What is real, and what can be known of that reality?

Is 'what is experienced' real?

What assumptions are required to say 'this is real'.

To say it so must we first know it to speak it?

Where is the boundary between experience and reality and how can it be decribed?

My perspective has come to this:

I've bastardized the term reality perhaps. It seems to me I used to think of reality with a sense that the word carried some sense of ethereal authority. "reality", well that's the stuff that just is, regardless of who says it is. It bothered me though, that with no one to say 'it is' there is no means to access something that just is because it just is. When it is accessed it becomes an experience and as such is dependent only on the authority of the subject having an experience or the unknowable "what is".

I then pondered the source and found the term 'tao', coming to a use of the word that is probably also quite bastardized. To me it is the yin to the implied yang of what isn't. (insert meta-venn diagram here)

What hurts my brain in thinking about this, is that the observer, who is inherently impressed upon by what is, also is. It's like a bubble inside a bubble or something. Ouch... brain hurting. Well I guess I generally think of consciousness itself, (that which allows abstraction) as a sort of subjective time lense.

With no regard to context continuity...

I am.

To logically analyze my existence I must start from somewhere, whatever the I doing the starting happens to be.

How though can logic even be applied to something that would have to exist to apply it?

This reveals an important facet of logic itself to me. Logic, reason, mind... all require input and offer output. They are transforms of whatever sort.

So to have logic, there must be assumptions.

To me, the simplest route to reason is: I assume I exist. It's acknowledgement that things can be acknowledged because something is experiencing something, apparently[/quote]. Anyway, at least from there logic and reason can kick off.

So from the simple assumption 'I am' I conclude faith is the basis of the abstract architecture of mind. It seems that
Given a mentally capable mind, it is belief that we know that renders potential contradictions far less relevant. It's automatic. To indulge in logic or reason, it is implicitely acknowledge that logic and reason exist and for it to do so it does *to* something. self is that something.

Gah I'm toasted from attempting that and at the moment feel a little disgusted at the attempt. I think the core argument is there but all lacking order and such.

I think it can be proven reasonably and logically that reason and logic are based on faith (which I equivocate with assumptions or definitons as they all serve the same function, blind belief). Obviously I don't know quite how to do it, but it seems to me there is something productive in it. I'm not even sure if that needs to be proven since by the equivocation (which seems valid to me but probably won't for many others) I sort of ignore potential contradictions.

Still toasted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reality does not depend on the observer. The observer depends on reality. Reality is the authority. The observer does not decide whether or not reality exists. Reality's existence is independent of the oberver's ability to observe reality. It exists whether or not one observer acknowledges it. It exists whether or not there are any observers to acknowledge it.

Logic is completely based on faith. All statements of truth are based on the faithful assumption of logic. Everything discussed is based on the assumption of logic. Everything I described about reality is based on the assumption of logic/faith in logic.

Logic cannot be proven or disproven by our supercomputer brains which only have the logical limit. This means that our brain can only comprehend logic. Something metalogical, such as the concept of infinity, cannot be comprehended by the brain. Our brain short circuits when attempting to comprehend metalogical concepts. I discussed all this in my metalogics thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Objective reality is real and what can be known of it is the data we are fortunate enough to stumble onto.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

its a topic thoroughly discussed in philosophy, but just to give you the vedic run down

1. pratyaksa - direct perception (what the senses see)
2. anumana - inference ("where there is smoke there is fire")
3. sabda - authority (if your doctor tells you are sick in a certain way you accept it even if you can't perceive it with the senses)
4. arthavati - similarity (one may not have seen a pink carrot but would know if they have because they know "pink" and " carrot")
5. arthapatti - logic (the fat man never eats in the day .... therefore he must eat at the night)
6. abhava - nonexistence (a kind of knowledge based on the absence of perception)

so when talk of "real" you are actually talking of a certain array of precepts that one accepts as "truthful".

For instance your straight down the line methodological atheist works with 1
Buddhists (generally) work with 1 and 2
etc etc
and in this way one can determine a certain world outlook, which can ultimately resolve issues of the self, the phenomenal world etc etc

so you seem to take a dip in all of them (when you talk of faith = sabda) and as you have stumbled across, the deeper you dive into number 6, the more problematic it becomes to determine the nature of the self ... so there is the philosophy that number 6 is not a valid absolute means for determining reality
(BTW I personally only subscribe to 1,2 and 3, with number three at the top of the list)

anyway goodluck with your headache!

 

Yeah, I've noticed myself that eventually explanations come down to an assumption.
Which assumptions should we make, and which shouldn't we? Or am I way off track here?

 

I agree with the exception that 'authority' is a property of an entity. To assign that property to 'reality' is anthropomorphization.

Well the observer does indeed decide whether it *exists* or not, but that decision's scope is limited to the observer's sphere of influence. Otherwise stuff just is, nothing more can be said of it excepting interpretation of stimulous.

My only problem with the statement is as before, saying it 'exists' is assiging properties to that which has not been percieved to be confirmed to exist. It's a viscious circle that only ends in faith I believe, which I suppose we're both demonstrating.

Even if we could prove logic to be 'discovered' rather than invented, the same would hold I'd say, as the assumptions input to the logic are still faith.

Logic itself no, but I think *a* logical statement can be proven given specific parameters. Another way to put it, 'a logical proof is self contained if the input is considered part of the proof" or something like that. Maybe I just said that wrong I can't tell at the moment. Otherwise, there's whoever that dude is that proved logic proofs can't be self-contained. Hehe. Funny that.

No I don't think that's a valid conclusion. That "logic cannot be proven or disproven by our brains" doesn't lend it, and like i said reworded once again, the criteria for proof is subjective and depending on your perspective, arbitrary.

Well I think you worded that wrong but will just give you the benefit of the doubt. If we couldn't understand the concept of infinity you couldn't have just referenced it. It's the magnitude of any infinity that seems incomprehensible. I have a pet concept "subjective infinity" that I think could be much more managable in the context of philosophy. Birth to death of a perspective for instance, seems to me to be a subjective infinity. I sometimes think of a black hole's mass with the same term, but I'm nowhere near literate enough with math to tell me why that is so terribly pedestrian and offensive to someone who knows math and could comprehend what I actually mean.

 

No I think you're right at the top of the rabit hole, just about the take the tumble. Erm, that means I think you're on track.

I have some thoughts on which we should make but my brain is fried for tonight. Hopefully I'll find the energy later.

 

There are different definitions of "decide". I decide as in make a decision towards action. Or I decide as in make a conlusion about something. When I made the statement, "reality is the authority", I might have been unclear. What I meant was that perception is subject to reality while reality is not subject to perception. The point is, the observer is not an authority. The observer does not decide reality exists. The observer only observes and conlcudes that reality exists.

Because the observer can only make emperical conclusions about reality, everything being observed has no dependence on the observer. I can make that statement on the basis of my own observation/perception of reality. In my observation, any conclusion an observer makes and states, including this statement, is based on the observers perception of reality, and in itself holds no influence on reality. This conclusion/statement is just an observation based on what the observer (me) is capable of sensing. My conclusion that reality exists whether or not I or anybody else exists is also based on what the observer is capable of sensing.

You mention that it is a circle that ends in faith. The only reason you would put it that way is if you initially assumed that faith had nothing to do with it in the first place. In a sense, it begins with faith. I have always stated that an individual cannot chose their belief. My belief that there is a computer in front of me is not a choice.

A belief is an individual's certainty about a claim as true. You don't need to insert the phrase "I believe" before a statement of truth. If you do, it is purely rhetorical. The reason is that regardless of what statement you make, your certainty about a claim is your own belief about it. Belief does not imply uncertainty (as many atheists tend to assume), but an individual's absolute certainty.

When I say there is "there is a computer in front of me", I don't have to insert the phrase "I believe". But I can if I want to depending on the rhetoric I am using at the moment. The same goes for beieving in God.
-A certainty about a computer in front of me is a belief that there is a computer in front of me.
-A certainty that God exists is a belief that God exists.
A certainty that God does not exist is a belief that God does not exist.

When somebody makes the statement, "I believe that God does not exist, but I am open to God's existence if proper proof is presented", the second part is rhetorical. A belief is not a choice. A belief is one's absolute certainty about something. When one makes the statement, "I believe that God does not exist", there is no doubt that the individual is certain that God does not exist. The statement, "I am open to God's existence if proper proof is presented" is unecessary to make.

When you are certain about a claim, it does not mean you are not open to conluding with certainty that the claim is false. This is part of why I, and most people who understand logic and rhetoric, consider those strong/weak definitions of atheism to be rediculous.

Consider the following statements:
1. "I am absolutely certain this computer exists."
Same thing, but not necessary to say. -> It is my firm belief that this computer exists, but I am open proof that it does not.

2. "I am absolutely certain this computer does not exist."
Same thing, but not necessary to say. -> It is my firm belief that this computer does not exists, but I am open proof that it does.

In terms of God, simply replace "this computer" with "God".


This is why it makes no sense whenever I insert the phrase "I believe", doltards come running into the discussion with "Look. CS said 'I believe'. That means he is not certain about so and so."
Belief does not imply uncertainty. Belief implies an indvidual's certainty.

As for metalogical concepts such as infinity and paradoxes, for example. One can understand what infinity means, and one can identify a paradox. However, because of the human brain's logical limits, the such concepts cannot be rationalized. The brain is limited by logic. Anything beyond logic cannot be rationalized by the brain.

Logic is the fundamental assumption. Everything we discuss, and every truth we are certain of is based on the assumption that logic is valid. Thus, when I make a statement of truth, I do not need to insert the phrase "Within the scope of logic."
"Within the scope of logic, reality exists independently of anybody's observation of it."

In every discussion and every statement made, we do not need to inform other parties that we are dealing within the scope of logic. It is the fundamental assumption. People even assume logic without ever even questioning the fact that they are doing so. Most people have lived their whole life assuming logic without questioning whether or not it is safe to do so. This is fine because it is tpically safe to assume logic, and absolutely necessary for produtive human discussion to assume logic. Everything stated in this entire post is based on the assumption of logic even though I did not need to mention it. Just like I don't need to mention that I am certain about everything I stated.

 

AMEN.

 

If it is not, then nothing else is. Or the word real loses any meaning since meaning must refer back to what is experienced. Hard, red, lasting, connected...if we ascribe qualities to anything, they refer back to experience. Of course it all gets rather complicated when one extrapolates from experience that is real. Its realness may not be helpful in determining other kinds of experiences. We analyze experience and then make guesses or intuit or empirically predict other experiences and find that some experience is misleading about these other predicted experiences. But this does not take away from the primary reality of experience. To say experience is not real would be to say that it never happened. That experience never took place. Which is different from saying that it was indeed Elvis who stole Mrs. Elwood's cat.

 

All that can be known is via 'how we feel about ...'.





So all that can be known is what is felt.





So all thought has some form of emotional attachment.









So knowledge is encoded emotion.

 

1+1=2
I'm not sure what emotions that stirs within me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Cool.

You're right, that is a contradiction of terms if you ignore the stated (albeit perhaps not obvious enough) change of context. Please understand I'm trying to put this all in terms of "to how it can be related from a perspective" for the following reasons:

The existence of reality can only be conveyed from a perspective.

That reality exists depends on a perspective only in the above, but since the notion "to exist" is dependent upon that perspective to be applied...

its application can only apply in that context.

If it is not, I think of that stuff as "just is" (part of 'the tao') whereas if it is applied I think of it as "is" at least to the perspective applying it.

Scientifically, the existence of reality can only be established within a confidence interval that is of course only valid within the model used to establish it.

Within the context of a perspective though, accepting the existence of reality is an act of 'feeling it', which is generally rather powerful and convincing it would seem.

From "no perspective" it's not even really fair to say "stuff just is" because there is no perspective to make the claim (to acknowledge what exists).

From "a perspective", stuff that is 'known' or believed is, and stuff that isn't is simply undefined.

With consideration to perspective, I think it is indeed a property. For instance there is a ton of stuff in your life that simply doesn't exist to me. It's not real. It's not even fantasy. It's not even "not". It's just undefined blah, and vice versa. As I see it, the proclamation "this exists" includes an implicit to whom that is generally ignored to grease cooperation.

No I mean like a system. Logic is a transform as I see it. You plug stuff into it and get stuff out of it. The transform includes mechanics like operators 'and' and 'not' and such. With no input, the transform is useless. You plug in what you believe and see how the tranform alters it to see what else might seem worth believing.

Yes, but with consideration also that we accept our definitions. We could arbirarily assign them and then reject them as invalid at our whim. A <> A because I don't feel like it, fuck you. That's the power of the mind. In that mind, it's quite possible that it really doesn't. A = pink bitches. Take that! I'm just sayin, the rules can be accepted or rejected 'arbitrarily', as is convenient or necessary to the mind undertaking the evaluation. That A=A is only valid if accepted. I'd hypothesize that some people would rather bash in a skull than accept something like that.

But infinity is well-defined and fairly easily relateable or I wouldn't understand what you meant. I comprehend the term quite easily as I'm sure you do.

The mass of a black hole is so great is rips apart space-time, yet is has a measurable mass. Locally, the black hole is effectively infinite, once inside the event horizon at least. From outside it, it can be measured.

I think it holds from the perspective of the life in question.

To me it does. You kill a man, you take away all he is, all he was, and all he ever could have been. Is, was, could be. To me, that's a continuum of sorts, at least from the perspective in question.

Perspective exists 'in the moment'. That moment never ends because when it does - subjectively there is no more moment to be and before it was, there were no moments.

Indeed.

 

Not even boredom? Lol.

Well, think more mechanically. Search your feelings luke. It's probably really, really small so much as to miss it because it's obvious and has been repeated to you by everyone including you over and over and over. But it is habit.

Think rather, what emotion do you feel were I to challenge you that your claim isn't true?

I think that reveals the emotions, or perhaps the inverse emotions or something that hold your belief in place.

 

no
not even boredom

 

1+1=2

if it is 'self-evident', why?

to what is it self-evident? where is this evidence established? on what authority? why should it be accepted?

if it is because of the definition of its elements, why should I accept them? why should I? on what authority?

every single possible answer I can derive that is perfectly honest, to me is emotionally founded in persistence of self and the subjective utility established to aid in and as a consequence of former instances of that task. Some form of emotion is persistent in all humans at all moments, even if its 'cold and distanced'.

 

goddamnit somehow my edit go lost.

I went on to say something like: (except i think i worded it more keenly the first time)


to find out what emotions are bonding that 'fact' in place, consider what would happen were I to incessently deny its truth. I think that exposes them, or their complement or something. or maybe think about how you'd feel if you experienced evidence that made you suspect it isn't true for whatever reason.


Then again, I was just kind of dicking around with a half-thought when I typed that.

I do often think of thought as encoded emotion though, when trying to understand thought. It seems like an over-arching organization principle, like something that plays a large role in establishing context (for memories, beliefs, reaction to current stimulous, etc.), which in turn establishes how thought itself proceeds from whatever its current state.

 

I agree that our brain is a filter for actual reality.
What people have to keep in mind is the very narrow range of perception our senses have. We only see a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, (the colors we do see are just perceptions, color blindness doesnt really exist), are audio range is very limited, etc....

 

Any of that stuff to myles make sense to you Simon?