Phil Form : Thinking vs Being

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... xtended/p1


I think, therefore I am, and I am, therefore my reality is as well. — Lif3r

Yes. But reality may not be what you think it is. As TheMadFool said, "the very idea behind the cogito ergo sum argument is the possibility of reality being an illusion." And modern science is beginning to understand that evolution didn't design us to know the world as it really is : invisible and intangible. Cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman, in The Case Against Reality, argues that what we envision as the real world is actually a set of symbols created by each mind. Hoffman calls those mental symbols "icons" in reference to the little low-res pictures on your computer screen.

If so, then your subjective "reality" is merely an imaginary conception that bears only a vague resemblance to the ultimate objective world that Kant called ding an sich --- "a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable". So, your "reality" definitely exists as an ideal concept, but not as the True Reality. And your extension of cogito ergo sum is what Buddhists call Maya (illusion).


The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

[Gnomon]

All that's indubitable is that someone has some experience of something. All the details are up for grabs. — Pfhorrest

Fortunately, the scientific method of obtaining "objective" knowledge has dispelled some of the subjective uncertainty that led to mystical & magical worldviews, and to imaginative religious myths. So, I think it's safe to say that, in the 21st century, we have a deeper & broader understanding of Reality than the cave men. But we may have lost some of the visceral immediacy of knowing, as we gained more cerebral understanding.

I suspect that some on this forum would place the notion of Panpsychism in the cave man mystical category. But our Information-based inferences, although not yet complete, take some of the mystery out of it. We have reasonable theories that the potential for Mind is inherent in Matter & Energy, but the details are up for further exploration of our collective reality.

[Gnomon]

you're misconstruing the difference between my reality (the one I am experiencing, which is tangible in so far as I am capable of experiencing it) and base reality (the ultimate building block for all of existence, reality number one, first edition) — Lif3r

I think you may have misconstrued the point I was making : that your subjective "tangible" reality is different in essence from Objective or Ultimate Reality? But your feelings are indeed your reality, even though they are merely symbolic analogs of "Base Reality". Our Subjective sensory perceptions are the cause of tangible bodily experiences, but those feelings & experiences are mental constructs in the individual brain, not direct links to Ultimate Reality. So, I think we are in agreement about "reality number one" : that we are capable of experiencing it only indirectly, via non-sensory philosophical imagination.

Our physical senses are not capable of detecting Ultimate reality, yet for all practical purposes, they don't need to. Hoffman's interface theory of perception explains the difference by analogy with the icons we interact with on a computer screen, and the actual operations going on the computer processor. That's why I said that your Subjective reality is real for you, but it may not be the same as other people's perceived reality, because the "base reality" is extra-sensory, as in Idealism. Ultimate Reality is a philosophical concept, not a personal percept. Click on the link below, if you want to understand what I'm saying.

The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html