Reality is Inaccessible

[Vitruvius]

The reality gap is massive, so massive it is immeasurable.
Pick any sense and I shall show you how the perception of it is not the same as the object of perception.
And this is not a court of law, this is philosophy.

I've heard it all before, but okay then - sight. Explain how we can have traffic lights, art and colour coded electrical wires - if we do not see what's really there? If reality is subjectively constructed, explain to me how you write words - that I read, and expect that I will see the same thing you wrote?

[Vitruvius]

He (Isaac Newton) was required to believe, a very definite set of religious beliefs.

What was he required to believe?

Father, son and holy spirit. The trinity! Newton was anti-trinitarian, and had to hide his beliefs.

[Sculptor]

The reality gap is massive, so massive it is immeasurable.
Pick any sense and I shall show you how the perception of it is not the same as the object of perception.
And this is not a court of law, this is philosophy.

I've heard it all before, but okay then - sight. Explain how we can have traffic lights, art and colour coded electrical wires - if we do not see what's really there? If reality is subjectively constructed, explain to me how you write words - that I read, and expect that I will see the same thing you wrote?

You are missing the point, and I don't think you are willing to try to understand so I'd rather not waste my time if that is alright.
But you might want to think about what colour is.
There are no colours in nature. Colours only exist in the brain.
You also need to understand that the converse of realism is not subjectivism.
Objctivism opposes subjectivism, whilst idealism opposes realism. These terms differ for a reason.

Give your self a refresher course in the basic philosophical lexicon, else you are not going to get it.

[uwot]

He (Isaac Newton) was required to believe, a very definite set of religious beliefs.

What was he required to believe?

Father, son and holy spirit. The trinity! Newton was anti-trinitarian, and had to hide his beliefs.

The church of England split from Rome in the reign of Henry VIII. The Royal Society was founded a hundred and fifty years later in the aftermath of the English civil war and attempts to re-establish Catholicism. The motto of the Royal Society to this day is Nullius in verba meaning take no one's word for it. When the society was founded, it was the word of Aristotle, but particularly the pope whose word was to be challenged. Not believing in the trinity was not an academic impediment in late 17th century England and hasn't been since in civilised countries. UCL, where I studied, was the first overtly secular university in the world but institutes that specify any religious affiliation are rare outside of the middle east and the US.

[Vitruvius]

You are missing the point, and I don't think you are willing to try to understand so I'd rather not waste my time if that is alright. But you might want to think about what colour is. There are no colours in nature. Colours only exist in the brain. You also need to understand that the converse of realism is not subjectivism. Objctivism opposes subjectivism, whilst idealism opposes realism. These terms differ for a reason. Give your self a refresher course in the basic philosophical lexicon, else you are not going to get it.

I assume you've heard of psychological projection. If not, it's where the person; in this case - you, project your insecurities onto the person you're communicating with. In this case, me! I think that's what happening here; given that, you're not able to explain what you claimed you would explain, it's you that's feeling stupid, and so you lash out. Either that, or I'm so far beyond you, philosophically speaking, that you think - I don't buy into massively overblown subjectivist claims due to ignorance of subjectivism. That's funny!

You're wrong that colours only exist in the brain. That is a subjectivist claim, but it's just not true. Consider spectroscopy - the determination of the chemical composition of a substance, through observation of the wavelength of light. Those wavelengths are colours - and they exist in physical reality.

Violet: 380–450 nm (688–789 THz frequency)
Blue: 450–495 nm
Green: 495–570 nm
Yellow: 570–590 nm
Orange: 590–620 nm

Subjectivism is a false conclusion. It was not reasonable for Descartes to imagine there is some demon deceiving him, in order to dismiss the real world, and his sensory experience of it at a stroke. That's skeptical doubt, and it's an invalid method - Descartes used because his contemporary, Galileo - was on trial for his life for proving earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Subjectivism is a sleight of hand that flatters the Church by emphasising the spiritual, in denial of the mundane.

