What is reality?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

cladking
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by cladking »

Obvious Leo wrote:
cladking wrote: (I can't bring myself to say "evolution").
Don't be shy. Evolution towards informational complexity is the fundamental self-organising principle of the universe and the fact that almost nobody in science understands the metaphysical implications of this is regrettable because it means Newton was wrong and our universe is not a created entity. However its deeper metaphysical implications go to the very nature of determinism. It means that our universe is both entirely deterministic at every scale and utterly unpredictable on any scale.
cladking wrote:The world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place as technology catches up with theory and applied science is stuck in the 19th century.
You are too generous. I've been a philosopher of physics all my life and in my opinion the metaphysical underpinning of western science was first shattered by Aquinas and his Platonist bullshit. Descartes, Newton and Bacon then went on to develop this bullshit into a high art form but because it was so successful at modelling observations the bullshit was able to masquerade as truth. Planck, Einstein, Bohr et.al. then tried to do the impossible by putting lipstick on a pig, which was a futile exercise since the entire conceptual paradigm was bogus from the outset. Physics hasn't made a lick of sense ever since and it never bloody well will for as long as it attempts to model reality as a collection of objects moving in space. Reality is no such thing.

Reality is a sequence of events occurring in time which the observer MODELS AS a collection of objects moving in space. The distinction is not a trivial one.
I guess I've been a natural philosopher my entire life as well though I suspect you're older, better trained, and less old school than I. Really I always considered myself a scientist but have only recently come to understand that my "science" is more like phoilosophy and very very similar to ancient or animal language based science. Some of my earliest memories are in trying to understand the nature of thought. "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" and "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" are the two most inflential works for me. What do I know though, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" also had a large effect on me. In recent times I believe I have discovered the ancient language based on my "interpretation" of the Pyramid Texts ("Ritual of Ascension"?).

You have a lower opinion of modern science than I. Certainly there are severe flaws in its underpinnings and you make very valid points but these flaws can be self correcting to some extent because scientists are individuals. While science may seek "laws" individual scientists are merely seeking the repeating patterns and forces which seen to apply in nature. I believe these fundamental flaws will limit the ability of the tool known as science to progress at some point and we seem to agree this point was passed a century ago. Perhaps I simply haven't thought this out to the degree you have.

It's interesting we've arrived at such similar points. But progress has always shown up at multiple points and it probably won't be too long until several people almost simultaneously can use this knowledge in some way to make progress. Or perhaps it's the philosophical considerations alone that give rise to something new.
cladking
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
Ancient or modern, it makes no difference, all languages have the same basic structure. That is to say, the structure is determined by embodiment. Regardless of the time period -what you were doing and how you functioned in the world impacted on what you observed. It's called embodied cognition.


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
Let me clarify my previous response. I did not adequately understand the link when I wrote it.

I certainly agree that we are our entire bodies and that we even think with our entire bodies. But this is merely the nature of being an animal. Without "embodied cognition" we aren't even alive. But this has no bearing on language directly in complex modern languages. The ancients were very much aware of the fact that they were animals as was each of their parts. These "parts" were actually involved both directly and indirectly with language usage and invention. When writing was invented body parts were even words.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by Scott Mayers »

"Reality" derives etymologically from "re-" = "again"; "-al-" = "all" or "The all"; "-ity" = "as it is in kind".

So "reality" just means "that which one refers to the causes or states of all things as one kind or truth."
cladking
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by cladking »

Scott Mayers wrote:"Reality" derives etymologically from "re-" = "again"; "-al-" = "all" or "The all"; "-ity" = "as it is in kind".

So "reality" just means "that which one refers to the causes or states of all things as one kind or truth."
Indeed. "Reality" to us is perception and is not tied to what actually exists. If you believe God created the universe then this is the reality. If you believe that there are natural physical laws then this is your reality. We don't see reality directly because we see our own beliefs.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by Scott Mayers »

cladking wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:"Reality" derives etymologically from "re-" = "again"; "-al-" = "all" or "The all"; "-ity" = "as it is in kind".

So "reality" just means "that which one refers to the causes or states of all things as one kind or truth."
Indeed. "Reality" to us is perception and is not tied to what actually exists. If you believe God created the universe then this is the reality. If you believe that there are natural physical laws then this is your reality. We don't see reality directly because we see our own beliefs.
My example was only to show the generic interpretation of the subject not any specific interpretations. It doesn't necessarily mean that ALL interpretations map onto the same world though with equal agreement. While I believe each interpretation exists in some world, it may still be the case that only one unique interpretation maps onto our given world. Discussing this topic is useful if people are attempting to find agreement to act as a standard for objectivity in other areas.
cladking
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by cladking »

Scott Mayers wrote:
cladking wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:"Reality" derives etymologically from "re-" = "again"; "-al-" = "all" or "The all"; "-ity" = "as it is in kind".

