Tuesday, February 10, 2015

What is Reality

beliefnet et al
I find it useful to distinguish between

  1. Mythical reality (including religions) which is a widely recognized group of mythical characters and situations that are generally accepted as being real and useful by a culture.  It is not necessary to have read the Brothers Grimm to know about Little Red Riding hood.
  2. Fictional reality which is a group of fictional characters and situations which those wishing to suspend disbelief for the duration of the fictional events, or the discussion of them are treated as real. 
  3. Observable reality which are characters and situations that can be shown to be real to all rational observers.  Note that truth values are not a given in observable reality.  

Feb 9, 2015 -- 7:09AM, Blü wrote:

That Christianity's propositions accord with reality.

Ah. So when you say Christianity is 'true', you mean it accords with imaginary reality, not objective reality.

Further thanks for clearing that up.

I think a better word per Shermer would be accord with belief reality. 

The brain has objectively observable belief centers that interpret reality in ways that enhance survivability.  On the savannah interpreting certain patterns in the windblown grass as a tiger, may have survival benefits even though the reality is that they are only wind effects. 

In a society controlled by vuvuzelas mediating for a vicious, vengeful God it may be a survival benefit to believe in a vicious, vengeful God even though reality is that it is vicious, vengeful vuvuzelas that should be feared. 
Feb 9, 2015 -- 8:09PM, Blü wrote:
As for all other "realities", while the brain and its functions are part of objective reality, the contents of its concepts do not necessarily have objective counterparts ie don't refer to things with objective reality. Examples are 'unicorn', 'two', 'supernatural being', 'justice', 'Donald Duck', 'some chairs' and so on.

Rationaist BS is no different from other BSNo matter how many times you explain that 'Donald Duck' is a real fictional character, the realities of which can be discussed by anyone familiar with Disney™ movies, tv shows, comic books, etc. a rationalist will insist that 'Donald Duck' is imaginary with no objective reality. 

As Blü himself has discussed 'Donald Duck' has three fingers and a thumb on each 'wing,' is anthropomorphic, talks English in English speaking countries but is multilingual, generally wears a blue sailor hat, a blue man's shirt, and a red bow tie.  This is factual information that exists independently of any person's mind and can in fact be verified by a search of Donald Duck images.

I might suggest that 'Donald Duck" is real for a majority of the people in the world, whereas something like a benzene ring exists only in the imagination of a few chemists SEMs are fakes, and frequently involves a snake biting its own tail even for chemists. 

'Donald Duck©' is so real that if someone imagines a similar anthropomorphic duck and tries to publish a comic book based on the character hesh would have a major legal battle on herm hands to establish that the imagined duck was sufficiently different in reality to not infringe on the Disney Copyright. 

Feb 11, 2015 -- 9:53AM, Blü wrote:


a rationalist will insist that 'Donald Duck' is imaginary with no objective reality.

We have descriptions and images and impersonations of Donald Duck. However, no real Donald Duck exists outside of imagination. He's a fictitious being.

No one has ever maintained that Donald Duck is a being.  Just that he is a fictitious reality.  A reality that exists and is independently verifiable by any rational person independent of anyone's imagination. 

Please note the working of the conceptual block which changes "reality" into "being."  It doesn't really change anything but provides a mental fig leaf to cover the "reality" of the fictional "being" as "being" can be interpreted as a once or presently living touchable, interacting entity.  All of which is critically important to denying God as a Mythical (religious) reality.   

No comments: