How Objective or Subjective Phenomenon Is Reality - Coursework Example

Introduction One of the foremost, controversial and prevailing questions that man had to deal with, still is confronted with and will continue to captivate his rationality is the deeper understanding of his reality he or she lives in. Man has long sought to attain a deeper grasp of what reality is and whether it matters to his fellow man or just to his own consciousness. The short and common phrase “is this real?” is the defining part of his or her life. Logically man would also ask what is real. Part of this entire line of questioning is whether reality is something shared or communally binds each and every member of society or is it specific only to an individual? Are the things that the mind perceives really exists or are they just products of my thoughts and ideas and are not part of the world beyond the confines of the human mind? A significant part of the extensive yet never ending reasoning pursuing the truth about reality is to explore the challenge of reconciling the mind’s perception with the substantial essence of things. At the core of this notion is the concept of reality is either based on perception or participation by others such as soliciting to the same idea between individuals or the combination of both. The human compunction to explore what is and what is not real even extends as far as other aspects of human life such as the arts or the workings of society and not just pure philosophy. There is the argument that despite the involvement of other members of society in certain things this does not verify that it is real. Moreover the idea is forwarded that even the experiences shared by individuals does not necessarily mean it is real. In fact it is a notion that what several individuals experience can be a mere product of human mental construction and thus purely be cognitive without any means to verify whether the cognitive experiences which commonly shared actually transcend its purely mental process to become more than just a cognitive manifestation but becomes real in the most substantial sense. Points of Discussion The central idea of this discussion is the statement which says:” All entities with our general set of experience are living in a simulation.” This central idea can be reduced to 3 essential discussions. First is there such a thing as reality based on common or communally shared experiences? Can there a be simulation of reality due to a common experience? And last what are factors that facilitate simulations of reality? The first question explores the idea that reality can be a product of convention or agreement between individuals. The second delves into the nature of reality and seeks to examine whether simulated realities can be generated based on common experiences.And the third seeks to arrive at the factors that are invovlved in facilitating simulations of reality. Objectives and Limits of the Discussion The discussion shall center on the core statement of the paper which is: All entities with our general set of experience are living in a simulation. The discussions will be as much as possible focused on the fundamental questions as the prime issues that all discussion will subsequently have to address. From time to time and when necessary there will be side discussions to better develop explanations certain side discussions may be incorporated into the main discussions. Despite the broadness of the topic and even broader implications of the core statement the discussion will be limited to only to the realm of the concepts and social implications of the said concepts given the contextualization of the main point of the discussion. This is not intended to prejudice the topic area nor the value of the topic. But due to realistic constraints such limits were adapted. What is vital is that the included aspects are valid and equally relevant to the broader topic area from which the fine points of this paper are derived. Approach to Substantiation The next logical question is how does one approach such question and how the does the ideas for such central issues are laid out and how are they to be discussed? For simplicity and efficiency in the exposition it was decided that a three (3) step approach be adopted. The first step is the general discussion of thoughts, concepts and ideas of the central issues. There will be particularly emphasis on the concepts and ideas that are most prominent and substantial in terms of reasoning. The second step is the introduction of resources associated with or that directly refers to the ideas in the first step. These resources or references would also entail further explanations as well as discussions to further expound on what has been presented. Also the second step would be the stage where examples would be introduced to verify or dispute certain ideas, notions and concepts. The last step would be to create a synthesis of ideas by looking at the central issues and how well their substantial elements are either reinforced or effective disputed basing on the materials presented. Furthermore at the end of the discussion there will be a recap of the central issues or questions of the discussion and an attempt to answer them based on what has been discussed and the materials presented. Pre – Requisite Discussion of Reality What is reality? Before any exposition exploring the relationship of experiences to reality this is the question that must first be engaged. It is believed that reality is the summation of perception which is validated by either others or simply by overwhelming human reasoning. In fact it is said that "...culture defines reality through this facade. That is, if you (and I) can see it, touch it, hear it, or smell it, then it is real—even if it is essentially all empty space! The chair or couch that you are sitting in is “real” because it is commonly experienced by yourself and others” (1). This is the fundamental and conventional idea of reality which is based on perception or rather the perceptivity of matter. If matter has substance (meaning its real) therefore it can be perceived through the senses. However it is acknowledged that reality can essentially be relative in the sense that "...what is treated as mythical or esoteric by our culture simply because it is not a commonly shared experience. They are qualities that make us uniquely human—faith, courage, love, etc. (to name but a few). From a historical perspective, we do not deny the existence of these characteristics, but we certainly do not agree on a measure of the parameters that define these characteristics. It is more of an I-recognize-it-when-I-see-it approach. Because it is not universally experienced like our physical world, our science-based culture relegates it to the status of pseudo-reality. In the case of selected characteristics like faith, peace (of heart), etc., our culture treats them as little more than well-received myth"(Yeager 2006). Aristotle expound on reality and argues that reality goes beyond the senses and in fact he expounds on reality by examining the nature of matter from which all things spring forth. Aristotle states that "The essence, i.e. the substantial reality, no one has expressed distinctly. It is hinted at chiefly by those who believe in the Forms; for they do not suppose either that the Forms are the matter of sensible things, and the One the matter of the Forms, or that they are the source of movement (for they say these are causes rather of immobility and of being at rest), but they furnish the Forms as the essence of every other thing, and the One as the essence of the Forms" (Aristotle, 350 B.C.). This verifies that despite certain differences as to how an individual recognizes, experiences and grasps reality there is an underlying principle to it. And this underlying principle is universal and applicable to all. Both views of reality does have merit however the Aristotelian view has greater significance to the discussions undertaken herein. But when applicable the alternative view may be employed and utilized. Common Experiences as Reality Is there such a thing as reality based on common or communally shared experiences? The core of this question is based on the notion that human society and culture is the definitive element which all individuals of a particular community share. Reality to a particular culture or community is always defined by the worldview as well as cultural orientation. Reality tends to be the views based on cultural heritage as well as communal beliefs and community consciousness. The whole idea of reality becomes a reflection of the cultural and communal nuances. Therefore reality tends to be whatever a specific culture or community’s idea of it is. The relevance of this is that culture and community beliefs are perhaps the most prevalent manifestation of common experiences. In this context experience is used to refer to not just present or current experiences rather as the resulting culture and beliefs that stem from experiences of a particular cultural group or community. Culture and belief is what binds members of such and thus their reality is fundamentally based on this. This however is not definitive in the sense that it is a reality from a particular standpoint but not reality as meant by the previously discussed concept which was noted as the most viable for the exposition in this paper. However “cultures have largely adopted the view that reality in the physical world can best be established through the scientific method. As a general rule, we no longer accept that something is true or real because someone in a position of authority has told us so. We expect a process of verification that ideally involves replication of the original situation, repeated testing, and correlation with data that have already been established. Not everybody agrees, of course; superstitious people still abound even in contemporary cultures, and a fascination with other-worldly speculation still persists even among the scientifically well-informed. But on the whole, modern people have demystified the physical universe” (Progressive Humanism n.d.). This emphasizes the fact that for certain things to be considered real it has to be something generally known ad accepted and in some cases culture must define and have a concept about it. After all culture and communal beliefs are nothing more than agreed precepts that society by and large accedes to. Parts of this are norms which form part of the bounds of human conduct and behavior. They indirectly set the extent and bounds of certain realities. Furthermore we have to consider the Shared Reality Theory which ”holds that people are motivated to achieve mutual understanding or ‘shared reality’ with specific others in order to (i) establish, maintain, and regulate interpersonal relationships, thereby satisfying relational needs foraffiliation, and (ii) perceive themselves and their environments as stable, predictable, and potentially controllable, thereby satisfying epistemic motives to achieve certainty. Hence, according to the theory, two fundamental adaptive requirements of human survival (social inclusion and knowledge of the external world) are served by the same social psychological mechanism, namely the maintenance and regulation of shared reality in interpersonal relationships” (Jost, Ledgerwood and Hardin, 2007). From this we can arrive at the idea tha although there are cases that common experiances like that of culture may be a reality but this is not definitive and is open to opposing views. There is also no stability as to the causal link between reality and common experiences. Simulation of Reality Contrary to the philosophical view reality that has impersonal origins there is the prevailing idea that reality, partly or as a whole ,can be and in some cases actually is simulated. Simulation of reality takes on many shapes, means or forms and greater still is the number of its variations for simulation as a whole as well as parts of it. Simulation is basically a product of the human mind; thought and conciousness combined. The human mind’s need to rationalize and make sense of things often rsults to simluations of part of or entire realities. This not only covers an individual but may also be on the social or communal level. Simulation of reality on the individual or personal level is as simple as imagination or a product of the basic process of the mind. Simulation on the social level is far more different matter. The foremost conceptual basis of simulating reality comes from the Social Construct Theorty. “"To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves. It is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently. The inevitable contrast is with a naturally existing object, something that exists independently of us and which we did not have a hand in shaping" (Boghossian n.d.). Furthermore “The Simulation Argument presented by Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom is ambitious in that it that it does not stop by merely suggesting that we might be living in a simulated universe, it argues that we probably are living in a simulated universe! The argument uses evidence gathered from the world around us (about the rapid growth of our computer technology) and solid scientific reasoning to show that a rational scientific person has to take seriously the possibility that we are already living in a computer simulation. The basic principle behind this theory is that the human civilisation will one day have access to sufficient computing power capable of running simulations of their ancestors (us!). Maybe in a few thousand years in the future we might actually make a re-appearance (as Sims) in those advanced simulations. That doesnt sound too far-fetched, does it? But what if it is the case that human civilisation has, in fact, already reached that advanced state and is already running those simulations? That would mean we are living in a simulated world right now!” (Are We Living in the Matrix?, 2007). This outlines the growing trend that began as far back as the 20th century is man’s overwhelming drive to simulate the reality for many purposes or reasons. Often technology is employed to conduct these simluations. There are also cases where these simulations are expolained through technology. Another manifestation of simluation even if only in part can be seen in the context of the arts such as in the case of mixed reality performances. One of these performances is said “explore and demonstrate the multiple and shifting relationships that can exist between real performance spaces, audience spaces and virtual worlds. In fact, we want to have a real interaction between real dancer(s) on stage and virtual dancer(s) in a virtual world. To achieve this, we use our virtual reality technology” (Carion, Beylot, Magnenat-Thalmann, Emering, Musse and Thalmann, 1998). This brings to light the whole idea of virtual reality which is a common part of the culture of the 21st century. It is viewed as the ability to recreate reality via technological mean. Simply put it is simply simulating reality through technology. It is said that “Both the name and the promise of virtual reality capture our imagination. The idea of creating worlds drives both poet and politician, both the corrupt and the hopeful. To create worlds with such fidelity to our own that they would be, to all practical purposes, indistinguishable...” (Shaffer n. d.). A notable questionis how does one diffentiate actual reality from simultaed reality? This has become an even more presssing question since simulations of reality has become more and more real to the point that it is very close to reality in actuality. A basic contrast of reality and simulated reality is in terms of our experience of each. “The notion of "virtual embodiment" requires a little thought since to many people it sounds like a contradiction in terms. The concept of virtual embodiment derives from our ability to separate "embodiment as performance" from "embodiment as (proprioceptive) sensation". In todays world, our experience of direct bodily sensation (called "proprioception") is mostly the result of our encounter with the physical world and not with virtual environments, although certain technologies currently under development contain the potential of modifying this. On the other hand, our embodied experience of the world also includes the ways in which our actions bring about changes in our understanding of ourselves, our emotional makeup, and our conscious and unconscious behaviours. The performative characteristic of embodied experience is not necessarily associated with our physical body. If we act within virtual spaces, especially in a way that is mediated by a virtual body, then we may have a variety of experiences that are experienced as embodied. Hence we can meaningfully talk about "virtual embodiment" in this way” (Egoyan 2007). This shows that so devoid of reasoning and so long as the senses are satisfied simulated reality can be mistaken for actual reality. The embodiment experience is based on sensations and human perceptivity. Unfortunately they are succeptible to simulated realities, the latter catering heavily to the senses and perception. The scenario of simulating reality that in a way is associated to an imposed sinister reality oulined in a scene from the movie matrix. The dialogue for the said scene is as follows: “ Morpheus : Do you want to know...._what_ _it_ is....? Neo nods Morpheus : The Matrix is everywhere. Its all around us, even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to work, when you pay your taxes. The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth” (“The Matrix”, 1999). This explores the idea that a common experience need not necessarily by a viable foundation for reality. Moreover this can be a means to impose reality en masse. And as laid out by Aristotle reality is beyond the individual. From all of this we are able to deduce that simulation of reality can be achieved most especially by means that cater to the basic human capacities that is primarily employed in identifying and detecting reality. In the case of mixed reality performances it is clear that the common experienced that is shared by the audience generates among them reality of a sort and establishes that common experience can be the foundation of a simulation of reality. But in this lies the paradox: reality is impersonal yet it stems from the individual human consciousness. To harmonize the paradox we find the common ground that reality is both a product of human perception as well as the fabric upon which all things are made up of. Both are equally valid basis for assessing reality. The Forces that Influence the Creation of Simulated Realities Simulating reality is done for many reasons and for various purposes. We have to distinguish the factors that outline simulation as an active choice of a product of will and factors that are involuntary and are products of things beyond the control of human will and is not part of the realm covered by choice. Simulations of reality or parts of it may be purposeful in the sense that it was undertaken with a particular objective in mind. Such are the case in mixed reality performances, virtual realities employed on films and video games and other forms of media. There are even cases of simulation of realiy due to certain socio – cultural necessities such when a socoiety accepts the changing times and all new trends that accompanies it. All these play a role in giving pretext for and in some cases actually are employed to generate simulated realities. The common picture avatar and all the consequent status nuances of a common facebook account entails a basic yet equally generated or simulated reality even if only about ones self. All these raise the question is reality free of human will and choice or is it a product of human will and choice? But this question disregards the fact that there are instances where simulated realities are produced free of human will and choice. Other influences that play a role in the simulation of realities are those beyond will and choice. They are immutable or even if limited to the human condition imperviousto human control and intervention. One such mode of creating or simulating reality is in the context of a psychological disorder. This disorder is commonly known as the delusion. Depite it being a product of the human state of mind it is not something chosen or willed. “Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the belief. Non-bizarre delusions are considered to be plausible; that is, there is a possibility that what the person believes to be true could actually occur a small proportion of the time. Conversely, bizarre delusions focus on matters that would be impossible in reality. For example, a non-bizarre delusion might be the belief that ones activities are constantly under observation by federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies, which actually does occur for a small number of people. By contrast, a man who believes he is pregnant with German Shepherd puppies holds a belief that could never come to pass in reality. Also, for beliefs to be considered delusional, the content or themes of the beliefs must be uncommon in the persons culture or religion. Generally, in delusional disorder, these mistaken beliefs are organized into a consistent world-view that is logical other than being based on an improbable foundation” (Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders). This shows that the mind is capable of simulating reality free of human will and choice. Kind of simulation that is neither willed nor chosen are those which we refer to as culture and communal practices. Over the course of serveral generations actively chosen and elected practices as well as beliefs are continued but become something that is not done for a particular purpose but rather as something already accepted and done because it has been so for many generations. It is “Once a culture develops a functional set of attitudes and practices, it locks on to them and changes only slowly, over generations, and then only in response to challenges” (Progressive Humanism n. d.). This shows that culture once in play becomes an automatic source of reality or reality generation that a society acceded to. It now stops being a product of perceptions and notions and becomes as source of them to the pouin that i defines the community’s reality. Lastly we explore the idea of nature. Nature being the very core and substance of all things. It is not something chosen but it is what compriss all things. Aristotle argued that ature of matter were the only principles of all things. That of which all things that are consist, the first from which they come to be, the last into which they are resolved (the substance remaining, but changing in its modifications), this they say is the element and this the principle of things...