Perception is Reality
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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)
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?
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
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.
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.
I'll be more specific.
How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?
I'm not stealing anymore thunder from this topic. If you want to continue then do what I said before, otherwise, I'm not continuing.
"You asked how I know if someone's senses are more right."
So your senses are not more right than a blind person?
"You know what accurate means. Stop being difficult."
Did I ask for the definition or what is it accurate for?
"The act of attempting to prove it is redundant and shows the absurdity in trying to prove it."
False since without knowing our senses to be true we don't have a foundation to have it based on objectivity.
"The contrary is impossible."
I am only asking you to use the same standards as you would for anything else. How do you know your senses are reliable?
"What is truth huh?"
You said the truth stays the same what is the truth?
"your second question is incoherent and irrelevant to the topic."
So even if a person is blind the truth still remains the same?
"You see an apples so you know apples exist"
How do you know that apple is an apple?
If you want to continue this discussion, you need to
A) move it to private messages.
B) post the original points I made in the messages and rebut those as well.
Or we can debate it formally, your choice.
I was responding to your incoherent question. You asked how I know if someone's senses are more right. which is nonsense. My response was basically to say that what you said doesn't make sense. How about before you ask me this question again, you actually try thinking critically about what you're really trying to ask me because I'm not sure you actually know.
You know what accurate means. Stop being difficult.
You're confusing self evidence with a bold assertion. This is why I said you need to study what self evidence is. Something isn't self evident because I proclaim it's true. it's self evident because A) The act of attempting to prove it is redundant and shows the absurdity in trying to prove it. and B) The contrary is impossible. My senses meet both of these standards. To prove one's senses is redundant because you use your senses to prove them and to not have senses or for them to be wrong is impossible.
What is truth huh? Man your solipsism has you all messed up. This is actually a good example of self evidence.
Truth is that which is. You see the absurdity? Truth cannot be untrue. You see the impossibility to the contrary? Self evident.
your second question is incoherent and irrelevant to the topic.
That depends on the truth. For identity truths, you know they're true when they're revealed i.e. You see an apples so you know apples exist. For a tautology, it's true if all of the definitions match that which it describes. For states of affairs, we measure consistency, etc. etc.
"What do you mean what's my point? You're the one who brought it up not me. What's YOUR point?"
What are you trying to say here "Nobody's senses are more right than another persons."
"Correct at being accurate."
Accurate in doing what?
"I will not stop using this as it is a tenant of philosophy. Are you going to tell me to stop using philosophy?"
Self-evident is not evidence. It is a fancy way of saying we accept this premise to be true because we can't prove it.
"Nope, the truth stays the same, the only thing that wavers is your sensory organs as they slowly rot."
What is the truth?
When is the person at peak perceiving the truth?
How do you know it is the truth?
What do you mean what's my point? You're the one who brought it up not me. What's YOUR point?
Correct at being accurate.
I will not stop using this as it is a tenant of philosophy. Are you going to tell me to stop using philosophy?
Nope, the truth stays the same, the only thing that wavers is your sensory organs as they slowly rot.
"Nobody's senses are more right than another persons."
So what is your point then?
"My standard is if it is accurate and it is so yes it is correct."
Correct in doing what?
Stop using this. It is not evidence instead it is basically saying it is true without evidence.
"because reality reveals the truth of itself from day one."
So does this truth waver as you get older?
Either way, I want to simmer this down because there is a real debate going on and we're covering way too many points that are analogous to this debate.
If this is too fast paced for you to handle, we could always debate it formally :)
Nobody's senses are more right than another persons. You're being incoherent when you say this.
Once again, correct in respect to what? Correct doesn't mean anything by it self. You might as well being asking me if I deem it to be blah blah blah.
My standard is if it is accurate and it is so yes it is correct.
It's not an "ought" statement it's an "is" statement.
Yes I can know. The cracker is the toast in this case. The toast shoots light at me and I see a cracker, the cracker is not a thing that exist, but rather a caricature of reality. That's what makes it accurate.
No I don't have to assume it. That's where you need to understand self evidence. I'm not assuming anything. I am forced to experience my senses and the consistencies become apparent to me intuitively. That's why children who have never studied philosophy can do logic without prompting, because reality reveals the truth of itself from day one.
I think you've spend quite enough time throwing fake dirt on my first argument and you obviously have only questions and no actual counter arguments, so if you're done with your secular apologist routine, how about you address the other points I posted instead of trying to chop one down with fake skepticism.
"We don't perceive the world without senses."
Okay then so how do you know your senses are more right than someone else's?
"The only standard I care about is if it gives me accurate information, if it does, then it's reliable."
So you are saying since it is reliable you would deem it correct?
In what way are you saying it is correct?
Is it we ought to see this way or this is reliable there it must be correct?
"That one went entirely over your head. The whole point is that the cracker is a representation of the toast. That's what makes it objective. They're the same thing."
But you can never truly know if that cracker is a toast or might be a cracker. You would have to assume the environment you are in can ascertain something which can give you truth. Am I wrong?
We don't perceive the world without senses. In the case of a blind person, they see multicolored static over a background of black because their brain is like a tv without an antenna. That makes senses necessary for perception. So to perceive without senses is impossible.
Correct in respect to what? There is no intrinsic correctness so I need a standard by which to judge it correct. The only standard I care about is if it gives me accurate information, if it does, then it's reliable.
That one went entirely over your head. The whole point is that the cracker is a representation of the toast. That's what makes it objective. They're the same thing.
"The alternative isn't no senses. The alternative would be "sense are not reliable" and we can imagine what that would be like."
How else do we perceive the world without senses?
"Lets say the sense are never reliable, that is to say that they are always wrong."
Reliability doesn't mean they are correct.
"to me, the experience will be identical to eating a cracker and no matter what is really happening, the act is not hurting me, and it's keeping me alive."
So even you can't prove to me with a hypothetical that objectivity can be true in whatever form it maybe.
A is eating toast but A objectively is eating crackers.
How would A know A would be eating crackers if everyone on Earth also perceived crackers to be toast?
The alternative isn't no senses. The alternative would be "sense are not reliable" and we can imagine what that would be like.
Lets say the sense are never reliable, that is to say that they are always wrong. This would be the only alternative that fits our model of reality. That would mean they're wrong in a way that is consistent and I will prove this to you with an example.
Let's say I think I'm eating a cracker. But it's actually toast.
Since reality is consistently wrong, that means every time I actually eat toast, I will think I'm eating a cracker.
to me, the experience will be identical to eating a cracker and no matter what is really happening, the act is not hurting me, and it's keeping me alive.
Therefore, my reality is still real because even though I don't see things exactly how they are, my abstraction of reality is congruent to reality and allows me to navigate it.
This might seem arbitrary, but this is actually what happens. 99% of our bodies is space between the atoms, but we see reality without those spaces for practical reasons. So what we see is just a congruent abstraction and there is no way that it can be fake.
This is why solipsism doesn't work.
"If I can demonstrate something consistently and repeatedly to the point where I can make predictions,"
Guess you don't like my blind example.
But we can't test alternatives since we only really have senses and we can't remove them in order to verify if the alternative is true. Blind is lack of senses not no senses.
You telling me it's not proof does not make it the case. If I can demonstrate something consistently and repeatedly to the point where I can make predictions, then it's proven. It's not my fault that you don't know what proof is. The big bang is not analogous in this case. The big bang is not a complete theory so it's only the "best" explanation. Mine is this only explanation because my demonstration of consistency is a defeater to the contrary.
What do you mean more correct? You're still being incoherent. Nobody's senses are "more correct" than one another. The person who is not blind simply has "more complete" senses because he's not missing his eyesight. I keep telling you that this is not a good counter but it seems that you're married to this idea.
I am going on by one until we can get some sort of agreement then I will speak about the other 5. Guess you missed me saying it.
"1. That is the proof, if you studied philosophy, you would know that things can be verified by self evidence. The practical demonstration proves their accuracy. If my senses were false, then they wouldn't produce consistent results."
That is not proof. The Big Bang is still a theory which best explains the start of the universe.
The blind person has consistent and repeatable results what makes yours more correct than a blind person's perception.
1. That is the proof, if you studied philosophy, you would know that things can be verified by self evidence. The practical demonstration proves their accuracy. If my senses were false, then they wouldn't produce consistent results.
2. I know you weren't speaking about fantasy, I was. A blind person is blind because the organ that gives them sight is damaged. All of their senses that are still working work consistently and the sense that is broken is consistently broken. It's kind of embarrassing that you think this is a good counterargument. Especially since you bragged about how easy it would be to rebut me. As you would say "OMEGALULZ"
3. The scientific process has accounted for nearly all aspects of sense and given good explanations for them. Furthermore, the scientific consensus is the single most reliable source of information concerning biology and physics. So if you reject science, then cool. But you don't get to throw shade on me for using the best tools available. I'll keep using my iPhone and you can go play with your flip phone.
4. I don't know where you get the idea of the blind man being "wrong" you're using incoherent language.
5. That's because you brought up the blind man example as a red herring and you keep parading that stinky fish around because you don't have any real way to disprove me. This is why solipsism is not taken seriously by actual philosophers.
6. Logic doesn't have to be grounded. That's just something that Christian Presupps say to distract people from their bad positions. Logic is a tautology and is true by definition. tisk tisk.
Hmm. you claim an easy win and then double talk cause it wasn't easy. Yeah. I made it hard. You're darn tootin' I did. I made it hard by using truth to combat your unwarranted skepticism. There is a point when justified denial turns into a personal incredulity fallacy and you're treading that line right now.
"1. My senses produce consistent and repeatable results which pragmatically achieve my goals the way I intend them to be achieved. "
I am sorry why are you not proving to me why your initials senses are correct?
"2. When my senses are wrong, they are consistently wrong such that I can tell when they're wrong, therefore, I am able to distinguish between reality and fantasy."
I wasn't speaking about fantasy instead what argument can you make that a blind person has the wrong perception of reality compared to yours?
"3. Notice how it's called an Argumentum Ad Populum and not an Ad Populum Fallacy. Why do you think that is? It's because it's not always a fallacy. My third proof is scientific consensus which is a justified application of the ad populum argument. "
Science have not proved our senses to be true if they have they are liars. No point in using this argument.
"4. I cannot change reality through sheer willpower, therefore it's not part of me."
A blind person can't change their perception using sheer willpower are they wrong?
"5. I cannot deny my reality, even if I close my eyes and scream to ignore it, when I eventually get sick of doing so, I will be forced to again experience my consistent reliable reality."
Still does not state the difference between a blind person's eyesight and a person who isn't blind.
"6. The contrary to this argument is vacuous and does not conform with logic. Therefore, it cannot be the case."
Logic? You would have to assume your senses to be true in order a good enough ground for logic. No one can prove their senses to be true.
"Easy win you say?"
Easy you just made it more complicated.
Any chance of sticking point by point instead of expecting me to debunk 6 arguments? I would go through with all of them but I much rather it be 1 by 1.
1. My senses produce consistent and repeatable results which pragmatically achieve my goals the way I intend them to be achieved.
2. When my senses are wrong, they are consistently wrong such that I can tell when they're wrong, therefore, I am able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
3. Notice how it's called an Argumentum Ad Populum and not an Ad Populum Fallacy. Why do you think that is? It's because it's not always a fallacy. My third proof is scientific consensus which is a justified application of the ad populum argument.
4. I cannot change reality through sheer willpower, therefore it's not part of me.
5. I cannot deny my reality, even if I close my eyes and scream to ignore it, when I eventually get sick of doing so, I will be forced to again experience my consistent reliable reality.
6. The contrary to this argument is vacuous and does not conform with logic. Therefore, it cannot be the case.
Easy win you say?
"I don't agree that we can't verify our reality, but this wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on this."
Easy win for me.
Prove our reality without using an Argumentum Ad Populum.
I don't agree that we can't verify our reality, but this wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on this.
You are wrong.
For perception to be reality you would require to proof your perception is a reliable source of gaining knowledge of reality. No one can do that. We can't go outside our senses to verify our senses to be true so you have lost.
This is common myth I see when talking about solipsism and the like. I always see people so quick to say that our senses can be wrong. What I never see people ask is: Why are they wrong? How are they wrong? What can we tell from them being wrong?
The "disagreements" that you're talking about are not over the objective observations, but rather people's subjective opinions about the objects. I'll give an example so this isn't just a claim:
Say two people are arguing about a rock. Both people agree about the color of the rock, and the weight of the rock, they both agree the rock sinks in the water, but they disagree on if the rock is prettier than the other rock next to it, they disagree whether or not the rock taste better than soup, they disagree on what the rock sounds like when they drop it. They disagree on what the shape of the rock reminds them of. etc. etc.
So what we're clearly seeing here is a difference of opinion, not a difference of reality.
I won't go into those questions I mentioned because I don't want to accidentally become Con, lol.