I was reading your last post and the following question came up: Is reality a changing thing?I believe that there must be one and only one "REALITY"* for every single thing there is; there must be a single "WHOLE" since we (and everything else which exists) are certainly part of the same thing (whatever reality is, it must be the same reality/whole for everything that's contained within it even if everything contained within reality experiences it differently). Nevertheless, I am asking if this reality is fixed (is the nature of reality always the same?) or if it changes as every thing contained within it does**. What do you and other readers think?

* REALITY being that which exists. I have mentioned it before... ideas must be real (they exist) since they are molecular processes being affected by time and space.
** Assuming every thing there is changes. (Assuming every thing which exists is subject to change) (Assuming that the proposition "P = All things that exist are subject to change" is "TRUE").

Your question as to whether the underlying shared reality we know is changing. It probably could involve questions about physics and laws of nature. We can also ask about time and change. We could even ask, could time ever end? What would that mean, as we usually link time itself with the process of change. Would time ending imply that nothing ever changes ever again? There is the question as to why something exists rather than nothing, but one can also ask whether, at any point in the distance, nothing will ever exist ever again?

Thinking about the laws of nature, one useful idea is Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance, although I am not sure how far this is accepted in science or in philosophy. However, the general idea is of a memory inherent in nature, called morphic fields. The underlying principle is that once patterns or learning is achieved, this becomes encoded into making such pathways possible for others. It seems to be like an invisible factor behind evolution. But, the point is that it is about evolution, and implies change, even if it is a gradual process.

Another important question about the changing nature of reality is the question of linearity or cycles. It appears that some aspects of nature, such as the seasons are cyclical. On the other hand, other aspects, such as the life of a human being or other lifeforms are linear. However, I wonder to what extent reality involves linear patterns within the context of larger cycles, or, alternatively the cycles as being aspects of the linear? In other words, is the linear or cyclical process of change the overriding pattern of the whole? It is so hard to know, because even with the aid of science, we are restricted in our knowledge, because we cannot see the full picture of the cosmos or of time, and are confronted by what appears to be infinite and eternal. But, will the infinite and eternal cease to exist at any point? In other words, could time and space ever collapse?

Robin Williams said reality is an interesting concept. Reality is what we agree it to be, but obviously, it can be very hard to get an agreement.

I am blown away by the changed perception of reality that is in the media. It would be interesting to know my mother's take on the explanations of how prejudice harms people of color. I think she would become very defensive of endemic racism and justify it with the sexism that kept women in their place because she thought people should stay in their places. However, she really did not like getting a lower wage because she was a woman. That is, our concept of reality is dependent on our experience and it can be very confusing when others disagree with our concept of reality.

Obviously technology beginning with the technology of agriculture and irrigation dramatically changes our reality. We become more dependent on human knowledge and less dependent on a god. Mass media especially television and the internet are dramatically changing our reality and I wonder what life will be like a hundred years from now. Will racism still be a problem or will media succeed in changing our understanding of racism and our behavior? Will we even have cities, or will our cities be destroyed by fires? Will our economy dependent on oil, collapse, and if it does how will people live?

That is not quantum physics reality but it is the kind of reality I find the most interesting. It is as we make it, not exactly how a god makes it. We are destroying our Garden of Eden because we are violating laws of nature. We are headed for a water crisis and life as we know it could come to an end.

Funnily enough, no one has mentioned social reality in this thread and that is one of the most basic aspects of the encounter with reality on a daily basis. We are born into a world of human beings and are interdependent on others. Even if we live isolated lives, which was true for many more during the pandemic, we rely upon others for so much. We live in houses or flats built by others, wear clothes which have been made by others and most of us eat food from shops.

But, for most of us our whole reality is bound up with other people. I know that my own life is so different as a result of living with the people I live with currently, than with the group of people I shared with a year ago. Social experience is so central to life, and there are so many people to interact with and take into consideration. I find that it is rare for me to end up not experiencing some kind of interaction with a person I have not met before on most days in my life, and I am talking about in actual life, not counting the internet or the telephone. So, social aspects of existence and conditions are probably the most essential aspects of life, and affect the whole quality of experiences.

Also, our entire experience of technology is a key aspect of existence. Even though I am not a big fan of television, I grew up in a house where the television was on in the background most of the time. I have even come across people who seem to think that the characters in soap operas are the same people in real life and not just acting. I have seen people who are psychotic having conversations with the television. Also, we are gradually becoming so immersed in using our devices. My mother gets rather annoyed with me reading and writing on my phone so much when I am staying with her. However, she carries her phone around constantly in case she should miss a phone call. We are locked into a world of devices, complaining if our signals are not fast enough, and if they go wrong or we lose them it can seem almost like our usual sense of reality has collapsed.

I was reading your last post and the following question came up: Is reality a changing thing?I believe that there must be one and only one "REALITY"* for every single thing there is; there must be a single "WHOLE" since we (and everything else which exists) are certainly part of the same thing (whatever reality is, it must be the same reality/whole for everything that's contained within it even if everything contained within reality experiences it differently). Nevertheless, I am asking if this reality is fixed (is the nature of reality always the same?) or if it changes as every thing contained within it does**. What do you and other readers think?

* REALITY being that which exists. I have mentioned it before... ideas must be real (they exist) since they are molecular processes being affected by time and space.
** Assuming every thing there is changes. (Assuming every thing which exists is subject to change) (Assuming that the proposition "P = All things that exist are subject to change" is "TRUE"). — Daniel

Ah, if we are talking quantum physics as reality, perhaps it is not a thing but an action and it is in constant change.

The first elements — hydrogen and helium — couldn't form until the universe had cooled enough to allow their nuclei to capture electrons (right), about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Q: How did the first chemical element appear in the universe?Dec 12, 2018

How did the first chemical element appear in the universe ...https://astronomy.com › magazine › ask-astro › 2018/12 — Astronomy magazine

Before the elements what was hot? I don't comprehend reality on this level. We begin with a reality that has no elements. This is not as simple as a god creating heaven and earth and saying it is good.

Like PoeticUniverse said....

Newton's proposed space and time as absolutes were given the boot by Einstein, so, they are but emergent, and not fundamental, so, the ultimate foundation can't have them. — PoeticUniverse

So, Philosophy works best when its derivations can get confirmed by/with science; otherwise, as we see in some of the forums, people say a lot of things that sound good on the surface, such as having 'free will', 'infinity', and 'Nothing' that quickly evaporates when delving into the definitions. — PoeticUniverse

That final statement about definitions brings to mind the creature that is doing the defining. Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. I read something in Qabala that said God can not have a consciousness like ours because God does not have a physical body and can not experience life as we do. Existence as we know it is unfolding without knowledge because before it comes into being there is nothing to know about it. What other form of intelligence would question reality as we do and how do we come to define anything or to agree on definitions? I think I am saying, we are creating reality or at least any understanding of it.

I am reluctant to move the discussion in a direction it was not going. I didn't realize I was so far off from what everyone else is discussing.

As writing changed human consciousness, television has changed human consciousness and will continue to do so. We live on a finite planet and we have changed it in ways nature would not do. I think our question of reality should focus on that, but perhaps not in this thread? Does it matter if there are many dimensions? Our failure to adequately understand our 3, possibly, 4-dimensional reality could mean destroying our planet and it is humans making the change, not a God and not nature. Oh dear, how could my thoughts be so different from what everyone else is thinking about?

I think that this discussion has come to an end and then restarted a few times. You are welcome to take up anything you wish to. I began the thread querying the solidity of reality, and it moved more into a gallery in page 11, so I see the thread as a very fluid exploration of reality.

Okay, how many ways can we define reality? What about reality matters and why? How can we be sure we know reality? Like, might we live differently if we think the Jews must rebuild their temple for Jesus to return and then we will be given a new planet, or if we think our planet is finite and that no religious explanations explain our reality?

In many ways, even though we have shared realities, I do believe that each one of us has a unique reality. I remember reading a sociological text, by Berger and Luckman, 'The Social Construction of Reality', in which the authors speak of how we construct our own identities in symbolic ways.

Each of us has such a unique set of experiences and, finds meaning in the social contexts in which we find ourselves, and we also can choose the life we have, even if we have a limited range of choices. Also, we are so unique in the way in which we interpret our experiences. Each person has a subjective set of likes and dislikes. For example, I know how my own tastes in music are not necessarily the same as many others I know.

Even though we ask certain common philosophical questions, it is likely that each of us answers these so differently, even if we follow the principles of reason. In particular, when we consider the question of God, it is likely that how each of us would consider the 'reality' called God would vary so much.

When I began the thread question I did not have the word 'your' in the title, and it became apparent to me that the answers which people were coming up with were about trying to define reality, especially in terms of physics. I had not realised that people would think of the question in that way. I do believe that even though there are shared aspects, or objective means of thinking, about reality, each of us sees reality in a distinct way, and this varies at different points in a person's life. Each of us, at any moment, has a different perspective, including aesthetic,, emotional and rational aspects, but, at the same time, we do navigate these in connection to shared views and specific understanding of standards which are seen as objective.

I haven’t read most of the thread, and by now there’s a lot to read. Wanted to throw out an interpretation and see the critiques.

Building on this:

In many ways, even though we have shared realities, I do believe that each one of us has a unique reality. — Jack Cummins

“Reality” can hold two meanings, that which is actual, which to me can apply to at least three levels, and that which would strictly be the third level in the following categorization:

1) (Intra-)subjective realities: e.g. mine was a real dream, and not a fictious dream that I lie about to you. Or: we each dwell in our own (intra-subjective) reality, here referencing an individual’s epistemic awareness of what is ontic as itself being an actuality.

2) Intersubjective realities: e.g., that is a real culture, and not a fictious culture that someone wrote about in a science-fiction novel. Or: a Young-Earth Creationist's reality (emphasis on this being a shared reality among many, here with reality/actuality in the sense given in (1)) is different from an evolutionist’s reality (with same emphasis as before).

3) that reality, else actuality - often, “reality” for short - which is equally applicable to all coexistent sentience, and whose being is therefore not contingent upon any intra-subjective reality or any intersubjective reality: e.g. this is a real table, and not an illusion of one. Or: evolution is real (irrespective of what anyone might believe). And so forth.

Of note, here all three levels, or types, of reality are defined relative to sentience.

I believe that reality is such a flexible term because it so vast, and, in connection to the third category can be seen as infinite. This means that in many ways the question is so wide that it almost too difficult to answer. I was initially thinking of the matter in this widest sense, because as human beings we are inclined to wonder about the big picture, and how it works, or about underlying processes, and premises for explanations.

Thinking about the intrasubjective, there is the establishment of daily reality, which is about the empirical. When we think about the distinction between waking reality and that which arises within dream states of consciousness, most people regard waking life as being the more real but it is not an absolute matter.

I do believe that the intersubjective is in many ways another category but in some ways the shared understandings of others help shape the intrasubjective, especially in childhood. I am thinking that children often live in more of a mythical universe, and even adults can become confused, such as in mental states of psychosis. In such cases, where delusional thinking become apparent, it is often that the individuals need to be enabled to get back to the shared meanings of other people, to make sense of the intrasubjective.

I think that your categories are useful, but reality is something which expands outside of us, and includes us, with our own interior consciousness. It reminds me of how I once went into to a cafe as a teenager, wishing to draw the inside of it. I simply didn't know where to begin, because it was surrounding me. I was looking out and I was within it. I felt overwhelmed because I had not learned at that stage how to begin to frame a specific view of the reality which appeared before me.

I think that your categories are useful, but reality is something which expands outside of us, and includes us, with our own interior consciousness. — Jack Cummins

I'm in agreement with your comments on intra- and inter-realities. I am interested to better understand your critique of category three, which, for the time being, could be labeled "equi-subjective reality" or "equireality" for short: that reality/actuality which equally applies to - hence, is equally shared by - all subjective beings regardless of what we think, believe, perceive, etc.

I intentionally left its description open ended. To the physicalist, equireality would not be contingent upon awareness in general; it would remain in the absence of all awareness. From any number of non-physicalist metaphysics - with CS Peirce's notion of physicality as effete mind as one variant - that which is equireal would itself be contingent on sentience in general: such that, for example, it would naturally emerge from a plurality of individual sentiences as that which is equally shared by all. A cumbersome metaphysics, granted, but nevertheless one avenue of approach.

I very much don't intend to turn this discussion into one of metaphysical debate on various monisms.

I am, however, interested to find any logical problems that might be apparent to the third category of equireality, as that - by necessity, singular - actuality which is common to all and which we ordinarily simply term "reality".

Thanks for the input, btw.

Thanks for your detailed reply. Strangely, I downloaded a book on Peirce's philosophy, so I will have a look at it tomorrow and reply to you. I do believe that it is worth reading in order to think about all these matters in connection with writers' ideas, because they have given a lot of thought to all these issues.

