6 ms·

There's no such thing as true reality since even the idea of reality is part of our survival mechanism.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
But see, even the statement "the idea of reality is part of our survival mechanism" is a statement about the nature of reality. Your statement therefore refutes itself. To say that there is no reality is self-refuting. To say that there is a reality but nothing is true of that reality is also self-refuting. Therefore, some things have to be true about reality. We may not know what they are (we may not even be able to discover what they are), but there is a reality that is more than our senses and perceptions. Some things must be true of that reality.
- lawpoop 11y ago
  > To say that there is no reality is self-refuting If there is no reality, why must logic persist? (I.e. that there is such a thing as truth, statements can be true or false, statements can be contradictory and therefore false, etc). If we can throw out reality, why not logic along with it? Doesn't it actually have to leave along with reality? If there "truly" is no reality, there is no logic, either, since logic is part of reality. Right?
  - abc_lisper 11y ago
    Second theorem of Godel's Incompleteness?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > If there "truly" is no reality, there is no logic, either, since logic is part of reality. Right? But see, you're making a logical argument there. If your position was right, then you can't do that... The only way you can say that there is no reality is by making a statement that you claim is true about reality. The only way you have argued that there is no logic is on the basis of a logical argument.
    - lawpoop 11y ago
      OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. In other words, we're attributing a truth-and-falsehood finding property to logic that it doesn't actually posses. So in the grand sense, it's meaningless, whatever it is we think we're getting from logic. It's like saying the Iraqi explosive detecting wand actually detects explosive. It's a phony tool, it doesn't work, but we trick ourselves into believing that it does.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. True. Your position logically refutes itself, but if logic is meaningless, that doesn't matter. But your argument sure doesn't give me any reason to believe it. You've created something that cannot be refuted, but that doesn't make it useful, sane, or convincing. If you accept this idea, then all logical discourse (or even all logical thought) is worthless, and is no different than illogic. Do you really think that's the world we live in? Do you really want it to be?
        lawpoop 11y ago
        If that is the world we live in, we have no way to tell, because our experience still looks like 'this' world. And, if it is the world we live in, I guess I don't want it to be, since I think this reality could be a lot better.
  - cscurmudgeon 11y ago
    Lol. You are using logic to refute logic. :D Not a sane choice.
nathan_long 11y ago
> There's no such thing as true reality Interesting. When you say "there's no such thing as X", aren't you imagining a sphere of existence in which, whether we want it to or not, "X" does not appear? Would you not call that sphere of existence "reality"? If you're saying we can't perceive reality, well, that's what's being argued about in the article. If you're saying reality doesn't exist, you're contradicting yourself. To put it another way, "there's no such thing as truth" is a claim about what's true. Imagine that you say "there's no such thing as truth" and I say "yes there is". What can you say? "You're wrong"? I would reply, "if I can be wrong, it means there is a Real Truth for my statement to contradict."
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Or he could be viewing the phrase "true reality" as a linguistic construct without a referent. This even makes sense since 'truth' is more of a property of represenations of reality rather than a property of reality itself. > What can you say? "You're wrong"? I could say "ok, show truth to me or explain why you think truth exists" I could also say "What value (fitness) does believing that assertion provide me"? Obviously, if you assume that truth is necessary to evaluate statements or beliefs, then stating that truth doesn't exist will lead you to contradictions. However, there are plenty of other methods of evaluation are frequently used. I would in fact argue argue that 'truth' is very rarely directly among the properties of an idea that we commonly use when evaluate it. The reputation of the source, coherence with other beliefs, effects on social identity, and cognitive efficiency seem to be the most common properties.
  - nathan_long 11y ago
    > I could say "ok, show truth to me or explain why you think truth exists" The idea that I can explain or argue anything presupposes that some things are true and other things can be shown to follow logically from them or be disproved by contradiction. > I would in fact argue argue that 'truth' is very rarely directly among the properties of an idea that we commonly use when evaluate it. Whether people commonly seek truth is a separate question from whether truth exists. "Do people evaluate ideas based on whether they're true or whether they make them feel good?" is a valid question, and you may be right in your answer. But look - "you may be right" means "your description may conform to the actual truth." We just can't even form sentences without assuming that some things are true and others aren't.
nooron 11y ago
R Nozick's "Invariances" argues analogously that our survival mechanism is to construct serviceable truths. But he concludes very differently than you, saying that this relativism you expound, b/w humans and human groups, is false. I found his arguments dense but very compelling. You might as well.
abc_lisper 11y ago
This would be accurate if all we know is from our senses. However Math and Science together allow us to predict things that never were accessible to our senses, but can be confirmed with them. Now, it could be that we are still operating in a sphere of limitations, but it would be surprising Math and Science didn't tease them out. For example, even though we don't "feel" quantum nature of the world, experiments can be constructed that show a visible(to our eyes) effect that is predicted apriori. Elaborating, it is unlikely that something can be confirmed from multiple points of view(senses, math and science), unless it is true.

But see, even the statement "the idea of reality is part of our survival mechanism" is a statement about the nature of reality. Your statement therefore refutes itself. To say that there is no reality is self-refuting. To say that there is a reality but nothing is true of that reality is also self-refuting. Therefore, some things have to be true about reality. We may not know what they are (we may not even be able to discover what they are), but there is a reality that is more than our senses and perceptions. Some things must be true of that reality.

lawpoop 11y ago
> To say that there is no reality is self-refuting If there is no reality, why must logic persist? (I.e. that there is such a thing as truth, statements can be true or false, statements can be contradictory and therefore false, etc). If we can throw out reality, why not logic along with it? Doesn't it actually have to leave along with reality? If there "truly" is no reality, there is no logic, either, since logic is part of reality. Right?
- abc_lisper 11y ago
  Second theorem of Godel's Incompleteness?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > If there "truly" is no reality, there is no logic, either, since logic is part of reality. Right? But see, you're making a logical argument there. If your position was right, then you can't do that... The only way you can say that there is no reality is by making a statement that you claim is true about reality. The only way you have argued that there is no logic is on the basis of a logical argument.
  - lawpoop 11y ago
    OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. In other words, we're attributing a truth-and-falsehood finding property to logic that it doesn't actually posses. So in the grand sense, it's meaningless, whatever it is we think we're getting from logic. It's like saying the Iraqi explosive detecting wand actually detects explosive. It's a phony tool, it doesn't work, but we trick ourselves into believing that it does.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. True. Your position logically refutes itself, but if logic is meaningless, that doesn't matter. But your argument sure doesn't give me any reason to believe it. You've created something that cannot be refuted, but that doesn't make it useful, sane, or convincing. If you accept this idea, then all logical discourse (or even all logical thought) is worthless, and is no different than illogic. Do you really think that's the world we live in? Do you really want it to be?
      - lawpoop 11y ago
        If that is the world we live in, we have no way to tell, because our experience still looks like 'this' world. And, if it is the world we live in, I guess I don't want it to be, since I think this reality could be a lot better.
- cscurmudgeon 11y ago
  Lol. You are using logic to refute logic. :D Not a sane choice.

nathan_long 11y ago

> There's no such thing as true reality Interesting. When you say "there's no such thing as X", aren't you imagining a sphere of existence in which, whether we want it to or not, "X" does not appear? Would you not call that sphere of existence "reality"? If you're saying we can't perceive reality, well, that's what's being argued about in the article. If you're saying reality doesn't exist, you're contradicting yourself. To put it another way, "there's no such thing as truth" is a claim about what's true. Imagine that you say "there's no such thing as truth" and I say "yes there is". What can you say? "You're wrong"? I would reply, "if I can be wrong, it means there is a Real Truth for my statement to contradict."

shkkmo 11y ago
Or he could be viewing the phrase "true reality" as a linguistic construct without a referent. This even makes sense since 'truth' is more of a property of represenations of reality rather than a property of reality itself. > What can you say? "You're wrong"? I could say "ok, show truth to me or explain why you think truth exists" I could also say "What value (fitness) does believing that assertion provide me"? Obviously, if you assume that truth is necessary to evaluate statements or beliefs, then stating that truth doesn't exist will lead you to contradictions. However, there are plenty of other methods of evaluation are frequently used. I would in fact argue argue that 'truth' is very rarely directly among the properties of an idea that we commonly use when evaluate it. The reputation of the source, coherence with other beliefs, effects on social identity, and cognitive efficiency seem to be the most common properties.
- nathan_long 11y ago
  > I could say "ok, show truth to me or explain why you think truth exists" The idea that I can explain or argue anything presupposes that some things are true and other things can be shown to follow logically from them or be disproved by contradiction. > I would in fact argue argue that 'truth' is very rarely directly among the properties of an idea that we commonly use when evaluate it. Whether people commonly seek truth is a separate question from whether truth exists. "Do people evaluate ideas based on whether they're true or whether they make them feel good?" is a valid question, and you may be right in your answer. But look - "you may be right" means "your description may conform to the actual truth." We just can't even form sentences without assuming that some things are true and others aren't.

nooron 11y ago

R Nozick's "Invariances" argues analogously that our survival mechanism is to construct serviceable truths. But he concludes very differently than you, saying that this relativism you expound, b/w humans and human groups, is false. I found his arguments dense but very compelling. You might as well.

abc_lisper 11y ago

This would be accurate if all we know is from our senses. However Math and Science together allow us to predict things that never were accessible to our senses, but can be confirmed with them. Now, it could be that we are still operating in a sphere of limitations, but it would be surprising Math and Science didn't tease them out. For example, even though we don't "feel" quantum nature of the world, experiments can be constructed that show a visible(to our eyes) effect that is predicted apriori. Elaborating, it is unlikely that something can be confirmed from multiple points of view(senses, math and science), unless it is true.