I did not say that the construct is not the real object. I said that the construct is not a real object. The real apple? It is wherever you put it last (or did you eat it, and forget?). Didn't your mother tell you to keep track of those things? And who, onl earth said that all that we can perceive is a manifestation of constructed images, and not reality? What a bizarre thing to say!

No one has a reality. What one has are beliefs about reality. Reality is what our beliefs are about. Wherever did you get the idea that people have realities? They have beliefs about reality.

Don't be afraid of not owning all of reality. You should fear believing that you do, since that would be insanity. You "own" your beliefs about reality though.

The thing (as I have been trying to point out) is do not confuse your beliefs about the world with the world, and, for pity's sake, don't identity them with one another!

So the construct of the apple is a real apple that is different from the real apple that it is a construct of? That seems at least as bizarre as anything I've ever tried to claim.

If our beliefs about reality are not reality itself, then we never truly experience reality, and that is a very depressing thought. My experience may be different from someone else's, but I will maintain its reality until my death.

If the world is not a world made up of beliefs about it, then it is nothing, at least nothing to be rationally known. You can play with that however you like, but it is unavoidable. That is why the things themselves are not the sum total of reality, because it also involves things that are not.

Where did I write that the construct of an apple (whatever that is) is a real apple? I thought that the notion of the construct has meaning only by contrast with the apple. Sometime it troubles me that my beliefs about reality are not reality; but since I tend to be rather pessimistic, I am generally happy they are not, since my beliefs about reality are often worse than how reality turns out really to be. Of course, for the optimist it is just the reverse. My motto is,"Plan for the worst; hope for the best".

Yes, I did misread your earlier post, my apologies.

As for your inherent pessimism, all I can suggest is be careful what you believe. As the great Buddha said.

Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny

Beliefs are a powerful tool, and before you know it you actually become them.

Blind hope is no hope at all. Best and worst are only possible from a specific standpoint, and where we stand on certain beliefs are actually all that remains in our immediate control.

Yes, you seem to read only with your own spectacles. And those distort. It is why you seem to think that beliefs about reality are reality. At least you are consistent; malheureusement!

Does there exist one set of spectacles for ours to be distorted compared to? .

No, but what would that have to do with it? There is are a lot of spectacles that can be checked against each other. And, aside from that, we have methods that have nothing to do with individual pairs of spectacles. Controlled experiments, for instance, which are designed to make us independent of spectacles. In the case of controlled experiments it is irrelevant what any individual happens to see (or believe he sees). That is the purpose of controlling experiments. To objectify them.

What good is objectivity if it does not apply to the worlds which are subject to the use of spectacles? Is science not supposed to teach us about the world as it is relevant to us?

All we achieve in controlled experiments is obtaining information only pertinent to the method of measurement it is using. It is impractical to attempt to apply information gained from a controlled experiment to worlds which are in fact beyond our control.

Even when we control the experiment, it is through our spectacles that we control it. Can't you see that there is no objectivity that can be obtained without a subject. There is always a subject/observer for the measurement to be subject to, it is never purely objective.

We live in worlds that are only experienced through spectacles, and to gain any knowledge at all about those worlds, we must use those spectacles that were given.

And this rampant relativism continues.

Lol, I've never once argued for relativism, in fact I've blatantly argued against it.

I'm all for objectivity, but not apart from subjectivity. They do not, and can not, exist separately as most tend to believe.

We avoid relativism rationally, and we achieve rationality not through the use of modern empirical observation, but through inter-subjective discourse. How do I reach objects? I reach objects through a relationship with them. Objects only exist in relationship to something else, otherwise there would be no object to be distinguished.

The mistake which I thought you were making is that because each one of us views this world subjectively (this means from a unique point of view), that we cannot perceive the objective. And therefore cannot know what is objectively true. But we can know what is objectively true.

I'm not sure what you were arguing against with the controlled experiments bit, then.

We are beings which always view the world from somewhere. How do you suggest that we relate a view from nowhere to a view from somewhere? It cannot be done.

Why do you think that because all views are subjective, that we cannot know the objective? Do you honestly believe we're each living in our own little fantasy world? But you just acknowledged that intersubjectivity exists in regards to many issues. And don't you think that it's reasonable to conclude that if everyone agrees that this chair is in this room, that this chair is actually in this room? If not, why?

Again, I never said we cannot know the objective, but the objective cannot exist without the subjective that it relates to.

The chair exists in the room precisely because everyone agrees that it does. If nobody agreed that the chair existed in the room, then it would not exist in the room.

How far has science progressed? What device are you using to measure?

Are people happier now than say 300 years ago? Can such a thing even be measured?

Are people's lives easier, or are the just much more complex?

If the construct is not the real object, then where is the real object? If all that we can perceive is a manifestation of constructed images, and not reality, at what time does what we experience become real?

Our perceptions create our experience, to what extent these perceptions correlate to some mind independent reality seems arbitrary. Our reality is what we have constructed, and if this isn't our reality, then I fear we have none.

Thank you! Yes, that's the problem with this dualism. That's the problem with noumena, even if it's useful. Where did reality go? "Oh, it's nothing we can ever know...."

Again, I never said we cannot know the objective, but the objective cannot exist without the subjective that it relates to. And really, in the end, they are both the same thing, and the distinction to be made is only a practical one.

The chair exists in the room precisely because everyone agrees that it does. If nobody agreed that the chair existed in the room, then it would not exist in the room. We can inter-subjectively create objective realities, but we cannot get to objectivity without inter-subjectivity.

How far has science progressed?

What device are you using to measure?

Are people happier now than say 300 years ago? Can such a thing even be measured?

Are people's lives easier, or are the just much more complex?

How far has science progressed? What device are you using to measure?

Are people happier now than say 300 years ago? Can such a thing even be measured?

Are people's lives easier, or are the just much more complex?

But why would anyone believe that we can never know reality? That sort of belief confuses me. And I'm sure it even confuses the believer.

Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary study of how information is represented and transformed in the brain.Cognitive science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia