Has anyone seen my horse

[§outh§tar]

Yes. Perception is fallible. Without validation the logical course is disbelief or at least a healthy dose of skepticism.
The alternative is to believe everything unquestioningly, a position fraught with complication and peril.

~Raithere

The question remains. Does the inability to see the horses mean they are not there? A yes or no will suffice.

I have no care for the practicality of logic vs faith, if there are any.

 

[audible]

how can living in reality, be classed as a false or invalid notion
logical fallacies: is'nt that an oxymoron.

No its not.

that is not how I put it, this is how it should read.

logical fallacies: is'nt that an oxymoron.
I might have lambasted people for their fallacies.
but they were certainly not logical.

what I dont understand is how you can say, living in reality is a false or invalid notion, saying I live in the real world, is The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.

and it is a oxymoron they contradict each other

I might have lambasted people for their fallacies.
but they were certainly not logical.

Four fingers point your way.

what I dont understand is how you can say, living in reality is a false or invalid notion, saying I live in the real world, is The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
I live in the real world means I'm capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
were as being delusional is the exact opposite, I would not want to live in a world where you dont question your own believes, and just grasp onto your false belief even when theres no validating evidence.( wait a minute I am living in a world like that, oops, better commit suicide.)

Note: I am trying to point out that this "delusion" and "reality" bifurcation is literally subjective but I hope you will figure that out on yourself."

whats to figure out reality is reality, fantasy is fantasy, no contest.

delusion" and "reality" do not have simular meanings so are certainly not a bifurcation, also "reality" cant possibly be subjective

 

[Raithere]

The question remains. Does the inability to see the horses mean they are not there? A yes or no will suffice.

Read my response again. I said, "Yes".

Of course, I do not mean this in a simplistic, literal sense. There are many things that cannot be "seen" that can be determined to exist.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

whats to figure out reality is reality, fantasy is fantasy, no contest.

delusion" and "reality" do not have simular meanings so are certainly not a bifurcation, also "reality" cant possibly be subjective

"reality cant possible be subjective" eh? So you claim to know objective reality? Haha..

Oh and don't award me the indignity of bothering to change your posts. I think this last statement speaks for you.

 

[§outh§tar]

Read my response again. I said, "Yes".

Of course, I do not mean this in a simplistic, literal sense. There are many things that cannot be "seen" that can be determined to exist.

~Raithere

But again to the metaphor used, for it is the metaphor which brings about the question in the first place: does this absence of evidence indicate evidence of absence?

Because primitive man did not see atoms, shall we say atoms did not exist then? Of course not! And so you see, you have to finish your statement lest it render itself meaningless. How is existence to be "determined"?

 

[the preacher]

southstar WTF are you on something, reality is definitely objective, and certainly not subjective.

 

[Raithere]

does this absence of evidence indicate evidence of absence?

It depends upon the case being made. In the case where people claim that their invisible horse allows them to travel much more quickly yet upon examination we find nothing to support such a claim, yes.

In a more general sense (yes, I understand how you are looking to catch me up), disbelief and skepticism is not the same as believing the negative. I do not believe in invisible horses because there is no reason to believe in invisible horses. This is not the same as stating unequivocally that invisible horses absolutely do not exist.

Because primitive man did not see atoms, shall we say atoms did not exist then?

I can say that atoms do not exist now. It depends upon what you claim an atom is.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

southstar WTF are you on something, reality is definitely objective, and certainly not subjective.

For all those too egomanical enough to depart from traditional views, you are living in a fantasy.

Read

 

[§outh§tar]

Raithere, before I reply I need you too to respond to my primary question:

How is existence to be "determined"?

 

[Raithere]

How is existence to be "determined"?

Pragmatically; through our senses. Our perceptions, however, are unreliable and thus it behooves us to use a methodology that helps eliminate error and bias.

From a strictly epistemological standpoint I don't believe the question can be resolved.

~Raithere

 

[ellion]

this essay adds another three dimensions to the standard definition of reality.

 

[the preacher]

For all those too egomanical enough to depart from traditional views, you are living in a fantasy.( should read "For all of us too egomaniacal enough to depart from traditional views, we are living in a fantasy.)

Read

whats the matter southstar have you turned back into the ameoba man.

Objective reality

What does it mean to say that reality is objective ?

The three axioms of Objectivism are : existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is associated with existence because they both treat the same phenomena (i.e. that something exists). The concept of existence includes identity.
The two basic concepts are therefore existence and consciousness. The relationship that we attribute them is at the base of our view of reality. Whenever we attribute primacy to existence or consciousness shapes how we view epistemology and thus everything else.

The basic datum behind the concept of "objective reality" is the primacy of existence over consciousness. This is, that consciousness exists and is therefore subject to existence, and thus identity.
The definition of consciousness is : "Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists". Consciousness, like any other entity, exists, or it would not be able to perceive.
If consciousness exists, then it has to be subject to identity : otherwise it would be nothing in particular, which is the same as non-existence.
This is what is meant by "primacy of existence" over consciousness. Consciousness exists, thus consciousness has to reside in the realm of existence, and not the contrary.

The opposing view is the primacy of consciousness : consciousness creates existence. This means that the mind creates matter, that the person has power over existence.
Existence resides in the realm of consciousness, and is molded by it.
Consciousness cannot therefore exist, since it is beyond existence. This leads to the view that the mind is not material, but in a state of non-existence (like the immaterial souls or the undetermined mind).

To what kind of vision of epistemology do both these beliefs lead ?

Objective reality, which is based on the primacy of existence, leads to the search of truth and existence with the use of perception and reality. This is examining the exterior world as reality and guide to reality.

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is science, where the notions of hypothesis, experimentation and rejection of hypothesis if necessary, are acknowledgment of an objective reality that must be explored with our senses.

The ethical consequence of objective reality is objective ethics, which means that ethics are derived from reality and can be understood.

Subjective reality, which is based on the primacy of consciousness, leads to the search of truth by revelation, divine guidance. It is simply examining our internal mechanisms as a guide to reality.

There are two major sides to subjectivism which are intrinsical and Subjectivism. Intrinsical basically says that our knowledge must come from authority, and duty. Subjectivism asserts that knowledge is a matter of personal preference. Basically they are both subjectivist ideas.

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is religion, where the notion of faith and revelation, show the need to look inside one's emotions and opinions for truth about reality.
Religion offers a temporary solution for a species whose awareness exceeds their understanding, but does not have any positive cognitive value.
The ethical consequence of subjective reality is subjective ethics, which means that ethics cannot be derived from reality. This leads either to emotionalism or religious doctrine. The most important philosopher of this position is Kant.

Since everything else is derived from epistemology, the two beliefs lead to an opposite hierarchy of knowledge and values.

To resume : Objective reality = is reality which is the "real" world. It applies to the outer world we all share and live in together.
Subjective reality = a reality which is only real to oneself. It doesn't apply to the outer world we all share.

what is all that garbage about what a dog thinks, and the garbageman, duh( pun intended)

the matrix was a fantasy film, it's not real. keanu reeves was not realy neo he's an actor.
we dont live in the matrix, ok.

 

[Blindman]

The metaphor of the invisible horse is great. There is a great story in it. But how can you differentiate if you can see both the invisible and the real.

"That's a horse just there, can't you see it? " We all ride one.


Well I, sit on a horse that is well ridden and very old, and if I ask it what it sees. To me it says "I see many great drawing, and sculptures of horses, but even in a mirror, I see no horse"

Even with "Preachers" subjective attempt to conger up a proud stallion does not make his horse visible.

Well I'll hang on to the fastest horse in town.

My horse whispers
"I want to stop human suffering."
"I want the children of man to live forever."
"You can not know reality."
"You're alive now."

 

[ellion]

Consciousness cannot therefore exist,

IN MATTER

since it is beyond existence.

IN MATTER

This leads to the view that the mind is not material, but in a state of non-PHYSICAL-existence

you present a very weak argument for subjective reality, weak enough to be discredited by your argument for objective reality, almost as though you dont believe it has any value or relevance to the experience and development of the self and should therefore be disregarded as fantasy.

i dont see why objective and subjective realities need to be in opposition, even as philosophical perspectives.

 

[the preacher]

you present a very weak argument for subjective reality, weak enough to be discredited by your argument for objective reality, almost as though you dont believe it has any value or relevance to the experience and development of the self and should therefore be disregarded as fantasy.

this is true .
what you credit with veracity to be real, may not real. but thats not to say we should not have an imagination. however what you sense with the five senses is real.

i dont see why objective and subjective realities need to be in opposition, even as philosophical perspectives.

but they are.

 

[ellion]

you present a very weak argument for subjective reality, weak enough to be discredited by your argument for objective reality, almost as though you dont believe it has any value or relevance to the experience and development of the self and should therefore be disregarded as fantasy.

this is true.

is this true because your subjective experience does not provide enough of the solidity of the objective for you to call it real?

what you credit with veracity to be real, may not real. but thats not to say we should not have an imagination. however what you sense with the five senses is real.

what i credit with veracity to be real, may not be real objectively, but may be undeniably real subjectively. what i sense with the five senses is real, in physical reality but i do not need eyes to look within myself nor ears to hear my thoughts and the self that i see and experience is much larger than the physical manifestation.

i dont see why objective and subjective realities need to be in opposition, even as philosophical perspectives.

but they are.

to you.
but to me they are complimentary.

 

[the preacher]

is this true because your subjective experience does not provide enough of the solidity of the objective for you to call it real?

no: it's true because, my imagination is not reality

what i credit with veracity to be real, may not be real objectively, but may be undeniably real subjectively.

exactly, because you subjective reality is only real to you

what i sense with the five senses is real, in physical reality

exactly.

but i do not need eyes to look within myself nor ears to hear my thoughts and the self that i see and experience is much larger than the physical manifestation.

exactly in you imagination, you can have anything you want, you can be whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, but it's not real and never will be.

 

[ellion]

no: it's true because, my imagination is not reality

not objectively real

exactly, because you subjective reality is only real to you

and your point is?

exactly in you imagination, you can have anything you want, you can be whatever you want, you can do whatever you want,

do i imagine that i hear my thoughts, or do i hear my thoughts? are they part of my subjective reality or are they part of my objective reality? can you answer that question without turning to your own subjective expereince of yourself?

but it's not real and never will be.

you said it was before.

exactly, because you subjective reality is only real to you

is it real or isnt it?

 

[§outh§tar]

thepreacher, your definition of this is incompatible with mine. As I hope you will understand, further discussion will be fruitless.

 

[§outh§tar]

Pragmatically; through our senses. Our perceptions, however, are unreliable and thus it behooves us to use a methodology that helps eliminate error and bias.

From a strictly epistemological standpoint I don't believe the question can be resolved.

It depends upon the case being made. In the case where people claim that their invisible horse allows them to travel much more quickly yet upon examination we find nothing to support such a claim, yes.

In a more general sense (yes, I understand how you are looking to catch me up), disbelief and skepticism is not the same as believing the negative. I do not believe in invisible horses because there is no reason to believe in invisible horses. This is not the same as stating unequivocally that invisible horses absolutely do not exist.

I'm not looking to trap you!

Again, I think you have realized my point. It's been great discussing with you.

Cheers!

I can say that atoms do not exist now. It depends upon what you claim an atom is.

~Raithere

Let's go by the practical definition given by science. Science knows, after all.