| Reality? |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Bahman ® 04/19/2002, 21:11:02 Author Profile Mail author |
There is always the question of what is ‘real’ and what is not. I’ve been in the opinion that it depends on the definition. In other words, by ‘real’ do we mean things that we can detect by our senses, or we mean something beyond that? Now in light of recent ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case of ‘virtual kiddy porn movies’ I got to thinking that we may need more than a mere definition. It appears to me that ‘reality’ may be relative. That is to say that we may have to compare cases in order to answer the question. For instance, are virtual porn movies real or not? My answer would be that compared to ‘real porn movies’ in which real TOUCHABLE (no pun intended!) human beings play, the virtual movies seem unreal. However, since we can SEE and even HEAR the images on the screen, we can consider them real. This is admittedly an off-the-cuff thought. I’d like to hear other opinions. |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Sorry I missed this one Re: Reality? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/30/2002, 09:10:25
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Bahman:
Its a shame this post fell along the way...
I think this is an important issue, especially in religious circles.
The whole idea of reality is always so very twisted to the religious because of belief in things that cannot be proven to actually exist. Hence, defining what is real is often a sore issue, and stretches occur that shouldn't.
To me reality is for one something that has, does, can or will have an effect upon us in the future. Something real is something that materially exists. It is something that can be defined in physical terms within some degree. However, sometimes a reality can be proven on paper but cannot be observed. There are some things that are real and yet not knowable, or observable.
Take for example a planet a billion light years away. There is no way for us to communicate with a being on that planet, at least not that we know. We cannot know of the reality of this planet, so does it exist? It most certainly does, though we cannot know it. It exists because it has an effect on us, even infinitesimally small, yet its very existence contributes to the overall gravitational force within the Universe.
But back to the political issue you mentioned... Virtual porn is very real. You can download it, you can view it with your senses etc... It is not a carbon based porn like a live "in the flesh" porn show, nor made of paper, but rather its made of electric impulses, pixels, lights and sounds... In what way is that different than television, or movies, besides the more immediate impact on more senses? It is not real in the sense of the characters being real, but rather computer generated, but that is not an issue I believe.
Why do we stop porn from being shown to children? Because we believe it has a negative impact on the psyche and the formation of the child, and a negative effect on the character of the resulting adult. Is this effect limited to live, paper, or movie mediums? I would think not. Any medium that effectively brings porn to the senses should be regulated.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Sorry I missed this one Re: Sorry I missed this one -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
05/01/2002, 14:45:21
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for reviving the thread, TV.
I agree that the discussion of reality can become confusing. This seems to be apparent even in your two sentences that I quote: "To me reality is for one something that has, does, can or will have an effect upon us in the future. Something real is something that materially exists."
Now, the definition in your first sentence could possibly include the non-physical or supernatural. Whereas the second, and subsequent sentences, refer only to the physical.
IMO if we, in general, make sure the key words are defined clearly in advance of any discussion, the confusion will be minimal. For instance, in the context of physical reality in which observation or detection by our senses INCLUDING technical instruments, is the criteria, your example of "a planet a billion light years away" shouldn’t pose any problem. It can be detected therefore it exists. Right?
Since this is a pivotal point, I’ll wait to hear from you before we go to your other interesting points.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Further Re: Re: Sorry I missed this one -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/01/2002, 20:52:17
Author Profile Mail author
In order for something to exist it doesn't need to be detectable. But if it exists in our Universe, which comprises anything that has, can or ever will have an effect on us by definition, then it will have an effect on us, even if this cannot be detected, or perhaps differentiated from the many bits of data we can detect.
My first sentence: "To me reality is for one something that has, does, can or will have an effect upon us in the future. Something real is something that materially exists" is not contradictory if you consider that my views in regards coincide with the cosmological views of the majority of physicists today. Any "thing" within the bounds of our Universe has an effect on every "thing" else, even if infinitesimal. By definition, concepts of outside the Universe are meaningless because anything outside the Universe, by definition, never has, nor ever will have any influence on that which is inside the system of the Universe.
My sentence does not include the supernatural because such a concept is purely a mental construct and does not exist in reality. By definition supernatural means beyond the laws of nature, and hence anything supernatural is not governed by the laws pertaining to our reality. It is not defined by anything we consider real; hence it is not real. In the very moment something supernatural were to have an influence on us it would be, even partially, defined by our reality and hence be only partially supernatural. The supernatural is an absurd concept IMO. I do not believe in anything supernatural, and I view such a concept as a simple backdoor necessary to avoid proving the reality of a claim that otherwise cannot be proven. Many times its an easy way to avoid studying those disciplines that contradict our views... we'll just take the supernatural 5th ammendment...
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Further Re: Further -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
05/01/2002, 21:58:01
Author Profile Mail author
No problem. You don't have to believe in the supernatural and I never meant to say that. As long as we know what kind of reality we are talking about, it's fine with me. So, it's going to be physical reality; things that exist in the physical universe. Now, you say:
"In order for something to exist it doesn't need to be detectable. But if it exists in our Universe, which comprises anything that has, can or ever will have an effect on us by definition, then it will have an effect on us, even if this cannot be detected, or perhaps differentiated from the many bits of data we can detect."
Granted, there exist a lot of things in the universe that we don't know about but they may affect us. But how we know a certain something exists if we can't somehow detect it? We can't even address it or name it; can we? Tell us how please.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Further Re: Re: Further -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/01/2002, 22:38:02
Author Profile Mail author
Granted, there exist a lot of things in the universe that we don't know about but they may affect us. But how we know a certain something exists if we can't somehow detect it? We can't even address it or name it; can we? Tell us how please.
Exactly my point, somethings exist though we may not be able to observe them. The fact that we are unable to observe them does not make them unreal. Reality is not defined by our knowledge of it.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Something? Re: Re: Further -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
05/01/2002, 23:26:00
Author Profile Mail author
"Exactly my point, somethings exist though we may not be able to observe them."
What IS that something? Let's make it easier and go from the abstract to the tangible. I say:
-- the CHAIR I am sitting on exists because I can feel it
--the MONITOR in front me exists because I can see it
--THE VINES exists because I can detect him thru his posts.
Now, can you make a similar statement describing the existence of a 'something' that can't be detected. Note that my emphasis in the examples is on the 'names' as well as the fact that they can be detected.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Something? Re: Something? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/02/2002, 14:20:26
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Bahman:
I sense we are actually thinking along the same lines here...
You ask: Now, can you make a similar statement describing the existence of a 'something' that can't be detected. Note that my emphasis in the examples is on the 'names' as well as the fact that they can be detected.
Of course not! The point I was trying to make is that somethings objective existence is not dependent on our knowledge of it. This does not give us license to claim that something exists when we cannot prove it or detect it, its simply stating that the possibility of somethings existence in the lack of our knowledge of it is not diminished.
If your chair were on K-PAX a million light years away there would be no way for me to know that, but that would not diminish the reality of the chair by any degree.
This does not help us in any measure identify what is real, its just meant to be an extension of the definition of reality to include that which we cannot objectively identify.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Two domains of reality Re: Re: Something? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
05/02/2002, 20:55:26
Author Profile Mail author
Yes we seem to be converging to a common ground. I can summarize it as follows. Correct me if necessary.
In the physical universe there exist; 1) ‘things’ that can be detected and hence described, discussed, analyzed, and so on; and 2) ‘things’ that may exist but we haven’t detected and therefore have no knowledge of what they may be.
Based on this therefore ‘reality’ in the physical world seems to be well-defined, unambiguous, and clear-cut.
Now, you earlier said: "The whole idea of reality is always so very twisted to the religious because of belief in things that cannot be proven to actually exist. Hence, defining what is real is often a sore issue, and stretches occur that shouldn't." Do you think that the ‘twist’ and the ‘soreness’ is SOLELY because of mixing of the realities of the physical and non-physical worlds; or there may be other factors?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page