In Defense of Naive Objective Realism
Val Miranda
perceived. Opposed to this view is idealism which maintains that reality is
a mental
product, or that the result of perception is a mental product called
phenomena which
represent and unknown or unknowable reality. By showing that naive
objective realism is correct, idealism will be disproved.
One source of knowledge is sensation which is converted to perception by
brain-body
functions. Sensation and the organs of sensation play a vital role in the
controversy between
realism and idealism. One view of idealism maintains that vision is
converted into
phenomena which represents an unknown or unknowable reality. Naive
objective realism,
however, claims that the brain-body has copied reality as it is by virtue of
the action of vision
at the power of the eye. With the power of the electron microscope, reality
is copied as it is at that power.
With the sense of touch, a different situation arises. Unlike vision, touch
is in direct contact
with reality, no phenomena result, and thought has not created a reality
devoid of a
substratum as in another view of idealism. Sensations, as processed by the
brain-body, feels
reality as hard, soft, cold, rough, smooth, sharp, dull, or slimy, etc.
This is reality as it is as
the result of touch. Furthermore, touch can feel the electrons of an
electric current; reality is
directly sensed.
What conclusions can be drawn from the results of vision and touch to
convince the reader
that naive objective realism is the correct view of reality? The first
conclusion to be drawn is
that the output of the eye is an exact copy of reality similar to the copy
of reality that is
provided by a camera. The second conclusion to be drawn is that the sense
of touch connects
the brain-body directly to reality providing a perception of its attributes
such as shape,
texture, size, force, etc. In summary, not only has vision photographed
naive objective
reality as it is at the power of vision, but the sense of touch has felt
this reality actually as it
is.
It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to survive
would provide
senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does nothing
in vain. Senses
that deceive or do not work properly would be unnatural. The inevitable
conclusion is that
the brain-body processes sensations which copy reality as it is; that is,
reality is naive
objective reality, not any form of idealism.
Dan Shea
>Naive objective realism is the doctrine that reality actually exits as it is
>perceived. ^^^
I know, that's probably a typo, but it conjured up some fabulous
scenarios. I pictured trees, cars, and houses all just "winking out"
after being looked at. Or various actors dressed up as "reality" (a
la the Fruit of the Loom guys), trooping onto the stage of
consciousness, milling about, and departing, "stage left", to the
voice-over of Snagglepuss. Must be just too early in the morning! :)
But I'm sure you don't intend the temporariousness of the former, nor
the pseudo-Plato of the latter. And I do like your project.
Onward...
>One source of knowledge is sensation which is converted to perception by
>brain-body
>functions. Sensation and the organs of sensation play a vital role in the
>controversy between
>realism and idealism. One view of idealism maintains that vision is
>converted into
>phenomena which represents an unknown or unknowable reality. Naive
>objective realism,
>however, claims that the brain-body has copied reality as it is by virtue of
>the action of vision
>at the power of the eye. With the power of the electron microscope, reality
>is copied as it is at that power.
I find this interesting. What is the difference, IYO, between the
"copy" generated in a realist account, and the "representation" of
idealism? Seems to me they amount to the same thing -- it's just the
thing to which they refer is treated differently.
Idealism and realism are starting from the same place here: the
"representation" or "copy" that the mind perceives. The difference is
that you're stating that there is a reality copied by our perception,
and it *is* exactly as copied. To be frank, I see only one argument
for this in your post: the argument from evolution.
>With the sense of touch, a different situation arises. Unlike vision, touch
>is in direct contact
>with reality, no phenomena result, and thought has not created a reality
>devoid of a
>substratum as in another view of idealism.
Is it not the case that touch and vision are in the same boat with
regard to contacting the world? Granted touch appears more direct,
but I submit it's not. At the micro level, the interactions between
our eyes and visible objects are mediated by photons; similarly, the
interactions between our nerve endings and "real objects" are mediated
by whatever atomic forces bind things together and push things apart.
My nerve endings will never actually "touch* anything; they will just
come close enough to interact with it.
> In summary, not only has vision photographed
>naive objective
>reality as it is at the power of vision, but the sense of touch has felt
>this reality actually as it
>is.
I'm curious about our other senses. Does our reality actually taste
and sound and smell the way our senses indicate it does?
>It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to survive
>would provide
>senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does nothing
>in vain.
Very good point.
Cheers,
dan
danshea at cyberspc dot mb dot ca
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
snip <a long introductory and enjoyable speech>
>What conclusions can be drawn from the results of vision and touch to
>convince the reader
>that naive objective realism is the correct view of reality? The first
>conclusion to be drawn is
>that the output of the eye is an exact copy of reality similar to the copy
>of reality that is
>provided by a camera. The second conclusion to be drawn is that the sense
>of touch connects
>the brain-body directly to reality providing a perception of its attributes
>such as shape,
>texture, size, force, etc. In summary, not only has vision photographed
>naive objective
>reality as it is at the power of vision, but the sense of touch has felt
>this reality actually as it
>is.
Apart from this strange number of characters per line that you keep using:
Why does a strawberry taste as it does/is? Is it really soft? And to
whom??
Let me remind you that all the senses are constructed to interpret reality
in a meaningful way. That is, meaningful to the recipient. So all senses
convey information (or whatever you would call it) in a recipient centered
way. Their is no escape from this "fact of life".
Example:
- In the hardware of the eye, contrasts are already being accentuated.
This is done by inhibition and exhibition of the nerves, leading from the
eye towards the brain, amongst eachother. The only reason for this, is to
enhance the meaning of the data/info before it even enters the brain.
- If you touch a surface with your fingers, the first contact invokes the
most activity of the sensors in the skin tissue. After that, the sensor
activity diminishes. The reason for this is simply, a reduction of the
amount of non-meaningful data/info coming into the brain. And it is done
with a very simple mechanism. The neural-chemistry balance at the sensor
changes because of the neural activity.
- etc ..... etc....
>It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to
survive
>would provide
>senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does nothing
>in vain. Senses
>that deceive or do not work properly would be unnatural. The inevitable
>conclusion is that
>the brain-body processes sensations which copy reality as it is; that is,
>reality is naive
>objective reality, not any form of idealism.
So then, i look into reality with my eyes. And it tells me that light
things will fall into the sky. And it tells me while i am sitting in a
plane, that the houses beneath are very small, and that the people down
there are just a pack of worms, crawling around there.
Senses provide only input. It is the human mind, searching for the
information in that input. Even more, it searches for the places where to
find the input. Only from that process, reality makes any sense. Not by
sitting back and looking at it, or touching it. Naive objectivism is a
roadblock on our way to make any sense of our senses. If we do not surmount
it, we are left with our senses only. Not a nice perspective. Not a nice
perspective at all!!!!!
Regards,
--
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl
ps: There was a feather in my hat. It is a red one. It felt like a
feather, yet it was made of plastic. How do i know? From looking, feeling
or deciding? I tell you. I burned the damned thing, and it smelled not
like fried ants. It smelled like burning car-tires. Now the thing is gone,
but my mind is at rest. I have chased the illusion away from me, that a
bird could have been killed for my hat. (Says Sitting Bull; at least the
version of him that i have in my mind)
Val Miranda
Peter Paul Schuttevaar wrote in message <71039c$bu7$3...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>Val Miranda wrote in <70ul47$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>snip <a long introductory and enjoyable speech>
>
>
>>
>Senses provide only input. It is the human mind, searching for the
>information in that input. Even more, it searches for the places where to
>find the input. Only from that process, reality makes any sense. Not by
>sitting back and looking at it, or touching it. Naive objectivism is a
>roadblock on our way to make any sense of our senses. If we do not
surmount
>it, we are left with our senses only. Not a nice perspective. Not a nice
>perspective at all!!!!!
Peter,
It is an evaluation by the mind that sensation conveys an accurate copy of
reality to the mind. The evaluation is that copy of reality is more valid
than phenomena.
>
>Regards,
Val
Val Miranda
Dan Shea wrote in message <36365a1b...@news.mb.imag.net>...
Dan, in my account, the emphasis is placed on sensation. With reality as
phenomena, the emphasis is placed on the mind.
>
>Idealism and realism are starting from the same place here: the
>"representation" or "copy" that the mind perceives. The difference is
>that you're stating that there is a reality copied by our perception,
>and it *is* exactly as copied. To be frank, I see only one argument
>for this in your post: the argument from evolution.
The argument from evolution is a major reason why I can argue for the
validity of the senses over the philosophical argument for reality as
phenomena.
>
>>With the sense of touch, a different situation arises. Unlike vision,
touch
>>is in direct contact
>>with reality, no phenomena result, and thought has not created a reality
>>devoid of a
>>substratum as in another view of idealism.
>
>Is it not the case that touch and vision are in the same boat with
>regard to contacting the world? Granted touch appears more direct,
>but I submit it's not. At the micro level, the interactions between
>our eyes and visible objects are mediated by photons; similarly, the
>interactions between our nerve endings and "real objects" are mediated
>by whatever atomic forces bind things together and push things apart.
>My nerve endings will never actually "touch* anything; they will just
>come close enough to interact with it.
But that interaction is my point. If something is soft, the atoms are not
close together; if it is hard they are.
>
>> In summary, not only has vision photographed
>>naive objective
>>reality as it is at the power of vision, but the sense of touch has felt
>>this reality actually as it
>>is.
>
>I'm curious about our other senses. Does our reality actually taste
>and sound and smell the way our senses indicate it does?
The reality of an apple is different from a peach, and taste detects that
difference. The sound waves are different, and the ear detects that
difference.
>
>>It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to
survive
>>would provide
>>senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does nothing
>>in vain.
>Very good point.
Regards,
Val
Val Miranda
Peter Paul Schuttevaar wrote in message <71039c$bu7$3...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>Val Miranda wrote in <70ul47$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>snip <a long introductory and enjoyable speech>
>
>>convince the reader
>>that naive objective realism is the correct view of reality? The first
>>conclusion to be drawn is
>>that the output of the eye is an exact copy of reality similar to the copy
>>of reality that is
>>provided by a camera. The second conclusion to be drawn is that the sense
>>of touch connects
>>the brain-body directly to reality providing a perception of its
attributes
>>such as shape,
>>naive objective
>>reality as it is at the power of vision, but the sense of touch has felt
>>this reality actually as it
>>is.
>
Peter, the strange number of characters per line that I am using must be due
to the font and line-space of my word processor. I have noticed the
difference between my word processor and the the alt-philosophy output. I
suppose that I should take some time to adjust my typed product.
