• Banno
    27.9k


    Spot on - see hereabouts.

    "the Elusiveness of the Real" is pretty much exactly wrong.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    No, and no. That's evidenced perfectly by the entire history of humanity not knowing what the fuck is going on, because it isn't as it seems.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    That's just not so.

    I don't know what more to add. The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems.Banno

    The absolute lack of anything meaningful here, says no (and that's on your terms lmao).
  • Banno
    27.9k
    It's extraordinary to have someone use the internet to deny that the world is coherent and predictable.
  • 180 Proof
    15.9k
    The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems.Banno
    :up:
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    You're not saying anything relevant.

    It seems some are just unable to see the forest. Trees be damned.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    You're not saying anything relevant.AmadeusD

    So the topic is "On Matter, Meaning, and the Elusiveness of the Real", yet you claim that pointing out that what is real is right there before you is irrelevant.

    How are we to make sense of that?

    How can you see the forest?
  • Ludwig V
    2k
    See the straight stick, see the crooked stick, trust enough on what we see, to understand what we see cannot be trusted.Richard B
    That nicely brings out the paradox in the conclusion. It's not a question of mistrusting everything we see, but of deciding what to trust. Mistrusting what you see that told you that your couldn't trust what you see is confusing.
    It's the move from mistrusting what you (think you) see of the stick to mistrusting everything that you see that is the mistake. If I look at the forged money and compare it to the real money, I can conclude that some money is forged. But if I conclude that the real money might be forged as well, I've cut off the branch I'm sitting on.
    It is true that each coin/note that I see could be a forgery, but it does not follow that all coins and notes might be forgeries. It it did, the distinction between real and fake money has collapsed.

    My thinking is that, whatever the answers might be, they are the answer to how we come about. People say, "That steel isn't really solid. It's mostly empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is what gives us the illusion of solidify." I say that's empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is, is how solidity is accomplished.Patterner
    Your reply is correct. But "people" already know that. The problem is that what you take as the explanation of solidity, they take as undermining solidity. You have to show them that they have messed about with the meaning of "real". It is a mistake to allow them to get away with that, because once that's happened, there's no way back.

    Appeals to the supernatural lack direct empirical exemplars; one cannot simply point to observable cases in support. Instead, such appeals often proceed obliquely, through critiques of the epistemological limits of science or argument from hallucination or the inadequacies of a materialist/naturalist ontology. The strategy tends to rely on undermining the dominant framework, entering through a kind of philosophical back door, if you'll pardon the clumsy metaphor.Tom Storm
    If you start with the idea of the supernatural, the strategy makes sense. But what gives you the idea that there is such a thing?

    That's evidenced perfectly by the entire history of humanity not knowing what the fuck is going on, because it isn't as it seems.AmadeusD
    I think if you look a bit closer, you'll notice that you are only telling half the story. The people who argue that what's going on is not what it seems to be will have another explanation of what is "really" going on. Which also turns out to be false. It's been the pattern ever since records began, and likely before that. Socrates is the only person who had it right - he stopped at "we don't know".

    And now we’ve stumbled upon one of the central confusions of communication: we use words like “real,” “physical,” and “objective,” without having any rock-solid idea what they refer to. They work well enough for practical purposes—don’t touch the stove, it’s matter and it’s hot. But when we slow things down and look closely, the bedrock starts to look like smoke. There is no stable ground to land on. The closer we try to get to the thing itself, the more it unravels into interpretation, probability, model, rule.Kurt
    You are right to think that it is the specialized use of "real" (and company) that is the source of the problem. But you seem to be repeating the mistake by using "rock-solid" and "bedrock" in a metaphorical way without examining what they might mean in this exotic context. You might also ask yourself whether there is really anything wrong with being good enough for practical purposes and consider whether it is your decision to "slow things down" that is the source of the trouble.
  • Malcolm Parry
    304
    Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised.Banno

    If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck. I'm going with duck.
  • Tom Storm
    10k
    But what gives you the idea that there is such a thing?Ludwig V

    I don't. I'm responding to the claims.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.9k
    Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised.Banno

    Not according to the pop-up headlines I get on the internet. Every day there's new discoveries which defy science. Furthermore, there's a whole range of human activities which are completely unpredictable.

