What is your understanding of 'reality'?
I have been thinking about this today. I hope that it is not a Slipknot ( to quote the name of the metal band) of a question, or impossible to discuss. I have been thinking that it is the core question which goes beyond the dichotomies of metaphysics vs empiricism, religion vs science and determinism vs free will.
I won't try to offer any definitions of reality, simply because that would seem to defeat the purpose of my question. Of course, that doesn't mean that I am not wishing for people to look for definitions. I don't believe that the question of reality can be described in words easily, but I would not, in any way, be trying to suggest that it is ineffable. I think that this is a delicate juggling act in our thinking.
When I raise the issue of solidity, I am speaking about foundations and strengths and, of a capacity to stand firm and not be thrown asunder.I am asking about the solidity of the concepts which we have about reality, but also about the solidity of reality itself, especially in the light of the quantum world, as it is understood.
I hope that my question is not too vague to be seen as worth exploring, because I see it as central to all philosophical exploration.
Edit: I have changed title, to make it more a topic for philosophy reflection, because I was a bit surprised by how the topic was being explored. Of course, it may not alter any answer because the objective idea of reality may be the way you see it anyway.
I won't try to offer any definitions of reality, simply because that would seem to defeat the purpose of my question. Of course, that doesn't mean that I am not wishing for people to look for definitions. I don't believe that the question of reality can be described in words easily, but I would not, in any way, be trying to suggest that it is ineffable. I think that this is a delicate juggling act in our thinking.
When I raise the issue of solidity, I am speaking about foundations and strengths and, of a capacity to stand firm and not be thrown asunder.I am asking about the solidity of the concepts which we have about reality, but also about the solidity of reality itself, especially in the light of the quantum world, as it is understood.
I hope that my question is not too vague to be seen as worth exploring, because I see it as central to all philosophical exploration.
Edit: I have changed title, to make it more a topic for philosophy reflection, because I was a bit surprised by how the topic was being explored. Of course, it may not alter any answer because the objective idea of reality may be the way you see it anyway.
Comments (369)
— Thus Spoke 180 Proof
Hello, I hope that I have not gone over the top this time, but it is what I have been thinking about in the last few hours. I really see my threads as adventures in creative writing, but I am genuinely interested in the philosophy questions.I would definitely like to see the questioning of concepts, and I agree that it does not require faith, and I hope that it does not cause harm.
-Thus Spoke Jack
(Btw, just dropped "The White Album" ... Paul's drumming on Dear Prudence, man! :flower: )
Speaking surjectively about 'reality' leads to idling engines like "is reality solid" and some such.
"Here is sanctity which shames our religions, and reality which discredits our heroes. Here we find nature to be the circumstance which dwarfs every other circumstance, and judges like a god all men that come to her." R.E. Emerson
I agree that there are all kinds of notions and that the subjective slants often get in the way. However, that is not to try to simply look to objective descriptions which rule out the subjective entirely.
Anyway, I have raised the question, for better or worse, but I am about to go to bed as it's 1am and will look at any further comments in the morning.
Just pointing out when nonsense arises, and possibly as to why it does also. Wittgenstein talks a lot about this.
Lets see how cryptic we can be? :smile:
Its not solid.
Its mind dependent.
What is its finest grain?
But this will be a step up.
Since the advent of quantum physics, as Jack points out, the concept of 'what is real' in physics has become much more slippery. In Democritean atomism, atoms were literally a-tomos, un-cuttable or indivisible, and there were only atoms and the void. So, atoms could be thought of as completely existent, and the void as completely non-existent ('1' and '0'). But quantum physics torpedoes that idea, by showing that the answer to the question 'do sub-atomic particles' (not 'atoms') exist?' is the wave equation. They 'kind of' exist, which is a very inconvenient truth for materialism.
So I think science has actually retreated from trying to answer the 'Big Question'. I was reading an interview with Carlo Rovelli today, and he says:
:clap:
Anyway - if atoms aren't real, does that mean that 'nothing exists'? Most certainly not. All manner of things exist - why, just look at the encyclopedia. But ask what they are all grounded in, how they come to be - now that's a big question. Apropos of which, there are now literally thousands of hours of recorded videos on Robert Lawrence Kuhn's PBS site, Closer to Truth, investigating just this question.
To clarify my post above, if the inquirer wants to understand the nature of reality then he or she will ultimately come to the distinction mentioned above. They will be faced with all kinds of questions like:
What's the distinction between the two? Is it possible to understand both using the same set of tools and the same approach? What methods will one use and what are the limitations of such methods? Can that which is true be ever captured by 'the known'? What are the frontiers of knowledge? So on and so forth.
Yes we can safely rule out materials, imo.
Mind will always be in the picture, we are not going to conceive it mindlessly. :lol:
CERN were supposed to answer this for us, but they are still smashing particles.
Quoting Tom Storm
:up: Self organized waves man. Made of energy and information - Wavicles, Quantum fields, strings?
I woke up in the night and looked at the answers and I am choosing yours to answer because it suggested that the understanding of reality depends on discourse. So, I am left wondering if apart from your point about physics showing that reality is 'slippery', the whole concept is indeed very slippery too.
I am not saying that the other answers apart from yours are not useful, but I am a bit disappointed by them. Okay, my question was trying to strip down philosophy to looking at what is at the core. However, the answers are so reductive, and none of them seem to be how I see reality at all. But, in some ways, perhaps what I am talking about is subjective construction of reality, and what the various people here are doing is an attempt to break it down to the objective, raw basics.
But, I do believe that it is a question which I should have never asked, because I don't think it is likely to result in any depth discussion. It may be because the question is too big, or because the answers here reflect the way reality is viewed now, although I did notice that at least @Pops post says, 'Mind will always be in the picture.'
I’m having trouble with what exactly you are asking...are you basically asking if there is a commonality between all the different definitions of reality? Or am I getting that wrong?
I suppose that I am partly asking what it all comes down to, but I am also wondering how different people see it, or whether it is commonly negotiabled or agreed upon. I am not asking if there is a God, although I would imagine that those who do believe in God would see it very differently from those who don't. However, I think that it is likely that some people believe in speak of an energy and others speak of God. I know that is a big issue on some levels, but, in some ways perhaps it does not really matter.
I am aware that when I was in discussion with @180 Proof in the thread which I have on whether science and religion are in opposition, he pointed to the way the numinous can be appreciated without belief in God. I think that is extremely interesting, although he was talking about appreciation in the arts. Of course, art is another slant on reality. I realise that my question may not work very well, because asking it in the abstract form may mean trying to pin reality down in a scientific way.
I have only just noticed your comment, and the good little quotation from Emerson. Generally, I do think that opposition is at the centre of reality, because without conflict between opposites everything would be stagnant, but, here, I am interpreting the idea on a metaphysical principle, although it probably works on many levels.
If science is to be believed, then we live more in a world of perceptual illusion than physical matter. Although, while I have had some acutely strange experiences with reality, I am not immune to willfully forgetting about the nature of reality as I have come to understand it. Why wrestle with such worrying implications when it's so much easier to just get high and act as though everything is as it should be?
I don't contemplate whether or not the things that I perceive have any basis in an objective reality, to me, it doesn't matter. There is only my perception available to me, and when my perceptions prove unreliable, I adjust my perspective and move on.
I really like your reply because it is honest, about your own view. Of course, my question was rather abstract, but I do believe that an important part of thinking reality probably needs to include the personal components.
Really, I think that your understanding of the numinous may be part of what I was trying to discuss in my thread on transformation. Perhaps, my discussion of Colin Wilson's ideas, especially his book on 'The Outsider' got in the way.
When I speak of reality, I mean to say the object world, existing independently of subjective experience. The nature of reality is almost a separate question. The fact that atoms are mostly empty space is not relevant to the existence, or reality of reality. I think this is a subjectivist canard - among many.
After reading the various responses I got I have realised that I am asking the question wrongly, and should be asking about personal view reality. I became aware of that when I just read a more personal response. It is probably stupid of me to have asked it so abstractly, because I was not really looking for a scientific kind of definition or explanation. I was raising the topic for some kind of philosophical reflection. So, I am about to add the word 'your' to the title. But, I do apologise for making changes, to you or anyone else who has replied to the thread already.
[quote=Philip K. Dick]Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away[/quote]
@Jack Cummins
X is real IFF X exists independent of our perceptions. What does that mean? It means that X exists even when no one perceives X. For instance, if the moon exists only when at least one person perceives it, the moon isn't real.
However, there's a catch. To know if a certain X is real by the above definition of real, we need to fulfill the condition that
1. X must exist when no one is perceiving X
The condition 1 is impossible to meet because to know that "1. X must exist when no one is perceiving X", there must be at least one person (say A) who perceives X as existing when no one is perceiving X but then this person (A) is perceiving X and that means it's false that no one is perceiving X.
Do you see the problem?
1. What must be known for X to be real: X exists even when no one is perceiving X.
2. How 1(above) can be known: Someone must perceive X exists even when no one is perceiving X.
2 (above) is impossible as if someone is perceiving X is true, no one is perceiving X is false.
I think that your answer is extremely interesting and was the kind of discussion which I was hoping for, but I will not attempt to answer it just now because I didn't manage to sleep. After your reply, I am tempted to put the thread back in the main discussion chamber. I partly moved it because I am creating too many. It can be a bit addictive, but I do enjoy inventing them as I don't have many creative outlets at the moment.
I moved it back to the front page because Madfool wrote a good detailed reply, just about the time I moved it to the lounge. I think that his discussion is worthy of the main stage. It can always be moved back to the lounge again...
I see it but it doesn't exist! For the vast majority of time since the big bang, including the history of the earth, no-one has been here to perceive anything. We can nonetheless know that 'stuff' existed, and does exist independently of our perceptions. The fact that no-one saw it does not unmake it; the subjective observer is only brought into existence by dint of things that went unobserved for the vast majority of time.
Not by the definition that X is real IFF X exists when no one perceives it. You do realize that anything one perceives is rendered useless as evidence as per that definition, right? The CMBR (evidence for the Big Bang) would only exist when someone tunes in faer detector, fossils (evidence for evolution) would cease to exist the moment no one's looking, and so on.
How can it go beyond that dichotomy, when the proposition that asks about it obtains its meaning from them? Given that understanding itself is metaphysical, and reality itself is empirical, it follows that bypassing either results in reality that is not understood, or, that which is understood is not reality. In effect, nullifying the core question.
On the other hand, if there is understanding of reality, in whichever form that obtains, then the response to the core question must contain both the elements of the dichotomy, thus the question, effectively, hasn’t transcended either of them.
Just sayin’......
What I was trying to say was that I believe that there have been some metaphysical accounts which suggest hidden realities, including those of Kant, Plato, Swedenborg and Rudolf Steiner. Those can seem at odds with an emphasis on the observations of empirical reality.
However, I wonder about some kind of possible synthesis. Intuition may be one aspect, but this would require some backing up with evidence to support the intuitions. This is not easy but I was wondering if with the way the new physics suggested less solidity, it is possible to see beyond certain rigidities, with even the possibility that matter is not as absolute, and of more an energetic structure. Of course, there are clear physical laws and it would be startling if they began to change. It would be a bit of a shock if the moon split apart, although I once dreamed that happened. We expect gravity to be permanent on the earth and would get a shock if rather than the seasons altering with climate change, the diurnal pattern of night and day changed. So, we expect a certain amount of regularity, and this is a whole picture of grand design, but even so, it is possible that certain aspects of reality central to empiricism and metaphysics may not be immutable.
I have looked at what you have written and I do agree with the gist of it, and what Philip K Dick says. I think that there has to be certain basic structures which don't change independently of our perceptions. But, I suppose where it does get complicated is, as it emerged in the thread I had on thoughts, is where qualia come in. At that point, there are aspects of objective reality which appear to be more subjective, and, thereby, more related to perceptual experience.
To answer properly, or more precisely / less abstractly, consider this homely metaphor:
Such is, in accord with the OP, (my) current "understanding" (shallow though it (necessarily?) may be).
— Thus Spoke 180 Proof
If you know this in it’s original philosophical form that is enough to get the gist across. It is more of a question than any pretence to ‘answer’ anything.
Be all that as it may, it remains that it is humans doing the work, therefore it is impossible to get beyond the metaphysical/empirical dichotomy with respect to the core question, which is my sole raison d’etre in attendance.
Neither gods nor commodores shall cause me to fire on such abundant perspicuity.
First off, the definition of real that I posited in my first post is a cul de sac, a blind alley, a dead end ( :grin: ). It leads to nowhere and yet it feels so right, it captures the essence of the real as that which lies outside of our minds and as those things the mind becomes aware of. This is a tragedy which words can't describe for it implies we can never know the real.
What's our next move?
We simply stick to a part of the definition I offered, summed up in the quote,
[quote=George Berkelr]Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived[/quote]
As you might've already inferred, even when the condition was that to exist, ergo to be real, no one should perceive that which is claimed to exist, someone had to do the perceiving. Why not make perception then an/the essential feature of existence/real?
Truth be told, perception is the "gold standard" for reality/existence. For example, physicalism is all about perception through the senses or their extensions.
Now consider physicalism against the belief that all perception could be an illusion à la Descartes's deus deceptor.
As you might have already figured out, we seem to be hopping around from one idea to another - first, perception ain't it (the definition of real I gave) , second perception is it (physicalism), third perception isn't really it (Descartes). :chin: Perhaps it's just me. :sad:
I think that both of us, and probably a few other people are hopping around the issues of physicalism and perception in many of the threads which we are writing in. My own belief is that it is because these are the big issues within philosophy. Perhaps they are really the acute red zones of philosophy, just as much as nihilism, because it is possible to go round and round in circles thinking about them.
Yes, I agree that the question of reality may be more of a central question which all may ask at certain time, and not one which has a clear answer. I have been thinking for some time that phenomenology is possibly the area of philosophy which I should be moving towards in my reading.
. You're now starting ... to be ... utterly confused ... That's perfectly good ...
. You're skeptical ... That's perfect ...
. Unless one is skeptical ... reality cannot blossom to him ...
. On one hand ... you do say ... that reality cannot be described ... cannot be put on mere words ... at least ... easily ... that ... words are Dead ... and reality ... is Alive ...
. But can you Know reality ... in a hard way ... ? Can you demystify anything ... in a hard way ... ? Or can you ... rather ... do it ... in a lovingly way ... ?
. Just ... lovingly and peacefully ... with a quiet and serene mind ... reality can blossom to you ...
. On the other hand ... you do say ... that reality is not the ineffable ...
. But ... So ... What is reality ... then ... ? If not the ineffable ... and if ... cannot be put on mere words ... or at least ... easily ... so ... What is it ... ?
. I think one ... do not need to be a genius ... to understand that ... understanding ... as such ... is not born out of ... being hard ... towards that which is ...
. So ... one ... need to be simple ... just with simplicity of being ... complexity ... immediately ... turns to simplicity ...
. Anything that cannot be put on words ... is the ... ineffable ...
. Innefable ... means ... that which is beyond any rationalization ...
. And ... yes ... Reality ... Life ... is beyond any rationalization ... because ... it's a paradox ...
. If you try to put reality on words ... you'll get mad ... because ... that's impossible ...
. Heraclitus ... once said: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
. For example, you cannot explain that sentence by any so-called reasoning ... by any logical thought ... by any philosophy ... because ... it's completely illogical ... out of mind's comprehension ... Why is it so? ... because it's existential ...
. If you go to the river Ganges ... one day ... and the next day ... you step there again ... How and Why the river would be different ... ? Isn't it the same river ... the river Ganges ... ?
. Surely ... you can explain it by words ... but when Truth is put on mere words ... turns ... immediately ... to a Lie ... Why ?
. Because ... your mind (your past projections and your prejudices ... )... is between ... that which is ... and you ...
Thanks for your contribution. I agree that 'Reality ...Life...is beyond any rationalization ...because...it's a paradox.'
Nagarjuna (aka 'The Second Buddha) Ideas Confirmed by Quantum Theory Relationalism:
In his new book, 'Helgoland…', about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only 'properties' in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by 'emptiness'.
Everything is 'quantum entangled' with everything, the 'things' more properly described as interactions and events.
Further, there are no fundamental substances, absolutes, no outside of Everything or bird's-eye view, no eternal basis, no 'God', etc. that is, there is no foundation of any kind to what goes on. 'Impermanance' goes all the way through…
This realization of 'Impermanence', 'No Absolutes' and 'Emptiness' is 'Nirvana'.
The quest is ended.
Except for the unfortunate fact that Rovelli still maintains physicalism.
[quote=Carlo Rovelli] There’s actually nothing special about me as an observer. The quantum system has properties only with respect to some system interacting with it. I happen to be a human being who takes notes of what I see. But it doesn’t matter that I have a subjective experience. I’m just a physical system like anything else.[/quote]
I say this is wrong. Physical things don't observe, make judgements, or take notes. That is done by a mind.
His apparent 'physical' is woven from images in mirrors reflected by mirrors, is how I take his thinking, with no underlying material substance. We can still investigate phenomena.
I am not sure that it is really possible to go beyond the empirical and metaphysical division, but have wondered about it. Really, I am not sure if one would be able to do so without becoming omniscient...
Exactly. People may not always realize it but that's why they talk about "ultimate reality". In the final analysis, true reality is something that is lived, something that we are in the deepest sense of the word, not something that we talk about. And yet, we talk about it because that's what humans do ....
I think that philosophers have to remember that reality is lived rather than just about reading and writing. I also have to remember it myself because at times those activities can be so absorbing that they become life. However, I do feel that many others go to the opposite extreme. I have a couple of friends who are interested in philosophy but I think a lot of people see it as a bit offbeat when it comes into conversation, rather like the way people see those who are into science fiction.
While there is a division between the empirical and the metaphysical it is a bit of a knot because one has to think in some kind of metaphysical concepts about the metaphysical. Also, ideas about the metaphysical are often based on empirical observations.
NB: This is quite different from how I use metaphysics with respect to the empirical / physical.
I agree. Most students I know are into "criminal psychology" or "media studies" and the like. Even those studying philosophy aren't quite sure why they're studying it or what they intend to do with it when they've finished the course. A few of them have degrees but to no apparent practical use or advantage.
Unfortunately, philosophy has become a purely intellectual pursuit, I suppose to some extent as a pastime in the current climate.
I think I was fortunate to first learn about philosophy from people who saw it as a spiritual endeavor with the intellectual aspect of it as nothing more than a supporting framework. I tend to believe that this has put me on the right track and has saved me a lot of time that might have otherwise been wasted.
I will never tire of pointing to Pierre Hadot in respect of this. (oh no! Yet another book!)
[quote=Pierre Hadot, IEP; https://iep.utm.edu/hadot/]Pierre Hadot, classical philosopher and historian of philosophy, is best known for his conception of ancient philosophy as a bios or way of life (manière de vivre)....According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing. To cultivate philosophical discourse or writing without connection to such a transformed ethical comportment was, for the ancients, to be as a rhetorician or a sophist, not a philosopher. However, according to Hadot, with the advent of the Christian era and the eventual outlawing, in 529 C.E., of the ancient philosophical schools, philosophy conceived of as a bios largely disappeared from the West. Its spiritual practices were integrated into, and adapted by, forms of Christian monasticism. The philosophers’ dialectical techniques and metaphysical views were integrated into, and subordinated, first to revealed theology and then, later, to the modern natural sciences.
...
For Hadot, famously, the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things. Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done. Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions, are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta, despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life. For this reason, they call upon far more than “reason alone.” They also utilize rhetoric and imagination in order “to formulate the rule of life to ourselves in the most striking and concrete way” and aim to actively re-habituate bodily passions, impulses, and desires (as for instance, in Cynic or Stoic practices, abstinence is used to accustom followers to bear cold, heat, hunger, and other privations) (PWL 85). [/quote]
Bolds added. That point is often an obstacle.
He is speaking of the path towards illumination, an idea which has generally completely fallen out of Western discourse (although obviously still a major part of Eastern discourse.)
This is laid out in his books, mainly Philosophy as a Way of Life.
//ps//The universe exists for you, if only you give up wanting things from it. //
Humans wonder naturally, nature of the intellectual beast. It is nevertheless a fine line between wonderment and confusion.
I was fairly lucky in the start of my philosophical studies because I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster, and it covered many different areas of philosophy, although a lot of social science. I also met so many interesting people, although we had all just left school. I have studied and worked in London for some time, but apart from a couple of people, I think that most people think that I am ridiculous reading the books I do. When I was moving last year one of my flatmates suggested I should throw my books in the bin. But, I am glad that I moved a significant portion of them because that was just before I found this site.
I think it we live in a society which values cars, houses and is extremely materialistic. But, I do believe that there are many people who do not really hold on to materialistic values, but often they are probably isolated. I believe that we live in a very fragmented culture.
Strangely, even though I am aware that Hegel's
'Phenomenology of Mind ' is not phenomenology in the sense that most people understand it I have a copy and I think that it may be one of the next ones I read. I have read some of, but not all of 'The Philosophy of History', and definitely believe that Hegel is essential.
I think that what you are saying is a similar kind of thought to what I was thinking about when I began the thread a couple years days ago. It is the whole puzzling area arising from the personal embodied experience, looking outwards and engaging with the so-called objective world of reality.
I think that part of this is what is discussed as the intersubjective aspect of existence. But, it is not merely about interaction with other human beings, and shared meanings. Aspects of life are inanimate and others are animate, but we are having to understand all these different parts, as well as the question of ultimate reality, and if that exists at all.
Thanks for your latest post.What you are saying, and Hadot's book does sound interesting because I think that we probably do need some kind of exercising of our minds or consciousness to understand reality. I am sure that this goes beyond all reading, even though it is worth reading books to see how others have found answers. However, the answers about the ultimates of reality are not actually in the books themselves, but have to be found in our consciousness
The goal of understanding the nature of reality, is probably illumination, or enlightenment. And, I am not sure that this is just the entitlement of those who are of any religious, or particular philosophical outlook. But, I do think that you are right to say that some kind of exercise, such as meditation is likely to help, Meditation is important, I believe, but it is not easy and I often find I procrastinate about practising it whereas I am sure that it is probably more important than many other forms of activity.
Yes, we tend to speak of being “lucky”. But is it really just “luck”, or is there more to it? I think in my case it was definitely more than just luck. Philosophy, when properly understood, can be a true friend and an invaluable guide. And it connects you, at least in spirit, with a myriad of like-minded souls who have walked the same path for millennia …
Quoting Jack Cummins
I know the feeling. It can be tempting to throw books away but you can never know when you might need them again.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That’s right. Society does seem to be turning more materialistic. But I think there is something in most or some of us that makes us strive to discover the spiritual side of life. Maybe this is part of a wider process intended to counteract cultural and spiritual fragmentation. This is also why I tend to be in two minds about multiculturalism. In a way it unifies cultures but in another it can also be a source of division.
To me, real is anything that has a limit - either in space OR time. Reality would be the set of all things that have a limit (in space OR time).
Yes, quite true! But, we have to find a way. (Hence my name!) There are many factors that will undermine that, one of which is making it bigger than it is.
Since I wrote that post, I've ordered a hard copy (not eBook) of Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life. I've signed up for an introductory session with The School of Practical Philosophy - not that I don't understand their curriculum, but mainly for fellowship. (There's a huge article on them in Wiki.) I intend to return to my own meditation practice, which has rather fallen by the wayside the last couple of years.
Anyway - that response was triggered by your remark about 'reality as lived'. It is very simple but often overlooked point - no matter what the fantastic complexity of mathematical decriptions of forces and fields, reality is first and foremost lived. This being a philosophy forum, that is the important point to remember.
I can see the danger of making questions bigger than they are, and I think that it about seeing the limitations of philosophy as a discipline. However, I think that your whole approach of philosophy as lived experience is important. My own view is that philosophy needs expanding, rather than becoming caught up in models from the past, or even the most current models of science and mathematics, in order to embrace the whole dimension of living experience.
I am not convinced that life is about luck entirely, because there are so many aspects underlying experience, but I do wonder whether these will ever be addressed fully, even within philosophy.
Elaborate on this. 'Speculation and concept-(re)creating/problematizing', while at best grounded in sciences and lived experiences, already extend further than these grounds. What else do you have in mind?
My bolding.
This serves to undermine the metaphysical rambling that constitute the bulk of this thread.
...and so on. The metaphysical conundrum dissipates.
Of course, I come from my own limited experience, but it does seem to me, from reading and experience that often the debates in philosophy can be about repetition of the ideas of the past. I do not see any answers, but do believe that the exploration of lived experience is extremely important.
Thanks for your detailed response. I will look at it tomorrow and reply further, because it is is after 1am.
For me, it is anything but this.
Sure, reality may consist of waves with discrete blobs of energy floating upon it... But at an important level this is insignificant to a life lived. I need to watch the traffic when I cross the road. I need to take medication when I am sick. I need to behave as though physicalism is true. I can't get out of this and to a great extent it doesn't really matter if there is, let's say, a Platonic realm. The case for contemplative practices or mystical insights to transcend (even in a modest way) our corporeal experience don't seem compelling.
It also seems to me that spiritual pursuits so often are a form of abstracted status seeking - all that talk of 'higher level' things - accessible only to special states or special people. It's like crass materialism has been sublimated into a type of crass higher consciousness virtue signalling.
We have a “finest grain of reality measure” at CERN. 51 Hedrons and counting it is still finding particles with mass, but the smart money is on a Wavicle of sorts . It seems assured given E=mc2.
This would mean energy and information is the fundamental stuff. You , me, J.L Austin, and all of his thoughts and works, including everything else is made of information and energy – the same stuff we exchange right now at this very moment as we converse. I wonder how you would reconcile your paradigm with that?
Physics based understanding is initially difficult and tedious. I can relate to your aversion. But towards the end of the tunnel, the light is particularly bright. If information and energy is fundamental, then we are made of information and energy. When we die the information is not preserved, but the energy is! It goes on to create other form. I would ask anybody – what do they feel themselves to be – the information? or the energy? :chin:
I would like to point out that in phenomenology it is the feeling that creates reality. When information is integrated and a corresponding feeling is felt, we have an experience - this we understand to be reality. So what is your feeling, what are you truly - are you the information, or the energy? :smile:
I don't see any problem.
Or do you think that CERN results mean that the chair on which you sit is not real?
It is a chair now, before that it was a tree, before that it was dirt, before that it was rock, lava, etc. But it will always be information and energy.
Of course it is a chair Banno. But fundamentally it is made of the same stuff as you and me. If you want to engage with reality you have to reconcile that fact.
Can't it really be a chair, and (assuming your comments about CERN are correct...) really be information and energy?
We can call it a chair, or we can call it a stool, or we can call it firewood - my wife calls it an eyesore, but it will always be information and energy. So what is the reality of what it is? Which of those realities that it can assume / be put to, is its reality - I think the constituent one is information and energy - it will never cease to be this.
What is the simple? What is real?
You want to say "it is a chair but it is really information and energy, but it is also really a chair..."
Because what it really is, is dependent on whether you want to shoot it down a particle accelerator or sit on it.
Edit: @Jack Cummins
A chocolate cake made from cheese. :lol:
The Paradox Of Fiction
[quote=Wikipedia]The paradox of fiction, or the paradox of emotional response to fiction, is a philosophical dilemma that questions how people can experience strong emotions to fictional things. The primary question asked is the following: How are people moved by things which do not exist?[/quote]
Faith
[quote=Wikipedia]Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in a god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[/quote]
:chin:
Anyway, in my mind, the point of all this is that this is the origin of the discussion of the knowledge of universals which is the basis of platonic epistemology. In medieval philosophy, the scholastic realists (of which Aquinas was one) maintained the reality of universals, whilst the nominalists (Ockham, Bacon, et al) disputed them. And it's been argued that with the rejection of universals, metaphysics proper was also abandoned. There's a couple of key books on this, one current title being Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Allen Gillespie.
I think the key point is that universals (which include intelligible objects such as the real numbers) are real but can only be grasped by reason (nous, in the Greek tradition). So, 'real but incorporeal' - which of course is a no-go for materialism. That contention is the subject of platonism in mathematics:
[quote=SEP; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/#PhiSigMatPla]Mathematical platonism has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren’t part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Mathematical platonism, if true, will also put great pressure on many naturalistic theories of knowledge. For there is little doubt that we possess mathematical knowledge. The truth of mathematical platonism would therefore establish that we have knowledge of abstract (and thus causally inefficacious) objects. This would be an important discovery, which many naturalistic theories of knowledge would struggle to accommodate.[/quote]
This is what leads to the arguments about, well, if you say numbers and ideas are real, then how about Bugs Bunny, or Sherlock Holmes? That is one of those digressions that results in failing to see the point. There are many. The other difficulty is, as I keep saying, platonist (and neoplatonist) metaphysics became absorbed into theology and then spat out with it. As far as most people are concerned it's all ancient history, rather than forgotten wisdom.
This suggests that 'materialists' reject (ignore) e.g. mathematics, logic, music and poetry. Is this what you believe?
This is why Quine and Putnam found it necessary to formulate the ’indispensability argument for mathematics’. That article starts by saying:
What do you think ‘our best epistemic theories’ refer to, and why would they seem to debar any knowledge of mathematical objects? That is explained in that article, but it seems fairly clear to me.
I vaguely recall this as being a fact, I think it's mentioned here :point: Parmenides
Quoting Wayfarer
Thanks for the short but informative introduction on realism vs nominalism. I did my own reading, cursory though it may be. Anyway, to get to the point. While Platonic Realism blurs the lines between Allan Pinkerton (real life detective) and Sherlock Holmes (fictional detective), it can't be denied that though some version of realism would have us believe both exist, there is a difference between the two e.g. I could've talked to, touched, smelled, tasted (yuck!) Allan Pinkerton but I definitely can't do those things with Sherlock Holmes. As far as I can tell, to the best of my knolwedge, the nub of the issue lies in a particular distinction we've been habituated with over perhaps at least the past 6 - 7 thousand years, continuing on to the present. What's this distinction I'm talking about? Well, the existence-nonexistence one. So long as we frame metaphysics in terms of existence and nonexistence, metaphysics will, to my reckoning, remain forever mired in controversy and not an inch of progress will be possible.
What do I recommend?
Break free from the existence-nonexistence trap which has claimed so many victims beginning with the great Plato himself and instead look to a more nuanced view of existence itself. So, for instance, instead of saying "god is nonexistent" we could offer what I feel is a more useful alternative like, "god exists but not in the same way as a stone does." I'm sure some philosophers must've already hit upon this idea. Such a tactic would allow a universalist to respond to a nominalist by saying that universals exist in such a way that to talk about them in terms of existence as applies to other things that are claimed to exist would amount to a category error.
Well, another tiff then: I'm a (methodological materialist with classical atomist affinities) and it's never once occurred to me in over three decades to "reject a realist view of numbers" especially after reading Meinong's work on 'subsistent objects'. Unless by "real" you mean some "supersensible, transcendent, otherworldly" shibboleth haunting Plato's Bat Cave? Aristotle's hylomorphism showed way back when such an unparsimonious speculation was quite unneeded and even incoherent. And let's not forget I'm also a Spinozist so all formalisms for me are completely immanent. (vide PoI, Deleuze) Like every possible move & endgame in chess that are inherently real as relations in the logical space of its ruleset, so to are all other 'objective abstractions'. (vide TLP, Witty ... vide ANKoS, Stephen Wolfram ... vide AF, Quentin Meillassoux). :eyes: :smirk:
And then the clincher:
That 'special, non-sensory capacity' is reason, I say.
So here, the claim is that if you accept we are physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies - i.e. what we can sense - then how can mathematical claims be true?
I'm not making this up. This paper, by Benecareff, who is apparently a pretty heavy hitter, and the response to it by philosophers, was not composed by me. The Benecareff paper says that mathematical knowledge is incompatible with physicalism. And I think the reason it says that, is for the reason that I claim - namely, that mathematical objects are real but not material.
Quoting TheMadFool
As soon as you introduce ' exists in the same way', then you're talking modal metaphysics - that things exist 'in different ways'. Which is precisely what can't be admitted by nominalism, in my view - they insist that only concrete particular exist, and that everything we say or think comprises 'mere name', or habits of thought. Things either exist, or they don't. But if you accept that universals are real - then the question becomes, in what sense are they real? And it's a very tough question, the medievals fought themselves to a standstill over it.
But now, it has been re-introduced by physics. Says Heisenberg: 'this difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units [i.e. subatomic particles] are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers'. Which is precisely why physics inadvertently opened the metaphysical can-of-worms that nominalism thought it had welded shut.
There are a whole host of very large metaphysical questions which will no doubt spark further debate, but I have to log out for a while.
I have read your post and the discussion about it.
In some ways, I agree with what you and Austin are saying with the point about the table. A couple of weeks ago, I read, 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer and he speaks of how it is possible to get into tautologies in trying to develop metaphysical aspects of philosophy. He points to the way in which metaphysics is really just speculation.
My own thinking is that I think that it is extremely difficult to come up with any definitive answers about metaphysics, because it is hard to come up with any specific evidence. However, I think that most people, do question how reality works at some point. I think that it may be more about how it works rather than anything else. The natural and social scientists come up with many explanations and theories, but I think that for many people there is still something missing, an unknown element. I am sure that more advances will be made, but I am not sure that it will really capture the invisible aspects of life fully.
Quite often this is the case.
I have a friend who has taken courses in 'Spiritualism' and considers herself a medium.
Defined as: a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, especially through mediums.
This compares with the philosophical definition: the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
When I asked her about how the training evaluates her as a spiritual communicator, gives accreditation for mediumship, she was evasive.
When I asked which people the students practised on and were assessed by, I was astounded when she said the students themselves !
Trying hard not to be overly critical, my sceptism was nevertheless easily divined.
In response, she proclaimed, '' It's not for everyone''.
True.
However, it made me think of what I called 'spiritual one-upmanship' - exclusive, only available to special people. Previously, she was a devout Catholic...in transitioning she argued with her husband that the 2 systems were compatible. Perhaps so...I wouldn't know...
Anyway, before posting this, I thought I'd better look up 'spiritual one-upmanship'.
Well, wouldn't you know - it can be a good thing.
'The Loving Art of Spiritual One-Upmanship':
Quoting Unity Church, Austin
More critical of spiritual one-upmanship:
Quoting Learning mind - ego traps
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, for most this life lived is the reality.
It is navigating this while looking for a supportive belief system that can cause identity and relationship problems, over and above ordinary day-today-living.
Exploration in philosophy forums of what is 'spirituality' can leave some stone cold, others get all heated up. It seems if you hold a certain philosophical position you are not allowed a sense of spirituality.
If you are an atheist, then look out brother...
I find it ridiculous...this ongoing spat...which divides rather than accept people's reality is a combination of both matter and mind or spirit. But it is this spirit which keeps philosophy forums alive, or so it seems.
Good for exploration - not so good when attitudes become hostile and personally aggressive.
In another life, I discussed 'secular spirituality' - it acknowledges that it is not an either/or reality.
Haven't looked at the issue for so long - but found this:
Quoting Robert C. Fuller
'Robert Fuller is Professor of Religious Studies at Bradley University in Illinois. He has authored more than a dozen books on psychology and religion, religious history, and religion in the United States, including Religious Revolutionaries: The Rebels Who Reshaped American Religion and Spiritual, But Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America.'
Quoting Jack Cummins
Now, that's just one part of a reality.
Addiction... to TPF...and philosophy.
So desperate for "answers", many here keep asking 'the wrong questions' over and over again. The difference between (a) philosophy and (b) religion (or mysticism) is, as I see it, the difference between (A) reasoning towards better, more probative, questions while daily coarse-graining trivial / begged / pseudo questions from living (i.e. agency) and (B) seeking unquestionable answers for living (i.e. certainties, guarantees)
If I were to hazard an opinion, I'd say that though it's hard for me to say in what precise sense universals exist do remember, take note of, the fact that insofar as the mind matters :smile: there's no difference between a stone and redness/treeness, both being mental representations that though different in content, possess the same ethereal quality of all mental goings-on. Since no distinction can be discerned between thinking about a stone and thinking about universals like redness/treeness/cupness, it isn't too much of a stretch to say that if a stone is believed to exist, universals too can be said to exist. In my humble opinion, this aspect of mind - numbers, stones, Allan Pinkerton, Sherlock Holmes, treeness, tree can't be told apart in terms of qualities of thoughts/thinking - is the very reason why this issue is alive even today; a stone can be felt but also thought while redness can't be felt but thought - an overlap at the level of thought/thinking becomes the source of endless controversy.
Another point worth noting here is there seems no good reason as to why physical sense data should take precedence over all else (purely mental stuff). Yes, a well-aimed, large enough stone can end my life but so what? I'm also stoked when I read Sherlock Holmes. :chin:
Indeed. Theism or belief in a spiritual reality does not bring with it ipso facto superior virtues or capacities. Among the people I've known who seem to live life most deeply, with a sense of the numinous and a strong connection to nature and other people, have tended to be atheists. The more banal and materialistically inclined have generally been theists. It's almost as if for some people, making a decision to 'side with God', means not needing to think or connect meaningfully again.
Hmm. Not really a 'so what' though, is it? When was the last time a Sherlock Holmes tale ended a person's life. :joke:
I will tell you my thoughts on fiction and on faith. Fiction is about story and our life events consist of stories. Even though fiction consists of fantasised stories I believe that they often resonate with the ones in our lives, even if the fictional ones are often more dramatic. They probably need to be written more with more drama than we could possibly deal with at most times, not just to make them worth reading, but also to make points strongly enough. Also, fiction involves the emotional aspects of reality and moves us in that way.
I also think that a lot of people who write fiction do include some aspects of their real lives, but probably have disguise them carefully. For instance, if an author is writing about a relationship they had experienced, it needs to be done in such a way that the character does not resemble the other person if the writing becomes published or it might become rather awkward.
As far as faith goes, I think that it has to be able to withstand the test of rationality. That is probably the main problem with telling people that they should not question, because for many people that is rather difficult, or not particularly helpful psychologically. I am sure that I was told many times by people that I should not doubt or question. In some ways, that made me think that the things I was being told to believe in were a bit dodgy in terms of credibility, because otherwise they would not be in danger of crumbling if subject to scrutiny through reason and analysis.
Unless you have an idiosyncratic definition of faith, I think that faith by definition can't be justified except as a first person experience. In Christian terms faith is most often understood as Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
When someone reaches for faith to explain why they believe in God it is likely because they don't a good reason. It is the 'special feeling' that X is real and, unfortunately, is equally felt by followers of many religions/sects which cancel each other out.
You wanted, originally, to compare and contrast being real with being solid. How do you think that stands now, after the comments here?
I recall in another forum you talking about Robert Solomon, maybe his "Spirituality for the Skeptic".
Not Sherlock Holmes but take a look at this: HORROR DEATH Brit pensioner, 77, found dead in cinema seat after watching horror movie
I seriously advise against the elderly, especially those with heart conditions, watching horror movies - they're getting better at scaring the living daylights out of viewers even though it's all make-believe.
[quote=Morpheus (The Matrix)]The mind makes it real[/quote]
It was different for me. I felt a huge sense of relief rush through me when reinforcements arrived at the tail-end of the movie and Thanos, although I have a soft corner for him, was snapped out of existence by Tony Stark. I think I'm talking about Avengers, EndGame. It felt, despite knowing all of what I was seeing was CGI (no, not corrugated galvanized iron), so R-E-A-L.
Some tearjerkers, true to their name, made me cry like a baby. Maybe it's just me but you never know.
at the end of his tether :lol:
I don't think that reality is completely solid, not even tables, although they are probably more solid than other aspects of it. I really started to think it was not so solid about 3 years ago when I was reading about the quantum world.
However, I do believe that the idea that it is not solid is one which is not really shared by the majority of people. I have worked in psychiatric nursing and I am just wondering what reaction I would have got by the staff I was working with if I had said that to staff I was working with. I am inclined to think that many would have thought that I was going a bit crazy. But, I think that it mainstream logic, not even philosophy which clings to a picture of reality as being so solid.
I am not sure that the comments in the thread have changed my ideas that much. But, I am not saying that the physicists should have the final word, because there is ' bad physics'. But, I think I probably never thought that reality was that solid going back to when I first read Walt Whitman and William Blake.
I think I do agree with your perspective of faith, in its true meaning. What we are told to adhere to as faith by others is false faith really, whether it is the dogmatic one of people coming from a religious, humanist or any kind of one which is prescribed by others. We have to find what makes sense for us individually rather than just take other people's word for it, uncritically.
Yes. I don't recall the book but I do remember the fun, fire and brimstone at PN.
You had to be there...how to become a target...whisper 'secular spirituality'.
Those were the days, my friend...never to be repeated.
Well not by me, not here. No way, no how :sparkle:
It came close to doing what few topics are able to do, unite the forum in its opposition. At the same time it revealed the inability and unwillingness of theists and anti-theists alike to be self-reflective.
I wasn't aware that of what you describe as the thread having come to a close. I was about to write a couple more replies but fell asleep. Are you thinking the thread so poor that it should stop, and I don't think you have expressed your view on reality yet?
I am not opposed to physics. It is not a subject which I come to with much knowledge because it was a subject which I did not even choose when I took my options of what to study at age 14. However, I do see it as important in thinking about philosophical questions relating to reality. But, I probably have to try to look to the books which I am more able to understand, but also allow for a certain amount of guidance for those who have studied more. Nevertheless, I am don't think that it means that I should not take a certain interest in it, and do my best to develop some understanding of it.
You asked me whether I feel that I am information or energy. I would probably go for energy, because I am organic. I wonder if others wonder whether others feel that way or differently, but it may be a starting point for phenomenological approaches.
You say that 'it's impossible for human beings to realise realize actual reality.' I think part of the problem is even when we try to be objective we cannot really step outside of it. However, I think that this being part of is helpful rather a hindrance. This is because being it is so much easier to understand on the basis of experience as a starting point. For example, we have so much more understanding of the way human minds work than those of animals. But, I definitely believe that there are potential limits to knowledge about reality, even with the best methods and scientific approaches.
"Close to doing" not come to a close. This was another thread on another forum.
I tend to stay out for the strong sun because it hurts my eyes. I once developed severe vitamin D deficiency in the middle of a heatwave, but all this does depend on my own belief that the photons and the sun itself is real. I also presume my body is real, to the extent that I took my blood test results as being important. I expect that if we did not believe that the world was real at all we would end up with a belief that the universe is a simulacrum.
To be more precise that saying "reality is whatever there is", I would probably say that I'm a "rationalistic idealist", similar to the Neoplatonists of Cambridge or perhaps some strains of Kantianism.
What this means is essentially this: what is real is whatever happens to be in the world that interacts with our innate cognitive faculties. In this sense, reality is species-dependant. If something exists in the world, but it doesn't interact with us in some manner, then for intent and purposes it isn't part of our conception of reality. This means that there may be many aspects of reality we simple are ignorant about, but still exist for some other species to interact with.
This takes as a given that our mental images need not refer to any aspect of reality as seems to be the case with our thoughts. So we have the thoughts in our heads, which are infinite and whatever exists "out there" that we happen to interact it with by accident. There is no necessity in us being able to interact with the world the way we do, it just so happens that we are this way,
I suppose it comes back to the issue of qualia once again, especially in how we experience the weather, although it can be measured to some extent. Of course, it does go beyond qualia, because it varies in location, especially as it gets so much warmer in America than it does here in England. But, there is so much subjectivity in how we feel the weather personally. I know that I dislike any weather extremes whereas some people like snow or intense heat.
At the very beginning of the novel "Journey to the End of the Night"
Louis Ferdinand Celina has the following lines - "travel is useful, it makes the imagination work"
Man does not travel through reality, man imagines
the person gives the installation that he lives in the "real world".
This is one of, in my opinion, although not a lot of radical, but an applied position, although this question is 100% dependent on how you understand reality, but if you take reality as such, then this is tantamount to talking about truth, the meaning of life and other eternal questions
On subjectivity (i.e. qualia) aka "maya" ...
[quote=Twilight of the Idols]Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed — they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie.[/quote]
(Emphasis is mine.)
I haven't come across this 'View Answer' feature before, nor the 'Accepted Answer' you get when you click on it.
I've asked about it here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543805
But perhaps the answer would be clearer coming from you.
Where can I find the feature/function ? And why would you use it ?
Also, what was the original title ?
The accepted answer function is pretty wierd because, suddenly, it seems that I get the words showing up next to some answer. I imagine that it is a part of the software, either that or the site has its own mind and selects an answer. But, it is a bit annoying because, often, it makes at appear as if one post is the correct answer.
Unfortunately, you misread @Fooloso4's post.
It was part of a follow-up to my response, which you might have missed:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543678
Yes. That concerned me a little because I know you like to read all responses and respect people taking the time to offer up their thoughts.
Where is the function, anyway, and why did you use it ?
I forgot to answer your query about the original title. I believe it was, 'What is reality? Is it solid? ' I changed it because it seemed to be too focused on a science based understanding and not about reflection.
But, I realise that I probably fiddle around with my threads too much, but it is just the rut I have got into after months of lockdown blues. I am trying to rebuild my life, and I am hoping that in doing so I will engage with this site a bit differently...
Have another :up: from me, as well as from @180 Proof :smile:
The way it works on my phone is that at the end of the post I created it says something it shows a black tab, saying, 'View Answer'. I usually don't press it but I think that I probably hit it accidentally when I am reading the replies. But, I do think it all may depend on what devices we use, and I think that it is likely that many people are using computers whereas I am writing on my phone.
Thanks.
The quote from Nietzsche is useful. I also think that the idea of maya, is interesting. It features strongly in Eastern thought, but I wonder how much is a literal or symbolic truth. I am sure that there are different interpretations of the idea. I think that the extent to which concepts in religious ideas are taken literally or symbolically arises when we look at certain texts.
I realise your usage of the term and I like the way you use it, but your use of maya led me to wonder about the use of the term going back to the ancients.
The table before us is mostly space, with a few particles scattered around it. Pop writers are apt to make the inference that since the table is mostly space, it is not solid.
I'm asking, in the light of the quote above from Austin, what you (or others watching) make of that. Ask yourself how you know that the table is solid; and what it would mean for it not to be so. Think about how that relates to the description of the table as being mostly space.
Three years ago, when you started to think that the table as not solid, did the table change?
I'm asking you to look a the way we use words like "solid", "hard", "rigid", "firm", and how we contrast them with "liquid", "gas"; and how the physical description of the table as "mostly space" might, or might not, change that.
This reflects my experience in the trades. There is a lot of disagreement about the best approach to a problem but much agreement about what is kicking our ass. The ostensive gesture toward the present necessity.
Austin wants to evade the problems of philosophy, and he does so by trivialising them. The metaphorical 'table' or 'tree' or 'apple' is a stand-in for 'any object', so questioning the reality of 'the object' by making reference to physics is presented as sophistry. But to do so is forgetting why the philosophical question of the nature of reality has become an issue in the first place. As I said previously the question originates at the beginning of philosophy.
Quoting Banno
Again. 'the table' is a stand-in for any object. But when 'the wiley metaphysician' asks this question, if asking it properly, it is not a parlour game nor a card trick. I suggest the conventional philosophy of today's culture begins with the presumption that the sensory domain, the physical world, is the real world. What does it mean to call that into question? Because that is what I think metaphysics does, but that it does this on the basis of reason.
With respect to physics, three of the reputable layman's books I have read about it are as follows: Manjit Kumar: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality; David Lindley, Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science; and Adam Becker, What Is Real?, The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics. Note well the concern in all these books with 'the nature of reality' and the 'battle' that it involves. Einstein was the staunch scientific realist, who as a matter of principle insisted on the 'mind-independent nature' of perceived reality. The 'Copenhagen school', on the other side - principally Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli -challenged Einstein's views in this regard. Suffice to say that, since the performance of the famous Alain Aspect experiments, Einstein's realist views have been called further into question.
I don't want to divert this thread into arguments about that matter, other than to say that it should have real and profound implications for philosophy. One thing I think it obliges us to accept is the sense in which the observing intellect - that's you and I - construct or synthesise the world from the elements of experience, rather than simply encountering it wholly formed. Some analytic philosophers acknowledge that - Sellar's 'Myth of the Given' comes to mind - but very few, in my experience. Most of them just assume 'the reality of the chair', then challenge all comers to prove that it is not what it seems, while sitting in it. Thereby demonstrating that they're not really seeing the point of the question.
Exactly whatever we think as reality is based on our experiences. The amazing human mind the more it expands its abilities the more "reality" we understand. Human's reality in first stages of evolution is much more different than reality that humans realize nowadays. Imagine how much more of the reality we started to understand with the help of technology and scientific tools. The things that human's senses couldn't see or realize before (so it was an invisible non existing world for us) now with technology we can see things even if our eyes can't. That's all achievements of our mind. And I truly believe that human mind has much more abilities but we aren't capable to unlock them yet at least. Every scientific progress is an idea in someone's mind first. I have strong belief that there are much more things that our minds are capable of but maybe the way we are taught to use them since our birth limits them. Still I m not sure that we will ever be able to understand fully the actual one and only universal reality and how it works. But for sure our curiosity is so huge that we will never stop trying.
To that end, I think we ought pause at Quoting Wayfarer and notice that it is not obvious that the 'sensory domain' and the 'physical world' are somehow names for the very same thing; but more, it is not at all clear what the 'sensory domain' is, nor what the 'physical world' is. Indeed, if we are to take the claims of scientists as they stand, it is clear that what we sense is very different from what is described by physics. So if these are to be our guide as to what is the 'real' world', we had best put some effort into rendering the two consistent. So in this I think we are in agreement that there is a problem, but differ as to the way we ought proceed.
Did you perhaps note the discussion above about the solidity of tables?
There is an argument, rarely actually articulated, but often implied, that while the table might appear solid, it really mostly consists of space, and hence it is really not solid at all. When set out explicitly the argument is obviously false. The table is both solid and consists mostly of space. Our notion of solidity is found in everyday experience of books and cups not falling through the table, and tables, when pushed, not sliding through walls. These do not disappear when it is found that the table mostly consists of space. The apparent contradiction consists in conflating the every day use of "solid" and the physical description.
Looking at what is being done serves to show where things went wrong - putting books on tables compared with examining the table's atomic structure. The description in terms of the physical structure of the table does not deny the solidity of the table.
Notice that this was done by removing the word "really"? And that this word was removed because it was seen that what it means depends on the context in which it is used?
The apparent contradiction of a solid table that consist mostly of space is dissipated by understanding that neither description is more 'real' than the other.
This way of approaching metaphysics by examining in detail the use to which words are being put serves more generally, to dissipate other metaphysical questions.
What look to be profound metaphysical theories are often (always?) little more than knots in the way we use language.
Can you recommend an easy to understand essay or paper exploring the process you used above? I tried reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations but it is beyond me.
Austin's Philosophical Papers.
Also,
How not to be a chucklehead
What-it's-like arguments seem to me to be peculiar to English. They can't be articulated nearly as well in other languages, thus there is reason to be suspicious that we are being held captive by language, as Wittgenstein said.
At the same time, the classical debates in metaphysics of idealism vs realism or free will vs determinism and so on down the long list, aren't only about the use of words. If it were only that, I suspect that many of these debates would have died out. Nobody, or very few at most, speak about phlogiston anymore or of elan vital and the like.
The reason these questions remain, is because the issues are hard. Is the world fundamentally non-mental or is the entire world a product of our representations? Are we the product of one long causal chain in which the big bang set in motion all our choices and decisions or do we have the capacity to act in a manner that is not dictated entirely from previous act?
If there is no self - which is different from considering the self as distinct from the body - then why do we treat other people as if they had a self of some kind? We can perhaps clear up some confusion by clearing up what we mean when we say "mind" or "will", but that seems to me to leave the main point in these disputes entirely unresolved. And they may remain in this domain, as they have for thousands of years...
If it's an indulgence, then it is to be avoided, but the problem is, Austin is treating philosophy as an indulgence, to be dissipated by a bit of plain old common sense.
Quoting Banno
That is exactly the point I was talking about, but plainly you didn't get it.
Quoting Banno
What I'm trying to describe is an attitude that might be known as naive ('naive' is often taken as perjorative in this context, when really it's a technical term) or scientific realism, and/or empiricism. It is an attitude towards the nature of experience, and going on the basis of our many exchanges, I would have thought you had no objection to being described as empiricist. At risk of repeating myself, science itself has thrown our common-sense notion of reality into question, and considering the implications of that is not 'an indulgence'.
Quoting Banno
As I said:
Quoting Wayfarer
[quote=Kelly Ross]In the Twentieth Century, philosophy was like a confused and clumsy person who repeatedly tries to commit suicide, but keeps failing, though with the addition of debilitating damage at each attempt. The public face of philosophy was often, for many years, people like Bertrand Russell or Jean Paul Sartre, whose personal, moral, political, and philosophical follies were the kinds of things that will be no less than an embarrassment for posterity. In the classic sophistry of a dilemma of false alternatives, respected academic philosophy often seemed to have offered only two choices:
First, the sterility and agnosticism of positivistic, scientistic, and merely analytic schools, characteristically, if not always originally, Anglo-American, which have frequently denied the possibility of knowledge in metaphysical or ethical matters, and sometimes the possibility of constructive philosophical knowledge at all, with, according to Karl Popper, a "concentration upon minutiae (upon 'puzzles') and especially upon the meanings of words; in brief .... scholasticism." As Allan Bloom said, "Professors of these schools [i.e. positivism and ordinary language analysis] simply would not and could not talk about anything important, and they themselves do not represent a philosophic life for the students." Students and the intellectually curious looking for some concern, any concern, about the truths of being and value, the content of wisdom, or some humane purpose, found instead what has aptly been called a "valley of bones."[/quote]
(The second alternative is Continental post-modernism, it can be read here.)
If so, then you ought be able to provide one for our erudition.
So start a thread and invite me. But choose with care, because I don't think the ones you list in your post here will suffice.
Fair enough. I don't know how to @ people yet in my post. But needless to say, you're invited. :wink:
Actually, I agreed with you...
As usual, we agree, but you give the wrong explanation.
Quoting Wayfarer
Has it? I rather think that the table will remain solid, regardless of what physicists say. Do you disagree?
Supposing that Wittgenstein and Austin did not address "anything important" is, it seems to me, based on a misreading of what they were doing.
Yes , I would go for energy also. I think the energy is related to the spirit / soul we feel ourselves to be. Over a lifetime the information changes, but a spirit ( energy ) always remains. And yes again, this relates to phenomenology. The state of energy is disturbed upon cognition ( Capra ), which is felt as emotion. This is still pretty fuzzy in my mind, and perhaps some day I will lay it out in a more coherent manner.
Reality however is a concept that describes the underlying understanding that creates it. It is derived from DNA data, experience, and perspective ( relativity ). So is something slightly different at every point of consciousness. Responses to this thread are a great example of this. What is interesting is that the different points of consciousness exchange information and energy ( communicate ), which forces a modulation on every point such that a self organization starts to form - in the style of a neural network. From this perspective our interaction starts to self organize, so acts like consciousness itself.
( this can not happen abruptly, but over time the collective consciousness forms and evolves, and through this interaction so does the individual consciousness ).
In short, communication is an orientation in each others reality, whilst reality is a function of consciousness, where consciousness is an integration of ones DNA data, experience and perspective
( in relativity we each have our own time and space, so our own individual perspective).
In a sense we are a node, interacting with other nodes within a larger nodular collective, and it would seem it is all made of information and energy. This is how I understand panpsychism - in that "self organizing information and energy" is really all there is.
That's how I see it anyway. :smile:
FYI: Physics is my weakness also. Ive found Sabine Hossenfelder to be of great help.
What is the point of the question? Why is its solidity an issue? I think that it will remain solid - hope so, I’m eating lunch on it whilst typing this reply, be darned inconvenient if it didn’t.
Quoting Banno
I don’t think they’re necessarily in the same boat; I think Wittgenstein had some genuine depth. There’s rather a good essay here on how Collingwood’s early death provided the opportunity for Ryle to dominate English philosophy for more than a generation. His period of English philosophy was strongly positivist. I can see how the reaction against idealism, particularly Hegel, Fichte, Schelling and their ilk, was a necessary corrective in philosophy, but those plain-language Brits went too far the other way.
What about intelligence? Or mind? Where does that fit into the picture? Is it ‘a product of’ energy? I think not. I tend towards the view that things are configurations of consciousness - not in an objective sense, they’re not ‘made of’ consciousness in the way that they are from atoms. Mind is not an objective constituent of matter - hence I’m not a pan-psychist. What I’m considering is the way the mind - your mind, my mind, Jack’s mind - synthesises and interprets experience to give rise to what is interpreted as reality.
The brain is the most complex system known to science. And this is what it does with all that power. It's a reality generator.
Most people have the picture that humans are accidental by-products of unconscious forces. 'That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms...all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand', said Russell, in 1901. We're spat out by a physical and chemical process that developed over billions of years purely as a consequence of material necessity. And the faculty of reason, which has provided us the ability to weigh and measure the Universe, is an adaptation to the exigencies of survival.
I think the laws of thought - specifically, the faculty of reason - is logically prior to those natural sciences which are now supposed to provide an account of how they were developed. In other words, there’s something deeply backwards about the popular understanding of the nature of things.
I agree. In my model the pattern is the information. The energy is the fundamental substance being entangled. It is best revealed in the metaphysics of a wavicle. I'll try to articulate it better at some stage. I don't have anything ready, and I have stuff to do.
Then I haven't understood you. What is the "Common-sense notion of reality" to which you referred? I had assumed you were following the conversation about the table...
So what is the "common-sense notion of reality" that science has thrown into question?
A shame that @Pop missed this. I'd like to hear an explanation of the relation between spirit and energy, too.
But where mind or intelligence comes into the picture is also difficult. This is where I’ve learned something fundamental from Eastern philosophy. This is the principle that the knower, the subject of experience, can’t be made the object of knowledge.
[quote=Brihadaranyaka Upani?ad; https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_III-01.html#part4]
Y?jñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the ?tman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. E?a ta ?tm? sarv?ntara?: That is the ?tman."
Nobody can know the ?tman inasmuch as the ?tman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the ?tman can be put, such as "What is the ?tman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the ?tman because the Shower is the ?tman; the Experiencer is the ?tman; the Seer is the ?tman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the ?tman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the ?tman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the ?tman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.
“Everything other than the ?tman is stupid; it is useless; it is good for nothing; it has no value; it is lifeless. Everything assumes a meaning because of the operation of this ?tman in everything. Minus that, nothing has any sense.
Then U?asta C?kr?yana, the questioner kept quiet. He understood the point and did not speak further.[/quote]
And why? Because ‘that of which we cannot speak...’ But that itself is not a proposition. It’s a stance, if you like.
In the first place, when I began thinking about whether the world around us is solid, I began thinking to what extent we, as human beings are solid. However, I guess that is more complicated than whether tables are solid, partly due to the aging processes and also, because we are made up mostly of water. So, thinking about tables makes it a bit easier as a starting point, although I do think it is worth considering whether we are more solid or less solid than tables in terms of firmness. I actually think that tables are firmer than human beings because they are not part of nature, and do not get sick and die.
But, if you think about the solidity or firmness of tables, it partly comes down to them not being liquid, and they don't evaporate. If we leave a table in the room overnight, we can rely on it being there, in the same shape in the morning. However, I can remember one table I had collapsing when I put about 200 books on it, but that probably didn't mean that it was not solid in the way of physical existence, because it is not as if it just disappeared.
I think being solid is also about being in the three dimensional world, although I think that there are probably about 5 or 6 dimensions, or even more. But, thinking about objects is about being in three dimensions. So, we could say that the e books we read are less solid than the paper ones. Going back to tables though I think that existing and being surrounded by space is important. It comes down to existing as matter and being a structure which ensures for a substantive amount of time. I am not sure that they are absolutely solid, but I think that they are more solid than living parts of nature, because they are not subject to impermanence to the extent that living beings are, and are not mortal.
I think that your point based on your reading is extremely important. It is useful to think about whether rather than just asking about whether question about reality are about asking those metaphysics and about the physical world, or about the human construction of the idea of reality. I think that it is complex because we are human beings and viewing the matter from the human perspective.
But, the idea of reality is a construct and, most definitely, before I started this thread I was thinking about that. Any description of the way we view reality, even if it involves certain ideas, such as descriptions of the facts about the physical world is bound up with the idea of there being a 'reality', of which we can speak or discuss.
I agree that the scope of our understanding is one which is evolving. However, I do wonder if it all goes in trends in what ideas are seen as popular and what is pushed and that there may be cycles in this. In particular, we have so much science and that is the en vogue perspective in philosophy and mainstream academic and thinking within Western culture. However, there are many who think that ideas going back to the Greeks are of vital importance.
Of course, I think that each one of us wishes to find the essential ideas, but we are basing our thinking upon the ideas from our own education. Certainly, I don't think that many people would disregard science completely, or I doubt whether any point in the future of humanity that could happen, but I do still wonder if the development of thinking is strictly linear, and if humanity is able to survive for many centuries to come, how will philosophy and ideas evolve further?
I'm with @Banno in bringing in Austin in this case. His epiphany of sense from pointing out our ordinary lives makes philosophy feel fresh and workable. However, the sentiment expressed here by I believe @Wayfarer that Austin is not replying to or connected with traditional philosophy (he also gets pegged with "just discussing language") is just something Austin doesn't dine to explain, skipping to showing how "real" is, say, opposed to fake. He doesn't show how we got here, nor parse out the motivations or implications.
We aren't led through the creation of the Gordian knot that has become "reality" in philosophy. I'm not the best historian; the story I remember starts with really getting yourself to feel the fear of skepticism: how can we be sure about what's right? how do I know what you're thinking? And then Plato makes a fatal error in the Theatetus and transfers moral doubt onto physical objects. The actual question is not "is it real?" but can we be certain, universally, ahead of time, and project that into the future.
The next step is philosophy imagined "real" as a quality to objects or existence, and a continuous quality. The "real" world; "reality" not as say compared to denial, but as something fundamental, epistimologically relevant which is solid and strong that stands firm against uncertainty. As if what is real had to be proven itself, rather than being a presumption to contrast against outlying cases. So now the question "what is reality"? can seem necessary to answer.
I agree with you in seeing philosophy in relation to the issue of certainty and knowledge. I think that the area between imagination and knowledge is one which is not completely answered by metaphysics or science. I think that this is the challenge, going right back to questions of knowledge, and I probably see this as one of the most interesting horizons within philosophy for the future.
Thanks for your reply, and it is a relief to hear that you feel that you see physics as you weakness. Sometimes, it seems as if those who have expertise in the sciences are coming from a certain expertise, or position of knowledge far beyond all others. I believe that it is complex. I think physics and other scientific understandings are models. I am not saying that with a view to undermining their importance because I believe that they offer incredible insights into nature and human nature, as well as the other aspects of reality, but even this knowledge is partial, in the understanding of reality in an ultimate way.
I think that your reflections on the nature of 'energy' based on your reading in Eastern metaphysics are extremely useful, and I do wonder about the possibility of such ideas being incorporated into Western philosophy. I do think that there are limitations of philosophy as a discipline. This probably means that certain ideas are excluded from mainstream thought, but I do believe that such ideas are probably understood more by some other worldviews, including shamanic perspectives.
I am interested to know more about your ideas of limitations, including space and time, and how that relates to reality. Are you suggesting that these are the absolute boundaries?
Notice that gas occupies three dimensional space, but is far from solid. The room you are in is full of gas, but you can pass through it without effort.
It seems more explanation is needed.
That is true, but it is only one way of seeing reality. I am not saying that you are wrong, but life and reality is more than gaseous exchanges. It is also about perspectives.
I don't see the point of your question. Whether the world, or existence, or reality, is "solid" or not, what difference does it make either way? The OP raises an issue of understanding reality and "understandings" have been presented. What about yours? Tell us, Jack, how you understand reality in such a way that it matters whether it is "solid" or not.
I will answer a bit later, because I just got really wound up reading something on another thread.
I've calmed down. I think that I see the idea of potential lack of 'solidity' more as basis for thinking and contemplating impermanence. However, I have been spending a bit too much time and energy focusing on my threads and the site in the last few days, so I think I will go out and take a bit of a break today and, maybe, tomorrow.
I think philosophy is about finding a basis for contemplation more than anything else. Also, I think it is important to keep all ideas and everything else in life in balance, to hold onto a certain amount of psychological 'solidity.'
Science tells us that everything is fundamentally made of energy!
So sayeth @Adughep and Einstein, E=mc2
We speak of a spirit or soul that we feel ourselves to be. I imagine even you have one of these Banno?
If so, what is its substance? What do you feel it to be? If it is something energetic, then is it this energy, entangled in your own particular way, that creates your being?
If so, is the energy that you entangle at peace with its current arrangement? Or is it something that has far more potential, something that you cannot quite put your finger on, but it feels itself to have great possibility, far more then it is currently realizing? Does it feel like it could possibly end? You and me will end some day, but does our energy feel like it will? Or does it continue on confidently as if there will be no end?
Out of respect for Jack's thread, lets continue this here.
I was pleased to see that you had put an entry in my thread, but, then disappointed that in wishing to respect my thread you wished for the discussion to move elsewhere. This keeps happening and ends up with my thread not continuing at all. In particular, my thread was going fine until @Banno suggested to @ Manuel that he started a new thread on metaphysics. This meant that became the replacement for my thread. I was a bit disappointed with the way my thread ended, and I am sure that @Banno believes that my whole thread and all my ideas are complete rubbish but I do wish to continue the discussion with energy and spirit too.
Of course, I could move to any threads which break off from mine, but I already wrote one in the metaphysics thread and no one replied to me. I would still like to continue discussion about reality with you or anyone else.
I didn't include you in my reply above, but you contributed well to the discussion on my thread and I would like my thread to continue because I do believe that what is reality is is a valid philosophy question.
Delphic Maxims
1. Know thyself [Atman - Brahman]
2. Nothing in excess [Golden mean, Madhyamaka]
3. Surety brings ruin [Skepticism/Doubt]
I'll talk about 1 and 2 as they seem relevant.
In a certain broad sense, every person is like a miniature model with approximate or even perfect 1-to-1 correspondence with the universe itself. We can look at ourselves as a perfect scaled-down copy of the totality of the cosmos. That being so, to "know thyself" is to know the universe itself. I suppose what reality is can be found along the way on your journey to self-discovery. Perhaps, reality, if one assiduously removes all that which can be doubted, essentially boils down to Descartes' cogito ergo sum.
Your threads might go further if you directly answer questions in such a way that your answers engender counterpoint-to-counterpoint (dialectical) replies. For instance
Quoting 180 Proof
If you avoid being pinned down, Jack, that's okay but there other threads to make or play on which will be more engaging. Good topics, mate, just not so good follow-ups.
I do think that each person is like a miniature part of the universe too, and that it goes back to the idea of the microcosm and the macroscom, which is a tradition going back to Plato. I think that many people nowadays don't recognize the value of the human being, or of a connection between the internal world and a larger reality. I think that is probably because people stopped believing in the idea of a 'soul'. I am not saying that there are not any problems with the idea of a soul, going back to dualism, but, at the same time it does seem to me that what has happened is that many people have come to disregard the interior universe and underplay its importance whatsoever.
Okay, I will probably need to work harder if I want my threads to work. I think that a couple of people have suggested that often I am inclined to listen to others rather than put my own views forward. I think that is partly my own approach in life, but it is something which I need to work on.
I think that my own picture of reality is based partly on quantum reality, but I am probably also interested in the reality of the world within us too. I know that you don't dismiss the numinous aspect of life, especially in the realm of the arts, but I think that many people do miss the numinous side of life, whether they are religious or not. I do see this as being the essential aspect of reality.
Also, you say that it is hard to pin me down, but I think that is also true of reality too, because it is constantly changing. Also, in a way it includes everything, including every theory and every philosophy that exists at all.
Till your spirit fills the whole world, and the stars are your jewels; till you are as familiar with the ways of God in all Ages as with your walk and table: till you are intimately acquainted with that shady nothing out of which the world was made: till you love men so as to desire their happiness, with a thirst equal to the zeal of your own: till you delight in God for being good to all: you never enjoy the world.[/quote]
‘That shady nothing...’ speaks volumes to me.
There you go, sir, you've pinned it down with some of the very best thinkers (Laozi, Buddha, Heraclitus, Democritus & Epicurus ... Artie & Freddy ... Zapffe & Camus ...): "its constantly changing". :up: ... Isn't this the numinous (Artie's, not Cant's, noumenon)?
So the hard thinking begins. And now what are the implications? How does this reality account for our religions and philosophies, arts and sciences, histories and politics? How can this "constantly changing" be used to make sense of things in general and make human life significant in particular? What are its ramifications for love and death? subjectivity and truth? ego and self? And on and on.
:yikes:
Depends on who you ask.
I will write an answer a bit later this morning when I have got up and had breakfast. I often write replies lying in bed, which probably doesn't help me in writing ones of quality...
Quoting Wayfarer
cannot be true.
The quantum realm is also made of energy. The fundamental stuff is energy. It leads to a very different paradigm. I'm not sure its suitable for a public forum? And I have to go and make dinner! :smile:
The reason quantum physics tends to undermine materialism in any form, has nothing to do with the equivalence of matter and energy. It has to do with the observer problem/measurement problem. It is because quantum physics failed to find an ultimate material point-particle, and also because it undermined the idea that the object (read Universe) exists totally independently of the act of observation.
See The Mental Universe, by Richard Conn Henry. A qualified physicist’s OP in an esteemed journal.
That is one of the metaphysical problems - that it is not possible to make a mind independent observation. So reality at any level is a function of mind. To be continued.
[I]as distinct from[/I]…….
@Wayfarer
:clap:
E = energy
m = mass
c = speed of light
Materialism: all that's real is matter & energy. [s]E[/s], and also [s]m[/s]. What are we left with? The speed of light (c). Speed of light = 300,000,000 m/s
I have a mass of about 70 kg.
That means, I have an energy E = 70 kg × 300,000,000 m/s × 300,000,000 m/s = 6.3 × 10^18 Joules.
More germane to the claim that E = mc² disproves materialism is c² = E/m = [6.38 × 10^18 Joules]/[70 kg].
We, each one of us, are in some sense the speed of light squared (c²). Speed is neither matter nor energy. Materialism, to that extent, must be false.
Imagine, we have two flashlights perpendicular each other. We set our stopwatches and switch both flashlights on simultaneously. At 1 second, the light from the flashlights would've traversed 300,000,000 meters in their respecitive directions (90 degrees to each other). c² = the area of the space, a square with sides 300,000,000 meters. We are space and all of us are the exact same square (Hurrah! for equality) in space. What does materialism have to do with space?
Not sure what you mean?
This is a Phil papers survey Note the differences of opinion and paradigm. Each paradigm is a different reality. Each paradigm sees things slightly differently. Of course they know how to get on - they are well socialized. :smile: But they will put things together differently. Their observations will be biased by their paradigm. I've gota go.
Sorry for bundling the two of you together but I need to bounce something off of you guys.
There seems to be something terribly amiss insofar as I'm concerned about what we mean by real. Ask any person, any person at all, and real = physical. This belief that real is simply a synonym for physical is a deeply entrenched belief, one that in all likelihood develops early on in one's infancy, reinforced as it were as we encounter the "real" :chin: as we live our lives and as the final line of a proof for the physicality of realness, we die, never to be seen again by anyone. QED.
However, the problem, if it's one, is that just because we live in what appears to be a physical world, just because we die in it with a finality that seems irreversible, doesn't actually provide sufficient warrant that everything is physical. It would be like a person who spends faer entire life in, say, Paris and forms the belief that Paris = The universe. A frog in a little pond kinda situation [the frog believes, erroneously, that the little pond it lives in is the universe itself].
I may have bitten off more than I can chew.
There is no "problem". :roll: Whatever else is real, the physical is that aspect of the real – iceberg above the (fundamental?) waterline – available to physical modeling (i.e. natural explanations of material data). Whatever else is real – always saught in scientific inquiry and research – does not play any role in the physical sciences or factual experience that's testably known so far. Epistemology is exhausted, exceeded, by ontology – methodological (N OT Wayfarer's strawman "nothing but" metaphysical) materialism - physicalism - naturalism.
Quoting Wayfarer
YOU ARE STILL PEDDLING THIS easily repeatedly debunked pseudo-scientific "observer effect" woo-of-the-gaps interpretation as if it is QM itself? :rofl: :sweat: :smirk: :yawn: :yikes:
Not a great example. Even if one only lives in Paris, easy to find and definitive proof exists for anyone to check that there are other places, a whole world. And, by the way, have you ever met a Parisian? They do think this. :joke:
That’s not it, either. The underlying issue is that science excludes the observer. Now, who or what is ‘the observer’? Why, that would be the human being. Science aspires to see the world ‘as it truly is’, absent of any and all observers. But it can’t do that, because even the units of measurement that science uses are fixed in terms of the human perspective. The ‘observer problem’ brought this into sharp relief. This was realised by Schrodinger, in his later philosophical writings. He gives a detailed analysis of the philosophical consequences of ‘objectification’ - the fact that science can only ever deal with objects and the objectively real. Which is not in itself wrong, but it culminates in a form of consciousness, so to speak, which orients itself solely in respect of what is objective, which is a different domain to ‘the transcendent’.
As distinct from energy! :roll: I thought you’d get that.
I suspect that many scientists would prefer to say that science aspires to see the world as closely as human observation allows.
[quote=Mr. Hyde]Aaah! Paris! [...] I think you'll find the view over here rather spectacular[/quote]
I am glad that my thread has come back to life and replying to yours because it really goes back to the basic question. Some of the thread focused on reality and is it solid, even discussion tables and that is because in many ways we are are born into and die in a physical world. In some ways, we are even trapped in the physical world, because we have to use physical means to do things. Even as I communicate on this site, I am reliant on my phone and my fingers. I remember the time when I had a broken wrist, and it was the right one, I spent 6 weeks struggling to do most things because we rely on physical reality, and our bodies.
I think that the way I see it is whether that is all there is. I am not necessarily suggesting hidden realities, but going back to what you wrote earlier we are embodied, with an interior sense of self, but at the same time, part of something larger. So, understanding reality is complex, because there are different facets, and it depends on how we put them together in our understanding. Also, reality is infinite too.
Yep. But I guess that's what science is meant to do - models change with the data.
Not me. I've never believed it, and never said it.
If I were a nonphysicalist, I would say, "this is exactly what I'm talking about. The so-called physical world can't be ignored unless you want to end up in a hospital or worse, a grave. However, this doesn't constitute an argument. At best it's a scare tactic (argumentum ad baculum) or at worst parallels God level indoctrination that would leave communists, known for their so-called re-education camps, shamefully red-faced." A pinch of sodium chloride, anyone?
You are not like the rest of us. :smile:
It's actually a pretty good argument... hard to ignore facts like that.
I don't want to end up in hospital or in a grave yet, although I remember on the first week when I began working in a psychiatric hospital, I dreamt that I was a patient, lying in a dormitory bed. But, that aside, I think that it does happen that people lose touch with physical reality. I didn't know that you (Madfool) consider yourself as a physicalist, but presume that you mean that that is the most ultimate reality. I definitely think that it is primary and as the starting point for something more. But, I am not sure whether some underlying invisible causes come into play. I think that this is at the core of any understanding of reality.
I think that your question of how can we account for the arts and philosophy is extremely important in our understanding of reality. Ever since I began thinking about philosophy of reality, I have thought of this in connection with the idea of the collective unconscious. However, I am aware that Jung's idea has been seen as lacking in philosophy. I wonder if this could be because he did not explore it fully enough as a philosophical concept. He was rather blurry in seeing it as connected to metaphysics or as being an aspect of nature and biology.
One major query which I have is where do creative ideas come from? I know that Plato speaks of ideas of Forms, but even these seem like abstract entities. However, individuals have specific ideas and ways of seeing, which are experienced uniquely. I think that this is partly on a phenomenological level and I do plan to read more in this field, and I do wish to read Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'. But, at the moment, my own understanding is that unique perception and creativity do seem to point to the possibility of reality being multidimensional.
Anyway, if you, or anyone else reply, I will look at it later in the day, because I have a medical appointment this afternoon (and I have some comments to reply to in the thread I started yesterday.)
It's hard to not think that way. Therein lies the rub.
You won't! :up:
My guess is they come from the same "place" other thoughts, words, walking, etc come from: 'subpersonal brain processes' (i.e. system 1 "fast brain" ~ Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow), in other words, from the you that's deeper than You. Sorry, no Platonic out-there, transcendent, supersensible, collective unconscious woo-woo beaming ideas into our "souls" like a radio receiver that "creative" people platonicly "recollect" by turning some tuner knob in their "soul" to another frequency. Our brains are brain-blind because they lack internal sensory organs and so we do not directly perceive that we even have brains that generate 'the idea of having a brain-blind brain'.
No more mystery, Jack, than the fact that as you read this on a screen your eyes do not – cannot – directly see themselves as they are seeing these pixels. Can't directly see the back of your head either. Where does that itch between your shoulder blades come from? Same "place" as "creative ideas" which often need to be scratched too.
I have read read some of Kahneman's book, but not all of it. I think framing of life and reality is important, although I am not sure that idea has not been discovered before.
As for mystery, I am not sure to what extent it can be ruled out or incorporated. I am definitely in favour of demystification, and not just speaking of the ineffable or the unknown. However, I do think that each of us, and the various models of thinking are so limited. I really see it as being more of an adventure, in which any of us can search in life and in ideas, in order to look for the most innovative ways of seeing, in science, arts and all disciplines. It is partly about individual perception of reality, but this is not entirely separate from the cultural pursuit of knowledge.
Thanks for your ongoing participation. What I am wondering about is what is energy exactly. I am sure that there is the formula, as expressed in physics. However, I wonder if even this is limited because it is about formulas and models. I am not trying to be awkward, but all models seem to be models. I think that we need to refine and develop them. I am also aware that you are probably in a different part of the world, so that you are probably awake when I am sleeping, which probably means that we have delayed responses. I wake up and see your ideas and by the time I have drunk a couple of coffees you have probably gone to bed. However, I do appreciate the ideas which you have contributed to this thread discussion.
I am not convinced that the idea of energy within quantum physics is not worthy of greater philosophical speculation. I think that your discussion of all these areas are so open up ideas for exploration, even though I can't always access the links you provide, which is probably due to signals, an aspect of reality which on which we are starting to rely upon. However, I think that the point which you make about the role of the observer, which is recognised in the physics of relativity is extremely important, and I do wonder to what extent this ideas has been incorporated as a basis, or aspect, of the underlying premises of philosophy.
Isn't that postmodernism? ;)
While the ontological interpretation of the wavefunction hasn't been much in favour, recent experiments suggest that if you and I prepare a system in a superposition of measurable states, then you measure it, you may collapse the wavefunction for you, but not for me. Indeed, I could perform a measurement that demonstrates the system remained in superposition after you measured it and obtained a singular result. (Disclaimer: Strictly, the experiments suggest that either we have no freedom of choice, or stuff like future events affecting the past is possible, or that reality is observer-dependent. Also the experimental technique remains disputed.) The role of the observer may be important, but only for the observer.
We’re all observers, and the absence of human beings, what observers are there? Now that’s a question you’re not going to find the answer for in physics.
Do you think you're an unconscious automation that has been formed by chemical interactions driven by physical laws? That creativity, art, philosophy, the history of human culture are the outcome of unconscious brains driven by the algorithms of survival, itself an unconscious process? Because that's what you're being asked to believe.
You should understand that one of the primary capabilities for even beginning philosophy is discriminating wisdom, the ability to discern the true from the false. Here's your opportunity!
:up:
My phone battery may run out at any moment, but I definitely don't think that I am automaton. I think that there may be an unconscious, but I do wonder if it has some underlying principles. One of the first books which I read shortly after leaving school was, 'God and the Unconscious' by Victor White. That was a fairly complex book, and I was a bit upset when my mother told me she threw it away because it was tatty because the book, especially the title was my one of the biggest ideas which influenced me in thinking about some underlying force, whether it is called God, energy or the unconscious .
That might be a little too speculative for a physics text. Personally I think it's overwhelmingly likely other intelligent species exist, or have existed, or will exist, out there somewhere. Unsure of the relevance of this though.
Well, it has philosophical significance. When the problems associated with 'the observer' started to become apparent, this was what prompted Einstien to ask 'doesn't the moon continue to exist when nobody's looking?' He could not accept the idea that 'the kind of answer you get depends on the kind of question you ask', as Bohr put it, but believed there must be a truly 'mind-independent' outcome or object, which quantum theory was failing to capture. This was the substance of the long-running Bohr-Einstein debates which went well into Einstein's Princeton years. The subsequent confirmation of 'Bell's inequalities' by the Alain Aspect experiments is generally regarded as decisive in favour of Bohr's interpretation over Einstein's.
Which I'm sure you would know.
As @Wayfarer pointed out there is no mind independent observation, and all minds operate through a paradigm, which is biased towards that paradigm. It means there can be no reality, as envisaged by naive realists. What there is instead is interpretations of reality. It means nobody's interpretation of reality can have absolute authority. In reality there is no reality! :lol:
However there are interpretations and some are better then others an this is what we quibble over.
While I can't recall how he does it doesn't John Searle (amongst others) present arguments against this?
We don't know what the inherent substance of energy is. What we know is E=mc2, and for @the mad fool E/c2=m. The c2 is a constant, so can be disregarded. We are left with E=m, which means Energy = mass, and only matter has mass. So energy is equal to matter. This has been well established and has resulted in the worlds nuclear arsenal.
Quoting Pop
OK call me pedantic….
But...
(...no, Banno, don't... just leave it...)
Do tell?
Care to unpack what you mean by this in a few sentences or paragraphs?
Quoting Pop
I understand the idea and it sounds alarmingly like common sense.
Quoting Wayfarer
Oh definitely, for us, particularly as it presents a limit. Whatever else happens, we know the world must appear classical and coherent to us. This emergence might appear at the scale of a bacterium, or a cat, or a robot, but it definitely has to have occurred by us. Again, the role of the observer is important to the observer.
Einstein's moon, Schroedinger's cat, Wigner's friend... These all make similar complaints that the observer can't be special in any universal sense since there are clearly macroscopic processes involved in between the quantum mechanical system being measured and the observer doing the measuring where classical physics is meant to hold. I.e. they are arguments against an ontological interpretation of the wavefunction.
Bohr was a founder of the Copenhagen interpretation with its epistemic wavefunction, though this guy reckons he really believed in an ontic wavefunction:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33753316.pdf
If you believe in both the ontic wavefunction and collapse, you still can't escape the question of when collapse occurred. Was it the measuring apparatus, or the computer? Was it my lab assistant or me? Positing the human observer as the actual collapse mechanism seemed to me to betray the sort of anthrocentrism that has marred human enquiry forever.
:100: :up:
Sure. (This is from memory, I'm sure if I'm wrong KK will correct me. ) During Einstein's debates with Bohr, he came up with the EPR thought-experiment (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosenberg, or something.) This is because the implication of Schrodinger's equation seemed to be that particles widely separated in space remained 'entangled'. As the measurement of a particle determined its properties (i.e. spin), then determining the property of particle A caused an instantaneous correlated result in a remote particle B. The EPR thought experiment proposed that this was impossible as it seemed to imply propogation of information at faster than the speed of light, contradicting relativity.
John Bell was the one who figured out how to actually test this idea - in other words, make it a real experiment, rather than a thought experiment. This was through the measurement of the so-called 'Bell inequalities'. It's hard to describe but there's a clear explanation in the Jim Baggott video at the top of this thread.
Alain Aspect (and later Anton Zellinger) carried out the experiments which proved that 'Bell's inequalities are violated', thereby proving that Einstein's dreaded 'spooky action at a distance' happens in reality. In other words, you measure the spin of Particle A here, and that measurement instantly determines the spin of particle B there. And 'there' can be any distance away. But you can't say the spin of particle B was pre-determined - it isn't determined until a measurement is taken. It undermines local realism, i.e. that to change something, you have to physically affect it. There is no way a physical cause can propogate instaneously in that manner. That's what's spooky about it.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
What is 'marred forever' is the prospect of literal omniscience on the part of science. And that doesn't bother me in the least.
Anyway - I'd love your opinion on a question I posed on Physics Forum and Stack exchange about interpretation of the wave function.
It suggests a just in time reality. A reality that occurs just as we collapse it. It would fit into an energy and information paradigm. But I think it will be a while before the world is ready for that. :smile:
Corollary: Many put this sort of surrealistic 'extrapolation' in their perennial puff pipes and blow woo-woo smoke rings up each other's observer-dependent arseholes; and yet, for all that, reality remains recalcitrantly observer-immiserating, y'know, "same as it' ever was" :death: :flower:
:up: We’re given some raw materials to assemble ‘on the fly’.
I'm not sure literal omniscience was ever an expectation. A complete set of laws is the ideal. I get your point though. When Gallileo rolls a ball down an inclined plane, he expects to be able to describe what happened from setup to measurement. It's not omniscience, but at least a solid grasp of what happened when on this particular occasion. Quantum mechanics rather trashes that, at least for now.
This would depend on an energy and information reality. Have you changed your mind about matter?
Galileo’s method leaves something out. It’s not that significant when it comes to calculating trajectories, but it becomes very important when science aspires to becoming truly universal.
What it depends is on is the ability of the human brain as a reality-generating organism.
:roll:
If collapse is true, then it is true for everything. This would mean naive realists would have to admit panpschism! :razz: It is the only way to maintain the paradigm if it is to remain coherent. Nothing could exist independently unless it was able to collapse a wavicle. The only time a wavicle can collapse is at a point of consciousness.
Where this conflicts with realism is the belief that there’s an actual or real particle or entity which is measured. That is what quantum physics pulls the rug out from.
Hence the oft-commented convergence with Buddhism’s ??nyat?. ‘The world is not as it seems’, says the Buddha. ‘Nor is it otherwise.’ //or it might have been Alan Watts.//
12 mins long.
The point is a very difficult one, and my knowledge of it amateur, so I’ll leave it there.
We can help each other out then. Physics is also my weakness.
When a toolkit aspires to ... I must have missed it: when did that happen? :roll:
I'm not sure what this means. Tbh I've been a bit lost as to what you're getting at since my comment that observation is important to the observer.
I do wonder about energy beyond the idea as a concept in physics to that in experience. I was thinking about that today because I found it such a struggle to get out of bed today. I am sure that is partly to do with physical factors, such as not getting enough sleep frequently and also to do with psychological motivation.
But, it did make me wonder how energy works in life, because it is related to the lifeforce. It is probably also connected to will, because if someone lost will, it would result in giving up, or complete inertia. Of course, most of us have days in which we have more energy than others. But, while I lay there before getting up eventually, I did think how this seems related to the spirit within, because it is on this level that we move through life and realise our goals and dreams.
You mean to say I don't have to look for a solution! Yaay!
Quoting Wayfarer
:up: You make me look like a moron but I've never felt so proud of being one!
Quoting Pop
Let's strip that away too and if there's still something left, let's strip that away too, strip, strip, strip until we get to nothing and we strip that away too.
I think that some philosophies do seem to strip everything down to the point where there seems to be nothing left at all. I think that is my basic feeling about the behaviorism of Watson and Skinner. I think that it is a fine line between the stripped down philosophies and those which build up such complexities, such as Spinoza. I have started reading a book of his writings but have not got very far with it.
I think that the language in which he thinks and the concepts seem to come from such a different perspective than that which I am accustomed to. But, it is probably the case that the way we build up pictures or models of reality is so variable, but I am wary of those which seem to strip down or break it apart completely, because it does seem that we may be left with nothing.
Perhaps a good title for a book would be 'The Philosophical Striptease Show.' I am not sure if it would be philosophy discussion, or fiction about subcultures of people who have dropped out of society and their life struggles...
Energy and entropy are key; I don't expect generalisations of the physical concepts to be any more useful, but interested in trying it out. Energy is the ability to do work. What is work? Work is rearrangement of something contra to opposing or restorative forces. Getting out of bed is work against gravity. Walking is work against inertia and friction. Reading a paper is work against disorder. The first two aren't especially interesting with regard to life, but the third is.
Imagine a universe in which entropy naturally decreases. Structures would form naturally, requiring no work to order them. Information would be created spontaneously. Nothing could be learned, merely known, and since that information has not been created through any effort, it would be meaningless. Ink could fall onto a page in a way that neatly and precisely spells "You're out of milk" but because it was spontaneous, it would have nothing to do with how much milk is in your fridge. And, besides, that would have no bearing on what you learn from the ink. You could read "You're out of milk" but learn "Emily Blunt was defenestrated by militant vegans". Jackson Pollack would throw paint at a canvas and make the Mona Lisa. Music would, at best, have to write itself, but you'd remember something else anyway. And you'd have no meaningful sense of identity. You could go to bed thinking "I, Oscar Brainworthy, really nailed that movie pitch" and wake up thinking "Only three more double agents that I, Barry Grimm, need to assassinate".
Not that you'd have been born since procreation is also a battle against entropy. In anti-thermodynamics, a virgin truly could bear a baby boy, or a bear for that matter, in this universe in which the Daily Star and National Enquirer would be the only reliable news sources if only they could control their content. In fact, evolution itself is an intergenerational war against entropy, the incremental addition of information to minimise predictable death, competition for resources, and low reproduction rate. The only barrier to a man being created from bacterial cell division would be the sheer size of him.
Not that you could have bacteria without entropy... And so on. At any scale, life is about energy working against entropy in their precise physical conceptions.
Oh! I'm a little slow with hints. Spirit fits, as it is a similarly uncertain substance, as does a god that is omnipresent but without definition. A melding of the concepts of energy and spirit and god would unify a lot of the narrative about it. My feeling is that it is something like this, but of course I don't have absolute logical proof. What is your feeling?
I think that often the choice of words such as energy, spirit and God are preferred ways to referring to the ultimate underlying reality. I don't really see the need to choose one of these above all others. But, that is my own particular perspective and I am quite aware that choice of naming this reality is one of great debate and importance for most people, not just philosophers. In addition the naming of this reality appears to be the starting point for so many other speculations which have farreaching effects in personal, cultural and political life.
We can say we can never reach reality, or we can say it doesn't exist - that we in fact create it in our path, by collapsing interactions to conceptions. Either expression will do, imo.
Thanks for your detailed reply yesterday. I never replied because I developed an upset stomach, which was probably related to my not being able to get out of bed. I am sure that energy and entropy are interrelated. Also, work comes into it, probably because we have to have things to work on, to give us purpose. So, we probably need obstacles as well as suffering to keep us going, rather than us becoming subject to inertia.
It does seem that we create 'reality in our own path' as far as I can see rather than there being a clear 'absolute reality'. However, it is likely that many people would like to see their own view as the definitive one rather than recognise the role of interpretation of the facts of the senses and of knowledge. I think that it is important to be aware of the such limitations of knowledge about reality, as we try to formulate the most accurate interpretation based on the facts which are available for our thinking.
It is the only way to form a conception of reality - via a paradigm based on our knowledge, that forms our consciousness, that creates our reality.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Well, it seems to me that many things (if not all things) come in discrete packages; all objects we can perceive, directly (i.e., your computer, your pet, your best friend, the sun, the stars, an ant, cells) or indirectly (i.e., molecules, atoms, fields, information) seem to be particular entities (i.e., you can differentiate among photons by their frequency or their order in a sequence of photons; you can differentiate among ideas by their meaning or their order in a sequence of ideas). Not all electromagnetic radiation is the same (or at least not all electromagnetic radiation interacts equally with matter - some is absorbed while some is reflected by the same element or combination of elements). Not all ideas are the same. So, it seems to me that the quality of particularity is something shared by every thing that exists. To be a particular, a thing must have a limit. It cannot extend infinitely in regards to all of its properties; at least one of these must have a limit, I think.
In other words, I guess what I am trying to say is that everything we perceive is different (there are not two things of the same - just like there is not two Jacks, there are not two oxygen atoms that are exactly the same, nor I believe there are two photons with the same frequency that are exactly the same; the photon of sunlight that hits your eye is definitely not the same that hits my eye, in fact not two people will ever see the same photon, right?). Anyways, every single thing that exists is unique/different which I understand seems to be an obvious fact; so obvious that we (or at least some us) do not ever really pay attention to it (or not enough attention). If every single thing that exists is unique, then I believe it must have at least one limit that separates it from every single other thing that exists with it; I cannot tell you that this limit must be definitely a limit in time or space, but there must be a limit, I think. How else could a particular be a particular if it was unlimited in all of its properties, whatever they are?
I believe all things that are real are particulars, although I might be wrong. And that's assuming that ideas are real (a unicorn may not be real in the exact meaning of the word, but the molecular processes that bring the unicorn to mind are very real). If an idea is a set of molecular interactions, then ideas would be real.
You are referring to a Fundamental Absolute.
Either there is an Absolute, such as quantum fields (see QFT), or there is Relationism, with no intrinsic properties or absolutes (see RQM), so, indeed, we are very close to knowing.
Yes, I agree with this. There's no divine revelation. Science grants us no direct access to objective reality. We have to use our impressive brains to interpret* wisely from phenomena.
*I distinctly remember typing interpret. But it came out interpolate. I don't think I can blame autocorrect for this one.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
:up:
You speak of relationism as the way as a potential for knowing absolutes. I understand that to be about relationships and, really, it will just be yet another theory. We have models and theories but they are not reality itself.
I agree that we have to use our 'impressive brains' and not expect divine revelation'. The problem is that even rationality and knowledge are limited. We come back to the question interrelated to what is reality, which is, how do we know?
Explain why being "limited" is a "problem". The alternatives to "rationality and knowledge" are, by the way, far more "limited" and, on your terms, even less worth consideration for use in seeking to understand reality. Besides, only "rationality and knowledge"-based inquiry – not mysticism, faith, intuition, magic, etc – can self-reflectively take its own limitation as a "problem" to contemplate (since it can't be solved as such) and endured. Philosophy, no?
I am all in favour of rationality. I just think that it is in the context of the spectrum and do think that Jung's model of knowledge is useful: sensation, feeling, reason and intuition. I think that we all have one which predominate and one or two which are undeveloped, with the idea of having them all functioning to some extent. I was once told by a supervisor that I am too much in 'my head' and in discussion with him, it appeared that I was more dominated by reason than any other function.
It does seem that since the enlightenment reason has been predominant. I think that it is a good thing because it is probably the strongest function, because it is able to bring critical thinking to emotion, intuition and sensation, but they should not be forgotten or ignored.
I only see the limit of knowledge as being a 'problem' if people fail to acknowledge the limits. I am not wishing to overthrow rational searching and thinking, but just believe that there is a danger of human beings becoming inflated with a sense of knowledge and overlooking uncertainty. Of course, Wittgenstein pointed to that so, hopefully, the philosophers won't get too caught up in the sense of all knowing, but those in other fields of knowledge may begin to mistake the map for reality itself.
This is a common view but is it accurate? Firstly, reason is popular because humans have learned from experience that it actually provides practical results. This was perhaps inevitable. But there is minimal evidence that emotion or intuition or sensation are abandoned. The arts are rich and productive; musicians, novelists, playwrights and painters abound; creative, emotional websites and flight of fancy blogs overwhelm us; clairvoyants and superstitions of all sorts remain prevalent. This idea of a post enlightenment paradigm which has a grip on contemporary culture seems widely off the mark to me.
What you are saying does tie into the discussion on my thread about philosophy and culture. I definitely don't think that emotion, sensation and intuition are not able to be abandoned because that would be about losing sight of what it means to be human. I do think that many people rely on novels and the arts, and, hopefully, philosophy will draw from these. So, it may come down to the juggling of models and metaphorical views. Hopefully, critical or smart thinking will help lead the way beyond the 'flight of fancy' as you describe what is happening, especially on websites.
I do plan to reply to your response on the other thread, but it will have to be later today. However, just one other point is that you raise the question of superstition and I think that is interesting, and perhaps it is the shadow of reason,and even the reason why people turn to sources such as clairvoyance and ideas of 'new age' philosophies.
It's the overwhelming atavistic pressure of our primate drives (e.g. intuition, magical-wishful-group thinking, neuroses & phobias, cognitive biases, etc) that make "people fail to acknowledge the limits" (i.e. hubris). Reasoning begins and proceeds as a self-correcting / adapting confrontation with and extension of the limits to "rationality and knowledge". In the West, btw, this did not begin with the Enlightenment philosophes but over two millennia before with Presocratic proto-scientists contra mythopoetic superstitions (Ur-conspiracy theories).
People have never left behind the world of superstition and magical thinking. This is an evergreen pursuit. We talk about this era of science, but how many people know anything much about science? As almost any educator will reveal, science is one of the least understood subjects. I have come to think that many people choose their beliefs based on aesthetic criteria. Science seems to convey a cold world, astrology by contrast provides meaningful connections. Atheism is a world without magic, God ushers in romanticism. Etc, etc.
We'll, they're not _that_ limited. Thanks to the best of us, we're exploring beyond our solar system and building machines that can answer questions we can't. We know an insane amount about the universe and ourselves. We don't know everything, true, and we don't know some of the stuff that's most important to us, but I think we're doing alright for a bunch of hairless apes who, a few thousand years ago, were firing sticks at birds and dying aged 28 of toothache.
And we're doing it alone while the majority of us are engaged in land wars, holy wars, race wars, etc. Imagine how much more we'll achieve when we form an intergalactic federation with advanced alien races founded on science, peace, and cooperation. Good idea for a TV and movie franchise, actually.
I am certainly not trying to argue against the use of reason and I do believe that it is extremely likely that irrationality is the worst enemy, for thinking about reality, and in the realities we create in real life.
Your reply is fantastic but I think it probably fits more into the thread I wrote about the future of philosophy and wastelands. Where is philosophy going, in connection with culture? I realise that all the themes are interrelated, and I am probably experiencing a bit of tangled threads syndrome on account of this. I am currently reading 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow ' by Yuval Noah Harari(2016), but we are looking not just at what is reality is, but what reality are we creating?
I do have one reflection about superstition based on my experience of working as a psychiatric nurse. I worked with a consultant psychiatrist, who was as far as I could see so based in 'the real world" in trying to point to delusions, almost outlawing any ideas which went against the norm. However, oneday, I happened to remark to him that the ward I worked in was so calm, and he got angry in a serious way, remarking, 'You will jinx it, saying that.' I did not challenge him, because he was so much more senior to me, but I was left wondering how people who seem so grounded in reason and avoidance of delusion, may often be prone to a certain amount of superstition.
I do agree that our perspective of reality needs to go beyond the universal to the specifics. We may make generalisations, but we also need to understand and analyse the specifics and the unique as well. These specifics should probably be not treated as the irregularities, but as key aspects of any larger picture of reality, or else we will really have a gross caricature based on generalisations.
One begins with the true knowing of what proposed absolutes have fallen by the wayside:
Newton's proposed space and time as absolutes were given the boot by Einstein, so, they are but emergent, and not fundamental, so, the ultimate foundation can't have them.
Classical particles as spigots producing fields turned out to be mute and so they cannot be so as the fundamental loot. In addition, composites cannot be First, for their parts would have to be more fundamental than they, so composite particles, like atoms, are out, and thus are but secondary.
Quantum fields do fit the bill, for they are continuous and thus but only made of themselves, as non composite. Note that 'Nothing' cannot exist, nor even be meant, and so there can't be any spacers of 'nothing' in the fields, Einstein having already noted this continuity in "All is field".
What is left as a a candidate?
Quantum fields can be modeled as harmonic oscilators, which necessarily implies quanta of energy, such as in that an electron in an atom can only be at or only jump to certain quantum energy levels, so, the model is thus correct.
Before one asks how an Absolute can be made from no parts, note that Absolutes are ever, as eternal, and so they are neither breakable nor makable, having no beginning and no end.
One still wonders how they can just be there forever and never made, but, again, Something has to be, since there is undeniably something and and there could not have been 'Nothing'; thus Existence has no alternative. That we already have this necessity as truth obviates its Why; yet there can be no true paradoxes.
An electron, then, is an excitation ripple in the quantum electron field, kind of like a kink in a rope, as are the other so-called elementary particles.
These quantum fields in no time or space would have to be all atop one another, being not in a coordinate system. We have background independence! Their excitations didn't so much 'get quantized, but are the energy quanta.
Anything but the Absolute Permanent is thus temporary. We further note that not anything in particular remains but in an instant changes, adding to the notion that the Absolute is energetic; yet, the Absolute can never change, but the temporaries ever do.
Since their can be no design point for an absolute, since it has no beginning and thus no 'before' or 'outside', we might deduce that it could itself be not anything in particular, and thus an Everything, either in a linear way, as in presentism, or all-at-once, as in eternalism, both of which time modes would appear to be the same to us. We don't know the mode of time.
OK, so much for Absolutes, and how they would be, but can they be at all?
If not, there is Relationism, with no absolutes at all, the relations being all. Quantum entanglement suggest that everything is connected everything.
Wrap up:
'God', too, is out, as an Absolute, for a system of mind cannot be non composite.
'Nothing' ever tries to creep back in as a source, but note, say, if you want something from 'it' like that it divides into positives and negatives, there had to be a capability for this 'unstableness' and so because this is a something you didn't have a 'Nothing' in the first place as claimed.
Indeed, there appears to be an zero balance in the Cosmos, with the negative potential energy of gravity seeming to cancel out the positive kinetic energy of stuff… but for perhaps some quantum wavering as necessity prohibiting the definite quantum state of zero.
So, either way, as an Absolute or as Relationism, we we lean toward Everything being, yet soon learn another lesson, which is that the information content of Everything such as a Library of Babel containing very possible book, would be the same as that of 'Nothing': zero.
So, we have two TOEs in hand, and thus we are indeed very close to knowing.
Your arguments seem good, but I am just wondering to what extent can we rely on physics? I think that it is extremely important, and do try to keep as up to date as I can, given that I don't really come from a physics background. I think that physics is extremely important, but even the ideas of physics need to be taken apart, like all ideas, and any perspective of knowledge. That is not to undermine the importance of the ideas but to approach all knowledge with a spirit of questioning rather than mere acceptance.
Well, in the case of QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and the Standard Model derived from it, we rely on its physics all the time, in all our myriad electron devices and more.
So, Philosophy works best when its derivations can get confirmed by/with science; otherwise, as we see in some of the forums, people say a lot of things that sound good on the surface, such as having 'free will', 'infinity', and 'Nothing' that quickly evaporates when delving into the definitions.
Science always questions, never stopping wondering, which is a lot better than having a philosophy that leaves all the questions out at the onset.
Seek out the clues… winnow the possible answers more… wishing and hoping doesn't do very much.
Why are all electrons exactly the same?
Why does just one electron or photon go through both slits in the experiment?
How come the complexity of humans becomes greater as we head toward the future, yet was simpler and simpler back into the past? Why would people claim the Greatest Complexity possible as First and Fundamental?
Why both matter and antimatter? Why the polarity of charge?
Why only two main particles (proton and electron) being stable in free space , with opposite charge (neutrons decay with in 12 minutes)? Why only one stable energy particle in free space, the photon, with neutral charge.
Anyone have more clues that can beget more real progress?
I am not disagreeing with you, but don't know how to interpret what you are saying. Perhaps, you or someone else can point to where this leads, because, at the moment, it is leading me to feel rather confused...
I have looked at your idea again, and I am sure that it has so much to argue in its favour, but the question which I would have is how could such an idea have for thinking about reality, in terms of living. But, I am not saying that your answer is wrong, but simply that the nature of reality is a question which is probably connected to the meanings of individuals. In some ways, we may all ask this question and it can only be answered in a way which makes sense to us individually.
If a set of statements are confirmed by science, then they are more science, and not philosophy.
You seem to have missed something important about the nature of philosophical discussion.
I don't know how much sense of humour you have but ever since we discussed the philosophy of the solidity of tables I keep recalling a certain scenario. I had a manager who ordered a table and I think that she got her metrics wrong. A van arrived with an enormous table, and it would have needed to be chopped up because it was so large that it could not have fitted into a room. So much for the philosophy of the solidity of tables...
At a place I worked at, there was a large table in a small room. The boss wanted it moved, but it was too wide to fit through the door. He took a saw to the legs, removing them, moving the table and re-attaching the legs in a most ungainly fashion.
But then he was unhappy with it's new location and wanted it returned, so a workmate and I flipped it on it's side, manoeuvring first one set of legs then the other through the door, returning the table to its original location without removing the legs.
Our boss had not considered turning the table on it's side.
I changed jobs, procuring a better boss.
It is so complex. We could ask what is anything?
Quoting Jack Cummins
A limited thing? :)
We are indeed limited, looking beyond ourselves for meaning. But, such a view may contribute to our seeing of ourselves as if reality is from the top. We may be at the bottom, or the base of experience, but this may be the most accurate position, especially if we have no evidence of higher beings. So, it may be that the view from the lowly perspective of the human being is the best vantage point, as far as we able to conceive reality.
Ah, a good clue, in what you said, plus adding to it: why the humongous amount of material in the universe, namely 2x10**76 particles or so (the '2' is for matter and antimatter)? Originally, there were 2x10**85 particles, but since there are a billion photons for every proton we had to take away 10**9 due to the annihilations of matter and antimatter in the early universe. Now all the material is far apart and so the annihilations are much less.
We have to conclude that material stuff was very easy to come by, this allowing for a lot of combinations leading to many differences.
At first there was mostly hydrogen, like 99%, before the rest of the atomic elements became to reduce the hydrogen result a few percent lower, but initially the other atomic elements were but traces of the simplest ones of lithium, helium, and, I forget, beryllium, maybe, until stars formed from protons by gravity, which produced perhaps 15 more of the atomic elements, but no more, for lack of the energy needed, until supernovae and/or colliding neutron stars produced the rest of the atomic elements.
Yes, not much to be gained for living at the human being level, as either TOE is just simple, as it must be at that level, and so is not all that interesting but for obliterating some superstitions and demonstrating a kind of pointlessness.
Each level of reality gains its own set of new circumstances relevant to that level.
Our human level is where all the interesting action is, as we are very complex, although the universe is only about .02% along. We are still quite limited, as you note in another post, and will probably be looked upon as primitives by the higher human beings of the future, if we can even make it past becoming but a footnote of history by colonizing space and thriving on.
Our reality consists of all sorts of different minds and wills that have to do what they do, making for a kind of mass confusion but still providing for many interesting discussions.
Above all, experiencing life seems to feel quite rewarding, as the main benefit, if there are any, or at least a great consolation prize.
That is a wonderful piece of art you have put on the thread. It is rather psychedelic and metaphysical. Do you know who the artist is?
I am the artist. It depicts the level of reality of human being, based on the transitional past to future orthogonal to the oppositional matter and space, with the derivative pairings onward from that.
From ToE to HUMAN Being
Here’s the theory of how the Who of Being
Becomes of Existence’s Why and How,
Via the transitional Then to When
And the oppositional What and Where.
The Real’s Why is that Nothing cannot be;
Its How is that of Possibility,
Since all methods must be open, due to
The ‘IS’s never-birthed eternity.
Matter vs. Space, from the Formless ‘IS’,
Makes for the realm of appearances, which,
Since crossed by the passage of time, builds life’s
Pyramid from Movement-of-Appearances.
Past that was leads to Future that will be,
Transformational—‘Now’ in the middle,
Rolling smoothly, through recall, sensation,
And anticipation. Time is movement!
Space/Matter, oppositional, crosses,
From the Where/What top and bottom corners,
The left to right sweep of Past into Future,
Which is really as Then-into-the-When.
Where/What plus Then-to-the-When grows to blend
The Spirit of Life in the pyramid’s core,
After some more pairing relationships,
Subsequent, toward the life of our species.
Then+What is History—what has occurred,
While When+What will become Progress.
Then+Where begets Memory—remembrance,
While When+Where induces Wishes, as hopes.
Progress+Wishes combines into Vision;
Progress+History grants Change-in-Structure;
Memory+History makes for Learning;
Memory+History births Change-of-Outlook.
Change-in-Structure + Vision = Planning,
Change-in-Structure + Learning = Creating,
Change-of-Outlook + Vision = Growth;
Change-of-Outlook + Learning = Direction.
Finally, Planning, Growth, Creating,
And Direction make for Being’s Who.
( Matter vs. Space ) [Being] ( Past —> Future )
Five Forces
On the physical forces:
We note that two of them are transitional,
The Electric and the Magnetic,
Each giving rise to the other,
And that two others are oppositional,
The Weak and the Strong,
The Weak promoting changeability,
The Strong promoting stability.
Gravity is then left as the blend of all.
( Strong vs. Weak ) [Gravity] ( Electro <—> Magnetic )
At the molecule level, another oppositional
changeability/stability balance occurs since molecules
are neither inclined to stay together nor to break apart.
There is also 'patient' time restricting
energy's relentless changes from being precipitous.
Another depiction, with more in it:
Provisional simple answers to the How and Why at a low level:
They are fantastic and I hope that my thread survives a while longer, so that your art and what you have written are seen by others. I do art myself, but most of my art is on the wall in my mother's house. I did study art therapy, but haven't done much art in the last few years but would like to do so.
I imagined you would be rather creative, having chosen the name PoeticUniverse. I see the creative arts as being as essential to philosophy as physics and the other physical sciences. When I started this thread I was thinking partly about the nature of reality in relation to physics, but I was also thinking of it in the widest possible way. So, thanks for your input and fantastic input, and I hope that this thread continues for a while longer, as a little gallery...
Well, but that's what happens to cheese when it gets left out!
His error was more fundamental than lacking enough of a mechanical mind to have turned the table. His error was in overlooking the absolute obvious: the building was not built with a table inside it, so if it was in there intact, it must be able to get out intact. That he turned to a saw before turning to someone who could decipher the puzzle for him was what made him the fool.
What I so enjoy of automotive repair is the certainty I have that there is an answer because I know if it worked yesterday, it can be made to work today. It's very much unlike philosophy where there might never have been an answer.
All of this may be entirely unrelated to this thread. I don't know. I was summoned here from the Shoutbox. I heard there were lovely original drawings here and saw your post.
Here they are:
There was a time warp around you.
You did not disappoint. Very nice.
You have added a couple of new pictures, and they are a little different, but extremely powerful. I am interested to know what media you are working in. I did wonder if the initial ones were done using computer graphics. However, the latest look more like paintings, and it is possible that you are combining the two, because I think that is one of the ways in which graphics and illustrations is going_ the new reality emerging within art.
I do agree with you that one important point of focus is how we see reality in the moment. Whether to reduce it all or enlarge it is a good question. Perhaps, it is all about perspectives, and the shifts in them.
Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, iclone …
I don't draw or paint anything; I just move parts around to make a scene.
See my Youtube channel for more pics in videos, some of which move…
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAqzcN340HXpDqHXmAy3SwA
. He says:
'A great number of realisms, including some of the most speculation ones, tend to be profoundly concerned with the question of how to draw the line between what is real and what is not. In a sense, each form of realism is its own way of drawing that line. But that, to my mind, ends up transforming realism into a belligerent gesture '
He goes on to say,
'What I call pluralisistic realism, meanwhile, is first and foremost characteristiesed by a refusal to draw that line. I'm more interested in problematizing the very distinction between reality and unreality, not by claiming that there is no such thing as reality, but by wagering that everything is some sense real, and not just what is intedenpent of us...Instead of seeking to determine once and for all what the structure of reality is so that we can draw the line that enables us to disqualify some things from it, we connected the risk of metaphysics with the question of what reality is capable of? I mean, let's go out there and find out what's real. ..Yet "going out there" is not a rejection of metaphysics. Quite the contrary! It is rather an attempt to put the test of metaphysical speculation to the test of experiences.'
In this way, we are not talking about speculations about hidden reality, but about potentials for becoming and of creating future realities. I thought that I would add this final reflection to the the thread before it becomes lost and buried forever more.
I was reading your last post and the following question came up: Is reality a changing thing?I believe that there must be one and only one "REALITY"* for every single thing there is; there must be a single "WHOLE" since we (and everything else which exists) are certainly part of the same thing (whatever reality is, it must be the same reality/whole for everything that's contained within it even if everything contained within reality experiences it differently). Nevertheless, I am asking if this reality is fixed (is the nature of reality always the same?) or if it changes as every thing contained within it does**. What do you and other readers think?
* REALITY being that which exists. I have mentioned it before... ideas must be real (they exist) since they are molecular processes being affected by time and space.
** Assuming every thing there is changes. (Assuming every thing which exists is subject to change) (Assuming that the proposition "P = All things that exist are subject to change" is "TRUE").
Your question as to whether the underlying shared reality we know is changing. It probably could involve questions about physics and laws of nature. We can also ask about time and change. We could even ask, could time ever end? What would that mean, as we usually link time itself with the process of change. Would time ending imply that nothing ever changes ever again? There is the question as to why something exists rather than nothing, but one can also ask whether, at any point in the distance, nothing will ever exist ever again?
Thinking about the laws of nature, one useful idea is Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance, although I am not sure how far this is accepted in science or in philosophy. However, the general idea is of a memory inherent in nature, called morphic fields. The underlying principle is that once patterns or learning is achieved, this becomes encoded into making such pathways possible for others. It seems to be like an invisible factor behind evolution. But, the point is that it is about evolution, and implies change, even if it is a gradual process.
Another important question about the changing nature of reality is the question of linearity or cycles. It appears that some aspects of nature, such as the seasons are cyclical. On the other hand, other aspects, such as the life of a human being or other lifeforms are linear. However, I wonder to what extent reality involves linear patterns within the context of larger cycles, or, alternatively the cycles as being aspects of the linear? In other words, is the linear or cyclical process of change the overriding pattern of the whole? It is so hard to know, because even with the aid of science, we are restricted in our knowledge, because we cannot see the full picture of the cosmos or of time, and are confronted by what appears to be infinite and eternal. But, will the infinite and eternal cease to exist at any point? In other words, could time and space ever collapse?
I am blown away by the changed perception of reality that is in the media. It would be interesting to know my mother's take on the explanations of how prejudice harms people of color. I think she would become very defensive of endemic racism and justify it with the sexism that kept women in their place because she thought people should stay in their places. However, she really did not like getting a lower wage because she was a woman. That is, our concept of reality is dependent on our experience and it can be very confusing when others disagree with our concept of reality.
Obviously technology beginning with the technology of agriculture and irrigation dramatically changes our reality. We become more dependent on human knowledge and less dependent on a god. Mass media especially television and the internet are dramatically changing our reality and I wonder what life will be like a hundred years from now. Will racism still be a problem or will media succeed in changing our understanding of racism and our behavior? Will we even have cities, or will our cities be destroyed by fires? Will our economy dependent on oil, collapse, and if it does how will people live?
That is not quantum physics reality but it is the kind of reality I find the most interesting. It is as we make it, not exactly how a god makes it. We are destroying our Garden of Eden because we are violating laws of nature. We are headed for a water crisis and life as we know it could come to an end.
Funnily enough, no one has mentioned social reality in this thread and that is one of the most basic aspects of the encounter with reality on a daily basis. We are born into a world of human beings and are interdependent on others. Even if we live isolated lives, which was true for many more during the pandemic, we rely upon others for so much. We live in houses or flats built by others, wear clothes which have been made by others and most of us eat food from shops.
But, for most of us our whole reality is bound up with other people. I know that my own life is so different as a result of living with the people I live with currently, than with the group of people I shared with a year ago. Social experience is so central to life, and there are so many people to interact with and take into consideration. I find that it is rare for me to end up not experiencing some kind of interaction with a person I have not met before on most days in my life, and I am talking about in actual life, not counting the internet or the telephone. So, social aspects of existence and conditions are probably the most essential aspects of life, and affect the whole quality of experiences.
Also, our entire experience of technology is a key aspect of existence. Even though I am not a big fan of television, I grew up in a house where the television was on in the background most of the time. I have even come across people who seem to think that the characters in soap operas are the same people in real life and not just acting. I have seen people who are psychotic having conversations with the television. Also, we are gradually becoming so immersed in using our devices. My mother gets rather annoyed with me reading and writing on my phone so much when I am staying with her. However, she carries her phone around constantly in case she should miss a phone call. We are locked into a world of devices, complaining if our signals are not fast enough, and if they go wrong or we lose them it can seem almost like our usual sense of reality has collapsed.
Ah, if we are talking quantum physics as reality, perhaps it is not a thing but an action and it is in constant change.
Before the elements what was hot? I don't comprehend reality on this level. We begin with a reality that has no elements. This is not as simple as a god creating heaven and earth and saying it is good.
Like PoeticUniverse said....
Quoting PoeticUniverse
That final statement about definitions brings to mind the creature that is doing the defining. Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. I read something in Qabala that said God can not have a consciousness like ours because God does not have a physical body and can not experience life as we do. Existence as we know it is unfolding without knowledge because before it comes into being there is nothing to know about it. What other form of intelligence would question reality as we do and how do we come to define anything or to agree on definitions? I think I am saying, we are creating reality or at least any understanding of it.
As writing changed human consciousness, television has changed human consciousness and will continue to do so. We live on a finite planet and we have changed it in ways nature would not do. I think our question of reality should focus on that, but perhaps not in this thread? Does it matter if there are many dimensions? Our failure to adequately understand our 3, possibly, 4-dimensional reality could mean destroying our planet and it is humans making the change, not a God and not nature. Oh dear, how could my thoughts be so different from what everyone else is thinking about?
I think that this discussion has come to an end and then restarted a few times. You are welcome to take up anything you wish to. I began the thread querying the solidity of reality, and it moved more into a gallery in page 11, so I see the thread as a very fluid exploration of reality.
