The arguments against Realism.

I don't post threads very often here on ATS because rarely do I have a topic worth posting. Lately however, iv'e been doing a lot of thinking and research about the nature of reality and I decided it was worth a post. What i mean by Realism is if everything we see exists in the external world in exactly the same we we perceive it with the naked eye. The dictionary definition of Realism is "the tendency to view or represent things as they really are." Link. So far iv'e come up with 2 good arguments against Realism. I do not claim these as my own ideas because i'm sure others have also come up with the same one's.

1. Let us suppose for a moment that the external world is exactly as it appears to the human eye. If the external world is constant and unchanging, then it should appear the same to everything that experiences it. Meaning, a dog a bee and a human could look at an object and see exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. However, according to modern science a bee and a dog could not have the same sensory experience as a human. Dogs can see color but they can't see as many colors as a human can. The regular honey bee can actually see more in color than a human or a dog. Therefore, the external experience is dependent upon species, this at least we can conclude.

2. Again, let's suppose that the external world is constant, unchanging, and the way it appears to the human eye. This would mean that no matter what one does to the body (say take a drug) it should remain at least relatively the same. However there is a substance by the name of Dimethyltryptamine ('___') which if taken in a high enough dose the user can become in every way disconnected from reality. This suggests that at least the way we perceive reality must exist in either the brain or central nervous system, the 2 places in the body effected by the drug. The same basic idea could also apply for Astral Projection type experiences.


I don't believe this last thought deserves a number as I cannot logically provide an explanation to point one direction or the other, but I feel it should be included; To me, the sky appears blue. However, my blue is not necessarily someone else's blue. My blue could actually be the same color as someone else's red, but i was taught that the red color was blue, so i refer to it as blue.

Just some food for thought.

Hmmm, your theory has but one flaw.

I am the only real person alive and everything else is a figment of my imagination.

Originally posted by TheComte
Hmmm, your theory has but one flaw.

I am the only real person alive and everything else is a figment of my imagination.

edit on 14-10-2011 by TheComte because: (no reason given)

What happens to your utopia, when it is determined that no "person" is alive, thus, no person is real?

What the OP is clearly discussing is the perception of reality (how everyone/everything perceives reality) and since perception is in the eYe of the beholder, it stands to reason that Realism is perceptually flawed, thus, not reality.

Nice thread, OP!

Ribbit

Even if one embraces everything that you stated, reality itself is constant and consistent, since it's not affected by how it is being perceived anymore than you are being affected right now by how I am perceiving you.

reply to post by MrRamblinRose

I've pondered this many times, and I continue to do so.
Since it is currently impossible to bridge the human mind with another, I guess we will never no the truth.
Until then, try legal hallucinogens.

reply to post by MrRamblinRose


oh....and the link you provided states that Realism is....

Philosophy .
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism ( def. 5a ) .

Seems as if "Realism" states that perception has nothing to do with the reality of what's real. Kind of 180 degrees out of whack with your own definition of Realism.

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrRamblinRose

 

oh....and the link you provided states that Realism is....

Philosophy .
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism ( def. 5a ) .

Seems as if "Realism" states that perception has nothing to do with the reality of what's real. Kind of 180 degrees out of whack with your own definition of Realism.

I cannot grasp the difference between "sense perception" and "act of perception" since both are judgmental and it is said:

"Thus every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment by the brain."

Can you provide your take on this?

Ribbit )

Originally posted by NorEaster
Even if one embraces everything that you stated, reality itself is constant and consistent, since it's not affected by how it is being perceived anymore than you are being affected right now by how I am perceiving you.

There are 3 parts to Reality, so which part is constant and consistent?

Ribbit

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrRamblinRose

 

oh....and the link you provided states that Realism is....

Philosophy .
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism ( def. 5a ) .

Seems as if "Realism" states that perception has nothing to do with the reality of what's real. Kind of 180 degrees out of whack with your own definition of Realism.

