Instigator / Pro

That1User

1453

rating

debates

37.5%

won

Topic

#660

Perception is Reality

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

That1User

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 03.31.2019 05:14AM
Last updated date: 05.27.2019 12:33PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

BigBoonj

1455

rating

debates

12.5%

won

Description

What one perceives to be real is reality, as opposed to reality existing as one holistic objective entity
Reality is formed by the individual, every person lives in their own reality at the same time
This is counter to the belief that everyone lives in the same reality at the same
BoP is shared, Pro argues perception is reality, Con argues reality is objective
Reality: the quality or state of being real, the totality of real things and events (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality)

Round 1

That1User

04.03.2019 05:06AM

Pro

Reality constituents what is real

What is real is determined by an individual person first and for most

A person determines what is real by sensing, experiencing, and exchanging information

This first step in knowledge collection, sensing and experiencing, is perception, the individual perceives something as real

Even in the exchange of information the mind determines what's true, the mind perceives what is real

Since reality is what is real, and what is real is determined by perception, what one perceives to be real is reality

There are multiple people with multiple perceptions so there are disagreements on what is real and thus what constitutes reality. That leaves two possibilities, either everyone is wrong about the reality that they live in objectively (since they're so many differing views, no one agrees with someone else 100%, there's even disagreement at the individual level), or everyone lives in different realities simultaneously, with individual perceptions forming what is real, what is reality.

BigBoonj

04.03.2019 12:33PM

Con

First I would like to define reality and perception, so we don't run into issues later on.

Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Perception: the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

The argument that perception of reality=actual reality is logically incorrect. For perception of reality to equal actual reality, there would have to be many realities, as every person has a different perception. But from the definition of reality, we must conclude that there can only be one reality, as there can only be one state in which things exist. It's not possible for you to be bald and have 3-meter-long hair at the same time. That would defy logic, as something cannot be two absolutely different things at the same time. That's the first issue with the idea that there are many realities.

A second issue is with evidence for your claim. For a hypothesis be proven right/wrong, there must be three things:

Your claim, which is what you're trying to prove.

Your expectation, which is evidence that either supports or disproves your claim.

Your conclusion, in which you conclude if your claim was right or wrong.

By using this, you can determine if proving your claim is possible. If your claim is that rats can fly, your expectation would be to find a flying rat. But when you don't find any flying rats, you conclude that they can't fly. Without an expectation there can't be a conclusion.

You see the issue with your claim? You cannot pass from the expectation to the conclusion, because there is nothing to expect. There is no expectation, and therefore there cannot be any evidence for that perception=reality. To find the truth, you make a hypothesis and then see if events support it. How would anything support your hypothesis?

Round 2

That1User

04.06.2019 12:33PM

Pro

Forfeited

BigBoonj

04.09.2019 12:33PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

That1User

04.12.2019 12:33PM

Pro

Forfeited

BigBoonj

04.15.2019 12:33PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 4

That1User

04.18.2019 12:33PM

Pro

Forfeited

BigBoonj

04.21.2019 12:33PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 5

That1User

04.24.2019 12:33PM

Pro

Forfeited

BigBoonj

04.27.2019 12:33PM

Con

#10

Forfeited

That1User

03.31.2019 06:23AM

We can communicate observations but there's a multitude of disagreements about these observations, what's real to one person may not be real to another person

Melcharaz

03.31.2019 06:21AM

There is evidence to show shared perception of a single reality. The evidence in itself is our ability to communicate observations.

RationalMadman

03.31.2019 06:20AM

-->

@That1User

not only can you never prove it objectively as you're forced to deny the objectivity of yoru entire case by the side you're on but people react far stronger to 'obvious physical truths' and scientific assumptions than to actual pure-bred logic. I learned this the hard way against oromagi on my automated cars debate.

BigBoonj

03.31.2019 06:09AM

-->

@That1User

Post your argument!

That1User

03.31.2019 06:02AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Why will I lose

RationalMadman

03.31.2019 05:53AM

-->

@That1User

You are completely correct but you will lose.

Pinkfreud08

04.29.2019 03:32PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

full ff on all sides, hardly a coherent debate

Ramshutu

04.29.2019 11:45AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeit from both sides. Not enough information to assess arguments.

RationalMadman

04.28.2019 11:20PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Conduct to Pro for Con FF.

Pro was better at arguing because he/she/they point out that perception is the only thing we know to be real. What we are perceiving is enslaved to the perception and that is how we ascertain our assumed reality.

Wrick-It-Ralph

04.28.2019 09:07AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro's argument was that what we perceive is real, which is an assertion of the debate topic as well. This means that pro's support for the topic was the topic itself and it was ultimately circular. Pro does mention at the end that there is a second possibility, but fails to properly consider it. This was a missed opportunity by pro that could have been a potential proof by contradiction.

Con's argument first provided firm definitions for perception and reality that matched their general usages.

Con does a proof by contradiction by showing that in Pro's Model, realities would all have to be different. Pointing out this contradiction was huge.

Con wrongly points out that Pro had no expectations for results. This was not true as Pro did claim two possibilities which shows expectations. I was looking for con to point out there being more possibilities. Con missed the mark here and lost a chance to gain more ground in the debate.

All of the following rounds were blank, so judging from the initial arguments. I am forced to give Con the point since his first counterargument destroyed Pro's initial position and Pro never posed a rebuttal to muddy the waters.

All other points tied.