So "reality" just means "that which one refers to the causes or states of all things as one kind or truth."
Indeed. "Reality" to us is perception and is not tied to what actually exists. If you believe God created the universe then this is the reality. If you believe that there are natural physical laws then this is your reality. We don't see reality directly because we see our own beliefs.
My example was only to show the generic interpretation of the subject not any specific interpretations. It doesn't necessarily mean that ALL interpretations map onto the same world though with equal agreement. While I believe each interpretation exists in some world, it may still be the case that only one unique interpretation maps onto our given world. Discussing this topic is useful if people are attempting to find agreement to act as a standard for objectivity in other areas.
I believe there is only one reality.

We each misperceive it and most see it through modeling of experiment or through other beliefs. People see a spectrum of reality determined by their experience, specialized training, and beliefs. Some specialists do see more of the spectra but most see reality through modeling; ie- they don't see reality directly but from extrapolation of reality's affect on experiment.

People don't realize this is all founded on language so they don't realize the weaknesses of models and beliefs. They mistake them for reality as discovered by giants of the past and present. They believe human progress is continuous and don't even see the differences between peoples' realities. They don't notice that models don't make good predictions just as belief fails to make such prediction. They don't even notice when they're talking about different things.

Yes, we can define "reality" in many ways but words have no bearing on the real world. We can all get on the same page about a meaning for reality but we'll all still be in a unique reality that is part of reality itself (in most cases). This may sound highly unphilosophical but the reality seems to be that it is language itself rather than mere words or definitions impeding communication.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What is reality?

Post by Obvious Leo »

cladking wrote: You have a lower opinion of modern science than I.
Not at all. I have a deep reverence for science which dates back to my adolescence. I merely insist that the inductive methodology of science can tell us nothing about the nature of physical reality unless the same conclusions can also be drawn by deductive reasoning from metaphysical first principles.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What is reality?

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Let me clarify my previous response. I did not adequately understand the link when I wrote it.

I certainly agree that we are our entire bodies and that we even think with our entire bodies. But this is merely the nature of being an animal. Without "embodied cognition" we aren't even alive. But this has no bearing on language directly in complex modern languages.

Well, actually it has everything to do with it because the way we structure language is important to embodied cognition. A physical grounded language has always help humans make judgements, make decisions and generally understand the world in physical terms. We cannot extract ourselves from out physicality when it comes to language.


cladking wrote: The ancients were very much aware of the fact that they were animals as was each of their parts. These "parts" were actually involved both directly and indirectly with language usage and invention. When writing was invented body parts were even words.
You said previously that embodied cognition has no bearing on language directly. Apparently it does. I would certainly agree that it does.
cladking
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote: You said previously that embodied cognition has no bearing on language directly. Apparently it does. I would certainly agree that it does.
Most people today aren't aware that their limbs and organs are thinking for them. Most people don't experience this in any way so for them it can affect language only indirectly or beneath the level of consciousness. I believe that the brain doesn't communicate with the body because it would overwhelm the brain. If a tiger approaches you don't want to wait for your legs to find a coat and your hands to finish puting on their socks before reacting. You must act instinctively or perish. Hence almost all communication is one way; the brain to the organs but it's the entire organism that is alive and "thinks".

We experience thought as occuring in the brain but the entire body is involved in various ways.

Just to be clear no higher brain functions experience this. When I say it might affect language beneath the level of consciousness I am not referrring to Freud's nonsensical "subconscious" but rather just that the inate wiring of the brain and body that we don't directly experience and no longer are reflected in language can still affect language as it evolves.
Well, actually it has everything to do with it because the way we structure language is important to embodied cognition.
I just don't believe this is true any longer. Language isn't even tied to the brain any longer and is imposed by our parents. We are still a whole organism but language has fractured.
cladking
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by cladking »

Obvious Leo wrote:
cladking wrote: You have a lower opinion of modern science than I.
Not at all. I have a deep reverence for science which dates back to my adolescence. I merely insist that the inductive methodology of science can tell us nothing about the nature of physical reality unless the same conclusions can also be drawn by deductive reasoning from metaphysical first principles.
Sorry. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I feel essentially the same way but see many scientists act sacrilegiosly now days. The biggest problem is that they are mistaking their models for reality because of the lack of the deductive reasoning which was inate to ancient people. Scientists can't seem to see that even in aggregate we know very little as proven by our inability to make predictions and explain events so seeing reality in terms of models is like wearing blinders.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What is reality?

Post by Obvious Leo »

cladking wrote:The biggest problem is that they are mistaking their models for reality
My very point and the central theme of my entire philosophy. This renegade philosopher of physics claims that the so-called "science" of physics is conflating the map with the territory. Other sciences do the same thing to a greater or lesser extent but not with the catastrophic consequence of rendering themselves nonsensical.

To be fair to Freud much of his work could be made compatible with the embodied cognition paradigm of the Santiago school merely by erasing some semantic confusion. In the modern discipline of cognitive neuroscience his notions of the "subconscious" could easily be replaced by the term "sub-awareness". Nothing operates beneath the level of our consciousness but over 99% of our cognition operates beneath the level of our awareness because awareness is a higher-order emergent mind function. None of this is incompatible with the cladistics modelling you seem to prefer.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What is reality?

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Most people today aren't aware that their limbs and organs are thinking for them. Most people don't experience this in any way so for them it can affect language only indirectly or beneath the level of consciousness. I believe that the brain doesn't communicate with the body because it would overwhelm the brain. If a tiger approaches you don't want to wait for your legs to find a coat and your hands to finish puting on their socks before reacting. You must act instinctively or perish. Hence almost all communication is one way; the brain to the organs but it's the entire organism that is alive and "thinks".

We experience thought as occuring in the brain but the entire body is involved in various ways.

Just to be clear no higher brain functions experience this. When I say it might affect language beneath the level of consciousness I am not referrring to Freud's nonsensical "subconscious" but rather just that the inate wiring of the brain and body that we don't directly experience and no longer are reflected in language can still affect language as it evolves.
Well, actually it has everything to do with it because the way we structure language is important to embodied cognition.
I just don't believe this is true any longer. Language isn't even tied to the brain any longer and is imposed by our parents. We are still a whole organism but language has fractured.

It works something like this. We think with our brains. The majority of our thinking is an unconscious process because thought is linear.This is because our brain circuitry is linear. There are thousands of parallel connection in this neural arrangement that branch off all over the brain. This is why we are not conscious of the majority of our thoughts. This explains why decisions/actions occur a half second before we are consciously aware of them.

I am not trying to get you to believe anything, I am just explaining what the neuroscience tells us.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: What is reality?

Post by A_Seagull »

Obvious Leo wrote:
cladking wrote: You have a lower opinion of modern science than I.
Not at all. I have a deep reverence for science which dates back to my adolescence. I merely insist that the inductive methodology of science can tell us nothing about the nature of physical reality unless the same conclusions can also be drawn by deductive reasoning from metaphysical first principles.
Basically I agree with you.

Have you any idea what the "metaphysical first principles" might look like?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:
cladking wrote: You have a lower opinion of modern science than I.
Not at all. I have a deep reverence for science which dates back to my adolescence. I merely insist that the inductive methodology of science can tell us nothing about the nature of physical reality unless the same conclusions can also be drawn by deductive reasoning from metaphysical first principles.
I share this view with you yet wonder why or how you do not see this as the stance of those "logical positivists" you disagree to. This was their original view as well. It posited that certainty can be based upon first principles in logic from a foundational or bottom up approach, where practical science operates from a top-down approach that is limited to certainty due to its problem with induction. Both are necessary though. And our goal should be to see if these can meet these approaches in the middle.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: What is reality?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:
cladking wrote:The biggest problem is that they are mistaking their models for reality
My very point and the central theme of my entire philosophy. This renegade philosopher of physics claims that the so-called "science" of physics is conflating the map with the territory. Other sciences do the same thing to a greater or lesser extent but not with the catastrophic consequence of rendering themselves nonsensical.
...
This is where I differ with you and some others here. While I do agree this occurs, I'm not sure if you recognize that from another person's perspective, they'd equally be accusing this of your perspective. I used the verb/noun description of how I saw this where you admitted believing that only the 'verbs' were real but the 'nouns' were not as an analogy. Others perceive it the other way around, that the nouns (as static spaces) are real but the verbs (as time) are not. But to me, neither can exist without the other. So both are real in order to make sense (or as to make a 'complete sentence') of each independently.

Some 'maps' only represent pointers to contingent reality. But some 'maps' can also represent the generic forms of reality.

In comparison, a pointer in computer language point to the memory location where either a 1 or a 0 occupies them as contingent reality; but the pointer to memory space itself MUST exist which defines the general form (of the architecture of the hard memory) to which allows either a 1 or 0 to be possible.

In other words, space may not be understood by you as 'real'. But by the contingent fact that you can witness various possible factors in them AND that you can't infer time without at least witnessing change in position of these factors, you have to infer that the space itself is there, just as a programmer can be certain that some hardware memory exists even if they don't know how or what it may be composed of.
Post Reply