    I wouldn't say that this constitutes miracles, only that science doesn't really have the capacity to predict what the world will do.
  • Ludwig V
    2k
    But what gives you the idea that there is such a thing?
    — Ludwig V
    I don't. I'm responding to the claims.
    Tom Storm
    Fair enough. I wasn't quite clear where you stood.

    Every day there's new discoveries which defy science.Metaphysician Undercover
    I'm pretty sure that every day there are more discoveries that do not defy science. But they are not so newsworthy. Your sample may be a bit biased.

    I wouldn't say that this constitutes miracles, only that science doesn't really have the capacity to predict what the world will do.Metaphysician Undercover
    I don't know what you mean. It seems to me - but perhaps I'm naive - that the sun, the moon, and the tides are pretty much predictable. though the wind and the rain are less so. The stock in my corner shop is usually what I expect, though there are regrettable lapses. My car usually starts when I want it to; it has only let me down when I have not used it in a while, which is pretty much predictable. Football, cricket etc. matches happen when expected, though I grant you that the results are less predictable. Which number will come up in a lottery is not predictable, although we can be sure that someone will win - normally. Other gambles are also unpredictable, except that we know that the bank or the bookie will win.
    Some things are predictable, some things are not, and we have pretty good knowledge of what we can predict and what we cannot. Yes, there are surprises. But mostly things rumble along pretty much as expected.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.7k
    It's extraordinary to have someone use the internet to deny that the world is coherent and predictable.Banno
    It's extraordinary to claim that the world is coherent and predictable yet we all fail to come to a common understanding of what the world is, how it came to be, what our purpose is (or even if there there is one), what is moral, what is real, what is truth, what language is, etc.

    Maybe the world is coherent and predictable to me and those that disagree with the way I interpret simply don't have the intellect to grasp the way I interpret it.

    If the world is so coherent and predictable then why do you assert that so many people on this forum are wrong in the way they are interpreting their experiences of the world? Why don't you agree with me 100% of the time?
  • J
    1.9k
    Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised.
    — Banno

    Not according to the pop-up headlines I get on the internet. Every day there's new discoveries which defy science. Furthermore, there's a whole range of human activities which are completely unpredictable.

    I wouldn't say that this constitutes miracles, only that science doesn't really have the capacity to predict what the world will do.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    But isn't it fair to say that this is, precisely, the "world doing as advertised", including the unpredictability of people? I don't mean this just as a smart comeback, but something deeply true. Our scientific view of the world allows us to predict with confidence that our views will be regularly upended by new insights and discoveries! We didn't use to know that, but now we do, and that is now "how the world works."

    I could put this point another way: If it were announced that science had determined a sort of completeness proof, whose conclusion was that no further changes in scientific theory or practice were possible, that would be not as advertised. It would be truly surprising and disturbing.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    Folk want the world to be unpredictable in order to suit their heroic philosophical narrative, but predictably go to the shop to buy their sausages.

    They type on their device fully expecting a reply from Banno, and sometimes get one.


    There's a truly extraordinary lack of self awareness in complaining on the internet about "the elusiveness of the real".

    A foundational performative contradiction.
  • Patterner
    1.5k
    My thinking is that, whatever the answers might be, they are the answer to how we come about. People say, "That steel isn't really solid. It's mostly empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is what gives us the illusion of solidify." I say that's empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is, is how solidity is accomplished.
    — Patterner
    Your reply is correct. But "people" already know that. The problem is that what you take as the explanation of solidity, they take as undermining solidity. You have to show them that they have messed about with the meaning of "real". It is a mistake to allow them to get away with that, because once that's happened, there's no way back.
    Ludwig V
    I'm more concerned with the definition of "solid" at the moment. The definition does not say there is no space between nucleus and electrons, between atoms, between molecules, etc. The explanation for solidity is not the somewhat vague idea probably everyone has before learning what's really going on. but when a rock is coming out your head, regardless of all that, it's best to prevent that impact.

