The political spectrum is relative, there are no objective points on it. As a realist communist, you’re progressive compared to most people, but you’re conservative compared to a soulist.
And the argument that reality is real by definition holds about as much water as the argument that the Christian god exists by definition. You see, theologically Deus is defined as the personification of the quality of existence in the universe. What property does your argument for reality have that a Christian argument for Deus doesn’t have?
It is the fact that the very word “reality” expresses the combination of what is real, the totality of everything that is actually existent.
We may be wrong in our understanding of reality, but whatever the truth is, it is a reality.
If God actually exists, it is a reality. If He doesn’t exist, it is a reality, too. The actual absolute truth about the world is a reality. If you want to go beyond that, you land in the category of fiction, which, by its very definition, describes what is made up and doesn’t exist.
If you want fiction to be real, you face a clear issue with your semantics.
Oh, I see what the problem is. At the beginning of the thread, we were all using the colloquial definition of reality. You came into the thread using a highly formal definition of reality and thought we were all using that term. No, we weren’t. There’s no such thing as what, for clarity’s sake, we’ll call objective reality. It’s as nonexistent as Santa Claus.
Objective reality is the only thing that’s real, and we explore parts of it, and sometimes are wrong.
Now, our perception of reality (what I suspect you mean by “colloquial definition”) might in fact be wrong, which is why we should base our worldview on the confirmed evidence that almost certainly reflects the way world is (and not say “screw it, everything is real to me now”).
Yes, but evidence suggests it is. There’s a large gap between confirmed evidence and a random guess or a fantasy, and ignoring it would be same as equating a soup with its picture.
Confirmed evidence is verifiable, meaning it can be reproduced again and again under the same conditions - and if we constantly get the same output under the same conditions, we may assume this is how the reality works. That’s the backbone of science, a thing that brought us from the wild and to the current point.
It would be weird to expect the sun not to rise tomorrow, or for water not to heat up inside the working kettle, or anything else. This just works every time, and as such, we can see our observations as practically objective.
You’ve found consistent rules for how your brain assembles your perceptions. You have not found any evidence, ever, that anything exists outside your brain. You’re just assuming that your brain consistently interprets a consistent world, instead of the simpler explanation that your brain creates a consistent world. It’s two assumptions versus one. Occam’s Razor says your perceptual world isn’t real. And so does the Fitness Beats Truth theorem. You have absolutely no evidence, and you’re arguing against Occam’s Razor and against the only evidence that we do have.
Moreover, from that point of view, there is no guarantee my brain even exists and is what I think with.
But that doesn’t matter for the substance of discussion, really. Whatever I perceive is the evidence of something that is real, as said evidence is repeatedly presented to my consciousness, following the rules. If my mind is the source of the reality, it doesn’t change the fact that said reality operates by certain rules that can be devised using evidence.
I think, therefore I exist, as Descartes said. My mind is real. And whatever is consistently presented to me, following certain rules, is very certainly real, too. Same can’t be said of dragons or magic, for example. There is no evidence - in the world or in my perception of it - for their existence, and I can’t rule them in solely based on the fact I made it up in my imagination.
If you’re lost in what I’m saying, try to spawn a dragon right next to you, in the world you perceive as physical, not in your imagination. Next, try to boil water in a kettle. See the difference? One never happens, unless you’re hallucinating, and the other always succeeds if you do everything correctly. The second, thereby, can be seen as a likely rule of the world’s functioning, a natural law, regardless of anything else.
Okay, so let’s call reality your mind’s experiences, operating according to your mind’s rules.
If you find the techniques and tools for controlling your mind, you’ll have control over reality. Why wouldn’t you go take that power and make the world a better place? Rejecting power over your mind’s reality seems to me as nonsensical as rejecting electricity or antibiotics or eyeglasses. It’s a form of primitivism, the political ideology of the Unabomber. WHY!?!?!?!
