truth
Rosborne, a comment on your statement quoted by Frank, i.e., "...most people treat their perception of reality as reality without ever noting that there might be a difference between the two." I want to quibble again, because that's mostly what these threads are about. My perception of reality may not be what the majority's perception might be, and as C.I., notes, that might identify me as insane only by definition imposed by the majority. Insanity is more than a statistical phenomena. It has to do with clinical forces and conditions. That's not my point, however. I just want to distinguish between "reality", that which is not of my making, and my constructions of reality. And the only way I can engage objective reality is by interpreting it; in so doing I create my perceptions of it. My perception may not be what other's perception might be, but that does not mean that what appears to me and the appearance others have are the difference between my subjective perception and "objective" reality. Reality (as in Kant's noumena) and my perception/interpretation of "it" (as in Kant's phenomena) is what I mean by reality and perception, not MY perceptions vs. other people's perceptions.
Hi JL,
Sanity is clearly a relative concept. We judge sanity intuitively by comparing others to our own standards, but what if our standards are in question as well?
Sanity can be estimated to various degrees, but there must be at least some minimum standard which must be met.
We need to measure against something which is outside of ourselves, and which affects everyone and everything equally.
I suggest that survival (random accidents not withstanding) is a reasonable common denominator. ie, if someone is too insane to eat or avoid walking off a cliff, then they fail the survivability test. Likewise if someone is too insane to exist in a social structure which is necessary to their effective survival (need for food and clothing and warmth), then they could also fail the survivability test.
Is survival a reasonable minimum test for sanity?
truth
Rosborne, yes, I agree. But my comments were not about the nature of insanity (I should not have mentioned it at all). I only wanted to note the two ways of addressing the question of perception and reality, a psychological one (the one you raised) and a philosophical one (the one I raised).
I would suggest that our presence be proof of our physical survival. Do we have a higher presence to acclaim?
Some in insane asylums are people with special skills and knowledge, but for whatever reason are unable to live with the rest of society. The movie "A Beautiful Mind" is a good example of such individuals. It's a complex subject for sure; I'm sure most of us that discuss this subject does so with limited knowledge. c.i.
Hi JL, I think I understand your point. I shouldn't have used the work "Sanity" in my previous post. Please try using "Perceived Reality" in place of "Sanity" in my previous post.
I'm suggesting that even in philosophy when dealing with perceived realities, some measure of "reality" must be taken, otherwise everything is just fantasy. I know this is an assumption, but it's an assumption which has a characteristic which can be measured against other assumptions; it's ability to promote survival.
Philosophy is intended to be something more grounded than just fanciful fiction, isn't it?
jl
I don't want to comment on the "insanity" portion of this thread -- but you comments on Rosborne's comment (which I quoted) seems to want to indicate a difference -- but without a difference actually being presented.
Perceptions of reality are one thing.
Reality MAY BE something else entirely.
We really do not know -- because knowledge of the true nature of reality is hidden from us.
Reality may be all this stuff around us -- and our perceptions of it.
But then again -- reality may be something altogether different.
We do not know.
But to suppose that one's perceptions of reality actually are reality is illogical.
Frank, You trying to confuse me again? LOL c.i.
truth
Frank, you didn't quite grasp my point(s). Let me try to be more thorough, if I can. The "reality" I was talking about is not the APPEARANCES of it held by others (the outside, therefore "objective" world) vs. the internal appearances/perceptions of the subjective mind. I was talking about the notion of objective reality or the "thing in itself" of Kant (noumena). I was not talking about "perceptions of reality," as if one were taking a photograph which, when developed, accurately depicted the appearance of reality as it actually is. There is no "actually is" in this sense. Objective reality to me is "that which is". Simply that and no more. And my interpretations and constructions of the world that is--the thing in itself which we can never know, because in its so-called "raw" form it is, as you say, hidden from us. But we can construct our version of it and thus create our world of appearances. This world of appearances is VERY REAL in itself. It is a result of the interactive combination of two sides of one epistemological coin: whatever is hidden and our cultural and neurological capacities to "realize" it as human perception. I presume this is similar to Fresco's "interactionist" model of human cognition. I have yet to receive confirmation or correction from him. But I hope this resolves our differences here.