    The explanations for things like the human mind, self, and consciousness might be very different than the very vague idea I'm sure most people have before exploring these topics. But whatever the explanation, I still really like chocolate ice cream, Bach, and sex.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    No, I think you've done what often happens: read a paragraph into a sentence, not clarify anything, and then go on as if everything is clear. No guff there, it happens. I'm sure I do it - but its unhelpful.

    It seems you don't even know what I'm saying, here. I'm not sure why you're responding the way you are, in that sense. Why not ask something? Harry (and MU) has a good point, but that wasn't the one I was aiming for. Do we want to discuss these things, or make drive-by shots on each other? I, for one, would rather an opportunity to elucidate, if you're not getting me. It seems you're not. I'm then going to assume you want to know, so:

    You make an (in my view) unsupportable claim. I objected. Your response was again, brute claim. Your response to me (admittedly glib, but I was under the impression "in good fun") was to say this:

    So the topic is "On Matter, Meaning, and the Elusiveness of the Real", yet you claim that pointing out that what is real is right there before you is irrelevant.Banno

    This isn't a response to what I said. It's a description, impugning what I said. That's bad faith. The bold is your position. You hold it. That's fine. It doesn't do anything for anyone who doesn't hold it. It also isn't particularly on point for what I actually said. So, lets begin something less glib..My position:

    The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance. This has been true for hte entirety of human history.

    As I noted. Are you arguing against this premise?
  • Banno
    27.9k
    Ok, so how would you proceed?

    Sure, the world is sometimes not as expected. But we can see this only becasue overwhelmingly it is coherent. Chairs do not turn into cats, chalk is not democracy and so on.

    The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty.

    If I've misrepresented you, show me how. Is what I've said above, wrong? How?

    And I agree with you that sometimes we are surprised or mistaken. My point is that this can only take place if we are usually unsurprised and correct.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    (please don't see this as smar-arse):

    The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance. This has been true for hte entirety of human history.

    As I noted. Are you arguing against this premise?
    AmadeusD

    I assume the answer is here?
    I agree with you that sometimes we are surprised or mistaken.Banno

    If so, good. That's a great place to start. I would proceed by trying to understand how, against this background, you can make the claim that "the world is as it appears" without qualification. I don't, really. I understand the impetus, though I would say this might be giving you some issues:

    Folk want the world to be unpredictable in order to suit their heroic philosophical narrativeBanno

    As I see it, no. Folk are noticing discrepancies between their expectations and understandings, and what ends up being (at least presented as) verified. There's a second issue there, though which is that a failure to consistently behave as expected is enough for what I'm saying. Does that maybe temper the point you're reading, and allow you to come closer to the mark?

    If not, it's just that I don't understand what you're getting at in pointing out some regularity in cause/effect and the wider comment which has been made?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.9k
    I'm pretty sure that every day there are more discoveries that do not defy science. But they are not so newsworthy. Your sample may be a bit biased.Ludwig V

    Well, we still have the unpredictability of human actions to account for.

    But isn't it fair to say that this is, precisely, the "world doing as advertised", including the unpredictability of people? I don't mean this just as a smart comeback, but something deeply true. Our scientific view of the world allows us to predict with confidence that our views will be regularly upended by new insights and discoveries! We didn't use to know that, but now we do, and that is now "how the world works."J

    You can interpret unpredictability as a form of predictability if that makes you feel good. I'd prefer not to enter that world where contradiction is the norm.

    Folk want the world to be unpredictable in order to suit their heroic philosophical narrative, but predictably go to the shop to buy their sausages.Banno

    Not me.

    They type on their device fully expecting a reply from Banno, and sometimes get one.Banno

    Wrong again.

    Zero out of two is not very good.

    Do we want to discuss these things, or make drive-by shots on each other?AmadeusD

    Drive -by shots are likely the best way to deal with someone like Banno who never listens. The more noise those shots make, the better. Maybe that would wake him up. Banno's certitude has dulled his senses to the point that he's now just daydreaming about how it is impossible for him to be wrong.

    Sure, the world is sometimes not as expected. But we can see this only becasue overwhelmingly it is coherent. Chairs do not turn into cats, chalk is not democracy and so on.Banno

    The vast majority of what you observe tomorrow, will be totally unexpected from today's perspective. The fact that you can provide a few general examples of what you can expect tomorrow, means very little when there will be thousands, maybe millions, of particular occurrences which you will observe, and will be completely unexpected.

    The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty.Banno

    It's very obvious that you have this backward. We tend to be certain of a very few things, generalities, which are correct, against a background of a vast multitude of particularities which we are uncertain about. If you believe that the passing of time, provides for you, a background of certainty, then you are well practiced in the art of self-deception.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    "the world is as it appears"AmadeusD
    Just that, in a fairly straight forward way. The arm chair appears to be an arm chair because it is an arm chair, the cat appears to be a cat becasue it is a cat.

    If I got up tomorrow and found the armchair was red rather then blue, it would still be an arm chair, still be in my lounge room, still be a piece of furniture, still be worn on the arms, still be solid... the list of things that would not have changed is innumerable. And far outweighs the change in colour of the arm chair. If the arm chair changed to red, I might well seek an explanation. It seems perverse to seek an explanation as to why it stayed blue. That's what arm chairs do.

    But hat sort of thing doesn't happen much.

    So, which is more reasonable - to supose that it really is an arm chair, and sit on it to do these posts, or to do as the OP suggests and look for a justification that it is an arm chair?

    Why should I doubt, here?

    If nothing else, it will be a lot less effort.

    The arm chair does consistently behave as expected.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.9k


    This is something I have noticed too. I'm not totally sure why, since historically arguments for God rely on exactly the opposite sort of pitch, and they largely still do for religious thinkers who are part of traditional religions—everything being very well nailed down. I think it has something to do with the particular allure of New Age spirituality as a sort of freedom from both traditional religious practice and secular materialism. But I also think the challenging of epistemic norms helps to empower the individual, and "freedom as authenticity" is very important there too.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    who never listensMetaphysician Undercover

    I've recently realized this is a cherry-picking thing. And more power to him. When he wants, it's a good exchange. Can't force it. Apparently, his better work is via PM. All good imo. Even my frustration with him (which is palpable at times) is no reason to think he needs to be treated less reasonably.

    Yes, it certainly seems you picked up the wrong tool. I was offering one more to the tune of things like causation is weird, plenty of phenomena are explained in counter-intuitive ways (lightning from the ground as a trivial example). The world doesn't "be like it is" in a lot of respects.

    The lack of qualification is a problem. The world is decidedly not as it appears to the senses, often. Our disagreements about perception notwithstanding, those counter-intuitive facts seem to support my initial point. Most people are not thinking of things the way you are, regardless. Barely anyone looks a cup and just thinks "that's a cup, no more to it".
  • Ludwig V
    2k
    I'm more concerned with the definition of "solid" at the moment. The definition does not say there is no space between nucleus and electrons, between atoms, between molecules, etc. The explanation for solidity is not the somewhat vague idea probably everyone has before learning what's really going on. but when a rock is coming out your head, regardless of all that, it's best to prevent that impact.Patterner
    The explanation (analysis) of solidity is a surprise - counter-intuitive, if you like. One can see why some people want to say that solid things are not "really" solid. But everyday phenomena are not denied by the explanation - on the contrary, they are affirmed. Perhaps we need to change the definition, perhaps we don't. That's another question.

    Well, we still have the unpredictability of human actions to account for.Metaphysician Undercover
    True.
    The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance.AmadeusD
    True.
    Sure, the world is sometimes not as expected. But we can see this only becasue overwhelmingly it is coherent.Banno
    True.
    Our scientific view of the world allows us to predict with confidence that our views will be regularly upended by new insights and discoveries!J
    True.
    I'm reminded of the difference of opinion between Heraclitus - everything changes - and Parmenides - nothing changes. Both were right. Both were wrong.
    The interesting bit then was why the disagreement arose - the philosophical issues and ideas behind it.
    So what lies behind the disagreement here?

    The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty.Banno
    So that's Banno's diagnosis - it's about scepticism.
    I'm not at all clear where other people stand. Is it about scepticism? If not, what?
    The deeper question that I think we should be talking about is what lies behind the ancient philosophical tradition of denying common sense reality.
  • Patterner
    1.5k
    Human imagination had often come up with some fairly bizarre ideas that turned out to be accurate explanations of what's going on in our reality. Einstein's relativity and the structure of atoms are great examples.

    As brilliant and imaginative as many people are, I cannot imagine anyone is ever going to come up with any workable explanation for how things exist as they do if there was not coherence and predictability. If electrons did not always have negative charges. If mass did not always warp spacetime. If light did not always travel at c. If the strong nuclear force wasn't always about 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force and 10^38 times stronger than gravity. Many many other examples of consistency in our reality.

    If these things were not consistent, nothing of what we know would exist.
  • J
    1.9k
    The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty.
    — Banno
    So that's Banno's diagnosis - it's about scepticism.
    Ludwig V

    I don't follow that. How does skepticism enter the picture? I took @Banno to mean that we wouldn't have a reason to doubt something or find it odd unless we were used to things being a certain way. That's not meant to be skeptical doubt, I don't think.

    The deeper question that I think we should be talking about is what lies behind the ancient philosophical tradition of denying common sense reality.Ludwig V

    Part of common-sense reality is a robust confidence that we can accept it. "Reality" here refers not only to the content of whatever beliefs and perceptions we may have, but also to the efficacy of our own equipment, so to speak. I read the early Greeks as mostly questioning (not denying) the former. But there are many examples to pick from, and I shouldn't generalize.
  • Ludwig V
    2k
    I don't follow that. How does skepticism enter the picture? I took Banno to mean that we wouldn't have a reason to doubt something or find it odd unless we were used to things being a certain way. That's not meant to be skeptical doubt, I don't think.J
    I'm sure it is not meant to be traditional philosophical sceptical doubt. On the contrary, that background of certainty is what prevents it running out of control, so to speak, and becoming the radical doubt that we were all brought up to combat. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

    Part of common-sense reality is a robust confidence that we can accept it. "Reality" here refers not only to the content of whatever beliefs and perceptions we may have, but also to the efficacy of our own equipment, so to speak. I read the early Greeks as mostly questioning (not denying) the former. But there are many examples to pick from, and I shouldn't generalize.J
    Thanks for outlining how you understand the word. Generalization is indeed a tricky business. I tend to regard it with deep suspicion, especially in the context of philosophy. The disagreement about certainty and uncertainty seems to me to be a case where generalization has generated a furious and false debate. It sweeps differences aside and makes them hard to see. No, I'm not saying that all generalizations do that. I am saying that some do, and it's not helpful.
    Greek philosophy has a long history and many varieties. But, according to Plato, Zeno and Parmenides did not pull their punches when discussing the reality of Being. Come to that, nor did Plato. Pyrrho and the Sceptics were, perhaps, gentler, in that they always saw both sides of the question and refused to come down on either side.

    You will have noticed @Patterner's discussion of solidity earlier. I'm fascinated by the temptation (which I partly share) to deny that tables and rocks are "really" solid when the explanation actually affirms, and does not deny, that solidity is, in everday contexts, exactly what it seems to be. The same phenomenon is capable of two different and incompatible interpretations. What can we make of this?

    (I would add, echoing Ryle, that, while the explanation of physics has its power and meaning, it comes to us through the perspective of ordinary, everyday reality. There should be no need for us to make a choice between the two. They are both necessary.)

    Long ago, when I was philosophically active, there was a widespread opinion that scepticism was vanquished and could be put to bed (or its grave). It turns out that was not so. It seems to be still alive and kicking. Cavell was right - we need to get deeper into the phenomenon and understand better where it comes from. Part of that is noticing that Cartesian scepticism is not the only variety of scepticism, and that denial of common sense reality goes back a long way in philosophy, arguably right back to the beginning. It may be that it is an essential feature of any enquiry that we might recognize as philosophical. But it also seems to be found useful in religion - another point where religion and philosophy seem to coincide or at least to be near neighbours.

    As brilliant and imaginative as many people are, I cannot imagine anyone is ever going to come up with any workable explanation for how things exist as they do if there was not coherence and predictability. If electrons did not always have negative charges. If mass did not always warp spacetime.Patterner
    Yes. We need the assumption of coherence and predictability because that's what generates our questions. I think of it as a "hinge", but more of a methodological assumption than a belief. It can't be simply empirical - what could refute it?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.