What is the nature of Reality. What is real?

[Assassin X]

Great debate topic! Not my idea, but someone elses:

"I want to pose a question which I hope will cause some serious debate. What is the Nature of Reality? How do we know what we see is real? Are you really reading this right now? Is reality only in the mind, only in the physical world, or a mixture of both? (in other words do you believe in idealism, materialism, or dualism?) Or perhaps you are a pragmatist who believes that we can never know the answer. Or if you're up on current philosophy, are you a practitioner of Logical Positism, or Anti-realism?"

[Terr Fangbite]

Its reality because anything else is too mind-numbing and easily eliminated with occums (mispelled I think) razor.

[Rye]

Great debate topic! Not my idea, but someone elses:

"I want to pose a question which I hope will cause some serious debate. What is the Nature of Reality? How do we know what we see is real?

I should point out that to have a working definition of "see" and "real" we must've experienced seeing and have the concept of reality from that sensory input, else, how could we have got the concepta?

Are you really reading this right now?

Yep. Any other explanation is useless neomystic crap.

Is reality only in the mind, only in the physical world, or a mixture of both?

I'd contend that "reality" is the shared existence between everyone that we percieve with our senses, our minds, perceptions and senses are part of that shared reality. Again, to have a concept of a reality, and a mind, we need sensory input and self awareness. Try having self awareness without sensory input, you'd never be able to distinguish yourself since you would be all that you had access to.

I take a reductionist stance that the mind is the product of physical factors, given the rather extensive and varied effects of brain damage. The mind is totally dependent on the brain working right, much like software is completely dependent on computer hardware running right. That software in your computer is physical process, and likewise, is the mind.

(in other words do you believe in idealism, materialism, or dualism?)

Materialism.

[Melchior]

Solipsim is fallacious, so a lot of the thread is a moot point.

[Darth Wong]

What we perceive as reality is far too consistent to be a product of our imaginations (unlike dreams, which are inconsistent and often outright nonsensical). And if one presumes that it could be the product of some outside apparatus (a la "The Matrix"), then one would be guilty of inventing completely unnecessary and redundant terms.

[Queeb Salaron]

What Wong said.

Yeah, I'm writing this now. If I wasn't, I'd be doing something else. But I'm not. I'm writing this. So it must be real.

How's that for juvenile philosophy-deflating logic?

[Zoink]

What is the Nature of Reality?

A series of relationships that we perceive as 4 dimensional spacetime. Those relationships exist whether its a simulation in a CPU or a multitude of physical objects bumping into each other. The end result is the same.

Wether there is other realities/universes/whatever, and whether they affect this reality: we know of none. Its hard to prove a negative.

Are you really reading this right now?

Yes. The relationships that create the information in my brain must exist for me to 'read' it per my understanding of the process of reading.

Is reality only in the mind

I say no, per my explanation above. But, I suppose it depends on how you want to define reality.

[Slartibartfast]

Hey, that's a great debate topic! I remember when I and some friends debated that! For hours! We were 12 years old, and drunk

[Mayabird]

My pat, sarcastic, not good but really funny with the proper hand gestures answer: "Of course when a tree falls it makes a sound. Sound is mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium such as air. It will exist whether or not anyone is around to hear it. To deny the sound is to deny external reality, which is stupid since we trip over things we don't know are there and thus weren't in our heads already."

[sketerpot]

Suppose I were to thwack you on the head. That would be real, as far as you're concerned. If we don't assume that what we observe around us is real, we're stuck in the realm of useless solipsism, which is something everybody should think about for about 30 seconds at some point in his or her life, then discard.

Speaking of which, I hereby declare March 20 to be "Hit a Solipsistic Wanker" day. Be sure to either bring cookies or deny all terms and definitions related to the bringing of cookies!

[Assassin X]

Once again not my post, my friends post. He wanted me to type all this so heres goes.

A response to the Razor comment:

"First off, I think you need to grasp a better understanding of Occam's Razor. Occam's main philosophy was "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." Occam's Razor can in effect be used to proove almost any point.

For example, atheists often apply Occam's Razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being. This principle has also been used by atheists to reject the God-the-Creator hypothesis in favor of natural evolution: if a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and its components would be much simpler.

As per Razor himself he did argue that Natural theology is impossible. Natural theology uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. According to Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith.

Many other examples of Occam's Razor can be seen: According to Berkeley (using Occam's Razor), we need only minds and their ideas to explain everything. Subjective Idealists might use the razor to get rid of God. All can be explained with just minds and their ideas. Materialists, on the other hand, might be said to use the razor to eliminate minds altogether. We don't need to posit a plurality of minds as well as a plurality of brains. Some have even found a use for Occam's razor to justify budget cuts, arguing that "what can be done with less is done in vain with more."

Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily."

Because Occam's razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some creationists have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. If it did, Occam's would be dull razor for a dim populace indeed.

So in conclusion, to the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary. If so, the principle is not very useful. On the other hand, if Occam's razor means that when confronted with two explanations, an implausible one and a probable one, a rational person should select the probable one, then the principle seems unnecessary because so obvious.

But if the principle is truly a minimalist principle, then it seems to imply the more reductionism the better. If so, then the principle of parsimony might better have been called Occam's Chainsaw, for its main use seems to be for clear-cutting ontology, and with it all branches of metaphysics."

[Assassin X]

Oh and my response is... what is the matrix?

Really. I dont care. Lifes to short to worry about whats real or not real or whatver.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that Occam's Razor can be abused does not change what it is. And yes, it does clear-cut metaphysics. Why is that a problem with Occam's Razor rather than a problem with metaphysics?

[Zoink]

What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definately overpaid for my carpet.- Woody Allen

[Pick]

I say reality is definite in the form of the thing we percieve, however I do not find it at all unreasonable to say no human or any other being can exactly percieve it as it is, so any furthur comment on it by me would have a good chance of being inaccurate.

I do believe, however, that certain individuals grasp it much better than others. Obviously a fundie has no fucking idea what he's talking about since he denies even what he percieves.

On the Matrix note, for your amusement, here's part of a chat I had:

Mr. Dawson: Also they're kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel when they pull the, "Oh yeah? How do you know anything's real? This could be the matrix, maaaan," argument against "Why science is awesome." Last time I checked the bible was printed on paper, not magical shards of reality transending ultimateTruthium

[Petrosjko]

Going through the 'how do we know if this is real?' phase is an entirely common thing.

Most people then proceed to come up with the logical answer. 'It's too uncomfortable to pretend it's not, being as how that deprives me of housing and food.'

Then life goes on.

Absent any evidence, it's a simplistic 'what-if' exercise.

[Dark Sider]

*Sigh* Nobody ever mentions Chatton's anti-razor.

[Rye]

Once again not my post, my friends post. He wanted me to type all this so heres goes.

A response to the Razor comment:

For example, atheists often apply Occam's Razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being. This principle has also been used by atheists to reject the God-the-Creator hypothesis in favor of natural evolution: if a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and its components would be much simpler.

It's not so much that "the universe would be simpler with god's intervention," as it's evolution is observable, testable and useful, whereas when we involve a god or gods, we have to add ad hoc assumptions to account for what we already see and know exists. There's no reason to involve gods at any point, because, frankly, they're useless, they're anthropomorphised magic terms that do whatever you want them to without giving you any practical information.

Since there's no reason to accept these new terms, it's intrinsically irrational to do so, it's special pleading in all cases.

As per Razor himself he did argue that Natural theology is impossible. Natural theology uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. According to Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith.

Yep, and faith is an irrational epistemology.

Many other examples of Occam's Razor can be seen: According to Berkeley (using Occam's Razor), we need only minds and their ideas to explain everything.

What we perceive as reality is far too consistent to be a product of our imaginations (unlike dreams, which are inconsistent and often outright nonsensical). And if one presumes that it could be the product of some outside apparatus (a la "The Matrix"), then one would be guilty of inventing completely unnecessary and redundant terms.

As well as dreams, I would also like to add fictional worlds and universes, we all spot plot holes in human fake realities that can be mere minutes long. Berkeley then, from the sounds of it, wants to invent an unestablished property of the mind in order to justify his own conclusion. What does this "floating mind" hypothesis give us exactly? Nothing, that's what.

It takes things established as existing via "traditional" empirical epistemology, minds and ideas, things that are defined in contradistinction to an actual physical world, as a basis. THEN he says the physical world is the product of these things? "All physicality is thought up by minds" relies on established knowledge of minds, physicality and thinking and the distinguishing properties of each. To ultimately deny that distinction is just whacky. It's also, obviously, not what logically follows from the basis and requires inventing new abilities of the mind that are not established.

So is it more parsimonious? No, I don't believe it is. It steals the concept of thoughts and minds and physicality and denies its own basis, while inventing unestablished capabilities of minds on the fly to support itself. Because it ends up with a smaller conceptual model at the end, i would not say makes it more parsimonious, critically because it has to go through more ad hoc hoops to get to that conclusion.

"All reality is thought" is like "all property is theft," "theft" requires the existence of rightfully owned property in the first place, you can't have theft of property that does not rightfully belong to someone/thing. Likewise, "thought" requires that it is distinguished from physical reality, you cannot have a thought which carries equal weight to the real version, and you can't have a physical reality made up entirely of thought.

It is rational to ask: "How do the senses enable man to perceive reality?" It is not rational to ask: "Do the senses enable man to perceive reality?" because if they do not, by what means did the speaker acquire his knowledge of the senses, of perception, of man and of reality?

Subjective Idealists might use the razor to get rid of God. All can be explained with just minds and their ideas. Materialists, on the other hand, might be said to use the razor to eliminate minds altogether.

No, it doesn't, that's a strawman of materialism. Materialism does not deny that minds exist, it denies that their basis is not material. A mind is an outcome of an ongoing physical process, much as computer programs are the outcome of a different physical process, or do you think that windows XP was not put onto your hard drive and then loaded via a physical process? Minds, like programs, are the emergent products of a specific sequence of physical interaction, a process. They do not exist seperately from that process, they do not live rent-free in a platonic heavenly apartment.

We don't need to posit a plurality of minds as well as a plurality of brains.

The mind is completely dependent on the brain, and very few modern materialists deny their existence.

Some have even found a use for Occam's razor to justify budget cuts, arguing that "what can be done with less is done in vain with more."

Pointless things on budgets that don't actually contribute should be cut. I see no problem with this.

Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily."

Don't multiply ad hoc hypothesis unnecessarily. It doesn't just cover adding random hypotheses to an argument, but it includes ad hoc, that is, hypotheses that suit a specific purpose, your intended goal. If you allow for ad hoc hypotheses, you can add whatever you want because it's necessary for the conclusion to be true.

Because Occam's razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some creationists have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. If it did, Occam's would be dull razor for a dim populace indeed.

Though it may appear to be similar, there's no evidential basis for such a claim. Is it really simpler to create animals directly from clay and air via unknown natural processes than actual observed natural processes? Also, they have to concoct ad hoc hypotheses to explain other evidence that testifies to common descent, like nuclear DNA and endogenous retroviruses. In other words, it is up to them to prove it's simpler.

So in conclusion, to the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary. If so, the principle is not very useful. On the other hand, if Occam's razor means that when confronted with two explanations, an implausible one and a probable one, a rational person should select the probable one, then the principle seems unnecessary because so obvious.

Since gods have never been verified doing anything, the theist has more to prove that they are unable to. Their intended properties of gods are defined ad hoc, or from hearsay, and don't really pass a proper application of parsimony.

[Tinkerbell]

There are many approaches that could be taken with this. The first one involves dreams. How many of you have had a dream where something so utterly fucked up happened it would not have possibly come to pass in the 'real world,' but thought nothing of it. Early morning, making toast, --BAM! Dragon rips off the roof of your house. Your dream-self doesn't sit there watching this go on thinking, "Wtf? Dragon? That's completely impossible because (insert some babble here)." Fuck no. You react. Which often involves dropping the aforementioned toast and running to high hell.

We react to and deal with what we know to be true that very second. Each person has a different "reality." As a small child, I knew that Santa was bringing me those damn presents. I knew that there was a monster under my bed that was biding his time until Mom left the room so I could be devoured. I knew that my stuffed animals were alive, and had feelings, and were my best friends. They just didn't want to move or talk while I was around.

That was my reality.
The collection of things I knew to be absolute truth.

Eventually though, you grow up. Your reality changes. Santa's handwriting starts to look like Mommy and Daddy's, and he magically left them all the reciepts in case something went wrong with your christmas gifts. After due inspection, your monster was only the sweater "Santa" brought you for Christmas last year. Your teddy bear rips, revealing cottony fluff, and he doesn't cry out when Mommy sews him back together.... Doesn't even frown....

So you grow.
And your reality changes.

Every time you learn something new, your reality changes. Each time you become disillusioned to something else. Taking Maya's example, before you trip, your reality is that nothing is on the floor. Once you discover whatever it is that you tripped on, your reality changes to include this new discovery.



And I just realized I am making absolutely no sense, so now I'm done.

[Darth Wong]

Every time you learn something new, your reality changes. Each time you become disillusioned to something else. Taking Maya's example, before you trip, your reality is that nothing is on the floor. Once you discover whatever it is that you tripped on, your reality changes to include this new discovery.

You are confusing your expectations of reality with reality itself. Take the Santa Claus example you used; your observations never changed; you just slowly figured out what they actually meant.

[Mad]

And I just realized I am making absolutely no sense, so now I'm done.

You're making sense. You're talking about your perception of reality. As far as you are concerned, that is your reality. Of course, your reality can also be wrong, that is, inconsistent with reality itself. In fact, everyone's perception of reality is wrong to a degree. Some are just more wrong than others.

As for reality itself, that is the current state of everything. Like the database for this message board, at any given time it has a definite state, even if the information you see is out of date (new posts or edits in the thread you are viewing) or perceived wrong (misread what somebody typed, don't see a hidden subforum you don't have access to even though you know it exists). But it still has a definite state that IS the message board database itself. The same is true of reality, though reality is hosted by the Universe, and not by a computer in Canada.

[Rye]

The same is true of reality, though reality is hosted by the Universe, and not by a computer in Canada.

I believe the Universe has a backup reality hosted in Canada though.

[sketerpot]

*Sigh* Nobody ever mentions Chatton's anti-razor.

You just have. Care to post it?

[Darth Wong]

Who was it who said that reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it?

[neoolong]

Who was it who said that reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it?

Wasn't that Philip K. Dick?