What do you mean by 'real'?
Clardan
"Since everybody else is playing dodge-ball with this issue, let me try. Real for the human mind or brain if you prefer, is a conception of an object external to the mind that can be described with sufficient precision to be identifiable to others as a similar conception in their mind of sufficient power and experience. Hence, rocks, rainbows, even virtual particles are real. A mythical entity such as Santa Claus can be considered to be real, as the conception is of an object that can be described and understood by others, even though certain properties may be differently conceived by different minds and the referent of the myth is fictional.
Please note that even the magical aspects of Santa Claus, the flying reindeer, the self replenishing present supply, can be considered real at the unsophisticated child level although the sophistication is not age related. An adult given no opportunity to understand the differences among magical, mythical, and material reality may not be able to conceive the difference.
Maturity of mind allows us to separate reality into categories like magical, mythical, material, and conceptual among others depending on the sophistication of the mind involved. The big bang, or inflation, is a conceptual reality for those able to deal with the concept of best explanation of reality to date but not necessarily a material reality. "
So for me, reality's (first) what's out there and (second) the reasoned inclusion of oneself in the resulting picture.
Blü
Which eliminates all of the interesting conceptual, fictional and mythical things that inform and amuse the mind, which of course does not exist in your material world. I find your material world orderly, understandable, and boring. I much prefer the messy, incomprehensible, wonder-filled world of the mind, where truth is not found by observation but by understanding.
You can borrow my Vintage Playboy collection if you get too bored.
Blü
Typical materialist. Just look at the pictures and you don't have to deal with the interesting conceptual, fictional and mythical complexities of a real woman.
I will go with the materialists that consciousness or mind is supported by neural activity of the brain. Where I differ from them is that consciousness is not dependent on input from the sensual processing areas of the brain, but uses selected data from those areas and creates a relationship between itself and the rest of the world as sensed, and in addition provides self referential feedback on how to manage that relationship.
Pain input from the senses, causes the reflex action to minimize the pain, but also triggers the consciousness to analyze the source of the pain, and the consciousness will analyze the cause of the pain and figure out ways to avoid it in the future, or perhaps decide that it is a necessary accessory to some other project the consciousness has in its in-box. The easiest way to avoid the pain of a hot stove is to stay away from hot stoves. But the consciousness says I'm hungry and some scrambled eggs would be good right now, and that means go near that dreadful hot stove. Be careful Y'all.
As noted I have no problem with the mind being supported by neural activity of the brain, but I would bet long odds against sombody with a fMRI being able to say "Here lies the mind"
22 comments:
What do you mean by 'real'?
Clardan
"Since everybody else is playing dodge-ball with this issue, let me try. Real for the human mind or brain if you prefer, is a conception of an object external to the mind that can be described with sufficient precision to be identifiable to others as a similar conception in their mind of sufficient power and experience. Hence, rocks, rainbows, even virtual particles are real. A mythical entity such as Santa Claus can be considered to be real, as the conception is of an object that can be described and understood by others, even though certain properties may be differently conceived by different minds and the referent of the myth is fictional.
Please note that even the magical aspects of Santa Claus, the flying reindeer, the self replenishing present supply, can be considered real at the unsophisticated child level although the sophistication is not age related. An adult given no opportunity to understand the differences among magical, mythical, and material reality may not be able to conceive the difference.
Magical Reality?? Mythical Reality??? A mythical entity can be considered to be real???? “Stop the music, right there!!” I am the one, true Santa Claus and even I know that I am not real. On Christmas Eve when I’m flying though the sky while sitting behind 8 farting reindeer, I know I am not real. When cramming enough toys in one bag for all of the world’s children, I know I am not real. While climbing down and up millions of chimneys in a single night, I know I am not real. Who am I in reality?
I am a fiction, an abstract fantasy. I have a two-dimensional “likeness” with enough unique elements to allow recognition of my persona, regardless of most illustrators’ translations of my assumed likeness. I am a story; the story is “real” and is accessible through a variety of media, but the story concerns an entity that is not objectively real. IMO, the use of terms M______ Reality are too close to either side of the gap between “true and false” to lack sufficient clarity for common usage.
Perhaps the reason in this case that the discussions of a meaning of a word or words appear to be a game of dodge-ball is probably due to the complexity of the concept of the words “real and reality.”
Real:
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal
Reality
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact:
5. A state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one may wish them to be
6. That which exists, independent of human awareness
7. The totality of facts that is independent of the human awareness of them
Maturity of mind allows us to separate reality into categories like magical, mythical, material, and conceptual among others depending on the sophistication of the mind involved. The big bang, or inflation, is a conceptual reality for those able to deal with the concept of best explanation of reality to date but not necessarily a material reality. "
[Conceptual Reality??]
You need to employ 4 words [when and where applicable] rather than modifying “Reality;” use Objective, Subjective, Concrete and Abstract, because these nouns efficiently portray an entity’s or a concept’s “position” in reality.
So for me, reality's (first) what's out there and (second) the reasoned inclusion of oneself in the resulting picture.
Blü
Which eliminates all of the interesting conceptual, fictional and mythical things that inform and amuse the mind, which of course does not exist in your material world. I find your material world orderly, understandable, and boring. I much prefer the messy, incomprehensible, wonder-filled world of the mind, where truth is not found by observation but by understanding.
Blu did not say that he did not have a spectacular and rich mental life that included all the abstracts; he only addressed “reality” and how that was defined within his perspective. It appears to me that your perceived objections to “Materialism” have somehow interfered with a good understanding of reality. [Of course, I could be wrong.]
You can borrow my Vintage Playboy collection if you get too bored.
Blü
Typical materialist. Just look at the pictures and you don't have to deal with the interesting conceptual, fictional and mythical complexities of a real woman. I will go with the materialists that consciousness or mind is supported by neural activity of the brain. Where I differ from them is that consciousness is not dependent on input from the sensual processing areas of the brain, but uses selected data from those areas and creates a relationship between itself and the rest of the world as sensed, and in addition provides self referential feedback on how to manage that relationship.
Pain input from the senses, causes the reflex action to minimize the pain, but also triggers the consciousness to analyze the source of the pain, and the consciousness will analyze the cause of the pain and figure out ways to avoid it in the future, or perhaps decide that it is a necessary accessory to some other project the consciousness has in its in-box. The easiest way to avoid the pain of a hot stove is to stay away from hot stoves. But the consciousness says I'm hungry and some scrambled eggs would be good right now, and that means go near that dreadful hot stove. Be careful Y'all.
As noted I have no problem with the mind being supported by neural activity of the brain, but I would bet long odds against somebody with a fMRI being able to say "Here lies the mind"
Reading the previous paragraphs and seeing the confusion of brain/mind concepts is precisely why I have and will continue to suggest of thinking of the combination of brain and mind as an “inseparable unity.” Further, just as we have compartmentalized the brain into distinct to identify its neurological functions, we often artificially divide the mind into parts, faculties and functions, without also realizing the mind is itself a unity, a composite of all its “parts.” The difficulty in communication of these concepts is as much a problem of the use of the available language as it is a problem of misunderstanding the true nature of the mind. Can we really say which faculties are “working” at any given moment? Do we really know how our mental faculties work together to say “one is Causal to the other?” Can we artificially separate physical and mental responses to a specific stimuli and think of these as “two responses” that are somehow separate from “each other?”
Real: a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence.
If I can describe a myth or a fictional character in sufficient detail that they could be confused with a historical character of the same time period. How does one determine which occurred in fact or actuality. Is Paul more "real" than Jesus? If so why?
The distinction I am trying to make here is that if as I propose in Axioms for the Sapient there exists a brain function, call it the mind, that makes sense of all the stimuli external and internal that constitutes sapience, it is the conceptual entity rather than its referent that is important. So whether the referent has a material existence is really irrelevant to the reality of the concept. It is useful to distinguish between types of referents but in many cases non-material referents may be much more useful in conveying useful information to the mind.
Certainly Santa Claus cannot exist in the material and accomplish all that he is mythically capable of doing. But to the sapient mind of a child, or an adult for that matter, the conceptual entity of Santa Claus carries the entire weight of a jolly season of gift giving in a really dismal reality of winter in the material world. So take your pick, the freezing hostile reality of winter or the conceptual Santa Claus, to remind you to provide for those you love.
If I can describe a myth or a fictional character in sufficient detail that they could be confused with a historical character of the same time period. How does one determine which occurred in fact or actuality. Is Paul more "real" than Jesus? If so why?
