Problem of Universals

[RestlessSoul]

You reference perception, consciousness, and objective reality in this alternate paradigm. Are they real? It seems to me, the only way for there to be nothing real would be a universal void, the reality of which would preclude our having this conversation. My point is, it is easy to say nothing is real, but that does not make it true, possible, or even meaningful.

It’s equally easy to say that matter is fundamental and that consciousness emerges from material phenomena, but saying it doesn’t make that true either. What if phenomenal experience is fundamental, but both it and the material world is ultimately insubstantial?

We are so used to thinking of the world as being composed of objects, of things, that we forget what we are watching, what we are experiencing, what we are is a series of events, an endlessly unfolding magic lantern show. We are but shadows and dust, to quote the Roman poet Virgil; our future is rushing to become the past, and the present is so fleeting and insubstantial, it cannot be grasped. So, in this world of flickering impressions, what is real? How do we define reality without defining consciousness, and given that both are endlessly restless, how do we define either without defining time?

 

[MikeF]

It’s equally easy to say that matter is fundamental and that consciousness emerges from material phenomena, but saying it doesn’t make that true either. What if phenomenal experience is fundamental, but both it and the material world is ultimately insubstantial?

We are so used to thinking of the world as being composed of objects, of things, that we forget what we are watching, what we are experiencing, what we are is a series of events, an endlessly unfolding magic lantern show. We are but shadows and dust, to quote the Roman poet Virgil; our future is rushing to become the past, and the present is so fleeting and insubstantial, it cannot be grasped. So, in this world of flickering impressions, what is real? How do we define reality without defining consciousness, and given that both are endlessly restless, how do we define either without defining time?

What we know of reality comes from what we experience and what we know is held only with degrees of confidence. Given the physical limitations of any one human being and all the factors that contribute to making us flawed and fallible as individuals, one cannot rely on ones perceptions alone. This limitation of the individual is mitigated by comparing and contrasting the observations and experiences of many individuals, which provides both increased confidence in what is held to be know as well as identify and illustrate the ways in which one can be flawed and fallible.

So, in light of the above, it may be easy to say both, but not easy to believe both or hold both with equal confidence. Given what we know and the degrees to which we hold that knowledge, there is more support for the former proposition over the later, and hence more confidence in the former over the later.

Your language in the second paragraph is quite poetic and I don't doubt that it can represent the feelings of some. But feelings are just that. I, for one, do not have the same sense of impermanence described, that we are mere shadows and dust. And while I can appreciate the sense that the present is ever fleeting, the past can seem quite indelible and ever present in certain instances.

As to reality, I would say it is what it is, that which exists. We human beings, with our facility with abstraction, can imagine that which does not exist or cannot exist except as thought. Treating such thought of the imaginary as other than mere thought is one of our potential fallibilities.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What we know of reality comes from what we experience and what we know is held only with degrees of confidence. Given the physical limitations of any one human being and all the factors that contribute to making us flawed and fallible as individuals, one cannot rely on ones perceptions alone. This limitation of the individual is mitigated by comparing and contrasting the observations and experiences of many individuals, which provides both increased confidence in what is held to be know as well as identify and illustrate the ways in which one can be flawed and fallible.

So, in light of the above, it may be easy to say both, but not easy to believe both or hold both with equal confidence. Given what we know and the degrees to which we hold that knowledge, there is more support for the former proposition over the later, and hence more confidence in the former over the later.

Your language in the second paragraph is quite poetic and I don't doubt that it can represent the feelings of some. But feelings are just that. I, for one, do not have the same sense of impermanence described, that we are mere shadows and dust. And while I can appreciate the sense that the present is ever fleeting, the past can seem quite indelible and ever present in certain instances.

As to reality, I would say it is what it is, that which exists. We human beings, with our facility with abstraction, can imagine that which does not exist or cannot exist except as thought. Treating such thought of the imaginary as other than mere thought is one of our potential fallibilities.

I hold these two things to be axiomatic;
That everything we are, everything we know, is rooted in our experience of the world, and that nothing in this world is fixed, everything is transient, fleeting and ephemeral. That for me is the alpha and the omega of our material reality; but there is I believe a deeper, fundamental reality which is infinite and eternal. That reality is what some choose to call God, and it can be apprehended through prayer and meditation.

 

[blü 2]

I am not saying there is no world external to our cognition. What I am saying is that we can't know any worlds that may or may not exist beyond the confines of our cognitive perception. It's a very simple and obvious point. But your "belief" in an objective world beyond your cognitive experience just won't let you acknowledge it.

Before we need to bother with questions like that, we need some reason to think there ARE other worlds "beyond the confines of our cognitive perception".

And all the known examples, like the existence of heliocentry, planets in orbit and gravity, like electricity, like the invisible parts of the spectrum, like the atomic world, like the quantum world, like the "dark matter" and "dark energy" problems, have emerged from observation of reality (the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses), and through repeatable experiments and through contemplation of the results.

If you know the history of science fiction, you may have come across John W Campbell, who's remembered as a very successful editor of Astounding (later Analog) SF magazine, but also for his failed crusade to bring credibility to ESP, for example.

 

[MikeF]

... everything we know, is rooted in our experience of the world

I strongly agree.

... nothing in this world is fixed, everything is transient, fleeting and ephemeral.

Here I certainly agree that nothing is fixed, that everything is transient, the transient nature being relative and subjectively perceived. I would not apply fleeting and ephemeral to the whole of my experience of the world. Some things fit that bill. In other cases, the rate of change is so slow as to appear unchanging over a lifetime or even several. Heck, the rising and falling of the sun to we earthbound humans is essentially eternal to the collective memory since their inception.

but there is I believe a deeper, fundamental reality which is infinite and eternal. That reality is what some choose to call God, and it can be apprehended through prayer and meditation.

For me, given that knowledge is rooted in experience and that human beings are fallible creatures, I do not share such sentiments. For me there is only the unknown and what may be unknowable that lies beyond our ever-growing sphere of understanding.

 

[Kfox]

But those experiences aren't "mountains". In most instances there isn't even any awareness of the experience that we call and conceive of as a "mountain".

I disagree. Any animal walking up or down a mountain will walk differently than if he were walking on level ground. They have no choice in the matter.

"Real" is a concept in your mind. I find it very odd that you can't or won't recognize this.

No; real is that which aligns with reality; regardless of what goes on in your head. A crazy person jumping off a bridge because the thinks he can fly will die the same as the sane person pushed off the bridge knowing he can't fly.

 

[Kfox]

Reality is whatever we think it is. Because reality is an elaborate set of inter-related ideas that exists in our minds. The reason you are confused about it is because you can't or won't recognize that what you think reality is does not extend beyond your own thinking. So as a result, you truly believe that it does extend beyond your own thinking. But logically, this not possible.

Then why is it when a group of people see the same thing, they all agree on what they saw, even if some in the group previously thought what they saw was impossible? The fact that each person experiences the same thing proves it does extend beyond each person's thinking.

 

[Heyo]

I hold these two things to be axiomatic;
That everything we are, everything we know, is rooted in our experience of the world, and that nothing in this world is fixed, everything is transient, fleeting and ephemeral. That for me is the alpha and the omega of our material reality; but there is I believe a deeper, fundamental reality which is infinite and eternal. That reality is what some choose to call God, and it can be apprehended through prayer and meditation.

So, you believe we live in a simulation and the reality of the machine our universe runs on escapes our perception?
(Or something that is equivalent to that believe.)
(Q.v. Are the Programmers Gods?)

 

[PureX]

Nor can it be presumed that there are worlds to be known or assume any characteristics or properties of said presumed worlds. That is the real takeaway. All one can do is acknowledge what is actually know and build from there.

The problem with this stance is that without knowing the full nature of existence we can never know how accurate or inaccurate what we THINK the nature of existence is, now, is. Just in terms of cosmology, it is estimated that we know only about 4% of the physical universe. Which is a percentage so small that it is of no consequence at all given the much greater probability of error. So when we presume that we "know things" about the universe, it is entirely a pretense based on our self-centered bias/need to imagine that we understand the world we exist within, and can therefor control it to our advantage. When in fact we don't really understand or control it at all.

I recognize the logic of 'going with' the information that we have, even as little as there is of it. What choice do we have? But what I obect to is the overwhelmingly prevalent and dishonest assertion that what we think we know, is what is so. Because in truth, we have no logical way of establishing that as a fact.

 

[PureX]

Before we need to bother with questions like that, we need some reason to think there ARE other worlds "beyond the confines of our cognitive perception".

It has long been established philosophically that we cannot be certain of this. However, the fact that we can logically accept the axiom; "I think therefor I am" as proof of our own being, I (we) can then logically accept the same to be so for YOUR (other's) being. And that, then, stands as logical evidence that existence does extends beyond just our single self. It's not proof. But it does stand as evidence.

And all the known examples, like the existence of heliocentry, planets in orbit and gravity, like electricity, like the invisible parts of the spectrum, like the atomic world, like the quantum world, like the "dark matter" and "dark energy" problems, have emerged from observation of reality (the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses), and through repeatable experiments and through contemplation of the results.

You're way over-stating it, here. But I do agree with the fact that within the space between YOUR accepted existence and MY accepted existence, we can perceive a shared experience, does indicate that this space between us also exists in some autonomous way. However, we should keep in mind that the further we get from from that essential "I think therefor I am" axiom, the less valid and informative this 'evidence' becomes. We could simply be sharing an illusion. And how would we know?

If you know the history of science fiction, you may have come across John W Campbell, who's remembered as a very successful editor of Astounding (later Analog) SF magazine, but also for his failed crusade to bring credibility to ESP, for example.

This is a tangent, but the problem with the "ESP" question is mostly semantic. As it is obvious that we humans have the ability to perceive the world we live in by means beyond the physical senses as we currently define them. But all that really tells us is that our current definition is too limited.

 

[MikeF]

The problem with this stance is that without knowing the full nature of existence we can never know how accurate or inaccurate what we THINK the nature of existence is, now, is.

It's funny that after reading this I pictured Dory from Finding Nemo, with her singing her mantra, "Just keep swimming, swimming, swimming ..."

All I would say is that it is not a problem with the stance, it is simply the nature of the problem that humanity has been trying solve since the very beginning.

Just in terms of cosmology, it is estimated that we know only about 4% of the physical universe. Which is a percentage so small that it is of no consequence at all given the much greater probability of error. So when we presume that we "know things" about the universe, it is entirely a pretense based on our self-centered bias/need to imagine that we understand the world we exist within, and can therefor control it to our advantage. When in fact we don't really understand or control it at all.

I would say that here, you have things the wrong way 'round. Not regarding our limited access to only 4% of the physical universe, whatever the actual percentage might be. It is the notion that it is a self-centered bias to imagine we understand the world we exist in, when in reality, it is a self-centered bias to presume to know what lies within the unknown, beyond our understanding of the world we exist in.

I think you fail to appreciate that as our understanding has grown over, say ... the last 100,000 years, all that increased understanding has only clarified our understanding of the same old physical world we live in, while at the same time only swept away all our imaginings of what lay outside of our understanding, what resided in the unknown. No gods above the clouds nor demons under our feet.

Given this long track record, the stance I advocate and which you see as problematic, is actually working. We simply have to accept that there is no jumping to the end of this process.

I recognize the logic of 'going with' the information that we have, even as little as there is of it. What choice do we have?

Thanks for the recognition, and yes, to date there is no other choice.

But what I obect to is the overwhelmingly prevalent and dishonest assertion that what we think we know, is what is so. Because in truth, we have no logical way of establishing that as a fact.

I do appreciate your objection here up to a point. We are fallible creatures after all, requiring constant vigilance in maintaining course. I also appreciate your philosophy of enabling possibility. But dismissing what we hold in high confidence because we can't see it in relation to the (as yet) unknowable whole I see as a mistake. Isaac Newtons Classical Mechanics wasn't the whole story, nor is Einstein's Relativity the final word, but both brought better understanding to the physical reality we experience, which hasn't change. I would say presuming there is something more and better just over the rainbow prevents us from acknowledging that how we live and interact in the world it up to ourselves. If we are collectively unhappy with the current state of affairs, then we must look to ourselves to make the required changes. Stop waiting for something to be revealed beyond the rainbow, roll up our sleeves and take charge of the present and foreseeable future.

 

[Ostronomos]

I don't think intuition works as an extra sense. I think it's part of our evolved instinct and ability to constantly create tentative "explanatory" narratives about the not-perceived present and the adjacent future, which sometimes work and sometimes don't and often enough turn out to be irrelevant.

I was referring to extrasensory perception. The ability to sense extradimensional beings.

 

[Ostronomos]

Before we need to bother with questions like that, we need some reason to think there ARE other worlds "beyond the confines of our cognitive perception".

And all the known examples, like the existence of heliocentry, planets in orbit and gravity, like electricity, like the invisible parts of the spectrum, like the atomic world, like the quantum world, like the "dark matter" and "dark energy" problems, have emerged from observation of reality (the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses), and through repeatable experiments and through contemplation of the results.

If you know the history of science fiction, you may have come across John W Campbell, who's remembered as a very successful editor of Astounding (later Analog) SF magazine, but also for his failed crusade to bring credibility to ESP, for example.

The reality of extrasensory perception does not rest on a single person's failed approach, which probably relied on observation to draw conclusions. You are probably relating all you know about the supernatural to Hollywood. I am here to enlighten you and others on the fact that despite the fact that the supernatural is real, we can expect that a small sample of the population that actually knows it, would refuse publicity.

Besides, all an experimenter can perceive is the physical body, and the words of the subject, not the actual inner workings of their mind.

You probably cling to the false beliefs of atheism because you hold dear the experiences of your limited senses, but I as an expert in this subject, knows better. Namely, that there is a panconsciousness or God that one can sense through extrasensory perception, despite not seeing Him/Her.

 

[blü 2]

It has long been established philosophically that we cannot be certain of this. However, the fact that we can logically accept the axiom; "I think therefor I am" as proof of our own being, I (we) can then logically accept the same to be so for YOUR (other's) being. And that, then, stands as logical evidence that existence does extends beyond just our single self. It's not proof. But it does stand as evidence.

The proof is that we exist at all as individual humans, through a process of conception, gestation and birth, whence in time we grow to such autonomy as chance allows us to take, and for most people, have offspring of our own.

We could simply be sharing an illusion. And how would we know?

The illusion proposition falls to Ockham's razor, surely? It's vastly more complex, demands an entirely different structure and framework, to the reality we live in and routinely perceive and put to use.

This is a tangent, but the problem with the "ESP" question is mostly semantic. As it is obvious that we humans have the ability to perceive the world we live in by means beyond the physical senses as we currently define them. But all that really tells us is that our current definition is too limited.

I think ESP is out of the same bag as magic. There's no convincing demonstration of the existence of any purported psi power, despite serious bucks spent on it both civilly and militarily in the 1950s and 1960s. (They spend those bucks on UAPs these days. Maybe this time they'll find something, but that's still to be seen. The fact they don't spend them on ESP rather underlines my point.)

 

[blü 2]

The reality of extrasensory perception does not rest on a single person's failed approach, which probably relied on observation to draw conclusions.

No. It rests on then-enormous sums which the US military (and the Soviet military and no doubt others) spent in vain on the subject in the 1950s and early 1960s, on the ultimate failure of academe to validate the "findings" of Rhine at Duke University, on the steady disclosure of fakes (leading Martin Gardner to add that statistical proof of ESP is overwhelming statistical proof of fraud), on the failure of anyone to claim the prizes of various value up to $1m offered by James Randi for a single persuasive exhibition of ESP under controlled circumstances, on the great list of frauds like Uri Geller, on the absence of any credible exhibition let alone repeatable experiment to this day.

You are probably relating all you know about the supernatural to Hollywood. I am here to enlighten you and others on the fact that despite the fact that the supernatural is real, we can expect that a small sample of the population that actually knows it, would refuse publicity.

To be real is to exist in the world external to the self which we know about through our senses. And we've never found so much as a single confirmed instance of a supernatural event.

(I freely acknowledge that humans can get the creeps, having experienced them myself on one notable occasion, but that's an evolved response to the threat of the unknown in the dark, the tiger, or wolf, or thief, or enemy tribe, or jealous husband, or whatever.)

Besides, all an experimenter can perceive is the physical body, and the words of the subject, not the actual inner workings of their mind.

We can observe the workings of the brain to a greater degree than ever, though of course not yet perfectly. But don't underestimate the advances and increasing sophistication and value of brain research. We now have better maps of the brain, and a better understanding of the manner in which, and purpose for which, the parts communicate with each other, than ever before and getting better. It's a huge task but the rewards for our understanding will be equally huge.

You probably cling to the false beliefs of atheism

I'm an igtheist, not an atheist. If you can tell me what thing with objective existence a "god" is, such that if I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's a god or not, and what the real quality of "godness" is that a real god has and a real superscientist who can create universes and raise the dead and travel in time &c lacks, then I'll know at last what I'm supposed to believe, or not believe, exists in this case.

because you hold dear the experiences of your limited senses, but I as an expert in this subject, knows better. Namely, that there is a panconsciousness or God that one can sense through extrasensory perception, despite not seeing Him/Her.

You're welcome to your beliefs. They make no sense to me, but I accept that from your point of view, that's not the test.

 

[PureX]

The proof is that we exist at all as individual humans, through a process of conception, gestation and birth, whence in time we grow to such autonomy as chance allows us to take, and for most people, have offspring of our own.

Wow, you're really bad at philosophy.

The axiom that self-awareness proves our own existence does not prove that anything exists external to the self. Thus, philosophical solipsism. But if we extend this self-evident axiom to include other self-aware beings to be like ourselves, which is at least logical, if not proof that they exist in equal fashion, AND we accept their similar experience of the 'space between us', then we can assert that the space between us exists apart from us. It's a bit of a convoluted argument, but it is logical.

The illusion proposition falls to Ockham's razor, surely? It's vastly more complex, demands an entirely different structure and framework, to the reality we live in and routinely perceive and put to use.

Are you referring to solipsism as the "illusion proposition"? If so, Occam's razor would be part of the illusion. Also, the "reality we live in" is already so complicated that we cannot comprehend it. So according to Occam, it's probably false.

I think ESP is out of the same bag as magic

What you think doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not "ESP" is a valid phenomenon. It really all depends on the more specific definition we choose to apply that label to. It's easy to simply define things out of existence or validity. People do it all the time.

There's no convincing demonstration of the existence of any purported psi power, despite serious bucks spent on it both civilly and militarily in the 1950s and 1960s

Actually, there is plenty of evidence. The problem is that it does not lend itself to physical testing because it's not physical evidence. We have no known physical 'medium' through which to experiment.

For example, most of us are aware that when we 'notice' a stranger in a room or on a street from behind them, they very often realize that someone is paying attention to them and they turn around to see who that might be. As if we humans have a kind of "sixth sense" that tells us when we are being noticed. And it makes sense that we woud have developed this sense as a defense mechanism in a predatory world.

But so far, there is no known mechanism or physical medium through which such a sense might be operating. So science has no means of exploring that mechanism. But that does not mean such a mechanism does not exist. And the evidence that it does exist is apparent to nearly all of us.

(They spend those bucks on UAPs these days. Maybe this time they'll find something, but that's still to be seen. The fact they don't spend them on ESP rather underlines my point.)

They don't spend it on ESP because they have no physical means of exploring it.

 

[blü 2]

Wow, you're really bad at philosophy.

Heh heh!

The axiom that self-awareness proves our own existence does not prove that anything exists external to the self.

I keep telling you, stop breathing for a minute and see if anything you need exists external to you. If in doubt, try it for five minutes. It's quick, you don't need special clothes or equipment, and you don't have to wait for the results.

Thus, philosophical solipsism.

Now now. Just because you don't want it to be correct doesn't make it incorrect. As I've said before, I can't prove that a world exists external to me, but if I adopt it as an assumption, an axiom, then everything falls into place, and we can make Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and put rovers on Mars and put Covid vaccines together quickly in commercial quantities (and Covid is another of those things that might give you the hint that a world exists external to you.

You option is NOT to adopt it as an axiom, but clearly you have adopted it or we wouldn't be talking.

But if we extend this self-evident axiom to include other self-aware beings to be like ourselves, which is at least logical, if not proof that they exist in equal fashion, AND we accept their similar experience of the 'space between us', then we can assert that the space between us exists apart from us. It's a bit of a convoluted argument, but it is logical.

It's wholly unnecessary. I speak as a three-time parent.

Are you referring to solipsism as the "illusion proposition"?

One trouble with your argument is, you don't believe it yourself, since you don't act as thought it were true. Instead you act as though a world indeed exists external to you and as though you are able to interact with that world and interrelate with its denizens.

What you think doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not "ESP" is a valid phenomenon.

I was pointing out what the expert opinion is, one I have no reason to disagree with either from experience or from report or from observation. Serious megabucks were spent by the military back in the 1950s and 1960s and they got nowhere; and no one's got anywhere since. not a single repeatable experiment, zero testable hypotheses as to how such things might be possible, Randi's prize, ultimately a million bucks, going unclaimed, frauds exposed among academics and frauds exposed like Geller, on and on and on for a total of zero results and zero cred.

File under W for Wishful Thinking.

 

[Ponder This]

You seem to be blowing this out of proportion.

Logic would dictate that reality is real. And that properties of objects are measurable and therefore real.

You guys are putting far to little trust in your perception of reality. And by doing so, are creating confusion.

I pointed out differences between the quality of being green and the quality of being a cat and the quality of oneness. I would like to help you with your confusion. In what way were you confused?

 

[PureX]

Heh heh!


I keep telling you, stop breathing for a minute and see if anything you need exists external to you. If in doubt, try it for five minutes. It's quick, you don't need special clothes or equipment, and you don't have to wait for the results.

How does any of this prove that our experience of being is not an illusion? Couldn't breathing and dying be part of the illusion? How can we know that it's not?

Now now. Just because you don't want it to be correct doesn't make it incorrect. As I've said before, I can't prove that a world exists external to me, but if I adopt it as an assumption, an axiom, then everything falls into place,

A racist feels exactly the same way. Once he accepts his superiority as the truth, he finds proof of it everywhere he looks.

and we can make Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and put rovers on Mars and put Covid vaccines together quickly in commercial quantities (and Covid is another of those things that might give you the hint that a world exists external to you.

You option is NOT to adopt it as an axiom, but clearly you have adopted it or we wouldn't be talking.


It's wholly unnecessary. I speak as a three-time parent.


One trouble with your argument is, you don't believe it yourself, since you don't act as thought it were true. Instead you act as though a world indeed exists external to you and as though you are able to interact with that world and interrelate with its denizens.


I was pointing out what the expert opinion is, one I have no reason to disagree with either from experience or from report or from observation. Serious megabucks were spent by the military back in the 1950s and 1960s and they got nowhere; and no one's got anywhere since.

Of course it got nowhere. There has never been any known medium or mechanism to study. There still isn't. And yet the evidence remains strong that some kind of mechanism does exist. Because most people do experience sensations that surpass the five common biological mechanisms.

not a single repeatable experiment, zero testable hypotheses as to how such things might be possible, Randi's prize, ultimately a million bucks, going unclaimed, frauds exposed among academics and frauds exposed like Geller, on and on and on for a total of zero results and zero cred.

File under W for Wishful Thinking.

Until we can figure out how to investigate it, it remains a mystery. Your silly dismissal not withstanding.

 

[wellwisher]

Nominalism is reality, realist is make-believe.

Science would not be constantly changing theory, if we lived in a state of realism. As new data appears and theory needs to change, so what was considered real, changes.

Theory, like the randomness assumption of statistical theory can create it own reality. For example, risk analysis may apply to the average, however the average is more like a fuzzy placeholder than any tangible person. Yet too many people will assume the placeholder applies to them; get scared, even though there is no hard proof it applied to them; faux realism. Based on the fear within this alternate reality, people in power will impose alternate reality solutions, that may not apply; fuzzy dice nominalism creating faux realism.

This is why I don't think any random approach should be connected to science, unless an alternate reality is good enough for the realists.