CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
29
Yes No
Debate Score:41
Arguments:79
Total Votes:45
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (10)
 
 No (16)

Debate Creator

Gypsee(347) pic



The world is a representation

The world is a representation. Despite all the objectivity that science is capable of, we ultimately know the world only how it is for us, that is, in its dependence on human consciousness.

Yes

Side Score: 12
VS.

No

Side Score: 29
3 points

Everything that you can possibly experience and conceive is actually part of your representation of reality, not reality itself. The world is your world and nothing that is not part of your representation can enter into it.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5669) Disputed
3 points

The latter does not follow from the former. We experience our own sense representation of the world around us, true. But it does not follow that the actual world around us is therefore a representation itself.

We subjectively experience that which is objective. Our subjective experience does not, in itself, alter or eliminate the existence of the objective world.

Side: No
Dermot(5736) Clarified
3 points

I agree, you're correct . I stated........Everything that you can possibly experience and conceive is actually part of your representation of reality, not reality itself........

I did state ...... not reality itself , I took the topic to mean that the world is a representation as we perceive it , my mistake

Side: Yes
xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
1 point

Amarel, you are completely misunderstanding the topic for which is up for debate...

The debate topic tacitly presupposes that there is a physical objective reality outside of human consciousness. It is asking whether or not we can get a one-to-one style mapping representation of this physical reality in which we are able to so accurately perceive the Physical objective reality for what it is that the distinction between representation and reality breaks down to being non-existent. The reason why this didn't occur to you is because you have essentially no knowledge of modern science or scientific minded thinking so you take the world around you at face-value, completely unaware that the 500 year history of science (and even notable contributions in pre-scientific eras) has revealed that objective physical reality is VERY different than what we would think if we take the world at face value. Have you stopped to ask yourself, "what would it even mean for reality to be a representation? Reality as a representation of Reality? That doesn't seem right? Is it possible that I am misunderstanding the question posed by the creator of the Debate?"

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, you are absolutely correct. We know from neuroscience that our view of the world is a "simulation" or "constrained hallucination" produced by our brains based upon the stimulus it is receiving from the outside world but itself does not have direct contact to the outside world. That is, the brain is enclosed inside of our skulls in total darkness and is producing an image of the world based on the rest on the signals it is receiving from external input. In fact, this becomes obvious once you consider the case of people with various neurological disorders that are getting very different representations of the world based on the stimuli their nervous systems are capable of processing. Also, consider what it would be like to be a member of a different species, a bat say or a wolf. They are going to have very different representations of the world based upon what their nervous systems have evolved to be capable of processing.

Their are many neuroscience and philosophy books/lectures/articles that explore this concept much further. Just to list a few as reference:

1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31555.Phantoms intheBrain?ac=1&from;search=true

2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/63697.The ManWhoMistookHisWifeforaHatandOtherClinicalTales?ac=1&from;search=true

3. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9827912-incognito?ac=1&from; search=true

4. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/222043.Wild Minds?ac=1&from;search=true

5. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2074.Kinds ofMinds?ac=1&from;search=true

6. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/835623.How theMindWorks?from_search=true

Also, for these books I have listed, most of them you can put the title into YouTube or the Authors name and lectures/videos will come up that summarize the contents of the books that bolster my argument.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5669) Disputed
0 points

They are going to have very different representations of the world

This comment is just one way in which your post illustrates the opposite of what you are saying. Our view of the world is a representation, but the world itself is not. Other species see the world differently, they don't live in a different world.

We know from neuroscience that our view of the world is a "simulation" or "constrained hallucination"

If our view of the world is a constrained hallucination, then our neuroscience is a product of said hallucination and cannot be trusted.

"constrained hallucination" produced by our brains based upon the stimulus it is receiving from the outside world but itself does not have direct contact to the outside world

To say that our perspective is an hallucination because we do not have "direct contact" with the outside world requires an explanation of what "direct contact" would entail. All things are necessarily sensed through sense organs, this is our contact. To require otherwise is to require contact with the world through no particular means.

this becomes obvious once you consider the case of people with various neurological disorders

The fact that we can claim these people have disorders makes the opposite case more obvious. The world is not a representation, our view of it is, and if our view is not in accordance with the reality, we have a "disorder".

Side: No
xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
1 point

Please watch a few of these short videos that I will list at the end of this comment. Your comments suggests such a profound ignorance of Neuroscience to such an extent that you don't seem to understand the ESTABLISHED FACT that you are NOT "seeing the world through your eyes" but rather your brain is taking in sensory information, processing it, and creating a projection (aka. REPRESENTATION) of a way in which it is evolutionarily advantageous for our primate species to have adapted in this way (eg. to see the world on our scale, to perceive "color" which is NOT an intrinsic property of the Universe (you may want to learn some basic Physics as well while your at it), to perceive Physics in a Classical sense and not a Quantum Mechanical way because we do not live on that scale, our perception of time, ect. ect.). The objective physical reality of the Universe is very different than what we as Humans (ei. Apes, Mammals, Animals). If you were ANYTHING BUT HUMAN you would perceive the world/universe in a very different way. Moreover, even being human you perceive the world very differently than someone who is colorblind, deaf, phantom limb syndrome, ect. (btw, this is literally what Neurologist study, please read an Oliver Sacks or V.S. Ramachandran book or at least watch a video, it will open your eyes). The image of the world that you are presenting is consistent with what is known as the Cartesian Theatre and I will provide a link to this below.

Short Videos and Links:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxa85kUxBDQ

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3a2FFoRpzQ

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5otGNbkuc

If you don't watch at least one of these videos than please do not bother to respond as you will have learned no new requisite information necessary for which to intelligently comment by. Also, by that same token, if you think you have a video or chapter of a book, article, or whatever that is just a knock down argument of everything I have just stated I would be VERY interested to see it. In such a case, please provide said link and I would like to read/watch it for myself.

Side: Yes
1 point

All definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster...

World is defined as "the earthly state of human existence". World is also defined as "the system of created things :universe".

Universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated".

There is a consistency here. The universe by definition is contingent on observation and postulation. The world has to do with the state of human.

We can only know as humans. That is taking into account a tool that is being used to measure. .

This is our world. The Universe. Creation.

That which exists independent of human consciousness is called by people "God" or "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". For me to communicate that at all, I have to use a representation.

The Ultimate Reality is God. God is The Most Perfect Image. God is The Word. You must believe that The Word is what it says it is. When I speak about "God", I am speaking of what that points to, what that really means. However, I am using the word "God". I have to use words to communicate, and words are by nature representations.

The world we live in is creation. It is creation because in order to reach our consciousness the world actual had to go through a process of abstraction starting from our senses, going through our bodies, being processed subconsciously, and the then finally reaching our consciousness. The process that leads to what we end up experiencing as our consciousness can be seen as 10,000 steps or more. Every instance where a piece of information is transmitted, the information is not cloned. There is corruption. Even at the step of sensory input, our senses are only intended to recognize a certain reality. The proof of this is in how alien hearing and seeing are from each other. They draw from the same source, but they perceive it radically different due to the major differences in how they draw from reality. What we experience is reality, but it is not ultimately real. The ultimate reality is that source that all of this world draws from.

The Holy God is grander than any reality we could observe or postulate. You might say, "Is not God a postulation?" In a sense you'd be correct, but to get what I'm saying you have to see that "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" intrinsically means that when we speak of "God", we are talking of something that is totally transcendent of the means we use to represent and communicate it. Creation is not of the nature to comprehend The Singularity.

It is important to grasp the essence of what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means. That is the spirit of truth. The holy spirit. So God is realized through the trinity, which states that God The Father(The Ultimate Reality) is known through His Son(The Word) with The Holy Spirit(The spirit of truth).

So you can know one thing for certain, as it is written on the hearts of all, and can be proven to all who accept it. Despite the relative nature of our world, God cuts through it and sanctifies the whole thing. You can be certain of God. Can't be certain of much else, if anything.

Side: Yes
1 point

The philosopher Plato would agree with you that we are seeing only a representation of the world. Clearly we all have an idea of the world and this idealism means subjectivism explains reality. Perhaps this is less objective than natural science but useful in some philosophical understanding such as ethics.

Side: Yes
3 points

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding. The world is in no way dependent on human conciseness. If humanity were to up and leave one day it would take very little time for the world to go back to as it was without us. Our own perceptions would be a representation of us on this planet but that, I believe, is it. I do think I am missing the point of the debate though, could you please clarify?

Side: No
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

Mint_tea, I agree with everything you were saying. However, I came down on the opposite side of the debate as you because the debate topic tacitly presupposes that there is a physical objective reality outside of human consciousness. It is asking whether or not we can get a one-to-one style mapping representation of this physical reality in which we are able to so accurately perceive the Physical objective reality for what it is that the distinction between representation and reality breaks down to being non-existent. And as you pointed out, the world is not dependent on human consciousness, but we certainly are and due to this fact, we are highly constrained to viewing the world in a particular way which we no from the body of Science to be highly limited and that the world is very different then how it seems to us when taken at face-value.

Side: Yes
Mint_tea(4641) Clarified
2 points

It is asking whether or not we can get a one-to-one style mapping representation of this physical reality in which we are able to so accurately perceive the Physical objective reality for what it is that the distinction between representation and reality breaks down to being non-existent.

To sum it up, if I may presume. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? To further, does the tree even exist? The forest?

Is this an accurate summation?

we are highly constrained to viewing the world in a particular way

Apologies that I cherry-picked the sentence, but yes I agree. We are limited by our capacity in how we view the world and all around it.

Side: Yes
2 points

I agree with everything you are saying about the world we perceive merely being the best that our senses can represent relative to the actual world. The problem is that the debate is titled "The world is a representation" which, while possible, seems unlikely. Some people will take the question literally, others, like yourself, will take the question as the OP intended (that our perception is not in line with the actual world). Both sides are correct and are talking past each other, despite the fact that everybody seems in agreement that an actual world exists and that our perception is merely our best representation of it.

Side: No
1 point

That is possible.

It's equally possible that the world is the real here and now and instead of overthinking it we should just eat and live and love and make the best of it because it will be over faster than you realize.

I would argue that in a tie of one verses the other your safe bet is the second scenario. Because that's the one you can see and feel and experience on a personal level. The folks believing it's all just symbolic or virtual are basing that on human philosophies and history is stuffed with beliefs people used to hold dear which we now think are crap. And if instead you think the safe bet is living by the religious belief, just in case you have to for eternal salvation, then you also probably need to do a human sacrifice, dance for the Thunderbird, and arrange to be mummified, in case the beliefs tied to those turn out to be the truth.

Side: No

Human consciousness is dependent on physical reality, it is impossible for human consciousness to create it's own reality because every life form on this planet including humans has to adapt to an objective cause and effect world. When a flying asparagus tailed frog monkey throws a plate of banana chips at your face, how can you deny that a plate of banana chips is flying at your face? if you duck maybe they'll miss, if you just stand there then you will be hit with dry banana.

Side: No
1 point

it is impossible for human consciousness to create it's own reality

In the field of quantum mechanics, observation directly affects the results of experiments. For example an electron will only behave as a point particle when it is observed.

Side: Yes
xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
1 point

People with Neurological disorders and various types of hallucinations DO create their own representation of reality that differs sharply from a healthy human brain because their brains are malfunctioning. See: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31555.Phantoms intheBrain?ac=1&from;search=true

Side: Yes