NationStates Jolt Archive

So I got to pondering last night, about the nature of reality(again), prompted this time by somebody defineing truth as 'that which has no contradictions within reality.'

I asked him how can this be the case, isn't your sense of reality confined to how your brain intuprets your sensory input? In which case seeing as we are all differant, in fact quite uniuqe then the possibilty of our brains interpeting our sensory input differantly is quite high, in effect giving us all a slightly differant view of reality, and thus the possibility for our truths to contradict each other is also very high. Heh and indeed we often see this in our day to day lifes, witness the bickering on this very forum of those who hold opposing views, who's view of the truth are quite differant.

Anyhoo he didn't like that called me the C word(as he likes to do) and promptly buggered orf.

That though is not really where I'm going with this, it just prompted my ponderings in another direction.

So our sense of reality is in effect nothing more than how our brains choose to decihper our sensory input. Drugs, easpecily physadelic drugs, mess around with your brain chemistry and radicaly change the way you view reality.

Now my question is this, bearing all the above in mind how can we be sure that the way we percive reality is how it really is?

Like morality, reality is all relative to what the social status quo is. Reality isn't necessarily what we see everyday.

We can't, but it's not all that important whether reality is real or not.

We can't, but it's not all that important whether reality is real or not.

Heh so your subjectgive view on reality seez. Mine seez it's highly important.

Heh so your subjectgive view on reality seez. Mine seez it's highly important.

What would change about your life if this was all someone's dream?

Now my question is this, bearing all the above in mind how can we be sure that the way we percive reality is how it really is?

Is perception the basis of reality, or is reality the basis of perception?

Is perception the basis of reality, or is reality the basis of perception?

[/thread]
Ouch, my brain are teh confuzzled

Or as the Firesign Theatre put it, "That's metaphysically absurd, man, how can I know what you hear?"

Read Descartes!

What would change about your life if this was all someone's dream?


Ohh I dunno, but that is not what i'm talking about.

For example, whilst under the influence of LSD you look up at the clouds and they are all purple, and rippling, not looking no behaving like the fluffy white drifting clouds that we all know and love.

I ask not wheter this is all somebodys dream, but how can we tell that clouds are not meant to be purple and rippling?

Ohh I dunno, but that is not what i'm talking about.

For example, whilst under the influence of LSD you look up at the clouds and they are all purple, and rippling, not looking no behaving like the fluffy white drifting clouds that we all know and love.

I ask not wheter this is all somebodys dream, but how can we tell that clouds are not meant to be purple and rippling?

Why should they be "meant to" look like anything?

We can't, but it's not all that important whether reality is real or not.
If this is all a hallucination of my deranged mind, then things that common sense tells me are fatal, really wouldn't be. Moreover, it would defy any basis that one could contrive for morality, as you can't be immoral in relation to people that don't exist.

I think your confusing the word reality for what we are taught.

For example,

we are taught which shades to call green, blue, red etc. (forget colour blindness arguement), we recognise what the words 'tree', 'ground' 'sky' 'elephant' etc denote.

This is taught conformity. not reality, but Taxonomy

Why should they be "meant to" look like anything?

Umm good question.

Lets see, so I see a chair, either the chair is real and I view it how it really is. Or the chair is not real and I halluinate. Or the chair is real my view of it is not real.

In which case I re-phrase the question. Then how can we tell wether clouds are really white and fluffy, and drifting, or clouds are really purple and rippling?

In which case I re-phrase the question. Then how can we tell wether clouds are really white and fluffy, and drifting, or clouds are really purple and rippling?
Does it matter? In cases of such little importance to one's daily life, why shouldn't you believe whatever makes you feel happiest?

I think your confusing the word reality for what we are taught.

For example,

we are taught which shades to call green, blue, red etc. (forget colour blindness arguement), we recognise what the words 'tree', 'ground' 'sky' 'elephant' etc denote.

This is taught conformity. not reality, but Taxonomy

Sorry was you talking to me?

I'll assume that you where and say yes a tree is a tree, and an elephant is an elephant. What I ask though is does an elephant really look like what we see it as?

Sorry was you talking to me?

I'll assume that you where and say yes a tree is a tree, and an elephant is an elephant. What I ask though is does an elephant really look like what we see it as?

We see light in the visible spectrum being reflected off the elephant. If we could see a larger spectrum the elephant would look quite different.

Does it matter? In cases of such little importance to one's daily life, why shouldn't you believe whatever makes you feel happiest?

I guess what matters from person to person is going to change. From a philosophical point of view yes it certianly matters to me. Hehe otherwise why would I have posted huh!

how can we be sure that the way we percive reality is how it really is?

Actually, I think we can be sure of the opposite. The way we perceive reality is not how it really is. We can only interpret things, like colours really being lightwaves of certain wave lenghts reflecting of surfaces. All we can hope to do is to interpret reality in a good enough way to make predicitions about coming interpretations, and try to adjust our interpretations to match with others.

edit:Well, this goes for empirical knowledge, anyways. Logic may be another matter.

Now my question is this, bearing all the above in mind how can we be sure that the way we percive reality is how it really is?

We can't. Question answered.

At best we could have a true understanding or knowledge of the phenomenal world, but the noumenal world is something to which we have no access.

We see light in the visible spectrum being reflected off the elephant. If we could see a larger spectrum the elephant would look quite different.

Yeah I guess we would, or if our brain chemistry worked in a slightly differant way.

edit:Well, this goes for empirical knowledge, anyways. Logic may be another matter.

Logic tells us nothing about the world: only about itself.

Well let's see, we can see the "visible light" spectrum out of a much wider EM range, and we can only perceive 3(or 4?) out of 11+ dimensions.

Of course, none of this precludes this entire set of "reality" being a subset of something much bigger. And philosophize about it all you want, the limitations above convince me that we are quite far away from knowing the truth (Multiverse, dream of a dream of the creator, etc..)

Sure, methods will (and have been) created to make up for this initial tiny set of perception, and I believe they will broaden our perception of everything, but it's all a function of time.

I know that my problem is that my perception and interpretation of what could be reality is royally fucked up.

Whereas "Being John Malcovic" is just weird, "Being German Nightmare" would be a horrorhttp://planetsmilies.net/angry-smiley-8030.gifmovie. :eek:

I dont think even proffesionals have answered this question yet, but it certainly has been tread and retread since the rise of philosophy. Good luck getting any real answers to a question like this one.

Yeah I guess we would, or if our brain chemistry worked in a slightly differant way.

And our eyes.

To perceive reality, transcend language.

Logic tells us nothing about the world: only about itself.

Still, I do think it is universally true, and an aspect of reality, that P and not-P cannot both be true at the same time.

Although I agree that much about logic only tells us about logic (theories of really big cardinals, for instance), some of it tells us about reality.

ah sure what ever makes you happy or more importantly, me.
reality is what we agree on.

ZOMG we are all in teh /\/\atrix !!!!111oneoneoneoneexlamationpointone

Still, I do think it is universally true, and an aspect of reality, that P and not-P cannot both be true at the same time.

Although I agree that much about logic only tells us about logic (theories of really big cardinals, for instance), some of it tells us about reality.


Heh whilst it may be true in the realm of philosopy, it certianly is not true in the realm of quantem physics huh!

We see light in the visible spectrum being reflected off the elephant. If we could see a larger spectrum the elephant would look quite different.

And yet somehow we are all able to look at an elephant and say "elephant". Why is that? The elephant would indeed look different depending on which spectrum we're seeing it in, but surely the very fact that you are able to understand that your perception is variable means you can, in some way, transcend it?

If we were completely confined to our peceptions, would we even realize there is such a thing as "perceptions"?

And yet somehow we are all able to look at an elephant and say "elephant". Why is that? The elephant would indeed look different depending on which spectrum we're seeing it in, but surely the very fact that you are able to understand that your perception is variable means you can, in some way, transcend it?

If we were completely confined to our peceptions, would we even realize there is such a thing as "perceptions"?

Because as a child we had a picture book with animals in it, among them was a picture of an elephant.

Transcend perceptions, what are you on about?

Because as a child we had a picture book with animals in it, among them was a picture of an elephant.

Transcend perceptions, what are you on about?

I agree, transcending has nothing to do with the function. It's all interpretation. Very possibly the basis of human intelligence, and bias. Our ability to find patterns out of noise and put similar things into the same mental construct.

And yet somehow we are all able to look at an elephant and say "elephant". Why is that? The elephant would indeed look different depending on which spectrum we're seeing it in, but surely the very fact that you are able to understand that your perception is variable means you can, in some way, transcend it?

If we were completely confined to our peceptions, would we even realize there is such a thing as "perceptions"?

Yeah of course I think there is agreat differance between the way our brain dechpiers sensory input, and the way our minds deasl with internal dialouge. They have to be two differant functions of the brain, no?

Still, I do think it is universally true, and an aspect of reality, that P and not-P cannot both be true at the same time.

Although I agree that much about logic only tells us about logic (theories of really big cardinals, for instance), some of it tells us about reality.

Care to give us an example of something which logic tells us about reality which is not trivially true?

Heh whilst it may be true in the realm of philosopy, it certianly is not true in the realm of quantem physics huh!

Isn't it? I don't know that much about quantum logic, or any many valued logic, but as far as I can tell the main difference is the law of the excluded middle, and not(P and not-P) should still hold.


Care to give us an example of something which logic tells us about reality which is not trivially true?

Um, no? Why does it matter if it's trivially true, as long as it's true?

Because as a child we had a picture book with animals in it, among them was a picture of an elephant.

Transcend perceptions, what are you on about?

If we are merely confined to the phenomenal world, and know nothing of the noumenal world, why are we even aware that there is such a thing a noumenal world?

I agree, transcending has nothing to do with the function. It's all interpretation. Very possibly the basis of human intelligence, and bias. Our ability to find patterns out of noise and put similar things into the same mental construct.

And yet if those patterns exist, the mental construct we put them in is hardly arbitrary; on the contrary, it is based off of what actually is.

I can't remember who said it, but I like this quote "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it". E.g. if you are convinced that a brick falling towards you isn't real, but it smashes your skull anyway, it was real.

Um, no? Why does it matter if it's trivially true, as long as it's true?

If it is trivially true we don't need logic to make it clear to us.

If it is trivially true we don't need logic to make it clear to us.

Ah, I see. And no, we don't. But when I said "logic" I meant the actual logical truths. And they're there regardless. And our knowledge of them doesn't seem to be empirical.

This thread gives me a headache. Reminds me of the old roomies discussions on string theory.

truth as 'that which has no contradictions within reality.'


No.

A sentence is true if it has no logical contradictions with your postulates. Reality doesn't matter.

Reality is a different things, linked to observability. And sensory imput is highly significant. I suggest you to read the philosophical works about logics, observability, reality and quantum mechanics (Bertrand Russel, Niels Bohr, just to name some of the authors), they're really good at explaining the difference between logical truth and observable reality.

And yet if those patterns exist, the mental construct we put them in is hardly arbitrary; on the contrary, it is based off of what actually is.

Rorschach ink blots are a perfect example here.. the construct depends on the person. Different people will see different things.

Ah, I see. And no, we don't. But when I said "logic" I meant the actual logical truths. And they're there regardless. And our knowledge of them doesn't seem to be empirical.

Care to give an example of an 'actual logical truth'? I am not entirely sure what you mean by this phrase.

How much do our perceptions of things depend on our cognitive ability and how much on our linguistic resources?

A sentence is true if it has no logical contradictions with your postulates. Reality doesn't matter.

Strictly speaking shouldn't that be a sentence has a truth value of 'true' if it has no logical contradictions with your postulates and is a valid result of them or something?

Reality for each of us is inherently subjective; our perception is affected by not only our interpretation of sensory input but our mental states as well. Even a "normal" perception of reality hinges on a consensus reality that is a creation of our self-conscious interpretation of the world. If man didn't exist, our universe would not exist in its current form to us.

In this case, "truth" is more accurately described as "consensus reality"; even in that case there is absolutely no proof that this consensus reality is in fact objectively true. To our collective perception, it is, but that doesn't make it true or real. What we see as a property A may actually be something totally different; for example, we might actually live on a flat earth but our consensus reality creates a working system of

All that can be known for sure is our direct perception and the consensus reality. Anything beyond that is grasping for something that is unattainable; even the concept of "truth" itself is, in my opinion, nonexistent and unattainable by man unless we were capable of knowing all truths, which would require the ability to think infinite thoughts. For that matter, that's also the main reason why I don't believe in physicalist reduction of the mind to the brain. It presupposes that reality is objectively real, which is impossible to say; we can say that our consensus reality is "real" for purposes of comparing it to other worldviews, but that doesn't make it actually real.

How much do our perceptions of things depend on our cognitive ability and how much on our linguistic resources?

Both. Our consensus reality depends on the translation of individual subjective experiences in to "objective" experiences through the use of public language; the so-called "private language" of our minds is inherently inaccessible to each other. Qualia and other subjective states can't be described because they are private concepts that can't be rendered in public terms.

Both. Our consensus reality depends on the translation of individual subjective experiences in to "objective" experiences through the use of public language; the so-called "private language" of our minds is inherently inaccessible to each other. Qualia and other subjective states can't be described because they are private concepts that can't be rendered in public terms.
Which brings up an interesting thought experiment: Is it possible to have such unreal thoughts that they can't be explained?
Also, is it possible to encounter something so alien that one can't describe it, and thus lacking the ability to describe it may then fail to even see it?

All that can be known for sure is our direct perception and the consensus reality. Anything beyond that is grasping for something that is unattainable; even the concept of "truth" itself is, in my opinion, nonexistent and unattainable by man unless we were capable of knowing all truths, which would require the ability to think infinite thoughts. For that matter, that's also the main reason why I don't believe in physicalist reduction of the mind to the brain. It presupposes that reality is objectively real, which is impossible to say; we can say that our consensus reality is "real" for purposes of comparing it to other worldviews, but that doesn't make it actually real.


Yeah this is what I was getting at in my first post. I said else where that it is not possible for us to be 100% certian, because to be so means haveing 100% knowldge of 100% of teh veriables. Hehe you put it even better though, sadly I was roundly lambasted, but shit, these things happen.:D

Which brings up an interesting thought experiment: Is it possible to have such unreal thoughts that they can't be explained?
Also, is it possible to encounter something so alien that one can't describe it, and thus lacking the ability to describe it may then fail to even see it?

Hehe thats like the old, can you imagine a squre circle, ohh but can you describe it?

Is it possible to have such unreal thoughts that they can't be explained? Also, is it possible to encounter something so alien that one can't describe it, and thus lacking the ability to describe it may then fail to even see it?

Also on a side note, this is what it feels like to be dyslexic. heh knowing what you want to communicate but finding it veryu hard indeed to actualy do in practice. Very frustrating :rolleyes:

Hehe thats like the old, can you imagine a square circle, ohh but can you describe it?
Wouldn't it be great to be a Philosophy professor with tenure?
You'd just sit round all day making nonsense shit up. Don't matter how silly or ridiculous it is - as long as it don't make sense.

Which brings up an interesting thought experiment: Is it possible to have such unreal thoughts that they can't be explained?

Well, qualia themselves are so subjective that they can't be explained, so if language fails us on things as commonplace as pain, then it wouldn't be too hard to make the logical bridge that it is possible to think unexplainable thoughts. We may do it all the time without necessarily knowing that they are unexplainable.

Also, is it possible to encounter something so alien that one can't describe it, and thus lacking the ability to describe it may then fail to even see it?

I personally think so; we can already see that a lot of people become more mundane and less imaginative as they get older and consensus reality is forced upon them. You could also look at anecdotal reports regarding paranormal events, where sometimes things happen but older people make a conscious effort not to notice them while children do.

It might even apply to more commonplace things like technology; if you lived on an island and had never seen anything larger than a small boat, what would your mind make of an aircraft carrier sailing by?

I personally feel it's a way to cope with the facts that we do not know everything, we can't know everything, and we are fundamentally limited in our ability to rationally justify and explain our universe. That is a frightening thought when you realize how much strangeness can stem from that fundamental lack of knowledge.

Yeah this is what I was getting at in my first post. I said else where that it is not possible for us to be 100% certian, because to be so means haveing 100% knowldge of 100% of teh veriables. Hehe you put it even better though, sadly I was roundly lambasted, but shit, these things happen.:D

Lambasted? That's funny, because Fitch's paradox is one of the fundamental paradoxes in epistemic logic and deals precisely with that concept; what it says is that you can't know everything is true unless you know all objective truths, and that's impossible within the context of a finite mind and universe.

Your idea touches on a fundamental problem in epistemology, so I'd say it's far from being wrong because Fitch's paradox hasn't been resolved yet and appears to be correct. After all, how can you know something is true without knowing everything about it is true?

Wouldn't it be great to be a Philosophy professor with tenure?

You'd just sit round all day making nonsense shit up. Don't matter how silly or ridiculous it is - as long as it don't make sense.

Hell, I'm neither tenured nor a professor and I make nonsense shit up every day. Damn these slow end-of-quarter days.

Hell, I'm neither tenured nor a professor and I make nonsense shit up every day. Damn these slow end-of-quarter days.

Hahah yeah nor I, and I've seen just that behaviour from lots of people here.

Hahah yeah nor I, and I've seen just that behaviour from lots of people here.

Hey, it's an internet forum.

Hell, I'm neither tenured nor a professor and I make nonsense shit up every day. Damn these slow end-of-quarter days.
Difference is a Phil. prof with tenure gets paid a decent whack for making up nonsense shite.

Sometimes i wonder if you are all real, sometimes i wonder if that is sugar on my Corn Flakes or something else, sometimes...