All you're doing is allowing denial to equal "proof".

If you deny something you consider it to be unproven.

If you accept something you consider it to be proven.

You're certainly entiled to hold that view, the only thing is that such a view is meaningless outside of your own private delusions.

Of course, from your point of view that's all that matters.

But isn't that the epitome of self-centered thinking?

Sounds like a form of solipsism in disguise to me.

All you're truly saying is that you're going to believe whatever you want no matter what evidence is presented to you. You'll just choose to believe what you like and reject the rest.

I personally feel that the problem with that lies in the true denial. There are things you can't do. By your own admission you had voiced a desire to take a vacation to Hawawii but are unable to go due to obstacles (most likely financial I would imagine).

The question then becomes, "Does that obstacle exist simply because you believe it exists? Or is it a genuine obstacle that remains no matter what you choose to believe?"

If the latter is true, then how can you suggest that what you believe determines reality?

Basically you're saying the same thing that Jesus said, "If you had the faith of a mustard seed you could say to that mountain, move hench, and it would move."

The only problem is, look what happened to him! If what he had preached were actually true, then he would have been totally responsible for nailing himself to a pole.

In other words, if his belief is what created his reality then whatever happened to him was due to his own beliefs. Thus he must have been a very pesimistic and demented thinker to have thought himself into such a dismal fate of reality.

And that would have been an example of a person who supposedly understood how reality actually works.

Something isn't adding up.

It seems like you missed the point.

She didn’t say “belief and agreement is reality”. She said “belief and agreement is what determines what we call reality”.

I might rephrase that:

We perceive something, make some sort of evaluation about it (agreement, logic, experimentation, whatever), and then hang the label “real” (or “not real”) on it.

(thumping disco beat) “This is how we do it.”

The determination of reality ultimately reduces down to observation/perception – always.

There is nothing else to base it on.

So “what is reality” is all but irrelevant. What is relevant is what we label reality.

True, but that is NOT what I am saying. Its not the point I am making. But yes, I am the one who decides what I think is true. Who else is going to do that for me?

I am perfectly willing to examine all evidence that anyone presents and IF I understand it and believe it I will accept it. Period.

If I don't understand it, I might still accept it if I trust the authority. Or I might doubt it.

What I AM saying is that I am the one who decides to believe it or not. Nobody is going to force feed me their bogus 'proof' and force me to believe it. (Like Christianity tries to do.)




WHAT?? I had every intention on going to Hawaii and I invited YOU to go with me and had every intention OF GOING AND OF FINDING A WAY to do that and had even started planing it when YOU began backing out, making all kinds of excuses as to why you were not healthy enough to go.

I was not even 'hitting' on you. I simply did not want to go alone and I thought it would be fun to have you go along. But I certainly could go to Hawaii any time I decide to go but I see no point in going alone. That would just be boring. I never let "finances" stop me from doing or going where I want. I can get the finances if I need them.



The only 'obstacle' to going to Hawaii was YOU who backed out of the invitation. You convinced me that you were not up to the trip.

I can certainly take a hint. I don't have to be hit with a brick.



Bad example since Jesus and the story that goes with him IS PURE FICTION.




Yeh, you missed your chance for a fun time in Hawaii and you're just regretting it now. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO THREW A WRENCH IN THAT PLAN.



I think you are bored with arguing with Creative so now you are picking a debate with me.

The key point in all of this is that “proof” is a matter of “showing what must be”. And in order to “show it”, there must be someone to “show it to”. That is, there must be a “shower” and a “showee”. (And they could both be the same person - i.e. one could prove something to oneself)

But what if the showee does not “see it”, then what are you left with? It wasn’t proved! Period. End of story.

Now let’s look at a breakdown of the mechanics of “proof”.

The showee must perceive and interpret what is being shown. And the perception and interpretation of the showee must agree with the perception and interpretation of the shower. That is how proof works. That’s what it is.

So the three components of “proof” are: 1)perception, 2)interpretation and 3)agreement. Dat’s all dey is and dey ain’t no mo’.

Now let’s look at those three components…

Perception and interpretation are entirely subjective, by definition. So if we’re talking about “objective reality” then those are no help. A single person all alone can accomplish that much. Seeing a pink elephant is perception and interpretation.

So what’s left to determine objectivity?

There is nothing left but agreement.

And that is why I say that the basis of objective reality is agreement.

It can’t be based on perception or interpretaion, and there’s nothing else left to base it on other than agreement.

The most significant corollary to this is:

It is perception and interpretation that determines “subjective” reality, but it is agreement on perception and interpretation that determines “objective” reality.

So actually all determination of reality is ultimately based on subjective perception and interpretation.

Relevant to what? Social convienience? Personal opinion? Science? Religion? My cat's retirement plan?

Genie Jeannie just suggested the following "reality".



Pure fiction? Do you have proof of this?

I think this is a perfect example. Here you are stating that it is your belief that something is pure fiction whilst other humans swear that they believe it's the 'gospel truth'.

So here we seem to have no agreement at all about "reality". So the whole thing get's flushed down the toilet.



I wasn't making excuses. I genuinely do feel frigg'in horrible!

I was doing you a favor by letting you know that I wouldn't be any fun on such a vacation and that you'd be better off finding someone else who would be more apt to survive the ordeal.

Besides, in the beginning, I believe that I had stated that I'd only go if it wasn't going to cost me anything.

No need to get your crystal ball all steamed over that.



Wanna take it outside in the cyber parking lot?

Remember, I'm in poor health so you'll have a distinct advantage.

I'm actually in total agreement with this from the point of view of human comprehension. But that is indeed all that you've truly described. So your entire view stems from the vantage point that everything must be explained and/or understood in terms of human comprehension.

So in a very real sense, you have already "presumed" human comprehension to be the basis of reality.

That may very well be true.

Just the same, one could argue, that human comprehension is irrelevant, and based on your own thesis you'd have to agree that this is indeed possible. All we need to have is 'agreement'.

But if we agree, then we must conclude that human comprehesion is irrelevant which takes us right back to a concept of an "objective" reality. (i.e. a reality that exists outside of human comprehension)

And all we need to establish to get there is agreement according to you.

Of course you and I may not agree on this concept. But if other people agree on it, then this would define their reality and thus their reality would necessarily be "objective", by definition of their agreement.

This is why philosophy is so utterly useless.

Anything goes.

So all you're really saying in your thesis is that nothing can be known.

I'm actually in agreement with that. So it must be reality.

I don't need any proof. I would not waste my time trying to prove something does not or never did exist. There is not one shred of evidence that any of it is a fact. I have better things to do.

Other people who believe it (or pretend to believe it) just because they allowed the church to force feed it to them. I know many "Christians" who just pretend to believe it just to fit in and they are too meek to speak their minds or even ask the hard questions.

Yes it is pure fiction. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I don't believe in things just because a bunch of gullible people claim to believe in them. I don't even waste my time arguing about it anymore. I don't care what they believe.

Well thank you very much for the favor.

But you used it as an example of how I could not "overcome an obstacle." You were the only obstacle.

If I had wanted to go I would have gone. If you could have gone with me, I had a plan in the works that would have even paid our way. After you said you could not go, I lost interest in going.

And so now you use that as an example that I cannot manifest what I want and that I am 'in denial? Please. You said:




Sure there are things I can't do. But taking a vacation to Hawaii is not one of them.

Wooooooooo wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! Speak your mind woman!

I do have a serious question though, concerning one little tiny thing that you've stated here.

You said the following:



Now we're talking about evidence and facts?

But didn't you just say that 'proofs' are nothing more than what people agree on?

What constitutes "evidence" and "facts" other than agreement?

Are you now suggesting that there might be actual "objective" evidence and facts?

The people who "claim" to believe in the Bible often stand on the "evidence" that's it's obviously infallible and all-wise.

You may disagree (I'm sure I would), but just the same, this is what they are claiming to be a fact. The story is too perfectly infalliable and wise to be false. It must be true because no mortal men could dream up such a beautfiul wise thing as having God's son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of man.

This is their so-called evidence. It's not 'objective' evidence, it's purely 'subjective' evidence.

The Biblical stories must be a fact because they are too wise and contain they no errors, contradictions, or anything that could even remotely be viewed as utterly stupid, therefore the evidence stands on it's own infalliable perfection.

It could only be the word of an all-wise God because no mortal men could possibly have been that brilliant to have written such a divine work of art.

There's the evidence that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible has to be the true word of God. There can be no arguments against it becasue this evidence is crystal clear and irrefutable and if you have arguments against it the Christians will hold their hands over their ears until you are done voicing it, and then give you an absurd reason why your objections are either irrelevant or don't apply.

