Not that this is particularly relevant, I find I agree with you on all counts - re time, reality, imposed structures/'laws'. — Tom Storm

Thanks. If you and I agree on something, we must be right.

The vast majority of people (including "thinkers") believe there is and talk about an "objective" reality. Isn't this the "base" reality and the reality "outside of human observation", that you are talking about?

n such cases I use to ask, "If there is an objective a reality, who is out there to tell?" — Alkis Piskas

"Objective" reality appears to require an infinite, absolute viewpoint to at least be posited as possible. It does not currently seem possible, and were it to exist, we run into the problems above vis-á-vis our current conceptions of information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God. As you note, there has to be someone who can experience it, someone with "an infinite, absolute viewpoint."

It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God. As you note, there has to be someone who can experience it, someone with "an infinite, absolute viewpoint." — T Clark

Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. But people, so much misled by religious dogmas and bias of all sort,as well as lack of critical reasoning and undestanding, don't even treat God as something absolute. They rather treat him --at least in Christanity, I don't know in other dogmatic religions-- simply as a super human being! And in fact, with a lot of human attributes like vegeange, destructive tendencies, etc., that go hand-in-hand with "love", "mercy", etc. And that's why we see God as an old Man in paintings ... Why old? And why masculine? A Supreme Being has no age or sex!
I mean. all that is ridiculous, isn't it?

The bottom line is, I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist. But even if it does exist, we are not able to conceive it. anyway. So, there's no meaning in talking about it, exept only for ... stressing the point of such an impossibility! :grin:

It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God. As you note, there has to be someone who can experience it, someone with "an infinite, absolute viewpoint." — T Clark

It seems, to an extant thinking entity, that objective reality, within which only that which exists can dwell, requires a belief in a fabricated conceptual entity of extramundane ability - which was excogitated by other extant thinking entities, using an objective piece of hardware known as the brain, entities just like yourself - never before seen or head of by any independent observational metrics that we here in objective reality possess? No, friend. To NOT believe in the objective reality in which you live requires the belief in a god. That's why the whole of Western subjective philosophy is dominated by the influences of Christianity, and the sciences are not.

Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. — Alkis Piskas

No, an absolute reality outside of the one accounted for by physics and biology requires a God. Where do you formulate this mysticism?

don't even treat God as something absolute — Alkis Piskas

There is nothing less absolute than a conceptual fabrication for which there is no evidence to suggest the existence of.

I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist. — Alkis Piskas

This is a statement of absolute objectivity. It's more likely, given that science reveals to us that there is no such thing as the concept of "nothing," that the domain of existence you occupy, which is apprehended by an objectively extant brain, that will objectively stop working if a bullet passes through is, is an absolute reality of which you were created by, through evolutionary processes, to perceive with a considerable measure of accuracy, eneough to keep you alive and refine your behaviors in accordance with reality. Everything just stated is mainstream science, backed up by hundreds and thousands of research articles, projects, and programs. To believe there is something outside of what is known to be reality is a leap of faith that requires belief in a god.

So, there's no meaning in talking about it, exept only for ... stressing the point of such an impossibility! — Alkis Piskas

Except the idea of it being impossible is more impossible than the fact that nothing outside of our domain of apprehension has ever been shown to exist in a manner that violates the laws of reality. That's shown, not confused about.

Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. But people, so much misled by religious dogmas and bias of all sort,as well as lack of critical reasoning and undestanding, don't even treat God as something absolute. — Alkis Piskas

I wasn't making a statement about religion. What I wanted to say was about science. Science is supposed to replace religion, but it's underlying presuppositions are similar.

The bottom line is, I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist. But even if it does exist, we are not able to conceive it. anyway. — Alkis Piskas

Not to go off on a tangent, but I think objective reality is a metaphysical entity, not something that exists in the world. It is one of the unproven assumptions, presuppositions, of science and much of our daily experience of the world.

To NOT believe in the objective reality in which you live requires the belief in a god. — Garrett Travers

I got a bit lost in your discussion. Until I got to this sentence, I thought you were agreeing with me. I disagree with your statement. I don't think one needs to assume that either objective reality or God have to exist.

I don't think one needs to assume that either objective reality or God have to exist. — T Clark

Objective reality is a recognition of a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence. Not an assumption. It can and does exist without the assumption of God. The only way for one to rationally come to the conclusion of a super ordinate plane of existence, is by assuming a super ordinate force beyond nature. Now, that doesn't mean one cannot postulate a super ordinate existence, but no evidence suggests such existence, thus one is reliant on making supernatural claims of an infinite variety. I've only ever known people who believe in God to think along these lines.

Objective reality is a recognition of a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence. Not an assumption. It can and does exist without the assumption of God. The only way for one to rationally come to the conclusion of a super ordinate plane of existence, is by assuming a super ordinate force beyond nature — Garrett Travers

There are supernatural gods and then there are pantheistic gods. The Enlightenment moved toward the rejection of supernatural deities, but left intact the notion of the Good in nature. Other than the fact that you don’t use the word ‘God’ , your model of rationality and ethics is indistinguishable from a host of such post-supernatural accounts of God that have emerged since Descartes and up till Schopenhauer, Marx and Nietzsche. In fact, your philosophy is much closer to traditional theology than the hyper-liberal, heretical theologies of Kierkegaard, Levinas and Caputo.

The driving force behind contemporary theology isnt the super ordinate, but the truth of the ethical Good. Your thinking is very much within that tradition.

Other than the fact that you don’t use the word ‘God’ , your model of rationality and ethics are indistinguishable from such post-supernatural accounts of God. — Joshs

That's correct. The closer you get to objectivity, science, induction, logic, reason, and evidence, the further away you get from "accounts of God." My accounts do not take God into consideration whatsoever, and are not related to these "accounts" you seem to have attempted to link me to for some reason.

The driving force behind contemporary theology isnt the super ordinate, but the truth of the ethical Good. — Joshs

That's because the rationalist account of things doesn't make room for such drivel. Thus, they've had to give an inordinate amount of ground, because they cannot take us in intellectual combat on the subject.

That's because the rationalist account of things doesn't make room for such drivel. Thus, they've had to give an inordinate amount of ground, because they cannot take us in intellectual combat on the subject. — Garrett Travers

The rationalist account of things is absolutely dependent in its core on such drivel. Your ‘reality-based’ ethics sees the Good in , what did you call it, “ a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence.” That is precisely what nature-centered theologies argue. Your deity is the ideality of the rational, what Nietzsche called the ascetic ideal. You substituted a perfect Reason for Christ, but the salvation is just as devout.

The rationalist account of things is absolutely dependent in its core on such drivel. Your ‘reality-based’ ethics sees the Good in , what did you call it, “ a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence.” That is precisely what nature-centered theologies argue. — Joshs

This is what is called a strawman, and I'm going to have to ask you not to tell me what I believe. As in, at all. I let YOU know what I believe. And, I'll show you the same respect going forward.

No, my conception of ethics is predicated on no such thing, and neither is the modern rationalist perspective of ethics. My conception of ethics is predicated on the human consciousness being the sole source in the known universe of all concept generation currently extant, as the result of the processes of the evolved human brain, which produces said consciousness. That the human brain has evolved to produce conceptual framework for informing and refining behaviors and thoughts (Ethics), through the collection and organization of sensory data over time and through a variety of experiences, for the benefit of the individual consciousness that so generates said conceptual framework, and by extension those within his/her purview of action and effect. That is my conception of Ethics. You want to challenge me here, you go right ahead, but be sure to characterize my position accurately, to the letter.

Objective reality is a recognition of a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence. Not an assumption. — Garrett Travers

I disagree. I see the existence of objective reality as a metaphysical question, by which I mean it is an underlying assumption, what R.G. Collingwood calls an absolute presupposition. As such, it is neither true nor false. Collingwood and I are not the only ones who feel that way. That shows it is not "self-evident."

It can and does exist without the assumption of God. — Garrett Travers

The idea of objective reality is meaningless if there is no one who can perceive it.

Now, that doesn't mean one cannot postulate a super ordinate existence, but no evidence suggests such existence, thus one is reliant on making supernatural claims of an infinite variety. — Garrett Travers

I make no claims for anything supernatural. To call something "superordinate" there has to be something that is ordinate, which would be objective reality. So, your argument is circular.

I've only ever known people who believe in God to think along these lines. — Garrett Travers

I have no religious beliefs.

I see the existence of objective reality as a metaphysical question — T Clark

The existence of objects is present and recognized before you can ever come to that conceptual framework.

The idea of objective reality is meaningless if there is no one who can perceive it. — T Clark

You have just demonstrated that you perceive that reality by talking within it with someone else also in it, through objective hardware, designed by objective technological standards, to send such messages as contain your objective statement of the objective meaning of reality in association with perception, which you could not have done without perceiving the objective reality within which you objectively chose to operate. But, we can play pretend all day if you want.

I make no claims for anything supernatural. To call something "superordinate" there has to be something that is ordinate, which would be objective reality. So, your argument is circular. — T Clark

Where is this circularity you speak of? You are claiming there is no objective reality, and thereby no super ordinate reality? If there were no reality, you'd not have been able to send such a message to me, which simply verifies that the only reality to speak of is the one we occupy.

If there were no reality, you'd not have been able to send such a message to me, which simply verifies that the only reality to speak of is the one we occupy. — Garrett Travers

Yes, and each of us occupies our own perspective
on that reality. To claim that there is one true reality that we can attain through empirical reason, above and beyond our perspectival access to the world, is confusing an assumption with an absolute truth. It relies on faith , and in its lack of insight into itself as a faith, it is more naive than any theology.

My conception of ethics is predicated on the human consciousness being the sole source in the known universe of all concept generation currently extant, as the result of the processes of the evolved human brain, which produces said consciousness. — Garrett Travers

Sounds impressive, but you left out the part about how human consciousness is capable of having direct contact with true reality through scientific investigation. That is a faith masquerading as a truth.

You have just demonstrated that you perceive that reality by talking within it with someone else also in it, through objective hardware, designed by objective technological standards, to send such messages as contain your objective statement of the objective meaning of reality in association with perception, which you could not have done without perceiving the objective reality within which you objectively chose to operate. But, we can play pretend all day if you want. — Garrett Travers

I didn't say there is no reality. I said that there are other valid ways of interacting with reality that do not assume an objective reality. Even that wasn't my main argument, which is that the existence of objective reality is not self-evident.

If there were no reality, you'd not have been able to send such a message to me, which simply verifies that the only reality to speak of is the one we occupy. — Garrett Travers

Again, I didn't say there is no reality. I only said that its existence is not self-evident. It is not the only way of seeing things that is consistent with human experience of reality.

I didn't say there is no reality. I said that there are other valid ways of interacting with reality that do not assume an objective reality. — T Clark

Valid? As in, objectively and logically fact based?

the existence of objective reality is not self-evident. — T Clark

I can't read what you're typing over you being the one objectively typing it. All evidence comes from reality via sensory data. There is no distinction between self evident and reality. Reality being that which exists. Existence and evidence are equivalent statements. You can surely assert that aspects of reality are not self-evident in accordance with out limited sensory capacity, but asserting that reality is itself not self-evident is an unscientific, anti-reason, illogical, and contradictory statement. You are yourself asserting evidence of existence when you send me these messages.

Again, I didn't say there is not reality. I only said that its existence is not self-evident. It is not the only way of seeing things that is consistent with my experience of reality. — T Clark

Then you are going to have to provide an example of something extant that does not present itself as observable via evidence, given the ability to perceive such a thing through either the senses, or instruments created to detect it. Otherwise, you are saying something that is incoherent.

Yes, and each of us occupies our own perspective
on that reality. — Joshs

Yes. Objectively.

To claim that there is one true reality that we can attain through empirical reason, above and beyond our perspectival access to the world, is confusing an assumption with an absolute truth. — Joshs

No, no claim of the kind was made. Nothing about attainment, or absolute truth. Radical Objectivity is not open to us, that much is, frankly, self-evident. But, there is only one known reality for which evidence exists. The one we share now, where we're talking to each other. Objectivity does not require us to move beyond the capacity of our senses. Radical Objectivity does, and it's a garbage concept with no consistency of any kind.

It relies on faith , and in its lack of insight into itself as a faith, it is more naive than any theology. — Joshs

You would have a case if that were what it was I was proposing. However, I am not.

Then you are going to have to provide an example of something extant that does not present itself as observable via evidence, given the ability to perceive such a thing through either the senses, or instruments created to detect it. Otherwise, you are saying something that is incoherent. — Garrett Travers

Observing something by evidence does not require there to be an objective reality. You keep saying it's self-evident, but it's not. Then you go on to claim that interacting with reality in any way requires an objective reality, which is begging the question. I agree with Joshs:

To claim that there is one true reality that we can attain through empirical reason, above and beyond our perspectival access to the world, is confusing an assumption with an absolute truth. — Joshs

Observing something by evidence does not require there to be an objective reality. You keep saying it's self-evident, but it's not. Then you go on to claim that interacting with reality in any way requires an objective reality, which is begging the question. — T Clark

A reality doesn't have to exist for objects in it to interact?

This is demostrably inaccurate. Objective means, in the context that we're talking about : not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. Things that exist, must exist within the confines of the laws that govern the universe, which is the domain of existence. Those things have evidence for their existence, irrespective of whether or not we see them.

Begging the question does not apply to tautological truths. Example: A=A. This is a self-evident, objective fact of existence, it cannot be denied. It is also a begging the question fallacy. It's also a tautology, and if you know anything about logic, every valid argument is tauological in nature. View a truth table for clarity on that.

So, again, I'm going to need that example of something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. Not that which we believe exists, or could exist and don't have enough evidence for yet. I mean, for you to be correct, and me to be wrong, you will need to provide an example of something that exists that: does not conform to the laws governing reality, exist within that reality the laws create, and provides no evidence for itself. That is the only way for you to be correct.

A reality doesn't have to exist for objects in it to interact? — Garrett Travers

I didn't say there is no reality, I said there is no objective reality. I didn't even say that. I only said there are other ways to look at reality.

Objective means, in the context that we're talking about : not dependent on the mind for existence. — Garrett Travers

Yes, that's what I mean by objective reality.

actual. — Garrett Travers

By calling objective reality "actual," you seem to mean it is the common everyday reality people deal with. That's not the only, or necessarily the best, way of looking at it.

So, again, I'm going to need that example of something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. — Garrett Travers

So, again, I never said anything about something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. You're doing it again - using our everyday experience of reality as evidence that objective reality exists when the question on the table is whether we need the idea of objective reality to explain our everyday experience of reality.

I think acting as if there is an objective reality can be a useful way of seeing things, but it is not the only way of seeing things. And it is not necessarily always the best way of seeing things. Again, objective reality is a metaphysical entity. It's not true or false, it's just assumed. No, I don't want to get into a discussion of metaphysics. I've spent enough time doing that for a while.

Let's just leave it at that.

(and that works only as long as we remain in denial that our 'meanings and purposes' are just (mostly adaptive) illusions)? — 180 Proof

If our meanings and purposes are "Illusions" which are adaptive is there any sense in undermining them, though? What, that might be desirable, could be gained by doing that?

I didn't say there is no reality, I said there is no objective reality. I didn't even say that. I only said there are other ways to look at reality. — T Clark

This is not a statement that makes sense. Reality and objective reality are the same. Objective is a reality descriptor. So, I don't know what you're saying at all.

Yes, that's what I mean by objective reality. — T Clark

Then we agree.

By calling objective reality "actual," you seem to mean it is the common everyday reality people deal with. That's not the only, or necessarily the best, way of looking at it. — T Clark

No, I mean the actual and only reality at all for which there is any evidence of. The one we exist in at all times and under all circumstances. The actual reality.

So, again, I never said anything about something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. You're doing it again - using our everyday experience of reality as evidence that objective reality exists when the question on the table is whether we need the idea of objective reality to explain our everyday experience of reality.

I think acting as if there is an objective reality can be a useful way of seeing things, but it is not the only way of seeing things. And it is not necessarily always the best way of seeing things. Again, objective reality is a metaphysical entity. It's not true or false, it's just assumed. No, I don't want to get into a discussion of metaphysics. I've spent enough time doing that for a while.

Let's just leave it at that. — T Clark

Every bit of this is incoherent. Reality is objective. It's not a metaphysical claim, it's a physical one. As in, physics. Nothing about your position is clear.

This is not a statement that makes sense. Reality and objective reality are the same. Objective is a reality descriptor. So, I don't know what you're saying at all. — Garrett Travers

Of course it makes sense if it is granted that there are also subjective realities. Our wishes, hopes, preferences and assumptions, for example.

Every bit of this is incoherent. Reality is objective. It's not a metaphysical claim, it's a physical one. As in, physics. Nothing about your position is clear. — Garrett Travers

As I said, let's leave it at that. We're not getting anywhere.

Of course it makes sense if it is granted that there are also subjective realities. Our wishes, hopes, preferences and assumptions, for example. — Janus

Yes, our brains have different ways of computing data, and chemical composition and so forth. Those aren't realities. Those are states of thought induced by a brain in reality, so even the activity of your brain is objectively source. Thoughts are not themselves objective represntations. The brain is a concept generating entity and is always generating concepts from sensory data being computed. Reality remains reality at all times. This is not something that is debated in science. Only in the realm of linguists do things like reality get conflated with thought. There actually isn't a this/that going on between subjectivity and objectivity, that's an illusion. Objectivity is actuality, and subjectivity is thought and emotion, they don't even over lap, they're utterly different ideas completely.

You seem to be missing the point that my hopes, fears, preferences and assumptions and so on, are real to me, in fact are the most real things of all; but they cannot be real for you. So they cannot be objective (inter-subjective) realities, and yet they are realities nonetheless.

ou seem to be missing the point that my hopes, fears, preferences and assumptions and so on, are real to me, in fact are the most real things of all; but they cannot be real for you. So they cannot be objective (inter-subjective) realities, and yet they are realities nonetheless. — Janus

Yes, and consciousness is an objectively real thing giving rise to those real emotions that are exclusively your experience. Again, reality and your field of emotion are neither contradictory, nor comparable in nature. Reality is the domain of existence that has been here for 13.8 billion years. You thoughts and emotions are cognitive domains that are exclusive to your body, which exists in the objective reality to which it is bound. Realities in association with thoughts and emotion can only be assessed from the perspective of neuroscience, they are not realities otherwise.

:up: :up:

If our meanings and purposes are "Illusions" which are adaptive is there any sense in undermining them, though? — Janus

I suppose that depends on how comparatively maladaptive any of our "illusions" happen to be.

What, that might be desirable, could be gained by doing that?

This opportunes replacing old illusions with comparatively more adaptive newer illusions (e.g. "revaluation of values" ~F.N.)