Fair enough. Wanted to clarify that I offered Peirce’s metaphysics as one possibility that I personally envision could facilitate a constructivist notion of equireality, so to laconically speak. This idea I threw out regarding equireality in general was not, however, to my knowledge explicitly stated by Peirce … although I’d love to find references in Peirce’s works that would corroborate this notion. I’ll check back in tomorrow, though.

Okay, I will look at the book briefly, but won't worry about reading too much of it, and I am about to log out. Sometimes, I find if I write too much philosophy late at night I have trouble getting to sleep. But, I do wish to continue it, because I find it very interesting.

I have only glanced at the book on Pierce's philosophy, but have been thinking about the question of eqireality in relation to a book which I have just finished, 'Investigations Into the Phenomenonology and the Ontologogy of the Work of Art'(ed Bundgaard and Stjernfelt), which focuses on the way in which reality and representations are an experience of the perceived and the artist. I think that this way of thinking about the external world does raise the question of a singular actuality. Subjective aesthetics plays such a critical role of perception, to the where we can query the underlying objective one.

Photography is not really looked at in the book, but we can wonder about whether photographs are the most accurate forms of visual art. I don't think that the answer is clearcut because photography is an art in itself, involving framing, focus, background detail and lighting. However, in some ways it is used as a general reliable information, like in passport photos to confirm identity of a person.

One aspect which I wonder about in the experience of reality is the role of mood. That is because I believe that it does affect the whole interpretation of reality. I believe that it affects perception and understanding in various ways.

I do still plan to read Pierce and look at the wider question of metaphysics, but I do believe that the phenomenological interpretation of reality, including art, is extremely important in understanding the notion of a shared reality.

In many ways, even though we have shared realities, I do believe that each one of us has a unique reality. I remember reading a sociological text, by Berger and Luckman, 'The Social Construction of Reality', in which the authors speak of how we construct our own identities in symbolic ways. — Jack Cummins

That would be a good book to read! I have the good fortune to have experienced the reality of poverty and living in constant insecurity and learning to not want things and the opposite of living in an exclusive neighborhood. These different economic groups have different understandings of reality tied to their emotions and thoughts. The people may share facts but the meanings are not the same.

Each of us has such a unique set of experiences and, finds meaning in the social contexts in which we find ourselves, and we also can choose the life we have, even if we have a limited range of choices. Also, we are so unique in the way in which we interpret our experiences. Each person has a subjective set of likes and dislikes. For example, I know how my own tastes in music are not necessarily the same as many others I know. — Jack Cummins

I like that example of having different tastes in music. That is an odd thing isn't it? Why don't all people enjoy music exactly the same? My taste in music has changed. I used to enjoy heavy metal but now I prefer classical music. It is like my body requires a different sound and beat and is apt to feel annoyed if the sound is harsh. However, I can enjoy a lot of rap if the words are positive. And along this line, I am concern about how TV affects people. I think it affects them in ways they are not aware of and that this has social consequences.

Each of us, at any moment, has a different perspective, including aesthetic,, emotional and rational aspects, but, at the same time, we do navigate these in connection to shared views and specific understanding of standards which are seen as objective. — Jack Cummins

You are so wise. Just wait until you are 70 years of age. Although you have a lot of self-awareness and wisdom, I bet you will be surprised by how much your thinking changes when are older. Because you are a thinker your wisdom will continue to develop. I know plenty of old people, don't develop their thinking and get stuck in their ways, but for those who live to learn and think, age improves their thinking in ways a young person can not imagine.

I think we all need to work on self-awareness so we are not trapped in our own personal drama which we believe is real, but really it is only our own reality or mythology of heroes and demons as Joseph Campbell explained. Especially when we are not getting along with someone, we tend to think it is all that person's fault and we are sure that person's thinking is not right. We either dislike the other or ourselves. Our egos think they are dying if we entertain the idea that it is our thinking that isn't right and we are the one who needs to change but if we do blame ourselves we can become self-destructive because if we knew how to do better we would. :lol: Hum, :chin: it looks like our understanding of reality is also tied to our coping skills. The better our coping skills are, the more flexible we can be and that is a different way of seeing reality.

PS defining reality with quantum physics is so different from the religious explanations of reality that we have lived with for thousands of years.

I think that this way of thinking about the external world does raise the question of a singular actuality. Subjective aesthetics plays such a critical role of perception, to the where we can query the underlying objective one. — Jack Cummins

This would depend on the metaphysics espoused. In Platonic Realism, for example, the Aesthetic is as much a singular universal Form as is the Good. Hence, while in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, all beholders of it will experience some or all of the same universal attributes of this Form.

Photography is not really looked at in the book, but we can wonder about whether photographs are the most accurate forms of visual art. — Jack Cummins

Interesting phrasing. Accurate in terms of that reality which is common to all, right? I'm myself biased in interpreting art as a conflux of a) ideas expressed x b) quality of expression x c) audience's understanding of both (a) and (b), with the audience including the artist her/himself - such that if either (a), (b), or (c) is null, no art can take place. So interpreted, I can't describe art as accurate, other than, maybe, being an accurate representation of the artist's intentions. But this would address both subjective and intersubjective realities to a far greater extent that the singular objective reality.

One aspect which I wonder about in the experience of reality is the role of mood. That is because I believe that it does affect the whole interpretation of reality. I believe that it affects perception and understanding in various ways. — Jack Cummins

I do agree. To fall back on the terminology I've previously offered, this for ease of expression, we all experience equi-subjective reality via our own momentary intra-subjective reality which is itself always in large part formed by the intersubjective realites we are participants of.

* REALITY being that which exists. — Daniel

This is more agreement with what you have said than not an argument.

At best we can have a perception of reality. That perception is dependent on our receptors for feeling, hearing, seeing, etc. and the devices we use to enhance our perceptive capability. Secondly, our ability to perceive reality is limited to what we know and our ability to ask good questions. It is presumptuous to think we can know reality any more than we can know God. We can know about reality, and we can study holy books but that is all limited and we might want to remain cognizant of that. Then we might be less arbitrary about our own concepts of reality.

Thanks for your reply, and I plan to read further, possibly Pierce and others. I am not sure that art is meant to be 'accurate' copying or representation. I am not sure that is even possible. It would probably defeat the purpose of art. I do wonder if the artist is fully able to follow intention fully, because the artist does not have a complete understanding of the intersubjective realities of the audience.

I think that it is so easy to get trapped in our own personal dramas and see them as concrete realities. I think that this applies at all ages, and self awareness is so variable. I believe that some people are so much more psychologically minded than others. It does seem that we all vary so much and some people find it hard for accept this. For example, they insist that their music taste is the ultimate, just like arguing for a certain set of beliefs. I do believe that the understanding of subjectivity is very different from adherence to relativism.

It does seem that for many people ideas such as those in the sciences, especially physics, are treated in almost the same way as previous religious ideas. People may not always understand the logistics of evolution or quantum physics, but they may be filled with awe, or even be mystified by them. But, the worldviews arising from science are so different from the religious ones. I remember how I was brought up with religious beliefs, and many others I went to primary school were not, and it did seem like their underlying reality was different to the one which I inhabited. Beliefs and ideas shape our experiences of reality in such a powerful way.

It does seem that for many people ideas such as those in the sciences, especially physics, are treated in almost the same way as previous religious ideas. People may not always understand the logistics of evolution or quantum physics, but they may be filled with awe, or even be mystified by them. — Jack Cummins

Yep. I am convinced that many people who have a secular orientation in a secular world do not actually have the capacity to defend their worldview and don't really understand it. They are socialised into a world of secular sensibilities - one which privileges 'science over superstition' without understanding much at all. They may even identify as atheist as opposed to believing in a 'magic man' but are likely to have a cartoon view of religion/god and no real grasp of secularism or skepticism.

We keep talking about this being a secular age, which it is to some extent, but I suspect the age is more secular than the people in it... I am not convinced the average person has an intellectual commitment to the ideas of secularism or an understanding of the principles their view of reality is founded upon. Just as in pervious eras people often inherited a religious worldview without really comprehending it.

I think that we speak of being in a secular age on this forum, but I would be surprised if that many people in society would describe it that way. Most people who I know who are not religious tend to just say that they are 'lapsed' or don't have a religion. However, I am sure that it is hard to generalise about people's beliefs, but in the last few years, I have found that most people I know have some religious beliefs, Christian or Muslim. I have been surprised to meet so many people who attend religious services. I really wonder if there is much available information to suggest whether we are in a secular age, and how this is even measured.