>
>Why does a strawberry taste as it does/is? Is it really soft? And to
>whom??
A strawberry conveys a different taste than a blackberry because it is
different. The sense of taste detects this difference. Because of the
density of the atoms in the compounds that make up strawberries, they are
felt as soft to humans--not hard like steel because of the closeness of
atoms in that metal.
>Let me remind you that all the senses are constructed to interpret reality
>in a meaningful way. That is, meaningful to the recipient. So all senses
>convey information (or whatever you would call it) in a recipient centered
>way.
I simply maintain that the senses convey information to the receiver about
the sensed as it is, not as it is not. If the object is round, the senses
don't convey a message to the senser that the object is square
Their is no escape from this "fact of life".
Do you think that I am tryint to secapt that "fact of life?"
>Example:
>- In the hardware of the eye, contrasts are already being accentuated.
>This is done by inhibition and exhibition of the nerves, leading from the
>eye towards the brain, amongst eachother. The only reason for this, is to
>enhance the meaning of the data/info before it even enters the brain.
>- If you touch a surface with your fingers, the first contact invokes the
>most activity of the sensors in the skin tissue. After that, the sensor
>activity diminishes. The reason for this is simply, a reduction of the
>amount of non-meaningful data/info coming into the brain. And it is done
>with a very simple mechanism. The neural-chemistry balance at the sensor
>changes because of the neural activity.
I have ready the physiology of the eye, and I have seen detailed picture of
how it works.
>- etc ..... etc....
>
>>It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to
>survive
>>would provide
>>senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does nothing
>>in vain. Senses
>>that deceive or do not work properly would be unnatural. The inevitable
>>conclusion is that
>>the brain-body processes sensations which copy reality as it is; that is,
>>reality is naive
>>objective reality, not any form of idealism.
>
>
>So then, i look into reality with my eyes.
I never "look into reality with my eyes."
And it tells me that light
>things will fall into the sky.
Light things will fall into the sky??
And it tells me while i am sitting in a
>plane, that the houses beneath are very small, and that the people down
>there are just a pack of worms, crawling around there.
Reason, from experience, has learned how to guage the power of the eye.
>
>Senses provide only input. It is the human mind, searching for the
>information in that input. Even more, it searches for the places where to
>find the input. Only from that process, reality makes any sense. Not by
>sitting back and looking at it, or touching it. Naive objectivism is a
>roadblock on our way to make any sense of our senses. If we do not
surmount
>it, we are left with our senses only. Not a nice perspective. Not a nice
>perspective at all!!!!!
I for one do not underestimate the important role played by the mind in the
evaluation of reality. Mind has made a judgement as to the value of the
senses.
>
>Regards,
Val
>--
M.R.M. Parrott
:...the senses are constructed to interpret reality in a
:meaningful way. That is, meaningful to the recipient.
:So all senses convey information (or whatever
:you would call it) in a recipient centered way.
:
:Naive objectivism is a roadblock on our way to make any
:sense of our senses.
:
Yes, and I think it is due to the tendency of the objectivist to assert
that what perception delivers, is the way things really are in themselves.
Berkeley blew this position away, long before Rand ever lived, with a tub of
room temperature water. One puts one hand in some hot water, and the other
in some cold water. One then puts both hands in the tub of room temperature
water, and guess what? The senses tell us that the water is both hot and
cold at the same time!
There simply must be, as you eloquently describe, a mental, non sensory,
apparatus which interprets data, and for which the data is interpreted.
:...my mind is at rest. I have chased the illusion away from me,
:that a bird could have been killed for my hat
:
Absolutely hilarious! Once again, Peter, you delight us with a tail...I
mean tale...well, you know what I mean.
Mark
www.rimric.com
peter...@yahoo.com
"Val Miranda" <comc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Naive objective realism is the doctrine that reality actually exits as it is
> a mental
> product, or that the result of perception is a mental product called
> phenomena which
> represent and unknown or unknowable reality.
[snip]
> What conclusions can be drawn from the results of vision and touch to
> convince the reader
> that naive objective realism is the correct view of reality? The first
> conclusion to be drawn is
> that the output of the eye is an exact copy of reality similar to the copy
> of reality that is
> provided by a camera. The second conclusion to be drawn is that the sense
> of touch connects
> the brain-body directly to reality providing a perception of its attributes
> such as shape,
> texture, size, force, etc. In summary, not only has vision photographed
> naive objective
> reality as it is at the power of vision,
A man once complained to Picasso that the painter's portrait of his wife
looked nothing like her.
"What DOES she look like ?" asked Picasso.
"Like this", said the man, and produced a photograph.
Picasso studied it for a while.
"So... your wife is flat, 10 centimetres square, and made of cardboard",
said Picasso
Hint: the existence of sensations does not prove naive reality, because naive
reality is not made of sensations.
> but the sense of touch has felt
> this reality actually as it
> is.
>
> It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to survive
> would provide
> senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does nothing
> in vain. Senses
> that deceive or do not work properly would be unnatural. The inevitable
> conclusion is that
> the brain-body processes sensations which copy reality as it is; that is,
> reality is naive
> objective reality, not any form of idealism.
>
>
Begging the question.
How could there be such things as evolution and nature if an objective
reality did not exist ?
--
Regards,
Peter D Jones
Brighton, UK
P.S This is the coherent thing you've posted in ages.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
>>Let me remind you that all the senses are constructed to interpret reality
>>in a meaningful way. That is, meaningful to the recipient. So all senses
>>convey information (or whatever you would call it) in a recipient centered
>>way.
>
>I simply maintain that the senses convey information to the receiver about
>the sensed as it is, not as it is not. If the object is round, the senses
Ah, who says? Look at the Eiffel tower from above, and you will see that it
is point symetrical. Not the thing that the average tourist would see huh?
Yet another thing. Many sense input is about pattern recognition. I walk
into a crowded cafe, and suddenly i 'see' that some sort of festivity is
going on. Just fom the way in which people interact whit eachother. Was
this my eye that told me, or did i recognise something?
> Their is no escape from this "fact of life".
>
>
>Do you think that I am tryint to secapt that "fact of life?"
Yes i do. If the recipient centered nature of the information processing of
the senses has no consequence for your position on the relation between
reality and subject...... Then you are trying to escape the consequences of
this fact, yes.
>I have ready the physiology of the eye, and I have seen detailed picture of
>how it works.
OK OK, don't mean to play the professor here. ( i mean i was showing off,
from the top of my head)
>I for one do not underestimate the important role played by the mind in the
>evaluation of reality. Mind has made a judgement as to the value of the
>senses.
You're on. This judgement is not a general judgement about their value.
No, it is a continues proces of judging what is going on. Every activity of
the senses is continualy being judged by the mind. A mind, more critical in
this judgement process, will tend to think less positive about the validity
of incoming data, in general terms. A mind, less critical, will have a more
positive view in this respect. Aparently, you are proposing a more positive
view on the validity of incoming information. But where do you base that
on? I can give you zillions of examples that tell you that a critical
attitude towards incoming sense-info is good practise. So why deliver
yourself to the delusion of non-critical sensing then?
Regards,
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
>:...my mind is at rest. I have chased the illusion away from me,
>:that a bird could have been killed for my hat
>:
> Absolutely hilarious! Once again, Peter, you delight us with a
tail...I
>mean tale...well, you know what I mean.
Nice to know that my mental gymnastics come across sometimes Mark, thanks.
M.R.M. Parrott
:Nice to know that my mental gymnastics come
:across sometimes Mark, thanks.
:
They always do, my friend! Thankyou for breaking up the seriousness
with something which often does a better job of communicating the points.
Mark
Val Miranda
Peter Paul Schuttevaar wrote in message <712cl7$qne$2...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>Val Miranda wrote in <711b9v$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>Let me remind you that all the senses are constructed to interpret
reality
>>>in a meaningful way. That is, meaningful to the recipient. So all
senses
>>>convey information (or whatever you would call it) in a recipient
centered
>>>way.
>>
>>I simply maintain that the senses convey information to the receiver about
>>the sensed as it is, not as it is not. If the object is round, the senses
>Ah, who says? Look at the Eiffel tower from above, and you will see that
it
>is point symetrical. Not the thing that the average tourist would see huh?
>
>Yet another thing. Many sense input is about pattern recognition. I walk
>into a crowded cafe, and suddenly i 'see' that some sort of festivity is
>going on. Just fom the way in which people interact whit eachother. Was
>this my eye that told me, or did i recognise something?
Peter, I do not deny that you can find examples in which the senses err, but
does that prove that they always err. Perhaps it is not the senses that
have erred, but the brain in processing sense data. I am not opposed to the
opinion that God made all things for the benefit of mankind.
>> Their is no escape from this "fact of life".
>>
>>
>>Do you think that I am tryint to secapt that "fact of life?"
>
>Yes i do. If the recipient centered nature of the information processing
of
>the senses has no consequence for your position on the relation between
>reality and subject...... Then you are trying to escape the consequences of
>this fact, yes.
I have not said that the brain-body does not process reality or that reality
is not processed for the benefit of the brain-body (You). But I have said
that a fish is not processed as a dog. An individual faced with death need
not fear "facts of life." My aim is to accept whatever is correct. I can
easily discard this viewpoint and accept another, even the idealism of
George Berkely who did not believe in substratums, and neither does the
viewpoint that I have argued. Behind what I believe to be your viewpoint
must be a substratum.
>
>>I have ready the physiology of the eye, and I have seen detailed picture
of
>>how it works.
>
>OK OK, don't mean to play the professor here. ( i mean i was showing off,
>from the top of my head)
No matter, never mine the top of your head.
>
>>I for one do not underestimate the important role played by the mind in
the
>>evaluation of reality. Mind has made a judgement as to the value of the
>>senses.
>
>
>You're on. This judgement is not a general judgement about their value.
>No, it is a continues proces of judging what is going on. Every activity
of
>the senses is continualy being judged by the mind. A mind, more critical
in
>this judgement process, will tend to think less positive about the validity
>of incoming data, in general terms. A mind, less critical, will have a
more
>positive view in this respect. Aparently, you are proposing a more
positive
>view on the validity of incoming information. But where do you base that
>on? I can give you zillions of examples that tell you that a critical
>attitude towards incoming sense-info is good practise. So why deliver
>yourself to the delusion of non-critical sensing then?