[Vitruvius]

He (Isaac Newton) was required to believe, a very definite set of religious beliefs.

What was he required to believe?

Father, son and holy spirit. The trinity! Newton was anti-trinitarian, and had to hide his beliefs.[/quote]

The church of England split from Rome in the reign of Henry VIII. The Royal Society was founded a hundred and fifty years later in the aftermath of the English civil war and attempts to re-establish Catholicism. The motto of the Royal Society to this day is Nullius in verba meaning take no one's word for it. When the society was founded, it was the word of Aristotle, but particularly the pope whose word was to be challenged. Not believing in the trinity was not an academic impediment in late 17th century England and hasn't been since in civilised countries. UCL, where I studied, was the first overtly secular university in the world but institutes that specify any religious affiliation are rare outside of the middle east and the US.

Newton had to get a letter from Charles II to excuse him from taking Holy Orders, before ascending to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge. It's a fact, look it up. Whether Church of England - or Church of Rome, religion was very much a requirement in late 17th century England.

[Sculptor]

You are missing the point, and I don't think you are willing to try to understand so I'd rather not waste my time if that is alright. But you might want to think about what colour is. There are no colours in nature. Colours only exist in the brain. You also need to understand that the converse of realism is not subjectivism. Objctivism opposes subjectivism, whilst idealism opposes realism. These terms differ for a reason. Give your self a refresher course in the basic philosophical lexicon, else you are not going to get it.

I assume you've heard of psychological projection. If not, it's where the person; in this case - you, project your insecurities onto the person you're communicating with. In this case, me! I think that's what happening here; given that, you're not able to explain what you claimed you would explain, it's you that's feeling stupid, and so you lash out. Either that, or I'm so far beyond you, philosophically speaking, that you think - I don't buy into massively overblown subjectivist claims due to ignorance of subjectivism. That's funny!

You're wrong that colours only exist in the brain. That is a subjectivist claim, but it's just not true. Consider spectroscopy - the determination of the chemical composition of a substance, through observation of the wavelength of light. Those wavelengths are colours - and they exist in physical reality.

Violet: 380–450 nm (688–789 THz frequency)
Blue: 450–495 nm
Green: 495–570 nm
Yellow: 570–590 nm
Orange: 590–620 nm

Subjectivism is a false conclusion. It was not reasonable for Descartes to imagine there is some demon deceiving him, in order to dismiss the real world, and his sensory experience of it at a stroke. That's skeptical doubt, and it's an invalid method - Descartes used because his contemporary, Galileo - was on trial for his life for proving earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Subjectivism is a sleight of hand that flatters the Church by emphasising the spiritual, in denial of the mundane.

You are clueless

[Sculptor]

If there were no gap between reality and perception we'd all be able to agree about everything: we do not.

[uwot]

Newton had to get a letter from Charles II to excuse him from taking Holy Orders, before ascending to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge. It's a fact, look it up. Whether Church of England - or Church of Rome, religion was very much a requirement in late 17th century England.

Are you sure your observation that Newton was excused holy orders supports your argument that science was subordinate to religion?

[Vitruvius]

If there were no gap between reality and perception we'd all be able to agree about everything: we do not.

No, we don't agree, but I can only suppose that's because you refuse to think about what I've told you. If you thought about it enough, you'd come to the same conclusion I have. If you consider the overwhelming commonality of perception between people, and the evolutionary argument that our senses must be accurate to reality or we could not have survived, and in addition the religious and political motives - and in addition read Descartes Meditations, knowing Galileo was on trial for his life at the time - it's fairly obvious subjectivism is a canard. It's overblown and exaggerated from 'Is it a rabbit or a duck?' It's both - it's a deliberately ambiguous image, and that's subjectivism. Deliberate ambiguity to undermine science as truth.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... yqF8YgHaFj

[Vitruvius]

Are you sure your observation that Newton was excused holy orders supports your argument that science was subordinate to religion?

The fact Newton had to petition the King to excuse him from Holy Orders, suggests that religion was very much a part of university life in late 17th century England. Besides which, Darwin - 200 years later, was met with religious persecution for developing a scientific theory. They still teach Creationism in religious schools. It's undeniable fact that religion has supressed science for 400 years, denied it any authority as truth.

Alok Sharma - climate change minster, in the paper today, acknowledges the threat of climate change and great length, in the starkest terms, and then gives a thumbs up to oil and gas exploration - in the same year UK is hosting COP 26. You could not make it up! If science were respected as truth, that would be considered insane.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't seem to realize that evolution has to dupe us with illusions in many instances in order to facilitate the human individual[s] and thus the human species to survive. For example, it is more likely for one to jump to conclusion of a "snake" in a shaded area instantly when in reality it is just a piece of rope. The point is, it is nature's way for one to assume there is danger thus be alert and avoid it so that there is a greater chance of survival if such event turned out to be true, i.e. a real snake that could kill. There are many optical illusions and other mental illusions that are programmed by evolution to facilitate and ensure humans has a greater chance of survival to ensure the preservation of the species. You are ignorant of these. Evolution is not focused solely on truths but rather on whatever it take [lies, illusion, delusions and truths] to ensure the individual[s] and thus the species survives.

Why do you assume my ignorance? I am as aware of subjectivist theory as the next man. Maybe more, if the next man is you!! I know, for example, that Descartes wrote the argument concluding Cogito Ergo Sum - the supposed subjectivist certainty, while Galileo was on trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Galileo spent the rest of his life imprisoned, while Descartes got a cushy job in the royal court of Queen Christiana of Sweden. In short, subjectivism - is philosophers blowing smoke up the arse of aristocrats, whose claim to power is based on God. Not science!

Note you stated.

Do you imagine the human species could have survived our evolutionary history if our senses were not overwhelmingly accurate to what actually exists?

Which means you are ignorant of the following that it is critical that our senses and mind need not be overwhelming accurate to what actually exists ;

You don't seem to realize that evolution has to dupe us with illusions in many instances in order to facilitate the human individual[s] and thus the human species to survive.

Your point re subjectivism is irrelevant to the point. Extreme subjectivism is merely subjective opinions which has no objective validity.

But you are ignorant, Scientific truths as the most reliable source of knowledge is also subjective, albeit intersubjectivity based on intersubjective consensus, besides being merely polished conjectures.

Evolution is not focused solely on truths but rather on whatever it take [lies, illusion, delusions and truths] to ensure the individual[s] and thus the species survives.

Does the rope really exist? How can something we don't know exists, be mistaken for something else we don't know exists?

The details above does not matter for this case.
It is very common for humans to mistake a piece of rope in the shade for a real snake where upon close examination it is a rope and not a real snake.
Above is merely one example, there are many other optical and mental illusions that are critical to facilitate survival, presumably you are ignorant of them.
The point is our senses and faculty of recognition are not programmed solely to give us overwhelming accuracy as you had claimed.

Where did I ever assert a denial of Science? You are jumping to conclusion based on ignorance what Science really represent.

Right, it's me that's deficient, not subjectivist theory. That's called an ad hominem attack, and is generally considered a fallacy!

The Church asserted a denial of science by imprisoning Galileo, and whilst Galileo was on trial - Descartes wrote Meditations on First Philosophy, which is the foundation of subjectivism. Science was undermined, denied any authority as truth, and western philosophy has been overwhelmingly subjectivist ever since! You deny science authority as truth by implication. You give license to Alok Sharma, to acknowledge the impending catastrophe of climate change, and in the next breath give a big thumbs up to continued oil and gas exploration!

You are going off point.
The point is where did I assert a denial of Science.?

I don't deny Scientific truths. You don't seem to realize whilst scientific truths are the most reliable and most useful for humanity, they are at best 'polished conjectures' and are never absolute certain truths. All scientists and philosophers are aware of this. You are ignorant of this??

