Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mhc · 03-26-2003, 06:50 AM

Very interesting.
I think that an inquiry into realtivism is both an epistemological and a metaphysical question.
It seems the idea that there is a reality out there that we can't fully know, or that our knowledge has always fallen short of, means that ideas about reality are more real than our experience of it.
What is this "reality" against which we must compare our ideas to check for correspondence and, therefore, truth? Your post would indicate that it is not what we experience, but what we think or reason it to be.
But if reality is not what we experience of it, but rather is what we think of it, and our human ideas are variable and imperfect, doesn't that make reality itself relative to the individual?

Keith Russell · 03-26-2003, 06:57 AM

mhc said:
But if reality is not what we experience of it, but rather is what we think of it, and our human ideas are variable and imperfect, doesn't that make reality itself relative to the individual?

Not really. Our ideas are not separate from reality, they are part of reality. Reality (including our ideas about reality, whether those ideas accurately correspond to reality or not) remains what it is, and is only what it is.

Keith.

mhc · 03-26-2003, 07:07 AM

OK,

But what does it mean that reality remains what it is and only what it is? That's a non-informational tautology like A=A.
Are you saying that reality is one static thing that cannot change?

Keith Russell · 03-26-2003, 07:17 AM

mhc, no.

Reality constantly changes, apparently even at the sub-subatomic level.

I'm saying that, no matter how it changes, it's still reality.

The idea of a unicorn is real, it's simply not 'real' in the sense that a person who believes in unicorns thinks its real.

The idea is not the thing to which it refers, but--whether the idea accurately corresponds to another entity or not--the idea is real.

The idea of unicorns is real; unicorns, however, aren't.

Keith.

John Page · 03-26-2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
It seems the communication problem lies with the difference between what is perceived and what is. Would you agree that in order for something to be perceived and interpreted, it must first exist independently of both perception and interpretation?

Yes. Not "it" but "something" (minor quibble I may need to lean on later).

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
While perception and interpretation are relative to the individual, the thing being perceived and interpreted is not.

This is an assumption. It seems we do inhabit a "common external reality" because we can share information about that reality and see that our observations tally. However, this does not remove the observation that the things comprising "external reality" are in a state of flux.

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
Absolute truth merely means that there are black and white answers.

One man's fish is another man's poison. Sorry to be a little obscure here, but please provide a black and white definition of "absolute truth".

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
Mr. Page, how can non-relativistic claims be flawed? In what manner are they flawed exactly? And can you give an example of an unflawed relativistic claim?

1. Because there are no absolutes on which to base them. 2. Because they assume or imply that there are absolutes. 3. No, because relativism is not predicated on absolutes.

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
It is as forgone a conclusion as any logical law

This was a response to one of mhc's observations, and to which I think he has replied.

Cheers, John

mhc · 03-26-2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

A thing must exist before it is perceived

Without consciousness, (which includes, of course, perception)
how could anything exist?
Not to say that nothing can exist until *I* see it, but isn't being or existence dependent on there being at least one consciousness in the universe?

Keith Russell · 03-26-2003, 10:02 AM

mhc, I've never seen, heard, or read any evidence that suggests that there must be a consciousness in order for the universe to exist.

I've heard claims, but no one has presented me with any valid, non-contradictory, independently verifiable evidence.

Given that, I'd say 'no'.

Keith.

long winded fool · 03-26-2003, 10:04 AM

This is an assumption. It seems we do inhabit a "common external reality" because we can share information about that reality and see that our observations tally. However, this does not remove the observation that the things comprising "external reality" are in a state of flux.

I agree that this is an assumption. I feel it is the only logical assumption. Assuming anything else in my opinion is like speculating on something existing outside of space and time. (Where the word existence is utterly dependent on both space and time.) If logic defies itself and this is a possibility, we'll never know it, and we certainly can't know it now. Assuming external reality is relative is a useless assumption because it defies all human experience. Assuming external reality is absolute is just as much of an assumption, but because it fits with human experience, it allows us to progress logically. Therefore, assuming the second is more logical than assuming the first.

I do not observe external reality as being in a state of flux, at least not in the relativistic sense. At a given time in a given space, there is an absolute external reality. As time progresses, existing things change forms, however the rules that govern this have not been observed to change. We keep coming up with new scientific theories not because reality is fluctuating, but because we are getting better able to describe an assumed static reality with each new theory. The fact that no living dinosaurs exist does not contradict the fact that living dinosaurs once existed. In fact, the matter that made up the dinosaurs still exists; it just no longer forms a living reptile. While the matter that exists in reality is in a constant state of change, the rules that govern the relationship of matter with reality are absolute. Proving localized* changes in the laws that govern reality would be on par with proving divine intervention. How can something be proven supernatural? Observed "miracles" are assumed to be natural, but at the moment unidentified, phenomena by any logical person. Even things no one fully understands like black holes are assumed to work according to set rules. It is logical to assume that singularities have specific properties which, if they didn't have, couldn't be singularities. What are those properties? I don't know. My opinion is as relative as the next man's (probably less relative

) but rest assured they are absolutely there!

*Any absolute change in the rules would be completely undetectable by any matter within the reality and assuming there was a change would be a notion devoid of logic.

long winded fool · 03-26-2003, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mhc
Without consciousness, (which includes, of course, perception)
how could anything exist?
Not to say that nothing can exist until *I* see it, but isn't being or existence dependent on there being at least one consciousness in the universe?

The word existence implies a state of being bounded in space and time, however the state to which the word existence applies does not need to be understood by a consciousness to be a part of reality. Only the word "existence" needs consciousness to exist.

Like Keith, until there is any verifiable evidence to the contrary, I must logically assume that "existence" refers to a state not dependent on consciousness.

mhc · 03-26-2003, 10:20 AM

Keith,

I have no closely held ideas one way or the other, but it seems to me that it is logically impossible to imagine (construct a mental picture) of a universe without consciousness, because of course *your* consciousness must be postulated in that universe in order to even imagine it. One is left with a big black wall of nothingness, so to speak.
One is tempted to say, "Well, behind that wall there is *something*, whether I can know it or not!"
But --
in order to make such a claim you must be able to imagine that such is the case, and that is the very thing you cannot do.
hmmmm.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2003, 06:50 AM	#91
mhc Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CA Posts: 124	Very interesting. I think that an inquiry into realtivism is both an epistemological and a metaphysical question. It seems the idea that there is a reality out there that we can't fully know, or that our knowledge has always fallen short of, means that ideas about reality are more real than our experience of it. What is this "reality" against which we must compare our ideas to check for correspondence and, therefore, truth? Your post would indicate that it is not what we experience, but what we think or reason it to be. But if reality is not what we experience of it, but rather is what we think of it, and our human ideas are variable and imperfect, doesn't that make reality itself relative to the individual?

03-26-2003, 06:57 AM	#92
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	mhc said: But if reality is not what we experience of it, but rather is what we think of it, and our human ideas are variable and imperfect, doesn't that make reality itself relative to the individual? Not really. Our ideas are not separate from reality, they are part of reality. Reality (including our ideas about reality, whether those ideas accurately correspond to reality or not) remains what it is, and is only what it is. Keith.

03-26-2003, 07:07 AM	#93
mhc Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CA Posts: 124	OK, But what does it mean that reality remains what it is and only what it is? That's a non-informational tautology like A=A. Are you saying that reality is one static thing that cannot change?

03-26-2003, 07:17 AM	#94
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	mhc, no. Reality constantly changes, apparently even at the sub-subatomic level. I'm saying that, no matter how it changes, it's still reality. The idea of a unicorn is real, it's simply not 'real' in the sense that a person who believes in unicorns thinks its real. The idea is not the thing to which it refers, but--whether the idea accurately corresponds to another entity or not--the idea is real. The idea of unicorns is real; unicorns, however, aren't. Keith.

03-26-2003, 10:02 AM	#97
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	mhc, I've never seen, heard, or read any evidence that suggests that there must be a consciousness in order for the universe to exist. I've heard claims, but no one has presented me with any valid, non-contradictory, independently verifiable evidence. Given that, I'd say 'no'. Keith.

03-26-2003, 10:04 AM	#98
long winded fool Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,113	This is an assumption. It seems we do inhabit a "common external reality" because we can share information about that reality and see that our observations tally. However, this does not remove the observation that the things comprising "external reality" are in a state of flux. I agree that this is an assumption. I feel it is the only logical assumption. Assuming anything else in my opinion is like speculating on something existing outside of space and time. (Where the word existence is utterly dependent on both space and time.) If logic defies itself and this is a possibility, we'll never know it, and we certainly can't know it now. Assuming external reality is relative is a useless assumption because it defies all human experience. Assuming external reality is absolute is just as much of an assumption, but because it fits with human experience, it allows us to progress logically. Therefore, assuming the second is more logical than assuming the first. I do not observe external reality as being in a state of flux, at least not in the relativistic sense. At a given time in a given space, there is an absolute external reality. As time progresses, existing things change forms, however the rules that govern this have not been observed to change. We keep coming up with new scientific theories not because reality is fluctuating, but because we are getting better able to describe an assumed static reality with each new theory. The fact that no living dinosaurs exist does not contradict the fact that living dinosaurs once existed. In fact, the matter that made up the dinosaurs still exists; it just no longer forms a living reptile. While the matter that exists in reality is in a constant state of change, the rules that govern the relationship of matter with reality are absolute. Proving localized* changes in the laws that govern reality would be on par with proving divine intervention. How can something be proven supernatural? Observed "miracles" are assumed to be natural, but at the moment unidentified, phenomena by any logical person. Even things no one fully understands like black holes are assumed to work according to set rules. It is logical to assume that singularities have specific properties which, if they didn't have, couldn't be singularities. What are those properties? I don't know. My opinion is as relative as the next man's (probably less relative ) but rest assured they are absolutely there! Any absolute* change in the rules would be completely undetectable by any matter within the reality and assuming there was a change would be a notion devoid of logic.

03-26-2003, 10:20 AM	#100
mhc Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CA Posts: 124	Keith, I have no closely held ideas one way or the other, but it seems to me that it is logically impossible to imagine (construct a mental picture) of a universe without consciousness, because of course your consciousness must be postulated in that universe in order to even imagine it. One is left with a big black wall of nothingness, so to speak. One is tempted to say, "Well, behind that wall there is something, whether I can know it or not!" But -- in order to make such a claim you must be able to imagine that such is the case, and that is the very thing you cannot do. hmmmm.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.