I am definitely not trying to be argumentative here, JL, but I still have issues with your position (or my perspective of your position) -- and I'd like to see if they can be resolved.
Essentially what I am saying is this:
There is a tautology that is apropros: Whatever IS, IS!
The REALITY of existence IS the reality of existence.
We honestly do not know what that reality is.
The REALITY may be that what we see is what we get, so to speak. What appears to be reality -- actually is reality. There is an Earth; a solar sytem; a galaxy; a universe; people; things; etc.
But that may be very, very far from the truth.
The REALITY may be that only one consciousness exists (the consciousness you call "you" -- and everything else is a result of and a function of that one consciousness.
The REALITY may be that several consciousnesses exist -- and there is an interaction occurring that is sub-level to what we see as the "real world."
The REALITY may be something so distant from what we can perceive in our just-resently-decended-from-the-trees state of evolution -- something not even akin to the few possible realities I've just mentioned above -- that we cannot even fathom a hint of it.
In any case, each of us (or so it seems) has a concept of reality.
Your concept (or my concept; or Fresco's concept; or Rosborne's concept) of reality may coincide in most ways with the actual reality of WHAT IS.
But there is no way we can know that.
So when I offered a second to Rosborne's comment "...most people treat their perception of reality as reality without ever noting that there might be a difference between the two" ...
...I did so in recognition of all that.
Now you have written:
"The "reality" I was talking about is not the APPEARANCES of it held by others (the outside, therefore "objective" world) vs. the internal appearances/perceptions of the subjective mind. I was talking about the notion of objective reality or the "thing in itself" of Kant (noumena). I was not talking about "perceptions of reality," as if one were taking a ..."
But to be honest, JL, (and once again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just sharing my PERCEPTIONS of what you are saying) it appears you ARE talking about the "appearances" -- about CONCEPTS of reality -- which MAY OR MAY NOT coincide with what the actual REALITY IS.
Do I make myself clear?
I want to acknowledge that I may simply not be able to comprehend what you and Fresco are offering. My undergraduate work was in economics, but I went to a Lutheran school, and religion and philosophy were required to the point where one almost had to major in them as well as in the choice major. But that was a lifetime ago!
If you still think I am misunderstanding you, please come back at me. And if anyone else sees where the differences are, jump in. This is very interesting stuff.
Wouldn't it be great if we could transmit whole concepts from one mind to another without having to model them in language and then babble them across space, only to hope that they are reconstructed by the reader back into the original form in which they were intended.
Language is fairly effective when we have to talk about a tree or a rock. We can quantify those concepts because they have learned assignments through mutual reference to a common target.
But thoughts may not have an external reference at all. Even those which are not unique to any individual mind, may only exist by shared and refined analogy; a kind of cultural or societal thought.
How shocking it must have been for Helen Keller, when her mind finally recognized the concept of an external existence outside of herself. I wonder... what is it that we don't yet see?
Did HK realize that the day they rearranged her furniture?
Here's a reality we all understand. Don't put your hand on a hot stove.
c.i.
truth
Frank, I've read through your thoughtful response, and I will need time to respond to it. BYW, I appreciate your approach here. It makes me want to work at the issue more seriously. For now let me just suggest one little correction. When I said reality is what is. I also meant to suggest something like "reality is what is the case in actuality, even if we can never know it". I did NOT mean to say that "what is, is." That would not be even suggesting much. I'll get back to you.
