Reality is relative, not absolute.

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.

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..

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.