Subjective Reality
 

Reality: subjective or tangible?

Discuss.

Subjective .... but that's just my take on it. YMMV!:p

Quite simple really.

Reality is objective, it exists regardless of our interpretation of its existence.

A good classical example is the definition of sound. Sound requires three things.

1) source, or emitter
2) medium, through which to travel
3) receiver

The old saw about a tree falling in the forrest states that there is no sound.

If we aren't there when a tree falls it still creates the kinetic energy that is transmitted through the air. The only thing lacking is the receiver. Thusly, no sound, but we know that those waves are created because we've been there enough to know that all that is lacking is the receiver.

Edit: typo

OK, but:

- if said tree falls, a receiver 10 feet away will hear it differently to a receiver 1000 feet away - to the latter there may well appear to be no sound because of the dilution, therefore:

- how can reality be objective when it can only be defined by a subjective receiver?

Everyone read Plato's cave, think for 10 minutes and come back to the table.

You agree then, that 'we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive'.

Plato's cave suggests we see but a shadow of what actually exists. But is a physical entity (so-called 'reality') creating the shadow - or is the shadow just as tangible? Is the cause of the shadow any more 'real' than the shadow itself. Maybe perception is reality and substance has nothing to do with it.

The first part of each question then could be:

This is a yes/no question. As in yes there is sound or yes there is no sound, per my example.

or

This is a qualitative question in that there is a scale starting at none and scaled upward, per your example.

Reality is objective. However, man can only PERCIEVE that reality as best as he knows how. I think the point Plato was making in "The Cave" is that we need to understand that what we think reality is may not be what reality ACTUALLY is. This is where the human race has run into trouble since the dawn of human history. We each think our own individual perception of reality is the only true one. We do not allow for the fact that someone may have more of the facts than we do, or that different cultures will impose a different way of seeing and understanding upon their members. Imagine a genius who lived in Europe in the middle ages before the invention of the telescope. He might go out every night and stare at the stars, but for all his study and intelligence, his PERCEPTION would be that the universe revolves around the earth. Not only is that how it appears, it is also what the Catholic Church taught, and to go against the church was to have one's soul damned to eternal hell. That the church damned people to hell was a reality. Hell itself was a shared perception by Europeans of the middle ages (and by some people today). Since everyone led their lives by these shared perceptions, the perceptions became the reality which shaped their lives. Meanwhile, physical reality went right on existing, undeterred by anyone's delusions about it.

I believe that an objective reality exists. I believe that most people perceive the objective reality well enough for practical purposes.

I believe that objective reality exists whether or not there is a human mind to perceive it. The tree in the forest thing doesn't interest me at all.

I believe this sort of question is interesting when you're in college, but, in truth, is largely useless. What in your life would change if you knew the answer either way?

I believe I'll go get a snack now.

Actually, unless the forest is completely deserted, there will be SOMETHING there to recieve the sound; a bird, an ant....

Therefore, if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no human around to hear it (the question implies that a human is the hearer), it will still make a sound, even if only because the sound waves exist independently of someone hearing them.

;)

Sidhe

Also, the waves that it produces resonate further and may cause a butterfly to flap its wings differently which causes ... which causes ... which causes a tornado in Illinois.

There is only one reality and as many perceptions of reality as there are people to percieve it (or as troubleshooter says, "recievers". Reality would exist even if there were nobody to percieve it. And because there is only one reality, there is also only one truth which no one person can know all of because no single person can see everything and because our perception of reality is tainted by our attitudes, past experiences, gender, etc.

I like to use this example. Let's say 5 people went to a concert and all sat in different areas. One up close to the stage, One further back on the left, one on the right, One in the balcony, and one right in the center. Each saw the concert differently and might have noticed things the others didn't. For instance the person up close noticed the color of the pick the guitar player was using, but could not see the video screen above the crowd.

Even though all parties percieved something different, there was only one concert It wasn't as one person in the audience saw a different band on the stage (unless their perception was seriously impaired due to drug use, insanity, etc)


Reality is reality regardless of whether or not anyone is around to percieve it. There is no MY reality or YOUR reality. There is only reality.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter Sound does not require a receiver in order to exist and I was under the impression that the old saw (which I thought was originally composed by a Zen Master) did not state that the tree made no sound but simply asked the question as to whether or not it did.

Besides, by defining a sound as depending on the receiver kind of contradicts your initial assertion that reality is independent of the observer or at least it seems as though it does.

Originally posted by jaguar All Plato's cave says to me is that what we see is but an aspect of reality. It does not make the case that we all see the shadows differently (subjectively) but that what we see is not "all there is to it." I understand that Plato felt that way (objective realist) but that kind of thinking (absolutism if not objectivism) is pretty black and blue since 1905 or so.

*shudders*

Damn chilly in here...

Ah that's it! Radar and I concurred on something!

But surely reality is what we percieve, and if we percieve different things....