Hey, don't look at me. I'm just repeating what many Christian fundamentalists claim to believe.

So what constitutes evidence or facts if "objective reality" is being denied and only "subjective agreement" counts?

What would the terms evidence or facts even mean outside of agreement in that context?

How can you even speak about evidence or facts whilst simultaneously taking the stance that only subjective agreement is required to label what is reality?

I speak of 'evidence' because I am a private investigator. That evidence has to be convincing. If it is convincing enough for me, then I may believe it. If it is convincing enough for someone else they might believe it. But if it is not enough or not convincing enough, then I have the choice not to believe it, and so does the jury or anyone else.

The reason we have a jury of 12 people is because evidence is not absolute proof of anything. It has to be enough to convince more than just one person. Unless of course you want to trust your fate to a single judge, which some people do.

But even a jury of 12 people make mistakes and people are found guilty, so the system is not perfect. If "proof" was absolute we would not even need juries. If we did not need 'agreement' we would not need juries.

In the end, justice might depend on the law of Karma. In the end, truth may never be known.

But "Proof" is dependent on belief.

You would then disagree that "air" is not solid at room temperature?

It is one thing to imbue a word with meaning that is possibe, and it is another thing to imbue a word with meaning that is incongruent with it, unless you state your assigned definition if it's different from the language.

I still maintain that authority is not a concept that's at hand when there is only one person in existence. You did not refute that, other than saying that you used a different meaning of autority. But you did not use a different meaning of authority. For the meaning that you used it in, it was still impossible for one single solitary person to be an authority. y point was that there could be no meaning of authority if there were no group.

This is about "proof": Something that cannot be otherwise. You did not refute my proof of the statement that a lone person cannot be his or her own authority; you simply stated that you don't accept it. In a philosophical discussion that move, simply refusing to accept, is not allowed. You must state your reasons.

But since then I learned that this is not a philosophical dicussion. So wtf.

You’re absolutely right when you say “…in a very real sense, have already "presumed" human comprehension to be the basis of reality.”. And I say that from a purely practical viewpoint because there is nothing else available to base it on. (Of course you could, if you wanted to, try to base it on something else. But what else is there to base it on but itself? You would be effectively saying either “reality is based on reality” or “reality is based on non-reality” – neither one of which can get anywhere because both are circular.)

So you must have some starting point (at least for there to be anything remotely like “logic” involved.) So why not start with the two most universal, fundamental, empirical concepts of all philosophies:

There is “I” and there is “not ‘I’” (or “other”)”.

(Although both solipsism and pantheism – two flips sides of the same coin – could be said to exclude the concept of “other”. But even that could be debated – if only on the basis of semantics.)

And from that fundamental dichotomy of “’I’ and ‘other’”, it’s simply a matter of arbitrarily creating and assigning labels and categories.

We simply say “’A’ is different from ‘B’ by reason of ‘X’, ‘Y’ and/or ‘Z’”.

But what differentiates ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’? And what differentiates those secondary factors? And then those tertiary factors? etc, ad infinitum.

So the reductio ad absurdum of this whole process is that differentiation cannot be based on anything but the relationship between “I” and “other” – otherwise it would be circular (i.e. “I”’s relationship to itself or “other”’s relationship to itself.)

Now we can’t forget that the process of assigning those labels and categories is always a function of “I”. That is, “I” assigns the label to “other”.

So the question regarding the determination of reality (and anything else really) then becomes “Who decides?”

Well there are really only three options:
1) I decide
2) You decide
3) We decide together (which is really nothing more than #1 and #2 deciding the same thing – i.e. “agreement”)

Take your pick.

You stated in the opening post your question and the topic:

“Do we perceive reality?”

Much later this transmogrified in your mind, but not in those of most of us others, as


"But the issue was not "What is reality?", but "How do we determine reality?" - which Jeannie answered and you did not."

This was NOT the question, the question was "Do we perceive reality?" It just became more convenient for the sake of the argument you presented to pretend that this was not the question, but something else was the question, as it was stated by you later.

Now we read,

"Well, I can only offer my opinion, which is contested by many. In my opinion, what we perceive is reality. Thus, my definition for reality is “what we perceive”. So yes, in my opinion, we do perceive reality."

You're wrong, I am not contesting it, now that we know you're just disseminating your opinion here. I can't argue with someone else's opinion. That is impossible to do. Opinions can't be refuted.

