6 ms·

Everything is opinion. A shared reality is just where opinions coincide.

parineum 1mo ago
Like whether you teo were even in the same room watching that movie.
win311fwg 1mo ago
If everything is opinion then there can be no shared reality. The only "reality" that exists is your opinion about there being one.
the_af 1mo ago
Not necessarily. A shared reality is one where people are discussing the same thing (within a reasonable margin) even if filtered by their individual perceptions, and drawing different conclusions. I don't know the word for the opposite of shared reality (maybe private individualized realities), but it results in a scenario where you have nothing in common with other people other than "I saw some thing" and therefore it becomes very difficult to discuss anything with them.
- gghackernewsgg 1mo ago
  "I don't know the word for the opposite of shared reality" Different cultures?
  - the_af 1mo ago
    Maybe, but not necessarily. I think different cultures can share the same reality, though filtered through different lenses. If two people from different cultures watch the same movie, one finds it ok and the other offensive and disrespectful, that's a shared reality filtered through different cultural backgrounds. Even if either version of the movie is dubbed, censored, or altered in any way, there's still enough common or shared material that a discussion can be held. If two people had completely different experiences and watched completely different, tailor-made movies, then there's very little for them to discuss or even disagree with. "I haven't watched your movie", "I haven't watched yours either", "Mine was better", "I guess... I wouldn't know, I thought mine was cool", etc. No shared reality.
    - gghackernewsgg 1mo ago
      I understand what you're saying. My point, which admittedly my last message didn't make at all, is that "different shared realities" is not a new thing. The concept is what would have been referred to as "different cultures" throughout most of human history. Different art, politics, passions, fears, identities, and myths is what cultural variety is about. If you and I watch the same movies and listen to the same music and follow the same politics and share the same dreams and worries, I don't think it's reasonable to say that we are from different cultures. What is being described as a "shared reality" in this thread feels more like globalism and less like something obviously positive or worth protecting. I'm all for more cultural variety as an expression of individual differences.
ryandrake 1mo ago
The shared reality in that example includes only facts: OP and mum went to a movie. The movie was called X. The actors were Y and Z. The original point of this subthread was that we can't even agree on a shared set of facts anymore! The political Right has an entirely different set of facts than the political Left, and when our reality is derived from those facts, we cannot share the same reality anymore.
- hnlmorg 1mo ago
  If the facts can differ then they’re not facts. What you’re then dealing with is propaganda.
  - ryandrake 1mo ago
    Then, we're just back to OP's conundrum: "Everything is opinion." I'll say grass is green and you'll say grass is red, and there can be no fact because they differ.
    - hnlmorg 1mo ago
      Not really no. Some things can be proven while some cannot. The colour of grass is something that’s scientifically measurable. My point is that some broadcasters are very strict about sticking to the facts. Some will misrepresent those facts but not technically lie (eg discuss statistics that favour their partisan view but don’t share the full context behind those stats). And then there’s broadcasters like Fox News that promote flat out lies. It’s often not even an interpretation of the truth. It’s shared as an opinion but the evidence clearly proves it’s just lies presented as facts. And I really wish there were criminal charges for broadcasting blatant lies. Not just in America, but most of the developed world where populist-propaganda is used to brainwash gullible voters.
      - win311fwg 1mo ago
        Communication cannot be scientifically measured. Someone's expression being a "blatant lie" can only ever be an opinion, fundamentally.
switchbak 1mo ago
Everything is perceived, and our perception gets filtered based on our prior experience. Just because we're not directly perceiving objective reality, that does not mean _everything_ is opinion. JFK was shot, that's not just my opinion. Unless you choose to believe some kind of post-modern crazyness, in which case - have at it.
- hnlmorg 1mo ago
  You don’t actually know JFK was shot from your own personal experience. You just choose to believe what credible source claim. And even if you were there, who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect? To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.
  - rightbyte 1mo ago
    There is an pink elephant behind you. In practice, I believe that at least after the dust have settled, events of the type of "Count Ferdinand was shoot dead infront of 100 witnesses", like maybe 1/50 are fake? Dunno what share. The faking part would be in who is blamed and what country to bomb etc.
  - switchbak 1mo ago
    "Who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect" - you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. I'm saying that not everything is opinion, that there does exist a category called 'fact'. And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
    - hnlmorg 1mo ago
      > you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. Do you have access to their head? How do you know that someone didn’t swap that head for someone else who had been shot? Like I said, this is purely a philosophic argument. I’m not actually trying to suggest that there isn’t such thing as “facts”. > And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. No, I’m making a psychological point that our perceptions are what we use to construct our reality, and that our perceptions are malleable. If they weren’t, then drugs would have no effect, psychosis wouldn’t be a thing, and people’s opinions wouldn’t differ about even the most straightforward things like god, globe vs flat earth, and so on and so forth. > This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live. I agree. As I said in the previous comment: “To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.”
swat535 1mo ago
> Everything is opinion. A shared reality is just where opinions coincide I'm not sure I understand.. we have objective realities in the world that are certainly not "opinions". According this logic, gravity exists because opinions coincide?