The political spectrum is relative, there are no objective points on it. As a realist communist, you’re progressive compared to most people, but you’re conservative compared to a soulist.
And the argument that reality is real by definition holds about as much water as the argument that the Christian god exists by definition. You see, theologically Deus is defined as the personification of the quality of existence in the universe. What property does your argument for reality have that a Christian argument for Deus doesn’t have?
It is the fact that the very word “reality” expresses the combination of what is real, the totality of everything that is actually existent.
We may be wrong in our understanding of reality, but whatever the truth is, it is a reality.
If God actually exists, it is a reality. If He doesn’t exist, it is a reality, too. The actual absolute truth about the world is a reality. If you want to go beyond that, you land in the category of fiction, which, by its very definition, describes what is made up and doesn’t exist.
If you want fiction to be real, you face a clear issue with your semantics.
Oh, I see what the problem is. At the beginning of the thread, we were all using the colloquial definition of reality. You came into the thread using a highly formal definition of reality and thought we were all using that term. No, we weren’t. There’s no such thing as what, for clarity’s sake, we’ll call objective reality. It’s as nonexistent as Santa Claus.
Objective reality is the only thing that’s real, and we explore parts of it, and sometimes are wrong.
Now, our perception of reality (what I suspect you mean by “colloquial definition”) might in fact be wrong, which is why we should base our worldview on the confirmed evidence that almost certainly reflects the way world is (and not say “screw it, everything is real to me now”).
We don’t have any of that stuff. Nothing has ever been proven objectively real, and nothing probably ever will.
Yes, but evidence suggests it is. There’s a large gap between confirmed evidence and a random guess or a fantasy, and ignoring it would be same as equating a soup with its picture.
Confirmed evidence is verifiable, meaning it can be reproduced again and again under the same conditions - and if we constantly get the same output under the same conditions, we may assume this is how the reality works. That’s the backbone of science, a thing that brought us from the wild and to the current point.
It would be weird to expect the sun not to rise tomorrow, or for water not to heat up inside the working kettle, or anything else. This just works every time, and as such, we can see our observations as practically objective.
You’ve found consistent rules for how your brain assembles your perceptions. You have not found any evidence, ever, that anything exists outside your brain. You’re just assuming that your brain consistently interprets a consistent world, instead of the simpler explanation that your brain creates a consistent world. It’s two assumptions versus one. Occam’s Razor says your perceptual world isn’t real. And so does the Fitness Beats Truth theorem. You have absolutely no evidence, and you’re arguing against Occam’s Razor and against the only evidence that we do have.
Moreover, from that point of view, there is no guarantee my brain even exists and is what I think with.
But that doesn’t matter for the substance of discussion, really. Whatever I perceive is the evidence of something that is real, as said evidence is repeatedly presented to my consciousness, following the rules. If my mind is the source of the reality, it doesn’t change the fact that said reality operates by certain rules that can be devised using evidence.
I think, therefore I exist, as Descartes said. My mind is real. And whatever is consistently presented to me, following certain rules, is very certainly real, too. Same can’t be said of dragons or magic, for example. There is no evidence - in the world or in my perception of it - for their existence, and I can’t rule them in solely based on the fact I made it up in my imagination.
If you’re lost in what I’m saying, try to spawn a dragon right next to you, in the world you perceive as physical, not in your imagination. Next, try to boil water in a kettle. See the difference? One never happens, unless you’re hallucinating, and the other always succeeds if you do everything correctly. The second, thereby, can be seen as a likely rule of the world’s functioning, a natural law, regardless of anything else.
Okay, so let’s call reality your mind’s experiences, operating according to your mind’s rules.
If you find the techniques and tools for controlling your mind, you’ll have control over reality. Why wouldn’t you go take that power and make the world a better place? Rejecting power over your mind’s reality seems to me as nonsensical as rejecting electricity or antibiotics or eyeglasses. It’s a form of primitivism, the political ideology of the Unabomber. WHY!?!?!?!