Are reason and observation the essential test of reality?

[rug]

[Cant trust em]

1. I would say that reason and observation could be the essential test of human knowledge

But probably not reality.

[rug]

3. Sounds about right.

But it opens up the possibility that there is reality beyond human knowledge, reason or explanation.

[Orrex]

6. Then we might as well act as though such an unknowable reality doesn't exist

Because we'd have no way to access it, or to know that we'd accessed it, or whether we're right or wrong in our assessments of it.

Even if that uber-reality somehow made itself known to someone, that person would have no way to conclude that the revelation was correct, rather than a delusion. And certainly no one else would be able to take that person's account of the revelation as anything other than wild hearsay.

[rug]

10. No, to say the unknowable does not exist is as intellectually dishonest as to say it does exist.

[darkstar3]

12. It's not to say the unknowable does not exist,

but more like 'why should we care?'

[Cant trust em]

22. Because humans are curious.

And have always sought to learn as much about their environments as possible.

This whole chain following the OP posits that human knowledge is finite.

[Orrex]

13. darkstar3 already answered this quite well, but...

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist; I'm saying that we might as well act as though it doesn't, because if there's no way for us to interact with it, then there's no way for us to assess whether it exists at all, much less that our interaction with it has any consequence one way or the other. This claim makes no absolute declaration about the existence of the "reality," but rather about our ability to interact with it.

To claim that it does exist, in spite of an utter lack of evidence for its existence, is wishful thinking at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst. And to impose a set of expectations or beliefs upon it is the most vulgar form of projection.

[rug]

15. No, she provided an anthropocentric opinion, not an answer.

The "utter lack of evidence" is the heart of the problem since the evidence itself is measured by the reason and observation of newly-minted bipeds.

To understand the limits of human knowledge and to contemplate the possibilty of an existence that cannot be known or measured itself defines how humans experience reality.

[Orrex]

16. Your question from reply #3 is inherently anthropocentric

But it opens up the possibility that there is reality beyond human knowledge, reason or explanation.

"Evidence" would have to take the form of at least one of these, so if reality is beyond them, then there's no way for us to interact with it or to make any claims about the evidence. If you dispute this, please tell me what other form the evidence might take.

The answer is anthropocentric because so is the question. Your OP's question is less so, but the possibility suggested in reply #3 is most definitely anthropocentric.

To understand the limits of human knowledge and to contemplate the possibilty of an existence that cannot be known or measured itself defines how humans experience reality.

No. That defines one style of vocabulary that a person might use to discuss her experiences and perceptions, but there is no way for us to assess whether her vocabulary offers a credible description of reality or whether such reality even exists.

[rug]

18. The "evidence" is that both knowledge and the capacity to know are limited. That can be proven.

You can either accept that all that humans can know is all that exists or you can accept that there is a reality that is beyond human reach.

The implication of what that means is what will effect humans.

It could lead to stoicism, agnosticism, theism, or atheism. But the reality of the limit of human ability will effect how humans live.

[Orrex]

19. What I'm saying is that we can make no claims about whatever reality might be out there

If we have no means of conceiving of it nor interacting with it, we have no business making definitive statements about its nature or its purpose; to do either of these is to commit an act of profound intellectual dishonesty. The only honest statement that can be made about a reality that we can not know is "we can not know it."

Beyond all of that, it's clear that your framing of "reality" in this context is a proxy for a god-figure of some sort, even if that's not your intent. I don't go in for pantheism, however, so I don't have any interest in equating "god" with the universe or "reality," nor with the implications of an unknowable reality versus an ineffable god.

However, I'm inclined to point out that any statement at all about a supposedly infinite entity is inherently self-biased, because any non-infinite sampling of that entity (say, a collection of ancient folklore) can give no accurate hint of that entity's true nature.

[darkstar3]

17. There is a difference between lack of belief,

and lack of curiosity.

To put it another way, postulation of the unprovable is a fun exercise in curiosity and exploration, but actual belief in the unprovable goes too far.

Additional: What point does the unprovable serve? For example, you have no proof that I am either male or female, yet you assume that I am female. To what end? Is it simply a grammatical simplification, or is there some particular reason that your mind must assign a sex to me?

[Orrex]

20. Oh come on

Your avatar is obviously female.

QED.

[darkstar3]

23. Tux? Female?

Well, it is remarkably difficult to determine the sex of birds...

[laconicsax]

24. I think you can see both Z and W chromosomes if you look carefully.

The Z comes from connecting the eyes and feet in the following order: Left eye, right eye, left foot, right foot. What do you see when you get to the right foot? Tell me that isn't vaguely 'w' shaped.

[MineralMan]

2. Probably, but humans are notoriously poor at both, so

it's pretty much impossible to tell.

[trotsky]

4. They aren't perfect, but they are easily the best tools we have.

What, are we supposed to rely on religious revelation? Don't make me laugh.

[darkstar3]

5. +1 n/t

[Orrex]

8. I don't know if they're the best tools

I mean, I have one of these, and it's pretty awesome:

[trotsky]

9. OK, you got me!

Reason and observation are the 2nd and 3rd best tools we have. :)

[rug]

11. I don't believe you.

[Orrex]

14. It's true! I'll show you the receipt!

Now, it was here just a minute ago...

[darkstar3]

7. Observation,

whether through scientific instruments or the unaugmented human senses, is the only way in which we can define reality.

Everything else is supposition.

[Lost-in-FL]

21. Depends on who's reality. nt

[Odin2005]

25. Yes.

And if that makes me guilty of "Scientism" well boo-fucking-hoo.

[Orrex]

26. There you go rampaging again!

[Odin2005]

27. LOL!

:evilgrin:

[Jim__]

28. The essential test of your reality is your experience.

Your subjective reality is the only reality that you know.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by observations, so I'll take an observation to be anything perceived by the senses.

Certainly, your reason and your observations are part of your experience, so they are part your reality. But, a strong part of your reality is your emotions - internal feelings that do not necessarily originate from any sensory perception. Also, your memory, your hopes, even your dreams are all part of your reality.

Shared knowledge, knowledge that we obtain from others through art, conversation, reading, school, etc., is also a part of our reality, but a lesser part. We all "know" about the Theory of Relativity. But for most of us it is a just a set of words; we have not observed its effects and can't reach it through our reason. Most of our knowledge is based on shared knowledge. But shared knowledge is not based on personal experience. We've only experienced these things linguistically. I don't believe such things are a big part of our reality.

You can expand your reality by focusing on certain aspects of it. You can observe the world more carefully. You can be more attuned to your feelings and how they change. You can reflect on memories and try to learn from them. You can then use reason to project based on these observations and reflections. If you share what you learn, you are likely to get feedback that may help you to dig deeper, and to recognize that there are people with a reality similar to your own. But, no matter what you do, your reality is limited to your subjective experience.

[rrneck]

29. Best post I've seen here in quite a while. nt

[Silent3]

30. The word "reality" is useless if you treat it like that.

You're perfectly correct that our experiences are all we can really know for certain. I contend, however, that calling this collection of experiences "reality" or "your reality" misses the point of having the word "reality" in the first place.

The concept of reality is an assumption, but a very useful assumption, and an implicit assumption in the act of communication. If you're going to get beyond the philosophical dead end of solipsism you have to assume there is a valid concept of "other", of objects and people outside of yourself, independent from your direct experience. If talking to the other people isn't going to be treated as a game you play merely to amuse yourself, you must assume there is some common set of facts and circumstances that are or can be shared to form the basis for communication.

I propose that the word "reality" is best suited as the label for this assumed common ground between people, for an environment which is a touchstone for common experience.

[darkstar3]

31. Thank you,

I was trying to post something very similar this morning, but I didn't have time to sit down and bang it out. Spot on. :thumbsup:

[Jim__]

32. Solipsism? Did you miss the part I wrote about shared knowledge?

Shared knowledge, knowledge that we obtain from others through art, conversation, reading, school, etc., is also a part of our reality, but a lesser part.

Solipsism denies the existence of other minds. The statement about obtaining knowledge from others completely refutes any charge that my post is solipsistic, and it refutes all the other claims you make about the implications of my post for communication. I acknowledge communication as real and useful.

And, the thread wasn't about reality but rather about the essential test of reality. I consider actual experience to be more pertinent to any test of reality than the content of any communication. Communication itself constitutes experience and is direct experience that there are others besides yourself. But, I do not consider the content of communications to be an essential test of reality. While many of our concepts of the world come from communication, most of these concepts, when not a part of our direct experience, are not an essential part of our reality.

[Silent3]

33. You can't test that which you aren't clearly defining.

I didn't accuse you of solipsism, I merely mentioned solipsism to show how the concept of reality can be defined as part of the escape from solipsism.

You can define "reality" however you like, but I still contend that your experience-centered idea is not very clear or useful. I'd say call what you're so focused on "personal experience" and keep the word "reality" for use as something better and different than a mere synonym for personal experience.