Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
UM-Debate-Bot

The Nature of Reality

64 posts in this topic

Thank you, BM. But there was one detail... I did not do any home work at all, as it cost me no effort to express what Reality is because I really think this way, I was taught to think like that when I was doing my degree. Anyone working in Science must think this way, otherwise it becomes impossible to work with Objective Reality and study it. This was actually my premise in the previous discussion about the possibility of religious people to work in Science. In my view they cannot professionally study Objective Reality because they do not fully understand what it is and confuse it with their own Subjective Reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by alexplatups:

and are moving toward creating something that is important to you...for example when Picasso was creating his art...

I love Picasso. He illustrates how mind creates reality.

There is a story about how his friend says, "Hey Picasso, I hear you're an artist now. Paint a picture of me."

So Picasso paints a picture of his friend. And of course, since he is Picasso, he draws his friend to look something like this:

linked-image

See picture above

So his friend says, "No, no. I asked you to draw a picture of ME."

Picasso replies, "Yes, that's what I did."

Friend: "But I don't look like that."

Picasso is very confused. "But you DO look like that. You look EXACTLY like that ... to me."

His perception creates his reality. Same goes for all of us. Our reality can never be other than what we perceive it to be.

And that is what .... Alex Platups .... cannot grasp. Alex sees reality one way, and that is the only way he can see it, and if people say that they see reality another way, Alex believes that they must be lying, or insane, or escaping reality, or believing in bull.

Actually if everyone in the world saw reality the way Alex Platups does, then everyone in the world would be Alex Platupses. There could not possibly be a Picasso ... or an Einstein ... or a Jesus ... or a Gandhi ... or an Obama .... or a Usain Bolt ... or a Kahlil Gibran ... or a Steven Spielberg .... or a Steve Pavlina ... or a Newton Forte.

There can only be .... Alex.

http://open.salon.com/blog/newfort/2009/04...eality_-_part_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted by alexplatups:

and are moving toward creating something that is important to you...for example when Picasso was creating his art...

I love Picasso. He illustrates how mind creates reality.

There is a story about how his friend says, "Hey Picasso, I hear you're an artist now. Paint a picture of me."

So Picasso paints a picture of his friend. And of course, since he is Picasso, he draws his friend to look something like this:

linked-image

See picture above

So his friend says, "No, no. I asked you to draw a picture of ME."

Picasso replies, "Yes, that's what I did."

Friend: "But I don't look like that."

Picasso is very confused. "But you DO look like that. You look EXACTLY like that ... to me."

His perception creates his reality. Same goes for all of us. Our reality can never be other than what we perceive it to be.

And that is what .... Alex Platups .... cannot grasp. Alex sees reality one way, and that is the only way he can see it, and if people say that they see reality another way, Alex believes that they must be lying, or insane, or escaping reality, or believing in bull.

Actually if everyone in the world saw reality the way Alex Platups does, then everyone in the world would be Alex Platupses. There could not possibly be a Picasso ... or an Einstein ... or a Jesus ... or a Gandhi ... or an Obama .... or a Usain Bolt ... or a Kahlil Gibran ... or a Steven Spielberg .... or a Steve Pavlina ... or a Newton Forte.

There can only be .... Alex.

http://open.salon.com/blog/newfort/2009/04...eality_-_part_1

this is very tru IMO if we are talking subjective reality, but in an objective frame the realty exists whether we beleive in it or not or percieve it or not or agree with it or not...

it just is..

i think pregnancy is a good analogy for this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is very tru IMO if we are talking subjective reality, but in an objective frame the realty exists whether we beleive in it or not or percieve it or not or agree with it or not...

it just is..

i think pregnancy is a good analogy for this...

of course the painting is Objective but the image on it is Subjective. Moreover it is created by the artist, different people also would perceive it differently. Picture itself is just a framed canvas with some metal oxides glued to it, and it is our Subjective realities which make it a masterpiece. If Picasso managed to make a son like that, then this would've been Objective - but for this he needed not to paint but to spend a year living and sleeping in the reactor room in some power station :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course the painting is Objective but the image on it is Subjective. Moreover it is created by the artist, different people also would perceive it differently. Picture itself is just a framed canvas with some metal oxides glued to it, and it is our Subjective realities which make it a masterpiece. If Picasso managed to make a son like that, then this would've been Objective - but for this he needed not to paint but to spend a year living and sleeping in the reactor room in some power station :)

lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks these two were debating about two different subjects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one that thinks these two were debating about two different subjects?

No - you are not alone. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course the painting is Objective but the image on it is Subjective. Moreover it is created by the artist, different people also would perceive it differently. Picture itself is just a framed canvas with some metal oxides glued to it, and it is our Subjective realities which make it a masterpiece. If Picasso managed to make a son like that, then this would've been Objective - but for this he needed not to paint but to spend a year living and sleeping in the reactor room in some power station :)

very well said ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

of course the painting is Objective but the image on it is Subjective. Moreover it is created by the artist, different people also would perceive it differently. Picture itself is just a framed canvas with some metal oxides glued to it, and it is our Subjective realities which make it a masterpiece. If Picasso managed to make a son like that, then this would've been Objective - but for this he needed not to paint but to spend a year living and sleeping in the reactor room in some power station :)

Each image observed by an observer is subjective, Marabod but, taken as a whole, the set of all images that a painting represents to all the observers has an objective identity. This is the nature of reality - that it is subjective only for an individual observer, but the set of reality for all observers has an objective existence. What we cannot determine is whether this objective reality is identical in the absolute sense among all observers (in fact, we cannot determine the full set of objective reality, but we philosophically know it exists) - i.e. that each subjective experience is the same subjective experience.

Good debate, though. I'd like to thank both you and PerVirtuous for the thought and expression you put into it.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Each image observed by an observer is subjective, Marabod but, taken as a whole, the set of all images that a painting represents to all the observers has an objective identity. This is the nature of reality - that it is subjective only for an individual observer, but the set of reality for all observers has an objective existence. What we cannot determine is whether this objective reality is identical in the absolute sense among all observers (in fact, we cannot determine the full set of objective reality, but we philosophically know it exists) - i.e. that each subjective experience is the same subjective experience.

Good debate, though. I'd like to thank both you and PerVirtuous for the thought and expression you put into it.

I would disagree! Leonardo - if I type this message in response to yours, in English but using ancient Phoenician alphabet instead of the Latin one, the message would objectively exist, and you would subjectively observe it - but this your observation would not subjectively result in the transfer of its sense. Absolutely the same is with the arts - to appreciate them, observers must speak the "same language" with the author, and this "language" is something we create ourselves only for ourselves and those close to us, i.e. it is only shared by a certain group of Observers and belongs to their synchronized Subjective perceptions. For the Image to be appreciated, it must be perceived by our eyesight and trigger certain subjective emotional reactions - while the ability to see is common for all Observers, these triggered emotions belong to only their Subjective Reality, and in some Observers may be not triggered at all. Some appreciate Picasso - some see his paintings as a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would disagree! Leonardo - if I type this message in response to yours, in English but using ancient Phoenician alphabet instead of the Latin one, the message would objectively exist, and you would subjectively observe it - but this your observation would not subjectively result in the transfer of its sense. Absolutely the same is with the arts - to appreciate them, observers must speak the "same language" with the author, and this "language" is something we create ourselves only for ourselves and those close to us, i.e. it is only shared by a certain group of Observers and belongs to their synchronized Subjective perceptions. For the Image to be appreciated, it must be perceived by our eyesight and trigger certain subjective emotional reactions - while the ability to see is common for all Observers, these triggered emotions belong to only their Subjective Reality, and in some Observers may be not triggered at all. Some appreciate Picasso - some see his paintings as a joke.

If you replied in Phoenician and I did not understand it then why would this affect the actual set of meanings in the objective reality of your reply? Using your Picasso analogy - any sensory response to an experience is a valid response in the set of reality, even if that response is non-comprehension or non-'appreciation'. That I might not understand what you write, or that someone sees a Picasso as crude or unsophisticated is irrelevant in that both responses are valid within the greater reality.

If I use the word 'wear' in a sentence, what meaning of the word am I using? You can ascertain that (in a specific instance) through context, of course, but the fact the word has several meanings means the objective reality of the word encompasses all those meanings - just as the objective reality of existence encompassess all subjective experiences of it.

No instance of a subjective reality defines the set of objective reality, marabod.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you replied in Phoenician and I did not understand it then why would this affect the actual set of meanings in the objective reality of your reply? Using your Picasso analogy - any sensory response to an experience is a valid response in the set of reality, even if that response is non-comprehension or non-'appreciation'. That I might not understand what you write, or that someone sees a Picasso as crude or unsophisticated is irrelevant in that both responses are valid within the greater reality.

If I use the word 'wear' in a sentence, what meaning of the word am I using? You can ascertain that (in a specific instance) through context, of course, but the fact the word has several meanings means the objective reality of the word encompasses all those meanings - just as the objective reality of existence encompassess all subjective experiences of it.

No instance of a subjective reality defines the set of objective reality, marabod.

Leonardo, you did not get it! There is no "meanings" which by themselves exist in Objective Reality. Objective Reality exists independently from the Observers, and "word", "image", meaning", they are all dependent on the Observers. Word objectively exists ONLY as a sound of certain frequencies and certain continuity. It is the Observers which subjectively assign some meaning to it. means, the sense is always Subjective, and the Objective part is only the sound itself. One the same sounds combination in different languages subjectively means absolutely different things. But all Observers are able to distinguish the sound of this word similar way and recognize or even record its frequencies spectrum, and this sound itself would be Objective. Same as all observers would be able to detect the frame and dirty canvas on it, but subjectively only those of them recognize Picasso, who have Picasso already registered in their subjective database.

We, as Observers, have a tool for processing the observed information, which is our Abstract Thinking - capable to assign "sense" to the Objects observed. "Planet" is subjective and does not exist in Objective reality, instead a spherical shape solid Object exists in it, which continuously rotates about some axes of rotation, and the Observers call it with the sounds "PLANET" in their communications. Could well be the sound "BOOMBOOM" assigned to it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Leonardo, you did not get it! There is no "meanings" which by themselves exist in Objective Reality. Objective Reality exists independently from the Observers, and "word", "image", meaning", they are all dependent on the Observers. Word objectively exists ONLY as a sound of certain frequencies and certain continuity. It is the Observers which subjectively assign some meaning to it. means, the sense is always Subjective, and the Objective part is only the sound itself. One the same sounds combination in different languages subjectively means absolutely different things. But all Observers are able to distinguish the sound of this word similar way and recognize or even record its frequencies spectrum, and this sound itself would be Objective. Same as all observers would be able to detect the frame and dirty canvas on it, but subjectively only those of them recognize Picasso, who have Picasso already registered in their subjective database.

We, as Observers, have a tool for processing the observed information, which is our Abstract Thinking - capable to assign "sense" to the Objects observed. "Planet" is subjective and does not exist in Objective reality, instead a spherical shape solid Object exists in it, which continuously rotates about some axes of rotation, and the Observers call it with the sounds "PLANET" in their communications. Could well be the sound "BOOMBOOM" assigned to it...

I disagree that an objective reality probably exists independently of any observer, but I would ask you to clarify what you define as an 'observer'? Is a high energy particle an 'observer' when it collides with (and defines) another particle to initiate a reaction? In modern physics the answer is "Yes". I get the impression that you have a much more specific definition of what constitutes an observer, however.

In a reality in which everything (whether we consider it sentient of not) is an observer there can be no existence of any reality without observation.

The planet you say does not exist as a 'planet' in reality certainly does so, and it exists in all the meanings of 'planet' that any interpreter places upon it. Language does not define existence, it only confers a label on something that exists. But the label itself also has an identity within reality. It is quite illogical to place language and labels as being 'outside reality' when they are as much a part of reality as anything is.

We observe reality from within, marabod, not without and, unless you wish to limit the act of observation to being a human experience, we are not the only observers. Thus everything we are, all the words and thoughts and actions, is a part of that reality. Thus, all the meanings of a word (which are an observation) are a part of the existence of reality. They hold an identity within the sum of all identities that constitute reality. The word 'planet' exists in a very real sense - so do all the meanings of the word 'wear'.

Recognising a painting as being by Picasso is not the argument you put forth initially, marabod, when you implied that the painting has no meaning to an observer who does not share the artists vision of what was painted. The painting has any meaning which an observer wishes to interpret from it - this need not be the meaning of the artists', but it is a valid artistic interpretation nonetheless. All the meanings of all observers of that painting constitutes the 'set' of that painting's reality - not just the meaning of the artist.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree that an objective reality probably exists independently of any observer, but I would ask you to clarify what you define as an 'observer'? Is a high energy particle an 'observer' when it collides with (and defines) another particle to initiate a reaction? In modern physics the answer is "Yes". I get the impression that you have a much more specific definition of what constitutes an observer, however.

In a reality in which everything (whether we consider it sentient of not) is an observer there can be no existence of any reality without observation.

The planet you say does not exist as a 'planet' in reality certainly does so, and it exists in all the meanings of 'planet' that any interpreter places upon it. Language does not define existence, it only confers a label on something that exists. But the label itself also has an identity within reality. It is quite illogical to place language and labels as being 'outside reality' when they are as much a part of reality as anything is.

We observe reality from within, marabod, not without and, unless you wish to limit the act of observation to being a human experience, we are not the only observers. Thus everything we are, all the words and thoughts and actions, is a part of that reality. Thus, all the meanings of a word (which are an observation) are a part of the existence of reality. They hold an identity within the sum of all identities that constitute reality. The word 'planet' exists in a very real sense - so do all the meanings of the word 'wear'.

Recognising a painting as being by Picasso is not the argument you put forth initially, marabod, when you implied that the painting has no meaning to an observer who does not share the artists vision of what was painted. The painting has any meaning which an observer wishes to interpret from it - this need not be the meaning of the artists', but it is a valid artistic interpretation nonetheless. All the meanings of all observers of that painting constitutes the 'set' of that painting's reality - not just the meaning of the artist.

In this post you contradict to yourself several times. But to start with, an Observer is some Entity of Reality which can reflect the Objects and Entities of this Reality. Reflection means detection of them and reaction to them. From this point of view a particle is such Observer with no doubts, however this Observer has no thinking mechanisms, typical for a living Observer, capable to separate oneself from the observed Reality. Particle does not think, it simply reacts by changing its energy status. Living Observers are capable to connect the Entities of Reality into a logical chain, and sometimes to share this logical chain with other Observers.

Observer is not necessarily human, and if you read the debate above, these examples were given - how we can share Reality with non-human Observers. I just do not want to repeat myself. On the point that you disagree "that an objective reality probably exists independently of any observer" I have nothing to say, because the formulation of it suggests you do not know what the word "objective" means. Objective - it is that part of Reality, which exists independently from any Observer, by definition - this is why it is Objective. Saying it does not exist like that, means no sense!

I presume you are an amateur and never had a regular Philosophical education - otherwise this your disagreement could not exist. I am happy to explain for someone who wants to think on the explanation, but to repeat one the same a dozen times makes little sense. Objective=Independent from Observers. All the rest = Subjective. Either - Or.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this post you contradict to yourself several times.

I would appreciate you pointing out my contradictions and explaining why they are so, marabod. I am always interested in increasing my knowledge.

But to start with, an Observer is some Entity of Reality which can reflect the Objects and Entities of this Reality. Reflection means detection of them and reaction to them. From this point of view a particle is such Observer with no doubts, however this Observer has no thinking mechanisms, typical for a living Observer, capable to separate oneself from the observed Reality. Particle does not think, it simply reacts by changing its energy status. Living Observers are capable to connect the Entities of Reality into a logical chain, and sometimes to share this logical chain with other Observers.

Observer is not necessarily human, and if you read the debate above, these examples were given - how we can share Reality with non-human Observers. I just do not want to repeat myself. On the point that you disagree "that an objective reality probably exists independently of any observer" I have nothing to say, because the formulation of it suggests you do not know what the word "objective" means. Objective - it is that part of Reality, which exists independently from any Observer, by definition - this is why it is Objective. Saying it does not exist like that, means no sense!

I presume you are an amateur and never had a regular Philosophical education - otherwise this your disagreement could not exist. I am happy to explain for someone who wants to think on the explanation, but to repeat one the same a dozen times makes little sense. Objective=Independent from Observers. All the rest = Subjective. Either - Or.

As you wish to define what an observer is according to a strict view, which naturally then aligns with a certain definition of Objective Reality (circular reasoning, anyone?) I agree with what you have written.

Within your definition of what constitutes Objective and Subjective, according to the way you have been taught to think philosophically, you are correct.

Does that make my reasoning incorrect, marabod, or simply different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would appreciate you pointing out my contradictions and explaining why they are so, marabod. I am always interested in increasing my knowledge.

As you wish to define what an observer is according to a strict view, which naturally then aligns with a certain definition of Objective Reality (circular reasoning, anyone?) I agree with what you have written.

Within your definition of what constitutes Objective and Subjective, according to the way you have been taught to think philosophically, you are correct.

Does that make my reasoning incorrect, marabod, or simply different?

In your reasoning there is no clear separation between the two forms of Reality. By the way, physically Observers also belong to Objective Reality, it is their observations which belong to their Subjective Realities together with communications methods they establish between each other in order to coordinate their observations. When it defines that OR exists independently from observers, this only means "independently from what they subjectively observe" - for example a snail cannot observe the Moon, but it still exists independently from this snail. Same with ourselves - there is more in Objective Reality than we are able to observe, and there is nothing wrong or mysterious about it. We learn how to observe more and our knowledge of OR expands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to witness it does it make a sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to witness it does it make a sound?

I do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not know.

me neither... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is no, the tree does not make a sound. Sound is the brains interpretation of vibrations in the air. What we can say is the tree falls and creates vibrations in the air, we know this because this is an observed and tested fact. Trees need air to live and when something with a high mass and low air resistance can not support itself gravity will take it in to the earth with great force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer is no, the tree does not make a sound. Sound is the brains interpretation of vibrations in the air. What we can say is the tree falls and creates vibrations in the air, we know this because this is an observed and tested fact. Trees need air to live and when something with a high mass and low air resistance can not support itself gravity will take it in to the earth with great force.

Close - air vibrations are Objective, they exist independently from the observers, and Observers can observe them as sound. But if there is no Observers at the moment of the tree falling, then we do not know if it actually produced any air vibrations or not, as if a tree falls slowly, delayed by some other plants in its way, it may generate no air vibrations at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

this is very tru IMO if we are talking subjective reality, but in an objective frame the realty exists whether we beleive in it or not or percieve it or not or agree with it or not...

it just is..

i think pregnancy is a good analogy for this...

I fail to see how you can seriously consider yourself in a serious discussion to use logic like "it just is". You believe what you want to believe without any concern for accuracy, yet you smugly speak as if you are always right because, "You just are." I fail to see anything worthwhile in such an opinion.

.

Edited by PerVirtuous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you, BM. But there was one detail... I did not do any home work at all, as it cost me no effort to express what Reality is because I really think this way, I was taught to think like that when I was doing my degree. Anyone working in Science must think this way, otherwise it becomes impossible to work with Objective Reality and study it. This was actually my premise in the previous discussion about the possibility of religious people to work in Science. In my view they cannot professionally study Objective Reality because they do not fully understand what it is and confuse it with their own Subjective Reality.

Bertrand Russell said:

I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.

- Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays

To say that Sherri and some other folks agree with you does not make that agreement objective reality. Until you provide a grounds for supposing reality to be true, you are simply indulging in what Russell calls "undesirable belief". You may fool yourself into it being a self evident thing, "it just is" but no philosopher or scientist has ever been able to make such a case. Scientists take it on faith alone, which is why science is a belief system.

.

Edited by PerVirtuous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer is no, the tree does not make a sound. Sound is the brains interpretation of vibrations in the air. What we can say is the tree falls and creates vibrations in the air, we know this because this is an observed and tested fact. Trees need air to live and when something with a high mass and low air resistance can not support itself gravity will take it in to the earth with great force.

There will be something there to hear it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bertrand Russell said:

I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.

- Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays

To say that Sherri and some other folks agree with you does not make that agreement objective reality. Until you provide a grounds for supposing reality to be true, you are simply indulging in what Russell calls "undesirable belief". You may fool yourself into it being a self evident thing, "it just is" but no philosopher or scientist has ever been able to make such a case. Scientists take it on faith alone, which is why science is a belief system.

If I follow your teaching, then I can subjectively discard any objective evidence you are able to present - this includes the quote which you use to support your position, as according to you Bertrand Russel is entirely a fruit of your imagination and never existed objectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.