is the overall social paradigm in which the word "reality" operates.

I suggest that all everyday uses of "reality" outside of synthetic ontological and epistemological discourse are equally contextual.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Context cultural dependent concepts, distinct rule systems, or forms of social organization, are in no way proof against reality, although they can be proof of distinct circumstances and specificity s. In fact quite the opposite, reality can be measured from these particulars.
Dysfunctional behaviour within contexts is no different from anything else. When I use a nail when I should have used a screw, or a screw, when I should have used a nail, I will get precisely the same explanation for disfunctionality.

0 Replies

@igm,

I know quite well what I am talking about and that is precisely why I frame impermanence within spacetime...In a final Set what is is what it is or better put, past, present, n future, fall within a tape film which is fixed and permanent...the problem here bringing in confusion is that everybody assumes spacetime is a fundamental feature at the background, at the heart of reality, n thus from the error it follows impermanence seams unexplainable. But even change changes as it must within a specified frame field of function, in other words, even change it is what it is.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

What IS...IS.

If reality is something then, what it is 'is' something.
If reality is something else, then what it is 'is' something else.
If reality is both something and something else, then what it is 'is' both something and something else.
If reality is neither something or something else or neither both something and something else, then what it is 'is' neither something or something else or neither both something and something else.

If language is ultimately meaningless then, 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless. Language as a tool to describe reality is useless and therefore meaningless and therefore 'What IS.. IS'... 'is' meaningless.

Unless you can prove that language is ultimately meaningful, when used to describe reality...

This was really cute, igm.

Anyway...whatever REALITY actually IS...that is what it IS...without regard to whether I am able to describe it.

Deal with that.

Also...

What you've said, 'whatever REALITY actually IS...that is what it IS' would work 'if' reality was a permanent unchanging thing but we are confronted by constant change i.e. impermanence... therefore, what is... never remains long enough to be labeled 'is'.

Hello, igm.

THEN THAT IS WHAT IT IS! If impermanence is the REALITY...then impermanence IS...WHAT IS.

What is so difficult for you guys to finally get that?

That would be the objective REALITY...that REALITY is constantly changing.

By the way...we do not know that actually is what is happening. All of the "change" may be an illusion.

BUT...whatever IS...IS.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Okay. I'll make it simple for you.

I very much doubt that.

fresco wrote:

In the context of a murder trial (in the West) the members of jury assess what they have been presented with as "facts" or otherwise

How do they do that? Do they have to agree beforehand that they are facts, or that one person's facts are the same as another person's? Or do they have to negotiate about what constitute facts before they negotiate about the meaning of those facts? And if they have to negotiate before they negotiate, do they then have to negotiate what constitute the facts that constitute the facts before they negotiate what constitute the facts?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I fell for it again didn't I Joe... the infinite dribble of cheap rhetoric ! Smile

2 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know