TFNR - The Principle of Reality - Revision history

Paolo at 15:42, 15 January 2026

2026-01-15T15:42:50Z

Paolo at 17:58, 20 September 2025

2025-09-20T17:58:21Z

Paolo at 17:46, 20 September 2025

2025-09-20T17:46:05Z

Paolo at 17:12, 20 September 2025

2025-09-20T17:12:35Z

Paolo at 14:09, 10 May 2024

2024-05-10T14:09:23Z

Paolo at 14:09, 10 May 2024

2024-05-10T14:09:14Z

Paolo at 14:08, 10 May 2024

2024-05-10T14:08:40Z

Paolo: Paolo moved page TFNR - 1.10 The Principle of Reality to TFNR - The Principle of Reality without leaving a redirect

2020-12-06T17:28:59Z

Paolo moved page TFNR - 1.10 The Principle of Reality to TFNR - The Principle of Reality without leaving a redirect

Paolo: Paolo moved page TFNR - 2.1 The Principle of Reality to TFNR - 1.10 The Principle of Reality without leaving a redirect

2020-10-26T09:33:26Z

Paolo moved page TFNR - 2.1 The Principle of Reality to TFNR - 1.10 The Principle of Reality without leaving a redirect

Paolo: Paolo moved page TFNR - 2.1 The principle of Reality to TFNR - 2.1 The Principle of Reality without leaving a redirect

2019-10-27T10:48:01Z

Paolo moved page TFNR - 2.1 The principle of Reality to TFNR - 2.1 The Principle of Reality without leaving a redirect

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 To solve the problem, having a more robust, well-defined, and at the same time inclusive Principle of Reality would be enough to '''clearly distinguish what is physically real from what is cognitively real'''. Simple! This approach, which I propose and strongly advocate here, would restore rightful dignity (as reality) to an immense and vitally important set of immaterial Forms produced by the cognitive activity of living beings (and, more recently and increasingly so, by synthetic, artificial, automatic cognitive systems).
-Why should we not consider a perception real? An emotion, a feeling, a hallucination? Try telling an AI expert that hallucinations aren’t real!
+Why should we not consider a perception real? An emotion, a feeling, a hallucination? Try telling an AI expert that hallucinations aren't real!
-Yes, it’s true: hallucinations, emotions, thoughts, fantasies, dreams possess a "quality of Reality" and belong to different classes of realism. But they are real! No less important, no less relevant. How intense can the impact of an emotion be on Physical Reality—an emotion that drives a human being to press a button that detonates a charge and shatters a mountain? Not to mention far worse, terrible explosions I don’t even want to name. Perhaps even more real than the button itself—so physical.
+Yes, it's true: hallucinations, emotions, thoughts, fantasies, dreams possess a "quality of Reality" and belong to different classes of realism. But they are real! No less important, no less relevant. How intense can the impact of an emotion be on Physical Reality—an emotion that drives a human being to press a button that detonates a charge and shatters a mountain? Not to mention far worse, terrible explosions I don't even want to name. Perhaps even more real than the button itself—so physical.
 Connected to this distinction—though within a more strictly scientific and physical context—is the debate between more classical and more peculiar conceptions of realism that have emerged within the realm of Quantum Mechanics. '''The most controversial and divisive aspects concern''', in particular, '''uncertainty and especially non-locality'''—central elements of quantum theories, strongly opposed by researchers more closely aligned with a "classical" conception of Physical Reality.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 '''Often''', and especially within the most rigorous or radical scientific domains, '''only what is physical is considered truly real'''. What belongs to the cognitive domain—particularly what is deemed fanciful, unreal, hypothetical, etc.—is not regarded as real, or, at best, is assigned a lesser, diminished, or uncertain category of realism. Essentially, in many scientific domains, the discriminant lies in what we call the "Principle of Reality": everything is physically real, except for the representations of Reality constructed by the cognitive systems of cognitive agents—living beings and automata.
-The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary. However, it is profoundly mistaken—and even dangerous—to consider the products of cognitive activity as not real (negatively labeled as imaginary). These products are so fundamentally real that, without them, a living being would be unable to live, to construct representations of Physical Reality, or to act based on those representations. Even studying physics, and formulating rigorous—and, to me, absurd—Principles of Reality.
+The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary. However, '''it is profoundly mistaken—and even dangerous—to consider the products of cognitive activity as not real''' (negatively labeled as imaginary). These products are so fundamentally real that, without them, a living being would be unable to live, to construct representations of Physical Reality, or to act based on those representations. Even studying physics, and formulating rigorous—and, to me, absurd—Principles of Reality.
-To solve the problem, having a more robust, well-defined, and at the same time inclusive Principle of Reality would be enough to clearly distinguish what is physically real from what is cognitively real. Simple! This approach, which I propose and strongly advocate here, would restore rightful dignity (as reality) to an immense and vitally important set of immaterial Forms produced by the cognitive activity of living beings (and, more recently and increasingly so, by synthetic, artificial, automatic cognitive systems).
+To solve the problem, having a more robust, well-defined, and at the same time inclusive Principle of Reality would be enough to '''clearly distinguish what is physically real from what is cognitively real'''. Simple! This approach, which I propose and strongly advocate here, would restore rightful dignity (as reality) to an immense and vitally important set of immaterial Forms produced by the cognitive activity of living beings (and, more recently and increasingly so, by synthetic, artificial, automatic cognitive systems).
 Why should we not consider a perception real? An emotion, a feeling, a hallucination? Try telling an AI expert that hallucinations aren’t real!
 Yes, it’s true: hallucinations, emotions, thoughts, fantasies, dreams possess a "quality of Reality" and belong to different classes of realism. But they are real! No less important, no less relevant. How intense can the impact of an emotion be on Physical Reality—an emotion that drives a human being to press a button that detonates a charge and shatters a mountain? Not to mention far worse, terrible explosions I don’t even want to name. Perhaps even more real than the button itself—so physical.
 {{Template:PaperPages1}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In this model of description of Reality, '''everything is real'''. There is nothing out of Reality, nothing out of Nature, non-real, under-real or super-real, nothing supernatural. Each event, each "thing", is real in a physical sense or is meta-real, real in a metaphysical/cognitive sense. Nothing else, nothing more.
+In this model of describing Reality, '''everything is real'''. There is nothing outside Reality—no beyond-Nature, no non-real, under-real, or super-real; nothing subnatural, or supernatural. Every Event, Relation, Process, every "thing", is real either in a physical sense or in a meta-real sense—real in a metaphysical or cognitive dimension. Nothing else, nothing more.
-In this model of description of Reality, '''everything is real'''. There is nothing outside Reality—nothing beyond Nature, nothing non-real, under-real, or super-real; nothing supernatural. Each event, each "thing", is real either in a physical sense or in a meta-real sense—that is, real in a metaphysical or cognitive dimension. Nothing else, nothing more.
+Thus, the question "what is real?" is, in my view, absolutely irrelevant—or better said, a non-sense.
