How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2017, 01:38 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2017 01:41 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(14-06-2017 01:08 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  So when we dream, it is the act of dreaming that we perceive and identify. I don't know about you but I don't have any trouble at all distinguishing between dreaming and reality. Sometimes this causes me some disappointment, especially when I dream that I have won the lottery and upon waking, realize it isn't real. Of course I've had an understanding of metaphysical primacy for so long now that distinguishing between the real and imaginary is automatic for me.

So the fact that we can't always identify our dreams as dreams while we are asleep is not a problem for my theory because sleeping is only temporary and as soon as we wake we are able to make the distinction easily.

The fact that when we are asleep, we typically have a great deal of difficulty "distinguishing between dreaming and reality" should give you some pause. It means we have the mental capacity to create images which we mistake for realities. This is no small problem when waking perceptions are ambiguous or there isn't enough information. If I see the cat on the floor in a dark room, I will be surprised to find it is really a pair of shoes when I turn the light on. I didn't hallucinate strictly speaking, and I didn't misidentify so much as misperceive the shoes as the cat. I honestly saw a cat and was mistaken.

For people with various mental difficulties, this becomes even more of a problem. Naive realism is good in general, or if you prefer statistically, but it is not absolutely reliable. Thus the questions of this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
14-06-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(14-06-2017 01:38 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 01:08 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  So when we dream, it is the act of dreaming that we perceive and identify. I don't know about you but I don't have any trouble at all distinguishing between dreaming and reality. Sometimes this causes me some disappointment, especially when I dream that I have won the lottery and upon waking, realize it isn't real. Of course I've had an understanding of metaphysical primacy for so long now that distinguishing between the real and imaginary is automatic for me.

So the fact that we can't always identify our dreams as dreams while we are asleep is not a problem for my theory because sleeping is only temporary and as soon as we wake we are able to make the distinction easily.

The fact that when we are asleep, we typically have a great deal of difficulty "distinguishing between dreaming and reality" should give you some pause. It means we have the mental capacity to create images which we mistake for realities. This is no small problem when waking perceptions are ambiguous or there isn't enough information. If I see the cat on the floor in a dark room, I will be surprised to find it is really a pair of shoes when I turn the light on. I didn't hallucinate strictly speaking, and I didn't misidentify so much as misperceive the shoes as the cat. I honestly saw a cat and was mistaken.

For people with various mental difficulties, this becomes even more of a problem. Naive realism is good in general, or if you prefere statistically, but it is not absolutely reliable. Thus the questions of this discussion.

Well I'm not a naive realist but an Objectivist. Objectivism rejects the naive realist view of consciousness.

Again, in your example there in no misperception. You are perceiving an object. It is really there. Your example only highlights the fact that we must be careful thinkers if we want to get anywhere. But even still we can make mistakes. That's where integration comes in. If you have an objective, conceptually irreducible and incontestably true starting point and you integrate any new knowledge with it, then any mistakes will be found in short order. Objectivism has such a starting point and it is fully consistent with this starting point throughout. Contrast this with other philosophies including theism, which starts with the primacy of consciousness which is neither objective ( we must imagine such a thing) or incontestably true (it is diametrically opposed to the truth, which presupposes the primacy of existence or the primacy of the object in the subject-object relationship.)

So I stand by my answer to the OP. We tell the difference by means of perception and then Identification followed by integration, I.e., reason.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
14-06-2017, 03:14 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(14-06-2017 01:58 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 01:38 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  The fact that when we are asleep, we typically have a great deal of difficulty "distinguishing between dreaming and reality" should give you some pause. It means we have the mental capacity to create images which we mistake for realities. This is no small problem when waking perceptions are ambiguous or there isn't enough information. If I see the cat on the floor in a dark room, I will be surprised to find it is really a pair of shoes when I turn the light on. I didn't hallucinate strictly speaking, and I didn't misidentify so much as misperceive the shoes as the cat. I honestly saw a cat and was mistaken.

