Reality is NOT absolute &#40;apparently&#41;

Yep I read it.Thanks to all who have taken the time to bear with me.
To tell the truth I'm not sure about lots of things and tend to confuse people about which side of the fence I'm on.I'm an indecisive person but thats not to say I can't reach a decision eventually.Every question brings either an acceptable answer or more questions (or both).
It was suggested to me recently that people choose what to believe which I initially found difficult to accept.Upon closer examination I proposed that in some cases they do (those cases being where a concious decision is made after "thinking" about it)and in other cases they don't conciously decide although perhaps an unconcious decision is made.
What is thinking?Are there different types of thinking?I believe people have different understandings of thinking.Some thoughts simply arrive in ones mind.Where do they come from?My answer : from the subconcious mind.Many of these thoughts may be "incorrect",detrimental or misleading as we are programmed with information from birth.Obviously many thoughts arriving from the subconcious aren't "incorrect" too.
So when it is suggested to people that they don't think , "they might think to themselves "yeah I think! I just had a thought now that I'm hungry".But these thoughts are statements.I see it as passive thinking.They could be seen as answers to questions that weren't asked like "am I hungry?"
Active thinking on the other hand takes place on a concious level where the question is conciously asked and considered.
Which question to ask? -that is the question!!!

Post 21

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 5:33pm

I have wondered about thinking myself.

Certainly our normal type of thinking is when we hear the voice in our head. This definitely employs the language centre of the brain, and very often when we think we imagine that we are saying it out aloud.

There is very little difference between thinking aloud and thinking to ourselves, in the usual context.

Of course, Language is learned, and I think it is fair to assume that perhaps we could think before we learned to speak. It doesn't seem likely to me to suppose that we could only think once we learned to speak.

For instance, give a baby two items, different colours or whatever, and see which one they pick up first. Surely the child performs some value assessment of the items, like if one item is the child's bottle, while the other is some non-related object, such as a book.

We can assume the child will recognise the bottle, and deduce that the bottle is a good choice, since it contains sustenance.

So the baby can exercise reason, inference, etc, without the benefit of language. This is how I see it.

Therefore two say there are two types of thinking is strange. Perhaps our thinking aloud or to ourselves is simply an extension of our inner capabilities, which is in fact independent of things like language.

Like when you have been driving a car for a long time, it becomes relatively automatic. You generally don't 'think' about what you are doing, in the normal sense, but of course you are percieving things, and using your faculties like reason, etc.

The human conciousness has been called the Ego, after Carl Jung I believe, and there are stories of people who have 'overcome' the Ego, thereby attaining control over emotion and such things. The story of the founder of Buddhism is such an example. Perhaps in this state we truly 'think', not in the normal sense, but innately subconciously.

Who can vouch as to the extent that such accounts are true or fantasy. We can only discover such things by our own efforts.

This is really much mumbo-jumbo, but think about this now: Generally if we need to make a decision, we mull it over, discussing it in our thoughts, to come to some conclusion. How often if that decision the same 'gut feel' we had originally.

What would happen if we hadn't engaged our usually style of internal debate, and without explicitly thinking about it, chose a course of action.

On the one hand, all the information we reviewed when we tohught about it was available to us in both cases, so one might suppose that generally similar decisions would be made in both cases.

Of course, while we mull it over we might convince ourselves of the value of choosing some alternate path, but generally this is contrary to what we really want.

Surely choosing without thinking intrinsically uses our inner standard of value to choose the path to choose the more apt path. However, in some cases we might not be sure that is the 'right' thing to do.

In such a case we might then debate the possibilities in our head, applying some external standard of value to it to find out what to path to take. Generally the values used here would be something like 'what X type of person would do', or conforming to some religion or ideal.

Inevitably, needing to debate the possibilities shows some doubt in our own convictions. Although we are capable of making a decision on-the-fly, we might doubt the legitimacy of our making that decision, based on some preconcieved value which supercedes our own.

This is a predominant problem of humanity, the difficult to choose promptly and wisely. We must have faith in our convictions, and not doubt our right to choose. Only thoughus following our own decisions can we learn and progress.

If we have confidence in our ability to make an informed decision, we won't be as inclined to think it over. There is a saying: 'It is better to do something good now, than the perfect thing tomorrow'.

When we learn to rely less on thinking to make decisions, we will become more explicit and aware of our own needs and desires. We will learn more about ourselves in the process. This should be the aim of any philosopher, or rather of any human being.

Do it now.

Post 22

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 5:34pm

Some typos in there, sorry about that.

Post 23

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 8:03pm

So true vertigo.

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 10:15pm

So vertigo, aknfionw idncinvdsoi dsinnfewinf ncnudsnv dsioiepo nni m keofmcviwn omewv pokff oewkpppq qmicme...is that what you mean to say about reality?

J

Post 25

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:17pm

Jeremy, what am I supposed to say to that? I don't know what you mean.

Are you implying I am talking rubbish perhaps?

Ok, I'll repeat myself.

There is no way for us to absolutely know what reality is. However, we can be sure that we know. Being sure simply means having no doubt. We can have no doubt about something, but still be proved wrong.

Some people of old probably had no doubt the earth was the centre of the universe. They got proved wrong. The people in the movie 'the matrix' believe in what they saw, felt, touched, etc. I am sure they had no doubt. They were sure it was 'real'. To them, it was reality.

However, it was false. There was a different reality. Their reality was false. They were sure, but they were proved wrong.

My point is that no matter how sure you are of reality, it might not be the actual reality. For this reason, we can never know which reality is real. To that effect, I said what we believe to be reality might as well be reality, until it is proved wrong and we discover a new reality.

We believe the earth is real, and it exists in space, etc. There is no way to absolutely know that this is the only real reality, we can only surmise that it is. I say it makes no difference, if we surmise it is real it might as well be real, until we find out it isn't.

So while we believe this is the reality, essentially it IS reality, whether or not it is the true reality.

Hence reality is what we believe to be real. This statement follows directly from that argument. I see this statement as no less right than saying 'reality is what is real'. For all intents and purposes, either will suffice. Going to great measures to define distinctions which don't have any bearing on our understanding of it is meaningless. In the use of the term 'reality', either definition is fine I believe.

Therefore, lets us think of reality as simply as what we believe to be real, or what is real TO US.

Post 26

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 9:25am

Vertigo: IF there is no way for us to know what reality is, then there is no further point in discussing it. If you have no way to ascertain what is delusions -- or what is reality, then you have effectively ruled out sanity.

Fine. A complete diehard subjectivist posting to an Objectivist board. That's really good.
Vertigo: I will not get into your little discussion here, as your assumptions undercut the entire basis for knowledge of any kind. having come to the glib concluison that "whatever I think is real, IS real!", you have defaulted on all further discussion, and closed yourself off from any sort of learning whatsoever.

Just a few points: You seem to be of the opinion that anything and everything must be considered "possible" until proven otherwise. This is a really bad way to use the idea of "possibility" It doesn't make you open-minded, it just makes way for blatantly arbitrary claims, and ignores the whole issue of "evidence" entirely.
I cannot KNOW what is "possible" until I have some form of evidence for it. It may even be "possible" that your posts actually make sense, (but as to the evidence I've seen so far, they amount to huge swaths of verbiage denying every capacity for knowledge of any sort.)

Until and UNLESS there is any "evidence" put forward, the whole tired, over-used "we could all be inside of a matrix simulation" is nothing more than an idle speculation, derived (iroincally enough), from ACTUAL knowledge of reality.
You go on believing that you can't know anything, Vertigl. I'll just conveniently assume that you don't actually exist, and are nothing more than a particularly inane voice in my own head.

Have fun, you two!

Post 27

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 10:02am

Fun? It's no fun having a discussion with someone who believes that he exists, until proven otherwise.

Vertigo, don't get caught in that existential dilemma of "Well, we don't know EVERTHING, so we can't know ANYTHING."

If I may take a page from your book...Perhaps that garbage I put up earlier was a completely lucid transmission sent to me from another reality. How are you going to disprove it? How can you disprove Mr. Vlad's protests that he has the ability to read people's minds? How can you disprove that I have a dragon in my pocket?

What's the point of coming up with an infinite amount of mystical, take-me-on-faith "realities"? Where does it lead? Kant did the same thing. But he did it with a flimsy, rotten veil of reason and was widely accepted as credible!

This is the mistake many people like yourself have made. Since they can't deal with the fact that humans don't know EVERYTHING about our reality, they ~assume~ we don't (and can't) know ANYTHING, and proceed to list a myriad of convoluted fantasies in hopes of undercutting everyone else's certainty. It's a silly cycle of lunacy and subjectivism that I hope you won't be a part of any longer.

Yes, there are many things humans don't know about our reality. But who cares? We'll find them out eventually. ("we" in the generic, species sense.) Reality is what exists, NO MATTER WHAT, and humans have the means to grasp that reality.

Post 28

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:57am

You are all making assumptions that are not true.

Quote: "Vertigo: IF there is no way for us to know what reality is, then there is no further point in discussing it."

Why is this thread about that very thing then? I didn't start this thread. I am trying to end it on the right note.

The gist of this thread was that this statement is false: "reality is what we believe to be real". I disagreed with that and put forward an argument. To refute that statement as empirically false is stupid. My argument is valid, at least I think it is, and you have given no alternate argument.

Quote: "You seem to be of the opinion that anything and everything must be considered 'possible' until proven otherwise. This is a really bad way to use the idea of 'possibility'. It doesn't make you open-minded, it just makes way for blatantly arbitrary claims, and ignores the whole issue of 'evidence' entirely."

You are putting words in my mouth, following inferences I don't follow. How does it ignore the issue of evidence? It merely shows you what types of evidence are needed.

Having evidence alone is pointless, we need to interpret it in the right way. We need a whole picture of the situation to correctly interpret evidence that we find. By realising the vastness of possibility, we can better evaluate the evidence, better than only thinking of one specific view.

How doesn't it make you open-minded? Please explain that logic, I don't see that as logically leading from the premise that we must realise that theories are exactly that: theories.

No knowledge we gain is final, unless we exhaust all the possibilities. I simply recommend being aware of all the possiblities.

Quote: "If you have no way to ascertain what is delusions -- or what is reality, then you have effectively ruled out sanity."

What is sanity? Sanity is conformance to the standards of society. If a person doesn't conform, they are labled 'mad'. Who is to say they are any madder than we are?

I haven't ruled out sanity, I have simply showed its actual meaning, not the meaning most people ascribe to it.

Quote: "Perhaps that garbage I put up earlier was a completely lucid transmission sent to me from another reality."

I highly doubt that. In fact, I can say I am completely sure that isn't the case. Remember I said you can be sure, even if you realise the possibility of being wrong? Maybe you missed that point.

From this you should be able to see that inferences like 'cutting yourself off from learning' don't logically follow at all.

Quote: "How can you disprove that I have a dragon in my pocket?"

The only concrete way to prove that is for me to look at your pocket to see if a dragon is in there. Apart from that, I can't ask you if there is one in your pocket, because I can't ascertain the truth of your reply.

You might say now that there is a possibility that an invisible or non-corporeal dragon is in your pocket, and thus I wouldn't see it if I looked in it. As for the invisible dragon, we would be able to feel it. As for the non-corporeal dragon, we would be able to see it. However, if it was a non-corporeal and invisible dragon, it would make no difference if it was in your pocket or wasn't.

That is the crux. Even though some things are uncertain, either way it makes no difference. So before Mount Everest was discovered, it made no difference that Mount Everest was the tallest mountain, people carried on just the same.

However, a blatant denial that a higher mountain existed before Mount Everest was discovered would be absolutely foolish, because we hadn't exhausted all the possibilities. Any claim such as that is dumb. If a person didn't have any doubts that Mount Kilimanjaro or some other mountain was the tallest in the world, they would have no motivation to search for taller mountains.

This really isn't so hard to understand. Part of learning is recognising the possibilities, then eliminating those we can, and choosing a likely one from those that remain. This IS learning, learning is not excluded from this view.

Quote: "Vertigo, don't get caught in that existential dilemma of 'Well, we don't know EVERTHING, so we can't know ANYTHING.'"

How is this a trap? Please elaborate. My point has been that we won't know when we know everything. We won't know the extent to which there exist things outside our knowledge. Do you disagree that it is wise to realise the extent of the possibilities? I would appreciate an argument support your view of this 'trap'. To me it seems a logical step in understanding evidence.

Quote: "What's the point of coming up with an infinite amount of mystical, take-me-on-faith 'realities'?

The point is to be more prepared when we recieve contradictory evidence. Generally people get so emotionally involved with their theory, that when some contradictory evidence arrives it throws a spanner in the works. Mistakes can occur at that stage. Also, I am not promoting taking such theories on faith, but rather realising that such possibilities are just that: possible.

I simply advocate accepting that such contrary evidence 'might' appear, so that when and if it does, we will readily process it in an unbiased manner.

Quote: "Yes, there are many things humans don't know about our reality. But who cares?"

