What is reality?

[Moyo]

Can you conceive of a concept that is not yours ? Thats impossible. Do you beleive the inconceivable? What then is that beleif if not conceptuallisation?

Anyone notice this exposition is fractal?

[Dalek Prime]

Our senses are limited. We do not see most of the EM spectrum, and can only hear a short range of sounds. And I'm fairly certain our other senses are just as limited. And we can easily be fooled by our senses, as I'm learning from Metzinger, let alone perceiving very little of the fuller reality out there.

And then, does reality even matter without an observer?

[Ginkgo]

Obviously I agree that language can't adequately describe objective reality but I believe this applies ONLY to modern human languages which are a mess. Words take their meaning from context so each listener hears a different message. Modern language only fits objective reality to the degree the observer actually understands both the words ands the reality itself. Since most of reality is hidden from us, only broad and general understandings are likely to be reflective of reality. Then when this understanding is communicated to others it will become less cohesive and less accurate.

Ancient language fit the world directly but was difficult to use. It would also seem to have little utility to most people today because of the severe limitations on what could be stated. Most "statements" were actually implications and phraseology was complex. It reflected reality and only what was "known".

Ancient or modern, it makes no difference, all languages have the same basic structure. That is to say, the structure is determined by embodiment. Regardless of the time period -what you were doing and how you functioned in the world impacted on what you observed. It's called embodied cognition.


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

[Obvious Leo]

And then, does reality even matter without an observer?

Surely this is a point we can all agree on. In the absence of an observer reality is meaningless.

[Dalek Prime]

Absolutely Leo.

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Perhaps. But does it matter?

Brings us to meaning again. There is none without us to subjectively inject meaning into it.

[Obvious Leo]

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

NO

[Ginkgo]

Leo, can you explain this bit please "...law-derived reality predicted on the principle of Intelligent Design..."

Despite the embellishments of the early 20th century physics still remains essentially a Newtonian doctrine which requires that reality is determined according to a suite of laws which are commonly referred to as the "laws of physics". No explanation for the origin of these so-called "laws" is possible, even in principle, because Newton adopted this position as an a priori assumption in the way he formulated the methodology of physics. Newton believed he was modelling the mind of god. This is Plato 101 where the laws which govern the universe are assumed to have their origin external to it. Clearly such a universe is insufficient to its own existence and physics has been bogged down in this conceptual cul-de-sac for a century. Physics is attempting to model a planned reality.

A process universe is sufficient to its own existence because reality is self-determining according to no external laws beyond the universal doctrine of causality. All effects must be preceded by a cause. Such self-organising systems are ubiquitous in nature and all share a common feature. They evolve increasingly more complex substructures within themselves over time for the simple reason that they cannot do otherwise. It is these patterns of self-organisation which we as observers interpret as law-derived but this interpretation is false. We are both mistaking the map for the territory and putting des Cartes before des Horse. It is not the laws that make reality, it is reality that makes the laws.

What I'm describing here is simply the correct definition of determinism in naturally occurring systems. Newtonian determinism is linear and non -Newtonian determinism is non-linear.

If Plato said the body (not the mind) actively participated in determining reality then I feel as though he would have been closer to the mark.

[Obvious Leo]

I'm willing to cut Plato a bit of slack since he predated the biology of cognition by about 2300 years. The same leniency will not be extended to modern physics which resolutely refuses to understand the role of the observer in its modelling.

"Philosophy is dead and can have no further role to play in determining the nature of the universe".... Steven Hawking.

You'd think the stupid bastard should be showing a little more humility considering the fact that the models which his so-called "science" uses describes a universe which makes no fucking sense.

[Ginkgo]

I'm willing to cut Plato a bit of slack since he predated the biology of cognition by about 2300 years. The same leniency will not be extended to modern physics which resolutely refuses to understand the role of the observer in its modelling.

This is starting to change in terms of the science of cognition.

"Philosophy is dead and can have no further role to play in determining the nature of the universe".... Steven Hawking.

You'd think the stupid bastard should be showing a little more humility considering the fact that the models which his so-called "science" uses describes a universe which makes no fucking sense.

I have to disagree with Hawking on that one.

Anyway I off to the T.V. to watch the Aussies give it to the Poms in the cricket.

[HexHammer]

And then, does reality even matter without an observer?

Surely this is a point we can all agree on. In the absence of an observer reality is meaningless.

So you wouldn't care if a tsunami would head your way? ..reality does matter without an observer, else things would go bad, really fast.

[Scott Mayers]

To get closer home;

what would someone asking "what is reallity" mean by reality in the question.

i'm not saying you are wrong yet. I just want to see how you would adapt the car example to this.Can you not see an infinite regress looming. manchheusens trillema has been know for a while now.

I believe that with regards to definitions, you question them based on the idea that any other words being used to define something only expand what is already symbolized and so if you question the meaning of those words and the interpretation of them through grammar and syntax, these often still lead to begging some meaning that is still no better off and usually circular. This is just as much problematic with even logic itself. The premises of any argument must determine the conclusion(s) already explicit in the premises. But the idea of using such methods are intended to create mental connections between the people using them to provide meaning and relay what each other wants the other as accurately as possible.

The intention of this question is to investigate the nature of what we understand about existence beyond simply ourselves trapped in our 'solipsistic' perspectives as individuals. The idea of the subject/question (originally called, Ontology) is to find a means to intellectually interpret what is real apart from our subjective experience, if possible.

I don't see this as a meaningless question. Most scientists today base their methodology on an assumption of what is considered, "objective". But some reasonably question whether there is such a thing. "Objectivity" depends on what we trust about our individual "subjective" experiences that certify what is out there beyond ourselves. So it is asking HOW can we determine truths about a world beyond our apparent solipsistic experiences. Answering this helps us find some agreement as to what we can collectively agree to about reality and how to proceed in other areas of life, like science.

[Dalek Prime]

And then, does reality even matter without an observer?

Surely this is a point we can all agree on. In the absence of an observer reality is meaningless.

So you wouldn't care if a tsunami would head your way? ..reality does matter without an observer, else things would go bad, really fast.

Bad for whom, without an observer, idjit?

[Dalek Prime]

I'm willing to cut Plato a bit of slack since he predated the biology of cognition by about 2300 years. The same leniency will not be extended to modern physics which resolutely refuses to understand the role of the observer in its modelling.

"Philosophy is dead and can have no further role to play in determining the nature of the universe".... Steven Hawking.

You'd think the stupid bastard should be showing a little more humility considering the fact that the models which his so-called "science" uses describes a universe which makes no fucking sense.

Always considered Hawkings to be a bit of a twit. I enjoyed reading John Gribben as a youth.

[Dalek Prime]

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

NO

[cladking]

Obviously I agree that language can't adequately describe objective reality but I believe this applies ONLY to modern human languages which are a mess. Words take their meaning from context so each listener hears a different message. Modern language only fits objective reality to the degree the observer actually understands both the words ands the reality itself. Since most of reality is hidden from us, only broad and general understandings are likely to be reflective of reality. Then when this understanding is communicated to others it will become less cohesive and less accurate.

Ancient language fit the world directly but was difficult to use. It would also seem to have little utility to most people today because of the severe limitations on what could be stated. Most "statements" were actually implications and phraseology was complex. It reflected reality and only what was "known".

Ancient or modern, it makes no difference, all languages have the same basic structure. That is to say, the structure is determined by embodiment. Regardless of the time period -what you were doing and how you functioned in the world impacted on what you observed. It's called embodied cognition.


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

This simply isn't true. It is true of all modern languages due solely to their nature. But it's possible to have a language that is tied directly to reality and this is the root of ancient human language and all animal languages. Individuals which think in these "primitive" languages will simply think differently than modern himan beings so "embodied cognition" doesn't really apply to them.

People merely assume that all complex languages are necessarily the same because anything different lies outside our experiences. But just as there are subtle differences in the way Chinese and English speakers think (largely the effect of language differences) there are such incrediblly huge differences between "reality" based language and modern languages that they are untranslatable! We haven't even deciphered such simple languages as "horse" or "horsefly". If we want to communicate with animals then we need to teach them English. Some chimps have learned hundreds of words and even some grammar. We interpret their limited ability to accumulate vocabulary as indicative of their low intelligence but in fact it is indicative of the way their brains are formatted by their own language which we can't understand at all. It's not simply that their brains are formatted by language but in every real way their language is formatted by their brains. This even can even be seen in modern human languages since they all arose from the natural human language so they often have words that are alike between languages. Especially fundamental words like "mother" are part of the same vocabulary that existed in the original language.

The first victim of modern language is the concept of "reality". When the languages became confused it was the ancient concept of reality that had to be excised from the language. It is the loss of this concept that makes natural language untranslatable into modern human languages.

Reality is simply exactly what it appears to be and no more or no less but observers can only catch glimpses of it and their senses can sometimes be decieved. Theory must be accumulated by numerous observations and confirmed by repeated and parallel observation if you think in the ancient language. Theory becomes language itself. Man lifted himself from the caves through theory which manifested as complex language and was made possible through complex language. Language is the father of mankind and logic his mother. However the language changed and now we orphaned children are the offspring of belief, experiment, and modern confused and complex language.