I assumed that Pete's initial post did not refer to "objective reality" in the philosophical sense, but in the sense that people who deny things that are empirically, or factually true and then state that the denial is just "their opinion" should be banned. Based on your response I'm guessing that's not what he meant at all. If that's what he meant it probably shouldn't be a bannable offense. I'm interested in your response though, Brian. I'm interested to continue talking about it since we have already started.brianutatx wrote:What are y'all, Hindu or something? Do you believe in the Brahmin. I in all seriousness don't believe there is an objective reality. Reality is built by consciousness, their is no reality with out conscious minds and perception of reality is 100% unique to each individual thus making it subjective.Phil wrote:I always assumed that was better known as "being an idiot."Pete > You wrote:Contemplating denial of objective reality being a bannable offense.
Thoughts?
Phil what do you base your idea of an objective reality upon? Let's see who the real idiot is here.
Your opinion is that reality exists because we percieve it? And not that because reality exists we percieve it? It's sort of one of those "chicken or the egg" questions. Actually, Schrödinger's cat is probably a better example. I assume that you would be of the mind that once we close to lid of the box we can not be sure if the cat is alive anymore or not? Tell me if that roughly sums up your thoughts. If not, it wouldn't be the first time I've poorly analyzed something in this thread.
My thought on this matter has largely been that because so many people's perception of the same things are so similar, or in many cases identical, it is likely that there is an objective reality that we all percieve that due to unique, biological differences between people we find minor discrepancies. The only problem that I see with my theory is how poorly language can be used to explain the intangible.
For example, something that I've always wondered about, and written about a bit for classes, is human's perceptions of colors. I am curious if what I see and know as "red" you may see and understand as the color "blue". The problem I see is that I have very little in the way to "define red" to you. I can't very well explain red to someone without comparative use of other colors, but if your color wheel is 120 degrees away from mine all comparisons to other colors would be worthless. The only other way I imagine to define a color would be to explain the emotions that it evokes in me. Although, maybe the reason you see my red as blue is because of a unique perception of the world, it would likely inspire those same emotions within you, but appear differently.
Essentially, I see it as unprovable either way. I must admit I lean toward an objective reality, but I find myself unable to be truly decisive either way. Please tell me if I understood your view point correctly, or if mine makes any sense. Or just come back to reaffirm that I am an idiot.
