The different interpretations of Reality

Philosophy Forums
41

Yes they can arrive at the same idea, but coherence and consistency are not skippable unless you are talking about two insane people who have no idea what they are thinking in the first place.

Thats pretty simple. Your imagination is limited to the ingredients you know.
Your imagination can reshape, remix, create new patterns, but just like a cement mixer wont create new matter, it can only spill out things in different shape and fashion which have been put into it.

You cannot imagine something that you have 0 information of.

1 Like
42

I disagree by experience. You may not be able to communicate it, but that’s something radically different. I made a thread about that, tho: What are the limits of imagination? I think it’s an interesting topic in itself, and it doesn’t really have to do with this thread

1 Like
43

I do not think that this argument will convince @pseudoai. As stated above: “people can come up with the same ideas, independently of context”.

1 Like
44

Then you might be misinterpreting something.
Go on. Unpack it and elaborate on your experience.
Cause what i told you about imagination is not only a mental and psychological limitation, but also a physical one.
You cant just go around with your brain creating new information out of nothing, which then even itself cant comprehend because it has no idea where it came from or what it means.

I would say that the closest thing to that idea is something like 7 types of brain damage laced with schizophrenia, but not even brain damage will make your brain create new information out of nothing.
Thats simply not how it works.

But then again, im pretty sure you are once again slipping up on one of the base concepts i used, and the most likely culprit is “new”.
Pretty sure you are using “new” as something that is new in it’s arrangement and not in the literal sense where its 100% new and original as in “none of it’s composing parts were known”.

Like how a bbq pizza with orange would be new even though you know exactly what bbq, pizza and oranges are.

The two topics are more closely interlocked than you think.
After all, your entire understanding about reality is subjective to you, based on the information you have attained from/about it.

If you had never been taught a single thing about reality, then you’d have no understanding of it, might not have realized as much as the concept of it.
So in more than just one way, your “interpretation of reality” is the same as your imagination is. Both concepts work off of the things you know.

After the universe thread i know nothing can convince him of anything if he set his mind.
That being said, what makes you say that?

”people can come up with the same ideas, independently of context”
And you’ll know why this does not matter once you simply ask: Why?
And then you will break it down that its because we are all sharing the same set of toys to play and interact with, as in: physical reality.

So the only reason two people can end up with the same idea independent of eachother, is because they share the same information input.
In example:
All 8 billion of us can realize independent of eachother that there is gravity because something is sticking us to the ground.
Why does that happen? Because all 8 billion of us share the same experience of it being so.

Devoid of input, you have no information to work with.
Thats what “You cannot imagine something that you have 0 information of” means.
Suggesting otherwise is an inherent contradiction like the concept of “nothing”.
”Nothing” is already something because you can talk about it, specify it, point at it.

If you were to truly talk about literal nothing, as in “devoid”, then you’d be not talking about anything because the very thing you wanted to talk about is absent. There is nothing to talk about.
You cant point at it. You cant name it. You cant think of it. Because its nonexistent.

Same way you aint gonna be thinking about things which are nonexistent to you, aka: you have 0 information of.
Suggesting you can think of the absence of information is a contradiction. Something is not the absence of something, and the absence of something is not something.

1 Like
45

I was quoting what @pseudoai was saying. Of course I disagree with that. I do not have the ability of producing new arguments to continue a discussion with claims that the 3500 BC people who invented the wheel could also potentially create rockets… Exactly as you said, without proper information, imagination cannot go very far.

1 Like
46

I disagree. You just label that a disease, for example, in order to disregard it. I’ll make it succint in order not to derail this thread much.

For every idea, you can analyze it separate in the not original part, and the original part. The original part is, then, original. The topics have to do with one another, but your interpretation of reality is not the same as your imagination, since you can imagine things that are not real nor your interpretation of reality.

See? You are sure of something that is not true. Just give me a logically sound argument and that’ll be it - quite simple.

Not at all. For example: chance. You are supposing it makes no sense to talk about nothing just because what ‘nothing’ refers to doesn’t exist. It’s like saying ‘Santa doesn’t exist’ makes no sense.

In the end, you seem to be talking about sterotypes of people, like an ideation about a sort of standardized idea of human, and giving in to limitations there. But nobody is that idea of human. All humans are quite different, way more in the things that are not told to others, and that require no physical effort

47

No. I gave you a specific logical rundown as to why its being the case.
Not dismissed it, point by point counter argued it.
So ironically in this instance you skipped the argument and focused instead on an analogy, with which then you disregarded the argument.

