Is there another way to describe it? I am not saying things don't exist if you don't perceive them, there is still such a thing as object permanence. If something can be observed and therefore perceived, it exists. That's why air, which you cannot see, hear, grab, taste, or smell (normally) still exists. You can prove so by observing it's reaction with other chemicals, spectroscopic analysis, and by the simple fact you can hear anything at all (you can't hear in vacuum). Things beyond perception still exist, but they may as well not because we will never perceive it in any tangible way.
If what you are wanting to do is prove that there is an objective reality, there is no need. Like I said in my other post, I agree that there is and there is no debate about that. My argument is that no one experiences this objective reality, so everyone lives in their own realities. A subjective reality and objective reality are different. If they weren't, there would be no need for distinction. The feelings and associations you have in response to stimuli alter your perception of the supposed objective reality. No one can directly observe this objective reality perfectly without attaching with it emotions, concepts, or mis-perceptions. Therefore, objective reality does not matter in the scheme of things in relation to humans or any other being that we know of for that matter. All that does matter is what we perceive.
 Originally Posted by Xei
The point is that, before you do so, you have no way of sensing the animal. So... apparently, it doesn't exist. 1.Then how can you lay your hand on it in the first place?? 2. Why does reality persist the next day after having gone to sleep?3. How is it possible that new things enter your experience if, by your definition, they did not exist prior to their entering it?
1. You can still hear it, smell it or happen to stumble upon touching it by random chance. And unless an animal is camouflaged 100% unable to be perceived by the human eye (which most aren't) they can still be seen.
2. I have said that I agree that there is an objective reality, I am only asserting that objective reality in the literal sense does not matter because we will never experience it as it truly is.
3. You have mistaken the meaning of my definition because nowhere have I said that things that you do not perceive do not exist. I may not have clarified this until this post, leaving my definition of reality somewhat in the air, but it still illogical for you to have made that assumption based on nothing.
|
|
Bookmarks