Sky agrees with me.

All I ever said is that the definitions I gave were the meanings I intended. And I most certainly do have the right to do that.

Well you are certainly free to assign whatever meaning you want to whatever word you want. Just as I am.

So by your definition, “authority” does not apply.

And by my definition, it does.

And thus we disagree.

And that seems to be the end of the story.

Yes, I agree.

(This should be fun. )

O'K, but What if
-Abra comes along and says: I beg you pardon, Jeannie, but Wux is right, it is blue!
-Sky comes along and says: I beg you pardon, Jeannie, but Wux is right, it is blue!
-Bushido comes along and says: I beg you pardon, Jeannie, but Wux is right, it is blue!
-even creative comes along and says: I beg you pardon, Jeannie, but Wux is right, it is blue!
........ ............... ............. ...... ..... .. . . .. ..
Would you be as confident as before?
Seems like John is right:

Yes I would.

But I might have the lighting in the room checked and I might have my eyes checked to make sure I was not color blind.

Then I would take some blue paint and some yellow paint and mix them together to make green -- and if it looked the same as the color in question, I would feel that was proof that the color is green.

Blue is a primary color. You cannot create it by mixing any two colors.

Sky, I appologise for bringing this in from another topic, but nevertheless it also cocerns the perception:

QUOTE:

your comment:
That's an excellent line of reasoning that could be used in the age-old arument as to whether computers will even be able to "think". If intuition is considered a form of thought, then that reasoning would seem to indicate tht couputers will never be able to "think".
END QUOTE___________________

However - since intuition is a form of High Level thought - all that excellent line of reasoning implies is that computers will never be capable of intuitive thoughts (i.e. since it is impossible to program the process of intuition!}

Skyhook, as far as I have seen thus far, you seem to be an intelligent person, and philosophically interesting. I pose a question to you. Can you determine whether or not we do in fact "perceive reality?" without clearly defining what reality is. Without having a clear definition of reality, you allow people to use their perception and understanding of the term in answering the question. If you had posed this question with a clear cut definition of reality then we could answer more easily.

Well, I can only offer my opinion, which is contested by many. In my opinion, what we perceive is reality. Thus, my definition for reality is “what we perceive”. So yes, in my opinion, we do perceive reality.

That’s a very good point AverageGuy. And there is a very specific reason I did it that way:

If I were to define reality, that would set me up as the “authority” for the determination of reality. And the argument would then be over “What is reality?” (And the question of how I determine reality would most likely come up anyway.) Now that particular deceased equine has been bludgeoned to a faded pink stain over the years, so I wanted to simply “try something new” to see if it would result in any new perspectives.

Additionally, in order to say what reality is, with any certainty, there would have to be an equally certain method of making the determination. So I thought if the method of making the determination could be agreed upon, then that could be used to resolve some of the differences over the “What is reality?” question. ("Best laid plans" and all that. )

By the way – welcome to the forums.

so if one were to see a light in the sky and perceive that what he saw was a flying saucer from another galaxy then what he perceived must be real?




but you have defined reality. you say what we perceive IS reality. yes, it's your opinion as is everyone only expressing opinion, but it remains your stance on the issue.

Each person has and defines their own reality. When a group agrees on something, it becomes (is declared)the reality for the group.

If a guy sees a space craft and is abducted and he tells someone else about it, and they decide not to believe him, then they will decide that he is "delusional."

Who is right? Is he delusional or are they just refusing to believe him? If he is delusional how would he know? How would he cure himself if he is NOT delusional? How would he cure himself if is IS delusional?

my point was, sky implied that it was not for him to define reality right after he did define reality. and we seem to disagree on what delusional is. in psychiatry, a delusion is a belief in a concept in spite of evidence for an alternative concept. because one thinks another delusional simply because he thinks his belief is a delusion does not make it so any more than i might call someone insane for their political beliefs.

I believe he will tell you that he means that it is not for him to define reality for the masses.. only for himself.

The word "delusion" is tossed around a lot if someone believes in something that another persons does not think is "logical" or that does not have "proof" or sufficient evidence to back it up.

I always say that 'proof' is a matter of 'belief' of the evidence coupled with an agreement.

well no reason we should now find agreement on something like what proof is. because we sure don't agree.

What if you think you have proof but no body agrees?

You have to convince SOMEBODY.

By my definition, yes. But keep in mind that your statement includes a logical "if/then" construct, so it is not a definition and thus, can't logically be compared to one. In other words, you've tried to compare an "logical process" with a "definition". Those are two completely different things. One may, of course use a logical process in developing a definition. But that's not what you did.

but you have defined reality. you say what we perceive IS reality. yes, it's your opinion as is everyone only expressing opinion, but it remains your stance on the issue.Yes, that definition is my opinion of what reality is amd my opinion of what reality is put forth in that definition. That's what I said.

That was not the intended implication. The intended implication was that I cannot define reality for anyone else. I then proceeded to share how I define reality for myself.

Ok, so that’s the psychiatric definition for delusional. I have no disagreement with them defining any word in any way they choose. Basically, I have no objection to any thoughts anyone may have. I only object to actions. And even then, only if they are contrary to my own goals and purposes.

"By George I think he's got it!"

My point is that proof is meaningless unless you can convince someone to agree that it is proof.

Belief and agreement is what determines what we call reality.

I don't see where there is any evidence for this. On the contrary, there appears to be quite vivid evdience against it. I could go into many example, such as the vast majority of people believed and agreed that the Earth was the center of creation, yet a few individual intellectuals were able to discover that this belief was not true at all.

Most everyone held the belief and was in agreement that the universe was infinitely old and "static" in terms of terms of expanding or contracting. In fact, even Albert Einstien himself believed this to be true in spite of the fact that it disagreed with his very own theory of gravity! Instead of believing in his theory of gravity, he actually "believed" instead, that the universe was indeed static, and he so he modified his theory of gravity to attempt to include this belief. This was later dubbed, "Einstein's Greatest Blunder".

Edwin Hubble accidently discovered that the universe is expanding. But I'm sure that he, like all other astronomers at the time actually 'believed' otherwise.

Later, modern astronomers decided to measure the expansion to see precisely at what rate it was 'slowing down'. They were all totally convinced to believe that the expansion rate of the universe should indeed be slowing down, and most certainly not accelerating.

Yet, what did they find? Precisly the opposite of what they held as a belief!

In fact, it was so unbelievable that they had to wait until many different astronomical teams verified these observations. All of those teams were actually under the belief that instead of confirming these observations they would actually discover the error and show why the conclusion was false.

Yet after many meticulous observations and measurements they all reluctantly concluded that the universe must be accelerating in it's expansion contrary to what everyone had believed and continued to want to believe!

There was no explanation whatsoever in physics for a universe that would accelerate in it's expansion. They actually had to postulate a mysterious and unproven concept of "Dark Energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. Ironically this "Dark Energy" is really nothing more than Einstein's mathematicial modification to General Relativity!

So Einstein's "Greatest Blunder" is now accepted as actually existing and is now formally called "Dark Energy".

So what people 'believe' seems to have very little, if anything, do with reality. At least with "physical reality" anyway.

The same thing could be said of quantum physics. Max Planck was working on a classical physics problem known as "Blackbody Radiation". To solve the problem he introduced a mathematical 'trick'. The trick was to use discrete mathematical techniques rather than assuming a continuum which is what mathematics typically assumes.

When he did this he was able to solve the problem and get answers that agree precisely with observations. However, it was his "belief" that he would then be able to use this newfound insight to work back into a continuum. His "belief" failed him. He could not get back to a continuum and thus the discrete physics of Quantum Mechanics was born and has never been able to be overcome dispite the fact that nobody can believe it! Even to this very day! Yet is seems that we are now forced to believe it whether we like it or not.

So much for the power of subjective belief.

Historical evidence appears to fly in the very face of the hypothesis that reality is dependent upon the mere consensus of believers. Just the opposite appears to have been shown to be true. Reality is what it is, regardless of what people believe.

That's the observed situation on the ground. It doesn't really matter what the generals say. The soldiers know what's really going on.

I doubt if you or anyone really knows what people actually believe and how that effects reality. Obviously many people believe opposite things, and they can't all be the 'actual reality.' (Whatever that is.) NO single person knows.

If 'they' ever figure it out I'm all ears.

So far, they haven't figured it out. There are still a lot of differences of opinion about what is 'real.'

But I am looking at it on a smaller scale. You can have what you think is "proof" of something, but it is meaningless if you can't convince anyone that it is proof. If they don't believe you, then it is not proof. Therefore it is never declared 'real' or 'true.'

So people will say that you have "no proof," simply because they don't believe you.

So Proof is a matter of belief.