[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Chriliman]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality? Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

 

[quatona]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

"Reality is real" is a tautology, therefore true by definition (though not communicating anything).

Thus, apparently, you meant to discuss something else. Could you clarify?

 

[Chriliman]

"Reality is real" is a tautology, therefore true by definition (though not communicating anything).

Thus, apparently, you meant to discuss something else. Could you clarify?

Do you assume the reality you perceive represents truth? Meaning your open to the possibility that the reality you perceive could be false(you're actually a brain in a vat) and your open to the possibility that the reality you perceive is true(not false).

or do you believe the reality you perceive represents truth? Meaning you accept the truth of reality and reject the notion that reality is false.

 

[quatona]

Do you assume the reality you perceive represents truth?

No.

Meaning your open to the possibility that the reality you perceive could be false(you're actually a brain in a vat) and your open to the possibility that the reality you perceive is true(not false).

I am not sure what you mean by "true reality" and "false reality".
What I perceive is product of my perceptive devices. As such, it can´t be "truth" (or you are using "truth" in a meaning that I am unaware of - in which case you may want to explain).

or do you believe the reality you perceive represents truth?

No.

Meaning you accept the truth of reality and reject the notion that reality is false.

I´m sorry, but I can´t make sense of the way you use the keywords. Maybe giving a definition of "reality", "real", "true"/"false" (as a description of "reality") would help?

Personally, I am a radical constructivist. I am not assuming that I am a brain in vat. Rather, I am working from the assumption that there´s that which exists in its immediacy (we may call that "reality" if you wish), but my idea of *how* this reality is is entirely my making. I perceive reality as I need it to be in order for it to be useful and intelligible to me (the way my brain works). IOW my perception ignores aspects that are not significant for me, and it emphasizes those aspects that are significant to me. My mind forces "reality" into those patterns which it can work with.

 

[Chriliman]

No.

I am not sure what you mean by "true reality" and "false reality".
What I perceive is product of my perceptive devices. As such, it can´t be "truth" (or you are using "truth" in a meaning that I am unaware of - in which case you may want to explain).


No.

I´m sorry, but I can´t make sense of the way you use the keywords. Maybe giving a definition of "reality", "real", "true"/"false" (as a description of "reality") would help?

Personally, I am a radical constructivist. I am not assuming that I am a brain in vat. Rather, I am working from the assumption that there´s that which exists in its immediacy (we may call that "reality" if you wish), but my idea of *how* this reality is is entirely my making. I perceive reality as I need it to be in order for it to be useful and intelligible to me (the way my brain works). IOW my perception ignores aspects that are not significant for me, and it emphasizes those aspects that are significant to me. My mind forces "reality" into those patterns which it can work with.

Okay, are you certain reality would still exist even if you were unconscious?

Or, are you uncertain reality exists when you're unconscious?

In other words:

Do you believe reality exists even when you're unconscious?

Or, do you assume reality could possibility not exist when you're unconscious?

 

[True Scotsman]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality? Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

Being that the fact that reality is real is the first thing we are aware of, I think they did, at least until some witch doctor came along to tell them that it isn't or that their senses are not valid (can you say Imanuel Kant). Many today operate on the assumption that reality isn't real or that we can't know it. So in many respects we are still in the primordial days of Human reasoning.

The fact that reality is real is axiomatic. It identifies a fact that is implicit in all further knowledge. It is not an assumption as this fact is available to us at the perceptual level.

Reality or existence is the conceptually irreducible, directly observable, universal and undeniably true concept that is the only proper starting place for knowledge. My reasoning begins with this fact, that there is an objective reality that exists independent of anyone's consciousness. The only problem that I see are worldviews which deny this fact, either explicitly or implicitly (usually the case).

 

[ScottA]

Reality as we know it, is indeed suspect.

Who tells the fly on the car's dashboard that he is actually going 60? What fly would believe it without knowledge of the outside? Would he be correct not to believe?

 

[madera23]

Reality as we know it, is indeed suspect.

Who tells the fly on the car's dashboard that he is actually going 60? What fly would believe it without knowledge of the outside? Would he be correct not to believe?

I dont think a fly Is conscious. Do you?

 

[ScottA]

I dont think a fly Is conscious. Do you?

Aaah, you got me there

No, but to use it as an example of our little reality in the grand scheme of things, could be useful.

 

[quatona]

Okay, are you certain reality would still exist even if you were unconscious?

Or, are you uncertain reality exists when you're unconscious?

"Reality" in the definition that I offered?
Are you asking me whether I regard it possible that my consciousness is all there actually exists?
This assumption doesn´t make much sense to me. It doesn´t seem to be workable, handable; I wouldn´t know how to proceed from there - apart from the fact that I don´t see a good reason for holding that assumption.
Thus, even though certainties are not my kind of thing, I really don´t have much inclination to obsess myself with what appears to be a useless and unfounded merely academic possibility.
But, by all means, feel free to show me the merits of this assumption, and I will look further into it!

Or "reality" in the way you seem to define it: "Reality as perceived by me"?
I´m assuming that *reality as perceived by me* ceases to exist when my perception and processing thereof (i.e. my consciousness) stops.

Or did I misunderstand your question completely? In which case I would kindly ask you to reword it for me. May I remind you that giving a clear definition of the keyterms used would make understanding your questions much easier?

 

[madera23]

[QUOisE="ScottA, post: 68258315, member: 278786"]Aaah, you got me there


but to use it as an example of our little reality in the grand scheme of things, could be useful.[/QUOTE]

Why Is it so difficult to know reality from non reality.
Why is it questioned at all?

 

[paulm50]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality? Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

The first Humans, before Home Sapiens walked out of Africa, had no other information than what they could see around them. And what their parents told them. There were no distractions to confuse them, all they worried about was their next drink and meal. Things like war, clothes, sin, good, evil, the future, past, were immaterial. They walked out of Africa to follow the food. And they weren't the first Hominids to do so.

By the time we were organising ourselves into small groups, religion appeared. The first religious artifacts. The first religious structures. Without religion these communities would not of prospered.

So what time in the life of Man are you thinking about as "Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality?"?

Because it makes a big difference to the answer.

 

[paulm50]

I dont think a fly Is conscious. Do you?

Depends what side of the windscreen he is.

Are you inferring a fly doesn't have a brain? If you are, think about it.

The point is, what's reality to you, isn't to me. I'm sitting in my home office in Eastern Europe and unless you're sitting next to me, our realities are different. Even then our realities won't be the same. We have thoughts, opinions, beliefs, experiences that make reality individual for all.

Some people try to control what people perceive as real. Politicians, preachers, and many more.

 

[Eudaimonist]

RE: OP

Whether you explicitly believe that reality is real, or simply assume that reality is real without philosophical reflection, you may proceed with reasoning.

This all strikes me as a non-issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Being that the fact that reality is real is the first thing we are aware of, I think they did, at least until some witch doctor came along to tell them that it isn't or that their senses are not valid (can you say Imanuel Kant). Many today operate on the assumption that reality isn't real or that we can't know it. So in many respects we are still in the primordial days of Human reasoning.

The fact that reality is real is axiomatic. It identifies a fact that is implicit in all further knowledge. It is not an assumption as this fact is available to us at the perceptual level.

Reality or existence is the conceptually irreducible, directly observable, universal and undeniably true concept that is the only proper starting place for knowledge. My reasoning begins with this fact, that there is an objective reality that exists independent of anyone's consciousness. The only problem that I see are worldviews which deny this fact, either explicitly or implicitly (usually the case).

Being that the fact that reality is real is the first thing we are aware of, I think they did, at least until some witch doctor came along to tell them that it isn't or that their senses are not valid (can you say Imanuel Kant). Many today operate on the assumption that reality isn't real or that we can't know it. So in many respects we are still in the primordial days of Human reasoning.

The fact that reality is real is axiomatic. It identifies a fact that is implicit in all further knowledge. It is not an assumption as this fact is available to us at the perceptual level.

Reality or existence is the conceptually irreducible, directly observable, universal and undeniably true concept that is the only proper starting place for knowledge. My reasoning begins with this fact, that there is an objective reality that exists independent of anyone's consciousness. The only problem that I see are worldviews which deny this fact, either explicitly or implicitly (usually the case).

Great I agree, but many atheists say they must base their reasoning on the assumption that reality is objective. I've been trying to explain to them that a human does not have to base their reasoning on an assumption and in fact it's more reasonable to base your reasoning on the belief that reality is objective. However, the term objective is either subjectively objective(when a human mind is trying to be objective) or it's absolutely objective(when there is no human mind involved at all). But this is where the problem arises, because if you believe in an objective reality, it means you believe that reality is absolute or unalterable and many atheists I've talked to have a hard time with this thought process. What do you think?

 

[Chriliman]

Reality as we know it, is indeed suspect.

Who tells the fly on the car's dashboard that he is actually going 60? What fly would believe it without knowledge of the outside? Would he be correct not to believe?

Whether or not the fly is conscious, it is still true that it is going 60mph. If flies were self aware like us humans, they would eventually figure out the truth, but I don't see any flies acting like scientists, so is safe to say they are not self aware or at least capable of achieving the level of our intellectual self awareness.

 

[Chriliman]

The first Humans, before Home Sapiens walked out of Africa, had no other information than what they could see around them. And what their parents told them. There were no distractions to confuse them, all they worried about was their next drink and meal. Things like war, clothes, sin, good, evil, the future, past, were immaterial. They walked out of Africa to follow the food. And they weren't the first Hominids to do so.

By the time we were organising ourselves into small groups, religion appeared. The first religious artifacts. The first religious structures. Without religion these communities would not of prospered.

So what time in the life of Man are you thinking about as "Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality?"?

Because it makes a big difference to the answer.

The point I'm trying to make is that we can't prove who the first human was to become self aware and we can't pin point that exact moment. So any thoughts regarding the first self aware humans would require belief on our part. However, it is true that there was a first human to become self aware and it is true that that human first believed it existed and did not first assume it existed. That human had to develop intelligence based on it's belief about reality in order to make assumptions about reality. So what I'm suggesting is that it's less reasonable to base your reasoning on the assumption that reality is absolutely objective, but rather it's more reasonable to base your reasoning on the belief or acknowledgment that reality is absolutely objective.

 

[Chriliman]

RE: OP

Whether you explicitly believe that reality is real, or simply assume that reality is real without philosophical reflection, you may proceed with reasoning.

This all strikes me as a non-issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But the first self aware humans believed reality was objective and used reason to then make assumptions about reality. The point I'm trying to make is if our reasoning as a whole is based on the belief that reality is objective, why then assume reality is objective? Doesn't this suggest that it's more reasonable to believe reality is objective rather than to assume reality is objective since our reasoning as a whole is based on the belief that reality is objective?

 

[Chriliman]

Why Is it so difficult to know reality from non reality.
Why is it questioned at all?

The problem arises when you really start questioning reality. When I became self aware, I did not question reality, I fully believed it was absolutely objective. Only when I started to question reality does the assumption that reality could possibly be false arise.

I'm suggesting this assumption is not necessary, one can just reject the assumption and continue believing reality is absolutely objective. However, many atheists base their reasoning on this assumption about reality, which means they constantly go back to it in order to justify their reasoning. This causes a problem in their reasoning.

 

[True Scotsman]

Great I agree, but many atheists say they must base their reasoning on the assumption that reality is objective. I've been trying to explain to them that a human does not have to base their reasoning on an assumption and in fact it's more reasonable to base your reasoning on the belief that reality is objective. However, the term objective is either subjectively objective(when a human mind is trying to be objective) or it's absolutely objective(when there is no human mind involved at all). But this is where the problem arises, because if you believe in an objective reality, it means you believe that reality is absolute or unalterable and many atheists I've talked to have a hard time with this thought process. What do you think?

Yes. Most atheists that I talk to are skepticists. Many are solipsists and every other variant of subjectivism. This just goes to show that even though atheists don't believe in gods, that doesn't necessarily mean they will automatically adopt a rational philosophy. They get really upset with me because I'm not a skeptic, I do think that some certainty is possible in knowledge. I'm an objectivist. I don't believe there is such a thing as subjectively objective. Sure we are all subjects of consciousness and we are aware of objects, but that does not make our reasoning subjective. Objectivity is the recognition and consistent application of the primacy of existence principle. If you are not familiar with this principle, it has to do specifically with the relationship between consciousness and reality. This is the most fundamental question in philosophy. What is the proper orientation of this relationship? Do the objects that we are aware of exist independently of our consciousness or do they depend on consciousness for their existence in some way. whenever we are aware, we are aware of objects. These objects, whatever we are perceiving or considering, exist independently of any conscious activity such as wanting, wishing, liking or faith. This is born out by every single observation we make every moment of our lives. This relationship and its orientation is directly observable. So there is no question that existence holds primacy. Objectivity is achieved by always keeping this recognition in the forefront when reasoning.

On the Christian view, which affirms the primacy of consciousness, there is no objectivity. Reality is the product of a conscious mind and can be altered at any time by an act of conscious will. That is metaphysical subjectivism plain and simple. It's not surprising that Christian epistemology, faith in revelations, is also subjective. A Christian can not consistently uphold the primacy of existence, therefore what we have is a mixed metaphysics with the primacy of existence being affirmed and denied at the same time. This is why I am not only an atheist, but a strong atheist. This also gets me into trouble with other atheists but so be it. If existence has primacy then there is no such thing as the Christian God and if one makes a commitment to reason as their only method of obtaining knowledge then one must reject the concept of gods.