Reality is Inaccessible

[jayjacobus]

There is a mental represenation of a cat in your mind AND a cat out there that is being represented. These are two spatiotemporal events. We can never really tell what the cat out there is actually like.

The cat could be like other cats that you have known about. The cat you refer to could be like a tree, but you probably should not cut it down.

whatever you say

"Whatever you say" is used to agree to somebody’s suggestion because you do not want to argue.

Okay. Don't argue anymore.

Bye-bye.

[Atla]

The cat could be like other cats that you have known about. The cat you refer to could be like a tree, but you probably should not cut it down.

whatever you say

"Whatever you say" is used to agree to somebody’s suggestion because you do not want to argue.

Okay. Don't argue anymore.

Bye-bye.

make something that looks like an argument first

[Atla]

Then looks like you aren't even applying probabilities to different possibilities.

Probabilities based on what?

That's what philosophy is all about, we have no ultimate basis for probabilities, so we have to try to come up with the next best thing. For example if there seems to be an outside world, then it's more natural to assume that there is one. In other words we don't need an assumption that discards everything beyond the appearances, having to explain why there is just the right seeming.

[Terrapin Station]

Then looks like you aren't even applying probabilities to different possibilities.

Probabilities based on what?

That's what philosophy is all about, we have no ultimate basis for probabilities, so we have to try to come up with the next best thing. For example if there seems to be an outside world, then it's more natural to assume that there is one. In other words we don't need an assumption that discards everything beyond the appearances, having to explain why there is just the right seeming.

I'd say that frequency data is a good basis for probabilities, but we wouldn't have that in this case.

At any rate, I don't think it seems more "natural" to assume that there's an outside world if one is going to go ahead and assume representationalist nonsense.

[Atla]

At any rate, I don't think it seems more "natural" to assume that there's an outside world if one is going to go ahead and assume representationalist nonsense.

It makes no sense to have a representation without something being represented

[Terrapin Station]

At any rate, I don't think it seems more "natural" to assume that there's an outside world if one is going to go ahead and assume representationalist nonsense.

It makes no sense to have a representation without something being represented

Right re conventional terminology, but it makes no sense to employ the conventional sense of the term when you believe that you can't possibly access an external world.

[RCSaunders]

There is a mental represenation of a cat in your mind AND a cat out there that is being represented. These are two spatiotemporal events. We can never really tell what the cat out there is actually like.

If you, "can never really tell what the cat out there is actually like," you could not tell if it was not exactly as it is represented to perception. Why would you even suspect that it wasn't. It has to be something, why presume it's something other than what one perceives it to be. What is presented to your consciousness is the only evidence you have that there is a cat or what a cat is. To doubt that presentation, to question it's validity is pure baseless speculation based on no evidence whatsoever that cats are something other than what they are perceived to be. It's superstition.

[Atla]

At any rate, I don't think it seems more "natural" to assume that there's an outside world if one is going to go ahead and assume representationalist nonsense.

It makes no sense to have a representation without something being represented

Right re conventional terminology, but it makes no sense to employ the conventional sense of the term when you believe that you can't possibly access an external world.

Why wouldn't it make sense, that's how we use many terms.
And here representation doesn't refer to one external representation of another external object, it refers to the internal representation of an external object, yes it's a slightly different meaning.

Whatever as usual I can't even make out what your argument is supposed to be, just random words without a point.

[Atla]

There is a mental represenation of a cat in your mind AND a cat out there that is being represented. These are two spatiotemporal events. We can never really tell what the cat out there is actually like.

If you, "can never really tell what the cat out there is actually like," you could not tell if it was not exactly as it is represented to perception. Why would you even suspect that it wasn't. It has to be something, why presume it's something other than what one perceives it to be. What is presented to your consciousness is the only evidence you have that there is a cat or what a cat is. To doubt that presentation, to question it's validity is pure baseless speculation based on no evidence whatsoever that cats are something other than what they are perceived to be. It's superstition.

It's scientific fact that we don't directly perceive the outside world as it is. This debate is long over, you guys just have something to gain from being science-deniers. Personally I don't consider the inability to handle the truth to be a strength, a virtue.

[Age]

To claim that it is a reality that 'reality is inaccessible' is, in and of itself, obviously, a contradiction. Just like claiming 'we do not directly perceive the outside world, as it is', is a contradiction, in and of itself.

Either claiming 'reality is inaccessible', is a reality in and of itself or it is not. You can NOT have it both ways. If it is a reality, itself, then, obviously, it, itself, is inaccessible. Or, if that claim is not reality, itself, then it is just fantasy anyway. So, which one is 'it'?

Now, to make the claim that "we do not directly perceive the outside world, 'as it is'," properly and correctly the one making that claim would have to already know the outside world, as it is, exactly. To be able to know the outside world, as it is, one would have to be able to perceive the outside world, directly. So, which way is 'it'?

[attofishpi]

We cannot be absolute certain that "Reality is what our consciousness perceives".

Er, yes we can. I don't care what a bunch of 'philosophers' that you hold in some regard on the matter have to say about it.

Reality ultimately is what we perceive consciously, and I ain't gonna budge on that.

If you are not going to budge without providing any objective justification that is merely a personal opinion. Philosophically there is nothing to rationalize with what is mere personal opinions.

What you refer to as 'mere personal opinion' are exactly the same as that massive list of so called 'philosophers' that you provided have.

If reality is NOT what we perceive conciously and is indeed, "INACCESIBLE" - then define Reality, because as it stand - in your account it DOES NOT EXIST.

[Age]

We cannot be absolute certain that "Reality is what our consciousness perceives".

Er, yes we can. I don't care what a bunch of 'philosophers' that you hold in some regard on the matter have to say about it.

Reality ultimately is what we perceive consciously, and I ain't gonna budge on that.

If you are not going to budge without providing any objective justification that is merely a personal opinion.

'Objective justification', by definition would be a reality, itself. But, according to your own, so called, "logic" and opinion reality, and thus objective justification, itself, are not accessible.

Philosophically there is nothing to rationalize with what is mere personal opinions.

And, what you claim here, that is; "reality is inaccessible", is itself just your own personal opinion. Unless, of course, you have some 'objective rationalization' for your claim here. But, if you did, then it would be a reality, itself, of which you claim would be inaccessible. Either way you are stuck with, and in, your own personal opinions, because as you say, philosophically there is nothing to rationalize what is mere personal opinion.

By the way, what is actually Real, True, Right, and Correct can be and has already been objectively rationalized, and thus very accessible.

[Dontaskme]

If reality is NOT what we perceive conciously and is indeed, "INACCESIBLE" - then define Reality, because as it stand - in your account it DOES NOT EXIST.

Who is going to define ''Real it Y? '' ........the definer is the defined that cannot be defined.

All thats available are perceptions, which are thoughts.

REality: ''the state or quality of having existence or substance''

The point being made here is that YOU cannot experience the world that appears to be out-there. Out-there, is not an experience for you simply because there is no out-there separate from you here and now, which is neither out nor in.

OUT-there is a perception HERE. There's no division at all, the separation is purely conceptual.

And so perceptions will never be an experience for you, in other words, you can never experience yourself as an object. The perceiver cannot be perceived, because the perceiver can never be an object of it's perception. To know yourself as an object would require you to split in half into subject (knower) and object (known) ...which is impossible, ok.

Knowledge of anything only shows up when you do, the purveyor of knowledge.

Reality has no knowledge of itself, knowledge is just an illusory appearance within that not-knowing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

2. When Sculptor 'sees' a cat, there is an objective cat in reality out there.

3. What is perceived is the phenomena-cat as a representation of the really real objective noumena-cat-in-itself.

4. What is inaccessible is the really-real objective noumena-cat-in-itself.

5. The noumena-cat is always separated from the phenomena cat due to the inherent human conditions to grasp its reality via intermediate elements.

6. The above is the same with all of reality, thus reality-in-itself is inaccessible. But this inaccessible-reality nevertheless exists as an independent really-real-objective-reality 'out there.'

Someone who would believe that they're only experiencing representations and that the external world is inaccessible has zero justification for believing that there are objective/external things in the first place.

Their [not mine] justification is,
for whatever is perceived, there must be 'the perceived' which is inaccessible.
In a way this is very logical.

If you don't agree with the above, then reality must be in your mind and not independently out there.

But if you believe things are independent of the mind [which is most likely your fundamental belief], i.e. not-in-mind, then the independent things out there must be inaccessible because of the reality gap.

It is either or, so you have to resolve your own dilemma.
Point here is Sculptor has a good grip with his fundamentals [philosophical realism] while you are quite lost in your grounds and fundamental.
Btw, I don't agree with Sculptor and I have my own approach to deal with the above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't see a cat when a cat is not there. So where is the cat?
In my mind?
No!
The cat is out there - objective with respect to the observer.
As for - "a very interesting realm of philosophical understanding" subjectivism is sophistry that denies the possibility of truth.

It's a liar's charter!

Here is Sculptor's perspective [as a Philosophical Realist] as I understand it.
[I don't agree with it in the Ultimate Sense as highlighted in the OP].

• 1. Sculptor is a Philosophical Realist.
  
  2. When Sculptor 'sees' a cat, there is an objective cat in reality out there.
  
  3. What is perceived is the phenomena-cat as a representation of the really real objective noumena-cat-in-itself.
  
  4. What is inaccessible is the really-real objective noumena-cat-in-itself.
  
  5. The noumena-cat is always separated from the phenomena cat due to the inherent human conditions to grasp its reality via intermediate elements.
  
  6. The above is the same with all of reality, thus reality-in-itself is inaccessible. But this inaccessible-reality nevertheless exists as an independent really-real-objective-reality 'out there.'

Note;

• [Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved..
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

which imply the really-real-objective-reality will always and eternally be inaccessible.
Only its approximation can be improved but humans can never know 100% what reality really is.

The ultimate philosophical question is;
is there such a supposedly external independent really-real-objective-reality as claimed by the Philosophical Realists?
My answer is no, but my claim is not of Subjectivism.

Subjectivism claims what is real is ONLY in the mind, e.g. Berkeley's subjective Idealism and other similar others. Subjectivism do not recognize the existence of any noumena-cat-in-itself but only perceptions. Esse is Percipi.

Btw, in general, one is either a philosophical realist or anti-philosophical realist.
If you claim reality and its things exist externally and independent of the human mind [human conditions] then you are a Philosophical Realist and you must then agree with Sculptor.
There is no other way [rare exceptions] unless you are a typical subjectivist, idealists, and the likes who claimed things are all in the mind only.

As such Sculptor is not a subjectivist nor hold on to subjectivism.

My stance is empirical realism [totally different from philosophical realism] thus not subjectivism.

You lost me at Noumena! If you have to write a book 850 pages long, and make up words - such that the reader has no choice but to buy in by learning your jargon, you're not really a philosopher. You're a cult leader. The cult of Kant is not for me thank you!

My post is not about Kant but rather your ignorance is labelling someone with Objectivism when that is not the case.