What if? A sort of philosophical question.

Medusa said:
Seriously?
I don't have access to the site, in any event, but... seriously?
Click to expand...
It's just a description of a professional journal that publishes papers on the intersections between philosophy, literature, and the differences between analytic and continental approaches to the subject. No offense intended, just thought you might find it interesting.
 
oldlongwalker said:
It's just a description of a professional journal that publishes papers on the intersections between philosophy, literature, and the differences between analytic and continental approaches to the subject. No offense intended, just thought you might find it interesting.
Click to expand...
Not at all offended! :)

I thought you were referring me to a scholarly article. My response was a reference to my issues with attention span and, more, the desire to enjoy discussion from the current knowledge base of the interlocutors (such a fun word).

Not offended. :)


EDIT: Added the word, "knowledge."
 

Last edited:
oldlongwalker said:
Here is a thought experiment that has been around for quite awhile.

Suppose you wake up tomorrow and everything in the universe has doubled in size. Would you be able to tell the difference? What does it say about our ideas about what is real?
Click to expand...
And the star we are looking at right now might have gone super nova millions of years ago!
 
oldlongwalker said:
Here is a thought experiment that has been around for quite awhile.

Suppose you wake up tomorrow and everything in the universe has doubled in size. Would you be able to tell the difference? What does it say about our ideas about what is real?
Click to expand...
I'm on a Zoom call (not with peeps here), lemme get back to you (and anyone who answers). Fun. :)
 
oldlongwalker said:
I only mentioned Chomsky originally so as to round out the whole project of the linguistic turn.

There is some confusion in my first statement, and I returned and edited a bit since you posted. But here is some clarification.

Metaphysics aims to say what is true about reality. It doesn't aim to say just what is true by definition--math and logic. So if metaphysical statements can't be verified empirically, then they are either meaningless, or merely true by definition.

The goal of linguistic turn philosophers is to put philosophy on a footing like that of science. One way of doing that is with an emphasis on empirical data, to take philosophy out of the office and into the world. If it looks like there is a conflict between philosophy and science, the first instinct is always to look to the evidence to make sure the philosophy isn't contradicting actual experience.

The linguistic feature of the project is based on reconciling actual evidence with the way we talk about and explain the evidence. That is where semantics comes into play. A philosopher like Quine wants a thorough-going empirical theory of how words get their meaning. So my view is a philosophical approach that is scientifically informed. If an apparent philosophical issue can be satisfactorily anwered by science, then so much the better.
Click to expand...

I’m tempted to ask more, but @Medusa seems to be making such a good job of it already, and I really don’t want to complicate this aspect of this tread, and make it difficult for some to follow. I am having to write stuff down so I can follow it myself. :)

So for now I will just read what you both have to say. I might even have to take a break from it and play a couple of games of “World of Warships” before coming back to read more.
 
Magna-Carta said:
I’m tempted to ask more, but @Medusa seems to be making such a good job of it already, and I really don’t want to complicate this aspect of this tread, and make it difficult for some to follow. I am having to write stuff down so I can follow it myself. :)

So for now I will just read what you both have to say. I might even have to take a break from it and play a couple of games of “World of Warships” before coming back to read more.
Click to expand...
Ask anything you like. I'm happy to reply.
 
oldlongwalker said:
Here is a thought experiment that has been around for quite awhile.

Suppose you wake up tomorrow and everything in the universe has doubled in size. Would you be able to tell the difference? What does it say about our ideas about what is real?
Click to expand...
Well, I would think that no, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference because everything will have change proportionately.

What does that say about what is real? Um.... that reality is a matter of perception, but the fact that what we are perceiving has changed (beyond our perception) doesn't necessarily make it less real, concrete. It only says that it has changed and doesn't address the question of "realness."

If we began to wonder about it, however, whether our reality has changed (say there's a Mandela Effect and someone's light socket is still small or something), what would we do about that? Ponder it, discuss it, wonder over it, debate it and ultimately start looking for tools to try and validate what we suspect.

I hope I'm making a modicum of sense here... it's been a day, so far. 😬
 
Magna-Carta said:
I’m tempted to ask more, but @Medusa seems to be making such a good job of it already, and I really don’t want to complicate this aspect of this tread, and make it difficult for some to follow. I am having to write stuff down so I can follow it myself. :)

So for now I will just read what you both have to say. I might even have to take a break from it and play a couple of games of “World of Warships” before coming back to read more.
Click to expand...
Hey, I do that, "game breaks" for the brain. :)
 
Medusa said:
Hey, I do that, "game breaks" for the brain. :)
Click to expand...

yeah, I have to, or else if I’m not carful I end up pulling in to many aspects of what is being discussed or what I’m researching and then have this gigantic box in my mind trying to figure out what’s even relent to me. So I take a break then come back, start rummaging through the box with my hands, throwing things out and saying to myself, “I don’t need that, nor that, I don’t know what I was doing with this, this doesn’t even fit in, and what the hell is that supposed to be”. Then with some luck I might be left with something that’s relevant, and comprehensible. :)
 
Medusa said:
Well, I would think that no, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference because everything will have change proportionately.

What does that say about what is real? Um.... that reality is a matter of perception, but the fact that what we are perceiving has changed (beyond our perception) doesn't necessarily make it less real, concrete. It only says that it has changed and doesn't address the question of "realness."

If we began to wonder about it, however, whether our reality has changed (say there's a Mandela Effect and someone's light socket is still small or something), what would we do about that? Ponder it, discuss it, wonder over it, debate it and ultimately start looking for tools to try and validate what we suspect.

