text:
Talk:Reality/Archive 1

Has a realist bias. Rewrite from more NPOV. user:Daniel C. Boyer

"A person who suffers from psychosis is said to be "out of contact with reality" in which "reality" means the generally accepted cultural consensus." What is this if not blatant reality enforcement? I don't argue that something like this sentence belongs in the article but the attitude critical of it should be acknowledged too.--user:Daniel C. Boyer (Particularly troubling is the effect the notion of "out of contact with reality" has when something like this phrase is included in a mental hygiene statute, which means (at least in theory) that the statute can be brought to bear against idealists, surrealists, irrealists, Hindus, &c. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

-

Find this questionable....

 * A person who suffers from Psychosis is said to be "out of contact with reality" in which "reality" means the generally accepted cultural consensus. Often they may also be out of contact with reality in a more ultimate sense in that the assumptions they act on are false and their actions will not produce the anticipated effect, for example, trying to start a fire with a piece of ice.

I'm not sure that "being out of contact with reality" is a psychological diagnosis or for that matter an accurate description of psychosis.

 * I would tend to agree; the part on psychosis should be included under my request for a rewrite as well. --Daniel C. Boyer

(As of June 7, 2002)
 * This is better. --Daniel C. Boyer

Mention of theory of reality enforcement should be somewhere in this page. See reality enforcement at requested articles. --Daniel C. Boyer

"The reality of the small community of surrealist artists is an example of an esoteric reality": despite my asking in general what is the basis for this I also object to its false assumption that surrealism is an artistic movment (i.e. surrealist artists share an esoteric reality, so does that mean that surrealists who are not artists do not share this reality?). --user:Daniel C. Boyer

Well, Daniel, Why not change it to suit yourself and we can then see if it makes the point. (that there are small strongly held reaities). user:Fredbauder
 * How is this? Maybe not perfect but I think it is better. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

Oy--are you serious in thinking that this is an encyclopedia article? That's what we're trying to write here, you know, encyclopedia articles. I don't know where to begin in explaining the problems with it. Well, maybe another time. --Larry Sanger (not feeling nice this evening)

Yes, Larry, we are all serious. The article is somewhat unintegrated and one participant seems to have started some stuff he didn't finish but yes. I suggest you jump in with specific concerns, but not if you just think it is all nonsense because none of it is that. Fred Bauder

Actually, I think the thing should be completely scrapped...I don't have time to write an article on the subject right now, but I'll try to make time sometime soon. --Larry Sanger

OK, I'm going to make time right now. The article is so completely silly that I can't believe it's been let stand this long. Comments follow:

 * Reality is

 * What has been; is; or can be. (The territory in the language of general semantics), (The noumenal world in the language of philosophy)

As a definition, "What has been; is; or can be" just doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't even begin to approach what we should expect from an encyclopedia article on this topic. "General semantics" hardly deserves to be mentioned in the second sentence, if it deserves to be mentioned at all in a discussion of the topic, which I doubt.

 * The ultimate nature of things considered as a philosophical question. (The best map we can make). The universe consists of the whole spacetime continuum in which we find ourselves, together with all the matter and energy within it. Science is said to be the study of the universe. See knowledge and phenomenon

No, "reality" does not mean a question. "Reality" refers to what exists. If you mean to say that people ask questions about what exists, you're right, but this isn't the way to say that.

 * The more or less naive world view of a person which is internalized from one's parents and peers. (A road map). One's reality includes one's culture, social status and sense of what is right and wrong. For example, during a debate on teaching creationism in the public schools in the United States a gentlemen stated, "To deny there is a God is to stand on a building and deny there is a building."

You can have a world view about what reality is, but that doesn't entail that "reality" means "world view." Even idealists/phenomenalists, who would say that reality is a sort of mental construct, would not say that reality means a world view when they were writing an encyclopedia article about reality. They would say, "Idealists and phenomenalists believe that reality is..."

The notion that "we each have a reality" is a colloquial use of the word "reality." There are actual philosophical positions that mirror the implicit theory behind the colloquial use; but an article on the topic "reality" would concern itself with the content of those theories, rather than (absurdly and sophomorically) simply asserting that reality means a kind of world view.

 * Reality is socially constructed.

Give me a friggin' break. Have you heard of the neutral point of view policy? Were you waiting for someone to come along and make this sentence somehow neutral? Sheesh.

 * Every individual does not sui generis internalize the external world but absorbs from others the social constructs which make up a culture. One's sense of what is "real" may at times differ from what acually is which is sure to make life interesting. In some mental states such as psychosis or delirium, the subject's perception of the world may be strikingly at odds with the social consensus.  In some surrealist, idealist and other theoretical writing this is called "consensus reality".

Again, this is clearly biased, and so much so that I don't think I'm under any obligation at all to try to pick out the actual unbiased content from it and re-present it on the main page. We're writing encyclopedia articles here.

 * === The physiological creation of reality ===

 * It is arguable that

Oh, does adding that make the following neutral?

 * none of us directly perceives reality (even if a single physical reality can be demonstrated to exist). (Direct realism, however, questions this assertion.)

Oh, what? You mean, someone actually disagrees?

 * The following account represents the current beliefs of cognitive scientists.

 * The brain receives information from a variety of channels, all of which are more limited that they appear, as is demonstrated by the existence of optical and other sensory illusions. Standard models of human perception estimate our information-processing capacity for the external world at a few hundred bits per second of conscious information.

This article is about the topic "reality"; what does this have to do with that topic?

 * === Vision: an example of the creation of reality ===
 * In spite of this, we live with an illusion of a hi-fi 360-degree full-colour full-motion sharp-focus external visual reality (that would take several gigabits per second to represent) that is assembled from a series of gazes and fixations of a very limited foveal visual field, combined with blurry low-resolution surrounding vision and peripheral motion-detection.

 * The rest, as many experiments in human vision have shown, is supplied by the imagination. Indeed, it is reasonable to describe the whole human visual field as a hallucination -- albeit an active hallucination that is kept up-to-date and consistent with reality wherever information is available. When this checking mechanism fails, the phenomenon of unreal hallucinations is generated by the same mechanism that generates the "real" ones as optical illusions.

 * Illusionists manipulate these mechanisms to generate their illusions, by generating misleading and distracting stimuli designed to spoof the visual and perceptual systems into generating the impression of unreal events.

OK, now this is actually supplying some genuine information. What is not clear is what it has to do with the topic "reality." Yes, the brain processes relatively meager signals to elicit the full spectrum of physical phenomena we're familiar with. This isn't an article about how perception works, however; that stuff belongs under physiology of perception and similar topics.

 * === The social construction of reality ===

 * All cultures admit of alternate realities, some quite esoteric.

Huh? They do? What does this mean?

 * Listening to the disputes of groups with widely separated points of view, it is clear that they actually have different points of view about what is self-evident -- that is, "real". Often, they reveal their biases by describing their viewpoint as the "real world" or their views as those of "real people" or "ordinary people", showing that they consider the beliefs of their opponents to be disordered and unreal.

The fact that people do have different ideas, in some cases, about what exists, or what is real, has no bearing on the topic of reality. What is more relevant, along these lines, are their general concepts about reality, if they have any. (Most people don't--it's a very abstract, philosophical topic.)

 * Some commonplace examples are Israeli reality versus Palestinian reality; Democratic Party reality versus Republican Party reality; and male reality versus female reality. Surrealist beliefs about the nature of reality are radically different from those of most people.  There are also semi-real virtual realities such as within a MUD.

This simply annexes to the word "reality" all talk of world views or opinions. Hence, a discussion of "reality," the topic, becomes a topic of world views or opinions, which is, well, asinine. Or it sure is asinine in my reality!

 * more is needed on this topic, including the social dimensions of acceptable behavior and manifestations of mental illness

 * === Psychoactive drugs and the perception of reality ===
 * stuff to go here on the effect of psychoactive drugs on perception of reality

No, that stuff belongs in articles about topics in drugs.

Reality, sanity, and mental illness

 * to be written

No, this material belongs in articles about psychology, psychiatry.

 * === Religious views of reality ===

No, this material belongs in articles about religion.

 * === Platonic forms and the philosophy of reality ===

 * we need a bit here about Plato, Platonic realism / Platonism, Platonic forms and mathematical realism

Well, duh. This is just about the only thing that does belong under the topic.

 * === Reality and quantum physics ===

 * stuff to be written on the Copenhagen interpretation and Everett many-worlds interpretations of quantum physics, including the concept of the Multiverse (science)

Perhaps some of this might be included (but I doubt it; maybe the notion of a multiverse); most of it belongs in articles about physics and philosophy of physics.

 * === Reality in fiction ===

 * stuff to be written on Philip K. Dick, Jorge Luis Borges and other authors whose work involves themes of reality and perception

They are not writing about the topic of reality. They are writing about the topic of how culture, drugs, etc., affect perceptions of and beliefs about reality. That is quite a separate topic from reality.

 * === Further reading ===

 * The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch, published March 1997, Publisher Allen Lane, The Penguin Press. ISBN 014027541X

 * And a great quote: "Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality," Pierre Jules Theophile Gautier.

Oy.

--Larry Sanger

Rather crude Larry, but I'll have to put off restoring the deleted material for a while. User:Fredbauder

Fred, if you can find any of the material above that actually belongs in this article, and you can make it NPOV, by all means, please do... And me, crude? I'm just telling it like it is. You know--my reality. --Larry Sanger

I'm sorry if I'm appearing to be a control freak (it's OK--I said it, you didn't), but the following has a bunch of problems with it.

 * The popular consensus that an objective reality is indeed "out there"

It's not clear, as Berkeley held, that there is any consensus at all on the question...Berkeley held that his view was the common sense view. Of course, most philosopher think he was daft for thinking so, but the point is that it's debatable what "the popular consensus" on this topic is, or was.

 * suffered a resounding blow from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which showed that even such basic entities as time and space vary with the vantage point and speed of the observer.

If there is anything that has led to an undermining of a robust sense of reality (to borrow a phrase from Russell, I think), it was the philosophies of Hume and Kant, their 19th century idealist progeny, and their successors in 20th century philosophy and art. By the time Einstein's theory arrived, most of the damage had been done; and anyone who thinks Einstein's theory militates against metaphysical realism either doesn't understand metaphysical realism or doesn't understand the theory of special relativity. Point is, just cause Einstein used the word "relativity" his theory doesn't support or undermine relativism.

 * This led to great numbers of "thinking people" ascribing to the notion that "everything is relative"-- an idea that strongly undermines any statement one can make about the ultimate reality of anything. Yet, if everything is relative it would seem that relativity must be absolute and thus an irreducible reality.

Nice argument, but what is needed is a discussion of attempts to show that relativism is "self-stultifying" (that's the term). It isn't generally agreed that all kinds of relativism are dealt a fatal blow by this objection.

What we do need is an intelligent, historically-informed discussion of the history of popular relativism. That would be really cool. However, I don't know enough to write it.

 * The concept of reality at the outset of the third millenium is wounded but far from dead.

What exactly (or even inexactly) does this mean? How would I assess whether it's true? --Larry Sanger

Jeez, I even get deleted from the Talk page. Was going to address your objections to my contribution but oh well. JDG 22:52 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

No, I suspect there was a server problem. It took forever to save my comments, and as you can see from the history, the last two versions omitted many lines from what had appeared before. I've restored the earlier version, above, but I don't think the comments you're referring to were saved :-/. Anyway, if I am off-base, have at it. --Larry Sanger

 * well, I was just going to say that I pretty much agree with your deleting my text, although I think something like what I wrote should have a place in one of the subtopics. It was kind of out-of-the-blue where it was. Even so, I'd have to disagree with your assertion that the popular conception of reality was profoundly affected hy Hume et. al. Maybe we have a different cross-section of the public in mind when each of us says "popular". As much as I don't like it, I believe most "educated" people (folks who've attended college, self-educated folks or whatever) from about 1850 on really haven't been influenced much by academic philosophy. When this article is fleshed out and there are a few proper paragraphs devoted to "man on the street" views of reality, I think the bulk of the debate needs to focus on the findings of hard science. Right or wrong, philosophy and its related disciplines are seen almost as casuistry by the crowd. If the crowd's opinion matters we must deal with the stuff it finds compelling-- and that means science. JDG 23:26 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

 * I understand what you mean, and I agree entirely that philosophers have had very little direct impact on the views of the man in the street. But (though I'd agree this needs a lot of argument) the indirect impact has been enormous--philosophers are read by scientists (some of whom were philosophers themselves), artists (ditto), other theoreticians, and then teachers and journalists.  I doubt it's by accident, for example, that Riemann and Lobachevsky thought to question the parallel postulate when 19th century idealism was in the ascendant.  It would be fascinating to read a study of where commonly-held philosophical prejudices came from, step by step. --Larry Sanger

"Reality--the sum total of what is real--is one of the broadest of topics, and this very broadness lends itself to a wide variety of theorizing and speculation about the topic."

"the sum total of what is real" seems to lack content, being in essence simply a repetition of reality as real, although there is some recognition that it is a sum total which means something, or maybe nothing---Was it in parts? The original first paragraph divided reality into past present and future. Future, expecially requires some sort of special treatment as expressed by possibility.

 * Right, there's no way to explain what reality, generally, is without saying something either obviously tautologous or something controversial. Virtually anything you can say about reality, even that there was a past and will be a future, is potentially controversial (to some philosophers, anyway).  As to the future treated "as expressed by possibility," I don't know what this means.  Most philosophers are anxious to say that possibilia do not exist in any sense, so I imagine they'd also want to deny that they are real (though this doesn't necessarily follow--it depends on the working notion of "reality"); David Lewis is a counterexample, though.

Yes a broad topic. So shall the article be an introduction with links to the various aspects of the topic, which is what it was before deletion by Larry, or shall it be limited in focus to one aspect of the topic (which seems to be Larry's intent)?

 * I think you're missing the point. As I argued above (you might respond to this and its elaboration above, if you disagree with it), an article about reality cannot reasonably be expected to cover every aspect of reality.  Let me put it differently.  You don't go to an article about reality to learn about everything that is, or is theorized to be, real.  (You go to the encyclopedia as a whole for that.)  You go to an article about reality to learn about the very notion of reality, or what's theorized about it.

"is one of the broadest of topics, and this very broadness lends itself to a wide variety of theorizing and speculation about the topic." seems to belong here in talk rather than in the article. User:Fredbauder

 * Why do you say that? I think it's one of the most notable things one can say about the concept of reality.

 * Fred, you seem to be miffed at my removal of the original article. However, I explained point by point what I thought was wrong with it.  If you disagree, then don't insinuate that I'm being unfair or unreasonable: answer my arguments and assertions. --Larry Sanger

Of course, I'm miffed, you have deleted a lot of reasonably good stuff and replaced it with material that is not as good. Describing your definition as a tauntology adds nothing; just a bad joke. So what is reality? What is real? If you can't find some reasonable definition it need to be replaced with something better. User:Fredbauder

I'm sorry you're miffed. But I cannot apologize for replacing what I thought was completely substandard with something that philosophers might recognize as the beginning of an actual attempt to write an article on this subject. It would be helpful if you would make an attempt actually to articulate what you think is wrong with my objections, rather than simply declare that the earlier version was better. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your assessment. --Larry Sanger

I think I've figured out the problem. Philosophy itself is a part of culture. Necessarily any discussion of reality within a philosophical context is socially constructed knowlege. The material which you, Larry, believe should be the body of the article is properly a part of the article, perhaps on the same page under a subheading "Reality as considered by philosophy", perhaps as a seperate article reality (philosophy). I find myself be very unsure of the status of "reality" as a concept within contemporary (2002) philosophy. Would it be used or avoided? Fredbauder 10:49 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

That's an intriguing suggestion, Fred, but I am skeptical. Philosophy considers the concept of reality, and it's the philosophers who are the experts, if anybody is an expert, about the concept. As I argued above and in the article, and as you have chosen to ignore (or maybe I just didn't make it clear enough somehow), it's ridiculous to expect an article about reality to treat every aspect of reality.  That's what an encyclopedia does. (We could make reality the main page of Wikipedia, I suppose!) Given that the article about reality limits itself to explaining competing theories about the concept of reality, and given that philosophers are the experts about that, then I guess it does follow that the article should primarily concern philosophical theories, but I imagine also that theologians (particularly those with a philosophical bent) have written seriously about it.

 * The concept you are using in the above paragraph is not reality but knowlege. An encyclopedia contains knowledge not reality. BTW, that's where general semantics comes in and their slogan "The map is not the territory"Fredbauder 16:13 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

 * "The concept you you are using in the above paragraph is not reality but knowlege." Fred, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. --LMS

 * That's a problem. You don't seem to understand the basics of the topic yet you insist in being editor in chief. Fredbauder

 * I give up. I do not insist on being editor-in-chief, and the reason I don't understand what you said is that it didn't make any sense.

But that wouldn't stop us from having even an entire section, which I would title something like Popular understandings of the concept of reality. In that, one might report (not assert, Fred--for shame) some of the leading ways in which the concept of reality is treated by thinking non-philosophers. The problem with non-philosophers talking about this and other philosophical topics is that they simply use the concepts, as the original article used the concept, without thinking very much about how they use it. The philosophers actually do, or should, go deeper. You, or someone, declared, "Reality is a social construct," thus articulating one of the sillier philosophical theories to have crept from the world of philosophy into popular culture, without doing what philosophers would do: explaining precisely what is (or could be) meant by saying that reality is a social construct.

 * The notion of the social construction of reality is from another acedemic discipline, Sociology. It does not fall within poplular understanding, although that is important too. See Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Doubleday, 1967, paperback, 240 pages, ISBN 0385058985 Fredbauder 16:13 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

 * Of course there is such a thing as the sociology of knowledge; that doesn't mean that sociology is where the theory of the social construction of reality "comes from." Anyway, I'll grant that several disciplines have interesting things to say about the notion of reality.  I have no doubt that a full exposition of the theory that reality is a social construct would require coverage of sociological views about this.  If you want to add such stuff, be my guest.  But please make sure it isn't like the drivel I deleted.  The original article (see above or the history) had virtually no explanation about what the theory really meant, who advocated it, what the alternatives might be, where the theory came from, or much else that's totally essential to an encyclopedic treatment of the topic.

 * What I have been thinking is an article social construction of reality needs to be included with some links to it rather than to reality with reality being to a certain extent a disabmiguation page at least at the top.Fredbauder

So I can imagine a section about popular theories explaining, not the popular theories (which are in most cases not of very much interest to examining the concept of reality, however interesting they might be in their respective domains of drug culture, psychiatry, and so forth), but how popular theories use the concept of reality. I would be inclined to say, "It has become fashionable among artsy-fartsy types and pseudo-intellectuals to declare that reality is a social construct, which is pretty much idealism and pragmatism (see above) warmed over," but I'd have to think of a way to put it that was less biased. ;-) --Larry Sanger

 * I will admit I have a tendency to write original material, but you are hardly an good example for that problem.Fredbauder 16:13 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

 * Fred, what is that supposed to mean? --Larry Sanger

 * That I suspect you are being rather original too.Fredbauder 10:38 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

 * That shows how much you know about the topic. --Larry Sanger

Let's collect some useages of the concept and see what's happening. Here's the first:

 * "Traditional economic theory considers humans as self-interested agents, making rational decisions calculated to maximize personal benefit or profit. In reality, however, peoples' decisions are often idiosyncratic, coloured by perceptions, beliefs, emotions and other subtle psychological influences."

 * Here theory is contrasted with reality. The article goes on to talk about experiments in economics which verify or disprove theory. This is one common theme in definitions of reality, that reality is verifiable knowledge. Fredbauder 16:57 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

OK, now you are using Wikipedia's talk page about reality to do original research on the topic. What's the point? It isn't our job to do the research; our job is to report about it. So I'd want to read the most important books and/or articles that allege to be specifically about the concept of "reality" or "the real." There have been reams of material written by philosophers about these topics, for one thing. --Larry Sanger

The point is to address the points of contention, one of which is whether we are talking about "reality" or "knowlege". I contend that there is a reality which lies beyond knowledge, all that is, and that what passes for reality is really knowledge as you see in the example where we have two sorts of knowledge, theoretical knowlege derived by logic contrasted with "reality" or knowledge obtained by observation of phenomena, phenomena being not underlying reality but the result of (in this case) sophisticated perception. That is why there were 3 definitions of reality in the article: one of the underlying, perhaps unknowable reality; a second of humanities best try at knowing (reality viewed and described in a sophisticated way; and third, social reality as established by norms. Fredbauder 12:33 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

Here's another quote: "...scientists work under uniquely severe mutual supervision...any theories advanced in science are taken into consideration only when the new theories agree better with experiments, and when they also prove structually fruitful in predicting new experimental facts, which again must stand the test of experience" Page 693 of the 1958 edition of Science and Sanity, Alfred Korzybski. Basically a rerun of the first quote in general terms about the dialectic between theory and observation. It brings up a point which has an analog here as we edit under "severe mutual supervision" and also the usefulness criteria for the validity of knowledge. Fredbauder 13:01 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

 * What, exactly, are you trying to prove with in the last couple of paragraphs? In the beginning of the first, you say, "The point is to address the points of contention, one of which is whether we are talking about 'reality' or 'knowlege'. I contend that there is a reality which lies beyond knowledge, all that is..."  Is that a point of contention?  That's news to me.  I didn't know that there was any such "point of contention."  (Now, can you tell me, which side are you saying I am taking?)  I don't even know what it means, because you aren't making a whole lot of sense, Fred.  Anyway, certainly, my bold deletion of the earlier article does not rest on any vague claims about whether we are talking about "reality" or "knowledge." --LMS

By the way, it is by no means settled that you (Larry) have by fiat and by deleting the article and substituting your own, established that the only valid authority here is philosophical or that the article is to address only the topic from a philosophical perspective. I think it is childish to simply delete your new article and put the old one back without some preliminary discussion. Fredbauder 13:01 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

 * Fred, it should be obvious that I do not now have any "fiat" power over the content of Wikipedia articles. In fact, I never did--I never claimed to have any such, and I always have resented it when people have implied that I did.  So I will thank you for not implying, in the future, that I am simply throwing my weight around, and as if I did not have arguments for my position.  To say or imply that I'm just abusing my (nonexistent) "fiat" power is really a sort of ad hominem argument.  If you would actually defend the old article against my objections (above), then it might make sense to reinstate it. --Larry Sanger

But Fred, how do you know that there is this "real" reality? We have only what we can perceive: we hold a model in our minds built up from the information our sense gather. There might not even be a reality. We might all be in the Matrix ... ;) -- Tarquin 13:07 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

In absolute terms, we don't, all knowledge is subject to uncertainty. The Matrix is not the best example as it posits an overarching realilty, albeit, one without lag. ````

Fred, what is the source for this link which you put on the page? Who wrote it and why should we care what the person wrote? Is there any reason why our page should link to it, as opposed to the zillion other links about "reality" on the Internet?

The source is © 2002 Common Sense Science. I like this link, especially the quote within the section on "Common Sense Reality", 'everyone believes that a real world exists beyond our minds and imaginations and that we can truly know things about the world around us.' I find the choice of the other two sections, "Vedantic Philosophy-The World of Ideas" and "Quantum Reality" rather novel and mystifying. As to the zillion other links, find a better one that explicates the naive viewpoint... ```

 * And what is "Common Sense Science"...?

No complaints about the link to the Russell chapter. --Larry Sanger

Yes, a delightful link. It makes you want to go out and read that second chapter. Fredbauder

Removed this from the article as it is really talk:

But there is a way to make the topic of reality less cumbersome for present purposes: restrict the discussion to theories about the general topic of reality itself. Thus, for example, a certain Christian world view would not count as a theory of reality, but the theory that the Christian world view is a "construction" of reality would count as a theory about reality.

Well, yes, the article is about "reality". As we tend into other topics we need to put in a teaser then a link. I note an admission that "constructions of reality" are admissible but how do they fit into the article? I would feature that notion as a basic definition, indeed two definitions, one of sophisticated creations of reality, one of naive creations. Fredbauder 13:03 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

I give up, Fred. I'm not going to try to improve this article any more. Go ahead and revert it to the old crappy version. I'm not going to work on this article as long as you're working on it. --Larry Sanger

I have restored the deleted material while retaining the article which was created after deletion. No doubt the article can use editing, but please no more wholesale deletion. Fredbauder 02:48 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)

On second thought, I feel like I'm really giving up an important responsibility if I just hand this topic over to you, Fred, because you really don't know what you're talking about, even though you think you do.

OK, here's how I'm going to approach this from now on: I'm going to keep a close watch over the first article. People who actually know what the hell they're talking about are very welcome to work on it. Fred can work on his own article, which will come next.

If you don't like it, Fred, bring it up to Wikipedia-L and I'll be happy to explain my side of this idiotic controversy. I simply refuse to spend any more of my time arguing with you, and I also refuse to be driven away from working on the page by someone who knows far less than he thinks he does.

--Larry Sanger

-

'Common Sense science? Arg! more crackpot science! We had this sort of probblem over at Relativity, with a chap who repeatedly claimed it was all impossible and his method was better than Einstein's. Courage, Larry! -- Tarquin

Truth
The section on truth has an interesting problem. It seems to be saying that truth is based on consensus and hence is never absolute. However, what is "consensus"? If there are no universal truths, how can we know there is consensus in the first place? We just "know"? Coldnebo 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy
What do people think, does energy as a basis for reality deserve some mention here?

Larry Sanger & Fredbauder
OK, Fred, we've gotten off on the wrong foot, and I think that's mainly my fault.

Here's what I propose: I'm going to explain, again, much more nicely, the objections I have with your article. Then perhaps we can have a discussion about particular points of disagreement, and arrive at a consensus about what to do with the page.