I cannot grasp the difference between "sense perception" and "act of perception" since both are judgmental and it is said:

"Thus every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment by the brain."

Can you provide your take on this?

Ribbit )

edit on 14-10-2011 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

"objects of sense perception" are objects that are being perceived. The act of perception is being performed by the perceiver, but that act is not affecting the perceived object or objects. Seems simple enough.

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster
Even if one embraces everything that you stated, reality itself is constant and consistent, since it's not affected by how it is being perceived anymore than you are being affected right now by how I am perceiving you.

There are 3 parts to Reality, so which part is constant and consistent?

Ribbit

Actually, there aren't three parts to Reality. There is only what is real. You seem to have trouble releasing what you perceive and allowing it to exist independent of your own perception of it. That can happen when you dig too far into your own self, and forget to maintain a sense of proportion. Letting go of that level of ultimate authority over all that you behold will help you better grasp the concept of reality.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrRamblinRose

 

oh....and the link you provided states that Realism is....

Philosophy .
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism ( def. 5a ) .

Seems as if "Realism" states that perception has nothing to do with the reality of what's real. Kind of 180 degrees out of whack with your own definition of Realism.

I cannot grasp the difference between "sense perception" and "act of perception" since both are judgmental and it is said:

"Thus every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment by the brain."

Can you provide your take on this?

Ribbit )

edit on 14-10-2011 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

"objects of sense perception" are objects that are being perceived. The act of perception is being performed by the perceiver, but that act is not affecting the perceived object or objects. Seems simple enough.

As if you look at someone or something and perceive them/it as bad, it won't necessarily make them/it bad?

Ribbit

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrRamblinRose

 

oh....and the link you provided states that Realism is....

Philosophy .
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism ( def. 5a ) .

Seems as if "Realism" states that perception has nothing to do with the reality of what's real. Kind of 180 degrees out of whack with your own definition of Realism.

I cannot grasp the difference between "sense perception" and "act of perception" since both are judgmental and it is said:

"Thus every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment by the brain."

Can you provide your take on this?

Ribbit )

edit on 14-10-2011 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

"objects of sense perception" are objects that are being perceived. The act of perception is being performed by the perceiver, but that act is not affecting the perceived object or objects. Seems simple enough.

As if you look at someone or something and perceive them/it as bad, it won't necessarily make them/it bad?

Ribbit

It won't impact the true nature of them as an existential whole in any way whatsoever.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster
Even if one embraces everything that you stated, reality itself is constant and consistent, since it's not affected by how it is being perceived anymore than you are being affected right now by how I am perceiving you.

There are 3 parts to Reality, so which part is constant and consistent?

Ribbit

Actually, there aren't three parts to Reality. There is only what is real. You seem to have trouble releasing what you perceive and allowing it to exist independent of your own perception of it. That can happen when you dig too far into your own self, and forget to maintain a sense of proportion. Letting go of that level of ultimate authority over all that you behold will help you better grasp the concept of reality.

Sorry! I forgot to say that others see 3 parts, I know there is only one, the Physical, but others see Conceptual & Perceptual as also being a part of Reality.

The Physical is all that is Real, thus, Reality.

Ribbit

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster
Even if one embraces everything that you stated, reality itself is constant and consistent, since it's not affected by how it is being perceived anymore than you are being affected right now by how I am perceiving you.

There are 3 parts to Reality, so which part is constant and consistent?

Ribbit

Actually, there aren't three parts to Reality. There is only what is real. You seem to have trouble releasing what you perceive and allowing it to exist independent of your own perception of it. That can happen when you dig too far into your own self, and forget to maintain a sense of proportion. Letting go of that level of ultimate authority over all that you behold will help you better grasp the concept of reality.

Sorry! I forgot to say that others see 3 parts, I know there is only one, the Physical, but others see Conceptual & Perceptual as also being a part of Reality.

The Physical is all that is Real, thus, Reality.

Ribbit

I agree. Reality is objective. Perception is subjective. I guess we settled that issue once and for all.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrRamblinRose

 

oh....and the link you provided states that Realism is....

Philosophy .
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism ( def. 5a ) .

Seems as if "Realism" states that perception has nothing to do with the reality of what's real. Kind of 180 degrees out of whack with your own definition of Realism.

I cannot grasp the difference between "sense perception" and "act of perception" since both are judgmental and it is said:

"Thus every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment by the brain."

Can you provide your take on this?

Ribbit )

edit on 14-10-2011 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

"objects of sense perception" are objects that are being perceived. The act of perception is being performed by the perceiver, but that act is not affecting the perceived object or objects. Seems simple enough.

As if you look at someone or something and perceive them/it as bad, it won't necessarily make them/it bad?

Ribbit

It won't impact the true nature of them as an existential whole in any way whatsoever.

I agree, as long as "them" cannot perceive our perception of them.

But "true nature" is interesting, when it comes to humans. Dew We really have one or are We controlled by our surroundings, thus, true nature is created as We go, ever changing or were We always that way?

Ribbit

reply to post by MrRamblinRose


Nice read. Snf

Though '___' has never caused my disconnections. From reality I have most certainly disconnected. So you make a lot of sense in my discombobulated mind. Walking on egg shells with my wording. T&C considered.

My point was that sure, we know there is an external world. However, does our perception of it allow us to know what the external world is? No, probably not.

I don't post threads very often here on ATS because rarely do I have a topic worth posting. Lately however, iv'e been doing a lot of thinking and research about the nature of reality and I decided it was worth a post. What i mean by Realism is if everything we see exists in the external world in exactly the same we we perceive it with the naked eye. The dictionary definition of Realism is "the tendency to view or represent things as they really are." Link. So far iv'e come up with 2 good arguments against Realism. I do not claim these as my own ideas because i'm sure others have also come up with the same one's.

/salute fellow semi lurking thinker~

1. Let us suppose for a moment that the external world is exactly as it appears to the human eye. If the external world is constant and unchanging, then it should appear the same to everything that experiences it.

Why should it? Should a spider with 12 eyes view the world in the same way you or i do?

Should a wide angle lens record the same image a VHS does?

If my friend is color blind, is there no such thing as purple?

Meaning, a dog a bee and a human could look at an object and see exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. However, according to modern science a bee and a dog could not have the same sensory experience as a human. Dogs can see color but they can't see as many colors as a human can. The regular honey bee can actually see more in color than a human or a dog. Therefore, the external experience is dependent upon species, this at least we can conclude.

Right, but does their differing and subjective experience of reality in any way alter what is real?

Is reality fundamentally any different when you put a pair of sunglasses on?

2. Again, let's suppose that the external world is constant, unchanging, and the way it appears to the human eye. This would mean that no matter what one does to the body (say take a drug) it should remain at least relatively the same.

Again, why?

If you poke on of your eyes out, you will have trouble perceiving depth. Does this mean depth does not exist, and upon our measuring of depth via a measuring tape, your cycloptic self and i will come to different conclusions?

The mind, our tool of perception, is imperfect in its observations. This does not mean that what it is observing is in any way dependent on our perception of it. It just means our minds are subject to error.

However there is a substance by the name of Dimethyltryptamine ('___') which if taken in a high enough dose the user can become in every way disconnected from reality. This suggests that at least the way we perceive reality must exist in either the brain or central nervous system, the 2 places in the body effected by the drug. The same basic idea could also apply for Astral Projection type experiences.

We know for certain that our experience of reality is dependent on our sensing apparatus. We know this because if it is altered or damaged in any way, our experience of reality changes. We know this exists only in the mind of the person having the experience because *reality does not change for anyone else.*

I don't believe this last thought deserves a number as I cannot logically provide an explanation to point one direction or the other, but I feel it should be included; To me, the sky appears blue. However, my blue is not necessarily someone else's blue. My blue could actually be the same color as someone else's red, but i was taught that the red color was blue, so i refer to it as blue.

Right and of course we all have subjective emotional associations with each stimuli, but this does not change the fact that if we were to point a spectrograph at a blue wall, we would both see the same graph indicating a specific color. The spectrum we call 'blue' exists independently of our minds.

Funny how you use color as your example. A few days ago I had a fascinating dream about an alien invasion. I remember two noteworthy details the first of which was that the craft were narrow and tall instead of flat and wide, and I don't recall ever imagining or seeing alien spacecraft configured in this way - almost like flying buildings but with abnormally large windows.

The populace was abducted and our "third eyes" were opened. The first things I noticed changing were colors - they could be whatever one imagined them to be...

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

As if you look at someone or something and perceive them/it as bad, it won't necessarily make them/it bad?

Ribbit

It won't impact the true nature of them as an existential whole in any way whatsoever.

I agree, as long as "them" cannot perceive our perception of them.

But "true nature" is interesting, when it comes to humans. Dew We really have one or are We controlled by our surroundings, thus, true nature is created as We go, ever changing or were We always that way?

Ribbit

edit on 14-10-2011 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

This where the difference between Information and The Event (the only two elemental building blocks of physical existence) becomes important to establish. One is static upon emergence (Information) and the other (the Event) is obviously dynamic in basic nature, since what it is, is activity; change from what was to what is. There are a host of existential imperative expressions that affect both of these elementals (shorthand for elemental building blocks) but the base imperative that each expression expresses is the imperative Survival, with all that exists serving the impetus "First, survive".

Now, for Information, survival is a fairly simple issue, and is accomplished by logical default - each indivisible unit of Information (they emerge in specific unit clusters that we call facts) exists as unique and inimitable, with Identity as the Survival imperative expression that ensures their eternal survival, once they've emerged as existent. For The Event, it couldn't be more of a struggle, and while each indivisible Event Unit is literally doomed upon emergence (immediately replaced by the next Event Unit within the specific event chain that emerges as an Identified trajectory) it logically survives via Identity through its Association (another Survival imperative expression) with its trajectory for as long as that trajectory survives. Very much like the Identity of a person within a family is logically extended through the offspring of that family, which is why creatures and other high-end corporeal manifestations procreate and experience that fundamental urge. Basic satiety of the same Survival imperative that occurs at all levels of physical existence.

What changed everything - some time ago, and probably in a lot more locations that just here on planet Earth - was that the procreative corporeal manifestation (as an isolated whole) evolved to become too complex (again due to the trajectory's effort to extend the survival of the Associated units) to effectively manage through cell-level DNA directives and the corporeal whole adjusted by developing a central data configuration/dissemination sub-assembly, which progressed into what we know as the corporeal brain. This allowed those DNA directives to be properly interpreted as larger directives for the entire holon trajectory, as well as the lesser sub-assembly directives, which would have been (likely) impossible for localized cell-level DNA information sources to successfully manage in a more loosely coordinated effort.

Something else happened, however, when the brain took over the upper-management of the corporeal whole, and this is where we come back to the discussion of perception, and what it brings to the debate concerning Reality.

The brain configures unique Information directives from static Information units that it has stored, and "launches" these directives as fully dynamic event trajectories. After all, they literally control the survival effort of the corporeal whole itself. They are as dynamic as The Event trajectory, even as each Information configuration is....well....is Information, and in every sense of what that suggests. What emerges as real and factual is the true hybridization of the original elementals - Information and the Event.

This Dynamic Information (the result of the corporeal brain serving the Survival needs of the high-end corporeal whole) emerges and - as you correctly suggested - adjusts and is adjusted by conflicting and complimenting trajectories, in the same way that all Event trajectories exist as dynamic and malleable.

So, yes, we are affected by our surroundings, since we (you and me) both exist as Dynamic Information trajectories, and become what our brains create of us. It's more complex than this, and with many more intermediary steps, but this is a basic sketch of what perception is and how it developed.