“ (Aristotle, 350 B.C.) . The Aristotlelian view is that reality is based on matter and since all things including man comes from matter then reality’s origins lie at the very core of the nature of things which is simply beyond human choice and will. After all we are unable to choose not to be made up of biological matter or choose what would be the laws governing our very environment. Such is nature, it encompasses all yet it is not born of it, rather it is the source abd blueprint upon which all things are based. Nature in this context is used to refer as the susbtance and base essence of matter or in short all things. It is the substance of existence from which all things that exist come from. It is the source or unicversal building block whcih everything in reality is based on. Conclusions At the onset this paper sought to engage 3 fudnamental questions. They are: First is there such a thing as reality based on common or communally shared experiences? Can there a be simulation of reality due to a common experience? And last what are factors that facilitate simulations of reality?. Based from the material as well as discussion that have been presented as to the first question there is such a thing as reality based on a common experience. In fact entire societies and communities are built on it. However reality in this sense is not th kind that is universal or encompassing. In many cases reality in these instances still accede to the universal reality that governs all. It is sufficient to say that reality can be based on common experience but this is not all exclusive notion. Common experience can be the basis of reality but this role it shares with other srpings from which the fount of reality flow from. It is however noted that common experience especially in the form of culture and communal traditions are powerful precursors and progenitors of reality. They are in fact at the forefront when we seek to unravel the nature of reality. This leads to the second question: Can there a be simulation of reality due to a common experience? Equally enough if common experience be the source of reality it can also be used to generate reality or simulate as a whole or parts thereof. It has been established that common experience in fact is the most viable source of reality simulation since it already provides for a generic makeup as to the construction of reality and how reality is perceived. In fact in society we have the phenomenon of social constructs wherein certain social truths were created and accepted by society as part of its overall operation and for its continued stability. An example of these are norms. The third question is the logical follow through of the second question. Since common experience is not the only source of reality simulation and generation then there are other forces at work. The two main categories of the factors that influences the simulation of reality are the active ones which are of choice and will and the second is the involuntary which are beyond choice and will. The first simply provides that simulating reality is a fucntional and objective – oriented matter. That it is for a particular purpose, function or goal. The second are forces of both naure as well as basic processes of nature. They are beyond human control yet as in the case of delusions may spring from the human state. These are held as naturally occuring and often encompassing forces that shape and govern our very existence. Aristotle identifies them fittingly as the progenitor of substance which all matter – that is to say the whole of reality is derived from. As to the central statement of the discussion:” All entities with our general set of experience are living in a simulation.” This is established as logically valid and argumentatively sound. We have encoutered proofs as well as arrived at conclusions that all point to its validity and persuasive quality. It is a statement that in fact speaks so much about the the human condition as well as the way we view our existence. Moreover it is a statement that holds much trurh as it speaks of the nature of human existence. Bibliography Aristotle, 350 B.C. Metaphysics Trans. By Ross, W. D. Boghossian, Paul A., n.d. What is Social Construction?. [Online]. Available at: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1153/socialconstruction.pdf. [Accessed 7 May 2010] Carion, Stéphane, Beylot, Pierre, Magnenat-Thalmann, Nadia, Emering, Luc, Musse, Soraia Raupp and Thalmann, Daniel, 1998. Mixed Reality Dance Performance. [Online] Available at: http://www.nada.kth.se/erena/pdf/D2_1.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2010] Egoyan, Magellan, 2007. Virtual Embodiment. Embodied Research Group. [Online] Available at; http://embodiedresearch.blogspot.com/2007/12/virtual-embodiment.html. Encyclopedia ofMental Disorders. Delusional disorder [Online] Available at: http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusional-disorder.html. [Accessed 7 May 2010] Jost, John T., Ledgerwood, Alison and Hardin, Curtis D. 2007 Shared Reality, System Justification, and the Relational Basis of Ideological Beliefs. New York University. The Matrix, 1999 [Film] Directed by Wachowski brothers. USA: Village Roadshow Pictures. Progressive Humanism,A New Approach to the Humanist Philosophy, n.d. How Culture Defines Reality, and Vice Versa. [Online] Availabl at: ehttp://www.progressivehumanism.com/reality.html [Accessed 7 May 2010] Shaffer, Allen C. n.d. Virtual Reality and Husserlian Phenomenology. University of Aberdeen. [Online]. Available at: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/endsandmeans/vol2no1/shaffer.shtml [Accessed 7 May 2010] What is Reality? The Big Questions, 2007. Are We Living in the Matrix?. [Online] Availabl at: http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_big_brother.asp. [Accessed 7 May 2010] Yeager, Brian 2006. What is Reality?. www.workmanmin.com, [Online]. Available at: http://www.workmanmin.com/Studies/Reality.pdf. [Accessed 7 May 2010] Read More