Such as?Quote:
Originally posted by Kedaman
I disagree, it would even give answers to questions that haven't been answered yet, and i'm not talking about any mysteriously invoked illusion, as even that would imply objective reality.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
However, it is adds additional complexity that raises more questions than it answers. By occam's razor, I would discount it.
As long as you don't come to body blows, I am in :DQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman & Simonm Reality Debate (and anyone else brave enough to enter)
.
OK then, the context of the discussion is considering whether or not we can know that there exists a physical, objective reality around us or are we merely being deceived in some way?
And so, ladies and gentlemen, we have to conclude that although we may choose to believe our five senses to give us a feel of our surroundings, there are instances where these senses may be deceived or may mislead us, because of various factors, and therefore, we conclude that there's no definite answer to this question.
*applause*
*all members scatter and then gather around the food-stalls*
.
Honeybee
So if we are decieved (some of the time) by our senses, is that cause enough to discount the notion of an external reality altogether?Quote:
And so, ladies and gentlemen, we have to conclude that although we may choose to believe our five senses to give us a feel of our surroundings, there are instances where these senses may be deceived or may mislead us, because of various factors, and therefore, we conclude that there's no definite answer to this question.
stop watching the matrixQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee
So if we are decieved (some of the time) by our senses, is that cause enough to discount the notion of an external reality altogether?
I already took care to diplomatize my response by saying there's no definite answer :pQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
So if we are decieved (some of the time) by our senses, is that cause enough to discount the notion of an external reality altogether?
As with all debates/discussions, this too doesn't have any definite answer. What your senses tell your brain or what your brain interpretes the senses' messages into depends upon a lot of factors. And it becomes very hard to find out which senses are being interpreted correctly and which are not.
Consider driving in daylight and in the night. Because your visual sense has been hampered by the dark, your perception of the distances between vehicles could be distorted. The proportion of distortion may vary but you can safely assume there's some distortion. Let's also take into account factors such as the windshield glass and say that even during daylight driving our visual perception is 98% correct. In the night it could reduce to anywhere like 70% to 20% (for the sake of this discussion). Thus what appears to be real in the night would probably be only 70% real or 20% real.
The perception by different senses may vary. For e.g. if you consider taste, you are less likely to get a distorted perception. Perhaps it's to do with the functioning of each sense too. In case of touch, the proportion of distortion could be more than the touch, but lesser than the smell. In case of smell, the distortion could be more than the touch but less than hearing/sight and so on.
And then compare your ears and your eyes. Your eyes can show you something that's 10 miles ahead of you through your room window, but will fail to tell you what's in the adjoining room because they cannot see through the wall. Your ears, on the other hand, can listen to the noise going on in the entire house, giving you some idea as to what the occupants are upto, but will fail to tell you about the activities going on 10 miles farther because they have a limited range.
Thus you have five different senses, with varying potential for distortion, varying range and varying attributes. Take any practical permutations and combinations and you will know that although a majority of the times, under favourable circumstances, you can tell what's exactly happening around you, there are quite a few instances where you may easily go wrong. Again in cases where you have gone wrong, it may be because you interpreted one of your senses wrongly when the sense itself had acted correct.
Once you are over this, there's this thing called the Sixth Sense. We have yet to determine if it really exists and exists in all beings. There are people who say it exists, and their claims are not easily refutable. So you have to assume there's a sixth sense. How it works is presently beyond our comprehension.
Thus you have five senses which are already creating so many possibilities to go wrong, and then there's the mysterious sixth sense if you choose to believe it. And how many more we have yet to discover, nobody knows.
.
I guess I'm foolhardy enough to enter if that counts.
If we are being deceived, it has been done to the point where we are questioning that 'deceit' with no evidence to confirm or dispute it whatsoever. If reality does exist, we are only given flawed sensors and receptors with which to experience it. Since the question cannot be answered over and above this threshhold, the only solution is to choose which interpretation you prefer and hang onto faith in it as one does with religion. Both models can fit, but neither can be proved or disproved. Much like God.
I would select the explanation that there is indeed an external, objective reality as it is the simplest explanation. We have to go on with that assumption even if we do not believe it anyway.
I would tend to agree.
A slight aside, however.
Where does the principal of Occam's fit into the model of hallucinations. They certainly exist and can be instigated through the use of certain chemicals, but don't appear to fit the model...