I really wonder if there is much available information to suggest whether we are in a secular age, and how this is even measured. — Jack Cummins

The data is there - Steven Pinker, for example, has certainly used it in his writings. Based on census data and surveys, no doubt.

But for me the point isn't whether people are going to church or identifying as atheists. The point is, is their belief based on careful consideration, or are they just following...

To the degree hordes of chiliastic fundies and theocratic militarists are not (at the moment) trying to send each other to hell "in the name of" one sanguinary sky-daddy or another, I think it's reasonable to say we're living in a secular interregnum. :pray: :mask:

Okay, how many ways can we define reality? — Athena

As many ways as we can possibly map the territory or as many different games of chess we can possibly play. Maybe as many as the number of angels which can dance on a pinhead. 'Definitions' are like that mostly.

What about reality matters and why?

This question, like asking every other, presupposes it. Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. Thus, it's the ur-standard, or fundamental ruler, against which all ideas and concepts, knowledge and lives are measured (i.e. enabled-constrained, tested).

How can we be sure we know reality?

As Witty might say 'because we lack sufficient grounds to doubt reality' (as opposed to abundant grounds to doubt fictions).

Like, might we live differently if we think the Jews must rebuild their temple for Jesus to return and then we will be given a new planet, or if we think our planet is finite and that no religious explanations explain our reality?

Again: reality is the ineluctable, subject / consensus–invariant, measure that tests whether "what we think" and "how we live accordingly" are maladaptive (more harmful than helpful) or adaptive (more helpful than harmful), etc.

This question, like asking every other, presupposes it. Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, subject / pov / language / experience / consensus–invariant. Thus, it's the ur-standard, or fundamental ruler, against which all ideas and concepts, knowledge and lives are measured (i.e. enables-constrained, tested). — 180 Proof

:up:

We keep talking about this being a secular age, which it is to some extent, but I suspect the age is more secular than the people in it... I am not convinced the average person has an intellectual commitment to the ideas of secularism or an understanding of the principles their view of reality is founded upon. — Tom Storm

And this is the (necessary) fallacy of the theist: that we must approach atheism and secularism rationally, with care and effort, or approach it badly, when all it really entails is not brainwashing and scaring your child into defending unjustifiable beliefs. No theist can agree, I get that, which is why these sorts of debates tend to be fruitless for both sides: people raised in religion tend to lack the imagination of what not being raised in religion, of being free, is like. And I'll be open in having no comprehension of what being brainwashed like that as a child is like, although I am at least privy to other forms of brainwashing (nationalism, advertising, partisan media) enough to get an idea.

Generally, my own view is that shifts in religious views and other ones is that they do fluctuate according to needs, personal and social. I know that my own questioning of what I had been taught was when those beliefs become unworkable for me.

What I was surprised about was how so many people I know who are from Africa adopted the Christian beliefs which had been delivered to them by missionaries. I had been of the view that Western people had gone to Third World nations, and 'sold' a particular view of reality to these people. However, generally, when I have said this to people I know who are from Africa they disagree with me completely, with only one or two of them seeing any connection between religion and politics.

I was brought up with religious beliefs, and had friends who were not religious when I was a child, so I was able to reflect on it when I was about 10 or 11. However, what I do think is that brainwashing involves so many other aspects of ideas. I was aware as a child of others who were racist and had very narrow political views, based on their family background, and I believe that was every bit as strong as any religious set of ideas or values.

So many cannot question the beliefs that they have been taught, and, strangely, I think that my parents taught me critical thinking skills as well as religious ideas. I do think that it is brainwashing when people are taught a certain set of ideas or values in such a way that they are so restricted in being able to see outside of that set of values. It is as if one picture of reality is delivered with some kind of hypnotic power.

I do think that it is brainwashing when people are taught a certain set of ideas or values in such a way that they are so restricted in being able to see outside of that set of values. — Jack Cummins

I think you are referring to socialisation rather than brainwashing (which has a bit of a judgy tone). Presumably if you are brought up to believe in equity and fairness and tolerance you are equally brainwashed/socialised. Note how no one says, 'I was brainwashed to be tolerant'. My view is that not enough people have thought things through for themselves and they are not really thinking if they are just following orders. Can they really be your values, I wonder, if you haven't earned them?