If you were to come out and make a statement, which I have been lead to believe you've been doing all along, if by nothing but by the virtue of this being a forum for philosophy, then I could say aye or nay, or try to refute it or agree with it. But since the question we talk about changes according to your fancy and according to what is a more convenient question to answer at a given time, and since this discussion, it has been unveiled, is a social discussion where we just state our opinions, I suggest you ask the site operators to move this discussion / topic to a different forum, likely to one of the social discussion forums.

Please I ask you to not keep altering your questions in a topic, and please don't switch the nature of the discussion to that of a social one, whether or not that is convenient inasmuch as an aid to avoid defeat in logic or to whatever else.

I am not going to discuss opinions in a philosophy forum that are neither refutable nor supportable with logic.

What that has to do with “Authority” I can’t even begin to imagine.

So what word did I “imbue with meaning that is incongruent with it”?

It certainly was not “authority”. (see definition #1 below)

Proof of what? Proof of the meaning of a word?

A definition can’t be proven. It is a premise. It is a point on which proof is based. It must be agreed upon before a proof can be shown.

So I guess what you’re asking for is a dictionary definition.

Here are the definitions from dictionary.com:
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
6. a quotation or citation from such a source.
7. an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
8. persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
9. a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
10. right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
11. mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
12. a warrant for action; justification.
13. testimony; witness.

I’m using #1 (the most common one)

Which means I’m saying that a person alone (i.e. outside of any group) has “the power to determine”. That’s all.

But you’re saying that a person alone has no “power to determine”???

Now why do you choose to ignore the rest of the OP? Did you not read all of it?

To refresh your memory, here is the final paragraph in the OPAnd that is exactly what the debate has centered around for me.

So yes it IS the question. It may not be the question YOU are answering. But it is the question I was asking and it is the question Jeannie answered.

Ok. And by the same token, you’re wrong and I won’t contest that for the exact same reasons.

So pick a statement of mine and start refuting. Unless you think I haven’t made any statements, in which case, don’t.

Ok, so pick a question you fancy and talk about that. I simply chose the last one in the OP. If you want to talk about the first one then go ahead.

I don’t have any particular desire to do that. I think the person who want’s it moved should be the one to ask the moderators to move it. So knock yourself out.

The question I have been discussing all along is in the OP. I have not altered it in any way other than rephrase it from “ how do we tell whether or not what we perceive is real” to “How do we determine what is real?”.

Now if you’re objecting to that rephrasing, I guess I should apologize and say that I didn’t think that was enough of an alteration to change the discussion in any significant way.

Fine with me.

Actually, they do not constitute a straight paraphrasing, since the italicized quote is only accplicable when some condition is given, as per you OP. You used the paraphrased part without its application to the condition.

I only object because the condition you gave is immaterial in my opinion. In my opinion you have no way of telling when you do and when you do not perceive reality. And there is no way of determining how to tell the difference.

I already said something to this effect in this topic, and you wholeheartedly agreed. In my opinion.

A definition cannot be proven, you're right. But a word can be used in a context which defies its own meaning. Meaning is a bit different from definition, but never mind that.

If a word is used in a function outside of its realm of meaning, then it can be PROVEN that it was used wrongly.

Since we invoke dictionaries, you must examine your quote. The definition does not entail ONLY "the power to determine"; it is contingent on some circumstances, and those circumstances imply that there is more than one person if "authority" is to happen. The information for this is found in the part of the definition that states "settle disputes" (a person alone cannot dispute anything if there is no other person to dispute it with), and "the right to control" which involves a right, which, by its own very nature, is a social concept. If a person lives on a deserted island, he never thinks of his own actions or thoughts as having the right to do or think them, since "right" implies a social freedom. And you can't have social freedom without living in a society. Society alone can only guarantee that something social is happening, and having a right is exactly a social something.

I maintain that it's impossible for an observer of reality who can't perceive for sure if there is a group to agree with, to invoke authority to tell or decide whether his perception is indeed of reality or not.

Ok so they don't equate to exactly the same question, semantically speaking.

In order to determine whether or not what we perceive reality, one must be able to compare reality with perception.

Which means that reality must be determined before the comparison is made. And since the question is about perception.vs.reality, it can’t be answered before that determination is made.

So what I did was rephrase the question so the emphasis was on the prerequisite (determination of reality).

In other words, the main focus of the discussion has been on reality. So I didn’t see anything wrong with shifting the focus of my question to align with the shifting focus of the discussion.