Philosophy Now Forum

Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

Reality can only exist right now, whenever you perceive right now to be.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

Given what set of circumstances?

[quote=iambiguous post_id=569570 time=1651089408 user_id=4948]
[quote=Advocate post_id=569540 time=1651073117 user_id=15238]
Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.
[/quote]


Given what set of circumstances?
[/quote]

Always, everywhere, in all ways. Reality refers to that of which we can be most certain, which is an explicit knowledge claim.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

All terms are epistemological. "Meatphysics," is epistemological.

If you mean what a term means, i.e. what it refers to, reality refers to what exists, and actually means the same thing as existence, that is, all the is the way it is, whether anyone is aware of it or knows anything about it or not.

Reality means that which exists, but its connotation is different. While existence means all that is, whatever it is and whatever its nature is, reality means all that is, but what it is and the nature it has is specified and it is, "real," only if it actually is what is described and has the nature attributed to it.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

I posted this in another thread

• Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
  In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  As such all things are related to other things in this context.
  While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
  As such all things are conditioned upon one another.
  
  Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].
  
  In addition,
  humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
  As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.
  
  Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
  Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
  Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]
  

As above, reality can be deal as an epistemological perspective.
The most credible epistemological claims at present are scientific facts.
But scientific facts are at best merely polished conjectures as such it has limited access to truths.

Because there a truth-gap, this has to be dealt within the metaphysical perspectives to cover for whatever there in within the gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

What we must avoid is ontology, especially where there is the claim, things in reality has independent existence from humans involvements and relations.
Note my point above,
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.].

It is also from ontology that theists claim there is God [illusory] that exists independent humans in its own realm of reality.

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=569842 time=1651209998 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=569540 time=1651073117 user_id=15238]
Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.
[/quote]
I posted this in another thread

[list][color=#0000FF]Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]
[/color][/list]

As above, reality can be deal as an [b]epistemological[/b] perspective.
The most credible epistemological claims at present are scientific facts.
But scientific facts are at best merely [b]polished conjectures[/b] as such it has limited access to truths.

Because there a truth-gap, this has to be dealt within the [b]metaphysical[/b] perspectives to cover for whatever there in within the gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

What we must avoid is [b]ontology[/b], especially where there is the claim, things in reality has independent existence from humans involvements and relations.
Note my point above,
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.].

It is also from ontology that theists claim there is God [illusory] that exists independent humans in its own realm of reality.
[/quote]

It's not apparent independence, it's actual independence, it's just not absolute independence. That we have a unique embodied perspective Requires that we see ourselves as independent in ontological and epistemological terms.

Just because our access to truth is a limited scale/low resolution understanding does not imply it's incorrect. Also it's not a Truth Gap that an idea is not exhaustively complete, it needs only be sufficient for a given use case. Exhaustive truth would be both pathetically useless and an opportunity cost. A Truth Gap is when an idea does not explain some part of what it Claims to explain.

All things and all experiences are real as a pattern in a mind. Whether they have an external correlate or are adequately shared between people are separate questions.

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=569595 time=1651095964 user_id=16196]
[quote=Advocate post_id=569540 time=1651073117 user_id=15238]
Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

All terms are epistemological. "Meatphysics," is epistemological.

If you mean what a term means, i.e. what it refers to, reality refers to what exists, and actually means the same thing as existence, that is, all the is the way it is, whether anyone is aware of it or knows anything about it or not.

Reality means that which exists, but its connotation is different. While existence means all that is, whatever it is and whatever its nature is, reality means all that is, but what it is and the nature it has is specified and it is, "real," only if it actually is what is described and has the nature attributed to it.
[/quote]

Reality is an epistemological term because it refers to whatever we can be most certain of, which is an epistemological concept.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

Reality is a biological readout. Your everyday reality or apparent reality is a readout of how the wave frequencies of the physical world effect your biology. The whole body is conscious its experiences feeding your cognitive awareness. If the biology is altered in the way of damage or illness then perception is altered and the judgment is different than it would be in a state of well-being. You create your own reality by being the way you are at any given time.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:41 pm It's not apparent independence, it's actual independence, it's just not absolute independence. That we have a unique embodied perspective Requires that we see ourselves as independent in ontological and epistemological terms.

Just because our access to truth is a limited scale/low resolution understanding does not imply it's incorrect. Also it's not a Truth Gap that an idea is not exhaustively complete, it needs only be sufficient for a given use case. Exhaustive truth would be both pathetically useless and an opportunity cost. A Truth Gap is when an idea does not explain some part of what it Claims to explain.

All things and all experiences are real as a pattern in a mind. Whether they have an external correlate or are adequately shared between people are separate questions.

There are many perspectives to what is reality, i.e.
1. the crude vulgar sense,'
2. common sense
3. conventional sense
4. ordinary scientific sense
5. Quantum physics
6. highest philosophical sense

Each perspective will have its actual independence.
Independence comes in two categories, i.e.
1. Relative, conditional independence
2. Absolute independence

While you may think otherwise, the problem is the majority will insist independence as perceived is absolute and not conditional.
For perspective 1 -4 I can accept relative conditional independence as actual, i.e. reality is independent of the human conditions but there is no absolute independence.

The are many scientists who insist there is absolute independence beyond quantum physics.
As such we have to insist at this level there is no absolute independence. Note Hawking Model Dependent Realism.

In the philosophical perspective, theists claim their God exists as an entity that is absolutely independent from humans.
In this case, I will argue absolute independence is an impossibility and that reality is always conditioned upon the human conditions.

Point is, whether there is an external correlate is critical for philosophy because the Majority insist there is absolute independence. Note 90% of people are theists and they have to claim their God exist as an absolutely independently being.
Even non-theists who are philosophical realists claim there is absolute independence between humans and reality out there.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind.
  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.

As such when you speak of reality,
the question of absolute independence is crucial.

Another point is,
it is an evolutionary default that human by nature will be driven towards the idea of absolute independence to facilitate survival. So this is a psychological issue.
But with philosophical consideration absolute-independence is an impossibility to be real.

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=569951 time=1651289190 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=569884 time=1651239695 user_id=15238]
It's not apparent independence, it's actual independence, it's just not absolute independence. That we have a unique embodied perspective Requires that we see ourselves as independent in ontological and epistemological terms.

Just because our access to truth is a limited scale/low resolution understanding does not imply it's incorrect. Also it's not a Truth Gap that an idea is not exhaustively complete, it needs only be sufficient for a given use case. Exhaustive truth would be both pathetically useless and an opportunity cost. A Truth Gap is when an idea does not explain some part of what it Claims to explain.

All things and all experiences are real as a pattern in a mind. Whether they have an external correlate or are adequately shared between people are separate questions.
[/quote]
There are many perspectives to what is reality, i.e.
1. the crude vulgar sense,'
2. common sense
3. conventional sense
4. ordinary scientific sense
5. Quantum physics
6. highest philosophical sense

Each perspective will have its actual independence.
Independence comes in two categories, i.e.
1. Relative, conditional independence
2. Absolute independence

While you may think otherwise, the problem is the majority will insist independence as perceived is absolute and not conditional.
For perspective 1 -4 I can accept relative conditional independence as actual, i.e. reality is independent of the human conditions but there is no absolute independence.

The are many scientists who insist there is absolute independence beyond quantum physics.
As such we have to insist at this level there is no absolute independence. Note Hawking Model Dependent Realism.

In the philosophical perspective, theists claim their God exists as an entity that is absolutely independent from humans.
In this case, I will argue absolute independence is an impossibility and that reality is always conditioned upon the human conditions.

Point is, whether there is an external correlate is critical for philosophy because the Majority insist there is absolute independence. Note 90% of people are theists and they have to claim their God exist as an absolutely independently being.
Even non-theists who are philosophical realists claim there is absolute independence between humans and reality out there.

[list]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind.
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.[/list]

As such when you speak of reality,
the question of absolute independence is crucial.

Another point is,
it is an evolutionary default that human by nature will be driven towards the idea of absolute independence to facilitate survival. So this is a psychological issue.
But with philosophical consideration absolute-independence is an impossibility to be real.
[/quote]

I only need three levels;
a) transcendent Actuality - inaccessible, but needs a reference
b) Reality as consensus experience
c) Reality-to-us as a filtered version of Actuality

I believe that covers all possible meaningful use-cases.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

A realist and an anti-realist having an argument when you interjected this would correctly disagree with you. Further, metaphysical and epistemological qualities(references) can be in one term. Epistemology is metaphysics and vice versa.

Reality is experience.

if the really reel can't catch a fish, what good is it?

-Imp

Imp,

You ain't nothin' but a hound dog---lol!!! You ain't never caught a rabbit you ain't no friend of mine!!!