5 ms·

No. No, I think the world would still be there if we didn't question it. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. (Philip K. Dick

No. No, I think the world would still be there if we didn't question it. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. (Philip K. Dick)

notheguyouthink 8y ago
deleted
- cholmon 8y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "know".
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  We know it by the times when reality doesn't correspond to our ideas and/or questions.
- dmreedy 8y ago
  I prefer to think of it as just the one impossible question, and the many efforts to try and shape it in such a way that its answer becomes apparent. Or, at the very least, that the incorrectness of other proposed answers becomes apparent (the more typical result).
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  Here is an example of what the world might look like if reality _was_ effected by our beliefs: http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf (It's the short story Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Borges.)
  - mnw21cam 8y ago
    Yay, an actual correct usage of the word "effected". You don't see that very often.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  Leaving aside my general scepticism of basically everything, including the knowability of the truth of a statement, including the statement: "At least one mind exists." The answer is pretty simple. Gold was predicted to be whitish looking, like Platinium, based on the physics of the time. But due to a phenomenon unknown at the time (relativity) it was gold. That is how we know our minds don't create reality. We seem to live in a universe of consequence, not a dream. There are things we don't understand that we come to figure out, not the other way around. On the other hand, if by "how would we know?" you mean the fundamental unknowability of everything, yes I agree with you. But as Russel said, "it's boring to stop there" so let's just park that observation and continue on. In this way, philosophy mirrors theology. You take some things by faith and you get on with your life.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Gold was predicted to be whitish looking, like Platinium, based on the physics of the time. But due to a phenomenon unknown at the time (relativity) it was gold I'm pretty sure gold was well known long before predicting the colors of as-yet-unobserved metals based on any kind of physics.
    - bdamm 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure he's talking about the testability of science; when you have a theory, it's not science until it becomes a testable observation. At one point, presumably, the early model of physics allows "naturalists" to make predictions on the color of gold based on the information of chemical elements. And the color was supposed to be platinum. Therefore, the theory was not quite right, and naturalists of the time could conclude that their model was incomplete. I don't think anyone was ever doubting the true color of gold.
alexpetralia 8y ago
My metaphysical philosophy has always been: - Objective truth: the physical world as it is. There are no "chairs" in this world (would an ant recognize a chair, or a bacteria?) - only data from which we can derive patterns. - Consensus truth: what people have agreed to be true, often via perception or abstract logic. This is math, that is red, this is a chair, that is democracy. - Subjective truth: what I believe to be true, by my own rationality or my own perception. This can sometimes deviate from consensus truth (eg. optical illusions). There must be a term for this philosophical position, but I haven't found it yet (or the thinker associated with it). Obviously this is due to my ignorance because this is not a particularly profound metaphysical position to take. Does anyone know the name of this?
- n4r9 8y ago
  I don't know any name for it but I've wondered about those same delineations (my term for the second is "consensus-based reality"). I worry about to what extent the first one can be said to definitely exist.
  - geoffreyhale 8y ago
    I use "reality" instead of "truth" for all of those positions, reserving "truth" for logic or the opposite of a lie.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- solipsism 8y ago
  The fact that you acknowledge there exists an objective truth means you're a philosophical realist, as opposed to an idealist. The fact that you recognize there's a subjective truth, and that it can differ from the objective truth, hints at philosophical skepticism -- though skepticism goes a bit further and claims the objective truth is essentially unknowable. I don't really understand your "consensus truth" category. The things you list are just labels, not truth statements. Apples and oranges.
  - 8y ago
Theodores 8y ago
Is this quote from Time Out Of Joint? If so I need to read that book. With political and other scandals where you get into believing the propaganda but then there are awkward facts that just can't be erased. Yet the world goes on ignoring the facts that, if taken into consideration, mean the convenient narrative verging on a fable can only be a lie. The fact that disproves everything could be a five second clip from headline news reporting made decades ago, only broadcast live. Or the first edition version of a newsprint article revised in the 'final edition' that did make it to microfiche. Or a forum repost from a decade ago, now lost to a content management system update. These clues are everywhere, sometimes ignored due to 'fast moving events' where we are collectively still trying to learn the story and pertinent details and little clues are lost to the big picture we are still trying to see. Maybe only with sci-fi can this be told, with real events too much opinion shaped by TV and the PR companies gets in the way.
drb91 8y ago
Not believing in realty is semantically suspect. Delusion still provides a (false) reality in which to live. Hell if anything it’s evidence of active questioning to perceive anything.
gowld 8y ago
Can you prove Dick's statement is true? Denying reality is a very powerful trick. Any unavoidable physical consequence inside reality can be ignored by a sufficiently aversive mind. Consider the differences between these claims: "My reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." "Your reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." and bonus: "Fantasy is that which, no matter how much you believe in it, doesn't come to be."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

No. No, I think the world would still be there if we didn't question it. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. (Philip K. Dick)

notheguyouthink 8y ago

deleted

cholmon 8y ago
Depends on what you mean by "know".
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
We know it by the times when reality doesn't correspond to our ideas and/or questions.
dmreedy 8y ago
I prefer to think of it as just the one impossible question, and the many efforts to try and shape it in such a way that its answer becomes apparent. Or, at the very least, that the incorrectness of other proposed answers becomes apparent (the more typical result).
justinpombrio 8y ago
Here is an example of what the world might look like if reality _was_ effected by our beliefs: http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf (It's the short story Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Borges.)
- mnw21cam 8y ago
  Yay, an actual correct usage of the word "effected". You don't see that very often.
3pt14159 8y ago
Leaving aside my general scepticism of basically everything, including the knowability of the truth of a statement, including the statement: "At least one mind exists." The answer is pretty simple. Gold was predicted to be whitish looking, like Platinium, based on the physics of the time. But due to a phenomenon unknown at the time (relativity) it was gold. That is how we know our minds don't create reality. We seem to live in a universe of consequence, not a dream. There are things we don't understand that we come to figure out, not the other way around. On the other hand, if by "how would we know?" you mean the fundamental unknowability of everything, yes I agree with you. But as Russel said, "it's boring to stop there" so let's just park that observation and continue on. In this way, philosophy mirrors theology. You take some things by faith and you get on with your life.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Gold was predicted to be whitish looking, like Platinium, based on the physics of the time. But due to a phenomenon unknown at the time (relativity) it was gold I'm pretty sure gold was well known long before predicting the colors of as-yet-unobserved metals based on any kind of physics.
  - bdamm 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure he's talking about the testability of science; when you have a theory, it's not science until it becomes a testable observation. At one point, presumably, the early model of physics allows "naturalists" to make predictions on the color of gold based on the information of chemical elements. And the color was supposed to be platinum. Therefore, the theory was not quite right, and naturalists of the time could conclude that their model was incomplete. I don't think anyone was ever doubting the true color of gold.

alexpetralia 8y ago

My metaphysical philosophy has always been: - Objective truth: the physical world as it is. There are no "chairs" in this world (would an ant recognize a chair, or a bacteria?) - only data from which we can derive patterns. - Consensus truth: what people have agreed to be true, often via perception or abstract logic. This is math, that is red, this is a chair, that is democracy. - Subjective truth: what I believe to be true, by my own rationality or my own perception. This can sometimes deviate from consensus truth (eg. optical illusions). There must be a term for this philosophical position, but I haven't found it yet (or the thinker associated with it). Obviously this is due to my ignorance because this is not a particularly profound metaphysical position to take. Does anyone know the name of this?

n4r9 8y ago
I don't know any name for it but I've wondered about those same delineations (my term for the second is "consensus-based reality"). I worry about to what extent the first one can be said to definitely exist.
- geoffreyhale 8y ago
  I use "reality" instead of "truth" for all of those positions, reserving "truth" for logic or the opposite of a lie.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
solipsism 8y ago
The fact that you acknowledge there exists an objective truth means you're a philosophical realist, as opposed to an idealist. The fact that you recognize there's a subjective truth, and that it can differ from the objective truth, hints at philosophical skepticism -- though skepticism goes a bit further and claims the objective truth is essentially unknowable. I don't really understand your "consensus truth" category. The things you list are just labels, not truth statements. Apples and oranges.
- 8y ago

Theodores 8y ago

Is this quote from Time Out Of Joint? If so I need to read that book. With political and other scandals where you get into believing the propaganda but then there are awkward facts that just can't be erased. Yet the world goes on ignoring the facts that, if taken into consideration, mean the convenient narrative verging on a fable can only be a lie. The fact that disproves everything could be a five second clip from headline news reporting made decades ago, only broadcast live. Or the first edition version of a newsprint article revised in the 'final edition' that did make it to microfiche. Or a forum repost from a decade ago, now lost to a content management system update. These clues are everywhere, sometimes ignored due to 'fast moving events' where we are collectively still trying to learn the story and pertinent details and little clues are lost to the big picture we are still trying to see. Maybe only with sci-fi can this be told, with real events too much opinion shaped by TV and the PR companies gets in the way.

drb91 8y ago

Not believing in realty is semantically suspect. Delusion still provides a (false) reality in which to live. Hell if anything it’s evidence of active questioning to perceive anything.

gowld 8y ago

Can you prove Dick's statement is true? Denying reality is a very powerful trick. Any unavoidable physical consequence inside reality can be ignored by a sufficiently aversive mind. Consider the differences between these claims: "My reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." "Your reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." and bonus: "Fantasy is that which, no matter how much you believe in it, doesn't come to be."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]