ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th November 2018, 06:52 AM   #1
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
It may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is

Warning: Contains goldfish, the Matrix, philosophy and a variant of weak/soft anti-realism as opposed to strong/hard scientific realism.

BTW - it is by 2 scientists, who apparently don't understand science.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...of-everything/
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:07 AM   #2
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,670
Quote:
It may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is

Yes it does.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:45 AM   #3
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 660
I'm not sure where that article gets us. What predictions do these theories make which can be tested by experiment? None as far as I am aware. Until that happens any one is a good as the next.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:48 AM   #4
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes it does.
As it stands it is unsupported! Please write more.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:53 AM   #5
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,111
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Warning: Contains goldfish, the Matrix, philosophy and a variant of weak/soft anti-realism as opposed to strong/hard scientific realism.

BTW - it is by 2 scientists, who apparently don't understand science.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...of-everything/
Why don't they understand science?

Personally I can't see anything startling or new in the ideas, but they are expressed in quite a clear manner.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:53 AM   #6
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
I'm not sure where that article gets us. What predictions do these theories make which can be tested by experiment? None as far as I am aware. Until that happens any one is a good as the next.
These scientists apparently claim that there is a limit to what we can say about reality; i.e. it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is.
As for testing, if we over time test through science and find that it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is, is that science or what?
Can science, as they claim, show, that it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is?
Are they really scientists or is it pseudo-science, philosophy-babble and so on?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:55 AM   #7
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why don't they understand science?

Personally I can't see anything startling or new in the ideas, but they are expressed in quite a clear manner.
They use philosophy and claim that scientific realism is not correct?!!
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:58 AM   #8
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,111
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
They use philosophy and claim that scientific realism is not correct?!!
One would disagree with your summary however even if your summary was correct - so what?

What they talk about is as I say hardly startling or new (I think the article may have been discussed here in the past) or even the slightest bit controversial as far as I know.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 07:59 AM   #9
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
It's pretty much common sense to me.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:00 AM   #10
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Warning: Contains goldfish, the Matrix, philosophy and a variant of weak/soft anti-realism as opposed to strong/hard scientific realism.

BTW - it is by 2 scientists, who apparently don't understand science.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...of-everything/
From a quick read, it's the same old "quantum mechanics is a counterintuitive view of the universe" schtick. Yawn.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:01 AM   #11
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
These scientists apparently claim that there is a limit to what we can say about reality; i.e. it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is.
As for testing, if we over time test through science and find that it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is, is that science or what?
Can science, as they claim, show, that it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is?
Are they really scientists or is it pseudo-science, philosophy-babble and so on?
Testing just says what is correct and what isn't. How can testing find out whether it makes sense to talk bout reality or not?

Look, these people are entitled to fantasise about reality but it has nothing to do with science.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:05 AM   #12
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
...

Look, these people are entitled to fantasise about reality but it has nothing to do with science.
That makes sense! These scientists don't understand science! They are using philosophy-babble!
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:14 AM   #13
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,111
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
Testing just says what is correct and what isn't. How can testing find out whether it makes sense to talk bout reality or not?

Look, these people are entitled to fantasise about reality but it has nothing to do with science.
The article is really just about two ideas: one that we may never have one theory to explain everything as many physicists have always hoped for, rather we may end up with a mix of different models that work in limited situations or indeed we may need to chose which model to use depending on what we are trying to accomplish. And the second idea follows from the first and that is we may never be able to say with "certainty" what reality "is" no matter how well we can use models to predict what happens and will happen in reality.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:16 AM   #14
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
From a quick read, it's the same old "quantum mechanics is a counterintuitive view of the universe" schtick. Yawn.
Quote:
It now appears that this quest may yield not a single theory but a family of interconnected theories, each describing its own version of reality, as if it viewed the universe through its own fishbowl.
Quote:
Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world.
I.e. scientific realism.

