|
Post by ck100 on Sept 26, 2018 5:10:10 GMT
As much as it needs to be.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 26, 2018 5:14:29 GMT
A much as it needs to be. That's as good an answer as any.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 26, 2018 6:26:55 GMT
When it comes to religion, in my case Catholic, I believe that is objective reality as it's the foundation of ones morals/reality etc and is basically the point of life here on earth as our choices/actions here on earth ultimately determine where we end up after death here on earth as we got but two final destinations, which are Heaven or hell after we pass from this earth. basically we are spiritual beings that come into existence here in the physical world. it's the spirit that gives life/animates the body. but outside of that stuff... I would imagine we have our biases etc. but if it were possible... it would be interesting if we could get into someone else head just to see their perception of things as I suspect that could also help us learn as we might see things a bit differently etc etc. p.s. I did not vote in the poll. NoraThat's probably a case of, as Sean Hannity calls it, 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' as many on the left just can't stand him and it blinds them from seeing things a bit more clearly etc.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 26, 2018 7:02:25 GMT
Nice that you find that interesting. And your spelling sucks ... oh well.. and to think I thought this exchange was going somewhere. You see? Things are not always what they seem to be. For what its worth I enjoyed it while it lasted. Things are rarely as they seem
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 26, 2018 7:10:01 GMT
I'd be surprised if much of what I (or anyone else) perceived wasn't objective reality.
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Sept 26, 2018 7:12:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 13:44:39 GMT
I often think about “different realities” what are your thoughts on this? "different realities", that's pretty deep. I guess there is an objective reality that almost nobody could tolerate for a sustained length of time. I have a huge imagination and I would just assume consider that my reality. I'm not even close to being free of bias. I think I could describe myself as highly impressionistic. In a way, I have very little capacity for making a judgment. On the Myers-Briggs test (which I am a huge fan of), I scored very high as a perceptive (as opposed to judging), which means that I can see, "perceive" the validity of many, many different perspectives, as opposed to be somebody who can make a final decision with confidence and speed. Most of the time, I hate making decisions. It's not good or bad, either way, and I, personally, am kind of pleased that I do lean more towards the 'P' versus 'J'. At any rate, I might as well be happy with it if that's who I am!!! Maybe I shouldn't admit this so freely, but I would say I value imagination over science. And they are always coming out with new theories. I remember one time I read something about eating carrots linked to certain kinds of cancer. I sort of gave up on science after that. Not really, but sort of. thanks for the insight into your world i appreciate it. best example of realities clashing i can think of is when two opposing parties of a conflict tell you their version of what happened. if we take out situations where they intentionally lie about it, and only deal with those that genuinely try and describe things the way they believe were, its amazing how different those realities can be. and not only the adjectives people attribute to each other (like: she was nasty to me, or he was being aggressive etc) which you can often say depends on subjective interpretation of the meaning of the word and behaviour you believe manifests it, but its often the verifiable facts that clash. where both parties genuinely believe their story. and more often than not, its their mind lying to them for some reason. Or one or both parties just dont know what they dont know. when you accept that this does happen (and it happens fairly often) dont you have to wonder "how much of my perceived reality is really true". there is a couple of great movie that lightly touch on this and are not a scifi, which I think makes it very relatable. The Sense of an Ending and 45 Years Coincidently both star the great Charlotte Rampling. I can highly recommend both. Oh and on imagination and science, dont you feel they often and if not ideally go hand in hand? We even have many movie examples where imagination influenced science or rather its applied result (technology). Minority Report for one...
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 13:44:56 GMT
A much as it needs to be. That's as good an answer as any. agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 13:45:44 GMT
I'd be surprised if much of what I (or anyone else) perceived wasn't objective reality. would you mind elaborating on that a bit?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2018 13:48:18 GMT
Should I explain in some detail why I feel that "Is what you think about the world correct" isn't exactly compatible with "my reality is the objective reality" (and so on) which makes it difficult to answer?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 13:49:39 GMT
When it comes to religion, in my case Catholic, I believe that is objective reality as it's the foundation of ones morals/reality etc and is basically the point of life here on earth as our choices/actions here on earth ultimately determine where we end up after death here on earth as we got but two final destinations, which are Heaven or hell after we pass from this earth. basically we are spiritual beings that come into existence here in the physical world. it's the spirit that gives life/animates the body. but outside of that stuff... I would imagine we have our biases etc. but if it were possible... it would be interesting if we could get into someone else head just to see their perception of things as I suspect that could also help us learn as we might see things a bit differently etc etc. p.s. I did not vote in the poll. so if you believe you live in objective reality by living as catholic and following their religion (If I am understanding what you write correctly), would that mean that you believe others, who do not share your religion/religious views thus dont live in an objective reality?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 13:51:02 GMT
Should I explain in some detail why I feel that "Is what you think about the world correct" isn't exactly compatible with "my reality is the objective reality" (and so on) which makes it difficult to answer? sure go ahead, if you enjoy discussing it/explaining it, by all means...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 14:00:45 GMT
Lol, I guess internet forums themselves present an interesting reality conundrum. How many people are really in some discussions? Am I communicating with a dozen or so people, or 3 with 4 socks apiece?
We continue to choose to accept a great deal of what we see on our screens as reality, when it has been proven time and time again that it is often a charade.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2018 14:14:43 GMT
Should I explain in some detail why I feel that "Is what you think about the world correct" isn't exactly compatible with "my reality is the objective reality" (and so on) which makes it difficult to answer? sure go ahead, if you enjoy discussing it/explaining it, by all means... Well, first, "My reality," as in "my experiences, perceptions, perspectives, beliefs, etc." is necessarily going to be subjective (which simply means that those things are internal; they're phenomena of my brain) and not identical to the objective world (in other words my brain phenomena are not the same thing as phenomena in the external world). That's different than whether one's beliefs about the external world are correct. Your beliefs are about the external world (and your subjective, internal world, too), but your beliefs are not identical to the external world. After all, one (a belief) is a brain phenomenon, the other (what the belief is about) isn't. Hence they're not literally the same thing. On philosophy of perception, I'm what's known as a "naive" or "direct" realist. In a nutshell, I believe that usually one's perceptions of the external world are accurate. (Naive realism does allow exceptions for a number of reasons, but the idea is basically that barring unusual conditions, perceptions are directly of a real world and are accurate.) However, ontologically, I'm also a relativist and a perspectivalist of sorts. Basically, I think that the world is always some way necessarily to some perspective or reference "point" ("perspective" here isn't meant to necessarily denote a living entity's perceptual faculties or anything like that). The world is not some way ("this way" or "that way") in a perspective-free or reference point-free manner--the very idea of that is incoherent on my view. And the world can be different from different perspectives or reference points. So my mostly correct beliefs, perceptions, etc. of the external world are (a) not identical to the external world, and (b) are correct from a particular reference point, as part of a system considered from a particular location, time, etc. That's kind of the short version. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 14:18:16 GMT
Lol, I guess internet forums themselves present an interesting reality conundrum. How many people are really in some discussions? Am I communicating with a dozen or so people, or 3 with 4 socks apiece? We continue to choose to accept a great deal of what we see on our screens as reality, when it has been proven time and time again that it is often a charade. true. plus people on the internet seem to argue and clash very often, presenting clashing realities on daily bases, and you know both cant really be true, yet there are posts feuding over things passionately for pages and pages. i dont often know enough of the subject matter someone is feuding about to even evaluate which side is right, or closer to "objective reality", but on the few subjects where i do have some expertise it can be pretty challenging/frustrating to watch (i rarely enter as a contributor to either of those situations) since you watch people make factual errors they are perhaps not aware of and derail the whole argument. even worse is when media do it, when publishing a seemingly serious and factual article, and include errors and then people learn those errors and repeat them elsewhere. I do let the media know though when I see they have a factual error in it though as I feel that is actually productive and they almost often change it after (probably many people send them the same thing so they accept it or look it up after).
