I enjoy reading you, it'd be easier for this old fart. :wink:

...my purpose in starting this discussion was to examine "real" and "reality" from an ontological perspective. — T Clark

Sure; and that is what Austin has given you. I had supposed you had seen this, seems I was mistaken.

I've noted previously how folk seem to adopt a narrow view of ontology and then suppose that "that's not ontology" constitutes an argument. I find that most puzzling. So the use of "ontological" seems to have slide from the study of existence to the study of physical stuff.

I'd taken the OP to be related to the thread "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?". Now the idea that nothing is real cannot be made coherent; if not being real is to have any use there must be stuff that is real - a corollary of Austin's point.

Τhat's irrelevant and philosophically null. — Nickolasgaspar

What is?

Your post needs a good edit.

See my comment to T Clark, above, concerning odd restrictions on "ontology".

Reality is by definition the containing medium of anything you're able to interact with.
Any member of this domain by definition attains the descriptor "real", putting it in descriptive contact with all of reality's other members.
This entails that a causal or interactive relation distributes across the whole of reality, through which members can interact across shared structure.
Objections to this principle self-contradict invariantly, as they all propose a disentangling of reality as constituting a shared medium across which members interact, from the descriptor "real"; e.g. anything proposed to be real outside reality would not be real enough to affect reality owing to not being a part of its shared structure.

https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Reality

-"What is?"
- Its philosophically null to talk about whether "that is a real tree" instead of "is that tree real". Classification is essential but not interesting in the case of an apple, a tree,a table etc.
Your comment to T Clark can not change the philosophical weight of this question. People's view of ontology is irrelevant to whether a question is on topic or not.

-"Your post needs a good edit."
-You need to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments! You keep making vague statements like this one, or like "your definition of real has problems" but you avoid being specific. Why do you insist in talking about language instead of philosophy?

-"I've noted previously how folk seem to adopt a narrow view of ontology and then suppose that "that's not ontology" constitutes an argument."
-Again people's narrow view of ontology doesn't make an argument from Ambiguity Fallacy part of this conversation. The question about Genuineness doesn't address the fundamental ontological question about what is real...plus its a boring one since most people usually promote Category Mistakes that valid arguments.

Starting with a definition was my attempt to avoid wasting time on conversation about a different usage of the word...but here we are I guess.

So do you think its possible to proceed to a more interesting topics like i.e. what is the fundamental nature of existence? What are the criteria of "being real"? Why my definition has problems?

People often make mistakes by projecting an idealistic quality to abstract concepts. They do it by "silently" adding the concept of "absolute"/"ultimate" as a qualifier.
i.e. Ultimate reality, Ultimate Knowledge, Ultimate truth, etc. By doing so they assume they can bring idealism in a philosophical discussion and assume things under the label of "metaphysics". The truth is that we have zero epistemology supportive for such idealistic concepts, so its impossible to have a meaningful philosophical discussion. Neither these assumptions or their potential conclusions can make us wiser which is the main goal of Philosophy.

- Its philosophically null to talk about whether "that is a real tree" instead of "is that tree real". — Nickolasgaspar

Seems there are problems in following the line of discussion here. That was @TClark's comment, not mine. I thought it odd at the time he made it, but let it go.

The rest of your post is in the main mere diatribe. It wasn't my intent to piss you off. Folk are so touchy. But I don't see anything of value in your approach.

I put the questions in the wrong order. the correct order is the following.
"- Its philosophically null to talk about whether "is that tree real" instead of "that is a real tree".
Its not odd. The first question is what his OP was addressing and the second is essentially what you are attempting to address by using a different meaning of the word ''real".

-"The rest of your post is in the main mere diatribe. It wasn't my intent to piss you off. Folk are so touchy. But I don't see anything of value in your approach. "
-I am not piss me off, I am pointing out that you are wasting both our time on a meaningless aspect of the word real, that's all. Folks are not "so touchy", Folks just expect honesty and meaningful discussions.

