Philosophy Now Forum

Try this question on for size, you moronic simpleton. What the fuck is REALITY??

I think I must have hit a nerve in order to get such a response, but Obvious Leo does ask a legitimate question.

Whatever reality is, it is not a concept.

It is impossible to say what reality is without falling victim to paradox. For to define anything, it must be bordered within the walls of the definition, which implies that there is something beyond that border, in which case defined reality is not reality because it is not totality. On the one hand, if universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation. On the other hand, if reality is a "subjective construction of the human mind," then solipsism and irrationality are just as legitimate as any other point of view.

“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy, from the movie Lucy

Philosophy presumes lawfulness. It presupposes and implies a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both the observer and the observed. When a self-reflecting entity wholly identifies with its finite self, it succumbs to the illusion that the ubiquitous parameter of its existence is instead a closed perimeter: it forgets that the truth of its existence is the unfathomable and indeterminate Whole; it forgets that codified reality is abstracted from perceived averages.


.

The Inglorious One wrote:Philosophy presumes lawfulness. It presupposes and implies a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both the observer and the observed.

This is a statement of belief and thus not a philosophical statement. However it explains why you would say this.

The Inglorious One wrote:it forgets that the truth of its existence is the unfathomable and indeterminate Whole;

Clearly a transcendent reality is unknowable by definition because it places causal agency beyond the physical universe. Do you believe that the events in our universe are determined according to a suite of laws or do you regard our universe as self-determining? This is a critically important question in philosophy because if you accept the former proposition you define the universe as unknowable. However if you accept the latter, as I do, then the patterns of self-organisation which we perceive in nature are solely the constructs of our own consciousness. We may accept the notion of an objective reality as a metaphysical abstraction but the way we model the world around us can have no ontological currency whatsoever. There is no valid basis for assuming that any one particular model for reality should be "truer" than any other. All we can say with certainty about the models we create is that they can make either better or worse predictions about the future. We might like to imagine that we have a theory about the real universe but this is a self-delusional myth. All we have is an effective theory which remains effective only until a better one comes along.

This is very basic philosophy of science which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand, Inglorious. If you can't understand it, or find it unpalatable, then you may find yourself more at home in a religion forum than one devoted to rational thinking.

Being able to predict consistently only proves practical for those valuing the benefits of those outcomes consistently. This is the error to me for why we should accept 'predictability' as mapping to reality. It is inductively indeterminate still unless such prediction can account for all factors within its domain of possibilities (complete enumeration). Unless we can assure only a unique interpretation of observations, even predictability can appear to confirm a theory that doesn't map onto reality external to those agreeing.

As to reality by the OP, does not totality contain both all that is real AND all that is not real? If we find that we cannot de-fine (make finite) something because it requires an infinite regress, why not allow the infinite process be de-fined (made finite) too? If this seems to lack reality, it still remains apart of totality if it belongs to non-reality when we assume the class of reality as a subset of it. Otherwise, you beg that reality and totality are one and the same. In such an interpretation, then what is not real lies outside of totality to which you'd again have to ask whether we are allowed to de-fine a class that includes both?

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Philosophy presumes lawfulness. It presupposes and implies a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both the observer and the observed.

This is a statement of belief and thus not a philosophical statement.

It's a principle you employed in your response.

Clearly a transcendent reality is unknowable by definition because it places causal agency beyond the physical universe.

Transcendence does not imply otherness.

Do you believe that the events in our universe are determined according to a suite of laws or do you regard our universe as self-determining? This is a critically important question in philosophy because if you accept the former proposition you define the universe as unknowable.

However if you accept the latter, as I do, then the patterns of self-organisation which we perceive in nature are solely the constructs of our own consciousness.

Why must it be one or the other? Why not both?

We may accept the notion of an objective reality as a metaphysical abstraction but the way we model the world around us can have no ontological currency whatsoever. There is no valid basis for assuming that any one particular model for reality should be "truer" than any other. All we can say with certainty about the models we create is that they can make either better or worse predictions about the future. We might like to imagine that we have a theory about the real universe but this is a self-delusional myth. All we have is an effective theory which remains effective only until a better one comes along.

I'll remember that the next time someone decides to fly some airplanes into some buildings.

This is very basic philosophy of science which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand, Inglorious. If you can't understand it, or find it unpalatable, then you may find yourself more at home in a religion forum than one devoted to rational thinking.

You might like this book: A Course in Consciousness (not to be confused with A Course in Miracles).

The main difference between our respective positions is that yours emphasizes the individual (so long as it the individual is in agreement) at the expense of the whole; I do not. In other words, you are apologist for dualism.

The Inglorious One wrote:you are apologist for dualism.

Not at all. You are the one making the claim for an objective reality, not I. In accordance with every major philosophical tradition in human history I claim that such a position implies a universe predicated on the notion of transcendent cause, which is a universe insufficient to its own existence. This is inescapably a dualist narrative whether you like it or not because the monist position clearly specifies for a universe which can be modelled in an infinite variety of ways, none of which is either more or less "true" than the other. Your position is that of a creationist and therefore founded on belief but you find yourself in good company. The so-called "science" of physics makes the same mistake.

Scott Mayers wrote:Being able to predict consistently only proves practical for those valuing the benefits of those outcomes consistently. This is the error to me for why we should accept 'predictability' as mapping to reality. It is inductively indeterminate still unless such prediction can account for all factors within its domain of possibilities (complete enumeration). Unless we can assure only a unique interpretation of observations, even predictability can appear to confirm a theory that doesn't map onto reality external to those agreeing.

As to reality by the OP, does not totality contain both all that is real AND all that is not real? If we find that we cannot de-fine (make finite) something because it requires an infinite regress, why not allow the infinite process be de-fined (made finite) too? If this seems to lack reality, it still remains apart of totality if it belongs to non-reality when we assume the class of reality as a subset of it. Otherwise, you beg that reality and totality are one and the same. In such an interpretation, then what is not real lies outside of totality to which you'd again have to ask whether we are allowed to de-fine a class that includes both?

The Loop of Creation

The Inglorious One wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Being able to predict consistently only proves practical for those valuing the benefits of those outcomes consistently. This is the error to me for why we should accept 'predictability' as mapping to reality. It is inductively indeterminate still unless such prediction can account for all factors within its domain of possibilities (complete enumeration). Unless we can assure only a unique interpretation of observations, even predictability can appear to confirm a theory that doesn't map onto reality external to those agreeing.

As to reality by the OP, does not totality contain both all that is real AND all that is not real? If we find that we cannot de-fine (make finite) something because it requires an infinite regress, why not allow the infinite process be de-fined (made finite) too? If this seems to lack reality, it still remains apart of totality if it belongs to non-reality when we assume the class of reality as a subset of it. Otherwise, you beg that reality and totality are one and the same. In such an interpretation, then what is not real lies outside of totality to which you'd again have to ask whether we are allowed to de-fine a class that includes both?

The Loop of Creation

From the abstract,

A new paradigm in philosophy exploring the structure of consciousness through analysis of the act of perception and creativity. By abolishing axioms and truisms and instead, investigating the mechanism whereby these were created, authoritative dogma becomes redundant. As an alternative, knowledge of the structure of consciousness endows one with personal, social and global responsibility.

I disagree to an abandonment of logic as this seems to be implying. I only add to logic by incorporating "contradiction" as a function that commands us to find a 'new' place where such contradictions become contraries.

For instance, assuming a complete logic (which includes multi-valued logic possibilities), if we come across a conclusion that determines (All A and some not-A) simultaneously true of something, we can always find a 'larger' domain which makes them (All A and all Non-A) true by contrast. The ACT of 'fixing' the contradiction to be contrary doesn't dissolve the contradiction in the previous universal, it creates a "dimension" where both can be true, even if we may not actually perceive them. We may be confined to a specific set of dimensions but can recognize they exist in other 'places' in a rationally logical way.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:you are apologist for dualism.