Methodologically, all scientific conclusions are provisional - in lieu of the possibility of further evidence, but for 400 years, there's been no philosophical interest - and serious philosophical danger, in more clearly defining the epistemic status of scientific truth. It's very obviously inadequate. You can barely write a coherent sentence about science - you're all over the place, accepting it one minuet, denying it the next.

Whilst scientific truths are merely polished conjectures albeit useful, what is most critical for humanity is the need for greater imputation of Morality and Ethics consideration within the utility of scientific knowledge. You seem to be ignorant of this, thus your incoherent rant above.

Polished conjectures? So your computer works because the conjecture was so highly polished? That's that not philosophy - it's sophistry! The reality is, it works because it's true.

Science always starts with conjectures only, i.e. abduction or hypothesis and refine and [polish] the conjectures with evidences to reach an acceptable conclusion accepted by peers via consensus.
So literally scientific truths are 'polished conjectures', what is wrong with that?

You don't seem to get the most critical element here, i.e. the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to ensure scientific knowledge are to be used for the good of humanity and not to destroy humanity [with WMDs and viruses that caused pandemics].

[Sculptor]

If there were no gap between reality and perception we'd all be able to agree about everything: we do not.

No, we don't agree, but I can only suppose that's because you refuse to think about what I've told you.

No. It is because you are dull, and have an inability to take on new thoughts.

[uwot]

The fact Newton had to petition the King to excuse him from Holy Orders, suggests that religion was very much a part of university life in late 17th century England.

Perhaps, but that is very different to your claim that Newton was required to believe

Father, son and holy spirit. The trinity! Newton was anti-trinitarian, and had to hide his beliefs.

I'm always happy to bash organised religion, but its affect on science has been exaggerated. King Charles II, head of the Church of England signed the charter founding the Royal Society, which published Newton's Principia, and was perhaps the pivotal moment that saw science become the empirical, mathematical discipline it has been since.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are missing the point, and I don't think you are willing to try to understand so I'd rather not waste my time if that is alright. But you might want to think about what colour is. There are no colours in nature. Colours only exist in the brain. You also need to understand that the converse of realism is not subjectivism. Objctivism opposes subjectivism, whilst idealism opposes realism. These terms differ for a reason. Give your self a refresher course in the basic philosophical lexicon, else you are not going to get it.

You're wrong that colours only exist in the brain. That is a subjectivist claim, but it's just not true. Consider spectroscopy - the determination of the chemical composition of a substance, through observation of the wavelength of light. Those wavelengths are colours - and they exist in physical reality.

Violet: 380–450 nm (688–789 THz frequency)
Blue: 450–495 nm
Green: 495–570 nm
Yellow: 570–590 nm
Orange: 590–620 nm

Subjectivism is a false conclusion. It was not reasonable for Descartes to imagine there is some demon deceiving him, in order to dismiss the real world, and his sensory experience of it at a stroke. That's skeptical doubt, and it's an invalid method - Descartes used because his contemporary, Galileo - was on trial for his life for proving earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Subjectivism is a sleight of hand that flatters the Church by emphasising the spiritual, in denial of the mundane.

You need to cover a lot of fundamentals in philosophy.

Subjectivism which is of Descartes' Berkeley's and the likes are definitely limited in representing reality. I don't agree with subjectivism per se.

As for colors are only in reference to the brain, that is related to Locke's claim that there are no secondary qualities but only primary ones.
However Locke would still insist there is objective reality [excluding colors and the like] independent of the mind as with Philosophical Realism.
In this case, there is still a reality-Gap between what is perceived & cognized with what is really out there objectively as claimed by the Philosophical realists whom I do not agree with [mine stance is that of empirical realism].

That "Violet: 380–450 nm (688–789 THz frequency)" is not color per se but merely measurements by subjects thus in a way is subjective, albeit intersubjective thus also objective.

My point with "Reality is Inaccessible" is that philosophically one should dig deeper and wider into what the statement really means.