Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 305 (308732)
05-03-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ikabod
05-03-2006 9:53 AM


reality is where each of us live , and that is inside our own mind .
every thing else is ultimatly a matter of faith
Do you mean philosophically or really?
Cause, my response to that would be....not really.
But if that it some kinda philosophical statement then...whatever.
we have to have faith that our personal sensors ie eye skin etc are feeding us true data
We can verify that data and then you don't need faith.
Person A: "Hey, is that an apple hanging from that tree"
Person B: "Uhh, that red one?, yeah it sure is."
Person A no longer needs faith that the apple is there, and in reality the apple is there and it is not in his mind. Plus he can go pick it and verify his sense of sight with his sense of touch, or taste.
i mean i have never been to new zealand , in fact not to any part of the southern hemisphere , i have to rely on others to tell me of new zealand
Again, you could verify what they are saying by going to New Zealand. As opposed to something that you really have to take on faith.
we have to have faith in the exsistance of things that have no physical presence in our universe ie love , beauty , equality ,etc
Yes, because we cannot verify those things. They are subjective, unlike New Zealand, which is a real place that exists in reality outside of our minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ikabod, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 8:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 305 (308733)
05-03-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
05-02-2006 5:35 PM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
Reality cuts across the circles -
Whadaya mean? Will you draw another image?
so there is no guarantee that anything we think we "know" falls into the realm of reality.
Seems like a CYA statement to me. If I "know" something then I consider it reality, even if in the philosophical sense I cannot really know anything.
I think reality includes some things that are outside the circle of science. And not just in our abilities, but in the limit of science's abilities. Of course, I have to take this on faith, or keep it in the philosophy circle.
To me the measure of relative reality of a concept is {1/denial} -- in other words those concepts that need to deny specific evidence are less valid indicators of reality.
hmmmm. As denial approches zero you don't have to deny anything for the concept to be real, so an infinite amount of relative reality is real? I don't think that is true all the time that a concept that requires no denial is neccessarily real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 5:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 8:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 305 (308905)
05-03-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
05-03-2006 8:05 PM


Well, I think the reality slice should be finite. Why not make it round too? I'd make it an elipse that crosses all the circles. Most of science would be covered by it and there wouldn't be that much outside of science.
Remember that sizes are not absolute indicators, and different people will have different ideas about the sizes (and placements) of the different areas, how much of what is real.
Is this your ideas about the sizes and positions or did you just place them conveniently?
What's outside the green circle? What we can never know?
Well, it depends on how you look at faith. I'd say that what is outside the green circle is what we can imagine but that we don't have faith in, or don't think exists. Or you could say that you can have faith in anything, then you would include everything that we can imagine in the green circle. For either case, I'd go with you with what we can never know as outside of that.
What about things that we can imagine that aren't impossible, we just havn't invented them yet. At some point they'd become a part of reality, but when? and how would that affect the circles or the slice?
I think reality includes some things that are outside the circle of science. And not just in our abilities, but in the limit of science's abilities. Of course, I have to take this on faith, or keep it in the philosophy circle.
Definitely agree. The question is how can we measure the validity, and that's where the problems start.
Well, there's the possibility of a better method. The Scienitific Method is really damn good though...hmmmm. I dunno, maybe we can't validate them. As far as science cares though, things that can't be validated don't affect anything, or exist for that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 9:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 305 (308909)
05-03-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 8:30 PM


DominionSeraph writes:
Catholic Scientist writes:
ikabod writes:
reality is where each of us live , and that is inside our own mind .
every thing else is ultimatly a matter of faith
Do you mean philosophically or really?
Cause, my response to that would be....not really.
You can only reference what your mind encompasses.
So I guess you saying he meant philosophically, so...whatever.
Catholic Scientist writes:
We can verify that data and then you don't need faith.
Person A: "Hey, is that an apple hanging from that tree"
Person B: "Uhh, that red one?, yeah it sure is."
You can't use sensory data to validate sensory data.
Says who!? Your standards are too high if you think that.
Whats in this can in front of me? Is it beer? *takes a drink* Yup, its beer.
Your saying that I can't know that in reality there's a beer in front of me and I just took a drink of it? That's retarded. Cause it is, and I did. That kind of philosophy, like nihilism, is rediculous to me. If there's one thing I know, its that I just took a drink of a beer. Now you can ask: can I really know it? or can I really know it? or can I really know it? or whatever. Seems like a bunch of pointless bullshit to me, no offense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 8:30 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 29 by lfen, posted 05-03-2006 11:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 305 (309250)
05-04-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:16 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Well, I think the reality slice should be finite. Why not make it round too? I'd make it an elipse that crosses all the circles. Most of science would be covered by it and there wouldn't be that much outside of science.
The problem is that reality could be completely outside of all 3, as reality isn't necessarily limited to: "That which I can imagine."
You're right, I failed t include the possiblilty of 'reality' being something completly different than what we are experiencing. Like the movie The Matrix, for example. So the reality eclipse would have to extend outside of all the other circles to cover that possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:16 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 305 (309252)
05-04-2006 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
05-03-2006 9:28 PM


I think of reality as more infinite but bounded, in part to match the universe, in part because I just like it that way. (is that faith?)
Well, since we can't really know what is reallity, I guess an infinte slice is appropriate, but I think that reality is finite so a bounded infinite slice, although an impossible contradiction, is probably the most accurate.
The circles could be vast amorphic amoebic shapes - this just represents them {simply} to convey the basic idea of nested reality perceptions.
Yeah, for the purpose of discussion, the shape is not important.
Do you think the circles are static or growing?
Now that I think about it, they are definately not static. But they could also shrink. For example, if some scientific discovery reduced the presuppositions of science the circle would shrink. Point being, growing isn't the only option besides being static.
Outside science, inside philosophy you would have logic -- the conclusions are 'true' as long as the precepts they are based on are 'true' and the logic construction is valid.
Outside philosophy you have a commonality of experience, and while you cannot "vote" on what is real, there can be a consensus on what may be real. Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns reach the same mental state in their {meditations\prayers} -- the interpretation of the state is different.
Well, I think we both have a good understanding of the topic and what each others opinions are, where should the discussion go from here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 9:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2006 12:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 305 (309253)
05-04-2006 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:32 PM


=Catholic ScientistSo I guess you saying he meant philosophically
What isn't?
Huh!? What isn't philosophical?
Well, in my freshman physics class, they told me that the acceleration due to gravity on a falling object is 9.8 meters per second squared. So we took some objects and measured their acceleration when we dropped them. It came out to 9.8 meters per second squared. I'd say, that, that wasn't philosophical. It was pretty much 'proved'. Now, I can admit that everything about that situation could be false and none of it could be reality, but I'm not willing to accept that. They really did accelerate at the predicted rate.
That's why it gets dropped all the way down to "faith". I take it on faith that my sensory data is accurate, since I can never know that it's not;
Well, if all we have to go on is sensory data, we're gonna need a different word to distinguish between what I call faith and what you call faith. Because I'm calling faith things that cannot be verified by sensory data. And your inclusion of sensory data into the defintion of faith is fucking up my definition.
and I live in the world formed from my sensory data regardless of whether I actually exist in a world that exactly mirrors it.
Again, its like The Matrix. I'm willing to accept that as a possibility, but I can easily wave it off. My sensory data is what is real. Its what defines 'reality'. Its possible that its wrong, but IMHO there;s no way that its not.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Your saying that I can't know that in reality there's a beer in front of me and I just took a drink of it?
You can -- but only because of what the row-of-letters, "reality," symbolizes. The symbol is linked to a concept -- and that you can reference, as your mind encompasses it.
Well, thats what I meant by your standards are too high. You looking at it too deaply. Too me, its obvious that, in reality, there was a beer in front of me that I took a drink of. Regardless of the existance of my mind there would have been a beer, in reality, sitting on my desktop. Can I know that, for sure? Admittedly not, but I'm still gonna include it in 'reality'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:32 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-15-2006 5:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 305 (309257)
05-05-2006 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by lfen
05-03-2006 11:23 PM


Knowing what is beer is knowing a lot of associations and knowing where to find, prepare , and drink it. Maybe even know how to brew it. Maybe know it's chemistry.
Yes, but the simplest mongoloid could be handed a beer and told "that is beer". Then gven another beer the next day and know what beer is, without knowing anything except what lets him know that what he is drinking is the same thing that someone told him was beer the previous day.
But what is beer in itself?
A gift from the gods.
Yes, of course I know what beer is. If your trying to take this to the philosophical level of 'what is beer? Then my answer is gonna be...whatever.
That deep philosphical shit is worthess and meaningless to me. I know what beer is. Can is really know? Who knows. But, yeah, I know what beer is.
I'n[sic] exploring the notion that we can't know what anything is only that it is and how we function with it.
Well that's a notion that I find worthless to explore, no offense.
What we call knowing is a kind of doing, or an abstraction of doing, or our concepts about our doing. Perception is a kind of doing, as is cognition.
Honestly, I'n(lol) not getting your drift. Whadaya mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by lfen, posted 05-03-2006 11:23 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by lfen, posted 05-05-2006 12:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 305 (309259)
05-05-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:53 PM


I just want to say that 'reality' exists without our mind perceiving it. Before humans existed there was a reality, presumably (and damnit your probably gonna point out this word), so the perceptions of the human mind are not the limits of reality. Unless this is all a big joke This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 05-04-2006 11:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 305 (310364)
05-08-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
05-05-2006 12:50 AM


How can we use our individual perceptions of reality to determine what {likely reality} involves, reality that lies outside the bounds of evidence and logic of knowledge as we know it?
That's a good question and I don't know the answer. Probably we will never know. You just gotta decide on what you think is real and what matters if it is real, to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2006 12:50 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2006 8:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 305 (310996)
05-11-2006 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bisc
05-11-2006 2:14 AM


Imo, the two circles of belief have very little overlap and people are just arguing over nothing.
But a lot of religious assertion can be verified by science. That's where there is overlap. Much religious belief has no conflict with science. The parts of the circles that would not overlap are the religious beliefs that contradict science, the things that science deems impossible. Young earth, global flood, yadda yadda yadda. So, IMO, there is a lot of overlap.
What's more there is no rule to say everything must be observable.
There is in science. It isn't conserned with the unobservable. And its doing great assuming that something without evidense does not exist. Its an assumption and its working.
As far as whats really real, your right, there is no rule that only the observable exists.
God is one of those things so science can never disprove the existence of God.
Science cannot disprove anything, it doesn't even try too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bisc, posted 05-11-2006 2:14 AM Bisc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by lfen, posted 06-11-2006 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 305 (310998)
05-11-2006 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
05-08-2006 8:06 PM


Can we pool our knowledge and look for consistent patterns -- patterns consistent with everything that we know to be as valid as possible?
One of the reasons I belive in god.
Can we say that there are consistent patterns of religous experiences, for example? Yes.
Can we say that they are only pertinent to one religion? No.
This to me is where the element of denial comes in.
Yup, Strong Atheism is retarded.
Now we move outside the realm of being able to make repeatable experiments ...
An interesting but hardly useful realm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2006 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 3:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024