The opposition states that physics can make statements about actuality, but Wilson qualifies to limit "actuality" to 'that which humans or their instruments are able to detect, decode, and transmit. Regardless of the stance, it is agreed that "deep reality" is intangible and lies in the realm of speculation and philosophy, something that we cannot directly experience but only "make noises about" i.e. we cannot make meaningful(testable) statements. That which lies outside the realm of extensional experience also lies outside the realm of human competence.
They make arguments that no one can demonstrate that something has a temperature or does not, something looks red or smells purple, there is a God, there is no God. Again, we can only "make noises" and the limit of language is reached when there is an impossibility to present phenomenological or non-verbal data.
Thoughts?
(Steve Szumski)
8 comments:
Steve, I think your book by Robert Wilson goes hand in hand with S.I. Hayakawa's LITAA.
As we have discussed in class and on this blog, there is nothing that is absolute. My truth is different from yours, everthing is perception; it's as simple as that. I might think that Joe is a great day; this is my truth. Your truth, however, tells you that Joe is a vicious kitten-torturing maniac. All is dependent upon the experiences that I have had with Joe. This, in turn crafts my territorial mind map, organizing my extensional and intentional worlds, which will never be identical to yours. Yes, similarites are possible, but anything beyond remains highly unlikely. I believe this is the basis of our semantics knowledge.
Is there even a "deep reality?" I mean..even in the depths of crazy dimensions, wouldn't we percieve things differently? Like you said, philosophy is intangible.
"Making noises" is really all we've got. And once more, I shall pose this question:
Are actions really louder than words?
(Sam Maliha)
" Wilson qualifies to limit 'actuality' to 'that which humans or their instruments are able to detect, decode, and transmit."
I thought this quote was very interesting. Say i look at a thermometer and it says it is 55 degrees Fahrenheit outside. It doesn't have to be true that the temperature outside is 55 degrees. But isn't it a true statement to say that my thermometer reads 55 degrees? Maybe it isn't deep reality, but isn't it true that my thermometer did in fact have that reading?
Obviously scientists use readings such as this all the time, but it isn't really something extensional. Sure i can point to the number, but how do i know the number is correct? Is it impossible to know how much something weighs or what temperature it is?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
What is to say that anything, even in your extensional world, exists at all? Let's forget about the inabillity of language to describe absolutes, and just consider the following. I may touch the keyboard in front of me and FEEL it through nuerological impulses shooting from my finger tips to my brain. But why do I even believe that this keyboard exists? Why do I believe I exist? Is reality not just a false pretense in which nothing is truly real?
Which brings me to my next point...
What if you are God? I've thought about this question for awhile, and it seems totally plausible. You are the creator of your own world. You have invented the notion of extensional and intensional existence. Everything in the past, present and future, is the fabric of your own creation. Perhaps only the present (a stitch in time of your own infinite and omnipotent being) "exists".
Hopefully that made sense to somebody.
Amuse me with your thoughts.
(Taylor)
Well, I'm going to avoid religious debate at all costs, but you have a point, Taylor. We are the creators of our own world, our own realities, our own perceptions. I wouldn't go as far as calling myself God, however. That seems a little too far-fetched for my taste.
Ahhh, Arvind, your observation baffles me. Many times the thermometer in our refrigerator has malfunctioned. It may give a certain reading which is not truly representative of the atmosphere within the appliance. What is true? Maybe the reading is just an observation while the actual temperature within the refrigerator is the reality. Does that make any sense at all?
I believe that we are prone to think that the keyboard truly exists because it is a denotation; we can point to it, see it, feel it, smell it if we are so inclined.
I don't think I can stress enough that certain things are true to certain people, and vice versa, of course. If I didn't have a set of concrete truths/beliefs, (figuratively speaking because, as Steve said, philosophical elements are intangible) I would doubt my sanity. Aren't truths comforting to us, since they act as the closest thing we have to absolutism?
(Sam Maliha)
I'm intrigued by Taylor's proposition, I've never thought of it like that before, and I have devoted a lot of thought to the existence of God and "reality". Because the existence of God is something that cannot be proved or disproved, does that mean it can be disproved that you are your own God?
Reality cannot be proven either, as was your first point, but somewhere along the line, SOMETHING exists, whether it be a "deep reality", the extensional world, a giant spinning mass of particles interacting, or your own created universe in which you are "God". The thing that puzzles me about this theory though is the lack of perceived omnipotence. If you truly create your universe and the concept of existence, wouldn't you have a sense of awareness that surpasses that?
I propose we stop everything else and devote the rest of the year to metaphysical debate, its much more interesting than the APEIII exam...
Steve Szumski
But in essence you ARE omnipotent. The only thing that truly is exists is every theory of reality that you conceptualize. Let's say for instance, that in physics class, you just learned how the mechanics of gravity work. In the concept that I am proposing, the fundamentals of gravity only exist NOW THAT YOU'VE CREATED THEM. The teacher explaining these rules is also a creation of yours.
In fact, everything that you think governs the "universe", you have conceptualized and made real. And thus, the only existing universe is everything you perceive at a given time.
That being said, you (God) are willing things into being subconsciously. This would account for the fact that even if I try with all my might to make a bowl of spaghetti materialize in front of me, it will not happen. Your "creations" must agree with the set of logical laws that you've set in place during the founding of your universe.
This is probably going way to far down the rabbit hole, and I'm not exactly how it pertains to semantics, but I thought I'd toss it up there. Also, I don't believe this theory necessarily, it's just an idea.
(Taylor)
Hmm...Interesting... Well, the idea that we are all God rests on the notion that we can alter reality with our thoughts. And as you all have stated, reality is only what you think it is.
Going back to 1984 (again), I remember that O'Brien demonstrates to Winston the use of doublethink to manipulate "reality." After all, if we refuse to believe that gravity exists, then it doesn't (at least from our perspective). Here's a quote from 1984: "Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens."
Orwell hits the nail on the head yet again. In a sense, we all are omnipotent: We can do whatever we want to reality, because reality is only what we perceive. This discussion actually ties in with the philosophical idea of solipsism (Wikipedia it.) We can be materialists and believe in a true, solid world out there, or we can be idealists and posit that only what we think and perceive exists. From an idealist viewpoint, our ability to manipulate "reality" is similar to God's.
(Eric Wei)
Solipsism is a rather dynamic topic. It not only advocates the lack of relation between physical and mental states, but also the denial of the existence of other operating minds.
In the 1984 quote supplied by Eric, however, doesn't Winston come upon the conclusion that both he and O'Brien would have to imagine the floating scenario?
"If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens."
Thus, doesn't this differ slightly from the definition of solopsism? Descartes's "I think, therefore I am," has been turned by Winston and O'Brien into, "We think, therefore we are." Independence has somewhat been expelled from the mix. In fact, so many of the Party members were needed to remain faithful because without the majority of the population believing in the infallibility of the Party, the Big Brother's scheme would be sure to fall into the gutter.
Also, does Winston not impose a relationship between the mental and physical states? He must truly imagine, with his mind, that O'Brien is floating. Mental strength has given way to a perception in the physical world.
One of the last components of solopsism acknowledges that the events experienced by a single person are private to him/her. But wasn't the Party able to see through any facade, in turn sorting the faithful from the treasonable?
I could be totally wrong, but these were my thoughts upon relating the two subjects.
(Samantha Maliha)
Post a Comment