Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: The Nature of Reality

  1. #11
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    342

    Re: The Nature of Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    I feel your position is not quite strong enough to be entirely reasonable.
    The concept of "material" as contrasted with "immaterial", is reasonably indistinguishable from the concept of real (an element of reality, but generally we can just say *reality*.)
    Material is real.
    Immaterial is not real.

    So you are writing "What evidence is there, that reality is not real".

    First, that's absurd on its face because the concept of reality is axiomatic to reason, it's true whether we like it or not, evidence or not, it simply is.
    Reality is.

    What is evidence? Evidence (concerning reality) is some body of knowledge/facts about reality that are ultimately based on observations of....reality. Can there logically be evidence in reality, of something that is not real?

    By definition, there cannot be. You do not need to ask "is there", because it's illogical.
    You do not have to admit there is a "possibility", because there is none, logically.


    Imagine having an argument about reality, where we deny the axiom of reality. It's nonsensical. We'd be doing so in reality.
    We'd be denying reality, as we ponder in reality..
    But isn't what you are arguing dependent on an Observer? Remove the Observer and what do you have?
    Vietnam Veteran Jan 69-Aug 70
    Member of MOPH
    Disabled Veterans Of America

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Last Seen
    10-15-19 @ 06:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,693

    Re: The Nature of Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by devildavid View Post
    Reality is what you face every day while dreaming there is something better.
    Incorrect.

    Reality is defined by Phenomenology. Reality is an individual's personal model of the universe and how it works.

  3. #13
    Sage
    devildavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,658

    Re: The Nature of Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Incorrect.

    Reality is defined by Phenomenology. Reality is an individual's personal model of the universe and how it works.
    Phenomenology is not a unified view of reality nor a definition of reality. It is an area of philosophical study concerned with first person point of view. It does not call that point of view reality but tries to understand the nature of that view.
    Remember Bowling Green! Remember Atlanta! Remember Sweden!

  4. #14
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:56 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,648

    Re: The Nature of Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by William Rea View Post
    Simple question, what evidential basis is there for me to reasonably accept that reality is not material?

    My position is that I do not accept assertions of this kind made without reasonable evidence so, apart from trying to argue an immaterial reality into existence what is there?
    When you dream, it's real right?

  5. #15
    Professor
    Conaeolos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    01-30-20 @ 05:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,392

    Re: The Nature of Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by William Rea View Post
    Simple question, what evidential basis is there for me to reasonably accept that reality is not material?

    My position is that I do not accept assertions of this kind made without reasonable evidence so, apart from trying to argue an immaterial reality into existence what is there?
    Just since this got boosted. I would clarify, as this issue which comes up often in these conversations all the time. This is a complete mis-framing of the meaning and nature of that question.

    My argument that reality is not material is based in the metaphysical in the same vein as this appeal to evidence itself. That is based in how our perceptions of reality is only related not a direct experience of true reality. This is known since, we can observe in others how their brain reconstructs based on sensory data versions of the world inside their minds and this interpreted projection, which can be distorted, not the direct sensory information determines what people use to determine what they find valid.

    The argument, reality is immaterial is thus a linguistic expression of that metaphysical analysis which concludes that the counter balancing empirical/objective verification is limited. Sure ideally, we could verify everything and that may well be your position. It is however just a position. I reject it based on multiple mathematical and statistical comparisons, and would happily debate the point by contrasting our specific constructs and their comparable validity.

    Either way as a meta-phsycial issue…you require further evidence to what ends? Immaterial means to exist, that is to be real, but is not (currently) observable. Why would that require evidence?

    Thoughts are a great example of the immaterial.

    We know in concept they can be observed, we all have them so no one doubts they are real and exist, but we can not materially observe them except indirectly 'genral brain activity'. Until that changes the only way to determine validity is to debate and dicuss them as idealized concepts/axioms.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •