Definition of Reality

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

I'm not sure I understand the point being made here. Is a masked reality somehow different than an unmasked reality?

It is masked. Whatever that means. I guess it is like Batman, who is, as we all know, Bruce Wayne.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

It is masked. Whatever that means. I guess it is like Batman, who is, as we all know, Bruce Wayne.

Who in turn was Adam West, who in turn was William West Anderson.
Curses! No matter how we try to cover it up, reality is always there,
in some form or another, no matter how many layers we peel away.

My mind travels back, way back, to post #2 . . .

Originally Posted by kennethamy

"Reality is what remains when you have stopped believing in it" (Several attributions).

Optional Geek Link:
Adam West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

Who in turn was Adam West, who in turn was William West Anderson.
Curses! No matter how we try to cover it up, reality is always there,
in some form or another, no matter how many layers we peel away.

My mind travels back, way back, to post #2 . . .







Optional Geek Link:
Adam West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it has to be deeper, and profounder, and more incomprehensible than that. Otherwise, how can it be philosophically true?

[housby]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Why, on earth, would that be a reason for its being possible?

Do we really have to go over that again? Okay, briefly.
1.All we can ever know of the outside world comes to us from our senses. All of it. Everything. Even Kants apriori knowledge seems to rely on prior experience (forgive me if I'm wrong on that but I get a bit fed up reading "Critique....." because I find it terminally boring due to his use of overblown and flowery language - the man was a great thinker but he couldn't write worth a damn).
2.The senses are workings of the mind.
3.The mind is fallible (dreams, hallucinations, insanity, drugs, etc. can all alter our perception of what is real).
4.It follows therefore that the evidence given to us by our senses could be (I stress could be, not is) fallible.
5.This means that the evidence of an "outside world" may be itself fallible.
6.Arguments such as knowing the moon existed before people or carbon dating proving that things existed before humans are still only backed up by trusting the senses (which could be fallible).
7.Quantum physics is making our grasp on reality even more tenuous if you accept that sub-atomic particles, which make up everything in the known universe, don't seem to pass any test of existence due to the impossibilty of measuring them. Begging the question, "How can everything be made up from that which itself doesn't have any concrete existence as far as can be measured and quantified?"
I think that, in a nutshell, covers the bulk of my initial thread (digressions apart).
For one last and final time I will also add that I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible. Obviously there has been more to this thread than this but I believe that I have covered the basic theory (and that's all it is).
Incidentally, try this: take any object you care to and describe it to someone without using references that need prior experience gained from the senses. Let me know how you go on. Another one to liven up a party, especially after a few drinks.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by housby

For one last and final time I will also add that I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

How does it follow that we cannot know that there is a world because we might be mistaken? It follows that we cannot know if we are mistaken, but it does not follow that we do not know because we might be mistaken. Unless, of course, you assume that knowledge implies absolute certainty. And that assumption is false. I have pointed out the difference between the possibility of error and the actuality of error several times before, but you still have not grasped the distinction. We do not know if we are in error, but not if we might be in error. We are not certain if we might be in error. But knowledge and certainty are different. So, what you say above is a non-sequitur since you are confusing knowledge with certainty. I really hope I need not explain this again. If you have an objection to my argument, please state it. But please refrain from simply saying that because you are fallible you cannot know, because that is, as I have pointed out, a non-sequitur.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by housby

7.Quantum physics is making our grasp on reality even more tenuous if you accept that sub-atomic particles, which make up everything in the known universe, don't seem to pass any test of existence due to the impossibilty of measuring them.

But this doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles can't exist, does it?
And as far as the impossibility of measuring and quantifying them,
wouldn't it be more accurate to tack a "yet" onto the end of that
particular declaration?

After all, at one time it was considered impossible to measure
and quantify light values and intensities, but now, every time
we take a picture, the light meter in our camera does just that.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

But this doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles can't exist, does it?
And as far as the impossibility of measuring and quantifying them,
wouldn't it be more accurate to tack a "yet" onto the end of that
particular declaration?

After all, at one time it was considered impossible to measure
and quantify light values and intensities, but now, every time
we take a picture, the light meter in our camera does just that.

I don't think that the number three can be measured (whatever that may mean). But the number three exists. Therefore, some things that cannot be measured (whatever that means) exist.

[Fil. Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I don't think that the number three can be measured (whatever that may mean). But the number three exists. Therefore, some things that cannot be measured (whatever that means) exist.

Hi kenneth !
(no joke) In what sense do you say that number three cannot be measured ? Physically ? Because number three can be compared witch is a form of measurement...

[housby]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

We do not know if we are in error, but not if we might be in error. We are not certain if we might be in error. But knowledge and certainty are different. So, what you say above is a non-sequitur since you are confusing knowledge with certainty. I really hope I need not explain this again. If you have an objection to my argument, please state it. But please refrain from simply saying that because you are fallible you cannot know, because that is, as I have pointed out, a non-sequitur.

I have read your first sentence here and cannot make any sense of it grammatically. I do know the distinction between kowledge and certainty and I have no objection to your argument, just your apparent closed mind to some ideas that don't seem to fit in with your view of the world. Fallibility is lack of certainty not lack of knowledge. Certainty is exactly what it says on the tin, knowledge is what may be fallible.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by housby

I have read your first sentence here and cannot make any sense of it grammatically. I do know the distinction between kowledge and certainty and I have no objection to your argument, just your apparent closed mind to some ideas that don't seem to fit in with your view of the world. Fallibility is lack of certainty not lack of knowledge. Certainty is exactly what it says on the tin, knowledge is what may be fallible.

Yes. That isn't very clear. What I should have said it this:

If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know. Being mistaken is incompatible with knowing. But the mere possibility of being mistaken is compatible with knowing. For example, it is possible that I am mistaken that the Nile is the longest river in Africa. But that does not mean that I am mistaken about that. If I were mistaken about that, then, of course, I would not know. But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.

So, indeed, fallibility is the lack of certainty, not the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we may be mistaken about the nature and the existence of reality. But that does not mean that we do not know that there is a reality, and what its nature is, as you claimed. And I think you claimed that because it was possible that we are mistaken about it.

I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

You did write that, didn't you?