Quote:
...one’s concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver.
Quote:
This viewpoint may be hard to accept, but it is not difficult to understand. There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world.
Quote:
The way physics has been going, realism is becoming difficult to defend.
Quote:
These examples bring us to a conclusion that provides an important framework with which to interpret modern science. In our view, there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality.
They then go on to "wax" about the Matrix and that:
Quote:
But if—*like us—the beings in the simulated world could not gaze into their universe from the outside, they would have no reason to doubt their own pictures of reality.
I think it is about something more that just " "quantum mechanics is a counterintuitive view of the universe".
It seems to claim that there is no access to the observer independent reality; i.e. objective reality. Neither for us or those in the Matrix.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:21 AM   #15
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,670
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
As it stands it is unsupported! Please write more.
All that matters is what reality does, and whether we can model that. The rest is intellectual masturbation.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:28 AM   #16
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,093
Before starting a meaningful conversation, it is important to establish who is from the Berenstein Universe and who is not.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:29 AM   #17
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,111
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
...snip...


It seems to claim that there is no access to the observer independent reality; i.e. objective reality. Neither for us or those in the Matrix.
No it doesn't but I knew you'd claim that and was why you were so excited about the article.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:39 AM   #18
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The article is really just about two ideas: one that we may never have one theory to explain everything as many physicists have always hoped for, rather we may end up with a mix of different models that work in limited situations or indeed we may need to chose which model to use depending on what we are trying to accomplish. And the second idea follows from the first and that is we may never be able to say with "certainty" what reality "is" no matter how well we can use models to predict what happens and will happen in reality.
Exactly. So instead of wasting their time on speculation they should work on the real problems. Tell us what dark matter and dark energy are, and then they can fantatise about anything they like.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:41 AM   #19
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,111
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Before starting a meaningful conversation, it is important to establish who is from the Berenstein Universe and who is not.
Don't know if it helps but I've just glanced in the mirror and I seem to have a goatee which I'm sure wasn't there this morning.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:50 AM   #20
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,054
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
All that matters is what reality does, and whether we can model that. The rest is intellectual masturbation.
Yes. Like the question "Why," there is only so far that "What's it all made of?" can practically go without becoming bothersome and silly. Science is simply about modeling for practical purposes the mundane behavior of the natural world. For that we go as far as speaking about quarks and sub-atomic particles. One can talk about strings and branes if s/he's is so inclined. But to go on into metaphysics about some Ultimate Stuff everything is made of is an overreach and overclocking of the intellect. It's on the one hand childish in its ignorance and other hubris in assuming we can have god-like, supernatural knowledge.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:52 AM   #21
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,054
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Before starting a meaningful conversation, it is important to establish who is from the Berenstein Universe and who is not.
I'm from the one where pennies are made of brass.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 08:53 AM   #22
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,054
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The article is really just about two ideas: one that we may never have one theory to explain everything as many physicists have always hoped for, rather we may end up with a mix of different models that work in limited situations or indeed we may need to chose which model to use depending on what we are trying to accomplish. And the second idea follows from the first and that is we may never be able to say with "certainty" what reality "is" no matter how well we can use models to predict what happens and will happen in reality.
And I can live with that. Heck, I have been living with that.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 09:07 AM   #23
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,596
Again the OP was started by someone who has openly stated that he doesn't consider knowledge to be a "valid concept."

Anti-intellectuals used to have to hide it better. He's literally said he rejects the idea that somebody can know something to a greater degree than anyone else and he's going to do nothing but vomit word salad in response to anything anyone says.

How are we supposed to debate with someone who reject reality and "knowing stuff is a thing you can do" and why are we expected to try?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 5th November 2018 at 09:23 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 09:22 AM   #24
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The article is really just about two ideas: one that we may never have one theory to explain everything as many physicists have always hoped for, rather we may end up with a mix of different models that work in limited situations or indeed we may need to chose which model to use depending on what we are trying to accomplish. And the second idea follows from the first and that is we may never be able to say with "certainty" what reality "is" no matter how well we can use models to predict what happens and will happen in reality.
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
...
It seems to claim that there is no access to the observer independent reality; i.e. objective reality. Neither for us or those in the Matrix.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No it doesn't but I knew you'd claim that and was why you were so excited about the article.
You are funny.

"...we may never be able to say with "certainty" what reality "is" no matter how well we can use models to predict what happens and will happen in reality" is to speak about "objective reality".
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 09:27 AM   #25
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
All that matters is what reality does, and whether we can model that. The rest is intellectual masturbation.
"All that matters" is your intellectual masturbation. Don't confuse that with my intellectual masturbation.
You don't speak with objective authority for an universal "we". Neither do I. The difference is that you believe that you have objective/rational/whatever access to decide between different kinds of intellectual masturbation and declare yours to be better for a "we".
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 5th November 2018 at 09:38 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 09:38 AM   #26
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
...

How are we supposed to debate with someone who reject reality and "knowing stuff is a thing you can do" and why are we expected to try?
I believe differently about what reality is. Knowing is not a thing. It is a cognitive process.

Quote:
If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration.
If two models disagree with what matters, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
All that matters is what reality does, and whether we can model that. The rest is intellectual masturbation.
Your in-group shared intellectual masturbation of what matters to you as a group is different from what matters to me as intellectual masturbation.
The difference is that you as an in-group can't see that "what matters" to you is also intellectual masturbation.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 09:52 AM   #27
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,259
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I believe differently about what reality is. Knowing is not a thing. It is a cognitive process.



If two models disagree with what matters, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration.



Your in-group shared intellectual masturbation of what matters to you as a group is different from what matters to me as intellectual masturbation.
The difference is that you as an in-group can't see that "what matters" to you is also intellectual masturbation.
If two models disagree with what matters, and what matters is making accurate predictions, then at least one model is wrong.

so I guess 'what matters' would have to be defined first.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 09:55 AM   #28
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,596
If two "models" describe the world equally well, then they are the same model. The only difference would be in semantics and words we use and the universe is not beholden to how the 3rd species of Chimpanzee flaps its lips and tongue to make sounds despite what seemingly most people think.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 5th November 2018 at 09:59 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 09:58 AM   #29
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,670
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
"All that matters" is your intellectual masturbation.
Sorry, I won't let your ignorance be projected over me. What I stated is supported by thousands of years of human accumulated knowledge.

Quote:
Don't confuse that with my intellectual masturbation.
At least you admit that your exercise here is pointless.

Quote:
You don't speak with objective authority for an universal "we".
Just because you don't know much doesn't mean the rest of us don't. There are things we know for a fact.

Quote:
Your in-group shared intellectual masturbation of what matters to you as a group is different from what matters to me as intellectual masturbation.
The difference is that you as an in-group can't see that "what matters" to you is also intellectual masturbation.
Boy, you really like that phrase.

I don't have an in-group. You're just trying to be edgy by denying the existence of knowledge. However, even you don't believe your denials, since you obviously use reality to your advantage just like the rest of us.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:04 AM   #30
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Sorry, I won't let your ignorance be projected over me. What I stated is supported by thousands of years of human accumulated knowledge.
...
Yes, we just differ on how we understand this part of knowledge:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
I accept cognitive relativism as a part of reality. You don't!

Quote:
Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them. In philosophy, that belief is called realism.

Those who remember Timothy Leary and the 1960s, however, know of another possibility: one’s concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver. That viewpoint, with various subtle differences, goes by names such as antirealism, instrumentalism or idealism. According to those doctrines, the world we know is constructed by the human mind employing sensory data as its raw material and is shaped by the interpretive structure of our brains. This viewpoint may be hard to accept, but it is not difficult to understand. There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

Measure is "There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world."
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:07 AM   #31
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,111
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
You are funny.

"...we may never be able to say with "certainty" what reality "is" no matter how well we can use models to predict what happens and will happen in reality" is to speak about "objective reality".
Nope. The article does not say we have no access to "reality" (note no use of the word objective, as you use it it is a meaningless word squiggle).

And neither did the part of what you quoted from my summary post.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:08 AM   #32
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,596
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I accept cognitive relativism as a part of reality. You don't!
Okay. What framework are we supposed to discuss that under when you reject reality, knowledge, and the ability to not speak in word salad?

If you actually believe what you claim to believe WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO US?

What does other people's opinions or views or... the facts of the universe itself matter to you?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:20 AM   #33
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay. What framework are we supposed to discuss that under when you reject reality, knowledge, and the ability to not speak in word salad?

If you actually believe what you claim to believe WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO US?

What does other people's opinions or views or... the facts of the universe itself matter to you?
I don't believe in solipsism, the Matrix and what not.
But:
Quote:
How do we know we are not just computer-generated characters living in a Matrix-like world? If we lived in a synthetic, imaginary world, events would not necessarily have any logic or consistency or obey any laws. The aliens in control might find it more interesting or amusing to see our reactions, for example, if everyone in the world suddenly decided that chocolate was repulsive or that war was not an option, but that has never happened. If the aliens did enforce consistent laws, we would have no way to tell that another reality stood behind the simulated one. It is easy to call the world the aliens live in the “real” one and the computer-generated world a false one. But if—*like us—the beings in the simulated world could not gaze into their universe from the outside, they would have no reason to doubt their own pictures of reality.
That I have no reason to doubt, is not the case for me, since I am a skeptic, and how I reason doesn't determine what reality I am in. So hence I don't know. That follows with reason. Reason is not everything, reason is the result of reality, whether we are in the Matrix or not. That is the limit of the word "knowledge"!
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:20 AM   #34
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,111
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes, we just differ on how we understand this part of knowledge:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
I accept cognitive relativism as a part of reality. You don't!



"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

Measure is "There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world."
Well you are an example of them being wrong as you certainly have shown that when they said "not difficult to understand." it is indeed difficult for you to understand their point.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:22 AM   #35
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope. The article does not say we have no access to "reality" (note no use of the word objective, as you use it it is a meaningless word squiggle).

...
Quote:
How do we know we are not just computer-generated characters living in a Matrix-like world? If we lived in a synthetic, imaginary world, events would not necessarily have any logic or consistency or obey any laws. The aliens in control might find it more interesting or amusing to see our reactions, for example, if everyone in the world suddenly decided that chocolate was repulsive or that war was not an option, but that has never happened. If the aliens did enforce consistent laws, we would have no way to tell that another reality stood behind the simulated one. It is easy to call the world the aliens live in the “real” one and the computer-generated world a false one. But if—*like us—the beings in the simulated world could not gaze into their universe from the outside, they would have no reason to doubt their own pictures of reality.
Note the limit on "real".
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:25 AM   #36
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Well you are an example of them being wrong as you certainly have shown that when they said "not difficult to understand." it is indeed difficult for you to understand their point.
Quote:
How do we know we are not just computer-generated characters living in a Matrix-like world? If we lived in a synthetic, imaginary world, events would not necessarily have any logic or consistency or obey any laws. The aliens in control might find it more interesting or amusing to see our reactions, for example, if everyone in the world suddenly decided that chocolate was repulsive or that war was not an option, but that has never happened. If the aliens did enforce consistent laws, we would have no way to tell that another reality stood behind the simulated one. It is easy to call the world the aliens live in the “real” one and the computer-generated world a false one. But if—*like us—the beings in the simulated world could not gaze into their universe from the outside, they would have no reason to doubt their own pictures of reality.
So reality is "real" to you. I don't believe in that word like you do!!!
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
You have a different "measure" of "real", than me.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:25 AM   #37
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,596
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I don't believe in solipsism, the Matrix and what not.
But:


That I have no reason to doubt, is not the case for me, since I am a skeptic, and how I reason doesn't determine what reality I am in. So hence I don't know. That follows with reason. Reason is not everything, reason is the result of reality, whether we are in the Matrix or not. That is the limit of the word "knowledge"!
Please stop saying "I don't believe in X" and then turning around and going "But I believe in this thing that is the exact same as X."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:30 AM   #38
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,670
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes, we just differ on how we understand this part of knowledge:
Spare me the philosophical nonsense. Reality is what it is and you can't just pretend that it isn't. Well, you can, but to no effect.

And as I said, just like the rest of us, you accept this, because you act as if you do. So it's just empty words meant to make yourself appear clever.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:33 AM   #39
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Spare me the philosophical nonsense. Reality is what it is and you can't just pretend that it isn't. Well, you can, but to no effect.

And as I said, just like the rest of us, you accept this, because you act as if you do. So it's just empty words meant to make yourself appear clever.
No!!!
It is real, that humans use different understandings of reality to judge each other and that is not limited to religious people. That is the end game!!!
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 10:37 AM   #40
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Please stop saying "I don't believe in X" and then turning around and going "But I believe in this thing that is the exact same as X."
The words believe and know are not the same to me.
I don't believe in the Matrix and so on, is not the same as I don't know about the Matrix and so on as what reality really is.
If that was the case, then you have lost, because then this is true:
Someone: I believe in God, therefore I know of God.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.