Problem of Universals

[Ostronomos]

Why do you assume it didn't? We have evidence that brains produce consciousness but the evidence for consciousness without brains is non-existent.

Rest assured, not only do the scientific minds at the Quantum Gravity Research institute support the idea of universal consciousness, so does the smartest man in America. As does the smartest person in human history.

 

[Heyo]

Rest assured, not only do the scientific minds at the Quantum Gravity Research institute support the idea of universal consciousness, so does the smartest man in America. As does the smartest person in human history.

Then we'll see a disembodied consciousness any time soon. Those people are smart, as you say, they'll figure it out. I'll wait. (But I don't hold my breath.)

 

[Ponder This]

Difference between Nominalism and Realism | Nominalism vs Realism might help.

If not try Stanford or Wiki.

It seems to me that in the example given of green things that there was a time when we didn't know what made objects green. And, because we didn't know what made them green, we could conceive that green was nominal as oposed to real. But now, we do, in fact, know what green is and what makes an object green. And, therefore, we can now say that green is real as opposed to nominal.

The question of what makes both Fluffy and Kitzler cats is a bit trickier. But is the problem one of definition? Is "cat" adequately defined? Today our concept of cat is better defined. We know better today what universal cat is as a real thing than we knew at some point in the past. Is the cat real today because our concept of what a cat is more closely matches what universal cat is? Can we not examine the genetic sequence and identify the universal cat within the particular cat as a definite real universal cat?

Let's think about some really abstract notions. "One" is an concept that is well-defined. However, when we look around our world, we can define anything to be one and the thing that we previously defined to be one can become "two" by simply redefining what is "one". For example, if you take out a ruler and look at the distance known as one inch. We see that there are 12 inches on the standard ruler. But if we take the distance known as one half inch as our unit of measurement, then there are 24 half inches on the standard ruler and one inch is actually two half inches. It is unclear to us how this general notion of "one" manifests itself as real when any particular instance of "one" can, in another particular instance be "two" instead of "one". If "one" is nominal, then there exist universals that are real and there exist universals that are not real. The universal one is not like the universal green or the universal cat. It is not the case that all universals are real or that all universals are nominal.

 

[blü 2]

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".

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

Please remind me ─ how do you define "real"? What test tells you whether something is real or not?

(As I think I've mentioned, I hold with the 'correspondence' definition, that 'truth' is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately report objective reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses,)

 

[PureX]

Please remind me ─ how do you define "real"? What test tells you whether something is real or not?

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.

(As I think I've mentioned, I hold with the 'correspondence' definition, that 'truth' is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately report objective reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses,)

But you have no cognitive access to any "objective reality" except as a fiction you hold in your mind. So your theory, here, is logically incoherent. As it cannot logically leave the confines of your own thinking.

 

[Ostronomos]

Please remind me ─ how do you define "real"? What test tells you whether something is real or not?

(As I think I've mentioned, I hold with the 'correspondence' definition, that 'truth' is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately report objective reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses,)

What about the 6th sense (extrasensory perception)? Something tells me you have never experienced that.

 

[Ostronomos]

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.

But you have no cognitive access to any "objective reality" except as a fiction you hold in your mind. So your theory, here, is logically incoherent. As it cannot logically leave the confines of your own thinking.

PureX,

Do you champion the idea that since mind is contained within reality, reality is contained within mind? If so, I would have to agree.

 

[Ostronomos]

It so happens that atheism has been confirmed to be a delusion by most of the scientific industry.

This is because mankind is beginning to see that what we hold to be reality is only beginning to scratch the surface.

For instance, if I told an atheist that quantum weirdness is the way things really are. As in teleportation, entanglement, retro-causation, and the observer effect, they would look at me as if I was crazy, but it is in fact they who are simply unintelligent.

It is far easier to believe there is no God than to be aware that there is one.

 

[Ostronomos]

It seems to me that in the example given of green things that there was a time when we didn't know what made objects green. And, because we didn't know what made them green, we could conceive that green was nominal as oposed to real. But now, we do, in fact, know what green is and what makes an object green. And, therefore, we can now say that green is real as opposed to nominal.


The question of what makes both Fluffy and Kitzler cats is a bit trickier. But is the problem one of definition? Is "cat" adequately defined? Today our concept of cat is better defined. We know better today what universal cat is as a real thing than we knew at some point in the past. Is the cat real today because our concept of what a cat is more closely matches what universal cat is? Can we not examine the genetic sequence and identify the universal cat within the particular cat as a definite real universal cat?

Let's think about some really abstract notions. "One" is an concept that is well-defined. However, when we look around our world, we can define anything to be one and the thing that we previously defined to be one can become "two" by simply redefining what is "one". For example, if you take out a ruler and look at the distance known as one inch. We see that there are 12 inches on the standard ruler. But if we take the distance known as one half inch as our unit of measurement, then there are 24 half inches on the standard ruler and one inch is actually two half inches. It is unclear to us how this general notion of "one" manifests itself as real when any particular instance of "one" can, in another particular instance be "two" instead of "one". If "one" is nominal, then there exist universals that are real and there exist universals that are not real. The universal one is not like the universal green or the universal cat. It is not the case that all universals are real or that all universals are nominal.

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.

 

[PureX]

PureX,

Do you champion the idea that since mind is contained within reality, reality is contained within mind? If so, I would have to agree.

The problem here is semantic. We are using the word "reality" to refer to two very different concepts. One being the conceptual landscape within our minds that we use as a roadmap for negotiating our experience of existence, and the other being whatever may or may not exist beyond our perception/conception of it. (Perception IS conception.) By the first concept, reality is "contained within the mind". But by the second concept, reality is independent of the mind. And the problem is that the mind cannot perceive/conceive (cognate) a reality that is independent of it. But that doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[Whateverist]

I don't think I can vote.

What am I if I posit that what is physical, observable, and measurable isn't "real?"

Makes me think of how quantum fields collapse from potential to actual when measured. Doesn’t mean the field wasn’t real before it was measured. The price of certainty is loss of potential and yet certainty is useful for things like plotting a flight to another planet. But it should give us pause about reaching reductive conclusions on a hypothetical basis when looking to achieve a e wider understanding.

 

[blü 2]

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.

But you have no cognitive access to any "objective reality" except as a fiction you hold in your mind. So your theory, here, is logically incoherent. As it cannot logically leave the confines of your own thinking.

We are doomed to disagree, and I'm doomed to ongoing perplexity at how you can say no world external to the self exists at the same time as you use it as the source of your parents air water food society and people to talk to on the net.

That strikes me as logically incoherent, and effortlessly so.

Ah well ...

 

[blü 2]

What about the 6th sense (extrasensory perception)? Something tells me you have never experienced that.

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.

 

[PureX]

We are doomed to disagree, and I'm doomed to ongoing perplexity at how you can say no world external to the self exists at the same time as you use it as the source of your parents air water food society and people to talk to on the net.

That strikes me as logically incoherent, and effortlessly so.

Ah well ...

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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

It’s a rare person who will question the axioms on which their world view is built. If you ask a realist “what is real?” he’s not going to answer “maybe nothing is”. That would be too traumatic.

 

[RestlessSoul]

.

 

[MikeF]

It’s a rare person who will question the axioms on which their world view is built. If you ask a realist “what is real?” he’s not going to answer “maybe nothing is”. That would be too traumatic.

What does it mean to say that nothing is real and have that be a fact, a reality? Seems a silly notion to me, but perhaps you could explain it.

EDIT: I should add that I promise not to be traumatized by anything you may reveal.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What does it mean to say that nothing is real and have that be a fact, a reality? Seems a silly notion to me, but perhaps you could explain it.

EDIT: I should add that I promise not to be traumatized by anything you may reveal.

It simply means being willing to consider a different paradigm; one in which there are no facts in objective reality, only perceptions in conscious awareness.

 

[MikeF]

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.

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.

 

[MikeF]

It simply means being willing to consider a different paradigm; one in which there are no facts in objective reality, only perceptions in conscious awareness.

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.