Truth is necessary for us to live. Falsehood is necessary to make us want to live. Like everything else, the trick is to get the best of both worlds, if one can that is. We must rebel against logic!

We must have our wits about us to live. We must be a little mad to want to stick around in this mess we call our world.

Good luck! I'll see you around.

I disagree that human imagination is convergent with objective reality. Perhaps the word 'conception' is better than 'imagination' (providing that conception be continually improved by scientific progress). As to the rest, are you essentially asking about the limits of objectivity?

Reality is simply what pattern of actions and choice of mind can best placate the needs of your five senses based on an extremely limited period of observation (your life) and what said period entails you to believe happened before said life and what will after. Nothing more. Though nothing less.

Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi

Humans are animals. Humans may have the ability for more complex reasoning, but at the end of the day humans are still animals.

Whenever we look at other animals it is clear to us that they will never understand the reality of the world around them as we do. For example, a horse will never understand the allegories in The Old Man and The Sea, a mosquito will never understand the complexities of the American legal system, a dolphin will never understand quantum mechanics. So it is clear to us that the ability of animals to understand objective reality is limited by the physical structure of their brain. And yet humans are still animals, still limited by the physical structure of the human brain.

IE, the circumstance of being human means that objective reality will forever remain inaccessible to humans.

And if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained? — Mersi

Pragmatism.

Where pragmatism considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.

Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi

e.g. Idealism (or solipsism).

What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption?

Embodied cognition —> e.g. anthropocentric bias, confirmation bias, status quo bias, projection bias, salience bias, apophenia ...

And what with reality itselfe? What properties would be conceiveable to make it impossible to ever truely see it?

Mereology. The whole necessarily exceeds its parts (us). Maps (including mapmakers) are not equal to – cannot encompass – the territory.

And if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained?

Adaptive mutations. Trial and error. Fortuitous accidents. Fallibilism. "Ever Tried. Ever Failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." ~Samuel Beckett

And if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained? — Mersi

By becoming more accurate, even if not completely accurate. Technological progress is linked to our ability to make accurate predictions of what we observe, not accurate models to draw those predictions from per se. However, it seems reasonable to believe that a model that has a 100% success rate across millions of predictions is a more accurate depiction of reality than an immediately falsified model. I would wager that our models will asymptotically approach, without touching, what reality is as science progresses. More via the elimination of bad ideas (falsification) than the imagining of good ones (scientific revolutions).

Reality is subjective to mankind . And scientific progress in said reality is because subjective reality is shaped by beliefs and imagination.

The question is how accurate predictions of what we observe can ever become.
We tend to imagine our cognitive faculties divided into different areas. The area where impressions are first received, the processing area where the reasoning is done, the area to store memory.
But what if all we do, when we are thinking is nothing but a constant recombining of memory engrams.
What if these engrams change every time we call them up.
To strain an analogy: Let`s imagine a computer the hardware design of which depends on the content of what data are in storage and changes with them. Each operation changes the way how futur operations will be executed.
If our cognitive faculties cannot be used to perform exactly the same operation twice, how should we be able to approach reality?
Under these circumstances,reality would become a jigsaw with multiple possible solutions.

Part of the problem which I see is that certain objective aspects of reality are easier to see than others. Those are the ones backed up by empirical evidence, as well as those of logic. However; logos and mythos are two aspects of understanding life and, the way of imagination involves story and narrative meaning. Even though it includes shared cultural meanings, it is constructed on a subjective basis, and each person has a unique 'reality' and it is not fixed, but fluid, shifting in accordance with interpretation of life experiences.

reality would become a jigsaw with multiple possible solutions. — Mersi

There are two aspects to reality. Our subjective reality, for example, seeing the colour red, and reality as it objectively is independent of any observer, for example the wavelength of 700nm.

For Idealism, there is only one reality, where the subjective and objective become one.
For Direct Realism, there is one subjective reality, and only one possible solution as to the nature of objective reality.
For Indirect Realism, there is one subjective reality, and multiple possible solutions as to the nature of objective reality.

IE, back to the problem of Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism.

The question is how accurate predictions of what we observe can ever become. — Mersi

Let's parse this. Predictions are predicted and observations are observed. Related to each other in a judgment. Three different things not to be confused with each other. And all three based on arbitrary criteria, none having anything to do with reality(-in-itself).

How accurate? How accurate do you want? In many cases 100%. In other cases, apparently, never 100%. Improving accuracy at least depends on an exact specification of what you're predicting, observing, and how you're judging. And for many things, requisite exactitude is not possible.

Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi

If by "objective reality" you mean something that cannot be accessed by a living creature in the world (thus begging the question), then obviously we can never access it. But I think it can't remain inaccessible, as it is accessible.

What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption? — Mersi

That they are not part of the world.

What properties would be conceiveable to make it impossible to ever truely see it? — Mersi

See above.

And if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained? — Mersi

A most pertinent question. More fundamentally, how can we live? I suppose those who think we can't access reality must posit that although we can't do so, we nonetheless are able to access it just enough to live and do things, but not entirely, or that we're just lucky, or that there's an evil demon tricking us, or we're in the Matrix--that sort of thing.

Just wanted to be the first postmodern relativist on a thread so far composed of only objective realists. ‘Oh dear, however can we attain contact with that precious real world that we just KNOW exists around us???’

Answer: you must create that real word, not stand there waiting for it to slap you on the ass.

“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche,Will to Power)

empirical gain leads to an increasing convergence between human imagination and objective reality. — Mersi

"Objective reality" means anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious perception of it. Or something like that. This implies that there is an absolute reality. Is this what you have in mind?
But is there actually such a thing? Who can tell what it is, what it looks like, etc., if everyone of us have our own reality, created by our own perceptions and consciousness? There must be someone who can do that and described that absolute reality to us so that we can compare it with our own, right? Well, I don't think we can find someone who has that privilege! :smile: Therefore, talking about an "objective reality" is pointless, isn't it?

Reality is based on agreement. Something is "real" for an individual if he recognizes what he perceives --or is present in his consciousness, in general-- and agrees that it exist and/or is true. It is also an agreement between two or more individuals that what they perceive, believe, etc. does exist and/or is true. This is called "common reality".

Consequently, the "reasons not to see reality" (your topic) can only refer to a conflict between what he perceives, thinks, etc. as true and what he actually knows is true. Imagination, which you mentioned is one example. Another example, quite common is "suppressed reality", i.e. the individual modifies what he actually perceives and knows is true but he cannot deal with --e.g. he is afraid-- to something that he can deal with or nothing at all (refuses its existence). Other examples are of course hallucination, mental conditions, etc.

(Nietzsche,Will to Power) — Joshs

That's the one his sister put together, isn't it?

Answer: you must create that real word, not stand there waiting for it to slap you on the ass. — Joshs

Well, when you're a part of the world, you're not waiting for it in any sense. Nor do you create it. You live in it.

What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption? — Mersi

I would like to have that sentence clarified a little bit. Not sure about the use of the word "accuse."

Generally, though:

My gut has me leaning toward your second option:

theory that an increase of knowledge on one side is accompanied by a loss of knowledge on another - loss of spirituality e.g. (whatever that means). — Mersi

If you have to ask "whatever that means" then you make the case.

Lately I've been more and more impressed with the idea of living in the "now." To the extent that "reality" is the true "now" then what we like to see in ourselves as a continuous process in the course of which empirical gain leads to an increasing convergence between human imagination and objective reality, we are FOS.

A simple example is the oft stated (paraphrased here) axiom that flows from the mouth of every scientist ever: "Every answer one finds leads to ten more questions. The more we learn, the less we know." Robert P. Pirsig.

Before the two-valued fallacy kicks in, let me say this is not an indictment of curiosity. It's just there are different directions we might go in search of truth, one of which is backward to the infinite number of truths we missed along the way.

Well, when you're a part of the world, you're not waiting for it in any sense. Nor do you create it. You live in it. — Ciceronianus

If you are an objective realist , you wait for it. You stare at it as if it were separate from you. Every moment of living in a world consists of co-inventing it.

If you are an objective realist , you wait for it. You stare at it as if it were separate from you. Every moment of living in a world consists of co-inventing it. — Joshs

"Co-inventing"? Not sure what that means. But for me, living in the world means being a part of it, not being separate from it. Being separate from it means being different from it, or outside of it. You're not part of something you create or invent, except perhaps in a metaphorical sense. So when you speak of creating the world, I think that assumes separation from it.

But being part of the world, living in it, seems to me to require an understanding and knowledge of the rest of the world with which we interact.

Co-inventing"? Not sure what that means. — Ciceronianus

I chose ‘co-inventing’ rather than ‘inventing’ because I’m trying to convey the idea of a world that is produced by us moment to meomtn i the way that a machine is designed to produce an output and then feed that output back into itself to produce a further output. Each new cycle produces an events which do not exactly reproduce
any previous event( output). But at the same time, what each cycle produces is similar to the output of the previous cycle.

You're not part of something you create or invent, except perhaps in a metaphorical sense. So when you speak of creating the world, I think that assumes separation from it. — Ciceronianus

Each new event shares elements of likeness and difference with what preceded it. One could say the machine is designed to produce variations on a theme. But it would need to be added that the theme itself must change over time along with the events that it produces.

I am not suggesting that we are just novelty producing machines. What I am trying to convey is that we can only experience the world in terms of similarities and likenesses with respect to our history. Everything we encounter, no matter how new and surprising, has our stamp on it already. Nothing is ever completely unfamiliar to us. We can’t make any claims about a world beyond this relationship without lapsing into incoherence.

If there was no reality, or if reality is only constructed, then any gain in knowledge would be nothing but the deepening of a fiction. In everyday life nobody behaves according to such a believe.
The reality of, say, the walls of my room are more than an agreement.

One problem with correspondence. Take this statement: The universe is 13.5 billion years old. This statement is regarded true in the astronomical sense if it is confirmed by a series of measurements, no contrary observations are made and if the statement fits the canon of astronomical knowledge.
But "time" as used in this statement is only a useful product of the human mind, a tool for ordering empirical impressions. It is not something that belongs to the assumed objective real universe. Or lets say, it makes no sense for the assumed object called "Universe".

It may be that what we perceive as reality is only a preliminary correspondence always in a certain respect. that could proof unfortunate for these guys looking for the "formula for everything".

If there was no reality, or if reality is only constructed, then any gain in knowledge would be nothing but the deepening of a fiction — Mersi

If there was no reality, then there wouldn't be anything existing able to gain knowledge.

Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi

None.....

What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption? — Mersi

....iff we accuse our faculty of sensibility of proper physiological function, which is passive indifference to its input. The cognitive faculties operate on that which is given to it, which presupposes sensibility. It isn’t, therefore, the cognitive faculties that determines accessibility.

Objective reality in itself, as a conception in general, is always inaccessible, so if anything, the cognitive faculties could be accused of creating that which is valid for itself, but nonetheless impossible for sensibility. But we as intelligent agents lose nothing by it, for it is certain that the constituency of the general conception remains accessible to sensibility.

I ask: Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us?
What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption? — Mersi

The fundamental property that our cognitive faculties have is that we cannot look at an object, for example, without the meaning attached to it. We can't have a blank slate and perception at the same time. It's one or the other. We can't look at a chair without any understanding, whatsoever, what that object is, and even that it is an object.

Briefly an explanation of terms: Under objective reality I understand the material outside world including the material components of the body. In short, all thet science can measure or make measurable. If it is true that the picture we make of this reality comes closer and closer to this reality, these conditions must be met:

We would have to preserve knowledge unchanged once we achieved it. I don´t mean written down in a file. I mean: kept in mind so that we can always approach what we have achieved in the same way. In my opinion this is impossible. Whatever we know is subject to constant ( perhaps even unconsciously ) reassessment. I don`t mean scientific re-evaluation, rather the constant shifts that our imaginations are subjected to throughout life. Evem math formulas or numbers as nothing is ever really completely abstract.

