Are human beings part of reality?

[Boojatta]

If science is and will continue to be the only way to correctly understand reality, and if human beings are part of reality, then science should be the only way to correctly understand human beings. Now, imagine that there are institutions run by people who are loyal to some ideology that conflicts with the correct understanding of even the simplest aspects of reality. Wouldn't it be a great coincidence if, over a period of hundreds of years, they acquired, maintained, and increased their influence over human beings? That would suggest that it's so easy to control people that no genuine understanding of them is required. In a situation where one has the fruits of knowledge without any need for knowledge, it would seem that theory is of merely academic interest. For example, if neurosurgeons accepted a completely faulty theory of how they control their own hands, but they could nevertheless perform extremely delicate operations with finesse, then what would be the significance of the faultiness of the theory that they accept?

[RagAss]

1. "I Need More Cowbell"

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. Here ya go

http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html

[RagAss]

7. Thanks !!...I've been looking for this vid !

[rrneck]

3. If Helen Keller fell down in the woods

would she make any noise?

[Axle_techie]

22. -1

that's just mean

[DeSwiss]

4. Since reality is a dynamic process.....

...and all of us together are conscious (and collectively subconscious) co-creators of the reality in which we live -- then no one entity can truly control shit. A dynamic process means that it ain't over until it's over. And when we get to that point, then it doesn't matter anymore. Nothing does.


- Until then, all bets are off as to who is in control of what......

[edhopper]

5. Have to disagree

you seem to be confusing reality with our perception of reality. Reality exists outside our consciousness.

Though, yes, of course we are part of reality.

[DeSwiss]

6. I'm not the one who is confused here.

Reality's existence can only be known through our "perception" of it. No one can prove reality exists outside our consciousness.

No one.

[Silent3]

9. We may only know reality via perception...

...and we may not be able to prove it exists outside of our own consciousness, but that doesn't mean that we can't extrapolate something which is external and independent of consciousness, something which is the source material of our perceptions, and call that extrapolation "reality".

Without that extrapolation there's no escape from solipsism, not reason to plan for the future beyond our individual deaths. Not that solipsism is provably wrong, but it is something of a philosophical dead end, and anathema to the ways we humans normally act, which is to act as if other people are more than mere figments of our own imaginations, and as if some common touchstones of what we call reality will hold true for all of us, just as if what we call reality is an independent thing.

[DeSwiss]

10. It's not "we MAY only know reality via perception..."

...it's "we ONLY may know reality via perception."

I never said that our perception of reality in any way impedes us from extrapolating what the future may be.

But that is an entirely different kettle of fish from the point I made initially.

Thank you.

[Silent3]

11. The future of what?

Unless you "believe" (in this case not meaning having absolute certainty, but functioning and acting as if a thing is true) in an external reality which is independent of our perceptions of it, a reality that is something which is more than our perceptions themselves, then it follows that the only perceptions you can be sure of are your own perceptions, and then the idea of a future that extends beyond your own life is meaningless. It would make no sense to try to predict that future or to plan for it.

This brings you back to solipsism.

[DeSwiss]

12. I didn't raise the issue of the "future."

You did.

The point concerning the "future" was itself irrelevant to my initial statement that we can only know reality through perception.

Thank you.

[Silent3]

13. That was the ONLY point?

Absolutely nothing more than that? No attempt there to go from "we can only know reality through perception" to equating reality with perception?

[DeSwiss]

14. Yes.

And that is because my response was to the OP's thread question which asked: Are human beings part of reality?

My answer: Yes.

The other part of the OP's query had to do with possible faultiness which might lie in discerning reality solely through science in order to "correctly understand" human beings.

To which I answered: Reality is a dynamic process involving all of us together -- both consciously and the collective subconscious (Jung). And thus as co-creators of reality, no one entity (nor any sole methodology of perceiving) can control (nor define) what reality truly is. And yet human perception is the only verifiable means we have at our disposal to acknowledge that reality even exists. Reality is always in the process of becoming something else.

The Big Bang is still banging.


Thank you.

[Boojatta]

16. Thank you for your contributions to this thread.

Also, thank you for paying close attention to the Original Post. I'm sure you're aware that it's not unusual for sub-threads on DU to diverge arbitrarily far from the original message of the thread.

I hope that you don't mind if I refrain from getting into any debate with you on this thread. You seem to have already encountered plenty of opposition.

[DeSwiss]

17. You are more than welcome.

And without opposition, there isn't any point. All is dichotomy.



Thank you.

[Jim__]

15. I believe language gives us a way out of solipsism.

Based on Wittgenstein's argument that the concept of a private language is incoherent, and our acceptance of our own thoughts as coherent, we can eliminate the possibility of solipsism. This argument does give us independent subjects capable of conversing in our language. But, I am not sure it gives us anything stronger than a linguistically constructed reality.

[tama]

40. Your disagreement

sounds very much like the quantum paradox. Which is paradoxical only when believing in the presuppositions that it has paradoxical relation with. :)

As for 'solipsism', I like what I heard in one discussion, namely that 'solipsism is a collective thing'... :P

I - this consciouss experience - find it easier to relate to reality simply in a participatory manner, instead of objectifying it as something purely external. What are external(ized) are certain *theories* about reality, for that manner of consciousness which theorizes (Gr. views) as member of the audience in the theater.

[Cleobulus]

8. I thought all human beings were figments of my imagination...

damn, I picked the wrong day to quit drinking. :evilfrown:

[Boojatta]

20. You picked the wrong day to take up solipsism.

[Boojatta]

18. Link to a potentially relevant thread...

A thread in the DU Science forum

[Boojatta]

19. Kick

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Yes.

But some of us are more in tune with it than others.

[GliderGuider]

23. Given that the notion of "reality" is a human construct

it only makes sense that it applies to its creators.

Who says "science is and will continue to be the only way to correctly understand reality"? Not me.

[wookie72]

25. +1

Love, beauty, art - these are not things that can be reduced to science. Heaven help us if they were.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Love, beauty, and art are reactions to stimuli.

Science is just a method for understanding. Does understanding something reduce it? I don't think so.

[Boojatta]

24. Kick

[DeSwiss]

26. Yes. We are the ass part. n/t

edited to add:

[Boojatta]

27. Kick

[peopleb4money]

28. Albert einstein said "we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific..."

"... methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."

[Jim__]

29. If you're wearing rose colored glasses, everything looks rosy.

If you can't remove those glasses, you can't tell which aspects of nature are actually rose-colored. Science cannot remove our rose-colored glasses, and so, cannot claim to lead to a correct understanding of reality.

[tama]

41. rhododaktylos eos

With rose colored glasser, aspect of nature are *actually* rose-colored. The assumed and given fact that there are *potentially* also other colours and shades, does not change the *actual* aspect of nature.

Potentiality and actuality is 101 Aristotelian philosophy and quantum physics.

Ethical approach to the question begs the question, if one is happy and content with rose-colored actualization of reality-potential, why to judge that aspect as incorrect understanding of reality? On the other hand, if one feels miserable with polaraids that actualize reality-potential as shades of grey, is it ethical to tell that among various reality-potentials there are also colour-televisions?

[Pterodactyl]

30. Science is not the only way to understand reality.

Let's not forget history, communication, direct observation and lots of other methods that are not science.

[jdp349]

32. Indeed there are many ways to understand reality

If by "understand reality" we mean determine the truth of a proposition concerning a philosophical object then there are many ways of doing this. However it is a question of which is MOST reliable and trustworthy. IE how do I know the things that I know. We should be rigorous in the methodology we apply to be as COLLECTIVELY confident as possible about the knowledge we claim to possess. Individual direct observation is sloppy but for practical purposes is fine when we deal with the mundane. But when it comes to generalizable knowledge and propositions of a universal nature you should demand rigor.

Those other methods you mention are less rigorous so therefore knowledge derived from the scientific method should be given precedence where a conflict occurs.

[Pterodactyl]

34. Not necessaily more rigorous.

Suppose a child wanted to understand something about the universe - death of humans, for example. A huge understanding will be accomplished by communication with parents. Scientific study is great, but for most people, you don't need years of medical school to understand what death is.

[Pterodactyl]

31. Also, "science" is sometimes wrong.

Scientific belief: Earth is the center of the universe. Wrong!
Replaced by: The sun is the center of the universe. Wrong!
Replaced by: The galaxy we live in is the center of the universe. Wrong!

This is an extreme example, but for a lot of human history, the scientists were just plain wrong. Not that they weren't getting more right as time went on, but for a while believing the sun was the center of the universe was considered accurate. Clorer to the truth but still wrong.

[pokerfan]

33. The Relativity of Wrong

A short (2500 word) by Isaac Asimov...

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm">Click here to read the rest

[Boojatta]

35. Kick

[ZombieHorde]

37. Your OP seems to count two different concepts as one concept.

Concept one: Reality.

Concept two: Human understanding of reality.

Even if we are completely wrong about the nature of reality, we are still a part of it.

[westerebus]

38. ?

Reality is a process.

Cognition is the attempt to understand that process.

Human understanding is the process of attempting to define what human being is.

The work is incomplete at this stage.

[LARED]

39. So pre science no one understood reality correctly? nt