Instigator / Pro
25
1461
rating
11
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#660
Perception is Reality
Status
Finished
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
That1User
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Philosophy
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 30,000
Contender / Con
24
1455
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Description
~ 499
/
5,000
What one perceives to be real is reality, as opposed to reality existing as one holistic objective entity
Reality is formed by the individual, every person lives in their own reality at the same time
This is counter to the belief that everyone lives in the same reality at the same
BoP is shared, Pro argues perception is reality, Con argues reality is objective
Reality: the quality or state of being real, the totality of real things and events (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality)
Round 1
Reality constituents what is real
What is real is determined by an individual person first and for most
A person determines what is real by sensing, experiencing, and exchanging information
This first step in knowledge collection, sensing and experiencing, is perception, the individual perceives something as real
Even in the exchange of information the mind determines what's true, the mind perceives what is real
Since reality is what is real, and what is real is determined by perception, what one perceives to be real is reality
There are multiple people with multiple perceptions so there are disagreements on what is real and thus what constitutes reality. That leaves two possibilities, either everyone is wrong about the reality that they live in objectively (since they're so many differing views, no one agrees with someone else 100%, there's even disagreement at the individual level), or everyone lives in different realities simultaneously, with individual perceptions forming what is real, what is reality.
First I would like to define reality and perception, so we don't run into issues later on.
Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Perception: the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.
The argument that perception of reality=actual reality is logically incorrect. For perception of reality to equal actual reality, there would have to be many realities, as every person has a different perception. But from the definition of reality, we must conclude that there can only be one reality, as there can only be one state in which things exist. It's not possible for you to be bald and have 3-meter-long hair at the same time. That would defy logic, as something cannot be two absolutely different things at the same time. That's the first issue with the idea that there are many realities.
A second issue is with evidence for your claim. For a hypothesis be proven right/wrong, there must be three things:
Your claim, which is what you're trying to prove.
Your expectation, which is evidence that either supports or disproves your claim.
Your conclusion, in which you conclude if your claim was right or wrong.
By using this, you can determine if proving your claim is possible. If your claim is that rats can fly, your expectation would be to find a flying rat. But when you don't find any flying rats, you conclude that they can't fly. Without an expectation there can't be a conclusion.
You see the issue with your claim? You cannot pass from the expectation to the conclusion, because there is nothing to expect. There is no expectation, and therefore there cannot be any evidence for that perception=reality. To find the truth, you make a hypothesis and then see if events support it. How would anything support your hypothesis?
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
You messaged the second I got on, sweet!
Yeah, that would be great. Let's restart.
Holy fuck I forgot about this completely until last night but then I passed out and woke up 2 hours after the forfeit. We can restart this and repost our R1 arguments if you'd like
Are you going to publish your argument?
Perception is entirely self-consistent. Whether or not it is reality cannot be proven so long as perception is self-consistent. Therefore, even if our perception of reality is wrong, we can only live as if it correct.
I just got back and found an argument on the nature of reality, which is supposedly objective
Yeah add a receiver and I should see the message with the blue bell.
I replied, not sure if you got pinged or not. I've never used the forums here.
that works too
Can't tag you so just wait for me to upload it in the philosophy forum section.
that works tag me in it
Forum page?
Excellent question. Now put it somewhere else and I'll answer it.
Missed out the be and should have added the word subjective instead of objective.
Here is the actual question.
How can you be objective when you are using something subjective like senses?
You mean this old thing right here?
"How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?"
I have no problem answering, PM me or challenge me to a debate and you'll get your answer. I already told you long before you asked this question that I wanted to move the discussion and you want to ignore what I said and that's why you're not getting an answer right now.
btw, "how can you objective" is not a sentence. You used objective as a verb here and it's an adjective. Please restructure this question after you present it to me somewhere else when you're done with your temper tantrum.
"Since you have refused to move the conversation out of respect for the debaters. I will take that as a defeat for you."
I have a question and you didn't answer it.
Is it an unfair question did I not answer your question?
I gave you a question and you didn't want to answer it. What was I supposed to say?
How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?
So you only care about point scoring huh? Fine. I can do that too.
Since you have refused to move the conversation out of respect for the debaters. I will take that as a defeat for you.
Lol
you see how silly that is?
I know you're young, but grow up kid.
I wasn't talking about that question. I was talking about this one
"So you can't answer it?"
You were trying to use reverse psychology to provoke me into continuing after I said I wanted to move the discussion. I know that playing dumb is kind of your main trick, but I'm not going to insult either of our intelligences by believing that you're actually this incredulous, I've had enough conversations with you to know that's not the case.
"You're quite the character Omar. You keep things interesting on here."
I am taking this as a defeat from Wrick-It-Ralph. I have made it easier for you. Simply answer one question.
How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?
Call it what you want.
It is not a loaded question or whatever it maybe instead I tried to make the best question that I had a problem with answering.
I doubt a 10 year old would know what objective means.
You're quite the character Omar. You keep things interesting on here.
lol. I'm not a 10 year old. You really think that trick is going to work?
So you can't answer it?
Move the conversation or end it.