I really would like to put an end to the unpleasant back-and-forth and actually work on this. I hope you will take my criticisms seriously, and I'll try to understand your replies seriously. --Larry Sanger

 * I'll get to work on this soon, actually most of this is not my work, but certainly a portion is, expecially the onion (layered definitions). Fredbauder 12:59 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

In The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckmann they start off the first chapter with the title, "The Reality of Everyday Life". Perhaps the onion peeling needs to start with that, perhaps "Everyday Reality", then in subsequent headings move on to alternate realities, reality based on phenomena, and only at the very last get into questions of anything that lies behind or beyond phenomena. Also I think from looking at dictionaries that noumena, although starting with Kant seems to have passed into language without necessarily implying the particular uses Kant made of the term, although it might be good to use the phrase "thing in itself" as at least a shorthand definition. I think those changes might make the article a bit more intelligible. Fredbauder 01:07 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

The flush left bits are from the original (edited) article. Reality is:

 * You begin with a list, as if there are several agreed-upon meanings. I think this is mistaken on two counts: first, we need to give some sort of general characterization or discussion of the meaning of "reality" in general.  And second, the actual senses supplied are by no means regarded by everyone as legitimate senses of "reality."

1. All that has been; is; or can be. The ultimate nature of things. All Noumena.

 * Few philosophers (or others, for that matter) would regard "all that can be" as part of reality. Reality is typically distinguished from what is merely possible, though some philosophers, who believe in the existence of "possibilia" (possible stuff), would want to describe possibilia as "real in some sense" ("subsistent"), even if they aren't existent.

 * It seems self evident that some things are possible, some are not. I know the assertion is frequently made, "Anything is possible", but that seems to be a false statement on its face. Anyway the intent is to include withing the tent of reality all that can happen and exclude all that cannot (without knowing to a certainty). What is existent is not things but the nature of things Fredbauder

 * Here you are again engaging in philosophy without wanting to admit it. While few will deny that some things are possible and some are not, it doesn't obviously follow from that the concept of reality encompasses that of possibility.  If you think it does follow, that's another philosophical contention of yours.  Since this article should not be in the business of presenting your views, but instead the leading theorizing about the subject, I don't see how your particular opinions on the question are relevant.  David Lewis' (a famous metaphysician) views--such as that possible worlds exist--would be relevant.  But not even David Lewis would want to assert in an encyclopedia article that reality means what is possible; he knows that's an extremely tendentious claim.

 * The latter paragraph, by the way, is the sort of explanation that is needed in the article itself in order to make three little words, "or can be," acceptably contextualized.

 * "The ultimate nature of things" is vague; philosophers, particularly idealist philosophers, have talked about "the ultimate," and philosophers more generally have certainly attempted to say what things really exist and what things exist only derivatively on what really exists. If that's what you mean, then again, needs to be explained in much more detail.

 * "Ulimate nature of things" seems to be equivalent to "ultimate reality". Both are by nature vague, falling essentially into the unknown, perhaps in to the unknowable. I think further expansion of a phrase which is only there as a redundancy is inappropriate. Fredbauder

 * The point is that you can't (it's physically impossible to) say what you want to say briefly. The philosophical view that you are trying to express simply cannot be stated briefly.  So either you should omit it, or expand it greatly.  I doubt you can do anywhere near an adequate job of the latter; therefore I recommend the former.

 * "All Noumena" is highly misleading and inappropriate right here, whether you're trying to give a general account of "reality" or even if you're trying to give another word for "ultimate reality." "Noumena" is a technical term of Kant's, and is not largely in general use except in talking about Kant or Kantianism.  If what you mean is something like "objective reality" or "ultimate reality," the phrases you're looking for are "objective reality" or "ultimate reality," definitely not "noumena."

 * Yes, trying to give another word for ultimate reality. Kant's use of the word is indeed particular. I think that article, noumenon might use some attention. Fredbauder

 * It sure did need that attention before I got ahold of it. Probably still does.

2. All phenomena which may directly or indirectly observed. See science knowledge and phenomenon

 * This will have to be completely changed or scrapped, I think. First, "phenomena" used so soon after "noumena" implies that you are speaking in Kant's sense, which is quite different from the ordinary sense.  Second, the ordinary sense of "phenomenon" is often used with a deliberate ambiguity: you want to point out that an observation someone has made is legitimate as an observation, but the thing allegedly observed might not actually exist.  (Think "psychic phenomena.")  So the word is confusing in this context.

 * Phenomena has surely escaped from Kant's use which was not as unique as his use of noumena. Yes, phenomenena can have a scepical connotation, but what is a useful word that could serve in its place, besides I have used in extensively in other articles such as phenomenon, optical phenomenon, etc. Fredbauder

 * My point (you really have a hard time reading texts closely, don't you?) is that if you use "phenomena" right after "noumena," it sounds like you probably mean "phenomena" in Kant's sense, as if Wikipedia were officially Kantian. As for another word, as I explained elsewhere, I don't think you should even be trying to make this point in this way.  You allege to be giving one of the meanings of "reality," when that claim--that it is one of the meanings--is itself biased, because it presupposes a philosophical theory (depending on what exactly you do mean).

 * Third, mentioning "phenomena which may be directly or indirectly observed" as a sense of "reality" is highly tendentious. Some philosophers would be perfectly comfortable calling such things "real": Berkeley, for example.  Other philosophers, and most scientists and other hard-headed realists, would take great exception with the suggestion that our experience, rather than the real stuff out in the world that our experience is of, is in any sense real.  Well, experience is real in the same way that anything else that exists is real; but one way of reading your text is that "reality" can mean "our experience of reality" (or--summed up and systematized, perhaps--"knowledge" or "science" as you say), and there are many people who would disagree that reality can mean that.

 * The sort of reality that relies on observation of phenomena is merely scientific reality or indeed everyday reality, not the sort of ultimate reality which such a philosopher might insist on. Scientific reality is just that, the best efforts of science, not ultimate reality and makes no such pretense.Fredbauder

 * "The sort of ultimate reality which such a philosopher might insist on"? Huh?  Philosophers are all over the map as to what the topic of "reality" addresses.  Very many of them are extremely skeptical of the notion of an "ultimate reality." -- More importantly, you're still missing the point.  Just re-read what I wrote, Fred, please, more carefully this time.

 * So the article right now simply declares that this is one of the senses of "reality" without acknowledging that in fact the sense in question is a theory about what reality really is.

 * It is not even that, definitely not a theory about what reality really is, that is the provence of metaphysics. Fredbauder

 * Um, Fred, look, I'm a philosopher. I'm telling you, it's a philosophical theory.  It even has a name (or several possible names).  I don't care whether you disagree.  If you assert what you asserted, rather than naming it and attributing it to the theorists who have held it, you are making a biased claim.

 * Could you agree with the statement that scientific knowledge arises from or is verified by observation of phenomena? Fredbauder 15:55 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

 * Well, yeah. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

3. The nature of things as established by authority or social norms. The world view internalized from one's parents and peers. One's reality includes one's culture, social status and sense of what is right and wrong.

 * The comment I just made applies here, but even more so. If you make a list of senses of a word, the reader expects to see different generally accepted ways in which the word is used in ordinary language (or in some technical field).  However, part of the first, and apparently the whole of the second and third senses that you provide here are not generally accepted ways in which the word "reality" is used.  Your list is better characterized as, perhaps, a list of theories about the meaning of reality.

 * Now, if that's what you're wanting to give the reader, it would be better, I think, to supply them a list of the sort that someone better informed than you or I about this topic. Based on my studies in metaphysics I think this would include common sense realism, scientific realism, phenomenalism, Berkeleyan idealism and other kinds of idealism, various (other) kinds of anti-realism and irealism, and surely a few others.  One theory, which has a few (but not terribly many) adherents among analytical philosophers, has it that reality is, as your third sense says, a "social construction" in some sense.  But exactly what it means to say that reality is socially constructed is no doubt one of the most serious problems this theory faces.  It is just one theory, however, among very many, as I hope we can agree.

 * To be clear, these are theories not precisely about what "reality" means, but instead what the relationship is between, on the one hand, individual minds, Mind in the abstract, scientific theorizing, language, perception, etc.; and on the other hand, "reality," to the extent to which reality is distinct from, or independent of, items on the first list.

Reality in sense No. 3 is socially constructed.

 * So, again, you should make it abundantly clear that you are not simply elaborating a sense of the word "reality," but rather one very much disputed, and disputable, theory about reality.

 * It would also be a good idea, if you're going to spend much time on the theory, citing some examples of people who have held the theory.

An individual does not sui generis internalize the external world from experience and analysis but in large part absorbs from others the social constructs which make up a culture. One's sense of what is "real" may at times differ from what acually is which is sure to make life interesting.

 * Again, it's crucial that we make it absolutely clear that this is a theory about reality, not anything that is generally accepted about the subject.

 * I'm also a little confused about your presentation of the theory (it's called "social constructionism," though your text could be applied to theories that go under other names, too). You speak of "one's sense of what is 'real'," and you say that it "may at times differ from what actually is"; in that case, your present subject is clearly "a person's sense of what is real," not reality per se.  If that's what you take social constructionism to be about, then you should think that it is not really appropriate to include it on this page, because it's not about reality.  I would disagree with you, though; I think that social constructionists actually think they have a theory about what is real, saying that what is real depends upon perceptions, ideology, etc., and that there is no reality independent of such things.

 * In summary, a better discussion of the theory would (1) not assume that it is correct (i.e., evince an understanding of what parts of the theory are actually contentious), (2) attribute it, and more finely-grained presentations of it, to particular theoreticians, and (3) include some discussion of the issue of whether it's a theory about reality or about what passes as knowledge of reality--or, both!

 * --Larry Sanger (done for now, Oct. 19 at 4:37 PM Eastern)

New York Times articles aren't good external links except maybe on the current events page--they're moved to a pay-only archive after a couple of weeks. Vicki Rosenzweig

True, perhaps I should be more careful. This one particularly is of marginal utility. I'd hate to see someone spend a week's income just to read it. Fredbauder 15:23 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what's going on here, Fred.

You claim to have the layman's perspective on this stuff, and that this perspective is just as valid as the philosophical. The problem is that there is no "layman's perspective" and "philosophical perspective," per se. Laymen have a variety of perspectives on the topic, if they have any perspective at all. Now, it's true that most ordinary people believe in what is called common sense realism, or perhaps "naive realism"; but that's not the perspective you were representing. The perspective you present is actually a relatively sophisticated view called social constructionism.

But let's make sure we get right down to the basic point underlying this confusion between us, Fred: you are making edits, and responding to my criticisms (above), as if you thought you really did understand the philosophical concepts and theories behind this topic very well. In fact, however, what you're saying, and the way you're replying, makes it more and more clear that you really do completely lack any significant philosophical training on the topic, as you said recently on Wikipedia-L.

So on the one hand, it seems you want to say your perspective is the layman's perspective, and that this needs representation, and that my article doesn't represent that perspective; on the other hand, you want to edit this article and work on it in a way that absolutely requires some amount of philosophical understanding of the topic, which you lack. In other words, I think you lack the basic philosophical training to recognize that the perspective you are representing here is indeed a philosophical perspective (social constructionism), one that you are not really able to properly present and defend. But because you, for some reason I can't understand, think that your perspective is a layman's perspective, you think that makes you qualified to write about it (since you're a layman).

It's now abundantly clear to me that we aren't going to be able to work together on this article until we've settled these issues.

--Larry Sanger

Well, never heard of social contructionism, but I think one point to be made is that, however labeled, I am not trying to present any specific metaphysical theory other than to define what it might concern, the ultimate nature of reality. I simply think a whole lot more than sophisticated metaphysical theories belongs in the article. It is, after all, not the article metaphysics, epistemology or philosophy of science. I doubt I would either read or try to edit any of those. For what it's worth, I'm having a lot of fun reading philosophy trying to make sense of your objections, but I have no particular claim to understanding all the details....

I'm also concerned that between us we have scared everyone else off Fredbauder 21:12 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Fred, I still think you don't understand my point. Can you please respond to it? You say "I am not trying to present any specific metaphysical theory," but I'm telling you, as a metaphysician, that you are. Whether you know it or admit it or not! So, you can claim to be talking about "the ultimate nature of reality," and that's great, that's what the article's about, but fer chrissakes, get it into your head that your views about the ultimate nature of reality are philosophical views! There aren't any other kind! There's no way to "step outside" the process of philosophical theorizing about reality, and just talking about reality, period. --Larry Sanger

I understand your position very well. If a topic in whole or part arguably falls within the provenance of philosophy only philosophical aspects of the topic are to be allowed. Examples include reality, knowledge, phenomenon. I disagree with this position and maintain that if the subject matter of a topic exists factual material regarding it may be properly included in the article about it. Let us consider divorce, arguably within the provenance of law. The legal aspects of law are relatively simple (although one can add reams of detail), but most interesting and useful information about divorce is not legaly oriented, in fact, some of the most useful information is how to avoid litigation (over those "interesting" details). Fredbauder 14:52 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

It is not my position that, as you say, "If a topic in whole or part arguably falls within the provenance of philosophy only philosophical aspects of the topic are to be allowed." You claim, when you present your "onion theory" and make the claim that philosophy is a social construct, not to be presupposing any philosophical views. But that claim is simply mistaken. Yes, you are presupposing philosophical views (about what "reality" can mean, or what reality is), and to the extent that you are, those views need to be spelled out clearly and explicitly. If they aren't, your article is in error and biased. But unfortunately, you seem to lack the ability to do that; what you write, as I've explained above and as your responses further demonstrate, is full of basic philosophical mistakes and philosophical presuppositions. The result is that your text is full of errors and bias, but you won't admit it. You apparently think you should be immune from criticism, precisely because I'm more of an expert on this stuff, and you think you're more competent at presenting the layman's point of view. Obviously, I disagree.

If there were a sociologist here, who wanted to work on a section of the article that presented social constructionism, I'd be glad to make sure that the work did not beg any important philosophical questions and thus was not NPOV. But much of that theory is foreign to me, and I'd be the student, not the expert.

If there were a psychologist here, who wanted to explain how psychologists treat the concept of reality in descriptions of schizophrenia, and the controversy that ensues, I'd be greatly interested. Again, this is a topic I know only a little about, and my interest would be mainly in making sure that no important philosophical questions were being begged.

Now let's also get clear about another thing: the mere fact that a theory, which uses the concept of reality in some non-philosophical domain, does make some philosophical presuppositions certainly does not mean that it must be presented from a philosophical point of view, nor does it mean that we cannot present it. But what we must do, in a multidisciplinary context, is to make sure that we have spelled out the philosophical presuppositions clearly, and not simply to assert that the theory is correct (as you have tried to do repeatedly, contrary to the NPOV policy).

See above for a few more replies.

--Larry Sanger

-- I think Larry Sanger is confusing the fact that we always come at the world from within a web of beliefs with the incorrect claim that we always come at the world from within philosophy. Philosophy, however, is merely a (provisional) attempt by a particular social group to summarise and systematise these (already existing) beliefs. Sanger's claim that we are really doing (bad) philosophy even when we think we aren't is a see-through attempt to overstate the importance of an academic specialty. It implies that our beliefs are somehow *founded* on philosophy, which in turn implies that they are weakened if the philosophical summaries of beliefs can be undermined. All that such a philosophical critique does is show that the relevant beliefs haven't had a good enough philosopher to make convincing enough abstractions on their behalf, but it doesn't weaken the beliefs themselves in any away. (Wittgenstein said somewhere that there is no better way to demonstrate conceptual coherence than “this language game is played”). Every specialist likes to think that everybody else is unconsciously parasitic on their special little words. Some philosophers - like some economists, evolutionary biologists, and astrologists - mistakenly think that having something to say about everything means that everything is trapped within what they say. But everybody else can safely ignore these claims, and continue to play their own little language-game, comfortably indifferent of the specialist. - David

I think, in case it might be helpful, that Fred's contributions have struck me as being too much like the beginnings of a how-to manual on how to think about [Reality]. Under the most comprehensive of all possible topics (assuming that [Unreality] is addressed simultaneously), I appreciate that it's pretty tough to be neutral. But, the approach that Larry keeps insisting on sure makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure I would direct my children to an entry on [Reality], that sets before them as a universally agreed upon starting point that, Reality is like an onion. Mkmcconn

I'm now in the process of greatly expanding this article. I will try to include--written from a neutral point of view--as much of the points raised in the old article as I can.

I will not be including many, if any, of the items from the old bibliography or external links, which I thought were, with a few exceptions, simply very poor representations of the literature on this subject.

The old article can be found here: Talk:Reality/Old article.

--Larry Sanger

OK, I'm done rewriting the article. Comments about why I removed the links: "3 views of reality" and "Quantum Reality" were both links to hack sites, as far as I can tell; Wikipedia should link only to credible sources. The Russell chapter would be welcome if it were accompanied by a whole list of sources. But if it's the only thing left after I've gutted the list, let's get rid of it too. The Marxism page is a biased and extremely lightweight presentation of Marxist materialism; it's really just a silly political screed, and not even academically credible as a presentation of Marxist materialism. I have no information about the creator of "The Radical Academy" which put up the Berkeley page; it doesn't look very good to me--there are many better sources about Berkeley online. The cognitive studies program at Tufts has nothing to do with the topic of reality precisely speaking! Ditto the New York Times article.

'None of the books listed in the bibliography are books that I would put in a "required reading" list of books on the topic of reality, except maybe the Searle book. They might be perfectly suitable for articles about parallel universes, contemporary conservatism, and other topics.

One last note for now: by no means do I think the reality article is now complete. I can easily see adding sections about physicists' bizarre cogitations about the nature of reality, as long as we can justify putting that stuff under this heading. Maybe it would be better to put it under the heading universe...reality might be coextensive with the universe, but that doesn't mean they're the same topic. --Larry Sanger

Fred, If you compare the two opening paragraphs, can you see how much of a problem there will be for other editors to contribute anything that is compatible with your view, unless they adopt your view?

 * Reality is that portion of ultimate reality which is accessible to scientific and philosophical observation, investigation and theoretical interpretation.

 * Reality is everything that actually exists, or at least everything that is real.

The essay avoids the esoteric distinction you make, and engages the topic as the large and difficult issue that it is, fraught as it is with paradox and incompleteness. You attempt to narrow the scope of the topic, by "disambiguation": dividing treatment into "what is real" and "what is ultimately real" - the field of what is knowable as a subset of the field that includes what is beyond knowledge. This approach is unique to you, in my opinion; which makes your approach confusing, when it appears in combination with the essay's more neutral approach. As a result, the first paragraph of this article weakens the article very much. I don't want to repeat the edit war, though. If you can't agree with me, I'll walk away with no hard feelings. Mkmcconn 14:16 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia attempts to be a compendium of human knowledge. That which is "beyond knowledge" is, by definition, also outside the scope of Wikipedia. Mkmcconn, in other words, is right. Tannin

It is well known and a part of the canon of human knowledge that reality presents to us unanswerable (by reason if not by faith or revelation) questions. Fred Bauder 15:46 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Reality
 * Daniel C. Boyer June 6, 2002, becuase : Subject is approached from a realist bias and even reality-enforcing viewpoint. Rewrite from a more NPOV, especially as regards psychosis.

 * from votes for NPOV - I assume this is dealt with?

I believe the material he objected to was deleted by Larrry Sanger when he re-wrote the article. Fred Bauder 13:10 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

As to the rest which seems to consist mainly of name-calling, may I suggest you consider whether or not you are all that superior. Fred Bauder 17:49 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * There is nothing socially constructed about what we consider a scientific topic, and what is not scientific.
 * Heh, just recall Galileo being brought up for charges. Fred Bauder 17:49 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * one cannot use science to measure love.
 * One can easily observe dialation of the pupil of the lover's eye. Fred Bauder 17:49 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * People who claim that experimentally testable aspects of reality are merely social constructs...
 * No such claim was made in the deleted material. Fred Bauder 17:49 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Fred, no one is calling you names...I was referring to radical deconstructionists. Unless you fall into their camp, those specific remarks do not refer to you.  As for your odd claim that science can measure love...love has nothing to do with how big someone's pupil is.  (Science can measure hormonal and physiological effects, but that's all.) If you really insist that a scientific measurement exists for love, then you are outside the bounds of both romantics and scientists, and you have put yourself into a new group that consists of no one but yourself! RK 18:35 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * In any case, you missed the main point. What you meant to write is something very different from what you have actually written. I not preventing you from writing on this topic; I am just removing this one sentence; all I am asking is that you rephrase this sentence to make it clear and accurate. This is no big deal. RK 18:35 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What you have done is lame but not totally unacceptable. Fred Bauder 01:41 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Seriously, I don't mind if you rewrite my own contribution! Now that I see what you mean, I just think that your original sentence was vague.  Please, by all means rewrite it if you would like. I am removing my original criticism. RK 02:08 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Reality is that portion of ultimate reality which is accessible to scientific and philosophical observation, investigation and theoretical interpretation. Some portion of ultimate reality may lie beyond our scope to examine or even imagine": if this statement is not typical of and proof of the validity of reality enforcement as a topic, I don't know what is. --Daniel C. Boyer

It is not but Socially constructed reality is. The quoted statement refers to portions of reality which are inaccessable no matter what social or cultural position is taken. Fred Bauder 02:34 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * What I am criticising is defining reality as only a portion of ultimate reality. Clearly (at least in theory) there may be some portions of ultimate reality which are not accessible to scientific or philosophical observation, investigation or theoretical interpretation.  Saying otherwise is limiting the understanding of reality.  --Daniel C. Boyer

Well, a masterfully ambiguous statement, perhaps you should take a stab at editing the article so we can see what change you would make. Fred Bauder 19:31 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Some portion of ultimate reality may lie beyond our scope to examine or even imagine": In my opinion this is not only a "may" but is practically inevitable (see, for example, the ending passage of Andre Breton's Prolegomena to a Third Surrealist Manifesto or No, but I would still question, as above, how this is not, or might not be, part of "reality." --Daniel C. Boyer 00:31 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, according to me, great authority that I am, reality includes all that is (or ever was or can be), but Larry was not in love with that as a first line. The ultimate reality article is simply that definition disambiguated. Fred Bauder 12:51 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi,

It is a pity that in trying to define reality and other similar basic concepts you do not seem to point out the the inherent (and almost automatic) dual nature of identifying any concept, namely the thing in focus against its background (out of focus).

It is not possible to define reality without recourse to non-reality, just as in defining anything finite and infinite, with the serious burden of not being able to represent/reference non-reality or infinity, by definition.

You are either inside or outside, despite that you may oscillate across the borders and claim that you are a wave/particle, but you cannot identify the thing outside/beyond you from within. otherwise our basic assumption of time/space continuum is false.

Apogr 20:38, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Text moved from article
Hi, I moved the following text from the article:

''For a broad overview on reality in that sense, the reader is enjoined to peruse Wikipedia or any general reference work. General encyclopedias are, after all, supposed to be descriptions of everything--or perceptions of everything, if the reader prefers.''

This statement is unnecessarily self-referential, redundant (the reader is presumably already reading an encyclopedia article), and not a little presumptuous, in my humble opinion. Wmahan. 23:52, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

 * How dare you remove text contributed by User:Larry Sanger? Fred Bauder 01:10, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, if that's a crime, then I'm in even bigger trouble for what I did at Argument from morality. :) Wmahan. 18:54, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Reality of Reality
I haven't read anything in the article nor in the discussion about all the experiments described by Paul Watzlawick in his book "reality of reality".

It describes how language and communication skills models the vision of the reality that surrounds us : mistranslation, propaganda, jokes, monkeys using deaf-mute signs to communicate with human, the Panurge effect that only less than thirty percent of the population dare to resist, and how scientists collects only the facts that support their scientific or mystical theory.

The fact is, in order to understand the universe, make good choices and survive, the human being needs to stay in touch with reality, otherwise things don't work the way they should, people suffer from stress or dreadful situations or ill fates - or act like and live like puppets (that's what some of us are calling "fate" or "doom" or "good luck").

For example, you can repeat "the Titanic won't sink" and make everybody repeats it, by many ways. So you can spare the money and the space and the aesthetical cost - until the Titanic hit the iceberg, and sink.

Another example is the Big Bang theory, often presented as a fact, whenever we launch or build a new telescope : scientifical authorities declare "we going to see the beginning of the universe, and we can give you its age", and then each time they discovers new stars, as bright as the nearest, and they simply change the age of then universe. Ego, lack of scientifical edge and fear of the unknown and rejection - and also winning budgets that should be allowed to others - are probably the motives behind the aberrant statement.

Another example is the Tsunami effect : anyone standing on the beach can see the waters going away before the big wave hit the place. They had the time to escape or take any measure. Most of the people stand still until it was too late because they couldn't conceive that things could turn wrong.

The same behaviour can happen with the chicken flue, or the growing of the dead zones in the seas, and so on.

The ways to bind reality with the language are limited in number, and very mechanicals, easy to spot once you name them - so the article could also include a kind of "reality check-list".

Dave

Thx
I'd like to switch subjects entirely and thank the person(s) responsible for the "Simple reality" section. I found it brilliant yet encyclopedic prose. -- Kizor 17:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Shouldn't there be a note of disambiguation at the top to distinguish between the philosophical concept and the album by David Bowie?

Simple reality
What's the story with the "simple reality" section? Does this strike other people as encyclopedic-type material? I don't know ... I have an aversion to certain kinds of philosophication. - Nat Krause 17:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Confusion between "reality" and "model of reality"
The entire article utterly confuses the notion of "reality" and the notion of "model of reality" or "reality tunnel". Phemenological reality is a lowest-level model of reality accessible to our consions mind. Celia Green (http://deoxy.org/evasion/1.htm) and Robert Anton Wilson (for example Quantum Psychology) discussed it in many great ways. I have very little to add to them.

Quoting from Celia Green:

''It is first necessary to consider what might be meant by the word "reality" if it were usually used to mean "everything that exists". It would have to include all processes and events in the Universe, and all relationships underlying them, regardless of whether or not these things were perceptible or even conceivable by the human mind.''