truth
O.K., Frank, here it is. First, let me say that your argument is extremely reasonable. You lay out possiblities that are: we may not know what reality is, you say. Here I agree. We DO know reality in a direct way, because our very existence is its expression. But we are not able to capture its nature conceptually. And this is probably because of our low evolutionary status (interesting notion: we are at the top of the evolutionary success-scale, as far as we know, but we are aware (at least you are) of our lowliness in terms of our evolutionary potential. Now when you note the possibility of our common sense notions of reality, i.e., that there IS a planet earth, solar system....people and other things, etc., I must take pause. "Naive realism", the perspective that what we see in the world is completely the reality of the world: trees, rocks, people, nation states, ovens that we must keep our heads out of, etc. (this common sense perspective) is very powerful because it is the one we ALL live by in our everyday existence. But PHILOSOPHICALLY--when we want to understand what is outside of Plato's cave--there are other conceptual possibilities that are far more interesting. I sometimes think that the only reason we engage in metaphysical philosophy is to render our reality more interesting than it appears to be in our mundane common sense lives. You also present the possibilities that reality may consist of only one consciousness (solipcism)--which is totally alien to my thinking--and the alternative that there may be "other minds" out there with whom we interact. THAT'S more consistent with my (and I'm sure your) experience. It's confirmed by the fact that you and I (ostensibly distinct minds) are trying to integrate our consciousness at this very moment. And it is at this level that sociological philosophers argue that reality is socially constructed (you and I are doing are making that constructive effort right now, and it rests on the zilllion past interactions of ancestors as they invented and contributed to our language and culture). But I ultimately agree with you that WE DON'T KNOW. I am as certain as I can FEEL that there is no "God", hence I call myself an atheist (theism makes no sense to me) but I am a philsophical-epistemological agnostic (or skeptic) in that, while I DO believe in the "existence of reality and the universe", I do NOT KNOW--and assume I cannot know--what that means precisely. But this ignores one other possibility: that there is, IN A SENSE, only one mind in the universe (Hegel, Vedanta, Zen and the contributions of A2Ker Tywvel are relevant here). And it is not mine. My mind may be referred to as "little mind" and this True Mind, may be referred to as Big Mind. This Big Mind (the collectivity of little minds, perhaps--I would like to think it is more than that--(this monism) suggests that all consciousness consists of a pattern roughly analogous to the many facets of an enormous diamond. We are expressions of the universe observing itself. Hence Tywvel cannot find the observer of his experiences. It is not Twyvel, he realizes. For when he looks at the observer, the feeling of self-observing self, he realizes that something else is observing that self.....anyway, that's another thread.
truth
Rosborne. But in deference to Frank's truth, I (we) really do not KNOW this to be so. It is, however, a working hypothesis that is consistent with my many little intuitive grasps of what's happening each moment of my life. They may be delusional intuitions, for all I know. But I don't think so--and I don't mean that I am merely GUESSING that it is not so. It REALLY feels that it is not so. So by confessing to Frank that I really do not "know" this to be so, I am talking about a kind of knowing and certainty that must rest on scientific testing and proofs. That's a very different realm of knowlege from that which is known as "mystical understanding." They are both valid, as far as I am concerned, having to do perhaps with different sides of the brain (THAT's a guess, Frank).
JL
Wow!
A lot of very interesting observations and interpretations to digest.
I like to read these kinds of posts over several times before commenting in any extensive way, but I also like to share "what comes up for me" during my first reading. To me, it is a bit of free association -- since I don't do much in the way of analysis during the first reading of something complex.
A weird thing came to mind while reading your post. A challenge that I'm sure you (all of you) have heard in the past.
It goes:
Prove to me that you did not come into existence for the first time just a few seconds ago -- complete with all your supposed memories.
Not the kind of challenge I would want to take up -- nor even one that I would want to consider seriously except for the humor and ironic components.
But I am wondering why that particular thought came to mind?
What did you write that caused those particular synapses to fire?
The reaction came early on. In fact, I had to purposefully put it out of mind so I could consentrate on what you were saying.
Your first thought was:
Quote:You lay out possiblities that are: we may not know what reality is, you say. Here I agree. We DO know reality in a direct way, because our very existence is its expression. But we are not able to capture its nature conceptually.
I'm gonna ponder and cogitate.
And eat dinner.
I may be back tonight -- maybe tomorrow.
I hope others comment on your remarks before I do.
Hi JL,
I "know" that
We cannot know (in an absolute sense) anything for certain. To me this is a given, and a tautology, so I usually avoid hedging all my statements against it. Otherwise it's like adding "beyond a reasonable doubt" to every thought I ever try to express. To me, "beyond a reasonable doubt" goes without saying.
I'm more inclinded to functional knowledge, and to deductive probability for generating engaging discussion
Best Regards,
