# Reality really exists in an objective sense or it's a construction of our brains?



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

We are opening the metaphysical debate here in TC :lol:.
As a scientist, I think the correct answer is the former, but many modern "philosophers" say the contrary. What do you think?. The famous (Argentine ) epistemologist Mario Bunge has pretty good points in favour of the existence of an objective reality. He basically says that in a subjective reality, it would be odd that we could make mistakes, since we construct the reality in the first place!. Since, actually, we sometimes make mistakes (we elaborate theories that later are proven incomplete or simply wrong), acording to Bunge, that's an argument in favour of the existence of an objective reality, which exists independently of us, and we only can discover the laws of nature through the careful study of this reality, and, because it's independently of us and we don't know the answers beforehand, we obviously can make mistakes.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Even if an objective reality exists, our understanding of it will always be subjective. After all, in order to say, for instance, that an objective reality exists, you must be using some type of logic to reach this conclusion. But by what logic did you decide to use this logic? And by what logic did you decide to question the logic that you have used in order to use your logic, which was in turn used in order to reach conclusions about reality? Explanations fail us, eventually. And it all boils down to aesthetics (also unexplainable), it seems. Hence the subjectivity of everything, including what I'm saying right now.

All we can do is remain silent where we cannot speak.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> Even if an objective reality exists, our understanding of it will always be subjective. After all, in order to say, for instance, that an objective reality exists, you must be using some type of logic to reach this conclusion. But by what logic did you decide to use this logic? And by what logic did you decide to question the logic that you have used in order to use some other logic, which was in turn used in order to reach conclusions about reality? Explanations fail us, eventually. And it all boils down to aesthetics (also unexplainable), it seems. Hence the subjectivity of everything, including what I'm saying right now.
> 
> All we can do is remain silent where we cannot speak.


well, I think that this objective reality also comes with an objective logic, the two are inseparable, the former "generates" the second one, and we "learn" this logic because we live in this reality. So, I think that logic it's not a construction of our brains, as you seem to say.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

How did you reach this conclusion that objective reality comes with an objective logic, and that these are inseperable?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> How did you reach this conclusion that objective reality comes with an objective logic, and that these are inseperable?


It is an hypothesis, not a conclusion, in the same sense that think that logic is relative is also an hypothesis, or you can prove that? . The problem with that kind of relativism is that always your thoughts will be only hypothesis, since you can't prove anything because of your previous relativization of all. So, the main difference between my hypothesis and yours, is that your hypothesis is untestable by its own nature.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

*fart* skjdfksdjksdjksdj


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

@aleazk: By what logic did you reach the conclusion that it's a hypothesis?

And yes, it does mean that I can't prove anything, including my own statements. But then how could you escape from this relativistic nightmare? I don't see any way out.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> @aleazk: By what logic did you reach the conclusion that it's a hypothesis?
> 
> And yes, it does mean that I can't prove anything, including my own statements. But then how could you escape from this relativistic nightmare? I don't see any way out.


well, that's the magic of the hypothesis, you can simply state it, there's no need of justification, you simply propose that. And I prefer this hypothesis because it's an escape of that relativistic (and very pessimistic!) nightmare. On the other hand, I can't prove that I'm right with my hypothesis that objective reality comes with an objective logic, because that would imply using precisely that logic to prove my hypothesis, which is a circular reasoning. The only thing that I can do is believe in my hypothesis until someone can prove it's wrong.

edit: so, it's posible that your relativistic hypothesis is right, but we can't prove it, or disprove it!, anyway, that alone not implies that the hypothesis is incorrect. On the other hand, my hypothesis can be disproved (of course, I don't have any idea how!). So, at least my hypothesis can potentially lead to something more.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I am a philosopher. Reality is our brain's interpretation of the world we live in. Reality isn't a physical "thing," more of an _idea_, so to speak.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

aleazk said:


> And I prefer this hypothesis because it's an escape of that relativistic (and very pessimistic!) nightmare.


So you prefer it because it's aesthetically appealling to you? But this doesn't help us escape the nightmare at all. It simply takes us from one nightmare to another nightmare, because you now have to explain what aesthetics is. And how would you go about doing that? You can't use your logic, since the logic depends on aesthetics, and you can't use any empirical methods since they depend on logic, which itself depends on aesthetics, which depends on... what?

You can simply believe in it, yes, but why would you believe in X instead of Y? After all, their truth value is equal (it is zero). And, of course, resorting to aesthetics would simply return you to the same nightmare.

It's inescapable, it seems.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I am a philosopher. Reality is our brain's interpretation of the world we live in. Reality isn't a physical "thing," more of an _idea_, so to speak.


mmm, I see that you want more insults!


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

aleazk said:


> edit: so, it's posible that your relativistic hypothesis is right, but we can't prove it, or disprove it!, anyway, that alone not implies that the hypothesis is incorrect. On the other hand, my hypothesis can be disproved (of course, I don't have any idea how!). So, at least my hypothesis can potentially lead to something more.


No, no, the relativistic hypothesis already disproves itself! You see, the very nature of the hypothesis is that it disproves every hypothesis that could ever be made, and that, of course, includes itself.

That's why I'm saying it's inescapable.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> *So you prefer it because it's aesthetically appealling to you?* But this doesn't help us escape the nightmare at all. It simply takes us from one nightmare to another nightmare, *because you now have to explain what aesthetics is*. And how would you go about doing that? You can't use your logic, since the logic depends on aesthetics, and you can't use any empirical methods since they depend on logic, which itself depends on aesthetics, which depends on... what?
> 
> You can simply believe in it, yes, but why would you believe in X instead of Y? After all, their truth value is equal (it is zero). And, of course, resorting to aesthetics would simply return you to the same nightmare.
> 
> It's inescapable, it seems.


you are right on that. My aesthetics is what I said in the edit, "So, at least my hypothesis can potentially lead to something more". But I think that for us, humans, that aesthetics is convenient because it allows us to know more. So, we chose this, for the development of our specie!.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

aleazk said:


> you are right on that. My aesthetics is what I said in the edit, "So, at least my hypothesis can potentially lead to something more".


How could it lead to something more if it can't escape the relativistic hypothesis? And my response to the edit:


Dodecaplex said:


> No, no, the relativistic hypothesis already disproves itself! You see, the very nature of the hypothesis is that it disproves every hypothesis that could ever be made, and that, of course, includes itself.
> 
> That's why I'm saying it's inescapable.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> No, no, the relativistic hypothesis already disproves itself! You see, *the very nature of the hypothesis is that it disproves every hypothesis that could ever be made*, and that, of course, includes itself.
> 
> That's why I'm saying it's inescapable.


In that case, yes. But that's not the hypothesis we were talking about. The fact that logic is relative does not implies that, somehow, an hypothesis cannot be correct. Of course, you can't use any logic to prove that it's correct, but it may be. The absence of logic would imply that we cannot know the truth by these means, but it does not say that truth does not exist. Logic may not be the only way to truth, we don't know.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

aleazk said:


> In that case, yes. But that's not the hypothesis we were talking about. The fact that logic is relative does not implies that, somehow, an hypothesis cannot be correct. Of course, you can't use any logic to prove that it's correct, but it may be.


The fact that logic is relative implies that logic is unexplainable (after all, the truth value of every hypothesis and every statement is equal (that is, zero), so just take whatever you fancy). This leads straight to the destruction of all of logic, along with this hypothesis itself.

Again, inescapable.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


> mmm, I see that you want more insults!


If you teach me some Argentinian Spanish slang, I'll teach you some Aussie bad words.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Oi, crikey, put another shrimp on the barbie, mate. Wotcher!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> Oi, crikey, put another shrimp on the barbie, mate. Wotcher!







Yes we talk good and proper. But let's get back on topic.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm aligned with aleazk on this issue, though it really depends on what is meant by "reality" here. I would say that reality is a subjective construct in that the world we experience is nothing like the full actuality of the universe itself. Even in this little corner, we experience only a narrow band of the light spectrum, a small portion of sound, and our simple senses make us blind to all kinds of other forces. In that sense, what we experience everyday is a reality unique to the human condition, but it is nevertheless a slice of a real world - one that is complex, but uniform, and exists independent of our interaction with it.

The other way of thinking about "reality" is like the brain in a vat idea. You could suggest that absolutely everything in and of this world is a product of some non-human mind. Well, that's a useless concept that isn't worth discussing.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I am a philosopher. Reality is our brain's interpretation of the world we live in. Reality isn't a physical "thing," more of an _idea_, so to speak.


If an out-of-control bus is bearing down on you, do you stand there thinking 'An idea is approaching'?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Chris said:


> If an out-of-control bus is bearing down on you, do you stand there thinking 'An idea is approaching'?


The "idea" part is "out-of-control." In his mind, it is aiming for him.

I got run over by an idea about 18 months ago. It was at a hookah bar, and there were these belly dancers, supposedly from Egypt but they were obviously Filipinas, and I think I tipped too much because I couldn't see the money clearly in the dark, and so there was a misunderstanding, and I got a little sugar in my bowl.

At least that's the best I can figure it. I woke up on a fire-escape five stories off the ground. It was padlocked, I couldn't let myself down. (What good is a fire escape in that condition?) So I had to knock on some strange woman's window to get her to let me go through her house. Neither one of us knew how I got out there. It must have been through her house, but neither one of us remembered that happening, and you'd think one of us would. Also, I'd like to know why she locked the window after I was out there. I figure the likeliest explanation is either that I levitated up there, or it was a slip in my subjectivity.


----------

