will@rti-sel.UUCP (10/18/83)
****************
* THE QUESTION *
****************
From: will Thu Oct 6 07:37:06 1983
(rti-sel.1063) net.philosophy,net.religion : another poll
Ok, folks, this is a poll on the nature of reality. There seem to
be a lot of different views on the net about what reality is, and
if it is possible to find out what it is. So I have two questions
for everybody:
1) Is reality absolute, or is it undefinable? In other words,
do you think that reality is what things actually ARE,
as opposed to what they ARE NOT, or does this concept
have no meaning?
2) Is there any way that human beings can distinguish reality
with any degree of certainty? Or will all their perceptions
of necessity be flawed?
This is a personal poll; I want to know what YOU think, not what some
philosopher or cleric says about the matter. Please keep answers short
and succinct, and mail them to me, so I can post a summary to the net.
Hopefully, I'll get a lot of good answers. Also, I'll post my views
along with the rest when the time comes.
William A. Gwaltney Jr.
duke!mcnc!rti!rti-sel!will
**********************
* SUMMARY OF ANSWERS *
**********************
I got twelve responses (including mine). The answers to both questions
differed widely, but most people thought that 1) reality is absolute, and
2) our perception of reality is flawed.
BREAKDOWN OF THE VOTES
Question #1 Question #2
absolute: 8 flawed: 8
undefinable: 3 accurate: 2
partially definable: 1 no answer: 2
Obviously, there is material here for lots of good discussions (flames?).
I don't think I dare ask people for REASONS for their answers...
Seriously, I'd like to thank everyone who replied to the poll, and to
encourage anyone who would like other opinions about a subject such as
this to take a similar poll.
***************
* THE ANSWERS *
***************
>From jlp Thu Oct 13 09:36:54 1983 remote from rti
Reality is undefinable. It is vastly more complex than we are or
are able to describe.
Consider a fragment of reality, a very simple one (relative to most
fragments) - a cut diamond crystal. I could hand it to you and you
could determine (or have someone else determine) many characterists:
its composition, its weight, its value on the market in NYC. We could
all agree on these mostly scientific attributes of this fragment
of reality. But its internal structure although the most regular
of any fragment in the universe is at a well defined limit
(tolerance in position * tolerance in momentum ~ Plank's constant)
beyond our perseption and ken. But what of the diamond's history and
relationship to the really important fragments in reality - people. History
is a dream, or the sound of a thousand voices talking at once, a
Greek chorus of melody and dissonance at once... just too complex
for our ears. Maybe the diamond is "new" and recently harvested by
the sweat of a black South African. Maybe it is very old and has
been traded in exotic bazaars and markets for millennia. Either way,
the "reality" of the diamond is beyond our comprehension, beyond
science. Only art can paint in words or oils or sounds a poor fragment of the
reality of this fragment of reality.
Which brings me to the second question. We have never agreed on much
about reality. Yes we agree on the weight and composition of the diamond.
Maybe even its cash value. But can we agree on what to do about South
Africa, on what is the "reality" of South Africa? Maybe you and I can
agree but what about you and me and so-and-so over there? Can we
agree on the "reality" of the diamond's history? Surely we won't
agree on what happened 2000 years ago, what about 20 years? It's very
good that we've found gross things like weight, and color and monetary
value to agree upon. But all that we can agree on are the scientific
facts. Those parts of reality which are predictable - reliably observable.
Many important things fit into this catagory. But many of the really
important things do not. Is there a God? Is Henry Kissinger a despicable
monster? Will I die this year?
A poet is worth a thousand philosophers,
jlp
*************
>From mcnc!hound!rwsh Tue Oct 11 13:58:52 1983 remote from rti
1. Reality is absolute.
It cannot be defined in terms of things you already know;
because if it is not absolute, you don't know anything.
It can only be defined ostensively--by pointing.
What do I mean by reality?...Open your eyes and look around you;
what you see is reality.
2. Perceptions are never flawed.
They are always of reality and are accurate.
They may provide more information than some philosopher
wants; e.g., the sight of the stick that appears bent in the water
provides information on optics.
Perceptions are the starting point of knowledge and are certain.
The important philosophical task is to make sure that the conceptual
knowledge is as certain--as closely tied to reality--as the
perceptual.
(It would be interesting to find out if those who think reality is not
absolute or that perceptions are necessarily flawed would test their
beliefs by jumping in front of a truck.)
Bob Stubblefield 201-949-2846
AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel NJ
***************
>From mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!rpk Sat Oct 8 03:03:38 1983 remote from rti
That's a tuffie. Maybe there should a functional defintion.
What people mean by reality has some definite properties. I think that one
of them is that you can't change it simply by desiring it to be changed.
Even someone who takes into account mind over matter would have to atke into
account another mechanism for such change besides perception.
I think there is more to it than consensus. Science and technology would
not work unless reality had certain properties upon which one could rely. Man
has accomplished much only because he can take accurate observations and
manipulate what he perceives. Therefor, knowledge is possible and man does
not live in a world of eternal and total alienation and derangement. While
a solipsist may present a pretty hard argument when it comes to the root of
perception and semantics, one can't escape the success that one can have in
manipulating the object in reality which, of course, must be perceived.
Even if human reality only consists of hanging certain concepts on certain
bundles of quantum interactions, it is still a valid system; how could
thinking entities ever deal with an ontology where objects were their own
(and only) descriptions ?
*************
>From mcnc!UUCP Sat Oct 8 03:03:44 1983 remote from rti
My opinions:
1. Reality exists apart from perception. I believe this because of
things happening that I could not have thought of - such as the idea of
Thelemism.
2. My own perception is flawed, as is that of every person I have met.
(99.99999% != 100%)
However, there seems to be the case of one of perfect perception who is
able to invade the perception center of others to give them perfect
perception of a given reality. (The logical conclusion is that the one
is not a person I have met with normal perception; logically, he must
have allowed me to perceive him.)
Larry Bickford, ihnp4!decwrl!qubix!lab
*************
>From mcnc!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!grbaer Sat Oct 8 03:03:59 1983 remote from rti
Sorry my previous attempt to reply got garbaged. Anyway,
1) reality is absolute, independent of human perception
2)the visable universe is only a fraction of reality.
We can observe it fairly well, but there are nonphysical
aspects which are only observable indirectly.
E.G., God is indirectly observable. Although He is invisable,
some of His character can be observed through nature and through
the Scriptures.
*************
>From mcnc!decvax!microsof!ubc-vision!sample Sat Oct 8 07:04:25 1983 remote from rti
1) Is reality absolute, or is it undefinable?
This question gives two categories which do not include all
possible answers. I believe reality is not absolute, but I
don't think it is completely undefinable. It is partially
definable in our system of thought, and possibly fully definable
in some unknown (higher) system of thought.
2) Is there any way that human beings can distinguish reality with any
degree of certainty?
This is really part of the same question as #1. I sometimes
have a *feeling* of certainty, but "certainty" usually implies
something that can be proved rationally, and as is evident from
my answer to #1, I don't believe that one can determine reality
with reason. You can make rational proofs starting with
assumptions, but reason cannot validate the initial assumptions.
Rick Sample
UUCP: ...!decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!sample
CSNET: sample@ubc
*************
>From mcnc!ihnp4!seismo!rlgvax!umcp-cs!liz Sun Oct 9 00:03:22 1983 remote from rti
1) Absolute.
2) I think it is possible to know some portions of reality accurately
-- especially trivial things like "The dictionary is on my desk."
Our perceptions can be clouded by interpretation -- like forcing
all "facts" to line up with some untrue belief. It can also be
clouded by emotions -- like hatred for someone making you suspect
their every move.
-Liz Allen, U of Maryland, College Park MD
Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz
Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@Udel-Relay
*************
>From mcnc!decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura Sun Oct 9 07:03:24 1983 remote from rti
Reality is not absolute. therefore there is no way that one can know
anything. (No. No.)
being a personal opinion, I do not have to defend this, right. I could
for fun if there is interest.
laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura
*************
>From mcnc!decvax!dartvax!lorien Fri Oct 7 15:04:44 1983 remote from rti
To the question of whether reality is absolute or not, this is has no meaning.
And, no, man can never know what goes on around him for sure, but to live
and survive we must live in an as-if reality. Read Dennet/Hofstadter's
"The Mind's I" for essays on this subject.
*************
>From mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Arthur.cmh Fri Oct 7 15:04:58 1983 remote from rti
Re: Poll on reality
I have always assumed that there is absolute reality and that it is knowable
with certainty. As I get older, I begin to see more and more how people
misperceive, and I begin to appreciate that self-interests and belief are
the cause to it. Consequently, I now think that the road to reality is
found along a path investigating psychological factors in thinking and
learning about implicit assumptions one makes. It is not at all a simple
matter, but I still believe that there is the possibility of success.
Whether this belief will hinder at some stage along the road is unclear,
and there may be a time when I find that it does...
Chris Hoffmann
*************
>From mcnc!unc!bch Thu Oct 6 11:15:16 1983 remote from rti
(1) There is an ultimate reality (thoughI haven't the faintest idea of
what it might be.)
(2) Human perceptions of it are necessarily incomplete and not
necessarily, but probably, flawed.
************
> My answer (will's) :
1) In the first place, I believe in the God of the Bible (Christian).
So I believe that reality is absolute, due to the absolute nature
of its creator.
2) Our perceptions of reality are flawed due to our fallen, imperfect
nature and our rejection of a personal relationship with God.
************
William Gwaltney Jr.
duke!mcnc!rti!rti-sel!will