I hope I'm making a modicum of sense here... it's been a day, so far. 😬
Click to expand...
Let's set aside for now the question of whether what we experience is real. Now ask the question, does perceiving alter what is "out there" in some fundamental way? If what is out there could change in a very fundamental way, and we are unable to tell, does that call into question whether our perceptions can alter it in any way? And if they cannot, then whether it is real or not may have nothing to do at all with our perceiving.
 
oldlongwalker said:
Let's set aside for now the question of whether what we experience is real. Now ask the question, does perceiving alter what is "out there" in some fundamental way? If what is out there could change in a very fundamental way, and we are unable to tell, does that call into question whether our perceptions can alter it in any way? And if they cannot, then whether it is real or not may have nothing to do at all with our perceiving.
Click to expand...
Okay, setting aside the concrete actuality of reality question, the answer is no, perception does not alter what is (presumably) out there, only our experience of it. Our perceptions can only alter our experience of reality (under these parameters).

And yes, given the above, whether reality is a thing that exists whether we do or not, does not affect our relationship with it.
 
Medusa said:
Okay, setting aside the concrete actuality of reality question, the answer is no, perception does not alter what is (presumably) out there, only our experience of it. Our perceptions can only alter our experience of reality (under these parameters).

And yes, given the above, whether reality is a thing that exists whether we do or not, does not affect our relationship with it.
Click to expand...
Now try this on for size. We can be fooled by optical illusions. These are cases when our perceptions are confused and we think we see something that isn't right, or correct in some way. How do we explain this? Our perceptions have not altered the item we are perceving. But how do we know that something isn't right? We know it by the same faculty of perception that is now being fooled. So we are able to determine how we know something is wrong with the same faculties of perception we use to determine when it is right. On what basis then can we say that what we perceive might not be real? We can determine when experience is wrong by means of analyzing our perceptions. So what would it mean to say that when it is not wrong--not an illusion--the external objects we perceive might still not be perceived correctly?
 
What if it's within our power or control to define reality. If we do not believe something exist doesn't exist for us or we can interpret a negative as a positive until it becomes so and visa versa.
 
rbtvgo said:
Reality is what you believe it to be, based on hard facts coupled with perceptions. The original question posed was an attempt to find a universal truth. There is no answer to this that any human can provide.
rbtvgo
Click to expand...
We live our lives as best we can with what experience ( we have experienced) and the wisdom that has been given to us by those who were a part of our lives . Notice I did not say loved ones. We experience life and we try to filter truth thru what we feel plus what we have been told. Not easy. Reality is what you want it to be. Therefore the question is what do you want it to be ?
The great thing about life and especially this country is that you can be who you want to be. Want to be a rock star.........pursue your dreams. Put in the work. Want to be a doctor then pursue your dreams. Put in the work.
The great people we admire in this world worked unceasingly for what they were trying to do or accomplish. They didn't dwell on failure, They just kept going.
So reality is what you want it to be.
rbtvgo
 
rbtvgo said:
We live our lives as best we can with what experience ( we have experienced) and the wisdom that has been given to us by those who were a part of our lives . Notice I did not say loved ones. We experience life and we try to filter truth thru what we feel plus what we have been told. Not easy. Reality is what you want it to be. Therefore the question is what do you want it to be ?
The great thing about life and especially this country is that you can be who you want to be. Want to be a rock star.........pursue your dreams. Put in the work. Want to be a doctor then pursue your dreams. Put in the work.
The great people we admire in this world worked unceasingly for what they were trying to do or accomplish. They didn't dwell on failure, They just kept going.
So reality is what you want it to be.
rbtvgo
Click to expand...
This is a sweet notion and I would love for it to be true, but it simply isn't, at least not consistently.

Lots and lots of people put in the work and do not achieve the reality they want. That's just hard cold life. Better to find a balance between putting in the work and finding contentment in where you are, with what you have.
 
oldlongwalker said:
Now try this on for size. We can be fooled by optical illusions. These are cases when our perceptions are confused and we think we see something that isn't right, or correct in some way. How do we explain this? Our perceptions have not altered the item we are perceving. But how do we know that something isn't right? We know it by the same faculty of perception that is now being fooled. So we are able to determine how we know something is wrong with the same faculties of perception we use to determine when it is right. On what basis then can we say that what we perceive might not be real? We can determine when experience is wrong by means of analyzing our perceptions. So what would it mean to say that when it is not wrong--not an illusion--the external objects we perceive might still not be perceived correctly?
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the - do you remember the Hawking, Mlodinow book, The Grand Design, (I think) wherein they talk about the perspective of reality as viewed by a goldfish in a convex bowl?

I know I've just done that thing wherein I am using the words of others, but I did listen to that book (albeit many years ago) and am drawing from memory here, which is why I'm not giving a lot of detail.

It seems to apply here, in any event.
 
Medusa said:
This is a sweet notion and I would love for it to be true, but it simply isn't, at least not consistently.

Lots and lots of people put in the work and do not achieve the reality they want. That's just hard cold life. Better to find a balance between putting in the work and finding contentment in where you are, with what you have.
Click to expand...
Yes. A little classical stoicism can be a good thing.
 
Medusa said:
Are you familiar with the - do you remember the Hawking, Mlodinow book, The Grand Design, (I think) wherein they talk about the perspective of reality as viewed by a goldfish in a convex bowl?

I know I've just done that thing wherein I am using the words of others, but I did listen to that book (albeit many years ago) and am drawing from memory here, which is why I'm not giving a lot of detail.

It seems to apply here, in any event.
Click to expand...
I'm going to look that one up. The goldfish example sounds interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top