+'''Often''', and especially within the most rigorous or radical scientific domains, '''only what is physical is considered truly real'''. What belongs to the cognitive domain—particularly what is deemed fanciful, unreal, hypothetical, etc.—is not regarded as real, or, at best, is assigned a lesser, diminished, or uncertain category of realism. Essentially, in many scientific domains, the discriminant lies in what we call the "Principle of Reality": everything is physically real, except for the representations of Reality constructed by the cognitive systems of cognitive agents—living beings and automata.
-So, the question "what is real?" in my opinion is absolutely irrelevant, or better, is a non-sense.
-So, the question "what is real?" is, in my opinion, absolutely irrelevant—or better said, a non-sense.
+The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary. However, it is profoundly mistaken—and even dangerous—to consider the products of cognitive activity as not real (negatively labeled as imaginary). These products are so fundamentally real that, without them, a living being would be unable to live, to construct representations of Physical Reality, or to act based on those representations. Even studying physics, and formulating rigorous—and, to me, absurd—Principles of Reality.
-Stated that everything that exists is real, we have to reformulate the Principle of Reality. The relevant question is "'''what is physically real, and what is cognitively real?'''". We have to distinguish between the physical entities, events, relation and processes and those that are not in the physical realm (commonly defined as merely imaginary, opposite to what is considered real, because "physically" real).
+Yes, it’s true: hallucinations, emotions, thoughts, fantasies, dreams possess a "quality of Reality" and belong to different classes of realism. But they are real! No less important, no less relevant. How intense can the impact of an emotion be on Physical Reality—an emotion that drives a human being to press a button that detonates a charge and shatters a mountain? Not to mention far worse, terrible explosions I don’t even want to name. Perhaps even more real than the button itself—so physical.
-−
-Given that everything that exists is real, we must reformulate the Principle of Reality. The relevant question becomes: '''what is physically real, and what is cognitively real?''' We must distinguish between physical entities, events, relations, and processes—and those that do not belong to the physical realm (commonly labeled as merely imaginary, in contrast to what is considered "physically" real).
-−
-−
-−
-The discriminant stays in what we call "the Principle of Reality": everything is physically real, except the representations of Reality constructed by the cognitive systems of the cognitive agents: the living being and the automata.
-−
-The discriminant lies in what we call "the Principle of Reality": everything is physically real—except the representations of Reality constructed by the cognitive systems of cognitive agents: living beings and automata.
-−
-−
-−
-The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary, but is absolutely wrong and dangerous to consider not real the product of the cognitive activity of the living beings (negatively named as imaginary). It is so fundamentally real, that without it the living being wouldn't be able to live, to construct the representations of physical reality, and to act on the base of that representations.
-−
-The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary. However, it is profoundly mistaken—and even dangerous—to consider the products of cognitive activity as not real (negatively labeled as imaginary). These products are so fundamentally real that, without them, a living being would not be able to live, to construct representations of physical reality, or to act based on those representations.
 {{Template:PaperPages1}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 In this model of description of Reality, '''everything is real'''. There is nothing out of Reality, nothing out of Nature, non-real, under-real or super-real, nothing supernatural. Each event, each "thing", is real in a physical sense or is meta-real, real in a metaphysical/cognitive sense. Nothing else, nothing more.
 So, the question "what is real?" in my opinion is absolutely irrelevant, or better, is a non-sense.
 Stated that everything that exists is real, we have to reformulate the Principle of Reality. The relevant question is "'''what is physically real, and what is cognitively real?'''". We have to distinguish between the physical entities, events, relation and processes and those that are not in the physical realm (commonly defined as merely imaginary, opposite to what is considered real, because "physically" real).
 The discriminant stays in what we call "the Principle of Reality": everything is physically real, except the representations of Reality constructed by the cognitive systems of the cognitive agents: the living being and the automata.
 The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary, but is absolutely wrong and dangerous to consider not real the product of the cognitive activity of the living beings (negatively named as imaginary). It is so fundamentally real, that without it the living being wouldn't be able to live, to construct the representations of physical reality, and to act on the base of that representations.
 {{Template:PaperPages1}}

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 The discriminant stays in what we call "the Principle of Reality": everything is physically real, except the representations of Reality constructed by the cognitive systems of the cognitive agents: the living being and the automata.
-The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary, but is absolutelly wrong and dangerous to consider not real the product of the cognitive activity of the living beings (negatively named as imaginary). It is so fundamentally real, that without it the living being wouldn't be able to live, to construct the representations of physical reality, and to act on the base of that representations.
+The distinction between what is physically real and what is cognitively real is absolutely necessary, but is absolutely wrong and dangerous to consider not real the product of the cognitive activity of the living beings (negatively named as imaginary). It is so fundamentally real, that without it the living being wouldn't be able to live, to construct the representations of physical reality, and to act on the base of that representations.
 {{Template:PaperPages1}}

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:28, 6 December 2020
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 09:33, 26 October 2020
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:48, 27 October 2019
(No difference)