Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi
And if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained? — Mersi
e.g. Idealism (or solipsism).Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi
Embodied cognition —> e.g. anthropocentric bias, confirmation bias, status quo bias, projection bias, salience bias, apophenia ...What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption?
Mereology. The whole necessarily exceeds its parts (us). Maps (including mapmakers) are not equal to – cannot encompass – the territory.And what with reality itselfe? What properties would be conceiveable to make it impossible to ever truely see it?
Adaptive mutations. Trial and error. Fortuitous accidents. Fallibilism. "Ever Tried. Ever Failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." ~Samuel BeckettAnd if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained?
And if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained? — Mersi
reality would become a jigsaw with multiple possible solutions. — 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).The question is how accurate predictions of what we observe can ever become. — Mersi
Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi
What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption? — Mersi
What properties would be conceiveable to make it impossible to ever truely see it? — Mersi
And if we cannot get such any accurate imagination of reality, how can any technological progress made by humanity be explained? — 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?empirical gain leads to an increasing convergence between human imagination and objective reality. — Mersi
(Nietzsche,Will to Power) — Joshs
Answer: you must create that real word, not stand there waiting for it to slap you on the ass. — Joshs
What fundamental properties (or flaws) must we accuse of our cognitive faculties to justify this assumption? — Mersi
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
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. — Joshs
Co-inventing"? Not sure what that means. — Ciceronianus
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
Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi
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.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
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. — Tom Storm
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.Reality on the other hand should have something unchangeable, from which we can derive a set of rules. — Mersi
Under which circumstance could objective reality remain inaccessible to us? — Mersi
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
And yes, they were thinking about something like an atom. Indivisible.This was hoped to be 'the atom' - the changeless point-particles that are the irreducible constituents of the Universe. But, alas.... — Wayfarer
How come when Wayfarer quoted me, I didn't get a notification? — L'éléphant
And yes, they were thinking about something like an atom. Indivisible. — L'éléphant
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.