"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[Ben Dhyan]

As by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

In one understanding it is scientism, foundationalism and rationalism,
It is scientism in both senses:
- thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
- excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

The latter is so, because it is declared as in fact fact, that what reality is and how to know about reality as only using science.
The problem is that the qoute is based on how somebody thinks as for what is valid for knowledge.

Now for foundationalism it is a form of foundationalism, since it claims what is the correct version of in effect knowledge.
As for rationalism it is a case of this, because it is based on that it makes sense that reality is indpendent of perception, but that it makes sense, is based on reasoning for the claims being valid.

In a broader sense it is not different from some forms of religion in that what matters is obejctive as either reality or God, is founditional as it is the correct way of understanding what is really real and in the end is about who what matters as making sense, is down to a given individual/group for what is correct, valid and true for all humans.
That is the same because the general claim is the same. There is one correct form of knowledge.

Now this is debate, so what do i want to debate?
Well, if I can in effect do something which is not in reality/not from God, how it is that it can be know that I can do that, if it is not in reality/from God.

No one can do something which is not in reality, if you think you can, what is it you think you can do that is not in reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No one can do something which is not in reality, if you think you can, what is it you think you can do that is not in reality?

It depends on how you understand reality.

Definition of REALITY

the quality or state of being real; a real event, entity, or state of affairs; the totality of real things and events… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So we are playing real. Well, e.g. to some God is not real and to other God is.
Here is an example of this thinking in regards to reaity and in effect real:

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

"... To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It depends on how you understand reality.

Definition of REALITY

the quality or state of being real; a real event, entity, or state of affairs; the totality of real things and events… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So we are playing real. Well, e.g. to some God is not real and to other God is.
Here is an example of this thinking in regards to reaity and in effect real:

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

"... To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

I can see that if you ignore the mw dictionary definition of 'God' as 'ultimate reality' and/or the mw dictionary definition of 'Reality' as 'state of being real', then you can believe God is not real? But what is the point of a dictionary?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can see that if you ignore the mw dictionary definition of 'God' as 'ultimate reality' and/or the mw dictionary definition of 'Reality' as 'state of being real', then you can believe God is not real? But what is the point of a dictionary?

Well, the dictionary tells us how some people understand a word. Not if the referent of a wrod is a fact.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, the dictionary tells us how some people understand a word. Not if the referent of a wrod is a fact.

Well reality obviously is a fact, so anyone who understands reality to be not real is in error.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well reality obviously is a fact, so anyone who understands reality to be not real is in error.

Well, I have a different understand of what it means to know what objective reality is in itself and what real is.

So how do you know that I as something have the property of being in error? How is that real according to you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I have a different understand of what it means to know what objective reality is in itself and what real is.

So how do you know that I as something have the property of being in error? How is that real according to you?

Because your ego self 'I' is not ultimate reality, it thus has the property of being in error, ie., not being real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because your ego self 'I' is not ultimate reality, it thus has the property of being in error, ie., not being real.

So I didn't write this as I am not real, but it is real that you are reading it, because you are real and it is a part of reality and exists as true that I am not real. Yeah, real is really real, and I didn't write that.

I think you should consider how the referent of a word works in your model of reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So I didn't write this as I am not real, but it is real that you are reading it, because you are real and it is a part of reality and exists as true that I am not real. Yeah, real is really real, and I didn't write that.

I think you should consider how the referent of a word works in your model of reality.

There is only one reality, ultimate reality, all that exists. Taking one part of the one reality, you, is not ultimate reality. You will one day disappear when your body dies, the real doesn't just disappear at some point. What we can say that you are a temporary expression of the real so long as you live, but not real as in the one reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is only one reality, ultimate reality, all that exists. Taking one part of the one reality, you, is not ultimate reality. You will one day disappear when your body dies, the real doesn't just disappear at some point. What we can say that you are a temporary expression of the real so long as you live, but not real as in the one reality.

Yeah, that is your cognitive schemata.

Here is my real:
Imagine a pond, a small piece of water. Now it is not real since you imagine it, but it is real that you can imagine it. In the pond are 2 ducks. The one is a real duck and the other is unreal, as it is a decoy duck, but it is a real decoy duck. Now it is all real, since real is a word you can play with in your mind, but you can't observe it as independent of your mind as it has not objective referent.

As for ultimate reality I doubt you have solved the problem of the evil demon by Descartes.
Learn to do some epistemology and stop getting caught in how words make sense to you as if that is the only criteria for words.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, that is your cognitive schemata.

Here is my real:
Imagine a pond, a small piece of water. Now it is not real since you imagine it, but it is real that you can imagine it. In the pond are 2 ducks. The one is a real duck and the other is unreal, as it is a decoy duck, but it is a real decoy duck. Now it is all real, since real is a word you can play with in your mind, but you can't observe it as independent of your mind as it has not objective referent.

As for ultimate reality I doubt you have solved the problem of the evil demon by Descartes.
Learn to do some epistemology and stop getting caught in how words make sense to you as if that is the only criteria for words.

Nope, I don't play word games. There is only one reality, ultimate reality. Any part of this one reality, in time or space, is not truly real.

Ultimate reality is not of the human mind, it is not the concept "ultimate reality" that is real, it is the reality that the concept of reality is meant to represent.

So while I am using concepts to explain to you that concepts are not real, it is the real that the concepts represent that is real.

Do you understand?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope, I don't play word games. There is only one reality, ultimate reality. Any part of this one reality, in time or space, is not truly real.

...

The bold "is", is not a property "is" as e.g. the cat is black, but rather it is an "is" that signifies you cogntion and you report the result of how you think. That sentence is not an observation, it is your cognition and as a part of reality in time and space and thus itself not truly real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The bold "is", is not a property "is" as e.g. the cat is black, but rather it is an "is" that signifies you cogntion and you report the result of how you think. That sentence is not an observation, it is your cognition and as a part of reality in time and space and thus itself not truly real.

It is not only word concepts that are not real, except as concepts, thought concepts also are not real, so as long as you think about reality, you are lost in representations of reality, and will not realize reality.

Cease thinking altogether and then and only then is there reality present. So long as you think and write stuff, you are lost in the one reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not only word concepts that are not real, except as concepts, thought concepts also are not real, so as long as you think about reality, you are lost in representations of reality, and will not realize reality.

Cease thinking altogether and then and only then is there reality present. So long as you think and write stuff, you are lost in the one reality.

Yeah, we believe differently. Now express all of thi without words and think and show it to be real without words and think, yet explain it to another humans, but without using words and thinking. And then consider how real that would be.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, we believe differently. Now express all of thi without words and think and show it to be real without words and think, yet explain it to another humans, but without using words and thinking. And then consider how real that would be.

Ceasing thought/still mind meditation is the way to realize reality without words or thoughts. This is what monasteries of all religions were for, and before that, caves and desert retreats.

 

[wellwisher]

As by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

In one understanding it is scientism, foundationalism and rationalism,
It is scientism in both senses:
- thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
- excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

The latter is so, because it is declared as in fact fact, that what reality is and how to know about reality as only using science.
The problem is that the qoute is based on how somebody thinks as for what is valid for knowledge.

Now for foundationalism it is a form of foundationalism, since it claims what is the correct version of in effect knowledge.
As for rationalism it is a case of this, because it is based on that it makes sense that reality is indpendent of perception, but that it makes sense, is based on reasoning for the claims being valid.

In a broader sense it is not different from some forms of religion in that what matters is obejctive as either reality or God, is founditional as it is the correct way of understanding what is really real and in the end is about who what matters as making sense, is down to a given individual/group for what is correct, valid and true for all humans.
That is the same because the general claim is the same. There is one correct form of knowledge.

Now this is debate, so what do i want to debate?
Well, if I can in effect do something which is not in reality/not from God, how it is that it can be know that I can do that, if it is not in reality/from God.

Our perception of reality is a blend of reality and imagination, as inferred from science theory not yet at steady state and agreed upon by all. Science sees the real data of today with today's tools and then tries to explain this with theory. That theory is how the masses perceive reality via education. However, new and better tools appear tomorrow that see more data, and now the theory has to be revised. However, education may not keep up and standard theory may not change but can become dogma, so the layman is stuck in yesterday's perception of reality. The experts may have a closer view, but it may not reach the masses since the standard theory is still taught.

The better way to see this topic is similar to what you said; there is a final theoretical reality; God's universe, that someday science will see and explain with steady state theory, that will no longer change. Pure Science jobs will become obsolete. There will be plenty of applied science jobs. But in the mean time, we perceive that ideal reality through dirty glasses, that are not yet fully clean. Our imagination sort of tries to extrapolate through the dirt to get a composite effect.

As a good example, the life sciences depend too much on statistical methods, which places dynamic reality in a black box. This is like wearing dark sunglasses indoors. This still allow us to observed static things like DNA and catalog what we see, but the dynamics of this data is modeled with a black box in the dark. You will never get a rational theory of cause and effect, this way, only an empirical correlation. Obviously much work still needs to be done before this science see the pure light. The job growth in the life science areas shows they are going the wrong way since clarity should be simplifying and need only maintenance. That has to do with politics in science; inefficiency.

The reason this approach; in the dark, is used, is the approach is based on the organics of life, which are extremely diverse making it harder to connect all the variables. The black box allows the variable to average themself into correlations. One way to simplify is via the water. Water touches all the endless variety of organics and theoretically, all you have to worry about is one variable; water, in different states. This offers a way get out of the black box and closer to a rational view of the same reality.

A loose analogy is say you did voice analysis on all 50,000 people in a stadium. We look at the unique signals from each voice pattern and try to figure out how all these are unique yet they all seem so synchronized. This is where statistics can come in handy. On the hand, instead of looking at all the diversity of the voice profiles, you realize they are all speaking a common language and that the voice difference is not the primary variable. This is where we are. Water is the common language and the organics are voice profiles; water and oil effect. Below is a water and oil fractal pattern. That looks like a bunch of cells.