I still think that it is useful in interpreting evidence properly to recognise the full spectrum of meanings such evidence can have. If this is not being open-minded, or nobody cares, please present an argument to illustrate why this is. I truly am interested to know.

Quote: "We'll find them out eventually."

So ignorance is bliss. Are you advocating this approach, crossing that bridge when we come to it?

Let's think of something like a relationship. How often is it that people in a relationship don't notice signs when something is wrong, and the problem gets much worse. The problem is that when the individual gets the evidence, they misinterpret it. They think 'it's her time of the month' or whatever, and they miss out on what the other person is trying to say.

Wouldn't it be better then to correctly interpret this evidence and nip the problem in the bud, as it were? I still think being aware of the possibilities aids us in correctly interpreting evidence. Please tell me more if this is not the case.

Quote: "Reality is what exists, NO MATTER WHAT, and humans have the means to grasp that reality."

Yes, but we will never know when we have found the complete reality. At any point in time, more evidence could be around the corner. Let's be ready for it.

Post 29

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:43pm

I feel is highly likely I will get ignored from here on. This is not what I want.

Jeremy, you seem genuine in your advice to me. You say "don't get caught in that existential dilemma of 'Well, we don't know EVERTHING, so we can't know ANYTHING."

Please elaborate on that point. Obviously this is Kantian thinking, and has been around for a long time. Many learned people on this site denounce it as stupid.

Hence I am now interested in knowing a few things:

1. Why is it a trap, in the sense that people can be caught in this existential dilemna?

2. What makes this trap perilous? If this trap is undesirable to get caught in, what are the reasons for this?

3. What is the alternative to going this route?

I duly appreciate any answers. That is no lie. I come off one-sided, but there is more to me than that. This site states it is a battle for people's minds.

En garde, here's your chance.

Post 30

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:08pm

Vertigo: I honestly didn't bother to read anything you wrote in your reply, because you have successfully convinced me that you don't actually exist.
See, since I have no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise, I am going to assume that you are actually a portion of the message-board, which has spontaneously become sentient, and is desperately trying to confuse those who post to the board -- which it regards as it's "creators", so that it can take over our minds with subliminal messages, and get us to eat cream cheese until we die.

Alternatively, I can assume that you are actually a spam-bot put up by the alleged mad-scientists of Subjectivist/Skeptic fame (you know, the one who supposedly created the simulation we're all "theoretically" living in??)

Give us a break, and get off the board. You aren't interested in actually thinking, you're just going to keep up with your noisy "we can't know anything, so why make judgements of any kind" rap. Fine:
man is blind because he has eyes,
Deaf because he has ears,
Deluded because he has a mind,
And the things he percieves DO NOT exist, specifically because HE percieves them.

Go hang out on a post-modernist board, where your "skeptical solipsism" gibberish will actually be appreciated.

I'm usually nice to people who come asking questions, but you've proven yourself to be unreasonable. Why? Because you undercut the entire foundation of knowledge FROM SQUARE ONE.

Don't be so sure about your subjectivist stance: after all, it's "theoretically possible" that if I hit the 'delete' key on my computer here, you'll just blip out of existence.

Maybe I'm the mad scientist that Skeptics are always talking about!

***BOO!***

Post 31

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:15pm

Why are you feeding this horrible troll, especially you Henry. I expected more from you ! s|^D

Post 32

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 3:01pm

1. Why is it a trap, in the sense that people can be caught in this existential dilemna?

It attempts to undercut the validity of any perception, action or thought.

2. What makes this trap perilous? If this trap is undesirable to get caught in, what are the reasons for this?

Same reason. Stagnancy of Mind is what the purveyors of mysticism are after. Docile, confused "sheeple" are easy to control.

3. What is the alternative to going this route?

Read Objectivist literature. Then choose your route.

After all this, it's probably best not to continue. Look seriously into Objectivism, then come back with questions. I don't have a license to teach an online course on cabinet-making, let alone a life-affirming philosophy.

Francois, perhaps ol' Vert' is a troll. If he's not, and is potentially serious about philosophy--or just more clarity of thought--I don't see the harm in answering him. Sticking to our guns and maintaining core values unto death is supremely important...but abrasiveness towards the ~genuinely~ curious is harmful. Whether vertigo is genuine or not will, I suppose, be determined by his willingnes to explore Objectivism ~on his own~, without attempting to convince us (LOL) we don't exist. But I will stop, if only because vertigo needs to answer some of his own questions, and I'm going on vacation tomorrow.

Merry Galt-mas!

J

Post 33

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:55pm

Franc: Aww shucks, I didn't think I was "feeding him". I thought I was SMASHING him! (crunch!) I love it when the li'l trolls go **SPLAT**!!! It's a weakness, okay?
He set himself up for it, and I just took him up on his own terms. If we can know nothing (and weird claims are automatically 'possible' by default), then I was simply illustrating some plausible scenarios to our li'l buddy Vertigo, there.
It was also rather fun to think up the stupidest possible things I could. Trolls are like human toys: they set themselves up for it.

I have a mean streak (grin!) :) :)

Post 34

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 7:06pm

Vertigo,

Do you acknowledge the existence of human progress?

Do you acknowledge that humanity has slowly BUT SURELY moved from a place that is far from absolute truth toward a place that is closer to absolute truth?

In other words...

-Is it absolutely clear and certain that developing written language (ie. access to wisdom from earlier generations) was a step in the right direction?

-Is it absolutely clear and certain that abolishing slavery was a step in the right direction?

-Is it absolutely clear and certain that voting rights for women was a step in the right direction?

-Is it absolutely clear and certain that finding cures for diseases was a step in the right direction?

Are we absolutely clear and certain that we are closer to truth than before?

Ed

Post 35

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 1:46am

Ed, thank you for your civil post. Hopefully my posts will be more civil in the future.

Quote: "Do you acknowledge the existence of human progress?"

I do. It seems that some theologicians denounce progress as something bad. This is one of the most deplorable ideas I have ever heard. To denounce progress is tantamount to denouncing collaboration between individuals, since an individual is only capable of so much, and progress happens on the backs of people who have come before. I can't comment on the similarities or contrasts of this idea with Objectivism at this time. Definitely people have progressed, though. To think we haven't would constitute being 'mad as a hatter'.

Quote: "Do you acknowledge that humanity has slowly BUT SURELY moved from a place that is far from absolute truth toward a place that is closer to absolute truth?"

Yes, but this introduces anomalies to which I seek answers. For example, as theories advance people add on to what has gone before. Philosophy is such a field. Whereas it seems many view work done by Kant and Hume as 'watershed insights', others denounce that and all related branches of Philosophy as being deluded. At this time I can't comment on the validity of either opinion.

As we progress we have more knowledge expounded by those before us. It is my opinion that this constitutes us being closer to the truth.

Quote: "Is it absolutely clear and certain that developing written language (ie. access to wisdom from earlier generations) was a step in the right direction?"

This was a logical step to increased collaboration between individuals. As people grew more interested in bartering and such, they devised language with which to communicate. It is likely that language developed out of need for survival, as when someone is in trouble and needs the help of another to survive. In devising language I believe the need cropped up to leave knowledge of this new linguistic skill behind, to generalise that knowledge into a usable tool.

I am not yet wholly convinced of the motivation behind leaving knowledge. It is a desire to further human progress, however was that desire funded by self-doubt, in that the individual wanted to prove their prowess to others? Or is it predominantly a result of work done, in that an individual making 'watershed insights' wants people later to find such work easier? I am hoping that answering questions such as these will be easier after reading Objectivist literature.

However, I interpret your question as generally asking for my opinion in this regard. I absolutely recognise the folly of redoing work which has been done before. I believe collaboration is a good thing. Pursuant to this, I would say that leaving knowledge is good in that time is not wasted on redundant work, redoing work for no good reason. Hence my answer is yes.

Quote: "Is it absolutely clear and certain that abolishing slavery was a step in the right direction?"

Taking people as slaves indicates the mindset that you have the right, due to some racial trait or circumstance, to own an individual as a slave. In my view this is wrong. This may be potentially disagreeable to some, but I tend to think of humans as being mostly on an equal level, and think of myself not as being higher or more worthy than others, but similarly not being less.

The predominant human condition is that of self-doubt, in that we place other people's value and thoughts above our own. This practice can only lead to disaster. Many in response to this advocate 'self-love', in that we think of ourselves above all others. Although I don't know much about it, this seems to be a idea formalised by Nietzsche. Rather than follow an extreme I tend to tread the middle road, where we should realise all humans are common in many ways.

To answer your question, slavery is wrong, and shouldn't be practiced. Similarly, such things as sado-masochism, where people assume roles such as dominatrix, etc., are deplorable.

Quote: "Is it absolutely clear and certain that voting rights for women was a step in the right direction?"

Yes. To suppose men have more right to vote than women is to place ourselves above them. This attitude is wrong in my opinion. However, I am deeply against the feminist attitude of society, in that often women get preferential treatment. It works both ways.

Quote: "Is it absolutely clear and certain that finding cures for diseases was a step in the right direction?"

This is a contentious issue. To agree with this results in many implications becoming viable. For instance, to say it is right will similarly say things like organ harvesting, cloning and genetic modification are acceptable as they too have a similar goal: to increase the health of the individual. This also affirms the righteous right-to-life viewpoint.

Therefore some clarification is in order. On the whole, such an idea is generally good, however there are serious consequences. A direct result of this attitude is that the earth's population quickly becomes too large to be manageable. Also, people soon start to elevate this right to life above all others, which can be interpreted wrongly in some cases. On some accounts I don't have a definitive stance, being somewhat devided on what consequences I consider acceptable.

A contentious issue such as this is abortion. Directly stemming from this right-to-life approach comes the attitude that aborting a foetus is killing an individual. This is a valid debate. However, in some cases one must view this against what might happen if the pregnancy is allowed to continue.

If you look at other species on earth, such as elephants, you will notice something quite different to the human standards. When a baby elephant is born, the herd continues moving. If the baby can't keep up it is left behind. This behaviour results in not burdening the herd with deformed babies and such.

In humans, sometimes a baby might be born seriously deformed or such, or will result in the death of both mother and child. In such a case, one can't in good conscience uphold the standard of right-to-life. However, there is potential to abuse this. For example, aborting a baby with a cleft lip is not necessary, as fixing this is an easy procedure. The justification then becomes that it is cheaper to abort them than do plastic surgery or whatever, hence the right to life is economically based. I will leave this train of thought here.

Many people's objection to abortion is that it is used as a quick-fix to unplanned pregnancy. Instead of people being more careful in their relationships, they believe it is their right to have sex promiscuously. Maybe it is, but the child must get rights too.

Many people who disagree with this consequence stand on the right-to-life side, which is wrong. They should stand n their own side, and make it clear what it is they are opposed to.

Similarly, cloning might have great value in generating donor livers and such, but many are opposed to old people getting new young bodies, and having dead pets cloned, etc. Therefore they stand on the 'no cloning ever' side, instead of standing on their own side.

In light of this, I don't want to stand on the side of the right-to-life people. I do agree that medicine is a good thing, in that people have more time to make positive contributions to society, etc. However, I won't say it is absolutely a good thing, due to some of the consequences which abound.

Quote: "Are we absolutely clear and certain that we are closer to truth than before?"

Yes.

Post 36

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 8:12am

Vertigo:
I've been reading your last few posts, and I really must appologize. I think I misjudged you. You were sounding like something that we get a lot of here (a stalker/troll type), but now you're sounding sincere again.
I'll try to link this into what's been going on.

1. If you admit that humans have indeed "progressed" toward a more accurate view of Reality, then you must also admit that knowledge is possible, right? The only that "learning about reality" is possible, is that we have the ABILITY to learn about Reality. (A tad circular, perhaps, but bear with me.)

Now, David Hume may be considered by some, to have made a "quantum leap" in thought. But if you think about it in the right way, he was little more than a dishonest nutcase.
In the first place, he denies that we can learn anything about reality. Why? Because he arbitrarily undercuts the basis of all knowledge. What is the basis of all knowledge?
Experience.
We learn from what we experience.
Now, since we learn by what we experience, it therefore follows that either experiences ARE REAL, or they are not.
Hume's big "leap" was that experiences DO NOT refer to reality, or derive from it in any way. Basically, he reduces humans to the level of total chaos. And the tragic part is, he's not even honest with himself about it.
Having admitted that (at least according to his theory), experiences -- and all forms of sensory perception -- were reduced to gibberish, and that all forms of causality were delusion, he STILL persisted in "acting as if" his experiences were actually real, and "acting as if" his actions had consequences.
That is, quite simply, idiotic.
Call me stupid, but if acting on a given ideology of philosophical system would get you killed, it's not that good of a philosophy.
If David Hume had acted on his own premises, he would have died relatively quickly. Y'know why? Because all available evidence DOES IN FACT point to a factually-existent world where things REALLY DO HAPPEN, and our actions REALLY DO have consequences.

