It makes thinkers incorrectly believe that a mirage would be the object that one sees instead of the behaviour of light bent by air humidity, smog etc.. — jkop
Of course the terms of reference of any alternative scenarios are always the same; they are always our ordinary 'real world' terms of reference. When it comes to global skepticism, no 'alternative' position can be framed that isn't framed in those same 'real world' terms of reference. — John
The whole idea of dream versus reality is derived form our own fundamental experience of waking and dreaming. It seems to me, we cannot be 'globally' skeptical about that fundamental experience (as opposed to being 'locally' skeptical merely about aspects of it) or we would undermine the sense of the very conceptual resources we need to frame any question about 'dream versus reality'. — John
. If there is no objective world that you are perceiving, then your "subjectivity" is actually the objective world. — Harry Hindu
What does it mean for something to have an objective existence? — John
metaphysical extremes are always excluded because a context without any content or vice versa is impossible — wuliheron
Dreams become reality and realities become dreams as our path shapes our feet and our feet the way. — wuliheron
It also means Occam's Razor is paradoxical like everything else and, thanks to pattern matching or yin-yang dynamics ruling the universe the simplest explanation is either more useful or counterproductive because it is more often the most attractive — wuliheron
A simple analog systems logic that can describe both poetry in motion and crap rolling downhill becomes applicable to anything. — wuliheron
but we have no idea what it could be to wake from our reality to some other reality that wasn't either a displacement/ and or extension of our reality or something so incomprehensible that we could not even make sense of it let alone alone deem it to be a reality that would make our ordinary experience a dream. — John
I am perfectly willing to admit that reality might be greater than we think and that what we think reality is might be just a part of a greater reality. This is precisely what is proposed by some religions. — John
I agree and those terms are determined by (steeped in) our evolutionary position and development. But is it the case that we are experiencing two parallel evolutions, one of mind and one of body?I am perfectly willing to admit that reality might be greater than we think and that what we think reality is might be just a part of a greater reality. This is precisely what is proposed by some religions. But 'our reality' would still be a genuine part of that greater reality and could only be intelligible in some kind of terms we are familiar with just as dreaming is a genuine and mostly intelligible part of 'our reality'.
Now that I think about it, there really is no way to find a distinction between the objective and the subjective BECAUSE we are confined to only one point of view.
Confined because we are in the position of having to rely on our brains for the computation of our minds. Hence we are subject to the environment within which we find our bodies.I can imagine what it might be like to be a hyperdimensional entity that is able to see where my self-awareness exists within a multifaceted objective world but nevertheless I am constrained to existing in a small compartment of a much larger reality.
Perhaps my inference of an objective world based on sensory impressions is undeniably false.
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.