OK, in one approach you can make it as disputable as the concept of God. Or we can take the other approach, presented by Simon that there exists an objective reality. However my point is, at various points of time the degree and the accuracy of our perception of this objective reality around us will change, because of various factors. And therefore, we cannot claim to have understood the reality fully.Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
I guess I'm foolhardy enough to enter if that counts.
If we are being deceived, it has been done to the point where we are questioning that 'deceit' with no evidence to confirm or dispute it whatsoever. If reality does exist, we are only given flawed sensors and receptors with which to experience it. Since the question cannot be answered over and above this threshhold, the only solution is to choose which interpretation you prefer and hang onto faith in it as one does with religion. Both models can fit, but neither can be proved or disproved. Much like God.
Here I am mainly talking about our immediate surroundings. However the objective reality in fact will consist of several events happening at different places at the same point of time, and we are only able to perceive those events which are happening within the ranges of our senses. Therefore if I make an observation about reality now, it may only apply to my immediate surroundings, or only that part of the whole reality which I can sense. I cannot know what's happening in a house in Iraq at this precise moment, or what Mr. GWBush is doing right at this moment, because my senses are incapable of it.
Thus I would say that at any point of time we can only see the reality which is in our immediate surroundings, and even that perception may not be 100% true.
Imagine you are sitting in a garden with beautiful flowers of various colours. You can see all the flowers. But if you are asked to count them, you will most likely give a wrong answer. Even if you assume that the flowers are not hidden by other flowers, if all the flowers were clearly visible to you, if you are talking about a thousand or so flowers, your counting could very easily go wrong. Is it because your senses deceived you? Or is it because your brain could not interpret the senses correctly? I am sure your visual sense showed you all the flowers, but it's your brain who could not analyse the picture and draw conclusions.
.
Behemoth
Are you asking whether the principle of Occam's razor could be used to dismiss all illusions/halucinations?Quote:
Where does the principal of Occam's fit into the model of hallucinations. They certainly exist and can be instigated through the use of certain chemicals, but don't appear to fit the model...
Well, that wouldn't be the case. If there is a flaw in the hallucination or some other empirical evidence to indicate some subtefuge at work, then there is good reason to consider a more complex theory...one that takes into account the additional evidecne.
The principle remains intact: Make as few assertions necessary to explain all available facts. If new facts become known that are not predicted by the simpler theory, a more complex theory is necessary.
Simon
I see that you all have already started without me.. oh well
If you're decieved in some way then it implies that theres something else behind it etc.. ending up in the conclusion that theres a reality. This is not the point i'm making. Yes i've used this as a counter argument (and thanks to HB for doing the work for me this time :)), but its not the actual point. I do have a counterpropsal that is a better explanation than reality, in terms of complexity and the amount of questions it answers. In fact I think we've been discussing them for quite some time now, but maybe this time we'll come to some conclusions won't we?Quote:
OK then, the context of the discussion is considering whether or not we can know that there exists a physical, objective reality around us or are we merely being deceived in some way?
Does anyone have a link to a good explanation of the principle of Occam's razor?
Since we have no way of differing between an objective or subjective reality I've never given this subject all that much thought. But I will be listening to you...
Kedaman
Thus far, I have failed to see how your theories offer an alternative to the notion of an objective reality.Quote:
I do have a counterpropsal that is a better explanation than reality, in terms of complexity and the amount of questions it answers. In fact I think we've been discussing them for quite some time now, but maybe this time we'll come to some conclusions won't we?
Let's thrash out exactly where you stand on this matter. Would you claim that there is no external, intersubectively testable reality?
but the complexity of the experienced "reality" is limited only by the imagination. Essentially experience cannot be so limited. It doesn't matter that an imagined reality of walking down the street or going into a shop is simpler and therefore more believable than that of a rainbow-striped gazelle dancing the tango with Abraham Lincoln.
What I'm trying to say is - why is a genuine, tangible, real existence "simpler" and more in keeping with Occam's Razor than a fascinatingly lucid dream?
CornedBee
Here is a link: What is Occam's Razor?
Behemoth
The best explanation I ever heard for this was by David Deutsch in the "Fabric of Reality":Quote:
What I'm trying to say is - why is a genuine, tangible, real existence "simpler" and more in keeping with Occam's Razor than a fascinatingly lucid dream?
Before Galilao, people used to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe and that all the planets, the sun and all the stars (which they thought were angels) moved about in the night sky while the earth was stationary.
When you look at the motion of stars in the sky, they move in all kinds of erratic curvey patterns in a seemingly random fashion.
However, when it was proposed that actually the earth was a planet that orbited around the sun (which in turn orbited around the centre of the galaxy) in an eliptical fashion, it became clear that the motion of astral bodies was much more simpler than originally conceived of.
As you know, Galilao faced much resistance to his theory but eventually it was accepted. Not because it was more consistant with the evidence (because it wasn't) but because it reduced the apparent complexity to a simple rule: All astral bodies move in elliptical orbits.
You could cling to the theory that the earth was stationary and that the angels/stars are just moving about in such a way that gave the impression that all astral bodies moved in ellipses. However, in order to predict the motion of the heavenly bodies, you would still need to understand the theory that they were all moving in an elliptical fashion and explain why they would choose to persist with such a shirade.
Effectively, one theory contained the other as a subset. It made more assertions than the other and is therefore more complex (because each additional assertion requires it's own explanation). The fewer assertions the better.
Can we include dreams or imaginations into "reality" ?Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
but the complexity of the experienced "reality" is limited only by the imagination. Essentially experience cannot be so limited. It doesn't matter that an imagined reality of walking down the street or going into a shop is simpler and therefore more believable than that of a rainbow-striped gazelle dancing the tango with Abraham Lincoln.
What I'm trying to say is - why is a genuine, tangible, real existence "simpler" and more in keeping with Occam's Razor than a fascinatingly lucid dream?
What the hell is this razor? I have never shaved with it before. I mean I did hear about Occam's razor but that was in a science fiction as a passing reference. What's it?
.
I think unless we can find a way to completely detach ourselves from our own limits we will experience reality in some other form.
Otherwise it will be our own personal interpretation of reality based on our sensory perceptions which can be altered by circumstances within or outside our reach.
Simple example : compare the image of a mountain scene in bright sunlight to that at night and the same in very misty conditions.
But, as Ian said, that's quite hard to do. We as of yet cannot detach ourselves fully.
That's why we cannot answer the god question with 100% certainty.
PS : Simon, are you still mad at me ?
I understand that in principle, but that doesn't answer my question (or if it did I missed it).
Why can reality not be a complex dream? Is that not simpler than protons and neutrons, public transport, food, space flight, drunkenness, music, sex, reading, boxing matches, tissues, the colour brown, ice, photography, taxes, glue, volcanoes, smart and casual shoes, and cardboard?
Simon
Lets start first with the problems with the notion of an objecitve reality.
As pointed out you have relied on information flow to put yourself in a position where you are a subjective observer in an objective reality, and there's no way to test what happens to the information when it goes from the objective reality to the subjective observer, in fact its not even testable if the information even comes from the objective reality at all. The scientific method is not guaranteed to get us closer to any objective truth. The reason we have it is of its practical use, and I argue its useless, we could do better without it.
Next we have the problem with testing consciousness, as discussed before there's no satisfactory answer for consciousness, in fact using the scientific method you'll end up with the conclusion that there is no consciousness.
My theories gives satisfactory answers on these issues and covers everything else as well.
Btw Einstein proposed a much more complex realityview than Newton, but it also answered more questions. Don't you think this is most essential?
What's a dream? The way we generally think of reality and dream, isn't there some difference?Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
I understand that in principle, but that doesn't answer my question (or if it did I missed it).
Why can reality not be a complex dream? Is that not simpler than protons and neutrons, public transport, food, space flight, drunkenness, music, sex, reading, boxing matches, tissues, the colour brown, ice, photography, taxes, glue, volcanoes, smart and casual shoes, and cardboard?
.
The main problem is : how do you separate that what you experience from that what is.
example :
2 persons in a dark room.
One addresses the other and asks : "What am I holding up"
Several paths are open to the addressee.
1) assuming that the other doesn't lie and try and have an educated guess of the little you can make out of it and what you know from experience.
2) assuming that the other doesn't lie and make it clear that you have no way of telling based on information received.
3) assuming that the other does lie and make it clear that you have no way of telling he's lying.
4) assuming that the other does lie and try to back it up with an educated guess of the little you can make out of it and what you know from experience.
None of the above tells the addressee the nature of reality. The other may or may not hold up an object but it doesn't make it any less true that the other for instance is holding up a lighter.
The problem is : how do all parties involved know for 100 % certain ?
Wally Pip
No, I'm not mad with you.Quote:
PS : Simon, are you still mad at me ?
Behemoth
It could be a complex dream but that is more "complex" than believing it is reality. Because, if it is only a dream, in order to understand the nature of the dream, we must still understand the nature of protons, neutrons, public transport, food, space, flight, drunkenness, music, sex, reading, boxing matches, tissues, the colour brown, ice, photography, taxes, glue, volcanoes, smart and casual shoes and cardboard. In addition, we must also find an explanation for the source of the illusion. Why is the illusion doing all this? Why can we not break out of it. Who put it there? etc...Quote:
Why can reality not be a complex dream? Is that not simpler than protons and neutrons, public transport, food, space flight, drunkenness, music, sex, reading, boxing matches, tissues, the colour brown, ice, photography, taxes, glue, volcanoes, smart and casual shoes, and cardboard?
Therefore, the theory that it is all an illusion makes all the same assertions that the theory that it is reality does, and then goes on to make more. And if there is no additional evidence that would indicate the presence of this illusion, these extra assertions are just suplerflous.
Yes, it could all just be an illusion, but that makes more assertions for the sake of it.
Kedaman
So where does this information come from then? It comes from somewhere and I call that place "Objective Reality".Quote:
Lets start first with the problems with the notion of an objecitve reality. As pointed out you have relied on information flow to put yourself in a position where you are a subjective observer in an objective reality, and there's no way to test what happens to the information when it goes from the objective reality to the subjective observer, in fact its not even testable if the information even comes from the objective reality at all. The scientific method is not guaranteed to get us closer to any objective truth. The reason we have it is of its practical use, and I argue its useless, we could do better without it.
OK, fair enough. Consiousness is just an abstract concept that we believe in but is not intersubjectively verifiable.Quote:
Next we have the problem with testing consciousness, as discussed before there's no satisfactory answer for consciousness, in fact using the scientific method you'll end up with the conclusion that there is no consciousness.
Well, I am yet to find them satisfactory but perhaps I just don't understand what you're trying to say.Quote:
My theories gives satisfactory answers on these issues and covers everything else as well.
Yes, Einstein's theory is, in many ways, more complex than Newton's but that is an example of when it is justified to move from a simpler to a more compelx theory.Quote:
Btw Einstein proposed a much more complex realityview than Newton, but it also answered more questions. Don't you think this is most essential?
The problem was that Newton's theory didn't hold up at the macro and micro ends of scale (i.e. atomic size particles and huge astral bodies). Empirical evidence was accumulated that was not explained (or predicted) by Newton's theory. Therefore, a new theory was needed that would explain everything that Newton's theory did and also explained the things at the macro end of the scale.
Einstein's theory had a depper explanatory power than did Newton's and therefore became the superior one. Note, however, that Newton's theory hasn't been cast to the dustbin of history yet...it's still used when possible as it's simpler to understand.
Ultimately, they are looking for the fabled "theory of everything" which will explain everthing that Einstein's theory does and also cover the micro end of the scale as well. That will be the deepest, most explanatory theory yet (whether or not is more simple).
NB: Occam's razor is used for comparing two theories of equal explanatory power.
Wally Pip
It's only a problem if you want 100% certainty (which is unachievable). However, I don't want 100% certainty and science doesn't proport to offer that.Quote:
The problem is : how do all parties involved know for 100 % certain ?
Given the aforementioned situation then. At what level will you be able to say : this is how it really is.
When one switches on the light the whole thing looks much different. For one, the one asking the question could've tucked the object in his trousers right before he switched on the light.
And I think that's what's going on when we try to define reality. Once we start defining it we're already basing it on what we perceive, not what is. This does not mean that what we perceive really is but how do we know ? Only by detaching us from our limits and perceptions and work from there. But that's nigh-on impossible.
Reality (whether it exists or not, whether it is what we see or not) will never be clear if we are not equipped with the right tools and our perception is inadequate for that. There are too many mind altering and perception changing situations to be certain ranging from simple views (such as a house in the mist. If you came there for the first time you wouldn't be able to tell wether there is a house or not when it is completely shrouded by mist) to dreams and hallucinogetics. Reality changes as our perceptions of it change.
We cannot detach ourselves from our limits. They are limits.
Wally
I think there are two fundamental limitations of scientific enquiry. We cannot ever achieve absolute truth and we can never know how close or far away we are from it. Science can help more in the right direction though. It can approach truth but never attain it.Quote:
Given the aforementioned situation then. At what level will you be able to say : this is how it really is.
True, but the purpose of science isn't to make individually true statements about reality, but to discover universal laws and generalisations that we can use to generate individual statements (that are hopefully close to the truth).Quote:
When one switches on the light the whole thing looks much different. For one, the one asking the question could've tucked the object in his trousers right before he switched on the light.
Do not right off perceptions completely. Perceptions of one person, in one instant are unreliable but we can verify them to some degree by repeating the set of circumstances over a period of time and asking others to independantly test our theories.
For instance, say there is a black box with a mystery object inside. We both take it in turns to view the contents and them write what see down on a piece of paper and then reveal it to each other at the same time. We would expect to have witnessed the same thing and therefore we have intersubjectively tested something. Obviously, we could both have been decieved in some way but then we haven't pursued the scientific method. The scientific method seeks to minimise the possibility of deception or illusion by asking as many questions as possible. Looking at one thing from as many ways as possible and getting as many other opinions as possible.
And there you go.
You need the perceptions of many to be able to draw up a general theory. But in 'reality' (sic ! ), you as a person are the one experiencing it, aren't you ?
I think you have the right angle on science but somehow it will always be stuck around and about the limits of perceptions (one or many) so I think a new definition of reality is in order.
Perhaps "the set of objects, perceptions and views of an as broad as possible audience in various circumstances makes up the approximate reality we live in".
Wally
But you would agree that, no matter how accurately (or not) we know it's nature, it does indeed exist independantly of our perception and objectively?Quote:
I think you have the right angle on science but somehow it will always be stuck around and about the limits of perceptions (one or many) so I think a new definition of reality is in order.
Perhaps "the set of objects, perceptions and views of an as broad as possible audience in various circumstances makes up the approximate reality we live in".
Hmmm ... tricky one. Let's say I'm inclined to do so but I'm not at all certain of it.
Well, let me put it this way. Even illusions and halucinations imply an underlying, objective reality. Your perception may be distorting reality beyond all recognician but it still needs something to distort otherwise you wouldn't even experience an illusion. Indeed, would you even exist attall to perceive it?
Okay. But what does that objective reality look like ? What laws does it follow, if any ?
I've just skimmed through this thread and have one question. Why does it matter?
Human curiosity. The driving force behind most great discoveries.
Although in this case I don't see anything great coming from it.
I had the most lucid dream last night that I remember having. I actually questioned whether the dream world I was in was the real world or not, and whether I was able to wake from it. After a bit of effort I woke myself up. It was quite bizarre.
Anyway, a couple of points have occurred to me.
- Existence could easily be a dream, or a sensory deception. Without imagination and visualisation, children would never learn, and men would never have devised theories about the makeup of the universe - electron orbitals, imaginary numbers, singularities, multiple dimensions - we can have no real world concept of these, but they can be imagined.
- A dream always seems to have less detail than reality, in the same way that a story may not describe the weave of a carpet or the number of flowers in a garden, a dreamt or imagined reality is very transient. Look at the detail around you - your monitor may be dirty or have a brand name on it. Your chair might be new or old, functional or comfortable. I think the world is real because it is too complex, giving poor old William of Occam a real kicking ;)
Behemoth
Just to add to your list of points:
Does not the very fact that you dream indicate that there is an external reality? Aren't your dreams merely recycled experiences from when you are really awake?
The point I'm getting at here is that if reality (as we know it) is a dream, mustn't we one day have really been awake in the true reality? We may now not be experiencing the actual true underlying reality but the very fact that we are experiencing something (even if it's a dream) implies that there is an underlying reality that we have, at some point experienced.
I understand your point, but disagree. How have we ever experienced orbitals, singularities, dimensions etc? We "dream" them without experience...
Behemoth
But do we? Do we really dream about things which we have never experienced? When you dream about a singularity, are you not just extrapolating on the images you've seen on TV programs? (even if you've fogotten ever seeing a picture of one).Quote:
I understand your point, but disagree. How have we ever experienced orbitals, singularities, dimensions etc? We "dream" them without experience...
Indeed, can we ever imagine, awake or dreaming, anything that isn't just constructed from our actual experiences?
err...dunno.
by dream, I don't mean picture it when asleep. I suppose I'm refering to the conceiving in the first place. How can physicist grasp the concept of multiple dimensions without visual reference? I know I've never managed it, but some people have. I read A Brief History of Time, and it is apparent to me that Steven Hawking's imagination is boundless. There are things he can visualise without ever seeing.