In many ways, even though we have shared realities, I do believe that each one of us has a unique reality. I remember reading a sociological text, by Berger and Luckman, 'The Social Construction of Reality', in which the authors speak of how we construct our own identities in symbolic ways.
Each of us has such a unique set of experiences and, finds meaning in the social contexts in which we find ourselves, and we also can choose the life we have, even if we have a limited range of choices. Also, we are so unique in the way in which we interpret our experiences. Each person has a subjective set of likes and dislikes. For example, I know how my own tastes in music are not necessarily the same as many others I know.
Even though we ask certain common philosophical questions, it is likely that each of us answers these so differently, even if we follow the principles of reason. In particular, when we consider the question of God, it is likely that how each of us would consider the 'reality' called God would vary so much.
When I began the thread question I did not have the word 'your' in the title, and it became apparent to me that the answers which people were coming up with were about trying to define reality, especially in terms of physics. I had not realised that people would think of the question in that way. I do believe that even though there are shared aspects, or objective means of thinking, about reality, each of us sees reality in a distinct way, and this varies at different points in a person's life. Each of us, at any moment, has a different perspective, including aesthetic,, emotional and rational aspects, but, at the same time, we do navigate these in connection to shared views and specific understanding of standards which are seen as objective.
Building on this: Quoting Jack Cummins
“Reality” can hold two meanings, that which is actual, which to me can apply to at least three levels, and that which would strictly be the third level in the following categorization:
1) (Intra-)subjective realities: e.g. mine was a real dream, and not a fictious dream that I lie about to you. Or: we each dwell in our own (intra-subjective) reality, here referencing an individual’s epistemic awareness of what is ontic as itself being an actuality.
2) Intersubjective realities: e.g., that is a real culture, and not a fictious culture that someone wrote about in a science-fiction novel. Or: a Young-Earth Creationist's reality (emphasis on this being a shared reality among many, here with reality/actuality in the sense given in (1)) is different from an evolutionist’s reality (with same emphasis as before).
3) that reality, else actuality - often, “reality” for short - which is equally applicable to all coexistent sentience, and whose being is therefore not contingent upon any intra-subjective reality or any intersubjective reality: e.g. this is a real table, and not an illusion of one. Or: evolution is real (irrespective of what anyone might believe). And so forth.
Of note, here all three levels, or types, of reality are defined relative to sentience.
I believe that reality is such a flexible term because it so vast, and, in connection to the third category can be seen as infinite. This means that in many ways the question is so wide that it almost too difficult to answer. I was initially thinking of the matter in this widest sense, because as human beings we are inclined to wonder about the big picture, and how it works, or about underlying processes, and premises for explanations.
Thinking about the intrasubjective, there is the establishment of daily reality, which is about the empirical. When we think about the distinction between waking reality and that which arises within dream states of consciousness, most people regard waking life as being the more real but it is not an absolute matter.
I do believe that the intersubjective is in many ways another category but in some ways the shared understandings of others help shape the intrasubjective, especially in childhood. I am thinking that children often live in more of a mythical universe, and even adults can become confused, such as in mental states of psychosis. In such cases, where delusional thinking become apparent, it is often that the individuals need to be enabled to get back to the shared meanings of other people, to make sense of the intrasubjective.
I think that your categories are useful, but reality is something which expands outside of us, and includes us, with our own interior consciousness. It reminds me of how I once went into to a cafe as a teenager, wishing to draw the inside of it. I simply didn't know where to begin, because it was surrounding me. I was looking out and I was within it. I felt overwhelmed because I had not learned at that stage how to begin to frame a specific view of the reality which appeared before me.
I'm in agreement with your comments on intra- and inter-realities. I am interested to better understand your critique of category three, which, for the time being, could be labeled "equi-subjective reality" or "equireality" for short: that reality/actuality which equally applies to - hence, is equally shared by - all subjective beings regardless of what we think, believe, perceive, etc.
I intentionally left its description open ended. To the physicalist, equireality would not be contingent upon awareness in general; it would remain in the absence of all awareness. From any number of non-physicalist metaphysics - with CS Peirce's notion of physicality as effete mind as one variant - that which is equireal would itself be contingent on sentience in general: such that, for example, it would naturally emerge from a plurality of individual sentiences as that which is equally shared by all. A cumbersome metaphysics, granted, but nevertheless one avenue of approach.
I very much don't intend to turn this discussion into one of metaphysical debate on various monisms.
I am, however, interested to find any logical problems that might be apparent to the third category of equireality, as that - by necessity, singular - actuality which is common to all and which we ordinarily simply term "reality".
Thanks for the input, btw.
Thanks for your detailed reply. Strangely, I downloaded a book on Peirce's philosophy, so I will have a look at it tomorrow and reply to you. I do believe that it is worth reading in order to think about all these matters in connection with writers' ideas, because they have given a lot of thought to all these issues.
Fair enough. Wanted to clarify that I offered Peirce’s metaphysics as one possibility that I personally envision could facilitate a constructivist notion of equireality, so to laconically speak. This idea I threw out regarding equireality in general was not, however, to my knowledge explicitly stated by Peirce … although I’d love to find references in Peirce’s works that would corroborate this notion. I’ll check back in tomorrow, though.
Okay, I will look at the book briefly, but won't worry about reading too much of it, and I am about to log out. Sometimes, I find if I write too much philosophy late at night I have trouble getting to sleep. But, I do wish to continue it, because I find it very interesting.
I have only glanced at the book on Pierce's philosophy, but have been thinking about the question of eqireality in relation to a book which I have just finished, 'Investigations Into the Phenomenonology and the Ontologogy of the Work of Art'(ed Bundgaard and Stjernfelt), which focuses on the way in which reality and representations are an experience of the perceived and the artist. I think that this way of thinking about the external world does raise the question of a singular actuality. Subjective aesthetics plays such a critical role of perception, to the where we can query the underlying objective one.
Photography is not really looked at in the book, but we can wonder about whether photographs are the most accurate forms of visual art. I don't think that the answer is clearcut because photography is an art in itself, involving framing, focus, background detail and lighting. However, in some ways it is used as a general reliable information, like in passport photos to confirm identity of a person.
One aspect which I wonder about in the experience of reality is the role of mood. That is because I believe that it does affect the whole interpretation of reality. I believe that it affects perception and understanding in various ways.
I do still plan to read Pierce and look at the wider question of metaphysics, but I do believe that the phenomenological interpretation of reality, including art, is extremely important in understanding the notion of a shared reality.
That would be a good book to read! I have the good fortune to have experienced the reality of poverty and living in constant insecurity and learning to not want things and the opposite of living in an exclusive neighborhood. These different economic groups have different understandings of reality tied to their emotions and thoughts. The people may share facts but the meanings are not the same.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I like that example of having different tastes in music. That is an odd thing isn't it? Why don't all people enjoy music exactly the same? My taste in music has changed. I used to enjoy heavy metal but now I prefer classical music. It is like my body requires a different sound and beat and is apt to feel annoyed if the sound is harsh. However, I can enjoy a lot of rap if the words are positive. And along this line, I am concern about how TV affects people. I think it affects them in ways they are not aware of and that this has social consequences.
Quoting Jack Cummins
You are so wise. Just wait until you are 70 years of age. Although you have a lot of self-awareness and wisdom, I bet you will be surprised by how much your thinking changes when are older. Because you are a thinker your wisdom will continue to develop. I know plenty of old people, don't develop their thinking and get stuck in their ways, but for those who live to learn and think, age improves their thinking in ways a young person can not imagine.
I think we all need to work on self-awareness so we are not trapped in our own personal drama which we believe is real, but really it is only our own reality or mythology of heroes and demons as Joseph Campbell explained. Especially when we are not getting along with someone, we tend to think it is all that person's fault and we are sure that person's thinking is not right. We either dislike the other or ourselves. Our egos think they are dying if we entertain the idea that it is our thinking that isn't right and we are the one who needs to change but if we do blame ourselves we can become self-destructive because if we knew how to do better we would. :lol: Hum, :chin: it looks like our understanding of reality is also tied to our coping skills. The better our coping skills are, the more flexible we can be and that is a different way of seeing reality.
PS defining reality with quantum physics is so different from the religious explanations of reality that we have lived with for thousands of years.
This would depend on the metaphysics espoused. In Platonic Realism, for example, the Aesthetic is as much a singular universal Form as is the Good. Hence, while in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, all beholders of it will experience some or all of the same universal attributes of this Form.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Interesting phrasing. Accurate in terms of that reality which is common to all, right? I'm myself biased in interpreting art as a conflux of a) ideas expressed x b) quality of expression x c) audience's understanding of both (a) and (b), with the audience including the artist her/himself - such that if either (a), (b), or (c) is null, no art can take place. So interpreted, I can't describe art as accurate, other than, maybe, being an accurate representation of the artist's intentions. But this would address both subjective and intersubjective realities to a far greater extent that the singular objective reality.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I do agree. To fall back on the terminology I've previously offered, this for ease of expression, we all experience equi-subjective reality via our own momentary intra-subjective reality which is itself always in large part formed by the intersubjective realites we are participants of.
This is more agreement with what you have said than not an argument.
At best we can have a perception of reality. That perception is dependent on our receptors for feeling, hearing, seeing, etc. and the devices we use to enhance our perceptive capability. Secondly, our ability to perceive reality is limited to what we know and our ability to ask good questions. It is presumptuous to think we can know reality any more than we can know God. We can know about reality, and we can study holy books but that is all limited and we might want to remain cognizant of that. Then we might be less arbitrary about our own concepts of reality.
Thanks for your reply, and I plan to read further, possibly Pierce and others. I am not sure that art is meant to be 'accurate' copying or representation. I am not sure that is even possible. It would probably defeat the purpose of art. I do wonder if the artist is fully able to follow intention fully, because the artist does not have a complete understanding of the intersubjective realities of the audience.
I think that it is so easy to get trapped in our own personal dramas and see them as concrete realities. I think that this applies at all ages, and self awareness is so variable. I believe that some people are so much more psychologically minded than others. It does seem that we all vary so much and some people find it hard for accept this. For example, they insist that their music taste is the ultimate, just like arguing for a certain set of beliefs. I do believe that the understanding of subjectivity is very different from adherence to relativism.
It does seem that for many people ideas such as those in the sciences, especially physics, are treated in almost the same way as previous religious ideas. People may not always understand the logistics of evolution or quantum physics, but they may be filled with awe, or even be mystified by them. But, the worldviews arising from science are so different from the religious ones. I remember how I was brought up with religious beliefs, and many others I went to primary school were not, and it did seem like their underlying reality was different to the one which I inhabited. Beliefs and ideas shape our experiences of reality in such a powerful way.
Yep. I am convinced that many people who have a secular orientation in a secular world do not actually have the capacity to defend their worldview and don't really understand it. They are socialised into a world of secular sensibilities - one which privileges 'science over superstition' without understanding much at all. They may even identify as atheist as opposed to believing in a 'magic man' but are likely to have a cartoon view of religion/god and no real grasp of secularism or skepticism.
We keep talking about this being a secular age, which it is to some extent, but I suspect the age is more secular than the people in it... I am not convinced the average person has an intellectual commitment to the ideas of secularism or an understanding of the principles their view of reality is founded upon. Just as in pervious eras people often inherited a religious worldview without really comprehending it.
I think that we speak of being in a secular age on this forum, but I would be surprised if that many people in society would describe it that way. Most people who I know who are not religious tend to just say that they are 'lapsed' or don't have a religion. However, I am sure that it is hard to generalise about people's beliefs, but in the last few years, I have found that most people I know have some religious beliefs, Christian or Muslim. I have been surprised to meet so many people who attend religious services. I really wonder if there is much available information to suggest whether we are in a secular age, and how this is even measured.
The data is there - Steven Pinker, for example, has certainly used it in his writings. Based on census data and surveys, no doubt.
But for me the point isn't whether people are going to church or identifying as atheists. The point is, is their belief based on careful consideration, or are they just following...
Quoting Athena
As many ways as we can possibly map the territory or as many different games of chess we can possibly play. Maybe as many as the number of angels which can dance on a pinhead. 'Definitions' are like that mostly.
This question, like asking every other, presupposes it. Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. Thus, it's the ur-standard, or fundamental ruler, against which all ideas and concepts, knowledge and lives are measured (i.e. enabled-constrained, tested).
As Witty might say 'because we lack sufficient grounds to doubt reality' (as opposed to abundant grounds to doubt fictions).
Again: reality is the ineluctable, subject / consensus–invariant, measure that tests whether "what we think" and "how we live accordingly" are maladaptive (more harmful than helpful) or adaptive (more helpful than harmful), etc.
:up:
Quoting Tom Storm
And this is the (necessary) fallacy of the theist: that we must approach atheism and secularism rationally, with care and effort, or approach it badly, when all it really entails is not brainwashing and scaring your child into defending unjustifiable beliefs. No theist can agree, I get that, which is why these sorts of debates tend to be fruitless for both sides: people raised in religion tend to lack the imagination of what not being raised in religion, of being free, is like. And I'll be open in having no comprehension of what being brainwashed like that as a child is like, although I am at least privy to other forms of brainwashing (nationalism, advertising, partisan media) enough to get an idea.
Generally, my own view is that shifts in religious views and other ones is that they do fluctuate according to needs, personal and social. I know that my own questioning of what I had been taught was when those beliefs become unworkable for me.
What I was surprised about was how so many people I know who are from Africa adopted the Christian beliefs which had been delivered to them by missionaries. I had been of the view that Western people had gone to Third World nations, and 'sold' a particular view of reality to these people. However, generally, when I have said this to people I know who are from Africa they disagree with me completely, with only one or two of them seeing any connection between religion and politics.
I was brought up with religious beliefs, and had friends who were not religious when I was a child, so I was able to reflect on it when I was about 10 or 11. However, what I do think is that brainwashing involves so many other aspects of ideas. I was aware as a child of others who were racist and had very narrow political views, based on their family background, and I believe that was every bit as strong as any religious set of ideas or values.
So many cannot question the beliefs that they have been taught, and, strangely, I think that my parents taught me critical thinking skills as well as religious ideas. I do think that it is brainwashing when people are taught a certain set of ideas or values in such a way that they are so restricted in being able to see outside of that set of values. It is as if one picture of reality is delivered with some kind of hypnotic power.
I think you are referring to socialisation rather than brainwashing (which has a bit of a judgy tone). Presumably if you are brought up to believe in equity and fairness and tolerance you are equally brainwashed/socialised. Note how no one says, 'I was brainwashed to be tolerant'. My view is that not enough people have thought things through for themselves and they are not really thinking if they are just following orders. Can they really be your values, I wonder, if you haven't earned them?
I think that the question of socialism vs brainwashing is extremely complex, and I do see your point about being brought up to be tolerant as a form of brainwashing in itself. I am not sure that I was actually brought up to tolerant as such, because my parents were homophobic and I am bisexual. I was also expecting and agreed to be confirmed as a Roman Catholic at age 11, which meant that I was accepting it as a lifetime faith, and that was many years before I had even begun to question religious beliefs at all.
I wonder if anyone is ever taught to be open minded, or whether it happens by default. I also believe that it is extremely complex because we live in such a diverse society. As it happens I have not brought any children into the world, but if I had, I really don't know what I would teach them in order to enable them to think as freely as possible. I am sure that I would give them a wide perspective on religion, science and knowledge. However, I would probably have to be careful in order not to indoctrinate them to be politically correct. Thank goodness that I have no children to worry about, as it is hard enough sorting out my own ideas
I accidentally knocked my phone, sending my reply through before I finished it. But, I managed to edit and finish it afterwards, as above. I also wish to add that I do believe that we need to 'earn' or find our own ideas for ourselves, but I am not sure that everyone does. I would imagine that educational systems are so variable in giving people the foundation for being able to think for themselves.
Sexual orientation (as you've identified) or a relationship with someone from another (the wrong) faith may be the launching pad to embrace a new value system. Disruption of some sort seems to be key.
I have known kids in several families who have been taught tolerance and free thought since they could speak. Guess what values they hold as adults?
Quoting Jack Cummins
:up:
I think we have agreement up to the point of saying atheists convert after consideration. At that point, I think we have a different opinion of who causes the problems? The bible was used to justify slavery and segregation. Not all Christians agree with that, but they love the idea that Christianity is the way to a better a reality, and that is not true. It is democracy that pushes for the better reality. We are not sharing the same reality until we agree is it democracy or religion that raises the human potential?
Ah, not quite what I said. I am aware of some edge cases of atheists concluding that there must be a creator. That is not to say that this is the main way atheists convert, just that it's possible. Nor am I saying their reasons were in any way sound :)
Miseducation. Religion-sanctioned scapegoating. State-sanctioned economic exploitation. "Divide & control" classism (oligarchic hierarchies). You know: the (modern?) vaneer of civilization – tribalism rationalized. Denials of reality that also, more expediently, self-servingly, "define reality" in the short / medium term at the expense of the long(est) term.