Reality (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 11, 2019, 15:09 (120 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: We can never be 100% certain that our perception agrees with objective reality or any other perceived reality.

dhw: I don’t know why “objective reality” cannot include all the realities that we perceive.

What we perceive may not be all of the reality that really exists. we have to accept what our brain gives us.


TONY: This would mean that objective reality and perceived reality are separate AND unequally valid realities. Objective reality differs in the fact that it can operate absent OUR mind…[dhw: fine with me up to this point]… which means that the mind behind it is on a different, higher in terms of complexity, level of existence. It is different in degree and magnitude but NOT by type.

dhw: You say later that “this is not a call for God”, but what else could it be if you say there is a mind behind it? We simply do not know if there is a mind behind it. Objective reality might simply be the materials that make up the universe and operate just as we see them operating. However, if there is a mind, I have no objections at all to it being different in degree and magnitude but NOT by type. It makes perfect sense to me that a God would have attributes in common with the humans he has been instrumental in creating – though this is anathema to David.

Not 'anathema' to me. What is anathema is trying to attribute human mental traits to God. Some or all may exist, but all we can do is guess.


TONY: It is also interesting that the relationship structure is bi-directional. Each structure spreads influence up and down the chain. This, of course, suggest communication up and down the chain. (dhw’s bold. See below.)

In molecular biology, we see this in chemical and electrical signaling between cells. In the physical world, we see this in terms of energy and motion, but, and here is the point, we never look at it in terms of communication. What is being communicated, and is it being communicated in a language we can comprehend? If we could comprehend it, could we communicate with it?

dhw: This is where I become partially sceptical. Of course I agree that molecular biology requires communication, but I’m far from convinced that the physical world of energy and motion “communicates”.

I agree about the physical world not communicating, but in the biological world information is communicated.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum