is this reality?

You guys would love readin the empiricist philosophers, if you haven't already, namely Locke, Berkeley & Hume.
------------------
Trance and Dance: the enlightened path to Trancendence.
 
fugly:
You seem to think that what I am saying is that reality is ONLY in our minds. That is not what I'm saying - read my words instead of inferring, please. I am saying that an objective reality may in fact exist, HOWEVER, it is dependent upon subjective perspectives.
Let me explain why.
We'll go back to the yellow ball. Take two men: one of them is blind. Is that ball "yellow" to the blind man? No, it's not. Is it yellow to the seeing man? Yes, it is. Does the fact that it is not yellow to the blind man make it also not yellow to the seeing man? No, but the fact that it IS yellow to the seeing man also does not make it yellow to the blind man. REGARDLESS of the actual objective "reality" of something, it is dependent upon the persons individual, subjective perspective.
Whether or not there is a real, objective reality is something we can debate about forever. It's akin to fighting over the existance of God. You can't prove its existance (having the burden of proof), I can't prove that it does NOT exist. I may have a stronger argument however, because one way to prove the non-existence of something is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions. For example, using your own argument:
"You and I and everyone around us (excluding those with mental problems) view reality just like everyone else does."
This is a contradiction. For it to be completely objective, reality would have to be seen exactly the same by ALL people ALL the time. Which, as you stated, it is not.
Thus, my conclusion that even an "objective" reality is dependent upon subjective perspective.
 
once again its all how you define things.
Flower - i define yellow to be a frequency range of light. i say an object is yellow if it absorbes all frequencies of light (in a certain rage defined as 'visible') except for yellow.
to me the ball is yellow in the reality on the blind man.
(to me) you are saying this frequency of light - when it hits the eye - forms a nueral impulse that targets a region in the brain and produces a certain cascade pattern in that region - the chemical footprint of the energy signature is matched against a prestored signiture - which has an associated audiotory footprint matched to the word "yellow". (to me) you are saying yellow is associated with that electrochemical footprint.
the blind mans eyes are hit by the frequency but no reaction takes place - therefore no "yellow"
 
"I am saying that an objective reality may in fact exist, HOWEVER, it is dependent upon subjective perspectives."
If it's dependent on perspective, then it is subjective.
As for the yellow ball - whether or not it is observed, the ball is still composed of certain matter that exists independently of perception.
What about the cancer example I gave earlier? It will kill you whether or not you know you have it.
------------------
Trance and Dance: the enlightened path to Trancendence.
 
kewl - you're right, it is all how you define things - which is exactly my point.
Once again we're falling into semantics here... let me try to simplify things:
Argument: "You and I and everyone around us (excluding those with mental problems) view reality just like everyone else does."
My stance is that if there were a completely objective reality, it would have to be experienced the same by all people, all the time - which, using the above contradiction, it clearly is not.
Trancendance - we're not talking about awareness, we're talking about existance. Cancer is a studyable, observable "thing" - reality is a concept.
 
Flower
your logic is flawed:
--------------------------------------------
I am saying that an objective reality may in fact exist, HOWEVER, it is dependent upon subjective perspectives.
------------------------------------------
assume - objective reality exist
let - objective reality depend on subjective perspectives
action - take away subjective perspectives
result - objective reality no longer exists
to the point:
assume - objective reality exists
let - subjective perspectives depend on objective reality
action - take away subjective perspectives
result - objective reality still exists
action - take away objective reality
result - subjective perspectives no longer exists.
+ the argument you are using from fugly is flawed - his statement is simply incorrent - but thats not really the point.
if you look at objective reality in time - it is not constant - it is ever changing. the energy outside of our physicallity changes the energy inside our physicallity and the energy inside our physicallity changes the energy distrubition out (in a very local way).
i think it is really important to understand that our complete physicality is incorporated into an ever changing reality.
subjective reality affects objective reality and vica versa. it is a matter of belief wether objective and subjective realities diverge at the death of the subjugate (so they were symbiotic - not dependant - OR - the subjugate transforms to depend on another objective reality) or the subjective terminates with death (and does not affect the objective)
(Trancedance - your point is valid)
[This message has been edited by kewl (edited 13 December 2000).]
 
kewl - logically, yes, you are correct.
Let me pose this question:
Take a person with "mental problems" who does not see the same reality as "everyone else." Does this make thier reality any less real?
 
Do you REALLY have a headache, jill? LOL (yes, I'm kidding)
 
mental problems?
the encoding is different - and pattern associations are different (define parsing algorithim - way and individual parses incoming stimuli into patterns for assimilation and recognition)
someone with a mental problem has a parsing algorithm that is an outlier (statistical term) when compared to the norm (stat) distribution of parsing algorithms.
the exist in the same reality as everyone else - however their subjective reality is out of phase with the protocol (communications) formned by the resonance of the norm parsing algorithim - so they can not decipher communication as packaged and can not package information to be deciphered by the norm.
 
Kewl:
Then how do you propose to measure this objective reality, sicne the only way any of us have to observe anything is SUBJECTIVELY?
Doesn't that then make objective reality dependent on subjective reality? Or, to refine the point, doesn't that make objective reality unmeasurable?
I take it from your statements regarding 'norms' that you are using the 'norm'to define what objective reality is...which relates to one of my arguments from way back in this thread.
Reality is a socially negotiated collective delusion.
and furthermore that it is STILL subjective, just based on a larger number of perceptions averaged together.
Let's bring back the yellow ball...it may posess certain physical traits, but it is, in reality, only a yellow ball because we have identified it as such through perception and socialization.
I think what actually IS limiting is to define reality as what is perceivable to all... this discounts a lot of things that I hold to be unquestionably real...like love.
[This message has been edited by FoX (edited 13 December 2000).]
 
Oh and Trancendance:
If you didnlt know you had cancer and it killed you, you're just dead.
In that case, THAT is what is 'real.'
 
kewl -
You are walking in the woods and come across a tree. You, being in reality, and that tree, being in reality, both exist, correct?
And yet, that tree does not exist for radio waves of a certain wave-length, nor does it exist for neutrinos.
Does that mean that those radio waves or neutrinos do not exist? They are real, just as real as the tree - we can observe and study them both, so they are both in our reality... yet they are not in each others reality.
Which reality is correct?
 
my physicality is an instrument - gathering data - my subjective reality (perception of reality) IS the measurement of the objective reality (reality) as encoded in my body (which is also part of the objective reality).
 
Fox - no the norm for the parsing algorithim IS NOT what i define reality to be.
the parsing algorythm norm is a temporal based energy construct - existing in reality.
Flower - to me a neutrino and a tree both have a reality - it is same reality i exist in. the neutrio the photon and the tree all have a state - which can be chaged - this state is their subjective reality.
if i see a tree - i am involved in a relationship with that tree.
[This message has been edited by kewl (edited 13 December 2000).]
 
"to me a neutrino and a tree both have a reality"
So they both have a reality, just as we have a reality.... and they are both in our reality, yet they are not in each others reality. Which means that the reality would be dependent upon which you were - meaning... the reality would be different if you were you, the tree, or the neutrino, respectively.
So... the reality that you experienced would be dependent upon which one you were...
 
Just because something is (or may be) immeasurable that doesn't make it subjective. Objectiveness can still exist even if we perceive it subjectively.
And as for the death point - if you don't perceive death (assuming there is no afterlife or post-death consciousness), so how, according to your view, can that be reality?
But this whole debate seems to revolve around a central question:
1. Is reality what is perceived or what exists independently of perception or both?
I'm not answering the question, I'm just pointing out possible weaknesses in other positions.
------------------
Trance and Dance: the enlightened path to Trancendence.
 
you keep on saying the neutrino and tree are not in each others reality - i state that they are.
hey - are we actually gonna get 4 pages out of this debate?
[This message has been edited by kewl (edited 13 December 2000).]
 
So basically, you are saying that regardless of perception, an objective reality exists.
I disagree, simply on the grounds that you cannot prove this. If something is not percieved, then how do we know of its existance? (And I'm not talking about awareness, I'm talking about actual perception - being observed either directly or indirectly.)
At this point, I don't think there is a debate left - all this is simply us putting forth different definitions.
I also think that your definition of reality puts perception in a secondary role being just a function of matter and a tool that we use to describe the truly existing material world.
But think about how much of your knowledge of the world has nothing to do with matter - only with perception... pain, love, sweet... I don't believe that matter is the only reality, and that perceptions are only helpful in describing it.
______________________________________
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. "
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"...we become aware that reality,
although it is indeed real,
is also appearance;
and that appearance,
although it is indeed appearance,
is also reality."
- Owen Barfield
[This message has been edited by Flower (edited 13 December 2000).]
 
i agree - point to note - you cant prove a subjective reality either.
nice debating with you!
oh and BTW - i used physcality and energy - not matter.
i would never be so limited as to assume that the objective reality was composed only of a bunch of particles flying about in time. i tend to think of matter as being comprised of a set of associated energies - there are many more types that play around matter - and some that have no association with matter at all.
nor would i ever state that matter is the only component of reality that has the ability to alter my state and change my perception.
nor would i disagree that i have the ability to alter my state and change reality (but that opens a debate on free will)
[This message has been edited by kewl (edited 13 December 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top