Blind people can see colours. The don't know the names for them if they've been blind all their lives, but there are stories of people that gain sight they've never had and recognise colours they saw whilst blind.
I believe imagination can generate things that we have no experience of, but as I said earlier, I am more inclined to believe that experience makes these concepts possible.
Behemoth
Well, there's a difference between visualising and conceptualising something. How can a mathematician conceptulise an imaginary number? He can never see it and any mental image he associates with it can only be make believe.Quote:
by dream, I don't mean picture it when asleep. I suppose I'm refering to the conceiving in the first place. How can physicist grasp the concept of multiple dimensions without visual reference?
My personal belief is that we cannot visualise anything that we have not previously experienced (in other words, we cannot imagine experiencing something we have not actually experienced). However, we can conceptualise concepts in an abstract fashion by (somehow) making an intuitive leap to do so.
I think this may be an exception to my "visualisation" rule...Obviously our brains are designed to perceive colour and something could trigger those sensations even when we've always been blind. That's different, however, from a blind man visualising an elephant (for instance) which our brains are not specially designed to perceive.Quote:
Blind people can see colours. The don't know the names for them if they've been blind all their lives, but there are stories of people that gain sight they've never had and recognise colours they saw whilst blind.
You may be right (Kedaman seems to think so), but I just don't see how our minds can create something out of nothing. Imagine trying to do that with a computer program? It's effectively having the ability to break with cause and effect and that's very hard to conceive of.Quote:
I believe imagination can generate things that we have no experience of, but as I said earlier, I am more inclined to believe that experience makes these concepts possible.
:)Quote:
Originally posted by simonm Behemoth
How can a mathematician conceptulise an imaginary number? He can never see it and any mental image he associates with it can only be make believe.
maybe it's the renewed association power ...
Like saying :
Banana (usually yellow greenish)
the colour red (generally not associated with a banana)
yet we can visualise a red banana quite easily.
Speak for yourself! ;)Quote:
yet we can visualise a red banana quite easily.
besides the red banana (:)), could it be just that ?
The theory that we can make new associations between objects and visualise them ?
I mean, we can visualise a cube in a hundred different colours or having a hundred different smells or compose an object of two cubes. It doesn't have to exist right in front of you but you can imagine it, can you ?
Wally
Well, I guess it is a form of creativity but essentially, we would only ever be able to construct visualisations from entities we had already experienced previously.Quote:
The theory that we can make new associations between objects and visualise them ?
I mean, we can visualise a cube in a hundred different colours or having a hundred different smells or compose an object of two cubes. It doesn't have to exist right in front of you but you can imagine it, can you ?
That's not the same as visualising something entirely new, is it?
I don't know about that really. It can be used to construct something entirely new.
Think about a flying machine with 20 wings, 50 engines, 3 storeys high, looking like a squashed christmas cake and has a dual cockpit (front and back). It's entirely new, doesn't exist but still you can visualise it.
Wally
But how is that entirely new? You have just described it to me entirely in terms of familiar objects and concepts. Therefore, when I imagine it, I am merely using existing experiences (albeit in a novel way).Quote:
Think about a flying machine with 20 wings, 50 engines, 3 storeys high, looking like a squashed christmas cake and has a dual cockpit (front and back). It's entirely new, doesn't exist but still you can visualise it.
Agreed but you are using them in a new way. You are using objects for something else than you usually use it for.
Why not a pyramid shaped car ? They are not new objects but they are using objects in a new way. That's where imagination and dreams come in but does it reflect reality ? Or is it merely what you observe ?
OK then, it is a form of creativity but it rellies on having a pre-existing set of experience to draw from to work.
Thus, the fact that we experience anything attall is evidence that there is in fact some kind of underlying reality that we have (at some point) drawn experience from.
I never really contested that. Only we cannot see that objective reality as it is, we only observe our version of it. That version can and sometimes is clouded by circumstances.
We have to rely on perceptions who are probably accurate enough to let us go about our lives but not adequate enough to grasp the whole of reality. There are tones we can't hear, there are smells we can't smell, there are types of light we can't see, there are illusions we cannot distinguish from reality (fata morgana) etc ... all that adds to the idea that we're not nearly adequately equipped enough to experience true reality.
Or, conversely, we can experience it but we don't have the necessary tools to convert it to something graspable.
In any case, we aren't equipped enough to know whether we're right or not.
I guess we're in agreement then...:)
Simon
Ask yourself, why does objects move? its not because someone started to push them, its because nothin is stopping them (newton first law) You know, in science there's some things that "can't just be explained", like why objects are moving in the first place, and some things that can be explained, but only down to these things which we call axioms, things you take for granted. You have two types of information, and what the realist does is connecting the axioms with reality. I think this is certainly unnessesary thing to do, and in fact we would be a lot happier without the notion of reality. I know its sounds weird, but i've come to discover it and i'm going to make sure everyone understands it too.Quote:
So where does this information come from then? It comes from somewhere and I call that place "Objective Reality".
You mentioned the black box analogy, now lets apply it on you. You are outside the black box, and what is inside the black box is reality, if something would be intesubjectively testable, both you and your friends would have to be outside the box, however you have decieved yourself, your friends are all inside the black box. When you think you compare measurements intersubjectively you infact just compare your own measurements - subjectively.Quote:
OK, fair enough. Consiousness is just an abstract concept that we believe in but is not intersubjectively verifiable.
Next thing is, Consciousness is outside this box, not inside, its awareness, in other words the measurement itself, the tools that monitors the black box, imagine someone else inside the box, that is doing the same on you, monitoring you inside his black box, this is better pictured with black rooms instead with holes that you can look out from, since then you can have plenty of rooms where you look out at each other. But is it possible to measure the other person's consciousness? By definition - no. Everything that is emmitting information can be observed, everything that recieves information observes. consciousness is the awareness, the perception, and something that only recieves information. Thus its not possible to observe consciousness, we will only see the boxes outside, but not the room inside. The definition of reality, is everything observable, because if something cannot be observed then its nonexistent as well, it wouldn't affect anybody and is just imaginary. Consciousness does not exist in a reality. We discussed earlier why and i believe we came to the conclusion that you are open to the suggestion of a theory that could explain this as well, because as you said you believed you were "selfaware" I think this is an impossibility within the specs of a reality, since its a logical paradox, it breaks information flow... but in my theory, this is explained as well.
well i'll try to do my best this time, i've got a little more insight this time, but its all abstract yet, but it can be applied on everything i'm certain of :)Quote:
Well, I am yet to find them satisfactory but perhaps I just don't understand what you're trying to say.
Keddie -
First, hi. Long time no see :)
Second, don't take this the wrong way, but you really leave me behind when you start with your big words and complicated ideas. Could you simplify it any more for me?
Behemoth - Heya, nice to see you :) No i appreciate it very much that people are interested in what i'm saying, I'll try to "simplify" things, is there something specific or is everything just a sequence of random "big words" to you?
Whoa, I understood what keddie said ;)
Probably because I share some of those believes. But only some...
Hi.
Sorry, I can't post here from home and I had a weekend off.
Err...all of it really...:)
Behemoth
Ok, I have tried my best to make it understandable :)
Basically what I'm saying is that believing that there is an objective reality is unnessesary, that it complicates everything and makes your life harder in general :p
Simon says, that you could "intersubjectively verify" meaning that compare what you see with what your friends see, and agree that they see the same thing and thus it must exist.
What i'm saying is that you see your friends too and there's no friend you could ask if they're telling the truth or even if they exist themselves (although in practice you trust your friends), since this argument goes for all your friends.
Lastly, about Consciousness, what is it? That you see things at all makes you conscious, so a conscious being is basically an observer.
When you look yourself in the mirror you see yourself, but can you see your consciousness? Can you see anyone else's consciousness? The answer is no, anything that has the characteristics of a dog is by definition a dog, but there's no characteristics to consciousness, observers can never be observed.
so basically you're agreeing with me then keddie ? :)
Kedaman
OK, I hear what you're saying. But why should two (or more) different observations from the black box corroborate each other? The huge variety of data that we get from the black box indicates a consistant and persistant universe. That it should behave in such a fashion is not to be underestimated.Quote:
You mentioned the black box analogy, now lets apply it on you. You are outside the black box, and what is inside the black box is reality, if something would be intesubjectively testable, both you and your friends would have to be outside the box, however you have decieved yourself, your friends are all inside the black box. When you think you compare measurements intersubjectively you infact just compare your own measurements - subjectively.
What is it exactly that you are denying about the notion of reality? That it is persistant outside of our consiousness? If you could tell me exactly what it is in my notion of reality that you object to, and what you would replace it with (and why it would be better), then maybe I will begin to understand.