-- const

The Sun Rises In The East???
As long as one is discussing "reality" it is advisable to base one's arguments for it in it. The sun does not rise in the east. The Earth rotates about it's axis creating this illusion. This issue was resolved hundreds of years ago. One's perception of which direction the sun "rises" is further modified by one's position on the globe, and due to the Earth's axis of rotation being tilted approximately 23 degrees to it's plane of orbit, the time of year the observations are being made. This is a very good example of perceptual reality being interpreted as an actual event and could be incorporated into the article to illustrate this point.

ISn't Reality a Notion
I am Amatuer but i want to clarify one point. Isnt Reality just a Notion . I mean the human brain has been conditioned to accept this world, universe... as real but do we "really" know these to be real?

I am aluuring to the film MATRIX where human accept the virtual world to be itself real and lead their life's.--Mphari 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)hari

Mphari,

I agree somewhat, although I probably wouldn't have used a movie reference :P

There appears to be much debate about how to define reality in this page. I think defining reality could adversly effect reality. In my opinion (which, to me, is the reality of the situation), all we know or will ever know, as conscious begins, is what we have perceived ourselves, through whatever means one uses to define what is true to them, e.g. If one, two, twenty people come to me and described to me a car accident that happened down the road, then my reality wouldn't be that a car accident just happened down the road, but that these people are telling me about it. If noone ever told me and it didn't affect me, then my reality now differs from the reality of those who were affected.

I understand that my example is philisophical (debatably semantical), and doesn't really get to the heart of reality, as it suggests that reality is not simply agreed upon and/or proven, but differs, at least in part, to each individual observing it.

To me, thats reality. For a second, think of it from my eyes... By mearly consitering another's perspective, wouldn't you, at very least, allow the possiblilty that reality need not be literal or tangible, but possibly interpreted? If you answer no, then would you say that true reality is not subject to perspective? If that's the case (which it may be or may become if you perceive it that way) then why would you even bother hearing someone else's perspective on anything?

I think, by mearly living in a social environment, it would seem apparently perceived.... or perceptually apparent (...whatever). Any little bit from another's point of view could effect your own reality, by allowing the possibility of an alternate reality from your own, or maybe even by simply refuting it....

Too many people debating here about not misleading with an incorrect definition of reality, but shouldn't this be a philisophical topic and not a factual one. Why not keep the article about views and concepts of reality instead of debating what the "concensus" wishes to decided reality for others? Doesn't the rest of the world imply enough assumptions to create philisophical blinders without those of philosophy debating semantics as evidence?

--Uther

Unsourced
This article is a mess of unsourced statements. Any help in finding and verifying sources would greatly improve this article. DrL 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies in Advance
My wikipolicy is inclusionist, but there is so much unsourced material and opinion in this article that I have taken a deletionist approach to those passages. Please do not put any material back into this article that is unverified or unsourced opinion. TIA. DrL 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is pretty much complete crap. For goodness sake, it's REALITY. Everyone who is alive and capable of reading this page knows what reality is. Hell, even people who can't read know what reality is. If this is reality (philosophy), maybe it should be labeled as such.

title: Talk:Reality/Archive 1


text:
Lulu

Lulu may refer to:

Companies

 * LuLu, an early automobile manufacturer
 * Lulu.com, an online e-books and print self-publishing platform, distributor, and retailer
 * Lulu Hypermarket, a retail chain in Asia
 * Lululemon Athletica or simply Lulu, a Canadian athletic apparel company

Places

 * Lulu, Florida, United States, an unincorporated community
 * Lulu City, Colorado, United States, a mining town abandoned in 1885, on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Lulu, Missouri, an unincorporated community
 * Lulu Bay, a bay on Navassa Island in the Caribbean
 * Lulu Town, a town on Navassa Island in the Caribbean
 * Lulu Island, an island which comprises most of Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
 * Al Lulu Island, also known as Lulu Island, a man-made island off the coast of Abu Dhabi island
 * Lulu Roundabout, in Manama, Bahrain

Theatre, film, opera
And unrelated to the Wedekind story:
 * The two plays by Frank Wedekind whose protagonist is named Lulu:
 * Earth Spirit (play) (Erdgeist, 1895)
 * Pandora's Box (play) (Die Büchse der Pandora, 1904)
 * Works based on them include:
 * Lulu (opera), a 1935 opera by Alban Berg
 * Lulu (1962 film), an Austrian film by Rolf Thiele
 * Lulu (1980 film), a film directed by Walerian Borowczyk
 * Pandora's Box (1929 film) directed by Georg Wilhelm Pabst based on both Wedekind plays
 * Lulu (Kuhlau opera), an 1824 Danish opera by Friedrich Kuhlau based on same fairy tale as Mozart's Magic Flute
 * Lulu (1914 film), an Italian silent film directed by Augusto Genina
 * Lulu (1917 film), a 1917 German silent film
 * Lulu (1918 film), a Hungarian silent film directed by Michael Curtiz
 * Lulù (1953 film), an Italian film directed by Fernando Cerchio
 * Lulu (1996 film), a Canadian film directed by Srinivas Krishna
 * Lulu (2002 film), a French film starring Jean-Pierre Kalfon
 * Lulu (2005 film), a Dutch film featuring Georgina Verbaan
 * Lulu (2006 film), a German TV film featuring Matthias Schweighöfer
 * Lulu (2014 film), an Argentine film

Music

 * Lulu (1973 album), by Scottish singer Lulu
 * Lulu (1981 album), by Scottish singer Lulu
 * Lulu Belle and Scotty, stage name of Myrtle Eleanor Cooper (1913–1999) (and Scott Greene Wiseman), a major country music act of the 1930s and 1940s
 * Lulu (Trip Shakespeare album) (1991)
 * Lulu (Lou Reed and Metallica album) (2011), based on the Wedekind plays
 * LuLu and the TomCat, Canadian children's musical group
 * Don't Bring Lulu, Dixieland jazz song (1925)

Fictional characters

 * Lulu (Final Fantasy), a character in the Final Fantasy video game series
 * Lulu Spencer, a character in the soap opera General Hospital
 * Lulu Moppet, a character in the comic strip Little Lulu
 * Lulu, a character in WarioWare Gold
 * Lulu, a character played by Louise Brooks in the 1929 film Pandora's Box
 * Lulu Teruno, alias of Tellu, one of the Death Busters from the Sailor Moon metaseries
 * Lulu, a character in the television drama Gilmore Girls
 * Lulu, a teddy bear in the Australian children's television series Bananas in Pyjamas
 * Lulu, a Muppet monster in the children's television series Sesame Street
 * Lulu, a character played by Ashley Argota in the Nickelodeon television series True Jackson, VP

People
Lulu is a given name or surname.

 * Lu'lu', the Arabic given name
 * Lulu (singer) (born 1948, as Marie MacDonald McLaughlin Lawrie), Scottish singer and actress
 * Anolyn Lulu (born 1979), Vanuatuan table tennis player
 * Elizabeth Michael, Tanzanian actress also known as Lulu
 * Li Xiaolu or Lu Lu (born 1982), Chinese actress
 * Lu Lu (badminton) (born 1990), Chinese badminton player
 * Lulu Antariksa (born 1995), American actress
 * Lulu Benstead (1891–1983), Australian opera singer
 * Lulu Guinness (born 1960), British fashion accessory designer
 * Lulu Haangala (born 1984), a Zambian television personality
 * Lulu Huang Lu Zi Yin (born 1991), Taiwanese television personality, singer and actress
 * Lulu James (born 1991/92), British electronic and soul singer
 * Lulu Kennedy (born 1969), British fashion entrepreneur
 * Lulu Pullar (born 1998), Australian rules footballer and former soccer player
 * Lulu Roman (born 1946), American comedian, singer, and author
 * Lulu Santos, stage name of Luiz Maurício Pragana dos Santos (born 1953), Brazilian singer and guitarist
 * Lulu Wang (novelist) (born 1960), Chinese-born writer living in the Netherlands
 * Omar Lulu, Indian film director
 * Paddy Roe, Australian writer known as Lulu
 * Zhou Lulu (born 1988), Chinese female weightlifter and 2012 Olympic champion
 * Lulu and Nana (born 2018), pseudonyms for twin Chinese girls, who are allegedly the first humans produced from embryos that were genome edited
 * Lubjana Piovesana (born 1997), British and Austrian judoka often nicknamed Lulu

Other uses

 * Lulu (app), a mobile app that lets women rate men
 * Lulu (dog), guide dog of blind hiker Trevor Thomas
 * Locally unwanted land use (LULU), a public-policy planning term
 * LuLu International Shopping Mall in Kochi, Kerala, India
 * Lulu Convention Centre, Thrissur, Kerala, India
 * Mk 101 Lulu, a nuclear depth charge formerly used by the United States

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lulu


text:
I Shot an Arrow into the Air

"I Shot an Arrow into the Air" is the fifteenth episode of the American television anthology series The Twilight Zone.

