Thread: What is a fact II

Originally Posted by Swensson

Explaining, proving, determining, are all things of the mind, that much, I believe, we agree on. However, I see no reason to believe that reality is also confined into these little minds of ours. If there were no minds about, there could be no explaining or proving, but there could be rocks.

...That's what thought experiments are. Schrödinger's cat is not a statement that cats are evil and need to be put in boxes wired up to potentially lethal equipment.

Uhm, it says "whether or not it is observable or comprehensible", ie, regardless of its observability status, meaning that God's existence should not be affected by his comprehensibility or observability. Didn't it occur to you that you might have misinterpreted what I said when you got to the conclusion that "if I can't prove it, it must exist"?

Possibly. I like to think that a lot of meaningless discussion can be avoided if I don't have drag everything out of you piece by piece.

I guess you could say so. Some might not admit to him existing as more than a character in a book and there can be other distinctions but yeah, that's what the word "is" means.

I believe you have said that "things" are "all illusions", no question marks present.

I don't believe that the world is further than the physical realm (but depending on definitions, primarily of "world", the phrasing of my beliefs can change) but I'm certainly no one to claim either or for sure, just as little as you are to state that they are all illusions. I might very well have said something along those lines earlier in the thread, because I didn't think that was the issue of the questions.

I did not equate mind and brain, I noticed from earlier that you had stored memory not necessarily as a part of the mind, but they are still in the brain, so that's why I used the different words.

Let me ask what you think instead. If reality is a part of the mind, is there a distinction between the part of reality you have access to, thoughts, memories (to some extent) and the rest of reality which you might not know about?

I strive towards being the most beautiful man on earth, but that doesn't mean I actually try to achieve being the most beautiful man on earth because I know I have no shot at that. I can strive towards it, though, and become a little more beautiful.

We can't tell whether or not we are close to achieving this or that, but we can make decent estimations of whether we're getting closer. Of course, that is on a more practical scale than solipsism, but for most purposes, that's more than enough.

Thought experiments can include things outside of the subject at had. The thought behind Schrödinger's cat had nothing to do with cats, but one was used mentally to imagine the situation.

I am only going to address one point that you mentioned above, as I feel it to be the most important issue in your writing.

At the highlighted text above you indicate that you believe that I am making a declarative statement.
Please explain who the following questions can be construed as a declaration. "Ever stop to think that your perception might be in error? Ever stop to think that all of this 'reality' is just an illusion?" You might truly want to check out the differences in definitions that draw distinction from "question" and "declaration".

Sorry for some inactivity, been busy again.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

I am only going to address one point that you mentioned above, as I feel it to be the most important issue in your writing.

At the highlighted text above you indicate that you believe that I am making a declarative statement.
Please explain who the following questions can be construed as a declaration. "Ever stop to think that your perception might be in error? Ever stop to think that all of this 'reality' is just an illusion?" You might truly want to check out the differences in definitions that draw distinction from "question" and "declaration".

We've got nine pages of thread here, I'm pretty certain you've written more than two questions.

This is the part I refer to

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Originally Posted by Herby

Could you give me examples of things that you are certain are not creatures of the mind of man.

They are all illusions and take on the manifestation that our mind will allow.

I referred to it in this sentence:

Originally Posted by Swensson

It would still, by definition, be reality. Nobody knows the exact nature of reality, and it's quite possible that it won't translate well into human understanding, but by making that claim, [...]

where I don't refer to any claim in the quote, I refer to either knowing things about the nature of reality or whether or not it would translate well into human understanding.

As for the questions, they have the same answer as many others I have answered, my perception does indeed make many mistakes, but that has no bearing on the things I perceive, and therefore (unless I can subconsciously alter reality) no bearing on anything "real".

Originally Posted by Swensson

Sorry for some inactivity, been busy again.

We've got nine pages of thread here, I'm pretty certain you've written more than two questions.

This is the part I refer to



I referred to it in this sentence:


where I don't refer to any claim in the quote, I refer to either knowing things about the nature of reality or whether or not it would translate well into human understanding.

As for the questions, they have the same answer as many others I have answered, my perception does indeed make many mistakes, but that has no bearing on the things I perceive, and therefore (unless I can subconsciously alter reality) no bearing on anything "real".

All of which bears again on the question of 'what is real'? The nature of realness cannot be contemplated without perception, and if perception (as you have admitted can be in error), then: is there any realness IF the perception of 'real' is prone to be in error? Perception is subjective and has nothing to do with objective other than through the perception. So, if you perceive something and that something, due to potential error in perception, is in error, then where is the 'real' nature of that thing perceived?

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

All of which bears again on the question of 'what is real'? The nature of realness cannot be contemplated without perception, and if perception (as you have admitted can be in error), then: is there any realness IF the perception of 'real' is prone to be in error? Perception is subjective and has nothing to do with objective other than through the perception. So, if you perceive something and that something, due to potential error in perception, is in error, then where is the 'real' nature of that thing perceived?

Is there any realness if the perception of 'real' is prone to be in error? Sure there can be a realness. Do you have any reason to believe that things need to be perceived to be real? As you say, "Perception is subjective and has nothing to do with objective other than through the perception", but I haven't been arguing that what you can see is objective, I've been arguing that reality is what it is regardless of how we perceive it, as dictated by the definition of reality.

Originally Posted by Swensson

Is there any realness if the perception of 'real' is prone to be in error? Sure there can be a realness. Do you have any reason to believe that things need to be perceived to be real? As you say, "Perception is subjective and has nothing to do with objective other than through the perception", but I haven't been arguing that what you can see is objective, I've been arguing that reality is what it is regardless of how we perceive it, as dictated by the definition of reality.

Which specific definition of 'reality' are you referring to:
"re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality."

As for the "reason to believe that things need to be perceived to be real". Being that you have taken a notice of the import of definitions of words, let us look at the word 'perception' and its definitions:

"per·cep·tion (pr-spshn)
n.
1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology
a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.
4.
a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
b. The capacity for such insight"

Thank you for acknowledging that such things as 'intuition' are a means of 'perceiving' and as a source for such other things as 'memory' and knowledge.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Which specific definition of 'reality' are you referring to:
"re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality."

And and/or all, I think. None of the definitions require or even imply perception. The underlined part even specifies that observation does not need to line up with reality.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

As for the "reason to believe that things need to be perceived to be real". Being that you have taken a notice of the import of definitions of words, let us look at the word 'perception' and its definitions:

"per·cep·tion (pr-spshn)
n.
1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology
a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.
4.
a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
b. The capacity for such insight"

Thank you for acknowledging that such things as 'intuition' are a means of 'perceiving' and as a source for such other things as 'memory' and knowledge.

I still don't have a particular problem with you claiming that intuition is a form of perception. I don't see any necessary link between perception and reality, though.

Originally Posted by Swensson

And and/or all, I think. None of the definitions require or even imply perception. The underlined part even specifies that observation does not need to line up with reality.

Did you perhaps overlook the use of the words " 3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence." Pay particular attention to that word "totality". Because I am a part of this 'reality' (as perceived by many), then the totality of my being would include my perceptions as well as the perceptions of all who are within this 'reality'. Words are important when conveying a message, but one must pay close attention to the words that have been used less he/she miss an important issue. Another neat word that was used is "essence". Check it out real close in the dictionary.

"es·sence (sns)
n.
1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.
4.
a. An extract that has the fundamental properties of a substance in concentrated form.
b. Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
c. A perfume or scent.
5. One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if highly concentrated: a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
6. Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity."

Notice how 'spiritual' and 'incorporeal' are placed on a level playing field?

Originally Posted by Swensson

I still don't have a particular problem with you claiming that intuition is a form of perception. I don't see any necessary link between perception and reality, though.

Then meet the challenge of presenting any one item that can exist in reality without the aid of perception.

Originally Posted by Swensson

I still don't have a particular problem with you claiming that intuition is a form of perception. I don't see any necessary link between perception and reality, though.

Truth is the image in one's head of the actual ever unfolding Reality that nurtures us and traps us.

Our perception of something else that does not correspond one-to-one with Reality is a lie or personal Fantasy.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Did you perhaps overlook the use of the words " 3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence." Pay particular attention to that word "totality". Because I am a part of this 'reality' (as perceived by many), then the totality of my being would include my perceptions as well as the perceptions of all who are within this 'reality'. Words are important when conveying a message, but one must pay close attention to the words that have been used less he/she miss an important issue. Another neat word that was used is "essence". Check it out real close in the dictionary.

"es·sence (sns)
n.
1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.
4.
a. An extract that has the fundamental properties of a substance in concentrated form.
b. Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
c. A perfume or scent.
5. One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if highly concentrated: a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
6. Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity."

Notice how 'spiritual' and 'incorporeal' are placed on a level playing field?

There are many definitions that include words which have different definitions, some of which do not apply. For instance, you wouldn't say that definition 4c above fits in the wording, do you? I find it more likely that definitions 1-3 above are what they were referring to. That's why (wiki):

"In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity."

To be fair, there is also the quote

"'Essence', in metaphysics, is often synonymous with the soul..."

but I would argue that that's not the essence they're talking about.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Then meet the challenge of presenting any one item that can exist in reality without the aid of perception.

Are you not listening to what I'm saying? We have to perceive things to know that things exist in reality, but that has no bearing on its actual existence.

What if I put a ball under a cup, like a street magician. Does the ball stop to exist when the cup is down and you can't see it?

Originally Posted by Swensson

There are many definitions that include words which have different definitions, some of which do not apply. For instance, you wouldn't say that definition 4c above fits in the wording, do you? I find it more likely that definitions 1-3 above are what they were referring to. That's why (wiki):

"In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity."

To be fair, there is also the quote

"'Essence', in metaphysics, is often synonymous with the soul..."

but I would argue that that's not the essence they're talking about.



Are you not listening to what I'm saying? We have to perceive things to know that things exist in reality, but that has no bearing on its actual existence.

Then submit to the forum readers any one item that can exist in reality without the aid of perception. Your argument above only shows that you are totally dependent upon the physical senses and will not allow yourself the freedom to examine other forms of evidence such as intuition even though science admits to using intuition as a tool of discovery. Can you see, touch, measure, weigh a single thought? Those are some of the criteria that science requires with regard to the 'real world' and the examination of such things contained in the real world. Your argument excludes those things because they exist in the mind. Yet you will accept those mental things only when those mental things act in accord with your beliefs about the 'real world'.

Originally Posted by Swensson

What if I put a ball under a cup, like a street magician. Does the ball stop to exist when the cup is down and you can't see it?

Nope. Because it still exists in the mind. Poor analogy on your part.

You seem to be evading the challenge for you to list any one item that can exist in reality without the aid of perception.