Reality is...

I rather suspect that "reality" is "whatever it is" -- and that we not only do not KNOW what reality is -- we probably are not even coming close with our guesses.

Some guess reality is everything that exists.

Some guess reality involves gods.

Some guess reality has no gods involved.

Some guess it is data, rules, or a combination of data and rules.

Some acknowledge that we do not know what reality is -- and acknowledge that it appears we do not have enough unambiguous, probative evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess.

I am part of that last group.

0 Replies

I should be very interested to know exactly why you are part of that latter group :-)

0 Replies

reality is whatever the majority decides it is even when the majority is a minority

0 Replies

What is the basis for that contention?

0 Replies

jamespetts wrote:

I should be very interested to know exactly why you are part of that latter group :-)

COMMENT:

COMMENT:

I am part of the latter group because I see that group as the ones who acknowledge the truth -- and who do not make inappropriate guesses.

I've been an agnostic for 35 - 40 years.

For most of that time, I have pondered the questions:

What is this all about?

What is the reality?

Are there any indications that I can KNOW what reality is?

Do any of the guesses about reality currently being offered appear to be based on evidence I have not considered and rejected as ambiguous and as non-probative?

Frankly, James, my answers to all those questions always lead me back to:

I do not know the nature of reality -- it appears we do not have enough unambiguous, probative evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess.

So my sense of truthfulness and my sense of ethics requires that I acknowledge all that to be the case.

0 Replies

I am not entirely sure if I follow the logic of your post. Of course, I accept the principle of uncertainty: that is a given in any such debate. What is being discussed is probability, not certainty.

But what you seem to be saying goes beyond this. Not only do you acknowledge that you cannot be certain of the nature of reality, you also assert that you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions about it at all. Is that not a judgment that can only properly be made after examining and quantifying the probative value of all relevent evidence, and deciding that none of it has any? If you have done this, then I should be very interested to see precicely how you have done this in relation to every component of reality.

Is your position, to clarify, that you personally are not in a position to be able to make a judgment on this matter, or that you have made a judgment that no-one will ever be able to make a judgment on this matter? If the latter, what is the probative value of the evidence that you have assembled to support that claim? In either event, is this a conclusion to which you come in any endevour, or is it something special to this question? If the latter, what differentiates the question concerning the constitution of reality in a way relevent to your calculations from questions concerning the content of reality, which I can only presume that you answer regularly? Is the difference qualitative or quantitative?

I am extremely eager to read your reply :-)

0 Replies

jamespetts wrote:

I am not entirely sure if I follow the logic of your post. Of course, I accept the principle of uncertainty: that is a given in any such debate. What is being discussed is probability, not certainty.

COMMENT:

We'll get into probability when it is appropriate. I've taken that into consideration. Just as I do not think there is enough unambiguous evidence for us to make meaningful guesses about reality, I do not think there is enough unambiguous evidence to suppose we can make probability estimates about reality either.

Quote:

But what you seem to be saying goes beyond this. Not only do you acknowledge that you cannot be certain of the nature of reality, you also assert that you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions about it at all.

Not so. For instance, I think I can draw the following meaningful conclusion about it:

I can meaningfully say that there seems to be no unambiguous evidence upon which to make meaningful guesses about reality.

That is not a play on words or a tautology. It describes a fairly substantive truth about reality.

Quote:

Is that not a judgment that can only properly be made after examining and quantifying the probative value of all relevent evidence, and deciding that none of it has any? If you have done this, then I should be very interested to see precicely how you have done this in relation to every component of reality.

I am not saying we CANNOT learn things about reality. We may be able to -- but from the evidence that I have seen -- there is no way to make a meaningful guess about reality from the evidence currently available. I specifically worded my comments in a way as to preclude the possibility that I am saying that knowledge is impossible to come by. I definitely do not know that it is impossible.

Quote:

Is your position, to clarify, that you personally are not in a position to be able to make a judgment on this matter, or that you have made a judgment that no-one will ever be able to make a judgment on this matter? If the latter, what is the probative value of the evidence that you have assembled to support that claim?

See above.

Quote:

In either event, is this a conclusion to which you come in any endevour, or is it something special to this question?

It is specific to Ultimate Reality questions.

Quote:

If the latter, what differentiates the question concerning the constitution of reality in a way relevent to your calculations from questions concerning the content of reality, which I can only presume that you answer regularly? Is the difference qualitative or quantitative?

I am extremely eager to read your reply :-)

I'm not sure what you are getting at in that last paragraph. But rather than allowing this to become an interrogation of me, why not specifically state some things (or a thing) that you think we can KNOW or REASONABLY INFER about reality -- and we can discuss that at length. Frankly, I don't think there are any that are substantial - but perhaps you can show me that I am wrong.

0 Replies

You have repeatedly said that you have judged "the evidence" incapable of meaningful assessment in relation to this question, but you have not gone any way towards explaining precicely what it is about the evidence (and to what evidence that you are referring) that makes it, in your contention, so incapable. What does so make it?

You have suggested that this state of affairs is specific to "ultimate reality" questions, but again have failed to advance any basis for this contention. What is it about questions as to the constitution of reality, as opposed to questions about anything else, that brings you to conclude that either they cannot be answered or you cannot answer them?

0 Replies

Reality is how each person sees it. It consists of the sounds, smells, and sights of what we think we "see" and learn. Everybody's reality is unique. c.i.

0 Replies

"reality" can be the pragmatic utility of ordinary life or it can be the bizarre abstraction given us by the likes of Plato/Aristotle.

0 Replies

Are you suggesting that reality is necessarily and definitionally subjective? Then in what sense do the subjects (those sentient beings who do the percieving) exist if reality is dependent on them existing first?

0 Replies

> "reality" can be the pragmatic utility of ordinary life or it can be the bizarre abstraction given us by the likes of Plato/Aristotle. <

Are you suggesting that either of these two things mean that reality is something other than data and rules? If so, precicely what and why?

0 Replies

i am only suggesting that "reality" is experiential rather than some kind of abstracted ideal. the ever ongoing quest for a "greater reality" is beneficial in an analytical function ie science which can translate to utilitarian purpose.

0 Replies

Reality is experiential? How do you come to that conclusion? Are you suggesting that for there to exist anything, something must experience it? Do you not accept that that proposition is inherently contradictory?

Are you further suggesting that reality is somehow defined in terms of value to humanity? Are you saying that nothing was real before there existed humans? Upon what basis do you reach that conclusion?

0 Replies

Without humans, reality has no meaning. c.i.

0 Replies

well as i am not philosophically bent, i do assume that what we refer to as reality is a human invention.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Reality is how each person sees it. It consists of the sounds, smells, and sights of what we think we "see" and learn. Everybody's reality is unique. c.i.

COMMENTS:

ci, that may be so -- but we really don't know. It is possible that there is a reality that transcends human senses.

Once again, it is POSSIBLE that everyone's reality is unique -- but it is also POSSIBLE that the reality is a single reality that has nothing whatever to do with perceptions of it.

We really do not know.

0 Replies

CI: By "without meaning" do you mean "without value"? "Meaning" can have more than one meaning in this sense.

Of course existance without life has no value: life is a prerequisite to value. But that does not mean that existance did not exist before life.

My post was not referring to value. It was referring to the essential constituents of existence that are not dependent on or connected to value. Value is unconnected to the question of whether realit is, as I suggest, data and rules, or whether it is something else as others have sought to suggest but not, it seems, to substantiate in any real way.

Dyslexia: Why do you assume that the reference to "reality" is a human invention? In this context, I use it interchangably with "existance" and "the universe". Does that make its meaning clearer for you?

0 Replies

I should suggest that not only is it possible that reality exists beyond human senses and perception, but that it is overwhelmingly probable that it does.

What are human senses (or indeed humans) but constituents of reality? If humans are not real, in what sense can what they percieve be?

0 Replies

Reality is...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know