Reality on the other hand should have something unchangeable, from which we can derive a set of rules. Since it is undisputed that the material expression of reality is in a constant flow, what should we compare our picture of reality with if not with predictions we make of future conditions using these rules.
But here, too, I am not surewhether these ruleshold forever and everywhereand not only in partial areas.

I am not suggesting that we are just novelty producing machines. What I am trying to convey is that we can only experience the world in terms of similarities and likenesses with respect to our history. Everything we encounter, no matter how new and surprising, has our stamp on it already. Nothing is ever completely unfamiliar to us. We can’t make any claims about a world beyond this relationship without lapsing into incoherence. — Joshs

That is an interesting point. Can we discover truly new things - could it happen incrementally as part of a creative process? An example wouldn't hurt.

That is an interesting point. Can we discover truly new things - could it happen incrementally as part of a creative process? An example wouldn't hurt. — Tom Storm

But what is constituted i. experience on the basis of congruity and similarity is new. It is absolutely and completely new. It just so happens that it is also relatable
to what we already have experienced. Think of it this way? What motivates the question of whether we can discover truly more things? It presupposes that that would be a good thing. Isn’t absolute novelty what we crave? Isn’t it associated with adventure, creativity, enlightenment, discovery, progress?

It sounds paradoxical , but I suggest that the experience of true novelty is precisely the experience of chaos, confusion, meaningless and anxiety. What makes something meaningful to us as excitingly new is that it is neither a duplication of prior events nor absolute novelty.

Reality on the other hand should have something unchangeable, from which we can derive a set of rules. — Mersi

That's why right from the start, the ancient philosophers had lain down rules on talking about the real. Strip it down to bare minimum -- remove complex or composition of the real. After you've reduced it to "stuff" -- in the process called reductionism -- you get the most fundamental block of reality which is unchanging and indivisible.

Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi

You're articulating a fundamental problem in modern philosophy. The problem will always be that objectivity cannot be absolute, it is always dependent on other factors. This doesn't mean that it is unreal or non-existent, there really are objective facts in the sense of observations that will be invariant for all observers in given conditions. But the method of natural science fails to account for the centrality of the act of observation in the establishment of objective facts. That is what became clear through the so-called 'observer problem' in physics. It is also is one of the central points of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. His 'Copernican revolution in philosophy' was that it is representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of sensations. Few scientists ever understand that, in my opinion, as it conflicts with scientific realism.

After you've reduced it to "stuff" -- in the process called reductionism -- you get the most fundamental block of reality which is unchanging and indivisible. — L'éléphant

This was hoped to be 'the atom' - the changeless point-particles that are the irreducible constituents of the Universe. But, alas....

How come when @Wayfarer quoted me, I didn't get a notification? I just discovered that he responded to my post 5 hours ago.

This was hoped to be 'the atom' - the changeless point-particles that are the irreducible constituents of the Universe. But, alas.... — Wayfarer

And yes, they were thinking about something like an atom. Indivisible.

How come when Wayfarer quoted me, I didn't get a notification? — L'éléphant

It happens sometimes on this forum, I think it's a software glitch.

And yes, they were thinking about something like an atom. Indivisible. — L'éléphant

The deeper point is that the atom, as originally conceived, was a form of 'the unconditioned' - the unconditioned being that which is beyond change, imperishable, everlasting. The Greek tradition had different ways of conceiving of that, such as the apeiron or the imperishable real as conceived by Parmenides. But the problem with all such conceptions was to account for the obvious reality of change and decay. Greek atomism solved that problem by conceiving of the atom as a form of the unconditioned which, through being combined in endless ways, could create the appearance of multiplicity. This philosophy was brilliantly summarised by Lucretius in De Rerum Natura, which is taught in philosophy of matter classes until this day.

There's a very interesting discussion of atomism and Platonism in a lecture given by Werner Heisenberg towards the end of his life, The Debate between Plato and Democritus.