-

You can point at the concept of santa
You can describe santa
You can make claims about what it does
Every bit of the concept of santa is built on things you know → Fat bearded dude → Red warm clothes → Snow → Reindeers → Presents → Xmas
Its nothing new. Its an aggregate of known and understood concepts, and it exists.

Something that is devoid does not exist.
You cant point at it
You cant describe it
You cant make claims about what it does
It doesnt even have parts it’d be built on because its devoid of everything.

And your brain most certainly aint going around (even when damaged) pulling something out of nothing, because not only does it not work that way, its an inherent contradiction to do so.

The TL;DR variant of this question is that you are claiming that you can create something out of nothing.
Im pretty sure you are not capable of that, but feel free to disprove me.

1 Like
48

The hypothesis you took as valid were not. I didn’t focus on anything in particular. The fact that we have any idea whatsoever precisely shows you that devoid of input you can imagine things that are not rearrangements of the previous things.

Exactly, what “nothing” refers to does not exist - that’s what nothing means. That’s why santa is nothing, and that makes sense

1 Like
49

You wrote this down and it means absolutely nothing.
Its fine sophistry.

”The fact that we have any idea whatsoever shows you that devoid of input […]”
You have no “idea” of any kind when you are devoid of input, and you have not said anything that would as much as suggest otherwise, god forbid post evidence or proof of it.

Nothing is already something since you can define it and point at it, just like santa.
You cant do that to the true meaning of the word at which you will not be able to point. You aint gonna be calling it santa or anything else. Because its nonexistent.

50

Not at all. If it does seem like that to you, we can agree on that.

I’m trying to be succint. I suppose you can come up with your own examples. We have ideas when we are devoid of input, like, for example: “Finances”. There were no finances previously to humans, so at some point something new arisen. You say, well, that idea had a lot things borrowed from before, no problem, so we divide that idea in what is not original (all the previous ideas) and the new part. That new part is an idea on itself and it’s not based on anything previous. Plus, at some point there were no ideas, and at some point there was an idea. According to you, the first idea is impossible since you have to base that on previous ideas, and there were none.

No, you are confusing what nothing refers to (that’s when we talk about ‘nothing’ with no other clarifications), with the concept of ‘nothing’. I’m not talking about the concept of nothing, but I refer to nothing. What is nonexistent is what the concept of nothing refers to. The concept is not nonexistent. Those are different things (recall map vs territory and all that). If a map has drawn an island when there is none, the island doesn’t exist. The concept of that island exists, and that’s why you can say ‘that island doesn’t exist’, since what that means is that the thing referred to by the concept ‘that island’ does not exist.

51

Yeah, its just like… my opinion. No objective evidence of it happening.

The moment there was trading, there was value. All finances did was to create a buffer for that value, which was an already existing concept at that point. Not only that, but it was a logical step up from trading. We needed something for X purpose, we came up with 600 ideas before Y stuck finally.

Neither Y nor any of the associated 600 ideas have been void or devoid of context.

Yeah, at some point apparently nothing existed, and then suddenly did, out of nothing.
Welcome to “nothing became something 2: The game”
God did it or smth

And precisely that was my point.
You are not going to reference void things because they are void.

And that is not what void is.
You are talking about imaginary aggregates. Things you made up of already existing information just like every each word you said in that example of yours.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the absence of things.

A void concept is not referenced.
Its not on your map, its not in your head, its not something you make up.

Again just like in the universe thread you pick an arbitrary bs definition that has nothing to do with what i am saying, and keep on pushing it for sh*ts and giggles even though it has nothing to do with what i am saying and does not work even in the context of your own thread.

If thats what we gonna play again, then i will quit this thread too because if you dont want to understand what i am saying, then i neither can nor will i try to force you.

52

It was even less conceptual than that. A guy just needed to borrow from another guy to make a trade, the other guy had to leave town but didn’t want to lose what he lent, and another guy offered to buy the debt.

Boom, finance was born. Not a single moment of architecture existed.

53

we had everything from salt and spice to tea units and IOU pieces of papers

54

I wonder if you are failing to ascertain that there are (at least) new parts in every new idea, or you are just playing dumb

55

Ironic considering you are the one who is intentionally walking past what i am saying.

1 Like
56

Not really, no.

57

.
There is only :index_pointing_up:t3: reality, no matter what the f they said.