|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 02:01:26 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert.....
| There are two kinds of "reality." The internal, mental one--or subjective reality. Then there is the external, objective reality which is independent of minds. |
One can only imagine or speculate - using one's mind - about an external, objective reality that has not yet been discovered and verified.
So how is it possible to demonstrate the existence of an "external, objective reality that is "independent of minds"?
It could maintained that one could not even speculate about such a reality, much less imagine or define it without involving at least one and probably many minds. And such involvement of mind would contradict the definition of that kind of reality - namely that it is independent of minds
Is this an epistemological paradox? |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/24/2009 : 04:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by bngbuck
At one point, I asked him if he considered conjurer's illusions to be "reality" in the normal sense of the word. He answered with a question to me, "Do you consider a rainbow to be real?" I responded simply, "yes". His response was, "So do I!" Make what you will of it. |
What a conjurer does, he does within the confines of reality. It is an illusion, a trick, by any objective standards, but the target may percieve it as real. From a personal, egocentric point of view, it could be considered real by the target.
|
Originally posted by filthy
In the eye of the beholder, then? I've always thought so with the caveat that some eyes have a clearer perception than others.
|
"Perception is reality"??
Reality is in the eye of the beholder??
That would make the Christian God "real", in the eyes of many.
...I can't buy it.
|
I can't either, but the Christian God is quite real enough to the dedicated followers of that mad deity. Belief, misguided or otherwise, always colors and often blurs the perception. Sometimes it even blinds -- suicide bombers Fred Phelps come to mind as cases in point. Sometimes reality and fantasy become strange but not entirely unfamiliar bedfellows.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 18:00:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
One can only imagine or speculate - using one's mind - about an external, objective reality that has not yet been discovered and verified. |
You think objective reality hasn't even been discovered yet? What an odd position to take. Of course it's been discovered. We live in it. And its existence has been verified billions of times a second by every living and conscious human being. Science could not work unless there was a consistent reality accessible to disparate individuals. Sure, reality might simply be a dream with an illusion of permanence, but such a speculative idea would need evidence to support it. Reality seems real. That's enough to go on barring contrary data.
Of course the existence of objective reality cannon be proven with absolute certainty, but nothing can. Humans are not omniscient. However, the existence of reality has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. You'd be crazy to act as if reality wasn't real.
| So how is it possible to demonstrate the existence of an "external, objective reality that is "independent of minds"? |
We are dependent on our minds for sensing reality, not for creating or maintaining it (as far as we can tell). People who believe that reality conforms to their personal thoughts and desires haven't been very successful in demonstrating this to be the case. People who leap off buildings splat on the pavement whether they've convinced themselves they can fly or not.
It could maintained that one could not even speculate about such a reality, much less imagine or define it without involving at least one and probably many minds. And such involvement of mind would contradict the definition of that kind of reality - namely that it is independent of minds
Is this an epistemological paradox?
|
A limitation, perhaps, but no paradox. We can only base our assumptions on the data we have, which may be in error. But until such time that an individual can demonstrate that it is in error, then global skepticism is not warranted. Indeed, it is self refuting, since if nothing can be known, then it can't even be known that we cannot know. It's solipsism which leads to an epistemological paradox, not philosophical pragmatism.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/24/2009 18:02:12 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 07:19:39 [Permalink]
|
Humbert.....
You asked:
| You think objective reality hasn't even been discovered yet? What an odd position to take. Of course it's been discovered. |
Do you think all of the reality that exists in the universe has been discovered? What a much odder position to take! Of course, an enormous amount of all the reality in the universe has yet to be discovered (or possibly even imagined!) "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of your philosophy." Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167
When I said.....| One can only imagine or speculate - using one's mind - about an external, objective reality that has not yet been discovered and verified. |
.....I was speaking of a specific instance - any specific instance - of objective reality that has not yet been discovered. Or possibly even predicted to exist or imagined to exist!
That would be why I used the indefinite article an, denoting singularity, or a phenomenon, process, object, or any other singular component of the universe of reality.
I am sorry that you misunderstood. To state that the concept of reality, the idea of the universe of reality , if you will, has not not been discovered yet; would be a statement of monumental ignorance.
I will gladly plead guilty to monumental ignorance relative to that which there is to be known, but not quite to that degree!
If you are groping for an example of what I mean, consider the currently popular Higgs boson. It (as of November 2009) is a specific example of a piece of reality that has not as yet been discovered, only mathematically and behaviorally predicted.| Science could not work unless there was a consistent reality accessible to disparate individuals. Sure, reality might simply be a dream with an illusion of permanence, but such a speculative idea would need evidence to support it. |
We have hashed and re-hashed the concept of subjective idealism so many times in this thread that I don't think it merits revisiting. Suffice to say that neither I nor any other sensible person maintains that reality exists only within the consciousness of the perceiver -- or as you quaintly put it, "reality might simply be a dream with an illusion of permanence" | Reality seems real. That's enough to go on barring contrary data. |
To employ one of Zebra's favorite words, that is simply pleonastic, or more properly, tautological. "Reality seems real"! Well, yes, but you feel that is "enough to go on?". Really? I don't think you will go very far!| However, the existence of reality has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. You'd be crazy to act as if reality wasn't real. |
That appears to me to be about as redundant as, "you'd be crazy to act as if blackness wasn't black" Of course! Blackness is the very definition of black. Being real is the very definition of reality.
I asked:
| So how is it possible to demonstrate the existence of an "external, objective reality that is "independent of minds"? |
You responded:
| We are dependent on our minds for sensing reality, not for creating or maintaining it |
But I did not ask about creating or maintaining reality, I asked how was it possible to to demonstrate it's existence if it was "independent of minds". "Minds" are mandatory to recognize it's existence. Nothing can be recognized to exist without the involvement of a faculty of recognition, specifically a mind.
This is not to say that that nothing can exist without a mind, as that is solipsism, which is nonsense.People who believe that reality conforms to their personal thoughts and desires haven't been very successful in demonstrating this to be the case. People who leap off buildings splat on the pavement whether they've convinced themselves they can fly or not.
|
It appears to me that people who believe that reality is their personal thoughts and desires and this only are philosophical solipsists. It is an indefensible position, but neither can it be disproven. As Dave might say, not worthy of the time it takes to consider it. Those who believe that reality conforms to their personal beliefs and desires are suffering from solipsism Syndrome, a pathological condition, and indeed one that may lead to suicidal behavior.
I commented:
It could maintained that one could not even speculate about such a reality, much less imagine or define it without involving at least one and probably many minds. And such involvement of mind would contradict the definition of that kind of reality - namely that it is independent of minds
Is this an epistemological paradox? |
Your response:
| A limitation, perhaps, but no paradox. We can only base our assumptions on the data we have, which may be in error. But until such time that an individual can demonstrate that it is in error, then global skepticism is not warranted. |
How is it possible to even have assumptions without the involvement of one or more minds? Your original statement was:| Then there is the external, objective reality which is independent of minds. |
But if we are to think of it, define it, quantify it, make assumptions based on data from it; we have to employ the human mind. And in so doing, we deny the description of Reality as independent of mind because a mind is essential to recognize it's existence!
It is the existential paradox of the tree in the forest that falls with no one or thing (recorder) to perceive it's falling. We know that the tree made a crashing sound. But it is impossible to prove that it made a sound. So science cannot address such paradoxes. The best one can say fairly is, to each his own delusion!| if nothing can be known, then it can't even be known that we cannot know. |
If nothing can be known, then it can't be known if knowledge exists or not, or even that existence is a valid concept.
These kinds of statements seem to be indeed paradoxical, but I'm not sure that the ideas can be dismissed out of hand. A very powerful logical case can be made for indeterminacy as the only world-view or universe-view that is fully logically consistent.
Much of my academic training was in statistical theory and application. The indeterministic statistical concept of Reality is that reality statements can only be made in probability terms; absolute certainty about any matter (in the phenomenological world) is not possible. (Mathematics is excepted)
I find a great deal of credibility in that approach to epistemology, and such thinking even lends respectability to the philosophy of ontology, which, if considered in absolute terms, quickly leads to where madness lies. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/25/2009 09:43:42 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reality
