What if? A sort of philosophical question.

Rich said:
I suppose that if two people are standing in the forest, one deaf and one with good hearing when the proverbial tree falls then there will be two realities. In one case yes, the tree will make noise. In the other case, it will not make noise. Same situation, two different realities? Or one reality with two different interpretations?
Click to expand...
Then again, if there’s no air, neither will hear a noise.
 

If robots really do take over completely in the workplace, how can we be sure there will be space on the beaches for everyone? :confused:
 

Putting philosophy, quantum physics, and semantics aside, reality is what's left over when the bull$hit stops. You can like it, hate it, or try to negotiate with it. It doesn't change. But that's just my opinion.
 
The word "reality" seems to get used quite often in contexts where someone is looking for understanding from others. They don't want to be judged because their reality is different. Afterall, if my reality is different than yours, then I can't possibly be wrong, right?

The problem with this is that it implies a relativism in which nobody is ever wrong about anything so long as that is their reality. That way madness lies...
 
Rich said:
I agree, in that case, it's quite likely that they'd both be dead! 😬
Click to expand...
Lol…. Yeah ok.. I was talking hypothetically obviously. I appreciate your humour. If I had seen someone else post what I posted, I would have have responded by saying they would both be dead too! :D

You have got to laugh. Life’s to short to be serious
 
Last edited:
I think in order determine what is reality is, we need way more scientific investigation and facts. It's like cavemen wondering about fire, but don't have any idea of what oxygen does, so they try to figure out which god is responsible for fire.
 
chic said:
What if reality is just what we BELIEVE it to be based on our traditions and teachings, culture and religion as opposed to it being concrete and tangible? I don't buy into the theory that the universe is just a hologram, but to some it is. :unsure: This makes me think about reality and how it really is largely subjective. If you think/believe something is so that makes it so for you and becomes your reality.

What do you think about this?
Click to expand...
Well, it could be anything. After all, we log out for hours every night. When asleep we are as good as dead, we know nothing of anyone. We dream of things we can't usually remember.
 
Interesting thread. I feel an ontological break-down coming on! Ha!

It‘s always been a hot topic. What is real? And if it is real, how do we create knowledge about that reality? I remember this article stirring up much debate among academics I knew way back when. Boundary issues! Time for an Excedrin extra-strength.

Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists​

Thomas F. Gieryn
 
EmptyCup said:
Interesting thread. I feel an ontological break-down coming on! Ha!

It‘s always been a hot topic. What is real? And if it is real, how do we create knowledge about that reality? I remember this article stirring up much debate among academics I knew way back when. Boundary issues! Time for an Excedrin extra-strength.

Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists​

Thomas F. Gieryn
Click to expand...
That's a paper... not a book. An actual paper. Man, I'm too tired/lazy to read a paper today. LOL
It does look interesting, however, and I do have it bookmarked.
Thank you for sharing it. :)
 
oldlongwalker said:
Remember the movie Alien? "In space no one can hear you scream."
Click to expand...

yes, kind of the point I was making. And therefore thinking what is ’reality’ if everyone has a different ‘sense’ of it. Even if all sides of an opinion can apply some logical sense and logical reasoning to it. Everyone has a different understanding of what sound is. And both opposing arguments can have can be supported by some logic; butting some doubts in both opposing arguments. Leaving some not to then know what the reality is.
 
Magna-Carta said:
Everyone has a different understanding of what sound is. And both opposing arguments can have can be supported by some logic; butting some doubts in both opposing arguments. Leaving some not to then know what the reality is.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is where I draw a line. Sound is very precisely defined and well understood. The math used to describe it is undisputed. Without this understanding vast amounts of technology would not be possible. There is no such thing as an alternative understanding which can be supported by any logic whatsoever. The same can be said about light/radiation, electricity, and on and on.
 
oldlongwalker said:
Sorry, but this is where I draw a line. Sound is very precisely defined and well understood. The math used to describe it is undisputed. Without this understanding vast amounts of technology would not be possible. There is no such thing as an alternative understanding which can be supported by any logic whatsoever. The same can be said about light/radiation, electricity, and on and on.
Click to expand...

I think you may have completely missed my point. I wasn't discussing maths, but peoples 'perception', in what is a 'philosophical' thread.
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
I think you may have completely missed my point. I wasn't discussing maths, but peoples 'perception', in what is a 'philosophical' thread.
Click to expand...
Ok. Then I don't understand what you mean by this:

Magna-Carta said:
Everyone has a different understanding of what sound is. And both opposing arguments can have can be supported by some logic
Click to expand...
This is what I was replying to when I said there are no different understandings of what sound is.
 
oldlongwalker said:
Ok. Then I don't understand what you mean by this:
"Everyone has a different understanding of what sound is. And both opposing arguments can have can be supported by some logic"

This is what I was replying to when I said there are no different understandings of what sound is.
Click to expand...

I wasn't discussing science. I believe by far, for the most part, most people here weren’t discussing science either, in this philosophical thread.

I see my previous statement as suggesting that people have different ‘perspectives’ on what sound is, and there are opposing arguments on this topic. Both arguments can be supported by logical reasoning, indicating that there may not be a definitive answer to the question of what sound truly is, in that sense. The diversity in ‘perception’ and understanding of sound can be attributed to various factors such as cultural differences, individual experiences, and educational background.

I don’t want to risk too much taking this thread completely off topic, but it’s important to note that scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and what is considered to be a precise definition or undisputed understanding today may be refined or revised in the future. No doubt basic principles of sound are well established, there may be alternative theories or even ‘interpretations’ of some aspects of it for all I know.

I’m not going to take this thread off in a new direction that then creates a different discussion. Making that new discussion dominant within what the OP perceived this thread ought to be about. Maybe there is room for a different thread to be made on the science of sound?
 
Magna-Carta said:
I wasn't discussing science. I believe by far, for the most part, most people here weren’t discussing science either, in this philosophical thread.

I see my previous statement as suggesting that people have different ‘perspectives’ on what sound is, and there are opposing arguments on this topic. Both arguments can be supported by logical reasoning, indicating that there may not be a definitive answer to the question of what sound truly is, in that sense. The diversity in ‘perception’ and understanding of sound can be attributed to various factors such as cultural differences, individual experiences, and educational background.

I don’t want to risk too much taking this thread completely off topic, but it’s important to note that scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and what is considered to be a precise definition or undisputed understanding today may be refined or revised in the future. No doubt basic principles of sound are well established, there may be alternative theories or even ‘interpretations’ of some aspects of it for all I know.

I’m not going to take this thread off in a new direction that then creates a different discussion. Making that new discussion dominant within what the OP perceived this thread ought to be about. Maybe there is room for a different thread to be made on the science of sound?
Click to expand...
Sorry if I seem to be veering off topic. By way of explanation, I taught philosophy at the college level. Seeing the title of the thread drew my attention. The predominant style of academic philosophers in the US and the UK is to use analytic/scientific methods. It really isn't all that different from what Socrates did.

At bottom, philosophy is about solving problems far more than it is about understanding differences between people. One way of solving what seems to be a philosophical problem is to show that it is actually a semantic issue and not anything more substantial, or "philosophical." Another way is to show that the problem can be solved by science and is no longer "philosophical."
 
oldlongwalker said:
Sorry if I seem to be veering off topic. By way of explanation, I taught philosophy at the college level. Seeing the title of the thread drew my attention. The predominant style of academic philosophers in the US and the UK is to use analytic/scientific methods. It really isn't all that different from what Socrates did.

At bottom, philosophy is about solving problems far more than it is about understanding differences between people. One way of solving what seems to be a philosophical problem is to show that it is actually a semantic issue and not anything more substantial, or "philosophical." Another way is to show that the problem can be solved by science and is no longer "philosophical."
Click to expand...
As a philosophy professional, what do you think of Robert Greene's philosophies? He keeps showing up in my YouTube feed and I don't care much for what he has to say.
 
Magna-Carta said:
I think you may have completely missed my point. I wasn't discussing maths, but peoples 'perception', in what is a 'philosophical' thread.
Click to expand...
Interesting how this topic exploded. "Reality " what is real............? we can all agree that we differ in what is real, simply because we experience different things in our life. So the question seems to be what is common to all of us. What reality can we all agree upon?
I don't really know.
I can feel personal pain for a friend who dies. That's real. Doesn't affect my life but I feel it. The loss is painful to me. This is my reality. I know that losing people you care hurts.
That's my reality.
Seeing an animal abused pains me. It hurts. That is my reality. The person who abused the animal has a different reality. What it is, I don't know but I'm sure that inflicting pain on others is a sign that the person inflicting the abuse has a different "reality".
What is real? Seems to me it all is. So finding peace in reality is a waste of time.
just my opinion.
rbtvgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top