15
   

Reality is relative, not absolute.

 
 
fresco
 
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 01:41 am
This thread is in response to a challenge by Frank Apisa
Quote:
I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY.

We already have such a scenario because "objectivity" amounts to agreement among scientists on the collection and interpretation of their data. But that "data" and that "interpretation" are always directed and embedded in paradigms (methods of working and communication) which are subject to either gradual or revolutionary shifts. Scientists work on coherence of paradigms rather than correspondence with "objective truth". In short they want to know WHAT WORKS to assist the human quest for prediction and control. not the nebulous question of WHAT "IS". (See theories of truth) Such a scenario constitutes a major attack on "naive realism".
The psychologist/philosopher Piaget could be said to have encapsulated interactions between paradigms and data in terms of the microcosm of an individual observer and its "world". In Piagets description of "adaptation",the intellectual development of a child underwent progressive states of cognitive structure (schemata) which determined what constituted "relevant" data or perceptual input. That input then gradually changed the observer from state 1 to state 2, with the corresponding changes of state of what constituted the world/reality for that observer, and by extrapolation to a potentially open number of successive observer-world states.
Now this continuous interaction of "observer" and "world" cannot itself constitute what we call "reality", because that usage of the word transgresses its normal usage as a context dependent state of social perceptual agreement among conscious observers as to "what is the case", irrespective of whether that agreement about "is-ness" is transient or subject to negotiation. The interactive scenario I have outline is based on a picture of separation of a "consciousness" from "its world". But that separation is problematic for various philosophical reasons. For example, both reductionism and idealism would take ontological issue with that separation.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 14,504 • Replies: 344

 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 04:17 am
@fresco,
Is there a functional benefit to this viewpoint/knowledge?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 04:27 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

This thread is in response to a challenge by Frank Apisa
Quote:
I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY.

We already have such a scenario because "objectivity" amounts to agreement among scientists on the collection and interpretation of their data. But that "data" and that "interpretation" are always directed and embedded in paradigms (methods of working and communication) which are subject to either gradual or revolutionary shifts. Scientists work on coherence of paradigms rather than correspondence with "objective truth". In short they want to know WHAT WORKS to assist the human quest for prediction and control. not the nebulous question of WHAT "IS". (See theories of truth) Such a scenario constitutes a major attack on "naive realism".
The psychologist/philosopher Piaget could be said to have encapsulated interactions between paradigms and data in terms of the microcosm of an individual observer and its "world". In Piagets description of "adaptation",the intellectual development of a child underwent progressive states of cognitive structure (schemata) which determined what constituted "relevant" data or perceptual input. That input then gradually changed the observer from state 1 to state 2, with the corresponding changes of state of what constituted the world/reality for that observer, and by extrapolation to a potentially open number of successive observer-world states.
Now this continuous interaction of "observer" and "world" cannot itself constitute what we call "reality", because that usage of the word transgresses its normal usage as a context dependent state of social perceptual agreement among conscious observers as to "what is the case", irrespective of whether that agreement about "is-ness" is transient or subject to negotiation. The interactive scenario I have outline is based on a picture of separation of a "consciousness" from "its world". But that separation is problematic for various philosophical reasons. For example, both reductionism and idealism would take ontological issue with that separation.



So when are you going to create a scenario EALITY in which there is no objective REALITY????

You certainly have not done so here.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 04:42 am
Our reality is that we're trapped in squishy bodies on a spinning ball of mud that's flying through the void at 66,000 mph, without knowing how we got here or where we're going, I don't think anybody would deny that..Smile

Home sweet home..
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/starfield_zpsb2a298c0.jpg~original
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 05:07 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Our reality is that we're trapped in squishy bodies on a spinning ball of mud that's flying through the void at 66,000 mph, without knowing how we got here or where we're going, I don't think anybody would deny that..Smile

Actually I think a lot of people would deny that, but I'm probably not one of them. I would call what you describe our "Functional Realty". But as to whether it's our Baseline Objective Reality, I just don't know. And nobody else does either.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 05:17 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Our reality is that we're trapped in squishy bodies on a spinning ball of mud that's flying through the void at 66,000 mph, without knowing how we got here or where we're going, I don't think anybody would deny that..Smile

Actually I think a lot of people would deny that, but I'm probably not one of them. I would call what you describe our "Functional Realty". But as to whether it's our Baseline Objective Reality, I just don't know. And nobody else does either.


Amen!

Although that will not deter Fresco from trying to suggest that he does know!
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 06:10 am
But even if this reality that we all share is simply an illusion, who cares?
It's the only reality we've got..Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 06:29 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

But even if this reality that we all share is simply an illusion, who cares?
It's the only reality we've got..Smile


It doesn't matter at all, Romeo.

We all work and act as though there is no illusion...whether or not there is one.

But Fresco, here in this thread, is once again...AS HE HAS FOR THE DECADE I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS WITH HIM...mistaking the ability of humans to understand and describe REALITY...

...with the REALITY.

The REALITY...is whatever it IS...regardless of how it is the REALITY...and regardless of whether or not humans (and scientists/philosophers) are able to comprehend it and/or describe it.

Just cannot get that through the wall Fresco has built up in his "mind"...but I will not stop attempting to do so.
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 09:06 am
@rosborne979,
I believe most scientists are already aware that they are pursuing paradigmatic coherence. So the functionality,if any, is an anti-absolutist political one aimed at those who think that any cognitive paradigm is sacrosanct. In particular it is a direct challenge to those with a concept of" "ultimate reality" or "knowledge" divorced from human endeavour.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 09:09 am
@fresco,
I think I agree.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 09:13 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I believe most scientists are already aware that they are pursuing paradigmatic coherence. So the functionality,if any, is an anti-absolutist political one aimed at those who think that any cognitive paradigm is sacrosanct. In particular it is a direct challenge to those with a concept of" "ultimate reality" or "knowledge" divorced from human endeavour.


Still waiting for a scenario in which REALITY is not absolute (objective) rather than relative (subjective). You are not going to produce one...because it cannot be done. Instead, you are going to string words together to try to impress...rather than actually communicate.

Hey...it is fun watching you do it. That is why I have encouraged you in this direction for so long.
Wink
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 09:45 am
@rosborne979,
I agree with your unease with Romeo's "squishy/mud" description because on the relativity view all descriptions are related to paradigms if they are to be useful (or even meaningful). A description has no claim to be considered as part of "reality" in its own right. (All data serves a perceptual need). The "squishiness" seems to have little to do with any paradigm concerned with the functioning of a "cognate being". Indeed so called "neuroscience" is plagued with dilemmas about possible models for cognitive functioning. A "neural net" can be viewed in terms of logic circuitry, or a state transition machine, or even a device involving quantum interactions. Similarly the "mud" description is a far cry from particulate descriptions of matter, or cosmological models of universes.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 09:47 am
Quote:
This thread is in response to a challenge by Frank Apisa
Quote:
I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY.



When???
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 10:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
http://s27.postimg.org/o9mk48drj/Frank.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 10:06 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

http://s27.postimg.org/o9mk48drj/Frank.jpg


That, Fresco, is what you are doing.

You know that you cannot create a scenario in which the REALITY is subjective rather than objective...

...so you plugging your ears.

And you are using complicated phraseology and big words to bluster your way through the process.

Fun to watch! Wink

But I will continue to remind you that you have not done what you set out to do when you started this thread.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 07:15 am
@fresco,
The answer is simple, but to understand it is very complicated for many.

Reality is indeed absolute.

Our perception of reality is, on the other hand, subjected to several illusions.

But, wait! Illusions in perception mean that reality is objetive anyway, but that we perceive reality having difficulties to find out the proper perception.

The example given by another poster here about our planet traveling at 66,000 mph while for us on ground a satellite traveling at 7,000 mph appears to be something traveling faster than "us", is how our perception makes us fall in the trick of illusions. Actually, our planet in conjunction with the satellites are all together traveling at 66,000 mph, and this makes the "relativity theory" a fake, a theory based in misinterpretation of reality.

There is not a "relative reality", reality is absolute, so learn it, live it, love it.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 10:55 am
To put this thread, this charade of pseudo intellectual gobbling of understanding to rest it would have suffice to argue that miss perceptions are real !
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 11:26 am
It always amazes me how many wishing to contribute to a philosophy thread seem to be ignorant of the central themes of standard texts like Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", or Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations". Those well established themes (which are NOT in themselves difficult to understand) seriously question the utility of lay attitudes to concepts like "objectivity" and "reality" in ontological debates such as this. And to underscore the issue by another route, one needs only look at some of the more recent ascendant ideas in physics such as "non-locality", or the displacement of "space-time" as a fundamental substrate, to get a hint of the irrelevance of lay/common usages of the term "reality".

I would therefore be obliged if anybody wishing to make further comment on my assertion would take philosophical scientific developments such as these on board, rather than adopting vacuous postures.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 11:33 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

It always amazes me how many wishing to contribute to a philosophy thread seem to be ignorant of the central themes of standard texts like Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", or Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations". Those well established themes (which are NOT in themselves difficult to understand) seriously question the utility of concepts like "objectivity" and "reality" in ontological debates such as this. And to underscore the issue by another route, one needs only look at some of the more recent ascendant ideas in physics such as "non-locality", or the displacement of "space-time" as a fundamental substrate, to get a hint of the irrelevance of lay usages of the term "reality".

I would therefore be obliged if anybody wishing to make further comment on my assertion would take philosophical scientific developments such as these on board, rather than adopting vacuous postures.


You would be obliged???

What the hell does that mean?

Why should you be able to dictate what we must or must not know in order to contribute opinions to this thread...and how would our doing so obligate you in any way?

You initiated a thread here supposedly containing a response to my defying you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY.

So far...YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO.

Why not do so...then try to tell us what we must and must not do in order to disagree with you.

Jeez!


0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 11:55 am
@fresco,
In blunt straight forward terms you sir, are pathetic ! And that, rest assured, is the reality.
You don't have the vaguest clue on what you are trying to address...

PS - Although it tries Science makes no claims about knowing what reality is.
Don't confuse an epistemic matter with an ontological one.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Reality is relative, not absolute.
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2018 at 03:56:53