The vast majority of people (including "thinkers") believe there is and talk about an "objective" reality. Isn't this the "base" reality and the reality "outside of human observation", that you are talking about?
n such cases I use to ask, "If there is an objective a reality, who is out there to tell?" — Alkis Piskas
"Objective" reality appears to require an infinite, absolute viewpoint to at least be posited as possible. It does not currently seem possible, and were it to exist, we run into the problems above vis-á-vis our current conceptions of information. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. But people, so much misled by religious dogmas and bias of all sort,as well as lack of critical reasoning and undestanding, don't even treat God as something absolute. They rather treat him --at least in Christanity, I don't know in other dogmatic religions-- simply as a super human being! And in fact, with a lot of human attributes like vegeange, destructive tendencies, etc., that go hand-in-hand with "love", "mercy", etc. And that's why we see God as an old Man in paintings ... Why old? And why masculine? A Supreme Being has no age or sex!It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God. As you note, there has to be someone who can experience it, someone with "an infinite, absolute viewpoint." — T Clark
It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God. As you note, there has to be someone who can experience it, someone with "an infinite, absolute viewpoint." — T Clark
Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. — Alkis Piskas
don't even treat God as something absolute — Alkis Piskas
I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist. — Alkis Piskas
So, there's no meaning in talking about it, exept only for ... stressing the point of such an impossibility! — Alkis Piskas
Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. But people, so much misled by religious dogmas and bias of all sort,as well as lack of critical reasoning and undestanding, don't even treat God as something absolute. — Alkis Piskas
The bottom line is, I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist. But even if it does exist, we are not able to conceive it. anyway. — Alkis Piskas
To NOT believe in the objective reality in which you live requires the belief in a god. — Garrett Travers
I don't think one needs to assume that either objective reality or God have to exist. — T Clark
Objective reality is a recognition of a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence. Not an assumption. It can and does exist without the assumption of God. The only way for one to rationally come to the conclusion of a super ordinate plane of existence, is by assuming a super ordinate force beyond nature — Garrett Travers
Other than the fact that you don’t use the word ‘God’ , your model of rationality and ethics are indistinguishable from such post-supernatural accounts of God. — Joshs
The driving force behind contemporary theology isnt the super ordinate, but the truth of the ethical Good. — Joshs
That's because the rationalist account of things doesn't make room for such drivel. Thus, they've had to give an inordinate amount of ground, because they cannot take us in intellectual combat on the subject. — Garrett Travers
The rationalist account of things is absolutely dependent in its core on such drivel. Your ‘reality-based’ ethics sees the Good in , what did you call it, “ a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence.” That is precisely what nature-centered theologies argue. — Joshs
Objective reality is a recognition of a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence. Not an assumption. — Garrett Travers
It can and does exist without the assumption of God. — Garrett Travers
Now, that doesn't mean one cannot postulate a super ordinate existence, but no evidence suggests such existence, thus one is reliant on making supernatural claims of an infinite variety. — Garrett Travers
I've only ever known people who believe in God to think along these lines. — Garrett Travers
I see the existence of objective reality as a metaphysical question — T Clark
The idea of objective reality is meaningless if there is no one who can perceive it. — T Clark
I make no claims for anything supernatural. To call something "superordinate" there has to be something that is ordinate, which would be objective reality. So, your argument is circular. — T Clark
If there were no reality, you'd not have been able to send such a message to me, which simply verifies that the only reality to speak of is the one we occupy. — Garrett Travers
My conception of ethics is predicated on the human consciousness being the sole source in the known universe of all concept generation currently extant, as the result of the processes of the evolved human brain, which produces said consciousness. — Garrett Travers
You have just demonstrated that you perceive that reality by talking within it with someone else also in it, through objective hardware, designed by objective technological standards, to send such messages as contain your objective statement of the objective meaning of reality in association with perception, which you could not have done without perceiving the objective reality within which you objectively chose to operate. But, we can play pretend all day if you want. — Garrett Travers
If there were no reality, you'd not have been able to send such a message to me, which simply verifies that the only reality to speak of is the one we occupy. — Garrett Travers
I didn't say there is no reality. I said that there are other valid ways of interacting with reality that do not assume an objective reality. — T Clark
the existence of objective reality is not self-evident. — T Clark
Again, I didn't say there is not reality. I only said that its existence is not self-evident. It is not the only way of seeing things that is consistent with my experience of reality. — T Clark
Yes, and each of us occupies our own perspective
on that reality. — Joshs
To claim that there is one true reality that we can attain through empirical reason, above and beyond our perspectival access to the world, is confusing an assumption with an absolute truth. — Joshs
It relies on faith , and in its lack of insight into itself as a faith, it is more naive than any theology. — Joshs
Then you are going to have to provide an example of something extant that does not present itself as observable via evidence, given the ability to perceive such a thing through either the senses, or instruments created to detect it. Otherwise, you are saying something that is incoherent. — Garrett Travers
To claim that there is one true reality that we can attain through empirical reason, above and beyond our perspectival access to the world, is confusing an assumption with an absolute truth. — Joshs
Observing something by evidence does not require there to be an objective reality. You keep saying it's self-evident, but it's not. Then you go on to claim that interacting with reality in any way requires an objective reality, which is begging the question. — T Clark
A reality doesn't have to exist for objects in it to interact? — Garrett Travers
Objective means, in the context that we're talking about : not dependent on the mind for existence. — Garrett Travers
actual. — Garrett Travers
So, again, I'm going to need that example of something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. — Garrett Travers
(and that works only as long as we remain in denial that our 'meanings and purposes' are just (mostly adaptive) illusions)? — 180 Proof
I didn't say there is no reality, I said there is no objective reality. I didn't even say that. I only said there are other ways to look at reality. — T Clark
Yes, that's what I mean by objective reality. — T Clark
By calling objective reality "actual," you seem to mean it is the common everyday reality people deal with. That's not the only, or necessarily the best, way of looking at it. — T Clark
So, again, I never said anything about something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. You're doing it again - using our everyday experience of reality as evidence that objective reality exists when the question on the table is whether we need the idea of objective reality to explain our everyday experience of reality.
I think acting as if there is an objective reality can be a useful way of seeing things, but it is not the only way of seeing things. And it is not necessarily always the best way of seeing things. Again, objective reality is a metaphysical entity. It's not true or false, it's just assumed. No, I don't want to get into a discussion of metaphysics. I've spent enough time doing that for a while.
Let's just leave it at that. — T Clark
This is not a statement that makes sense. Reality and objective reality are the same. Objective is a reality descriptor. So, I don't know what you're saying at all. — Garrett Travers
Every bit of this is incoherent. Reality is objective. It's not a metaphysical claim, it's a physical one. As in, physics. Nothing about your position is clear. — Garrett Travers
Of course it makes sense if it is granted that there are also subjective realities. Our wishes, hopes, preferences and assumptions, for example. — Janus
ou seem to be missing the point that my hopes, fears, preferences and assumptions and so on, are real to me, in fact are the most real things of all; but they cannot be real for you. So they cannot be objective (inter-subjective) realities, and yet they are realities nonetheless. — Janus
I suppose that depends on how comparatively maladaptive any of our "illusions" happen to be.If our meanings and purposes are "Illusions" which are adaptive is there any sense in undermining them, though? — Janus
This opportunes replacing old illusions with comparatively more adaptive newer illusions (e.g. "revaluation of values" ~F.N.)What, that might be desirable, could be gained by doing that?
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.