Reality or Perception, Which is Prior?

Morosoph says it's reality, while I say it's perception.

"The biggest problem with physical relativism is that it entrenches a deeper and inescapable conservativism:

Physical relativism as opposed to physical absolutism contributes not only in political conservatism but political pluralism, which itself is a good system in that it allows us to have lots of various ways of thinking -we have relatively conservative view the same with liberal view, which allows us to have a multitude of the universe.

'truth' is made subservient to the power structure.

Inevitably as long as we don't have an absolute truth, it stands to reason 'truth' being foiled into power structure, 'truth' being only true of scientific, objective proof, but it has nothing to do with our personal conviction, if 'truth' were organised above in our power structure, it means a death of democracy, there are many people who hold wrong belief but they have their solemn right to live within the reach of their comprehension of the world.

I wrote a journal Reality is Singular [slashdot.org], as you know (since you wrote a reply (o: ). If evidence counts for nothing, and it would certainly count for less, then truth becomes completely swallowed by politics.

I think that's our reality. Reality includes right and wrong, truth and false, therefore many can live.

Personally, I'd be just as unhappy with the 'truth' being democratised as it being made subsevient to buisness interests, as it is at present.

I understand you surely feel unhappy at the same time some would sure to feel it's happy, as a whole striking a balance in the real world, 'truth' cannot be the rule of the real world, only in the ideal world, it might be the case. We live in a real world not an ideal world, but you can feel completely happy when you stay in a world of mathematical truth.

Possibly, the democratisation of 'truth' is worse: in business, advance is still possible; democratic truth is not advanceable, since whereas business can potentially get a head start over another through superior knowledge, the misfit who knows better is a social outcast, and his/her knowledge is potentially socially disruptive.

These paragraph was an extension of your argument.

If your population is self-trained (through prevalence of such doctorine) to believe that that which is widely held in some sense should be true, then the potential disruption is so much greater, reinforcing their opposition to progress.

To some extent, some country can relatively easily form uniformity of national characteristic, but that's everywhere. But the difference between characteristics among nations are by far less than these between individuals.

And again we are not talking about comparative sociology, which less interests to me.

I wish to make clear that 'truth' being subsevient to business interests would be bad indeed: look at the existing distortion of environmental science, for example.

Some how repetitious claim to the extent that an environment issue, okay, no problem..

The only way in which mavericks can reasonably be heard is for it to be accepted that reality is singular, but unknown.

There might be an objective singular reality, but so what? It's an agnosticism. Whatever the nature of reality is, it will keep on being unknown, by a viewpoint from an unknown nature of reality, what possibly can we assert for something, it's nothing. We all have to always try to verbalise what we were unable to verbalise. That's progress of human cognisance. Cognisance only matters, while reality means nothing. Wrong belief counts for something but unknown truth counts for nothing.

Only then does evidence matter. Only then is society open to those who look at things differently, since they cannot be certain about what is true. Truth needs to be understood as being outside psychology."

Right.Truth needs to be understood as being outside psychology.

But truth cannot be understood as being outside psychology. Your biggest problem is you insist we have perception other than our psychology. It's not true. Our perception decides what truth is. Our psychology decides what is truth. In more secular words, what is truth differs whether we are a human or we are a bacterium, but you insist there must be a universal perception resulting in a universal truth. We are humans prior to everything. Be sure return to nature -return to the nature of humanity where our everything comes from.

"Although I claim that there must be objective truth, I don't claim that I know it either. I too need to be open to others. I too need to listen to mavericks. I need to listen to you, and to Marxist Hacker 42.

Through our dialogues, you've been learning that the humans stand prior to everything, so it's nice of you.

My comparative difficulty in empathsising means that I am lacking data that you have. MH42's alternate theory is important, although to me it looks improbable. That is the way with theories: that which fits with the rest of our mental structure appears probable, and that which doesn't does not.

I think in order to nourish an empathy with the rest of the world, first off we need to have a strong self, then the integrated character which collects all data and deduce and induce according as the nature of those data, forming our personality, if lacks anything one, we are not likely to form an integrated image, which needs from past through present to the future -concept of timeline besides from near to far -concept of space. Since all truths are based on our perception first, we don't have to feel perplexed what it is and what it represents -in other words, reality and words, in MH42's word, it's a difference between what it symbolises and what is symbol. We always have our imagination to know the reality of the universe. Imagination, reality, the universe and truth all come from our perception which is only the reflection of our poor psychology. When the ones cannot see the difference between red and blue, truth is nothing more than there's no distinction between red and blue. Red and blue only counts for those who can perceive and cognise the difference.

Baysian inferencing is no escape, since the "prior probabilities" simply mirror our existing body of knowledge."

"I do believe, though, that there necessarily exists an external, objective reality so that we can all exist and communicate.

Again this is an interesting idea, and of course I cannot agree with you in the least. Completely different view from me. Your thoughs are coming from your judgement, assumption obtained from your perception, whereas you are assuming there must have been an external, objective reality. You are merely enclosed in an external, objective reality, then you are insisting there must be an external objective reality. Where you are is external objective reality, you just cannot see where you are. And again all I have to say here is that our perception decides what reality is. Not vice versa. Reality cannot decide what perception is, so you keep on staying where only data are available, being unable to perceive reality well...

This is a little like Descartes's "I think, therefore I am"; the appropriate phrase here is something like "we communicate, therefore reality exists".

We need to communicate with each other so that we can know what reality is. Now I understand you know well how to deal with reality intrinsicly.

What that reality is, I don't know any better than you do.

Now we completely agreed.