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 15:27:19 GMT
sure go ahead, if you enjoy discussing it/explaining it, by all means... Well, first, "My reality," as in "my experiences, perceptions, perspectives, beliefs, etc." is necessarily going to be subjective (which simply means that those things are internal; they're phenomena of my brain) and not identical to the objective world (in other words my brain phenomena are not the same thing as phenomena in the external world). That's different than whether one's beliefs about the external world are correct. Your beliefs are about the external world (and your subjective, internal world, too), but your beliefs are not identical to the external world. After all, one (a belief) is a brain phenomenon, the other (what the belief is about) isn't. Hence they're not literally the same thing. On philosophy of perception, I'm what's known as a "naive" or "direct" realist. In a nutshell, I believe that usually one's perceptions of the external world are accurate. (Naive realism does allow exceptions for a number of reasons, but the idea is basically that barring unusual conditions, perceptions are directly of a real world and are accurate.) However, ontologically, I'm also a relativist and a perspectivalist of sorts. Basically, I think that the world is always some way necessarily to some perspective or reference "point" ("perspective" here isn't meant to necessarily denote a living entity's perceptual faculties or anything like that). The world is not some way ("this way" or "that way") in a perspective-free or reference point-free manner--the very idea of that is incoherent on my view. And the world can be different from different perspectives or reference points. So my mostly correct beliefs, perceptions, etc. of the external world are (a) not identical to the external world, and (b) are correct from a particular reference point, as part of a system considered from a particular location, time, etc. That's kind of the short version. ;-) "After all, one (a belief) is a brain phenomenon, the other (what the belief is about) isn't. Hence they're not literally the same thing" agreed there. what I am primarily trying to explore is the relationship between the two. your beliefs (your internal brain phenomenons as you say) and its correlation with what the belief is about - the external world. And I want to examine: 1. how often (if verifiable) these dont match 2. how likely are humans to believe that their IBPs correctly correlate with the (examinable) external world if they have not been directly verified against external and identifiable factors (rather than lets say, being primarily shaped by the persons PAST experience, temperament, mood, perception, perspective without evidential verification) from my observation and examination of this topic so far it seems most people believe their IBPs match the external world fairly well. And at the same time are not really willing to question it. For myself, I am open to the possibility that very large portion of my IBPs does not match the external world. But at the same time I think the same thinking "should" apply to most individuals but I rarely see manifestation of it. But I may just be reading peoples behaviors wrong. Thus the poll...
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Sept 26, 2018 15:38:13 GMT
I often get a kick out of definitive statements about what life was like on this planet hundreds or even thousands of years ago.Just go over to the politics board. Somebody posts an article and you'll get two, three, four different interpretations of the facts based on political or religious beliefs, and how the individual grew up, etc. We can even get people to be honest/accurate when they see information first or second hand and were supposed to believe we got it right when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, how our forefathers wanted us to live, or how someone in ancient Greece or Rome lived or what they believed? Yeah, okay.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 26, 2018 15:39:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2018 15:57:07 GMT
Well, first, "My reality," as in "my experiences, perceptions, perspectives, beliefs, etc." is necessarily going to be subjective (which simply means that those things are internal; they're phenomena of my brain) and not identical to the objective world (in other words my brain phenomena are not the same thing as phenomena in the external world). That's different than whether one's beliefs about the external world are correct. Your beliefs are about the external world (and your subjective, internal world, too), but your beliefs are not identical to the external world. After all, one (a belief) is a brain phenomenon, the other (what the belief is about) isn't. Hence they're not literally the same thing. On philosophy of perception, I'm what's known as a "naive" or "direct" realist. In a nutshell, I believe that usually one's perceptions of the external world are accurate. (Naive realism does allow exceptions for a number of reasons, but the idea is basically that barring unusual conditions, perceptions are directly of a real world and are accurate.) However, ontologically, I'm also a relativist and a perspectivalist of sorts. Basically, I think that the world is always some way necessarily to some perspective or reference "point" ("perspective" here isn't meant to necessarily denote a living entity's perceptual faculties or anything like that). The world is not some way ("this way" or "that way") in a perspective-free or reference point-free manner--the very idea of that is incoherent on my view. And the world can be different from different perspectives or reference points. So my mostly correct beliefs, perceptions, etc. of the external world are (a) not identical to the external world, and (b) are correct from a particular reference point, as part of a system considered from a particular location, time, etc. That's kind of the short version. ;-) "After all, one (a belief) is a brain phenomenon, the other (what the belief is about) isn't. Hence they're not literally the same thing" agreed there. what I am primarily trying to explore is the relationship between the two. your beliefs (your internal brain phenomenons as you say) and its correlation with what the belief is about - the external world. And I want to examine: 1. how often (if verifiable) these dont match 2. how likely are humans to believe that their IBPs correctly correlate with the (examinable) external world if they have not been directly verified against external and identifiable factors (rather than lets say, being primarily shaped by the persons PAST experience, temperament, mood, perception, perspective without evidential verification) from my observation and examination of this topic so far it seems most people believe their IBPs match the external world fairly well. And at the same time are not really willing to question it. For myself, I am open to the possibility that very large portion of my IBPs does not match the external world. But at the same time I think the same thinking "should" apply to most individuals but I rarely see manifestation of it. But I may just be reading peoples behaviors wrong. Thus the poll... One thing that's interesting to think about here is related to the typical arguments against naive realism (and realism (a la perception) in general): In order to say both: (1) Joe has a belief that P and (2) Joe's belief that P is incorrect; in fact, not-P We are asserting that we're correct that not-P. (And this is even the case if Joe is saying both (1) and (2)--in that case, he'd be saying (2) at a later time than (1) (and we'd have to change it to include the time reference in some way).) In saying that we're correct in asserting that not-P, we're saying that we can know what the world is really like, and in fact, we do know it in the case at hand. So, we can't justifiably have any instance of asserting that our beliefs about the world (that P, that Q, etc.) are wrong without at the same time asserting that we have correct beliefs about the world (that not-P, that not-Q), etc. Which means that there's no good reason to believe that most of our beliefs about the world are incorrect. That doesn't imply that we can't have incorrect beliefs, of course. But to say that we have an incorrect belief, we need to be asserting a correct belief to supplant it. For example, people who aren't naive realists often argue that our knowledge of sensory systems and the brain suggests that our subjective perceptions, beliefs, etc. about the world have little (direct) relation to what the world is actually like. However, in order to argue this, those anti-naive realists are required to argue that they have knowledge of what our sensory systems and the brain are really like, and there's no way to argue that while saying that your sensory systems and brain can't provide any direct access to what the world is actually like at any point. If that were the case, then there would be no reason to believe that "our knowledge of sensory systems and the brain" isn't simply a fantasy, in which case we'd not be able to make a claim that it's really like such-and-such. Of course, it's a logical possibility that most of our beliefs are wrong, but it's just as much a logical possibility that most of our beliefs are right. There has to be something other than a logical possibility to warrant belief. In this case, there can be no support for the idea that most of our beliefs are wrong, for the above reasons. We'd need to know the right beliefs in order to justify that claim, in which case most of our beliefs aren't wrong. So re "how often do our beliefs and the facts of the external world not match?" There's no reason to believe that they don't match more often than not. Because in order to say that they don't match, we have to know that they're wrong. For example, in order to know, "That car is orange" is wrong, we have to know that that car isn't orange after all, and then our new belief ("That car isn't orange") matches, or at least there's no reason to believe that it doesn't until we have different information. Of course, this is kind of all assuming that we're either talking about agreement during all of these stages, or talking about a single person changing their beliefs. When you get different people asserting (seemingly) contradictory beliefs, then (if they're really contradictory) they can't both be right. But sometimes there the problem is that they're not really contradictory and we're instead forgetting about relativity/perspectivalism.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Sept 26, 2018 16:30:40 GMT
I often think about “different realities”. I dont mean alternative worlds but all the things we think we know that may be wrong. or just different than we think. I wonder what most people think about their reallity. Or id they think about it at all? Is it the one thats correct? Are you mostly free from bias and other misleading factors? Or do you question/challenge the things you assume are true? And by “correct” i dont mean highly subjective things like “that movie is great/shit”. But things that could be (perhaps with data or insifgr u dont have) proven wrong. But you may never find out because.. you dont know what you dont know, do you. what are your thoughts on this? "different realities", that's pretty deep. I guess there is an objective reality that almost nobody could tolerate for a sustained length of time. I have a huge imagination and I would just assume consider that my reality. I'm not even close to being free of bias. I think I could describe myself as highly impressionistic. In a way, I have very little capacity for making a judgment. On the Myers-Briggs test (which I am a huge fan of), I scored very high as a perceptive (as opposed to judging), which means that I can see, "perceive" the validity of many, many different perspectives, as opposed to be somebody who can make a final decision with confidence and speed. Most of the time, I hate making decisions. It's not good or bad, either way, and I, personally, am kind of pleased that I do lean more towards the 'P' versus 'J'. At any rate, I might as well be happy with it if that's who I am!!! Maybe I shouldn't admit this so freely, but I would say I value imagination over science. And they are always coming out with new theories. I remember one time I read something about eating carrots linked to certain kinds of cancer. I sort of gave up on science after that. Not really, but sort of. I know you mean by this.
|
|