Not at all. You are the one making the claim for an objective reality

Not quite. I'm claiming an unbounded reality that includes the bounded (but non-distinct), which is non-dualism, not dualism or monism.

In accordance with every major philosophical tradition in human history I claim that such a position implies a universe predicated on the notion of transcendent cause which is a universe insufficient to its own existence.

Well, you just dismissed out of hand Eastern philosophies that go back some 5,000 years.

This is inescapably a dualist narrative whether you like it or not because the monist position clearly specifies for a universe which can be modelled in an infinite variety of ways, none of which is either more or less "true" than the other. Your position is that of a creationist and therefore founded on belief but you find yourself in good company. The so-called "science" of physics makes the same mistake.

Who/what is describing the monist position? The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of, or separation from, the thing which is evaluated.

Your vision of reality (solipsism) rejects the objective; non-dualism does not. "Don't you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?" Inside and outside coexist in a feedback loop, as it were.

Scott Mayers wrote:
I disagree to an abandonment of logic as this seems to be implying. I only add to logic by incorporating "contradiction" as a function that commands us to find a 'new' place where such contradictions become contraries.

For instance, assuming a complete logic (which includes multi-valued logic possibilities), if we come across a conclusion that determines (All A and some not-A) simultaneously true of something, we can always find a 'larger' domain which makes them (All A and all Non-A) true by contrast. The ACT of 'fixing' the contradiction to be contrary doesn't dissolve the contradiction in the previous universal, it creates a "dimension" where both can be true, even if we may not actually perceive them. We may be confined to a specific set of dimensions but can recognize they exist in other 'places' in a rationally logical way.

I also disagree to an abandonment of logic. Fortunately, that's not what it's saying.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:
I disagree to an abandonment of logic as this seems to be implying. I only add to logic by incorporating "contradiction" as a function that commands us to find a 'new' place where such contradictions become contraries.

For instance, assuming a complete logic (which includes multi-valued logic possibilities), if we come across a conclusion that determines (All A and some not-A) simultaneously true of something, we can always find a 'larger' domain which makes them (All A and all Non-A) true by contrast. The ACT of 'fixing' the contradiction to be contrary doesn't dissolve the contradiction in the previous universal, it creates a "dimension" where both can be true, even if we may not actually perceive them. We may be confined to a specific set of dimensions but can recognize they exist in other 'places' in a rationally logical way.

I also disagree to an abandonment of logic. Fortunately, that's not what it's saying.

Oh. I guess I'd have to read it. From the note on the author below, I'm guessing we might actually agree. Thanks for the referral.

I responded to Obvious Leo in a thread, "Does Science have limitations", to show how our disagreement relates to perception only. In this way, it is as though upon facing each other I commented that I noticed he parts his hair to the left. He might respond, "No, I part it to the right." This actually means that we agree to the same definition of "left" and "right" from our subjective perspective which unfortunately makes it appear we disagree on the surface.

Now if Leo happened to agree to my comment, it would have to mean that either we disagree to the meaning of "left" and "right" or he's merely adapting to the definition from my own 'authority' (my perspective) as a definition.

The Inglorious One wrote:I'm claiming an unbounded reality that includes the bounded (but non-distinct), which is non-dualism, not dualism or monism.

You better explain what you mean by this because I have no idea.

The Inglorious One wrote:Well, you just dismissed out of hand Eastern philosophies that go back some 5,000 years.

Which eastern philosophy do you claim is predicated on transcendent cause? The major ones which I've studied all assume Immanent cause.

The Inglorious One wrote:The observer cannot be the thing observed;

This statement is simply false and I have no idea where you might have dug it up. However it would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dualist position. Perhaps a crash course in cognitive neuroscience might disabuse you of your Cartesian fantasies because modern science tells us that Descartes got his pithy aphorism arse-about. I am therefore I think makes a hell of a lot more sense than it does the other way around, as Kant pointed out. It is not our objects which specify our cognition but our cognition which specifies our objects.

The Inglorious One wrote: Your vision of reality (solipsism) rejects the objective;

Mine is not a solipsist position. I accept the existence of an objectively real world but merely claim that how we choose to model it is entirely subjective. Inductive conclusions drawn from observation can make no truth statements about their own ontological validity because this process is entirely tautologous.

The Inglorious One wrote:"Don't you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?" Inside and outside coexist in a feedback loop, as it were.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying here but I suspect that I agree with you because this a very Kantian view. We can confirm the objects of our cognition only by cognising them, which means that even in principle our cognition can only ever confirm or deny itself. There simply is no "outside" referential frame from which we can observe the world, even in principle. We are merely the emergent consequence of a dynamic process involving the behaviour of matter and energy. We are made up of the very stuff of the universe itself and thus have no choice but to observe it from the inside out. This has important metaphysical consequences because what we really mean when we say that we observe our world from inside out is that we observe our world by looking BACKWARDS down the arrow of time. The observer observes a universe which no longer exists.

Scott. I have precious little hair left to part, either to the left or to the right, but I agree with your point. How we formulate the language for our narrative of the world is solely a matter of inter-subjective agreement and says nothing about the truth value of this narrative. A quark is just a quark because that's how we've all agreed to codify a particular class of observations at the sub-atomic level. What we observe are the effects of a cause and not the cause itself, an age-old dichotomy between structure and function which should appeal to a Platonist. However I think we can all agree that some sort of "ding und sich" must underpin our phenomenological world because if this were not the case then we may as well pack up all our philosophical crap and go fishing.

In this regard you and I are very much on the same page. Inductive conclusions drawn from observation can be empirically tested by the methodology of science and this makes science a very powerful predictive tool. However science cannot offer us the explanatory paradigm which underpins our observations for the simple reason that it is not designed to do so. Science cannot do "WHY" questions, so for this we need philosophy. However there does exist a third way, although it is not one that appeals to me personally. We can relocate our why questions to beyond the physical universe, as Inglorious has done and as physics has done, and assume that reality unfolds according to a gigantic cosmic plan.

If I suspected for even a single moment that this was true then in the true tradition of philosophy I'd reach for my hemlock immediately.

Scott Mayers wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:
I disagree to an abandonment of logic as this seems to be implying. I only add to logic by incorporating "contradiction" as a function that commands us to find a 'new' place where such contradictions become contraries.

For instance, assuming a complete logic (which includes multi-valued logic possibilities), if we come across a conclusion that determines (All A and some not-A) simultaneously true of something, we can always find a 'larger' domain which makes them (All A and all Non-A) true by contrast. The ACT of 'fixing' the contradiction to be contrary doesn't dissolve the contradiction in the previous universal, it creates a "dimension" where both can be true, even if we may not actually perceive them. We may be confined to a specific set of dimensions but can recognize they exist in other 'places' in a rationally logical way.

I also disagree to an abandonment of logic. Fortunately, that's not what it's saying.

Oh. I guess I'd have to read it. From the note on the author below, I'm guessing we might actually agree. Thanks for the referral.

The author of Holophany posits a different kind of logic. If you can handle the weirdness in the way its presented, it's a pretty interesting philosophy with some merit. A Course in Consciousness is written by a physicist. It, too, is interesting in spite of its problems.

The Inglorious One wrote: A Course in Consciousness is written by a physicist. It, too, is interesting in spite of its problems.

I think I'll pass. Physics has a very poor track record in understanding the role that human consciousness plays in our understanding of the physical universe so I fear that reading a physicist on the subject of consciousness would be about as illuminating as reading a prostitute on the subject of chastity.