Debate - perceived reality

[Lohman446]

You stated that perceptions make reality, my perceptions have limited you to my reality and nothing else. How will you wiggle? In my reality the same rules do not apply so you are stuck, trapped by my perceptions.

As for finding someone what about people who are mentally altered. Either born that way, injured, or even abused until their mind is destroyed to such an extent that they don't know what is reality anymore. They might believe that they can walk through walls. And people who have been hypnotized, delusional? I might not find one in my lifetime but to say that someone doesn't exist?

You don't actually have the perceptions you elude to - so its a hard one to argue. I point out without having those perceptions then you do not validate your argument - though you bring up a possibility.

Those who cannot truly perceive.. who cannot put two and two together to form "valid" perceptions. Perhaps they do have, just not fully conscioulsy. I mean if I say I can walk through this wall, no matter how hard I try to beleive it (and trust me, I catually have) I always have a lingering doubt. Maybe these people do to, only buried deeper?

BTW.. you've made further inroads into this argument quicker than most people. I have made it often, and with very bright people, and not had to defend it this abstractly this early before. I think you can make powerful inroads into it.. but in the end it is extremely hard to "clinch" as totally impossible as being true. In the end the defense is always abstract.. and hard to overcome

[Duzzy]

You don't actually have the perceptions you elude to - so its a hard one to argue. I point out without having those perceptions then you do not validate your argument - though you bring up a possibility.

Those who cannot truly perceive.. who cannot put two and two together to form "valid" perceptions. Perhaps they do have, just not fully conscioulsy. I mean if I say I can walk through this wall, no matter how hard I try to beleive it (and trust me, I catually have) I always have a lingering doubt. Maybe these people do to, only buried deeper?

BTW.. you've made further inroads into this argument quicker than most people. I have made it often, and with very bright people, and not had to defend it this abstractly this early before. I think you can make powerful inroads into it.. but in the end it is extremely hard to "clinch" as totally impossible as being true. In the end the defense is always abstract.. and hard to overcome

In Logic you only need one example of something being false for it to be invalid.

Now I may not personally have the perceptions I was arguing on a hypothetical level, and my point is that if I perceive limitations onto you, then what can you do? You cannot unperceive them because I won't let you, you are basically limited to my reality in which everything you have alluded to is false.

This is one instance where your argument does not work, there would exist no perceived reality but mine, and I would perceive that reality not as perceived but as concrete. So it would be a concrete and unchanging reality.

[nippinout]

This is what I have always wondered about: Do I see the color blue, the same way you see the color blue? Maybe your blue is what I would see as orange. MINDS EYE!!! MINDS EYE???

[Duzzy]

If you say something is blue, and I say it is orange, but we are both talking about the same thing does it really matter? Meaning is what is important, not the vibrations in the air or the scribbles on the page.

[Lohman446]

If your perceptions of that situation truly existed without question - I don't think they do, so well you have a hypothetical situatin that would disprove it you have no more proof than I have of walking through a wall and proving it (understanding taht would not be perfect proof, but you know what I mean)

Let me take this into an idea. You are looking at emptying your bank account on whatever. You decide to do it.

Later that day you girlfriend informs you she was pregnant.

You did not perceive that when you made the purchase - was she pregnant at the time or not. In your reality no. not then. But in your newest and current reality she is... and in this reality she was then. I could argue that they are two seperate realities.

[Lohman446]

This is what I have always wondered about: Do I see the color blue, the same way you see the color blue? Maybe your blue is what I would see as orange. MINDS EYE!!! MINDS EYE???

Interesting idea... what I would call orange if I saw what your mind saw you would call blue - we perceive them different even though we have both been taught to call what we call blue blue... maybe what we see is actually different

[Duzzy]

If your perceptions of that situation truly existed without question - I don't think they do, so well you have a hypothetical situatin that would disprove it you have no more proof than I have of walking through a wall and proving it (understanding taht would not be perfect proof, but you know what I mean)

Let me take this into an idea. You are looking at emptying your bank account on whatever. You decide to do it.

Later that day you girlfriend informs you she was pregnant.

You did not perceive that when you made the purchase - was she pregnant at the time or not. In your reality no. not then. But in your newest and current reality she is... and in this reality she was then. I could argue that they are two seperate realities.

I hate to say it but hypothetical situations are the only thing you can use when dealing with some philosophical situations.

Example:

I want to prove Responsibility for Accidents that harm someone... You say no, I say yes...

A doctor carelessly injects the wrong needles and kills your mom with an OD. He didn't do it on purpose, but he is still responsible for her death.

It is a hypothetical but it is still a valid example, and it still proves that he is responsible (I know someone is going to say something stupid like, "Well I don't think he is" but please don't let's see my point and keep this intelligent.).

Things can exist in my reality without my knowing them. In my reality you are nothing more than a screen name on AO. I don't have a face, or a name, or age, or anything. For all I know you could be Tuna, or Dayspring, or CoolHand, or anyone else (these names came first to my mind, nothing is meant by it) on this forum, but the fact is that whether I know who you are or not you still exist. Either as a real person, or as an alter ego on an internet forum.

[Lohman446]

Ahh... but. Your giving hypotheticals of situations that I perceive as being possible, I assert for this argument that the hypotheticals that you assert to disprove the argument, while if real would disprove it, are simply not possible.

No.. I'm not trying to be dense either, I do follow your line of reasoning. Its nearly impossible to win a philosophical argument, though your argument can be much stronger.. its hard to disprove the theory.

[Duzzy]

though your argument can be much stronger

You do know that if you can make my argument stronger it is your job to do so... To do otherwise is referred to as creating a Strawman argument. Which basically means that you have so little faith in your own argument that you can only win against a weak argument.

Not saying that you are doing this but it is actually a rule in Philosophy, it is your solemn duty to create the strongest opposing arguments possible and then either crush them, or learn from them. So sayeth my philosophy teacher.

Let us say that what you are claiming is true, then what I am saying will also be true. But my true cancels out your true and replaces it, so if your argument is true, I win. If mine is true, I win.

[Duzzy]

As much fun as this is I am going to bed now. This will probably be my last post for this topic as well. However, if you ever want to discuss something philosophical send me a PM, it will be an adventure.

[Lohman446]

I to will have to call it a night, I have to concede that I need time to fully consider your arguments on this one... they are pretty good. You've found a circular argument that would make proof of perceived reality theory nearly impossible, one I have honestly not seen before.

[PyRo]

The perceived reality argument would state you cannot because you do nto beleive you can - because you perceive that you cannot.

When an infant tries to get through a piece of glass they cannot even though they may believe they can...

[vf-xx]

Debating Reality Vurtually.

You are confusing the perceptions of reality.

There are "two" realities. The physical and the mental.

The physical reality holds true for all of us. Doubt this? Find someone who is/has hallucinated on drugs. They percieve something that is not real yet the real world affects them. Or you could say other people's version of reality affects them. Either way the bus going 40 still makes squishy noises on the body.

However, the fully mental reality of emotion, rationalization, and other strictly mental concepts are open game.

Or things could be how I see them: This reality is my dream. I feel sorry for you for when I wake up.

[Lohman446]

When an infant tries to get through a piece of glass they cannot even though they may believe they can...

Instinct? thats the normal hard to answer question - along with the - if you turn and walk into a wall.. you didn't perceive it there but it still stopped you. There is an argument against it, that says that yuo became aware of it and subconcsiously beleived it solid when you did become aware of it. Im still trying to circle out of Duzzy's hypothetical circular argument. I don't have to beleive something to make an argument for it.

[SlartyBartFast]

If everyone is in their own seperate reality after the branching then why are people from the previous reality who didn't branch still in it?

Theologically and physically speaking, there is only one reality. Only the viewpoint, interpretation, and portion experienced is different for each individual experiencing it (thus you could discuss different "perceived" realities).

As far as the "solids aren't solid" "perceived reality" crap, well some of you have been watching the Matrix too many times while doing powerful drugs. Using this argument seriously, just shows that you are capable of disociating thought from logic. Otherwise, to "prove" your view point, you have to come up with a powerfl enough argument to disprove hundreds of years of scientific theory, knowledge, and experimentation.