Like whether you teo were even in the same room watching that movie.

If everything is opinion then there can be no shared reality. The only "reality" that exists is your opinion about there being one.

the_af 1mo ago

Not necessarily. A shared reality is one where people are discussing the same thing (within a reasonable margin) even if filtered by their individual perceptions, and drawing different conclusions. I don't know the word for the opposite of shared reality (maybe private individualized realities), but it results in a scenario where you have nothing in common with other people other than "I saw some thing" and therefore it becomes very difficult to discuss anything with them.

gghackernewsgg 1mo ago
"I don't know the word for the opposite of shared reality" Different cultures?
- the_af 1mo ago
  Maybe, but not necessarily. I think different cultures can share the same reality, though filtered through different lenses. If two people from different cultures watch the same movie, one finds it ok and the other offensive and disrespectful, that's a shared reality filtered through different cultural backgrounds. Even if either version of the movie is dubbed, censored, or altered in any way, there's still enough common or shared material that a discussion can be held. If two people had completely different experiences and watched completely different, tailor-made movies, then there's very little for them to discuss or even disagree with. "I haven't watched your movie", "I haven't watched yours either", "Mine was better", "I guess... I wouldn't know, I thought mine was cool", etc. No shared reality.
  - gghackernewsgg 1mo ago
    I understand what you're saying. My point, which admittedly my last message didn't make at all, is that "different shared realities" is not a new thing. The concept is what would have been referred to as "different cultures" throughout most of human history. Different art, politics, passions, fears, identities, and myths is what cultural variety is about. If you and I watch the same movies and listen to the same music and follow the same politics and share the same dreams and worries, I don't think it's reasonable to say that we are from different cultures. What is being described as a "shared reality" in this thread feels more like globalism and less like something obviously positive or worth protecting. I'm all for more cultural variety as an expression of individual differences.

ryandrake 1mo ago

The shared reality in that example includes only facts: OP and mum went to a movie. The movie was called X. The actors were Y and Z. The original point of this subthread was that we can't even agree on a shared set of facts anymore! The political Right has an entirely different set of facts than the political Left, and when our reality is derived from those facts, we cannot share the same reality anymore.

hnlmorg 1mo ago
If the facts can differ then they’re not facts. What you’re then dealing with is propaganda.
- ryandrake 1mo ago
  Then, we're just back to OP's conundrum: "Everything is opinion." I'll say grass is green and you'll say grass is red, and there can be no fact because they differ.
  - hnlmorg 1mo ago
    Not really no. Some things can be proven while some cannot. The colour of grass is something that’s scientifically measurable. My point is that some broadcasters are very strict about sticking to the facts. Some will misrepresent those facts but not technically lie (eg discuss statistics that favour their partisan view but don’t share the full context behind those stats). And then there’s broadcasters like Fox News that promote flat out lies. It’s often not even an interpretation of the truth. It’s shared as an opinion but the evidence clearly proves it’s just lies presented as facts. And I really wish there were criminal charges for broadcasting blatant lies. Not just in America, but most of the developed world where populist-propaganda is used to brainwash gullible voters.
    - win311fwg 1mo ago
      Communication cannot be scientifically measured. Someone's expression being a "blatant lie" can only ever be an opinion, fundamentally.

switchbak 1mo ago

Everything is perceived, and our perception gets filtered based on our prior experience. Just because we're not directly perceiving objective reality, that does not mean _everything_ is opinion. JFK was shot, that's not just my opinion. Unless you choose to believe some kind of post-modern crazyness, in which case - have at it.

hnlmorg 1mo ago
You don’t actually know JFK was shot from your own personal experience. You just choose to believe what credible source claim. And even if you were there, who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect? To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.
- rightbyte 1mo ago
  There is an pink elephant behind you. In practice, I believe that at least after the dust have settled, events of the type of "Count Ferdinand was shoot dead infront of 100 witnesses", like maybe 1/50 are fake? Dunno what share. The faking part would be in who is blamed and what country to bomb etc.
- switchbak 1mo ago
  "Who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect" - you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. I'm saying that not everything is opinion, that there does exist a category called 'fact'. And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
  - hnlmorg 1mo ago
    > you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. Do you have access to their head? How do you know that someone didn’t swap that head for someone else who had been shot? Like I said, this is purely a philosophic argument. I’m not actually trying to suggest that there isn’t such thing as “facts”. > And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. No, I’m making a psychological point that our perceptions are what we use to construct our reality, and that our perceptions are malleable. If they weren’t, then drugs would have no effect, psychosis wouldn’t be a thing, and people’s opinions wouldn’t differ about even the most straightforward things like god, globe vs flat earth, and so on and so forth. > This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live. I agree. As I said in the previous comment: “To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.”

swat535 1mo ago

> Everything is opinion. A shared reality is just where opinions coincide I'm not sure I understand.. we have objective realities in the world that are certainly not "opinions". According this logic, gravity exists because opinions coincide?