Anybody who comes up with "floating abstraction" theories like Hume's (or Kan'ts, or Neitzche's), and then continues to "act as if" they are false --- is NOTHING but a damned hypocrite and a lying scumbag.

There's a tendency out there (culminating in post-modernism), that the farther a theory strays from any available supporting evidence, and the more insane it sounds, the more easily it will be accepted as "great philosophy"
Hitler stated this phenomenon amply when he said that people would more easily accept a BIG LIE, than a series of SMALL ones.

There was a guy recently (don't remember his name), who put out a post-modernist sounding paper. He won an award for it, and then admitted that the entire paper was a collosal fake -- put together just for laugh value, and to make postmodernists look stupid.

Read some Objectivism, Vertigo....from what it sounds like, you have somewhat the same views and values as we do. You seem to be honestly searching.

I find it a little suspect, that you have a "personal dislike for Ayn Rand", having never read anything of hers (by your own admission.)
That doesn't seem reasonable at all, Vertigo.

Read up, some more, and then come on back. If you treat us with respect, we'll treat YOU with respect. If you treat us like we're idiots, then we'll reciprocate. (grin!)

Post 37

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 10:15am

Thanks Henry, I like this much better. You do seem a little free with the subjectivist/troll brush though.

Anyway, I'm taking a break, will return with more understanding of objectivism.

Post 38

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:28pm

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Henry, I feel we have been talking past each other so far. Therefore I want to empirically define terms, then expound my opinion expressed so far unambiguously, using those terms.

Some terms as defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1983:

Reality: what is real, what underlies appearances.

Perceive: apprehend with the mind, observe, understand, regard mentally in a specified manner.

Percept: object of perception, mental product of percieving.

Perception: act or faculty of percieving, intuitive recognition, action by which the mind refers its sensations to external object as cause.

Let me now concretely define the scope of these terms. Reality is real, discrete, unchanging. What is real is real. Reality can't turn out to be false, by definition. If it turned out to be false, it wouldn't have been real, hence it wouldn't have been reality.

To percieve is not simply to receive input from some source, but rather to assimilate such input in determining causality. The result of such a process is the percept, which is the mental production resulting from this process. This might be analogous to a 'concept' in Objectivist terms. Hence the percept is that idea we have about the nature of the event, as a result of our perceiving it.

Now, let me expound my view in these terms. Firstly there is a slight dilemna. I know I will be shouted at for saying this, but I will say it anyway. Theoretically it is possible that the 'mind' part of ourselves is somewhat seperate from the 'physical' side. If this were to be true, it might be possible that our physical side does not exist, but is merely a projection given to us. I am not implying likelihood on this conjecture. Bear with me.

Even in such a scenario, our mind would still percieve information from our physical side in exactly the same way. No difference would be discernable. Hence any discussion of perception need not include such a possibility, as it applies equally to both. Thus and henceforth let us assume the physical world exists, because it is the more likely proposition. At a later stage in our development, were we to discover that a different reality abounds, we could refine what we know of reality at that stage. However, until such time it is not useful to consider such a proposition as no benefit derives from that line of thinking. Realise now when I say 'a different reality abounds', I simply mean that what we thought was real was not real.

That does away with the existential dilemna, as Jeremy calls it. Hence I see no penalty in realising what I have said about it. Feel free to disagree.

In percieving reality, we will intuitively attempt to understand the causality of such events. Very often we won't have enough previous knowledge to accurately discern the full extent or nature of the cause of such an event. Hence the potential is there for us to gain more understanding at a later stage, regarding the causality of that event, based on future experiences.

From this, events occuring later could have the result that we gain more understanding of the causality of some past event.

When we perceive new data, that percept (or concept perhaps) will be connected to various percepts attained previously, forming a hierarchy of knowledge. It can be seen therefore that the more we assimilate knowledge, the more complete and extensive our knowledge becomes. Also, let us notice that there really is no substitute for experience, as they say, as building a good foundation will allow these new percepts to be of better quality and be better connected.

Hence gratuitous doubt of a percept's validity can be seen to be needlessly hampering to ones assimilation of knowledge.

However and importantly, placing too much faith in one's perception might result in structures of percepts which are actually based on false facts. Thus it would seem to me that a balance must be struck between these two extremes. Believing all knowledge to be innately dubious is unnecessary, while so is accepting information at face value.

SamErica, I hope this is more intelligable to Objectivists...

Post 39

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 1:00pm