Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

[glaucon]

good and true

Note how he said "...I call this..."

That's the only correct part of either of his statements.

yes the observer can

because the observer cannot change the enviromental situation that the observer is in

and even if the observer could change the enviroment , the changes made are still based on the reality of the enviroment that the observer is in

Care to rethink?

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
yes the observer can

because the observer cannot change the enviromental situation that the observer is in

and even if the observer could change the enviroment , the changes made are still based on the reality of the enviroment that the observer is in ”

Care to rethink?

no , not really

 

[Enmos]

Note how he said "...I call this..."

That's the only correct part of either of his statements.

Correct ? You mean objectively ?

 

[thinking]

look at this way ;

if one goes against the objective reality , would you see things that much differently ?

 

[glaucon]

Correct ? You mean objectively ?

lol

No.

I was trying to determine what you meant by your answer, as it could be interpreted in two ways...

Were you asserting that the objects of the environment we encounter are independent of the mind, and therefore that is how we define "objective"

Or, are you saying that given our experience of said environment, we call this to be "objective"?

 

[glaucon]

look at this way ;

if one goes against the objective reality , would you see things that much differently ?

Not sure what you mean by "goes against the objective reality"...

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
look at this way ;

if one goes against the objective reality , would you see things that much differently ?

Not sure what you mean by "goes against the objective reality"...

inotherwords if a forest is in front of you could you ignore the forest ?

and say the forest is not a forest , physically ?

 

[glaucon]

inotherwords if a forest is in front of you could you ignore the forest ?

Sure. Anything can be ignored.

However, this is not synonymous with:

...
and say the forest is not a forest , physically ?

There are indeed cases where that can happen, yes.
Errors of perception are numerous, and it is these errors that cause us to question the reliability of that which we perceive.

(and this doesn't even bring up QM interpretations, wherein, apparently 'solid' things are in fact constitutive of more empty space, than matter....)

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
look at this way ;

if one goes against the objective reality , would you see things that much differently ?

“ Originally Posted by thinking
inotherwords if a forest is in front of you could you ignore the forest ?

Sure. Anything can be ignored.

to your own detriment

 

[thinking]

Originally Posted by thinking
...
and say the forest is not a forest , physically ? ”

There are indeed cases where that can happen, yes.
Errors of perception are numerous, and it is these errors that cause us to question the reliability of that which we perceive.

then who ever does is not sound of mind

(and this doesn't even bring up QM interpretations, wherein, apparently 'solid' things are in fact constitutive of more empty space, than matter....)

explain further

 

[glaucon]

to your own detriment

We're not talking about judgements; we're talking about practical possibility.

then who ever does is not sound of mind

That would include you then.
Never had a headache; been drunk; sick; stoned?

explain further

Sorry, do your own research.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
to your own detriment ”

We're not talking about judgements; we're talking about practical possibility.

I disagree

were not talking about judgements or practical possibilities

were are about the way things simply are

a forest is a forest is a forest and to deny this is just not sound observation

 

[glaucon]

I disagree

were not talking about judgements or practical possibilities

were are about the way things simply are

Incorrect.
The problem with that line of thought is that it assumes that you have access to "the way things are".

I suggest you read some Hume, to begin.

...
a forest is a forest is a forest and to deny this is just not sound observation

Observations cannot be sound or unsound.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
I disagree

were not talking about judgements or practical possibilities

were are about the way things simply are ”

Incorrect.
The problem with that line of thought is that it assumes that you have access to "the way things are".

no , its not an assumption it is a fact

a forest is a forest

I suggest you read some Hume, to begin.

why ? what does Hume say about a forest ?

look just think about this with Reason

does the forest exist no matter what we call this expanse of vegatation ?

I just can't think that you would walk into a forest and conclude it doesn't exist , it makes no sense

 

[thinking]

and I don't what Hume thinks all I care about is what YOU think

 

[glaucon]

no , its not an assumption it is a fact

Incorrect.

There is no logically consistent argument that can derive the independent existence of any object from an individual's perception of it.

I take it you're not familiar with Sextus Empiricus or Rene Descartes?

a forest is a forest

That is a tautology.

why ? what does Hume say about a forest ?

look just think about this with Reason

does the forest exist no matter what we call this expanse of vegatation ?

I just can't think that you would walk into a forest and conclude it doesn't exist , it makes no sense

In brief, Hume is responsible for noting that inductively derived conclusions are always uncertain.

That is Reason.

esse est percipi

 

[glaucon]

and I don't what Hume thinks all I care about is what YOU think

I agree with Hume.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
no , its not an assumption it is a fact ”

Incorrect.

There is no logically consistent argument that can derive the independent existence of any object from an individuals perception of it.

yes there is

and it is Reasonable argument

can you perceive oxygen ?

I take it you're not familiar with Sextus Empiricus or Rene Descartes?

don't care

 

[thinking]

as I thought you can't " perceive " oxygen but oxygen is vital to life on Earth

so therefore oxygen has nothing to perception but has all to do with an " objective reality "

because you can neither smell it , experience it , yet oxygen does exist , obviously

therefore there exists is an objective reality

obviously

 

[glaucon]

yes there is

and it is Reasonable argument

can you perceive oxygen ?

All incorrect.
See below.

don't care

It shows.

I'm not here to recite the entire history of epistemology and ontology from Rationalism, through Empiricism, Phenomenalism, Positivism and beyond.

If you choose to retain your 16th Century conception of reality, that's your prerogative.