Definition of Reality

[housby]

Invitation to Jackofalltardes, Prothero, Jeeprs et al (plus anyone who wants to join in) on the slightly off thread (previously) discussion on the nature of reality and how we can define it without reference to direct experince. Originally (for the uninitiated) posted on the "What is matter in the quantum age" thread. Posted in this section but it could fit in on many different sections. My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind, especially in light of quantum physics seemingly saying that subatomic particles seem to pass no test of existence themselves?" Anyone not previously involved in the discussion should perhaps look at the above thread.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by housby

Invitation to Jackofalltardes, Prothero, Jeeprs et al (plus anyone who wants to join in) on the slightly off thread (previously) discussion on the nature of reality and how we can define it without reference to direct experince. Originally (for the uninitiated) posted on the "What is matter in the quantum age" thread. Posted in this section but it could fit in on many different sections. My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind, especially in light of quantum physics seemingly saying that subatomic particles seem to pass no test of existence themselves?" Anyone not previously involved in the discussion should perhaps look at the above thread.

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

[Jackofalltrades]

Housby,

Thanks for the invite, but i may again disappoint you. The question you have posed has got nothing to do with language per se. The prompting or suggestion was to bring the issue of semantics in respect to the difference of opinion on Instincts and Intuition, into this particular section where all can opine their own meanings and understandings of those concepts.

on Reality, it can be posed in sections exclusively for metaphysics, epistemiology, mind etc.

Sorry for the confusion.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Jackofalltrades

Housby,

Thanks for the invite, but i may again disappoint you. The question you have posed has got nothing to do with language per se. The prompting or suggestion was to bring the issue of semantics in respect to the difference of opinion on Instincts and Intuition, into this particular section where all can opine their own meanings and understandings of those concepts.

on Reality, it can be posed in sections exclusively for metaphysics, epistemiology, mind etc.

Sorry for the confusion.

If Housby, or someone, understands what you have just written, I wish he would explain it to me. I have no idea what you mean.

[housby]

jackofalltrades,
I am also not quite on your wavelength with this. I acknowledged that this could be in almost any section. The semantics tag is really just part of a greater whole. The whole discussion will inevitably involve terminology, which can be and often is one of the major problems in discussing this. Ask the question, "What is real" and you will get different answers depending on who you are talking to or where in the world you are.
Kenneth,
Your quote about reality looks very Cartesian. Not a critiscism, just an observation. Could you expand?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by housby

jackofalltrades,
I am also not quite on your wavelength with this. I acknowledged that this could be in almost any section. The semantics tag is really just part of a greater whole. The whole discussion will inevitably involve terminology, which can be and often is one of the major problems in discussing this. Ask the question, "What is real" and you will get different answers depending on who you are talking to or where in the world you are.
Kenneth,
Your quote about reality looks very Cartesian. Not a critiscism, just an observation. Could you expand?

Ask the question, "What is the shape of the Earth?" and you will get different answers depending on who you are talking to, or where in the world you are.
So what?

To say that something is real is to say of it that it is not an hallucination, or a fantasy. In other words, that it is not mind-dependent, so that whether or not it exists, does not depend on whether anyone believes that it exists. For instance, we all know that there was a Moon, and stars way before there were people who believed that those objects existed. Therefore, they were real. They would remain even if people stopped believing they existed, since they existed before anyone believed they existed.

This isn't especially Cartesian. It is how the term "real" is used in English.

[Jackofalltrades]

Originally Posted by housby

jackofalltrades,
I am also not quite on your wavelength with this. I acknowledged that this could be in almost any section. The semantics tag is really just part of a greater whole. The whole discussion will inevitably involve terminology, which can be and often is one of the major problems in discussing this. Ask the question, "What is real" and you will get different answers depending on who you are talking to or where in the world you are.

Okay......... what is real involves terminology. In that case, you are right it can be placed in any section. It is just that i find it a bit odd, since you are not asking 'What is the meaning of Real'?

But anyway, On reality, yes you are logically correct to place it anywhere you want. It was not my intention to perturb your decision. Thanks.

[housby]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

For instance, we all know that there was a Moon, and stars way before there were people who believed that those objects existed. Therefore, they were real. They would remain even if people stopped believing they existed, since they existed before anyone believed they existed.

This isn't especially Cartesian. It is how the term "real" is used in English.

Kenneth,
Exactly how do we all know that the moon and stars existed before people believed in them? Who was there to witness their existence? How do we know exactly that the universe carries on after we die? My statement that your quote sounded Cartesian was based on the familiar sounding "coggito, ergo, sum" which I certainly agree with, but without the "coggito" how do we know anything? Assuming for a moment that there is no existence after death (no offence to anyone of a religious inclination) that means that for the individual the material world is gone, forever. This means that for the individual there is no past, present or future. No universe, family or friends. We would have no knowledge of being "dead" because we would have no knowledge of ever having been alive, just as we have no knowledge of non-existence prior to being alive. Our entire knowledge of existence comes from the action and reacton of our senses to whatever is "out there". Given that the senses are workings of the mind this gives rise to doubt. I agree with Descarte that there must be a "doubter" even if all else is doubted, but what happens when even the doubter doesn't exist?
Just a thought!!!

[Fido]

Originally Posted by housby

Invitation to Jackofalltardes, Prothero, Jeeprs et al (plus anyone who wants to join in) on the slightly off thread (previously) discussion on the nature of reality and how we can define it without reference to direct experince. Originally (for the uninitiated) posted on the "What is matter in the quantum age" thread. Posted in this section but it could fit in on many different sections. My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind, especially in light of quantum physics seemingly saying that subatomic particles seem to pass no test of existence themselves?" Anyone not previously involved in the discussion should perhaps look at the above thread.

All definitions are in reference to direct experience, even of infinites like Love, and God...Some body always got there first...And all we can do is confirm or deny the definition..

[housby]

Originally Posted by Fido

All definitions are in reference to direct experience, even of infinites like Love, and God...Some body always got there first...And all we can do is confirm or deny the definition..

I think I agree with this but it's late and I'll have to think on it.