We still have a large contingent of Creationists, Flat Earthers, and religious fanatics who don't make any attempt to learn of or examine "objective evidence;" they say in essence, "Please don't confuse me wiuth the truth because I've already made up my mind." There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with fantasy and fiction: the problem occurs when the subjective and the abstract get confused with the objective and concrete and are given "equal consideration without distinction. I can't even remember how many times I heard the preacher say, "I've been talking to Jesus and this is what He wants you to do." If the priest would have said, "I've been talking to Nero's ghost and this is what he wants you to do," the parishoners would likely send for an exorcist. Neither claim has merit, no matter how convincing the speaker is and whether or not the referent existed or not.
Certainly Santa Claus cannot exist in the material and accomplish all that he is mythically capable of doing. But to the sapient mind of a child, or an adult for that matter, the conceptual entity of Santa Claus carries the entire weight of a jolly season of gift giving in a really dismal reality of winter in the material world. So take your pick, the freezing hostile reality of winter or the conceptual Santa Claus, to remind you to provide for those you love.
Bob and weave; you can't hide JC....the theist asked, "What is real" and you spent many words justifying fiction and fantasy as being "real" when held in your mind. When I saw that, if it were possible, I would have reached through the monitor's screen and boxed your ears!!! What were you thinking???
Whatever is perceived within one's mind does indeed effect the perceiver in real ways, but that does not mean what was perceived was real or even refered to something that was real.
Our favorite fantasies and fictions are enjoyed and are also useful because the stories teach us lessons and values that can and should be applied to real life. I have a collection of every Disney Movie released over the last 20 years; even the older kids enjoy them. Of course we know that dalmations don't talk, but I love that movie...it makes me smile.
One cannot build an axiomatic theory of reality to prove the flat earthers, creationists and the preacher that talks to Jesus are wrong. Their conceptual reality must be dealt with in any concept of the mind or the concept is worthless. There cannot be one concept of the mind for self styled "realists" and another for those whose reality includes reified myths.
Is my mind somehow inferior or deficient in that I get my concept of the Civil War South from Gone with the Wind rather than some history book written by an admirer of General Sherman. Does the history book portray the reality of the march to the sea better than Gone With the Wind? Must I defer to the history book as reality since Gone With the Wind is avowedly fiction? Is it not possible that the fictional characters portray the tenor of the times better than the perhaps biased historian?
It is necessary to be able to discern the differences in the referent for conceptual reality for true control over one's mind, (if this fiction can have any reality) but any theory of the mind which ignores the creationist reality is deficient.
It is necessary to be able to discern the differences in the referent for conceptual reality for true control over one's mind, (if this fiction can have any reality) but any theory of the mind which ignores the creationist reality is deficient.
No one is creating a theory of the mind that in any way ignores what goes on in anyone's mind. When someone claims that any thought they have in their mind is "right," do we not have just as much right to examine those thoughts and determine their nature? We must judge what is real and what is not. The man that believes he should kill you because you are not a follower of Allah, God or the Giant Green Poobah, has a right to his thoughts but should those thoughts be given sufficient creedance to render you dead?
Respect everyone's right to think; tell them when and why you think they're wrong; you do them no real service by helping them justify fantasies as if they were realities. And leave Santa alone....he/I are a special exception.
One cannot build an axiomatic theory of reality to prove the flat earthers, creationists and the preacher that talks to Jesus are wrong. Their conceptual reality must be dealt with in any concept of the mind or the concept is worthless. There cannot be one concept of the mind for self styled "realists" and another for those whose reality includes reified myths.
Conversely, one cannot build any conception of reality that allows the inclusion of things/entities/concepts that are or refer to that which is not real but yet identifies them as worthy of acting upon as if they were real. If you want to whip yourself because you think you committed a sin, by all means whip away, but don't you dare bring that whip near me or mine for any reason.
It's high time we stood up and say "No, you are wrong" to those who have claimed a right to judge us, control us and punish us according to their perceived God's standards. I deal with many theists on a daily basis, including most members of my family. We treat each other with mutual respect and they enjoy my company; we have a "truce" as far as things religious are concerned; when they did not respect me and my ideas, they didn't get my company. I have no desire or need to attend their churches or somehow fake reality in any way.
How do you effectively confront someone who bases their axioms on something that is not real? I think you don't confront them unless they desire the confrontation.
I find your material world orderly, understandable, and boring. I much prefer the messy, incomprehensible, wonder-filled world of the mind, where truth is not found by observation but by understanding.
[If you read some of these quotes out loud, your ears may have a chance to save you before you hit the Publish Button.]
Truth:
1. the quality of being true, genuine, actual, or factual
2. something that is true as opposed to false
...truth is not found by observation but by understanding."
The all-too-obvious question is, "by understanding, what?"
For the sake of discussion lets look at "knowledge;" knowledge is defined as familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
I offer you these epistemological principles that were derived from my axioms:
1.Knowledge is the conceptual identification of facts, based on the integration of evidence;
2. Knowledge is acquired by cognitive integration;
3. All knowlege depends on direct awareness of reality;
4. Conceptual knowledge is only acquired by reason.
5. Knowledge is hierarchical and contextual. [Primarily because there are no contradictions in reality]
Dull and boring as "reality" may be, a philosophy and specifically an epistemology that allows distinct and purposeful concepts to be redefined into an indistinguishable stew is not helpful to anyone. Sing, dream, wish, speculate, hope....do what it is you do in your mind and enjoy the ride. A knowledge of what is real and not real will help you experience a real world. When you need to rest and get the best relaxation by dreaming of angels, dream on.
“…it is the conceptual entity rather than its referent that is important [to the mind]. So whether the referent has a material existence is really irrelevant to the reality of the concept. It is useful to distinguish between types of referents but in many cases non-material referents may be much more useful in conveying useful information to the mind.”
Concept: (Philosophy) a general idea or notion that corresponds to some class of entities and that consists of the characteristic or essential features of the class.
We arrive at our concepts through the process of cognitive integration – Cognition: the mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment. Any and all mental faculties may be employed to perform the cognition but reasoning is the source of the integration.
A concept is an integration of units on the basis of common features and the common differences of non-units. From the time we are born, we are essentially building an internal library of perceptions: food, non-food; soft, not soft; warm, not warm; etc. The concept of the first finger grasped and tasted by an infant may be “non-food + soft + warm;” later integrations may add the hardness of the fingernail, size and shape, aroma and whatever else is required to distinguish one finger from another. The library actually builds quite slowly at first due to the limits of sense perceptions, the lack of the skill and ability to interact with the environment and the lack of experience to build upon.
A question that arises regards the “importance,” the value of what is conceived when compared to the referent (if any) that may have initiated the conception. Even the most “out-worldly conception” is integrated within the mind as a composite of the features or differences found in similar/dissimilar entities. A lack of “library entries” that mutually describe the features and differences of the conception [when compared to other conceptions]usually results in a poor conception.
If a person is desperately hungry and perceives food nearby, does the conception of the food erase the hunger? [This scenario is an example of how knowledge is both hierarchical and contextual.]
A “non-material entity” is a concept that is an integration of features and dissimilarities from the internal library even if its concept is built from a composite of “nots.” The concept’s value is relative to what is valued.
Exploringinside said:
"When someone claims that any thought they have in their mind is "right," do we not have just as much right to examine those thoughts and determine their nature? We must judge what is real and what is not."
I would challenge you to judge what is real in someone else's mind. Just by defining reality as the (material) facts as you see them does not give you any authority over the conceptual reality as they perceive it. Is their social reality (religious truth) any less valid than your social reality that we have to get along regardless of religious differences? Can you provide any justification or validation of your social reality as more "correct" than theirs?
Hemorrhoid City...here we come!!!
Where I differ from them [Materialists] is that consciousness is not dependent on input from the sensual processing areas of the brain, but uses selected data from those areas and creates a relationship between itself and the rest of the world as sensed, and in addition provides self referential feedback on how to manage that relationship.
A Materialist does not comment on consciousness specifically but in general believes everything that exists in this universe is matter, energy, space or the result of an interaction of all three.
How can one say "consciousness is not dependent on input from the sensual processing areas of the brain, but uses selected data from those areas? What else is consciousness using for information while the sense receptor data is constantly streaming into a person? Does the consciouness operate when the body is not operating?
To be aware, one is required to be aware of something. Consciousness is not an all or nothing proposition; there are levels of consciousness that allow us to operate that do not require "immediate awareness." [The exception involves certain body regulation systems that are truly "automatic" and leave no data to be accessed.] Driving a car would be too tedious if one had to be immediately conscious of their entire environment, both externally and internally. Can one focus their immediate attention on internal thought activity, only? Certainly. Does that focus shut off everything else or remove the dependency [of the unity that is the person] upon sensory iunput? Nope.
J'C:...truth is not found by observation but by understanding."
EI: The all-too-obvious question is, "by understanding, what?"
J'C: By understanding the observation obviously. One may see a magician pull a rabbit out of a hat. What do you understand about this? If the magician is in a tux on stage with smoke and mirrors all around you understand one thing. If the magician is shabbily dressed and puts the rabbit he pulls from the hat into a stew pot on a small fire, do you understand the same thing? Is the rabbit real in either case? How do you know?
EI: "We must judge what is real and what is not."
This is a poor sentence. "When it is important to know, we must judge which ideas we encounter conform to the facts of reality." If someone named Noah, came to me today and said the entire earth surface will be covered by water after it rains 40 days in a row, this claim does not conform to reality as I know it.
My God!!! Another adjective for Reality..."Social Reality." If their "social reality" claims I must accept the teachings of Islam, Christianity or any other ism or face punishment, I cannot accept their social reality. I have chosen to use Humanism as my personal philosophy; I'm very willing to live in a world filled with non-Humanists but anything counter to Humanist Philosophy does not receive my acceptance or support.
EI: "What else is consciousness using for information while the sense receptor data is constantly streaming into a person?"
J'C: Sense receptor data is so heavily filtered, interpreted, and processed by the brain that by the time it raises to the consciousness level it is (merely?) a conceptual reality, not a representation of any real sensory input. In your driving example the small pedestrian entering the school crosswalk is not a collection of moving contrast areas of different colors against a static background of other contrast areas of different colors. It is a conceptual alarm in the social reality that you are potentially threatening to kill a human child. You had best apply the brakes or that Hemorrhoid City will be angrily and painfully inflamed.
Is their social reality (religious truth) any less valid than your social reality that we have to get along regardless of religious differences? Can you provide any justification or validation of your social reality as more "correct" than theirs?
If their Social Reality hinders my freedom to act rationally, peacefully and in benefit of my family, we will fight. If their social reality claims it has the right to use force to attempt to gain a value from anyone outside the membership of their group and attempts to do so, we will fight.
My justification is found within the ethical system of our society. When their society has a sufficient majority to replace our ethical system with one that conforms to their "religious truths," I'm outta here.
EI: "Respect everyone's right to think; tell them when and why you think they're wrong; you do them no real service by helping them justify fantasies as if they were realities."
Again, since you failed the first time, explain the difference between the fantasy of a jolly gift giving season of love and compassion for one's companions and the "reality" of the blizzard that would quickly kill any unsheltered individual. Which is real? Which is preferable as a social reality?
"...the small pedestrian entering the school crosswalk is not a collection of moving contrast areas of different colors against a static background of other contrast areas of different colors. It is a conceptual alarm in the social reality that you are potentially threatening to kill a human child."
In NYC those small pedestrians are called "targets."
EI: "My God!!! Another adjective for Reality..."Social Reality.""
My No God!!! You have just been arguing that the social reality of a religious fanatic trying to kill you must be resisted by all adhering to the social reality of Humanism. How are you measuring the physical reality of the truth of humanism?
Again, since you failed the first time, explain the difference between the fantasy of a jolly gift giving season of love and compassion for one's companions and the "reality" of the blizzard that would quickly kill any unsheltered individual. Which is real? Which is preferable as a social reality?
Is this an idea left over from Theist Debating School or a lame Strawman" in disguise?
Since its beginnings, Christmas has been [at its core] a celebration of friends, family, charity and thankfulness. A blizzard is a blizzard. Both events are real. Is one preferred over the other? Certainly. Would ending homelessness, poverty, disease, war and hunger be good things to do? Certainly
EI: In NYC those small pedestrians are called "targets."
Yeah, go ahead and hit one in a school crosswalk. You will find out what a target is: A series of red circles around a brown hole.
How are you measuring the physical reality of the truth of humanism?
Egad..."Physical Reality of Truth????"
If this is not the truth then you tell me what is
http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm
[Sorry,it's been so long since I had to use the HTML tags for a URL, I forgot how]
Post a Comment