-"But I don't see anything of value in your approach."
-What is my approach? T Clark posted an OP. I provided a definition on what we mean by the term real/reality in Science and your only criticism was that my definition was clear and specific , not vague and general because it didn't include irrelevant definitions!
Then you criticized my definition of real as "having issues" but you never explained those issues.
I don't get what your goal is.

Just to understand this weird experience I am having with you. Did we have any conversations before? Is this a pay back time type of interaction?

I mean you have my definition and I have posted you a list of questions relevant to this thread. Why aren't you addressing the issues you find in them and lets just keep out the irrelevant concepts I didn't include in my definition for now.(Unless you can demonstrate their essential role in it).

The first question is what his OP was addressing and the second is essentially what you are attempting to address by using a different meaning of the word ''real". — Nickolasgaspar

I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the article.

What is my approach? — Nickolasgaspar

This:

Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations. — Nickolasgaspar

It's mere pretence to claim this is a scientific definition. It is as "vague and general" as any thing else on offer, since it fails to set out what counts as an element. As I did explain earlier, what counts as a simple is dependent on what one is doing. Basic stuff.

Did we have any conversations before? Is this a pay back time type of interaction? — Nickolasgaspar

Not of which I am aware. Again, my intent is not to piss you off, but if you post on a philosophy forum there is a presumption that you are open to critique. Goes with the territory.

I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the article. — Banno

-Good for him but it is irrelevant to the OP which I decided to address. Only I can decide for myself what to talk about. I respect the structure of this forum and I choose to post my comments on a specific subject under a relevant OP.
Your disagreement won't change something. We are talking about the fundamental aspect of ontology (what's real) while you are addressing categories and labels. "Is a tree real" is a far more essential question than the criteria something should obey to be categorized as a tree.
I would read Austin's opinions if the act of categorizing things was part of the thread and if I was interested in it.

-"Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations."
-That is not "my approach". That is how we define reality in Methodological Naturalism(science). Our methods and their limitations are what allow us to describe our world. its not a matter of personal preferences, but what we can objectively demonstrate to be the case.
The True philosophical meaning of reality includes everything we can observe and verify around us. The idealistic (Pseudo philosophical) approach is to speculate about realms we are unable to demonstrate.

-"It's mere pretence to claim this is a scientific definition. It is as "vague and general" as any thing else on offer, since it fails to set out what counts as an element. As I did explain earlier, what counts as a simple is dependent on what one is doing. Basic stuff."
-If you know the principles of Methodological Naturalism you should be able to understand that our Descriptive Frameworks are the product and limited by our Methods of Observations and Investigation. So by definition the things we perceive and verify objectively with our senses and technical apparatus is what we identify as reality. Any claim beyond them is Metaphysics. Any worldview based on those metaphysics is Pseudo philosophy.
Nothing mentioned above is vague or general. The criteria and definitions are pretty specific.


-" but if you post on a philosophy forum there is a presumption that you are open to critique."
-Red Herrings are not critique but fallacies. I posted a definition and you criticized it for not including irrelevant additional meanings. I proved that I am open to critique by asking you again and again "why" you think my definition has issues. Instead you keep posting "what" you think not why you think that.

Again science can verify the existence of a process or entity by detecting its interactions with other observable entities/processes. This characteristic is what allow us to accept something as real. Undetectable entities can not be distinguished from nonexistent so we can not include undetectable/non existent entities/process in what we call "reality". I don't know how one can disagree with that.

I have tried this approach before it appeared to helpful to some people.

I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the article. — Banno

-Red herring. Austin Normative Philosophy on Ontology is irrelevant to our Epistemic Approach on what is real.

-"It's mere pretence to claim this is a scientific definition."
- Soft Ad Hominem due to personal incredulity. Learning the Auxiliary principles of Methodological Naturalism will help you to understand why this is a scientific definition.

-" It is as "vague and general" as any thing else on offer, since it fails to set out what counts as an element."
- Again, Science defines what an element is.... from quantum scale to chemistry and biology. My definition is not vague just because people ignore a basic scientific use of the term. The proper thing to do is to ask for additional info, not to reject the definition all together.
"Throwing the baby with the bathwater" is a logical error.


-"As I did explain earlier, what counts as a simple is dependent on what one is doing."
-Red Herring. What counts as simple is not part of our discussion.

I hope this list helps you see your errors in your argumentation.

Your comment doesn't substantively address anything that I said.

I didn't address your statements because I am in agreement with you. IYou presented a Normative view of what members should acknowledge as reality and I posted a Descriptive view on what members usually assume about what reality is..

As I've said enough times to drive even me crazy, I don't think whether or not objective reality exists is a question of fact. I think it's a metaphysical question with no truth value. — T Clark

Is there a truth value to "Objective reality is not a question of fact."

If there is a truth value to the above statement, does that not show objective reality does exist?

If there is no truth value to the above statement, what even is the meaning of that statement?

if by Objective reality we mean that External Empirical Regularities and limitations are objectively observed and verified (by us the observers) in processes all around us, then yes, we can accept and trust claims as objectively descriptive of reality.

Is there a truth value to "Objective reality is not a question of fact." — PhilosophyRunner

Yes. It is true objective reality is not a question of fact.

If there is a truth value to the above statement, does that not show objective reality does exist. — PhilosophyRunner

No. The truth value of a proposition is not sufficient for proof of existence. Truth value is nothing but logical relation to the LNC and resides nowhere else than propositions. Proof of existence, for humans, is experience.

Objective reality is merely a conception, a thought by which the manifold of possible existences is contained. The manifold of possible existences does not make objective reality itself an existence, from which follows necessarily, re: proof of existence, that the manifold of all possible existences is an impossible experience for humans.

Objective reality is not a question of fact, because no mere conception is ever a fact. Objective reality is a metaphysical idea, technically a category of pure reason, hence whether or not there is an objective reality is a metaphysical question, re: is an aggregate of all possible existences itself a possible existence, which will have a truth value relative to the premises in the argument, given the condition that any argument grounded in possibility, cannot be argued as fact.

Does the notion of objective reality seem real to humans in general? Sure it does, and that’s the point of the OP, innit?

No. The truth value of a proposition is not sufficient for proof of existence. Truth value is nothing but logical relation to the LNC and resides nowhere else than propositions. Proof of existence, for humans, is experience. — Mww

Is not a preposition that is true, linked to a fact? That fact really objectively exists, if nothing else.

I don't think you can have a true preposition that is not linked to a fact.

Yes. It is true objective reality is not a question of fact.

I just see this as itself stating a fact about objective reality. You are not saying that you subjectively experience this but others may subjectively experience differently. You are claiming an objectively fact about reality that objective reality is not a question of fact.

Is not a preposition that is true, linked to a fact? — PhilosophyRunner

That every change is a succession in time is true. An instance of this change is a truth linked to a fact; any instance of any given change is a truth linked to its fact, but not every instance of every change can be a truth linked to its fact. No inductive inference is factually provable antecedent to its experience. Analytical, or tautological, truths have no possible ground in fact, but only in logical form.

That fact exists, if nothing else. — PhilosophyRunner

Facts don’t exist; they merely represent the relations under which physical objects exist, in accordance with the intelligence that affords such determinations. “It is a fact that.....” just says some conditions relative to physical objects are such that their negation is contradictory.

While, conventionally speaking, true propositions are related to facts, but it is not necessary that they do, insofar as it is not necessarily a fact that makes a proposition true. Philosophy proper does not concern itself with convention.

Sure, I have no issues as long as it isn't used as a red herring allowing others to avoid addressing the "problems" in my definition on " what qualifies as real."

The problem with that specific definition of the term real(as you stated is that a real tree) is that it has a huge spread, meaning that different entities in existence have different characteristics and most probably the answer can be gained by doing science(not philosophy)... — Nickolasgaspar

I admit I am lost about what Banno is saying. I don't think it is a red herring, i.e. a rhetorical device. Seems like he sees what Austin has to say as ontology, while I don't see it. He's talking about a different kind of "real" than I am.

There is a philosophical aspect in that question (what makes something a real "something".) but it can either be a very short conversation or an endless one with nothing important to gain. — Nickolasgaspar

As you and I have both noted, that is not the meaning of "real" I was setting out to discuss.

it enables some to feel more secure.

Sure; and that is what Austin has given you. I had supposed you had seen this, seems I was mistaken. — Banno

I've read what you've had to say about Austin, including the quote you provided, and I'm with @Nickolasgaspar, I don't see how it's relevant to the aspect of "real" I set out to discuss. I have no objection to including it in this thread, but I don't want to mix up the issues.

I've noted previously how folk seem to adopt a narrow view of ontology and then suppose that "that's not ontology" constitutes an argument. I find that most puzzling. So the use of "ontological" seems to have slide from the study of existence to the study of physical stuff. — Banno

"That's not ontology" constitutes an argument if the subject of the discussion is ontology.

I'd taken the OP to be related to the thread "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?". — Banno

Yes, my frustrations with that and similar discussions set me off on this one. My participation lead me to formulate what has come to be known as "the Clark Reality Principle," i.e. The idea of “real” has meaning only in relation to the everyday world at human scale.

Reality is by definition the containing medium of anything you're able to interact with. — Hallucinogen

That is not a standard definition of "reality." I listed several examples in my OP, although it was not my intention to limit discussion to those definitions in the list. I think your definition can be a useful one. It's similar to one discussed previously in this thread:

Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations. — Nickolasgaspar

I know how it works but I am an old "fart" and my habits define my typing!
My eyes are trained to search for this pattern (-"bla bla bla ") and all those(
) get in my nerves! lol
After all I doubt there is anything interesting in my writings to read. I won't be offended if you ignore my posts Tom, seriously. (maybe I could use B or I)
— Tom Storm — Nickolasgaspar

I'm with @Tom Storm on this. Your way of formatting, as opposed to using the quoting mechanism provided by the forum, often makes it hard to follow your posts which are, as he noted, interesting and useful.

That is not a standard definition of "reality." — T Clark

I think in absentia of the principle Nickolasgaspar and I put forward, people don't have a coherent idea of reality. An "independent" existence of the surrounding medium isn't defensible, and what we imagine must ultimately depend on that medium just as the objects we identify as taking on an actuality do.

I think in absentia of the principle Nickolasgaspar and I put forward, people don't have a coherent idea of reality. An "independent" existence of the surrounding medium isn't defensible, and what we imagine must ultimately depend on that medium just as the objects we identify as taking on an actuality do. — Hallucinogen

You wrote "Reality is by definition the containing medium of anything you're able to interact with." I wanted to point out that is not the case. As I noted, I think your way of seeing reality is a useful one.

"By definition" refers to what something is, not what people conventionally think it is. E.g. Someone can say "true is by definition the opposite of false" but people merely disagreeing doesn't mean that this definition is not the case.

The pre-theoretical notion of reality , e.g Johnson's pain when kicking a rock, should be distinguished from the ideology of realism that often accompanies, but is not implied by, the use of a naturalized ontology such as in the natural sciences. The ideology of realism interprets the inter-subjective usefulness of a naturalized ontology as evidence that reality transcends and grounds the subject and his perspective, which the idealist and anti-realist reject as being incoherent.

"By definition" refers to what something is, not what people conventionally think it is. E.g. Someone can say "true is by definition the opposite of false" but people merely disagreeing doesn't mean that this definition is not the case. — Hallucinogen

You can say any word means anything you want, that don't make it so.

That's what my point was, which is why I was pointing out what the actual definition of reality is.