For people with various mental difficulties, this becomes even more of a problem. Naive realism is good in general, or if you prefere statistically, but it is not absolutely reliable. Thus the questions of this discussion.

Well I'm not a naive realist but an Objectivist. Objectivism rejects the naive realist view of consciousness.

Again, in your example there in no misperception. You are perceiving an object. It is really there. Your example only highlights the fact that we must be careful thinkers if we want to get anywhere. But even still we can make mistakes. That's where integration comes in. If you have an objective, conceptually irreducible and incontestably true starting point and you integrate any new knowledge with it, then any mistakes will be found in short order. Objectivism has such a starting point and it is fully consistent with this starting point throughout. Contrast this with other philosophies including theism, which starts with the primacy of consciousness which is neither objective ( we must imagine such a thing) or incontestably true (it is diametrically opposed to the truth, which presupposes the primacy of existence or the primacy of the object in the subject-object relationship.)

So I stand by my answer to the OP. We tell the difference by means of perception and then Identification followed by integration, I.e., reason.

The problem I see with that is I don't see how it is possible to deny the primacy of consciousness. The denial itself is evidence of it. Any discussion of its primacy implicitly presumes its primacy.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 03:34 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
How so? When one denies something one is making a statement about some state of affairs in reality. Is he saying that his denial is true because he says so or because he wishes it. If not then he implicitly affirms the primacy of existence. The primacy of existence holds that reality is what it is independent of consciousness (wishing doesn't make it so).The primacy of consciousness is the view that reality is dependent on and conforms to conscious intentions (wishing does make it so).

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 04:21 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
Objectivism is intrinsically subjective.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
14-06-2017, 05:03 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2017 05:14 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(14-06-2017 04:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Objectivism is intrinsically subjective.

Again how so? Statements like this tell me you don't have any familiarity with what Objectivism teaches. I remember once you said something about Objectivism being a form of materialism. It isn't. Not in any way shape or form. In order to demonstrate that it is intrinsically subjective you'd have to show where Objectivism affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. It doesn't do this. It self consciously and consistently affirms the primacy of existence. Theism is inherently subjective because it affirms the POC. So how can Objectivism be inherently subjective?

When I accuse theism of being inherently subjective, I at least back up what I say about it. I don't simply make the assertion and expect people to take it on my say so.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 03:57 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(14-06-2017 05:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It self consciously and consistently affirms the primacy of existence.
Is it possible to "self consciously" do anything, without axiomatically assuming consciousness?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
15-06-2017, 06:43 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(15-06-2017 03:57 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 05:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It self consciously and consistently affirms the primacy of existence.
Is it possible to "self consciously" do anything, without axiomatically assuming consciousness?

I can't imagine anything existing without consciousness because I can't imagine at all without consciousness. This establishes the primacy of consciousness.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 06:44 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(15-06-2017 03:57 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 05:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It self consciously and consistently affirms the primacy of existence.
Is it possible to "self consciously" do anything, without axiomatically assuming consciousness?

By self consciously I mean with awareness, not implicitly. That means that the whole philosophy is integrated with its starting point. As to consciousness being axiomatic, it is. The axiom of consciousness identifies the fact that we are conscious of something. It is self evident, it is conceptually irreducible, it is fundamental, it is implicit in all knowledge, therefore it satisfies all the requirements of a philosophical axiom. It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it. The concept is axiomatic. To deny it would cause one to contradict one's self, since denial is a kind of conscious activity. We don't assume it since we percieve that we are conscious directly. It does not need to be proved. The validation is by means of sense perception. You either accept it or deny it but denying it would be absurd.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
15-06-2017, 07:03 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(15-06-2017 06:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 03:57 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Is it possible to "self consciously" do anything, without axiomatically assuming consciousness?

I can't imagine anything existing without consciousness because I can't imagine at all without consciousness. This establishes the primacy of consciousness.

And you can't be conscious if you don't exist and if no objects exist for you to be conscious of.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: