The Realists' REALITY GAP

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:24 am

I believe the The Realists' REALITY GAP is a very significant philosophical issue.
To me the The Realists' REALITY GAP is illusory, it arise only because of the Philosophical Realists' false beliefs.

This Realists' REALITY GAP is generated from the following;

      1. Philosophical Realists [PRs] believe there is a 'real' external reality out there independent of the human mind to be observed, experienced and mapped.

      2. The PRs are only believing based on their experience and perception, which is not 'what is' or 'the perceived'

      2. What [PRs] are experiencing and believing is only an approximation of that external Reality. [2 above].

      3. So there is a GAP between what is the PRs' supposedly external Reality and their perception and sense data in their minds.

      4. I call this the Reality GAP.

The above can be represented as follows;

    Self [cognizer] <--- Reality GAP ----> Reality

Because of the Reality Gap as above, one will note the self [cognizer] will never ever get in touch with or realized the real Reality.
If one never ever get in touch with that real Reality, the fact is the PRs are existing in an illusory state of solipsism.

Do you agree there is a Reality Gap if one believes in an independent external reality out there which is eternally out of reach by the cognizer*?

* note I have not using the term 'perceiver' to avoid the difference between 'perceiver' and 'what is perceived'.
'cognizer' is equivalent to the actualizer or realizer who engages and entangles with emergent reality.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:24 am

You cannot demonstrate the existence of any external reality without using the mind
But that does not mean that external reality is not actually independent of the mind
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:33 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the The Realists' REALITY GAP is a very significant philosophical issue.

To believe that there is a "reality gap", you must first believe that there is a reality. And that makes YOU a "Realist", and guilty of your own accusation (big surprise).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:43 am

I do not think that there is such a thing as a REALITY GAP as REALITY is simply another word for UNIVERSE
And the UNIVERSE can not have a GAP in it but what there is a GAP in is our KNOWLEDGE of the UNIVERSE
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:51 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the The Realists' REALITY GAP is a very significant philosophical issue.

To believe that there is a "reality gap", you must first believe that there is a reality. And that makes YOU a "Realist", and guilty of your own accusation (big surprise).
I have explained the above in another post but you don't get it.

I don't believe in a Reality out there that is independent of the mind, so there is no 'reality gap' for me. Understand!

I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interact with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

OTOH, in your case, you are a transcendental realist, i.e. your Reality is beyond your self and reach which you can never really get in touch to actualize it.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:05 am

surreptitious75 wrote:You cannot demonstrate the existence of any external reality without using the mind
But that does not mean that external reality is not actually independent of the mind
It is something like this;

First we have external reality independent of mind;
    1. individual mind independent external reality
in the above case, the individual recognized a necessary external independent reality.
The concept of externality is critical for survival to recognize threats from outside one self. If I am in the grassland and I see a pack of lions I will run from it.

but then encompassing externalness, we have,
    2. collective mind (individual mind and external reality)

The problem with the Philosophical Realist is they are habitualized only to conscious of 1, i.e. externality, because humans are always focus on the external [inherited from billions of years] to be aware of threats from outside themselves to facilitate survival.
It takes deep philosophical reflection to understand point 2 above. It is not easy to explain in a few sentences but it is along the same principles as how Hume suprised everyone by asserting that is no real principles of causation at all rather the awareness of causation is due to one's habits and psychology.

Again,

Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction--that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:18 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I don't believe in a Reality out there that is independent of the mind

That makes you a Solipsist, which you denied. And your consensus "intersubjectivity" doesn't get you out of it.

Prismatic567 wrote:I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interact with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

You can't have both.

You just can't comprehend it, can you.
Prismatic567 wrote:I don't believe in a Reality out there... [aka Solipsist]
.
.
I am a realist

It doesn't matter which KIND of realist you want to be, if you do not believe that there is a reality out there, then you are NOT any kind of realist. And if you DO believe that there is a Reality out there, then you ARE a Realist of one kind or another.


Learn the damn words!
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:32 am

Causation can be empirically determined so there is no need to rely on it psychologically
Although one should avoid making generalisations about reality based on just assumption
Never seeing a black swan does not mean all swans are white only the ones you have seen
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:39 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Causation can be empirically determined so there is no need to rely on it psychologically
Although one should avoid making generalisations about reality based on just assumption
Never seeing a black swan does not mean all swans are white only the ones you have seen
Causation appear to very obvious to have an empirical basis but Hume has proven the assertion of causation is due to psychology. If you reflect on it further it is in fact due to psychology.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:41 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I don't believe in a Reality out there that is independent of the mind

That makes you a Solipsist, which you denied. And your consensus "intersubjectivity" doesn't get you out of it.

Prismatic567 wrote:I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interact with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

You can't have both.

You just can't comprehend it, can you.
Prismatic567 wrote:I don't believe in a Reality out there... [aka Solipsist]
.
.
I am a realist

It doesn't matter which KIND of realist you want to be, if you do not believe that there is a reality out there, then you are NOT any kind of realist. And if you DO believe that there is a Reality out there, then you ARE a Realist of one kind or another.

Learn the damn words!
Straw man!

I don't believe in your version of 'Reality out there' that is independent of humans Framework and System.

You keep interpreting your own views and impose those on me. This problem is due to your shallow and narrow philosophical views and thus cannot understand [not necessary agree] my points.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:48 am

This has become just too dumb for words.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:04 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Causation can be empirically determined so there is no need to rely on it psychologically
Although one should avoid making generalisations about reality based on just assumption
Never seeing a black swan does not mean all swans are white only the ones you have seen

Causation appear to very obvious to have an empirical basis but Hume has proven the assertion of causation is due to psychology

As everything is experienced by the mind then it can all be attributed to psychology
However that does not mean that nothing cannot be mind independent which it can
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:24 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Causation can be empirically determined so there is no need to rely on it psychologically
Although one should avoid making generalisations about reality based on just assumption
Never seeing a black swan does not mean all swans are white only the ones you have seen

Causation appear to very obvious to have an empirical basis but Hume has proven the assertion of causation is due to psychology

As everything is experienced by the mind then it can all be attributed to psychology
However that does not mean that nothing cannot be mind independent which it can
The fact is the following;

How can you realize the following point;
"However that does not mean that nothing cannot be mind independent which it can"
other than merely thinking about it and involving the human mind and this is not restricted to the individual's mind but the collective shared-minds.

The above is a real philosophical dilemma which one need to recognize and reflect deeply.
It would appear so obvious there must be a mind independent reality but such a conclusion cannot be arrived at without the involvement of the individual and collective human mind.

Philosophically one must recognize and understand [not necessary agree] the above dilemma is a real conundrum which generate a cognitive dissonance.

It is because of the cognitive dissonance that most would prefer the obvious to maintain consonance, i.e. there is an independent external reality.

Btw, I am not insisting you must adopt my views, but merely highlight one need to be aware of and understand [not necessary agree] this real philosophical dilemma.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby phyllo » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:36 pm

I believe the The Realists' REALITY GAP is a very significant philosophical issue.

Because of the Reality Gap as above, one will note the self [cognizer] will never ever get in touch with or realized the real Reality.
This reminds me of a joke.

A philosopher and an engineer see a beautiful woman.
Philosopher : If every time I move, I go half the distance to her, I will never reach her. :(
Engineer : If every time I move, I go half the distance to her, soon I will be close enough. 8)
:character-luigi:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10849
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:11 am

phyllo wrote:
I believe the The Realists' REALITY GAP is a very significant philosophical issue.

Because of the Reality Gap as above, one will note the self [cognizer] will never ever get in touch with or realized the real Reality.
This reminds me of a joke.

A philosopher and an engineer see a beautiful woman.
Philosopher : If every time I move, I go half the distance to her, I will never reach her. :(
Engineer : If every time I move, I go half the distance to her, soon I will be close enough. 8)
:character-luigi:
The joke in your philosophical belief, i.e. reality is independent of the subject's conceptual scheme - see below.

wiki wrote:Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.


Your 'realism' is that of transcendental realism.

OTOH, mine is 'empirical realism' where the subject is part and parcel of reality, thus interacting and entangling with reality. In such a case there is no Reality Gap nor half-distances.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby phyllo » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:22 am

OTOH, mine is 'empirical realism' where the subject is part and parcel of reality, thus interacting and entangling with reality. In such a case there is no Reality Gap nor half-distances.
So you can't be wrong about "reality". That's interesting. :)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10849
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:43 am

phyllo wrote:
OTOH, mine is 'empirical realism' where the subject is part and parcel of reality, thus interacting and entangling with reality. In such a case there is no Reality Gap nor half-distances.
So you can't be wrong about "reality". That's interesting. :)
I am a human being thus fallible.
If I insist a mirage is a real physical thing based merely on perception, then I am wrong.

Re Empirical Realist versus Transcendental Realist, it is not my idea but Kant's, note [suggest you read this a few times];

Kant in CPR wrote:... an Empirical Realist, ... allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived. (this is my view)

Transcendental Realism [your philosophical view], on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism, in that it (Transcendental Realism) regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves, treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.

On such a view as this, however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things, it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.

In our System, on the other hand, these External Things, namely Matter, are in all their Configurations and Alterations nothing but mere Appearances, that is, Representations in us, of the Reality of which we are Immediately Conscious. A372


Since, so far as I know, all psychologists who adopt Empirical Idealism are Transcendental Realists, they have certainly proceeded quite consistently in ascribing great importance to Empirical Idealism, as one of the problems in regard to which the human mind is quite at a loss how to proceed.

For if we regard Outer Appearances as Representations produced in us by their Objects, and if these Objects be Things existing in-themselves outside us, it is indeed impossible to see how we can come to know the Existence of the Objects otherwise than by Inference from the effect to the Cause; and this being so, it must always remain doubtful whether the Cause in question be in us or outside us.


Note the above as highlighted is Philosophical Realism [as claimed].

Wiki wrote:Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.


Can you defend your philosophical position as realistic?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby phyllo » Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:24 am

I am a human being thus fallible.
If I insist a mirage is a real physical thing based merely on perception, then I am wrong.
That requires comparison to some standard.

What happens in this case? :

Person A uses framework F and comes to conclusion A.

Person B uses framework F and comes to conclusion B.

So there are two "realities" and they can't both be right. Or can they?

If one (or both) is wrong then there must be gap between the wrong "reality" and something.

And how does one decide who/what is wrong and right?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10849
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Realists' REALITY GAP

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:13 am

phyllo wrote:
I am a human being thus fallible.
If I insist a mirage is a real physical thing based merely on perception, then I am wrong.
That requires comparison to some standard.

What happens in this case? :

Person A uses framework F and comes to conclusion A.

Person B uses framework F and comes to conclusion B.

So there are two "realities" and they can't both be right. Or can they?

If one (or both) is wrong then there must be gap between the wrong "reality" and something.

And how does one decide who/what is wrong and right?
I presume both A and B are working on the same thesis. Your above example will not happen with Science and within the Scientific Framework in general.
Within the Scientific Framework, there is no issues with empirical things regarding which theory is right or wrong.

A Scientific theory is true [right] when it conforms to all the requirements and standards of
the Scientific Framework, its assumptions, limitation, processes, etc.
As for speculated scientific theories, it must conform to the Scientific Framework and the elements must all be empirically possible and the final acceptance is based on consensus awaiting evidence to confirm the theory or it remain as it as a speculated theory (e.g. Big Bang Theory].

As I had stated there are many Frameworks and Systems in existence that enable a qualified reality to emerge.
What is critical here is we must assign degrees of credibility to the results from these frameworks. e.g. the majority will agree Scientific theories in general command the highest credibility ratings based on evidence and proofs of its credibility.

Even though Scientific theories in general are highly credible but they are still limited. To add further credibility to scientific theories, they must be complemented with rationality from philosophy-proper.

You example above could apply to the legal Framework;
Example; based on the specific legal Framework of a Nation, in a murder case the prosecutor has one conclusion [guilty] from the defendant's [not guilty]. Within a legal framework there is a provision for judge[s] or a jury to decide the final legal binding decision of what was the reality [guilty or not guilty].

But within such a framework, there had been many wrong decisions and innocent people had been wrongly charged and even hanged. As such there was a "wrong" reality and a 'true' reality.

However whether it is wrong or right, it has to be qualified to that particular framework. There is no way one can generate either a right or wrong reality without being conditioned within a framework.

In the above case there is reality gap between the right or wrong one but whatever the reality GAP, it is always related to conditional realities but not the absolute reality that Philosophical Realists are claiming, i.e. a reality that is independent of the subject conception.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users