I quite agree that a critical attitude toward incoming information is wise,
but I am interested in the reality of that incoming information. However, I
think it is important to judge correctly the role played by the mind (if you
will pardon my word, mind) as well as the senses. I want an accurate
evaluation of both.
Regards,
Val
>
>Regards,
Val Miranda
peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message <712flf$t9a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Peter, Looked "Like this" is not the same as being this. One does not doubt
the important role played by intelligence and experience in making
judgements about reality.
>said Picasso
>
>Hint: the existence of sensations does not prove naive reality, because
naive
>reality is not made of sensations.
No, they do not; naive reality is the view that senses have been the contact
with reality which has eventually provided consciousness with a correct view
of reality as it is. If you said that a phenomenon was a copy of reality as
it is, I would agree.
>> but the sense of touch has felt
>> this reality actually as it
>> is.
>>
>
>> It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to
survive
>> would provide
>> senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does
nothing
>> in vain. Senses
>> that deceive or do not work properly would be unnatural. The inevitable
>> conclusion is that
>> the brain-body processes sensations which copy reality as it is; that is,
>> reality is naive
>> objective reality, not any form of idealism.
>>
>>
>
>Begging the question.
>How could there be such things as evolution and nature if an objective
>reality did not exist ?
There is no need to prove it; it is self evident. If there is no
objective reality, then idealism is correct. There is no substratum; the
mind is the author of all. Man is really an exalted being; he is just not
an hybrid being with a body and soul. Physics just needs to deal with
mental processes. Let's trash the Standard Model. There is no mass. We
minds are all that exist--no our menta output exists--the universe.
Regards,
Val
peter...@yahoo.com
> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message <712flf$t9a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <70ul47$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Val Miranda" <comc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >How could there be such things as evolution and nature if an objective
> >reality did not exist ?
>
> There is no need to prove it; it is self evident.
If there is no need to prove it, what was your posting about ?
> >A man once complained to Picasso that the painter's portrait of his wife
> >looked nothing like her.
> >"What DOES she look like ?" asked Picasso.
> >"Like this", said the man, and produced a photograph.
> >Picasso studied it for a while.
> >"So... your wife is flat, 10 centimetres square, and made of cardboard",
>
> Peter, Looked "Like this" is not the same as being this.
Exactly my point.
> >Hint: the existence of sensations does not prove naive reality, because
> naive
> >reality is not made of sensations.
>
> No, they do not; naive reality is the view that senses have been the contact
> with reality which has eventually provided consciousness with a correct view
> of reality as it is. If you said that a phenomenon was a copy of reality as
> it is, I would agree.
>
EITHER
The phenomenon *is* an exact copy of reality -- in which
case there is no difference between the reality and the phenomenon,
which means that reality is phenomena, which leads to idealism
OR
The phenomenon is not an exact copy of reality -- in which
case it is an image, but an image does not imply the existence of the thing
apparently represented (eg a picture of a unicorn)
so there is no reason to suppose the existence of objective reality,
which leads to idealism.
> If there is no
> objective reality, then idealism is correct. There is no substratum; the
> mind is the author of all. Man is really an exalted being; he is just not
> an hybrid being with a body and soul. Physics just needs to deal with
> mental processes. Let's trash the Standard Model. There is no mass. We
> minds are all that exist--no our menta output exists--the universe.
>
I'm not really an idealist, I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
Naive reality requires sophisticated arguments to justify it.
That's probably why there are so many idealists around.
--
Regards,
Peter D Jones
Brighton, UK
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
>Peter, I do not deny that you can find examples in which the senses err,
but
>does that prove that they always err. Perhaps it is not the senses that
>have erred, but the brain in processing sense data. I am not opposed to
the
>opinion that God made all things for the benefit of mankind.
OK, so this takes us away from naive objectivism. Senses err, brain errs.
So both have to be in good shape. Again, it is mind over matter. This
simply because the brain is better equiped for correcting its errors then
the senses are.
>I have not said that the brain-body does not process reality or that
reality
>is not processed for the benefit of the brain-body (You). But I have said
>that a fish is not processed as a dog. An individual faced with death need
>not fear "facts of life." My aim is to accept whatever is correct. I can
>easily discard this viewpoint and accept another, even the idealism of
>George Berkely who did not believe in substratums, and neither does the
>viewpoint that I have argued. Behind what I believe to be your viewpoint
>must be a substratum.
Many people walk in to death without seeing it. Yet their eyes are open
widely. Many dogs are processed as 'dangerous animals', whereas they would
not even harm a flee. The substratum behind the viewpoint, is in the way
the mind interacts with its environment. There is no one-way street that
makes it possible for us to let reality just come to us, and then let some
sort of stencil decide whether the incoming data is trustworthy or not.
Only by engaging, we sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. Be it
engaging with our environment, be it engaging with the habits of our own
mind.
>I quite agree that a critical attitude toward incoming information is wise,
>but I am interested in the reality of that incoming information. However,
I
>think it is important to judge correctly the role played by the mind (if
you
>will pardon my word, mind) as well as the senses. I want an accurate
>evaluation of both.
Mind and senses dance like ballroom. They twist like loving couples. But
the mind is in the lead. The senses follow. Strange that men play the role
of the mind and women the one of the senses, as it comes to ballroom
dancing. [Strange that so few women engage in philosophy. (If you pardon
this subtle, yet highly questionable analogy) ]
Mind needs sense to impregnate it with its will to see. Sense needs mind to
be enabled in its receptiveness. Sense is blind without mind. Mind is
powerless without sense. Like i said. It is like ballroom dancing. It is
nothing when there is not a pair. (just not to dig any deeper into a theory
of knowledge)
Regards,
Paul gate
Val Miranda <comc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <70ul47$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to survive
> would provide
> senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does nothing
> in vain. Senses
> that deceive or do not work properly would be unnatural. The inevitable
> conclusion is that
> the brain-body processes sensations which copy reality as it is; that is,
> reality is naive
> objective reality, not any form of idealism.
I really feel this is incorrect
Does an accurate apprehension of reality always provide a reproductive advantage?
You could say that an accurate apprehension of certain aspects of reality
might well do
for a little animal guy....
1 Accurate information about the sex of members of the same species
2 Accurate information about the level of ameadiate threat to your life
3 Accurate information about the position of food
What else?.....
Is that really a picture of reality or a few bullet headings?
why assume that our present picture is not similarly
limited to our survival / reproduction interests
Val Miranda
Peter Paul Schuttevaar wrote in message <715jfk$c7q$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
I agree that not only do we not possess intellectual intuition, but we do
not possess any intuition at all. Engaging and processing are important
activities of the "mind."
>
>>I quite agree that a critical attitude toward incoming information is
wise,
>>but I am interested in the reality of that incoming information. However,
>I
>>think it is important to judge correctly the role played by the mind (if
>you
>>will pardon my word, mind) as well as the senses. I want an accurate
>>evaluation of both.
>
>Mind and senses dance like ballroom. They twist like loving couples. But
>the mind is in the lead. The senses follow. Strange that men play the
role
>of the mind and women the one of the senses, as it comes to ballroom
>dancing. [Strange that so few women engage in philosophy. (If you pardon
>this subtle, yet highly questionable analogy) ]
Without the female, there would be no births; without the senses, the mind
is barren.
>
>Mind needs sense to impregnate it with its will to see. Sense needs mind
to
>be enabled in its receptiveness. Sense is blind without mind. Mind is
>powerless without sense. Like i said. It is like ballroom dancing. It
is
>nothing when there is not a pair. (just not to dig any deeper into a
theory
>of knowledge)
Well put, entertaining and interesting.
Regards,
Val
>
>Regards,
Val Miranda
peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message <7158o0$crn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message
<712flf$t9a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >In article <70ul47$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "Val Miranda" <comc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> >How could there be such things as evolution and nature if an objective
>> >reality did not exist ?
>>
>> There is no need to prove it; it is self evident.
>
>If there is no need to prove it, what was your posting about ?
Peter, yes, it is self evident, but I made good arguments anyway. It seems
that you are just flailing away at a position that you have been unable to
undermine.
>
>
>> >A man once complained to Picasso that the painter's portrait of his wife
>> >looked nothing like her.
>> >"What DOES she look like ?" asked Picasso.
>> >"Like this", said the man, and produced a photograph.
>> >Picasso studied it for a while.
>> >"So... your wife is flat, 10 centimetres square, and made of cardboard",
>>
>> Peter, Looked "Like this" is not the same as being this.
But it is a copy. Don't you recognize faces on TV?
Well, Peter, you cannot count me among them. I favor a scinetific view
which discards the holy grail of positivism. I think idealism overestimates
the part played by the mind; it seems to exalt mentality. However, idealism
resides in a compartment of my brain. It is my view that if the Christian
God exists, the universe should be ideal; but that is not the scholastic
viewpoint. It appears that this God has more important business than us
humans.
Regards,
Val
Val Miranda
Paul gate wrote in message <01be0221$f79891a0$LocalHost@paul>...
>
>
>Val Miranda <comc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<70ul47$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>> It is reasonable to conclude that evolution in developing the fit to
survive
>> would provide
>> senses which copy reality as it is. Nature does not dupe and does
nothing
>> in vain. Senses
>> that deceive or do not work properly would be unnatural. The inevitable
>> conclusion is that
>> the brain-body processes sensations which copy reality as it is; that is,
>> reality is naive
>> objective reality, not any form of idealism.
>
Paul, you are not alone and you are in good company. My answer is no. When
one says always...
Regards,
Val
Rex Bennett
>Naive objective realism is the doctrine that reality actually exits as it
is
>perceived. Opposed to this view is idealism which maintains that reality
is
>a mental
>product, or that the result of perception is a mental product called
>phenomena which
>objective realism is correct, idealism will be disproved.
The problem is not with "reality." The problem is with the use of
the defective term "reality." It presupposes either/or existence.
Rex
Rex Bennett
>is
>>>perceived.
The only suitable purpose for "reality" is whether people agree
regarding their perceptions and examinations of "facts." Beyond
that, the term is meaningless. It is a waste of time to argue about
"reality" beyond that point as though there is some total state of
being that is "right" as opposed to some state of being that is
"wrong." In other words, it is nothing more than a value judgment.
Rex
Val Miranda
Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
>Val Miranda wrote in message <711709$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>Dan Shea wrote in message <36365a1b...@news.mb.imag.net>...
>
>regarding their perceptions and examinations of "facts." Beyond
>that, the term is meaningless. It is a waste of time to argue about
>"reality" beyond that point as though there is some total state of
>being that is "right" as opposed to some state of being that is
>"wrong." In other words, it is nothing more than a value judgment.
Rex, How pragmatic of you, but not philosophic. What about truth?
Pragmatism is one of the theories of truth that I accept, but Europeans
laughed it off of the stage as typically American. That, however, is a
digression. Wouldn't you rather know which is correct or most correct or
that they both err? Don't you have a preference?
So you have said to put them in a bag, shake them up, and there is not a
dime's worth of difference. And, no, it is not just a value judgement. In
morals, beauty, and values, one can say there is nothing good or bad, but
it is thinking that makes it so. But not with reality, if is not ideal. I
have heard it said about various philosophical issues: what difference does
it make. We go on our merry way; these issues do no matter. But they make
make all the difference in the way life is conducted or science is
practiced. The value in your rermarks is the other side of the coin, and
that I do appreciate.
Regards,
Val
>Rex
>
>
>
Val Miranda
Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
>>Naive objective realism is the doctrine that reality actually exits as it
>is
>is
>>a mental
>>product, or that the result of perception is a mental product called
>>phenomena which
>>represent and unknown or unknowable reality. By showing that naive
>>objective realism is correct, idealism will be disproved.
>
>
>The problem is not with "reality." The problem is with the use of
>the defective term "reality." It presupposes either/or existence.
Rex, I do not think that reality is defective as a term. Reality and
existence are synonamous. Existence is material and immaterial; reality is
material and immaterial. I could make a Sartre like statement and say that
existence preceedes reality of you like hair splitters. However, I will
settle for the following: if there is no reality, there is no existence; if
there is no existence, there is no reality.
Regards,
Val
>Rex
>
>
Rex Bennett
>
>Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Dan Shea wrote in message <36365a1b...@news.mb.imag.net>...
>>
>>The only suitable purpose for "reality" is whether people agree
>>regarding their perceptions and examinations of "facts." Beyond
>>that, the term is meaningless. It is a waste of time to argue about
>>"reality" beyond that point as though there is some total state of
>>being that is "right" as opposed to some state of being that is
>>"wrong." In other words, it is nothing more than a value judgment.
>
>
>
>Rex, How pragmatic of you, but not philosophic.
On the contrary, it is very philosophic. Any pragmatic nature is
simply a side bonus.
> What about truth?
What about it? Is there a sole possessor of "truth?" Are you talking
about ABSOLUTES again as though there is an "absolute reality" and
"absolute truth?" Both are delusional.
>Pragmatism is one of the theories of truth that I accept, but Europeans
>laughed it off of the stage as typically American.
I am not sure I agree with "pragmatism" in moral and political arguments.
I would have to do a lot more reading in it, and it is been far too many
years.... However, on the scientific end of philosophy, pragmatism
applies.
> That, however, is a
>digression. Wouldn't you rather know which is correct or most correct or
>that they both err? Don't you have a preference?
That is delusional. (This is not intended as an insult, but an analytic
statement.) You can know nothing beyond your sensory/interpretative
capabilities and the agreed meanings between you and others. That
built on a body of assumed knowledge since you accept much without
direct sensory input on your part. How can you know what is beyond
your sensory/analytic capability to know? And even if you did, what is
it that you know that is "different" from what you knew before? Which
is truer? Does it even make sense to say "this is the true representation,
and the other is not?" What is it that makes one true and another not?
Are they not both representations? There is no "objective reality"
as far as we are concerned. "Reality" is a matter of perception and
agreed meaning, nothing more. There is no "state of reality" beyond that
for us to know! This is not to say that there are not states of existence
beyond our perceptions, but these states of existence are not "reality."
>So you have said to put them in a bag, shake them up, and there is not a
>dime's worth of difference.
There is a difference in the value of information but only in its
application. Beyond that there is no value.
> And, no, it is not just a value judgment.
It is ALWAYS a value judgment. We cannot escape it.
> In
>morals, beauty, and values, one can say there is nothing good or bad, but
>it is thinking that makes it so.
Ah ha! That is value judgment. Glad to see you agree.
> But not with reality, if is not ideal.
Ideal? Are you talking about Plato's mythical "forms" here?
> I
>have heard it said about various philosophical issues: what difference
does
>it make. We go on our merry way; these issues do no matter. But they make
> all the difference in the way life is conducted or science is
>practiced.
Here you are making a value judgment. In the application of information
there are more useful and less useful acts. However, even then, they
do not retain an absolute status since their value shifts as social
relationships (any relationships) shift. Do away with ABSOLUTES, and
you begin to see a clearer picture. (But of course, this is only my
value judgment! (g))
> The value in your remarks is the other side of the coin, and
>that I do appreciate.
Any thought is appreciated. We spend much of our day thinking that
we are thinking when we are not.
Rex
>
>Regards,
>Val
>
>>Rex
>>
>>
>>
>
>
peter...@yahoo.com
"Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> The only suitable purpose for "reality" is whether people agree
> regarding their perceptions and examinations of "facts."
Since they do to some extent, one might ask what causes this.
And receive the answer that it is because they are all, however
imperfectly, perceiving the same reality.
> Beyond
> that, the term is meaningless. It is a waste of time to argue about
> "reality" beyond that point as though there is some total state of
> being that is "right" as opposed to some state of being that is
> "wrong."
>
> In other words, it is nothing more than a value judgment.
The words 'right' and 'wrong' are rather ambiguous.
To say 'killing people is wrong' is to pass a value judgement.
To say '"Sydney is the capital of Australia" is wrong' is a judgement of fact.
Reality is not the sum total of everything good and wholesome,
it is the sum total of everything which is true, whether we know it or not.
It is not the same as the sum total of known facts, because when you discover,
something (eg the world is round), it doesn't leap into existence
at that point -- the world was always round.
The fact that we are capable
of discovering things about the world which are not only true, but
*always were* true leads to the supposition of a true state of affairs
of which we only have partial knowledge.
In other words, reality.
Rex Bennett
>In article <BvQZ1.9570$sF2.8...@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> The only suitable purpose for "reality" is whether people agree
>> regarding their perceptions and examinations of "facts."
>
>Since they do to some extent, one might ask what causes this.
>And receive the answer that it is because they are all, however
>imperfectly, perceiving the same reality.
What I am pointing out is that "reality" is a social act, it is not
some absolute state or quality of existence. And, for the most
part, people will recieve the same answer because they are dealing
with the same genetically engineered sensory equipment, the
same interpretative equipment, and the same general set of
circumstances. But even within that, there is a lot of room for
disagreement as the argument about UFOs will demonstrate.
>> Beyond
>> that, the term is meaningless. It is a waste of time to argue about
>> "reality" beyond that point as though there is some total state of
>> being that is "right" as opposed to some state of being that is
>> "wrong."
>>
>> In other words, it is nothing more than a value judgment.
>
>The words 'right' and 'wrong' are rather ambiguous.
>To say 'killing people is wrong' is to pass a value judgement.
>To say '"Sydney is the capital of Australia" is wrong' is a judgement of
fact.
I am using "right" and "wrong" in the analytic sense, not the moral
sense. There is no moral argument here. Is the rose "red" or is it
"black?" That depends on whether you are looking at it, or a bee is
looking at it. It's "reality" is both, and is dependent on the perceiver.
A judgement of fact is a value judgement.
>
>Reality is not the sum total of everything good and wholesome,
>it is the sum total of everything which is true, whether we know it or not.
Reality is the sum total of our perceptions and interpretations. It is a
social act, not an absolute state of existence.
>It is not the same as the sum total of known facts, because when you
discover,
>something (eg the world is round), it doesn't leap into existence
>at that point -- the world was always round.
Our "reality" was that the world was "flat" until our perceptions changed
and "discovered" that it is "round." There is no one absolute reality.
"Reality" is dependent on the perceiver, and in a group setting, on the
general agreement of the group.
>The fact that we are capable
>of discovering things about the world which are not only true, but
>*always were* true leads to the supposition of a true state of affairs
>of which we only have partial knowledge.
False. We may refine our awareness of greater detail of existence,
but there is no absolute reality. There are only aspects of which we
partially perceive. Reality is totally dependent on the perceiver.
>In other words, reality.
In other words, our "perceived" reality.
Rex
Rex Bennett
>
>Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
Existence DOES precede "reality." However, "reality" is only a very
limited "perception" of existence, and whose perceived values are
dependent on the perceiver. In other words, there is NO "objective
reality." Reality is NOT existence. Reality is a VALUE JUDGEMENT
a-b-o-u-t existence!
Rex
>
>Regards,
>Val
>
>>Rex
>>
>>
>
>
Val Miranda
Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
>>
>>Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>Dan Shea wrote in message <36365a1b...@news.mb.imag.net>...
>>>
>>>that, the term is meaningless. It is a waste of time to argue about
>>>"reality" beyond that point as though there is some total state of
>>>being that is "right" as opposed to some state of being that is
>>>"wrong." In other words, it is nothing more than a value judgment.
Rex,
You said, (reality) "...it is nothing more than a value judgment." Reality
is not a value judgment; judgments are made about reality.
>>
>>Rex, How pragmatic of you, but not philosophic.
>
>On the contrary, it is very philosophic. Any pragmatic nature is
>simply a side bonus.
Rex,
So you maintain that philosophers have wasted their time discussing reality,
trying to analize it, and trying to understand it. You say its only value
is practical. So Einstein and the founders of quantum mechanics just wasted
time. Surely Newton wasted time. All of the pre-Socratic and post-Socratic
philosophers wasted time if they were not interested in the practical value
of reality. How can you maintain that? Are you saying since reality is not
knowable, let us just use what we know.
>
>> What about truth?
>
>
>What about it? Is there a sole possessor of "truth?" Are you talking
>about ABSOLUTES again as though there is an "absolute reality" and
> "absolute truth?" Both are delusional.
If there is no absolute reality, there is no reality. That does not
eliminate the relational. You meant an illusion, not delusional.
>>Pragmatism is one of the theories of truth that I accept, but Europeans
>>laughed it off of the stage as typically American.
>
>I am not sure I agree with "pragmatism" in moral and political arguments.
>I would have to do a lot more reading in it, and it is been far too many
>years.... However, on the scientific end of philosophy, pragmatism
>applies.
>
>> That, however, is a
>>digression. Wouldn't you rather know which is correct or most correct or
>>that they both err? Don't you have a preference?
>
>That is delusional. (This is not intended as an insult, but an analytic
>statement.) You can know nothing beyond your sensory/interpretative
Maybe illusional but not delusional. Perhaps you understimate humanity
when you limit knowledge to thought-sensation. There may be unconscious
creative mental processes that turn on light bulbs.
>capabilities and the agreed meanings between you and others. That
>built on a body of assumed knowledge since you accept much without
>direct sensory input on your part. How can you know what is beyond
>your sensory/analytic capability to know? And even if you did, what is
>it that you know that is "different" from what you knew before? Which
>is truer? Does it even make sense to say "this is the true representation,
>and the other is not?" What is it that makes one true and another not?
What makes one true and another not is reality.
>Are they not both representations? There is no "objective reality"
>as far as we are concerned. "Reality" is a matter of perception and
>agreed meaning, nothing more. There is no "state of reality" beyond that
Representatives go to the House, but reality is copied or contacted
directly; it is not represented. There is only reality. There is no
internal or external reality. There is no internal reality at all. There
is no I, me, you, soul, mind, or self, but brain-body processes.
>for us to know! This is not to say that there are not states of existence
>beyond our perceptions, but these states of existence are not "reality."
>
>
>>So you have said to put them in a bag, shake them up, and there is not a
>>dime's worth of difference.
>
>There is a difference in the value of information but only in its
>application. Beyond that there is no value.
>
>> And, no, it is not just a value judgment.
>
>It is ALWAYS a value judgment. We cannot escape it.
In a way I agree with that. Acquinas remarks that every agent acts for its
on good, and that every agent acts for an end. But truth is not only a
value; it is a condition of existence.
>
>> In
>>morals, beauty, and values, one can say there is nothing good or bad, but
>>it is thinking that makes it so.
>
>Ah ha! That is value judgment. Glad to see you agree.
>
>> But not with reality, if is not ideal.
>
>Ideal? Are you talking about Plato's mythical "forms" here?
No I mean reality as phenomena and reality created by the mind without a
substratum.Okay, lets include Plato's idealism, the archetypes which
supported the shadows. Naive Objective Realism, too, is not supported by a
substratum
>
>> I
>>have heard it said about various philosophical issues: what difference
>does
>>it make. We go on our merry way; these issues do no matter. But they
make
>> all the difference in the way life is conducted or science is
>>practiced.
>
>Here you are making a value judgment.
Your continual referring to value judgment reminds me of what Freud said of
Adler whose etiology of neurosis was always the inferiority complex, and I
paraphrase: it would be darned clever if it just wasn't repeated so often.
For example, if everything is blamed on racism, other factors are ignored.
Anyway, your remarks are appreciated; they may make an impression on my
views.
Regards,
Val
peter...@yahoo.com
"Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message <71ae4l$oq8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> What I am pointing out is that "reality" is a social act, it is not
> some absolute state or quality of existence. And, for the most
> part, people will recieve the same answer because they are dealing
> with the same genetically engineered sensory equipment, the
> same interpretative equipment,
This is an appeal to science, but without some kind of objective,
external reality, science would be meaningless.
> and the same general set of
> circumstances. But even within that, there is a lot of room for
> disagreement as the argument about UFOs will demonstrate.
>
And a lot of agreement, as our ability to communicate, and to move
around without bumpoing into eachother demonstrates
> >The words 'right' and 'wrong' are rather ambiguous.
> >To say 'killing people is wrong' is to pass a value judgement.
> >To say '"Sydney is the capital of Australia" is wrong' is a judgement of
> fact.
>
> I am using "right" and "wrong" in the analytic sense, not the moral
> sense. There is no moral argument here. Is the rose "red" or is it
> "black?" That depends on whether you are looking at it, or a bee is
> looking at it. It's "reality" is both, and is dependent on the perceiver.
It's reality is neither -- both "redness" and "blackness" are in the eye of
the beholder. But the reality of the rose is not affected in the least by
whether a human or a bee looks at it. All the above proves is that we are
part of reality. How it looks to us depends on who we are and how we look at
it.
> A judgement of fact is a value judgement.
>
An odd conclusion, since 'fact' and 'value' are usually seen as dichotomous.
> >
> >Reality is not the sum total of everything good and wholesome,
> >it is the sum total of everything which is true, whether we know it or not.
>
> Reality is the sum total of our perceptions and interpretations. It is a
> social act, not an absolute state of existence.
>
Perceptions need to be "of" something, otherwise they are dreams or
hallucinations. What they are "of" is reality.
> >It is not the same as the sum total of known facts, because when you
> discover,
> >something (eg the world is round), it doesn't leap into existence
> >at that point -- the world was always round.
>
> Our "reality" was that the world was "flat" until our perceptions changed
> and "discovered" that it is "round."
Are you seriously asserting that "the world is flat" is just as valid
as "the world is round" ?
Your argument seems to follow that of cultural relativism,
but the situation here is different. There is no way
of judging the vality of a belief in sacred cows over that of
praying in the direction of Mecca, so these
kinds of belief are on a par. They can co-exist, and any
choice between them is a subjective value djudgement.
However, the discovery of the world's roundness completely diposed
of it's flatness. The two beliefs cannot and do not co-exist.
This makes the discovery of the world's roundness a fact
rather than a value judgement, as the temrns are normally used.
As I said before, we did not just discover the world
to be round we discovered that it had *always been* round.
There must be all sorts of other things which have always been
the case, but of which we are quite unaware, and therefore
there is a "reality" beyond our current knowledge and opinion.
It may be, and probably is, impossible for us to have absolute knowledge
of reality, but it is possible for us to have better and worse knowledge
of it. "The world is round" is a more accurate statement than
"the world is flat".
If these propositions were entirely subjective, we would
have no ground for accepting the one and rejecting the other.
It is the existence of procedures (eg empirical investigation) for replacing
inferior ideas with better (but still imperfect ones) that, among other
things, suggests the existence of an external reality, which our perceived
notions of reality are evolving towards.
> >The fact that we are capable
> >of discovering things about the world which are not only true, but
> >*always were* true leads to the supposition of a true state of affairs
> >of which we only have partial knowledge.
>
> False. We may refine our awareness of greater detail of existence,
> but there is no absolute reality.
Here you are using "existence" to label what I have been calling reality.
> There are only aspects of which we
> partially perceive. Reality is totally dependent on the perceiver.
>
> >In other words, reality.
>
> In other words, our "perceived" reality.
>
A perception is *of* something. You call it existence. I call it reality.
Rex Bennett
>
>Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
>>>>regarding their perceptions and examinations of "facts." Beyond
>>>>that, the term is meaningless. It is a waste of time to argue about
>>>>"reality" beyond that point as though there is some total state of
>>>>being that is "right" as opposed to some state of being that is
>>>>"wrong." In other words, it is nothing more than a value judgment.
>
>
>Rex,
>You said, (reality) "...it is nothing more than a value judgment." Reality
>is not a value judgment; judgments are made about reality.
On the contrary. There is no existent state as "reality." There is only
a perceptual/conceptual agreement of meaning. "Reality," as it is
most often used, is a defective term. It does not mean what we tend to
think it means. This, in turn, signals that our thinking is defective. It
is time to reflect on whether our manipulation of that term is leading
us to false beliefs and false conclusions.
>>>Rex, How pragmatic of you, but not philosophic.
>>
>>On the contrary, it is very philosophic. Any pragmatic nature is
>>simply a side bonus.
>
>Rex,
>So you maintain that philosophers have wasted their time discussing
reality,
Yes, indeed. If only they had realized they were using a defective term,
they could have saved much energy and millions of useless words that
lead nowhere. Here people are in this conference carrying on the same
banter, that still leads them nowhere.
>trying to analize it, and trying to understand it. You say its only value
>is practical.
No, I am saying that "reality" as an external state of existence is not
only an illusion, it is delusional.
> So Einstein and the founders of quantum mechanics just wasted
>time. Surely Newton wasted time.
No. They did not waste their time trying to determine the "true state"
of existence beyond their limitations to know such things. They
pursued knowledge that they could verify. They were not chasing
unicorns.
> All of the pre-Socratic and post-Socratic
>philosophers wasted time if they were not interested in the practical value
>of reality. How can you maintain that? Are you saying since reality is
not
>knowable, let us just use what we know.
I am saying that "reality" as an absolute state of existence is an illusion.
The concept is delusional. There may be states that are truer than others,
but that is based on perceptual/conceptual agreement. There is no one
"state" that is "true" versus all other "states" that are "false." There is
no one "state" that we can call "absolute reality."
>>> What about truth?
>>
>>
>>What about it? Is there a sole possessor of "truth?" Are you talking
>>about ABSOLUTES again as though there is an "absolute reality" and
>> "absolute truth?" Both are delusional.
>
>If there is no absolute reality, there is no reality. That does not
>eliminate the relational. You meant an illusion, not delusional.
No, I mean that the "state" of "reality" is an illusion, and that the
concept of an "absolute reality" is delusional. There is no one
"reality."
>>>Pragmatism is one of the theories of truth that I accept, but Europeans
>>>laughed it off of the stage as typically American.
>>
>>I am not sure I agree with "pragmatism" in moral and political arguments.
>>I would have to do a lot more reading in it, and it is been far too many
>>years.... However, on the scientific end of philosophy, pragmatism
>>applies.
>>
>>> That, however, is a
>>>digression. Wouldn't you rather know which is correct or most correct or
>>>that they both err? Don't you have a preference?
>>
>>That is delusional. (This is not intended as an insult, but an analytic
>>statement.) You can know nothing beyond your sensory/interpretative
>
>Maybe illusional but not delusional. Perhaps you understimate humanity
>when you limit knowledge to thought-sensation. There may be unconscious
>creative mental processes that turn on light bulbs.
Again, the concept is delusional as it is used. We must be aware that
human knowledge is limited and that there are things that we cannot not
know, not because of limits in our intelligence, but because of limits to
knowing. But this is a separate issue. It does not relate to the "reality"
argument. It is an epistemological issue.
>>Are they not both representations? There is no "objective reality"
>>as far as we are concerned. "Reality" is a matter of perception and
>>agreed meaning, nothing more. There is no "state of reality" beyond that
>
>Representatives go to the House, but reality is copied or contacted
>directly; it is not represented. There is only reality. There is no
>internal or external reality. There is no internal reality at all. There
>is no I, me, you, soul, mind, or self, but brain-body processes.
That's a mouthful.
>>for us to know! This is not to say that there are not states of existence
>>beyond our perceptions, but these states of existence are not "reality."
>>
>>
>>>So you have said to put them in a bag, shake them up, and there is not a
>>>dime's worth of difference.
>>
>>There is a difference in the value of information but only in its
>>application. Beyond that there is no value.
>>
>>> And, no, it is not just a value judgment.
>>
>>It is ALWAYS a value judgment. We cannot escape it.
>
>In a way I agree with that.
Ah. At least we agree on something.
> Acquinas remarks that every agent acts for its
>on good, and that every agent acts for an end. But truth is not only a
>value; it is a condition of existence.
I am not sure I agree with that. Truth is always a value judgment.
Truth is a value, and we judge/determine the state of its value.
Best regards,
Rex
Rex Bennett
>In article <3X9_1.9728$sF2.9...@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message
<71ae4l$oq8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> What I am pointing out is that "reality" is a social act, it is not
>> some absolute state or quality of existence. And, for the most
>> with the same genetically engineered sensory equipment, the
>> same interpretative equipment,
>
>This is an appeal to science, but without some kind of objective,
>external reality, science would be meaningless.
Incorrect. Without external events, science would be meaningless.
"Reality" is an internalized state. There is nothing "external" about
reality.
>> and the same general set of
>> circumstances. But even within that, there is a lot of room for
>> disagreement as the argument about UFOs will demonstrate.
>>
>
>And a lot of agreement, as our ability to communicate, and to move
>around without bumpoing into eachother demonstrates
Which is "real" and which isn't?
>
>> >The words 'right' and 'wrong' are rather ambiguous.
>> >To say 'killing people is wrong' is to pass a value judgement.
>> >To say '"Sydney is the capital of Australia" is wrong' is a judgement of
>> fact.
>>
>> I am using "right" and "wrong" in the analytic sense, not the moral
>> sense. There is no moral argument here. Is the rose "red" or is it
>> "black?" That depends on whether you are looking at it, or a bee is
>> looking at it. It's "reality" is both, and is dependent on the
perceiver.
>
>It's reality is neither -- both "redness" and "blackness" are in the eye of
>the beholder. But the reality of the rose is not affected in the least by
>whether a human or a bee looks at it. All the above proves is that we are
>part of reality. How it looks to us depends on who we are and how we look
at
>it.
Incorrect. It's state of existence is not in the least affected by who
looks
at it. The interpreted value of its state of existence, i.e. "reality", is.
>> A judgment of fact is a value judgment.
>>
>
>An odd conclusion, since 'fact' and 'value' are usually seen as
dichotomous.
Not at all. They are one and the same.
>> >Reality is not the sum total of everything good and wholesome,
>> >it is the sum total of everything which is true, whether we know it or
not.
>>
>> Reality is the sum total of our perceptions and interpretations. It is a
>> social act, not an absolute state of existence.
>>
>
>Perceptions need to be "of" something, otherwise they are dreams or
>hallucinations. What they are "of" is reality.
No, they are of matter/energy existence. The value of those perceptions
is what we call "reality."
>> >It is not the same as the sum total of known facts, because when you
>> discover,
>> >something (eg the world is round), it doesn't leap into existence
>> >at that point -- the world was always round.
>>
>> Our "reality" was that the world was "flat" until our perceptions changed
>> and "discovered" that it is "round."
>
>
>Are you seriously asserting that "the world is flat" is just as valid
>as "the world is round" ?
Absolutely. It is contextual in nature.
>Your argument seems to follow that of cultural relativism,
>but the situation here is different. There is no way
>of judging the vality of a belief in sacred cows over that of
>praying in the direction of Mecca, so these
>kinds of belief are on a par. They can co-exist, and any
>choice between them is a subjective value djudgement.
>
>However, the discovery of the world's roundness completely diposed
>of it's flatness. The two beliefs cannot and do not co-exist.
An erroneous conclusion. Its "roundness" or "flatness" is
contextual in nature. This is exactly what caused humanity to
take so long in "discovering" that the Earth is "round" even though
the Greeks had discovered that quality (and even measured it!)
thousand of years before.
>This makes the discovery of the world's roundness a fact
>rather than a value judgement, as the temrns are normally used.
>As I said before, we did not just discover the world
>to be round we discovered that it had *always been* round.
>There must be all sorts of other things which have always been
>the case, but of which we are quite unaware, and therefore
>there is a "reality" beyond our current knowledge and opinion.
Then I heartily suggest that you read Isaac Asimov's book "The
Relativity of Wrong." In particular, read the essay after which the
book is named. In there, Asimov shows conclusively that the
Earth is both "flat" and "round" and that the determination of
which quality applies is contextual. Just to quote a small
paragraph or two from the essay:
"My answer to him was, 'John, when people thought the Earth
was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was
spherical, they were wrong. But if *you* think that thinking the
Earth is spherical is *just as wrong* as thinking the Earth is
flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
"The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and
"wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and
completely right is totally and equally wrong. However, I don't
think that is so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy
concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of
why I think it so.'"
He then goes on to prove that the Earth, at the same time, is both
flat and spherical. They are both equally valid qualities of
"reality" when placed in proper context.
>It may be, and probably is, impossible for us to have absolute knowledge
>of reality, but it is possible for us to have better and worse knowledge
>of it. "The world is round" is a more accurate statement than
>"the world is flat".
Again, it is strictly contextual in nature. Neither is the "true reality!"
Our poor perceptual/conceptual equipment may well prevent us from
"seeing" that the Earth has a multidimensional quality far exceeding
"flatness" or "roundness."
>If these propositions were entirely subjective, we would
>have no ground for accepting the one and rejecting the other.
Again, incorrect. We have no difficulty placing these in context.
>
>It is the existence of procedures (eg empirical investigation) for
replacing
>inferior ideas with better (but still imperfect ones) that, among other
>things, suggests the existence of an external reality, which our perceived
>notions of reality are evolving towards.
There is no "external reality." Reality is strictly an internal process.
>
>> >The fact that we are capable
>> >of discovering things about the world which are not only true, but
>> >*always were* true leads to the supposition of a true state of affairs
>> >of which we only have partial knowledge.
Again, you are only seeing aspects of a larger, more complicated existence.
All aspects can be "true" when placed in the proper context. That is a sure
indication that our "reality" is internal, not external.
>>
>> False. We may refine our awareness of greater detail of existence,
>> but there is no absolute reality.
>
>Here you are using "existence" to label what I have been calling reality.
And I am pointing out that you, and millions of others, are misusing the
term "reality" to substitute for existence. Existence is independent of
our perception of it, reality is not. Reality is totally dependent on our
perception/conception/agreement. You have been incorrectly using a
subjective term to apply to an external state.
Best regards,
Rex
peter...@yahoo.com
In article <1_N_1.289$r7.8...@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message <71d36i$c51$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <3X9_1.9728$sF2.9...@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> <71ae4l$oq8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
>
> >>
> >> False. We may refine our awareness of greater detail of existence,
> >> but there is no absolute reality.
> >
> >Here you are using "existence" to label what I have been calling reality.
>
> And I am pointing out that you, and millions of others, are misusing the
> term "reality" to substitute for existence. Existence is independent of
> our perception of it, reality is not. Reality is totally dependent on our
> perception/conception/agreement. You have been incorrectly using a
> subjective term to apply to an external state.
>
What makes you so sure that your usage of the word is the right one?
Of 5 dictionary defintions I could only find one that agrees
with -- all the others equate reality with existence.
e.g
" The totality of what is, as opposed to what merely seems to be."
> >> What I am pointing out is that "reality" is a social act, it is not
> >> some absolute state or quality of existence. And, for the most
> >> part, people will receive the same answer because they are dealing
> >> with the same genetically engineered sensory equipment, the
> >> same interpretative equipment,
> >
> >This is an appeal to science, but without some kind of objective,
> >external reality, science would be meaningless.
>
> Incorrect. Without external events, science would be meaningless.
> "Reality" is an internalized state. There is nothing "external" about
> reality.
>
So how do "external events" manage to be real, if reality is all
on the inside ? If they are not real, how do
they manage to be both external and imaginary ?
> >> A judgment of fact is a value judgment.
> >>
> >
> >An odd conclusion, since 'fact' and 'value' are usually seen as
> dichotomous.
>
> Not at all. They are one and the same.
>
Statements of fact are "is" statements, statements of value are "ought"
statements. Are you really saying there is no difference ?
> >> Reality is the sum total of our perceptions and interpretations. It is a
> >> social act, not an absolute state of existence.
> >>
> >
> >Perceptions need to be "of" something, otherwise they are dreams or
> >hallucinations. What they are "of" is reality.
>
> No, they are of matter/energy existence. >
Your "matter/energy existence" is part of your "internal reality"
which means your perceptions are not perceptons of anything outside your head,
which means they are not perceptions at all.
> >> >It is not the same as the sum total of known facts, because when you
> >> discover,
> >> >something (eg the world is round), it doesn't leap into existence
> >> >at that point -- the world was always round.
> >>
> >> Our "reality" was that the world was "flat" until our perceptions changed
> >> and "discovered" that it is "round."
> >
> >
> >Are you seriously asserting that "the world is flat" is just as valid
> >as "the world is round" ?
>
> Absolutely.
:-) Heheheheh
> It is contextual in nature.
>
And are the contexts equally valid ? I think not.
> >Your argument seems to follow that of cultural relativism,
> >but the situation here is different. There is no way
> >of judging the vality of a belief in sacred cows over that of
> >praying in the direction of Mecca, so these
> >kinds of belief are on a par. They can co-exist, and any
> >choice between them is a subjective value djudgement.
> >
> >However, the discovery of the world's roundness completely diposed
> >of it's flatness. The two beliefs cannot and do not co-exist.
>
> An erroneous conclusion. Its "roundness" or "flatness" is
> contextual in nature. This is exactly what caused humanity to
> take so long in "discovering" that the Earth is "round" even though
> the Greeks had discovered that quality (and even measured it!)
> thousand of years before.
>
Yes, anything is "true" in an some context or other.
The context in which "the Earth is flat" is correct is the
mediaeval world view.
The context in which "Pegasus exists" is correct is Greek mythlogy.
However, it would be absurd to say Pegasus IS real, or the world IS flat.
When we talk about something being true without specifiying the context,
we mean in the broadest possible context, the one that includes all the
sub-contexts, such as Greek mythology and mediaeval thought, and the
labe we give to that context is "real" as in:
"What is Peagasus ?"
"A flying horse"
"Is pegasus *real* ?"
"No, it's just a myth"
Some of the sub-contexts are outmoded and only partially accurate
(the mediaeval world-view), some are expicitly labelled as being fictional.
(Greek mythology).
> >It may be, and probably is, impossible for us to have absolute knowledge
> >of reality, but it is possible for us to have better and worse knowledge
> >of it. "The world is round" is a more accurate statement than
> >"the world is flat".
>
> Again, it is strictly contextual in nature. Neither is the "true reality!"
> Our poor perceptual/conceptual equipment may well prevent us from
> "seeing" that the Earth has a multidimensional quality far exceeding
> "flatness" or "roundness."
>
Your approach would leave you with no grounds for saying
the Earth really exists in the first place.
> >If these propositions were entirely subjective, we would
> >have no ground for accepting the one and rejecting the other.
>
> Again, incorrect. We have no difficulty placing these in context.
>
Or in classifiying some contexts as more "real" than others.
> >
> >> >The fact that we are capable
> >> >of discovering things about the world which are not only true, but
> >> >*always were* true leads to the supposition of a true state of affairs
> >> >of which we only have partial knowledge.
>
> Again, you are only seeing aspects of a larger, more complicated existence.
> All aspects can be "true" when placed in the proper context. That is a sure
> indication that our "reality" is internal, not external.
Any proposition can be made "true" within an artificial,fictional context,
but we know such contexts (e.g. a novel) are fictional.
Our ability to develop contexts of greater and greater empirical accuracy
(e.g the development of scientific theory) is a sure indication that our
internal reality is connected to an external one. If our reality were
entirely internal, we would not be able to make discoveries, since we would
have nothing but the contents of our minds to explore.
--
Regards,
Peter D Jones
Brighton, UK
P.S
External existence is external
If External existence is external it is not internal.
If External existence is not internal it is not part of what
only exists internally.
Reality only exists internally
If External existence is not internal it is not real
What is not real is imaginary
If External existence is imaginary
What is imaginary can only be internal
External existence is internal.
Which of the above steps contains the mistake ?
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
this lovely PS:
>P.S
>
>
>External existence is external
>If External existence is external it is not internal.
>If External existence is not internal it is not part of what
> only exists internally.
>Reality only exists internally
>If External existence is not internal it is not real
>What is not real is imaginary
>If External existence is imaginary
>What is imaginary can only be internal
>External existence is internal.
>
>Which of the above steps contains the mistake ?
Sorry for diving in.
proposition 1:>External existence is external
help: "external of the mind" and "internal of the
mind"
exclude eachother.
clause 1 >If External existence is external it is not internal.
clause 2 >If External existence is not internal it is not part of
what
> only exists internally.
conlusion: "so what is external of the mind is external of it"
proposition 2 : >Reality only exists internally
help: "what exists internally is internal existance"
clause 3 >If External existence is not internal it is not
real
proposition 3 >What is not real is imaginary
clause 4 >If External existence is imaginary
proposition `4 >What is imaginary can only be internal
conclusion >External existence is internal.
Propositions and clauses are all real ;-)
Yet, there is something strange with propositions 2, 3 and 4. It seems to
me, that "reality" as being used in 2, is not the same as the one being used
in 3. Also, it looks as if "imaginary" as being used in 3 is not the same
as in 4.
So what really is lacking is a definition of the concept "reality" here.
And perhaps also a definition for "imaginary" would not be unwise at all. I
believe that would with-hold these terms from flipping their meaning from
the one proposition to the other.
Or are my remarks besides reality here???
-- Peter Paul Schuttevaar
ps: or was this just about definition per sé?
Val Miranda
Peter Paul Schuttevaar wrote in message <71npc1$os3$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>>
>>
>>External existence is external
>>If External existence is external it is not internal.
>>If External existence is not internal it is not part of what
>> only exists internally.
>>Reality only exists internally
>>If External existence is not internal it is not real
>>What is not real is imaginary
>>If External existence is imaginary
>>What is imaginary can only be internal
>>External existence is internal.
>>
>>Which of the above steps contains the mistake ?
>
>
>proposition 1:>External existence is external
>help: "external of the mind" and "internal of the
>mind"
> exclude eachother.
>clause 2 >If External existence is not internal it is not part of
>what
> > only exists internally.
>
>conlusion: "so what is external of the mind is external of it"
>
>proposition 2 : >Reality only exists internally
>help: "what exists internally is internal existance"
>real
>proposition 3 >What is not real is imaginary
>clause 4 >If External existence is imaginary
>proposition `4 >What is imaginary can only be internal
>conclusion >External existence is internal.
>
>Propositions and clauses are all real ;-)
>
>Yet, there is something strange with propositions 2, 3 and 4. It seems to
>me, that "reality" as being used in 2, is not the same as the one being
used
>in 3. Also, it looks as if "imaginary" as being used in 3 is not the same
>as in 4.
>
>So what really is lacking is a definition of the concept "reality" here.
>And perhaps also a definition for "imaginary" would not be unwise at all.
I
>believe that would with-hold these terms from flipping their meaning from
>the one proposition to the other.
>
>Or are my remarks besides reality here???
The key is to define reality simply and correctly. Existence is reality;
reality is existence. Existence can be only material and immaterial.
Reality can be only material and immaterial. The brain-body dichotomizes
reality into internal and external reality. This is a mistake. There is no
internal reality--no I that thinks--just an external acting brain-body.
Reality is only external. On a personal level, reality may be called
internal--the I that thinks--but for an observer, you are simply external,
the only reality.
peter...@yahoo.com
"Peter Paul Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in <71nj96$sun$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> this lovely PS:
>
> >
> >
> >External existence is external
> >If External existence is external it is not internal.
> >If External existence is not internal it is not part of what
> > only exists internally.
> >Reality only exists internally
> >If External existence is not internal it is not real
> >What is not real is imaginary
> >If External existence is imaginary
> >What is imaginary can only be internal
> >External existence is internal.
> >
> >Which of the above steps contains the mistake ?
>
>
> proposition 1:>External existence is external
> help: "external of the mind" and "internal of the
> mind"
> exclude eachother.
> clause 2 >If External existence is not internal it is not part of
> what
> > only exists internally.
>
> conlusion: "so what is external of the mind is external of it"
>
> proposition 2 : >Reality only exists internally
> help: "what exists internally is internal existance"
> real
> proposition 3 >What is not real is imaginary
> clause 4 >If External existence is imaginary
> proposition `4 >What is imaginary can only be internal
> conclusion >External existence is internal.
>
> Propositions and clauses are all real ;-)
>
> Yet, there is something strange with propositions 2, 3 and 4. It seems to
> me, that "reality" as being used in 2, is not the same as the one being used
> in 3. Also, it looks as if "imaginary" as being used in 3 is not the same
> as in 4.
>
> So what really is lacking is a definition of the concept "reality" here.
> And perhaps also a definition for "imaginary" would not be unwise at all. I
> believe that would with-hold these terms from flipping their meaning from
> the one proposition to the other.
>
Well, I was mixing Rex's definiton of "reality" as being entirely internal,
with the usual usage of "real" as opposed to "imaginary."
A horse is "real" inside my head, as a concept, and also outside.
A unicorn is "real" on the inside only, hence it is "imaginary".
But Rex only allows himself to talk about what is "real" on the inside,
so he cannot distinguish between the horse and the unicorn.
> Or are my remarks besides reality here???
>
No, they are *inside* it, wherever it is.
> -- Peter Paul Schuttevaar
>
> ps: or was this just about definition per sé?
>
>
Almost entirely.
--
Regards,
Peter D Jones
Brighton, UK
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Rex Bennett
>In article <1_N_1.289$r7.8...@newse2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> False. We may refine our awareness of greater detail of existence,
>> >> but there is no absolute reality.
>> >
>> >Here you are using "existence" to label what I have been calling
reality.
>>
>> And I am pointing out that you, and millions of others, are misusing the
>> term "reality" to substitute for existence. Existence is independent of
>> our perception of it, reality is not. Reality is totally dependent on
our
>> perception/conception/agreement. You have been incorrectly using a
>> subjective term to apply to an external state.
>>
>
>What makes you so sure that your usage of the word is the right one?
>Of 5 dictionary defintions I could only find one that agrees
>with -- all the others equate reality with existence.
The problem with dictionaries is that they tell you the common usage of
a term. They do not tell you if the concept itself is valid. For that, you
need a book on philosophy, or epistemology. A good book on
epistemology will clear the dust out of the air very quickly!
The issue of the false belief of "reality" is covered in every good
epistemology book.
>> >> What I am pointing out is that "reality" is a social act, it is not
>> >> some absolute state or quality of existence. And, for the most
>> >> part, people will receive the same answer because they are dealing
>> >> with the same genetically engineered sensory equipment, the
>> >> same interpretative equipment,
>> >
>> >This is an appeal to science, but without some kind of objective,
>> >external reality, science would be meaningless.
Up to this point, I have made no comment about external existence,
only that the term "external reality" is defective and meaningless.
>> Without external events, science would be meaningless.
>> "Reality" is an internalized state. There is nothing "external" about
>> reality.
>>
>
>So how do "external events" manage to be real, if reality is all
>on the inside ? If they are not real, how do
>they manage to be both external and imaginary ?
Now, you are using the term "real." Keep in mind that it is the
loose use of these very generalized terms that create the problem
to begin with. This word has many, many different nuances
that mislead us to fuzzy thinking.
The determination of whether something is "real" is a judgment call.
It is based on a generally agreed-upon value in society that
distinguishes what we call "reality" from "illusion/delusion." It is a
personal and social term. It is relevant to you. It says nothing at
all about the "thing in itself." It addresses our perceptions.
>> >> A judgment of fact is a value judgment.
>> >>
>> >
>> >An odd conclusion, since 'fact' and 'value' are usually seen as
>> dichotomous.
>>
>> Not at all. They are one and the same.
>>
>
>Statements of fact are "is" statements, statements of value are "ought"
>statements. Are you really saying there is no difference ?
Do not confuse "value" to mean "moral values." The first is an agreement
of definition, the second is a moral guideline. In the ten base system,
5 plus 5 have a value of 10. The color red has specific spectrum values.
A value is an agreed upon meaning. This means that all values are social
in origin. An individual, separate from all society, has no use of values.
He does not have to agree with anyone on what "red" means. He simply
see it and knows it perceptually, not cognitively.
>> >> Reality is the sum total of our perceptions and interpretations. It
is a
>> >> social act, not an absolute state of existence.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Perceptions need to be "of" something, otherwise they are dreams or
>> >hallucinations. What they are "of" is reality.
>>
>> No, they are of matter/energy existence. >
>
>Your "matter/energy existence" is part of your "internal reality"
>which means your perceptions are not perceptions of anything outside your
head,
>which means they are not perceptions at all.
The terminology is part of the cognitive process that seeks to translate
perceptions to understandable terms. Sensations are direct;
perception involves interpretation. This is why our "reality" is not
the same as "external existence." It is a processing of our sensations,
not the "thing in itself."
>> >Are you seriously asserting that "the world is flat" is just as valid
>> >as "the world is round" ?
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
>:-) Heheheheh
>
>
>> It is contextual in nature.
>>
>
>
>And are the contexts equally valid ? I think not.
Keep in mind that you didn't believe in perpetual acceleration either.
Have you read Asimov's book yet? He explains it beautifully.
>> >However, the discovery of the world's roundness completely diposed
>> >of it's flatness. The two beliefs cannot and do not co-exist.
>>
>> An erroneous conclusion. Its "roundness" or "flatness" is
>> contextual in nature. This is exactly what caused humanity to
>> take so long in "discovering" that the Earth is "round" even though
>> the Greeks had discovered that quality (and even measured it!)
>> thousand of years before.
>>
>
>Yes, anything is "true" in an some context or other.
>The context in which "the Earth is flat" is correct is the
>mediaeval world view.
It is also correct in the current day builder's view. I keep hearing
tourist from mountainous states complain that "Florida is too FLAT!"
Hey, we have overpasses! That's a hill isn't it? (g)
>
>> >It may be, and probably is, impossible for us to have absolute knowledge
>> >of reality, but it is possible for us to have better and worse knowledge
>> >of it. "The world is round" is a more accurate statement than
>> >"the world is flat".
Actually, that is a good statement. "more accurate" in specific respects.
It not a question of "either/or", "right/wrong" but a question of degree.
Either/Or thinking is what leads us into most errors.
>
>> >If these propositions were entirely subjective, we would
>> >have no ground for accepting the one and rejecting the other.
Again, careful with the word "subjective." It has many nuances.
Again, we agree on "reality." It is our sensation/interpretation/
agreement of the meaning of our senses and our cognitive model
of it.
Best regards,
Rex
Rex Bennett
>>
>
>Well, I was mixing Rex's definiton of "reality" as being entirely internal,
>with the usual usage of "real" as opposed to "imaginary."
The problem is the loose use of these terms. They do not mean
the same in each instance they are used.
>A horse is "real" inside my head, as a concept, and also outside.
No, the aprehension is "real" inside your head. The physical being
of the horse is not inside your head. Not unless you have a *very*
large head.
>A unicorn is "real" on the inside only, hence it is "imaginary".
If you are seeing unicorns, then you are having problems since
the definition of our reality does not allow for unicorns since we
do not believe they exist externally. At least we have never found
any evidence for them.
Do you see yet how your loose application of terminology is leading
into error and confusion? Is should be apparent to just about anyone.
>But Rex only allows himself to talk about what is "real" on the inside,
>so he cannot distinguish between the horse and the unicorn.
I can distinguish very well, and without all the confusion about whether
the horse or unicorn is physically inside my head.
Rex
Val Miranda
Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
Subjective should mean only this: mental, that is, of the brain-body.
Subjective and internal are hypostatic. Reality (the definition I had
accepted) is existence. There is no internal reality--just reality, which
you may call external or just reality. You can Bishop Berkeley or Immanuel
Kantize existence by calling it reality if you prefer. You mean that the
mind's product of existence is reality. You then must have a substratum
which must be existence. The senses never err; the brain processes
sensation which copies and is in direct contact with existence and has no
need of the concept of a substratum. Everyone knows that the brain's
process is not existence; otherwise, existence would be in one's mind. If
reality is subjective, it is hypostatic, and has as many meanings as minds
give it, so I can choose your definition in order to be agreeable.
>
>Best regards,
>Rex
>
>
>
peter...@yahoo.com
"Rex Bennett" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> peter...@yahoo.com wrote in message <71q76o$fic$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >A horse is "real" inside my head, as a concept, and also outside.
>
> No, the aprehension is "real" inside your head.
Which is exactly why I used the phrase "as a concept", of course.
> >A unicorn is "real" on the inside only, hence it is "imaginary".
>
> If you are seeing unicorns, then you are having problems since
> the definition of our reality does not allow for unicorns since we
> do not believe they exist externally.
By making reality dependant on belief, you open up the possibility
that unicorns become real when we believe in them.
(Antiparallel to the case of Tinkerbell).
> >What makes you so sure that your usage of the word is the right one?
> >Of 5 dictionary defintions I could only find one that agrees
> >with -- all the others equate reality with existence.
>
> The problem with dictionaries is that they tell you the common usage of
> a term. They do not tell you if the concept itself is valid.
Valid in which context ? You seem to be referring to the context
of "causal realism", but this is only one theory among many.
You do not have the right to dictate to others what they should believe
(since you are Rex Bennett rather than Rex Mundi), and you have no
corresponding right to insist on a context-dependant usage
of a word.
If they say that the concept "reality" is the same as the concept
"existence", and the concept "existence" is valid (which I assume it
is since you keep referring to it), then the concept of "reality"
as equating to existence must be valid.
> For that, you
> need a book on philosophy, or epistemology.
Actually, the definition I quoted came from a philosophical dictionary.
A book on ontology might give you quite a different interpretation.
> >> >This is an appeal to science, but without some kind of objective,
> >> >external reality, science would be meaningless.
>
> Up to this point, I have made no comment about external existence,
> only that the term "external reality" is defective and meaningless.
>
Any appeal to science is implicitly an appeal to some kind of knowable
external reality, since the knowability of such a reality
is the basis of science's claim to be "true" in some way.
> >> >> A judgment of fact is a value judgment.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >An odd conclusion, since 'fact' and 'value' are usually seen as
> >> dichotomous.
> >>
> >> Not at all. They are one and the same.
> >>
> >
In associating Fact with Value you are overturning a thread of philosophical
analysis going back to David Hume. Odd, gieven your insistence
on 'correctness' in all things.
> >Yes, anything is "true" in an some context or other.
> >The context in which "the Earth is flat" is correct is the
> >mediaeval world view.
>
> It is also correct in the current day builder's view. I keep hearing
> tourist from mountainous states complain that "Florida is too FLAT!"
> Hey, we have overpasses! That's a hill isn't it? (g)
>
"Veddy flet, Florida", as Coward might have said.
> >
> >> >It may be, and probably is, impossible for us to have absolute knowledge
> >> >of reality, but it is possible for us to have better and worse knowledge
> >> >of it. "The world is round" is a more accurate statement than
> >> >"the world is flat".
>
> Actually, that is a good statement. "more accurate" in specific respects.
> It not a question of "either/or", "right/wrong" but a question of degree.
> Either/Or thinking is what leads us into most errors.
>
Well, I am glad you have finally noticed my careful avoidance of
absolute truth claims.
Now, perhaps we could return to the argument I have been trying to make
for several postings now, namely:
1. Assumption: Reality is the sum total of true facts.
2 Assumption: All facts are context dependant, and may be considered "true"
(albeit trivially)
in an appropriate context.
3 Assumption: A context can be manufactured to make any statement true;
therefore any statement is potentially a "true fact" within its context.
4 Question: Are all contexts equally valid/real/true/or not ?
5 Possible answer to [4] : All contexts are equally valid.
5.1 Implication of [5]: An attempt to justify and argument by appealing
to a particular context, eg science, is meaningless
since it is no more valid than any other context.
5.2 Implication of [5.1 ]: All possible "facts" (ie any statement
whatsoever, from [3]) are equally valid. There is no meaningful distinction
between "true" and "false"
5.3 Conclusion from [5.2] and [1]: In the absence of a meaningful definition
of "truth", there is no meaningful definition of "reality".
6. Alternative answer to [4]: Not all contexts are equally valid.
6.1 Implication of [6]: There must be criteria for distinguishing more
valid contexts from less valid ones.
6.2 Question: are the criteria are purely internal to the some totality of
contexts ?
6.3 Possible answer to [6.2]: Yes, they are purely internal
6.3.1: It would be impossible to make discoveries, or come up with
radically different views of "reality", since the totality of contexts
represents what is 'known'. Any investigatin of the totality of contexts
would only produce variations on what is already believed, and would not
generate radical novelty.
6.4 Alternative answer to [6.2]: No, the criteria depend on an external
reference.
The better a context 'models' this external reference, the more valid
the context is.
6.4.1 Implication of [6.4]: There are one or more hierarchies of
contexts, such that the 'topmost' context in a hierarchy is the most
valid presently known.
6.4.2 Implication of [6.2]. It is possible to make genuine discoveries.
6.4.3 Conclusion from [6.4.1] and [6.4.2]: On the making of a genuine
discovery, a new context comes into being containing a set of new facts.
6.4.3 Question. Do we regard facts as becoming true on the
creation/discovery of the context in which they are valid?
6.4.4 Possible answer to [6.4.3]: Yes we do.
5.4.4.1 Since we know nothing of existence save the totality of
facts in the most valid
hierarchy, we would forced to conclude that facts coming into
being means existence itself is coming into being as we
investigate it, contradicting the idea that
existence is independant of us.
6.4.5 Alternatice answer to [6.4.3]: No we do not.
6.4.5.1 Implication of [6.4.5]: When the most valid context is
changed to make a new set of facts true, we regard those facts
as always having been true -- their truth was simply unknown.
6.4.5.2 Implication of [6.4.5.1]: Prior to the making a discovery, and
changing the most valid context, there must have been "true" (relatively
speaking) facts of whose truth we were unaware until the point where the
discovery was made.
6.4.5.3 Conclusion: We are forced to believe that there are
possible conceptual interpretations and valuations of existence
beyond what is currently known.
Since the sum total of actual conceptual interpretations and
valuations of existence is "internal reality", these other
conceptual interpretations and valuations of existence
must by contrast be termed "external reality".
In short, external reality is the totality of all those contexts and facts
which have yet to be discovered. It is the internal reality of the future.
It is not the same thing as existence, because existence
is not comprised of contexts and facts.
If it does not exist, discovery and investiation of the world comes to a halt.
In investigating existence, we turn external reality from the
possible/unknown/future to the actual/known/present.
Note that answers [5] and [6.3] are incompatible with an appeal to science.
--
Regards,
Peter D Jones
Brighton, UK
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------