Ding an sich vs. cogito ergo sum

29 Comments

Regarding the definition of reality: Is reality something beyond what we can perceive, or is it a creation of our subjective experience? This is a question that's been haunting me for quite some time, and while it's clearly unanswerable, any attempted answers are welcome and interesting. Please discuss.

++++++++++

So is reality a thing-in-itself that does not require us in order to exist, but simply emanates phenomena that we can detect? Are our senses merely a channel through which we (inaccurately) observe and interact with reality? Some examples:

1) A dog would experience reality very differently from us - the dog sees less color but smells with more depth, implying that it interacts with reality through slightly different channels than we do. Are we both observing the same thing by different means?

2) Drugs, particularly hallucinogens, allow us to perceive reality in an intensely unfamiliar way. They change the channel and turn up the volume, so to speak. Who is to say that such an experience of reality is any less valid than our "default" state? Doesn't this change only our perception of reality, and not reality itself?

++++++++++

The alternative is that there is no reality beyond what we see and think and feel, and that reality is by definition what we make of it. It ultimately boils down to existentialism, I guess.

1) You probably understand this view by the following thought experiment: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" How can we assume that the unobserved functions exactly as it would as we observe it? If something has no observable effect, how can it be said to exist? I assume that Somalia exists, only through anecdotal evidence - it only exists so far as a memory or a story would exist! Does that memory keep existing if I forget about it? Does Somalia exist if nobody knows about it? What is the difference between reality and consciousness?

2) Quantum physics posits the idea that any particle of matter does not exist in an absolute position until it is observed or measured. All matter is just a superposition of different wave functions and possibilities until it MUST exist, i.e. when we perceive it. Reality is dependent on one's observation.

++++++++++

MAH BRAYN HERTZ

Reality exists beyond what we perceive. 10
Reality IS what we perceive. 7
Both/neither 4
Cottage cheese. 11
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 29 )
  • wigsplitz
    12 years ago

    I love this one, so I'll give you my opinion on it first-the tree falling in the forest. Why does it make a sound? Because we have ears? No. It's the other way around, we have ears because things make sounds. I believe it was part of our evolution, for our survival. Things that can't hear compensate for actual hearing as we know it, which still rely on sound waves. Sound existed before we, or any other being, did, I believe. So, yeah, it makes a sound.

    The other points-the drugs and the dog- OK, I don't think it matters at all how anyone or anything percieves anything, it doesn't make it any less real or unreal. So, because I can walk up to my dog with a sawed off shotgun to shoot him, and he has no clue what it is, what it can do, or what's about to happen, that somehow it WON'T happen? That he's not dead right now? And you'd somehow be more dead than him if I did the same to you because you knew what it was and what was coming?

    If you're hallucinating, and you see a cliff in front of you and walk off of it, you won't die from cliff-falling injuries. If you warn me about the cliff but I don't listen, and you see me fall, then good sir, you were mistaken, obviously. I did not fall. It wasn't there.

    If I'm drunk and shoot my dad, but I don't remember it at all, did it happen? Well, yeah. And it's strange to have that happen, but it happens all the time....you could be 100% sure when you wake up from your stupor that NOTHING happened, that your dad was still alive. Things have to be explained to you, and it's still incredible. So the perception that nothing happened obviously doesn't matter here. I don't have to see my dad's dead body before it becomes real.

    Reality is definite, I think individual perception doesn't matter. I don't think something has to be seen or acknowledged to be real. That gets absolutely proven all the time. Our senses developed because of reality. I think that's obvious.

    Anyway, I don't explain things so well sometimes, so pick through that crap and have fun with that.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • robbieforgotpw
      10 years ago

      I just power farted well sharted really

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • flutterhigh
      12 years ago

      Also, I think you may have chosen "Reality is what we perceive", but you're clearly arguing for the other choice - that reality exists absolutely, regardless of our minds.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • wigsplitz
        12 years ago

        This is harder than I thought to try to convey!

        I believe psychosomatic medicine may provide a reliable, scientific instance in which perception is reality.

        I'm still thinking on this, I have another example that I am trying to put into words, although there's not exactly science behind it. It would be 100% opinion.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • flutterhigh
          12 years ago

          Well, everything that we're talking about here is purely conceptual, so it's all opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • wigsplitz
            12 years ago

            I know but I feel like even more of a moron if I can't proove anything I say! I'm terrible at explaining things as it is.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
      • wigsplitz
        12 years ago

        No, I picked both/neither. I think mainly, reality exists, different beings percieve it to different degrees but it doesn't change reality. There is a small area of perception that is reality, but I can't explain it, right now anyway. Tomorrow, I promise!

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
    • flutterhigh
      12 years ago

      I thought you hated pondering your existence?

      Your point on evolution is an interesting one; I didn't even think about that. I think you missed my point with the dog, but I agree with most of what you're saying -- until you start explaining how obvious and absolute it is. It IS obvious, because we operate under the assumption that reality is definite, otherwise we'd be paranoid wrecks. We must assume these things are real. But the best we can do is assume, because it sure isn't absolute.

      I'll take your dad-shooting example. If you never come out of that stupor, which is the reality? You even see your dead dad and you are convinced that it is an impostor. To you personally (and what else is there?), that is reality. I know you want to argue that everyone ELSE knows your dad is dead. But if that's your argument, then you're saying that reality is democratic - you're in the minority, thus you're wrong. But how do THEY know your dad is dead? Isn't it possible that everyone else is hallucinating and you're the only one seeing "definite" reality?

      Thus is my point. You're talking as if there is a definite reality that we DIRECTLY communicate with via our senses. How is this at all verifiable? How could you possibly know that? You're saying that reality is definite because everyone can see that my dad and my dog are dead, but that's a self-reliant assumption. I'm asking how you know your senses are an absolute interpretation of reality, and you're saying "because I can sense reality". It's circular logic, no?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • wigsplitz
        12 years ago

        Well, and I can't resist your polls. I do enjoy them, and I enjoy you in this form.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
      • wigsplitz
        12 years ago

        I didn't really consider this pondering existence, since I definitely believe this is all real. I already had an opinion, don't know exactly when I formulated all this but it's been a while.

        I thought I understood your point about the dog. You're saying that because a dog can or can't discern things in the same way a human can or can't that it somehow changes the realness of 'it'. Right? Wouldn't that just prove the tree thoery, too? A dog whistle. I can't hear it but that fucker can. My unawareness of it doesn't make it not real.

        The reason why I think that the senses prove that it's real is just based on evolution of various life forms. It just seems to make sense that there is a dfinite reality because every living thing developed the senses to varying degrees, all for survival purposes. I see what you are saying, and yes, it does seem kind of circular...I agree, let me sleep on it and try to come up with a better worded...eh...retort? Tired...must sleep...

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • flutterhigh
          12 years ago

          It does support your tree theory, that's the point. Those first two examples reinforce the idea that reality is definite, and the second two examples argue that it is subjective.

          But my main issue with your argument is that you're proposing that reality is definite based solely based on the fact that its observable phenomena. You're saying reality is a noumenon (exists separate from senses) based on a phenomenon (objects of the senses). I agree that there is a "definite" reality, but I'm saying there is absolutely no way to know that.

          If our sense channels are our only means of dialogue with reality, then why do we think (and how could we ever know) that there is something beyond that?

          In my opinion, we think like this precisely because of the dog. The dog has so little awareness of reality that it's only fair to assume that ours is limited too. But that's exactly the problem - if we aren't getting a full picture of reality, then what is it and how do we see it?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • wigsplitz
            12 years ago

            Ahhh, this is tough!

            You're right, there IS no way to know. I lean towards no.

            But if there is more out there that we have no way of sensing or detecting it would be just as real as anyhting else, wouldn't it? As your second arguement relates, no, I don't believe something needs to be recognized or detected to be real (a blind person can still get a sunburn). So whether we can't detect it or haven't detected it, I believe it exists, as just another part of reality.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • flutterhigh
              12 years ago

              Think of it this way - we're in a room, and it is pitch black. Then, the lights gradually begin to spread until it is incredibly well-lit, and you see that the walls are white. Forget about the colors that you now see - based on the level of light that is reflecting off the walls and into your eyes, what color were they in the dark? Objectively speaking, they were black. Not white. And they only become white in the brightest light. And they are gray when it is dim - we only see white walls in a dim room because our brains are adjusting to what we think we know. It's a delusion; your brain is lying to you. But it's an exceptionally useful delusion.

              That's what I think of our assumption of concrete reality. It's a useful delusion. If we didn't function under this assumption, we wouldn't be able to interact with the world out of paranoia and uncertainty. But that doesn't mean that it's axiomatic.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • maddog546
    12 years ago

    You would'nt be HISPANIC by any chance,would you?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • BurnaBaby27
    12 years ago

    Oh my goodness. Come on. I'd love to read this along with everyone's comments, but it's all soooooooooooo looooooooongggggg :{ !

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • flutterhigh
      12 years ago

      If this is too much text for you, then I'm not sure it's something you'd "love to read".

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
  • flutterhigh
    12 years ago

    And you're not fazed by "cottage cheese"? The poll results mean very little to me compared to the discussion.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • bananaface
    12 years ago

    I think that reality is definite. Things are happening that I don't know about right now, so in my perception of reality they don't exist, but they're still happening.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • flutterhigh
      12 years ago

      But "exist", "happening", and "real" are pretty much the same words, and there's no concrete substance in any of them. You're saying "reality exists because it exists, even if I don't know it exists." I'm trying to ask how we can so easily assume any of that. How do you know these things are happening? How do you know Somalia exists?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • bananaface
        12 years ago

        People in Somalia could think the same thing about us.

        But I have no idea where Somalia is or any knowledge, so in my perception of reality it doesn't exist; if I visit it in 5 years and see that it exists then it becomes a part of my version of reality. But it was obviously there before I visited it.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • flutterhigh
          12 years ago

          But you're doing it again - "see that it exists", "obviously there". What part of it is obvious? Does seeing something prove it exists? If I see a ghost, does it exist?

          I'm trying to argue that sensory phenomena does not necessarily equal reality; you are assuming that it does and using that as proof. "Reality is definite because I can see it" isn't a rational argument to me.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • bananaface
            12 years ago

            I see what you mean, and know I'm confused about what to believeD:!! Especially with the ghost thing. Have you decided what you believe yet? I won't be able to help with this one:L

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • [Old Memory]
    12 years ago

    hold the ice

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • BurnaBaby27
    12 years ago

    the* not ther.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • BurnaBaby27
    12 years ago

    Actually, like I said. It is something I would love to read but the fact of ther matter is, I'm on my blackberry and can not increase the font which is causing me to strain my eyes which I can tolerate for only a short amount of time..thank you :l.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • flutterhigh
      12 years ago

      Roll a water droplet into a blade of grass, it works like a microscope.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Shackleford96
    12 years ago

    No, CHEDDAR cheese!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • flutterhigh
      12 years ago

      Good point.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Shackleford96
        12 years ago

        :)

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0