Opening narration
Her name is the Arrow 1. She represents four and a half years of planning, preparation, and training, and a thousand years of science, mathematics, and the projected dreams and hopes of not only a nation, but a world. She is the first manned aircraft into space and this is the countdown. The last five seconds before man shot an arrow into the air.

Plot
A manned space flight with eight crew members crash lands on what the astronauts believe to be an unknown asteroid, with an area of desert and jagged mountains. Only four of the crew survive the crash: the commanding officer Donlin, crewmen Corey and Pierson, and a crewman named Hudak who is badly injured and barely alive, and the chances of rescue or survival are bleak. After they bury the dead men, Donlin and Pierson concern themselves with taking care of Hudak, but Corey, who is only concerned with saving himself, declares that sharing their limited supply of water with Hudak will reduce the chances of survival for the rest of them. This sets Corey at odds with both Pierson and Donlin, who insist that they will care for Hudak and share their water with him for as long as he does survive. Hudak dies a short time later; after they bury him, Donlin has Corey and Pierson trek out into the barren desert to see if there is anything that might improve their chances of survival.

Six hours later, Corey returns alone, claiming not to know where Pierson went. Donlin calls Corey out on having more water in his canteen now than he had when he left, and demands to know where Pierson is. Corey claims that he found Pierson dead and took his water. Not believing this account, Donlin wants to see for himself and forces Corey at gunpoint to lead him to Pierson's body. When they reach the spot Corey claims to have found Pierson, the body is not there, nor is there any evidence that backs Corey's claim, leaving Donlin more dubious. They later find Pierson near the edge of a mountain, alive but severely wounded. Donlin drops the gun and rushes to Pierson, who wordlessly gestures that he climbed the mountain and saw something. With his last bit of strength, Pierson draws a primitive diagram in the sand with his finger (two parallel lines intersected by a perpendicular line), and then dies. Meanwhile, Corey grabs the dropped gun, and confesses that he attacked Pierson earlier. He then shoots and kills Donlin and sets out alone, confident that he will survive longer now that he has all of the water for himself.

Now you make tracks, Mr. Corey. You move out and up like some kind of ghostly billyclub was tapping at your ankles and telling you that it was later than you'd think. You scrabble up rock hills and feel hot sand underneath your feet and every now and then, take a look over your shoulder at a giant sun suspended in a dead and motionless sky...like an unblinking eye that probes at the back of your head in a prolonged accusation.

Mr. Corey, last remaining member of a doomed crew, keep moving. Make tracks, Mr. Corey. Push up and push out because if you stop...if you stop, maybe sanity will get you by the throat. Maybe realization will pry open your mind and the horror you left down in the sand will seep in. Yeah, Mr. Corey, yeah, you better keep moving. That's the order of the moment: keep moving.

Corey climbs a mountain and sees a sign for Reno, along with telephone poles, which was what Pierson had attempted to draw before he died. Realizing that they had in fact never left Earth and that he had killed his partners for nothing, Corey breaks down weeping and begging his deceased crewmates for forgiveness.

Closing narration
Practical joke perpetrated by Mother Nature and a combination of improbable events. Practical joke wearing the trappings of nightmare, of terror, of desperation. Small, human drama played out in a desert 97 miles from Reno, Nevada, U.S.A., continent of North America, the Earth and, of course, the Twilight Zone.

Episode notes

 * Despite this, Serling did end up producing an idea from an industry outsider when he paid Madelon Champion $500 for the idea on which this episode was based, an idea that came up in a social conversation between the two. Though Serling was frequently approached with suggestions for the series, such a purchase was never repeated.
 * Much of this episode was filmed in Death Valley National Monument (now a National Park), particularly around Zabriskie Point.
 * In addition to the usual opening and closing narration, this episode features a rare bit of narration from Serling in the middle of the show—after Corey kills Donlin, Serling narrates Corey's travels through the desert landscape. This was the last use of mid-show narration until season 3's "I Sing the Body Electric".
 * The title of the episode comes from the opening line of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's "The Arrow and the Song": "I shot an arrow into the air, it fell to Earth I knew not where." Serling also used this title for a prospective Twilight Zone pilot episode that was eventually shot, in modified form, as "The Gift".
 * The plot idea of astronauts thinking they had crashed on an unknown planet, only to discover that in fact they had been on Earth all along, would be adapted by Rod Serling in his work on the initial screenplay of the 1968 film Planet of the Apes.
 * This is one of several episodes from season one to have its opening title sequence replaced with the opening for season two. This was done during the summer of 1961 in order to match the re-running episodes of season one to episodes of the second season.

title: I Shot an Arrow into the Air


text:
The Hitch-Hiker (The Twilight Zone)

"The Hitch-Hiker" is the sixteenth episode of the American television anthology series The Twilight Zone which originally aired on January 22, 1960, on CBS. It is based on Lucille Fletcher's radio play The Hitch-Hiker. It is frequently listed among the series' greatest episodes.

Opening narration
Her name is Nan Adams. She's twenty-seven years old. Her occupation: buyer at a New York department store. At present on vacation, driving cross-country to Los Angeles, California from Manhattan.

The narration continues after the dialogue between Nan and the mechanic.

Minor incident on Highway 11 in Pennsylvania. Perhaps, to be filed away under "accidents you walk away from." But from this moment on, Nan Adams' companion on a trip to California will be terror. Her route: fear. Her destination: quite unknown.

Plot
Nan Adams, on a cross-country road trip from New York City to Los Angeles, gets a flat tire on U.S. Route 11 in Pennsylvania and survives losing control of the car and skidding onto the shoulder. The mechanic she has called to come put a spare tire on comments that he is surprised she survived, saying "you shouldn't have called for a mechanic. Somebody should've called for a hearse." He directs her to follow him into town where he will supply her with a new tire. As she is driving from the site of her blow-out, Nan notices a shabby and strange-looking man hitchhiking. Later, as she is preparing to leave the service station in town, she again sees this hitchhiker, but the mechanic does not see him when she mentions it. Unnerved, she drives away. As she continues her trip, Nan sees the same hitchhiker thumbing for a ride again in Virginia and at several other points in her journey.

She grows increasingly frightened of him. When she stops at a railroad crossing for an oncoming train, the man is situated on the other side of the tracks. She decides to drive ahead but the car stalls on the tracks. She manages to restart the vehicle and back up just as the train speeds past.

Nan is now convinced that the hitchhiker is trying to kill her. She continues to drive, becoming more and more afraid, stopping only when necessary. Every time she stops, however, the hitchhiker is there, always ahead of her.

She takes a side road in New Mexico but gets stranded when she runs out of gas. She reaches a gas station on foot but it is closed; although she rouses the proprietor from bed, he refuses to reopen and sell her gas due to the late hour. Nan is startled by a sailor on his way back to San Diego from leave. Eager for protection from the hitchhiker, she offers to drive the sailor all the way to his destination. He gladly accepts and persuades the station attendant to provide gas. As they drive together and discuss their mutual predicaments, she sees the hitchhiker on the road and swerves toward him. The sailor, who cannot see him, questions her driving; she admits she was trying to run over the hitchhiker. The sailor begins to fear for his safety and leaves her, despite her efforts to have him stay, even going so far as offering to go out with him.

In Arizona, Nan stops to call her mother in Manhattan, New York City. The woman who answers the phone says Mrs. Adams is in the hospital, having suffered a nervous breakdown after finding out that her daughter, Nan, died in Pennsylvania six days ago when the car she was driving blew a tire and overturned. Nan realizes the truth: she didn't survive the accident in Pennsylvania and the hitchhiker is none other than the personification of death, patiently and persistently waiting for her to realize that she has been dead all along. She loses all emotion, concern, and feels empty.

Nan returns to the car and looks in the vanity mirror on the visor. Instead of her reflection, she sees the hitchhiker, who says, "I believe you're going...my way?"

Closing narration
Nan Adams, age twenty-seven. She was driving to California; to Los Angeles. She didn't make it. There was a detour... through the Twilight Zone.

Episode notes
In the original radio play by Lucille Fletcher, the character of Nan was a man named Ronald Adams. The Hitch-Hiker was first presented on The Orson Welles Show (1941), Philip Morris Playhouse (1942), Suspense (1942), and The Mercury Summer Theater (1946). All of these radio productions were live performances starring Orson Welles as Ronald Adams.

Nan's car is a light-colored 1959 Mercury Montclair four-door hardtop that had the inside rear-view mirror and front door vent windows removed. However, in the scene where Nan swerved toward the hitch-hiker, the car shown is a dark 1957 Ford Custom or Fairlane four-door sedan.

When the teleplay was adapted for radio on The Twilight Zone Radio Dramas in 2002, the role of Nan Adams was played by Kate Jackson.

title: The Hitch-Hiker (The Twilight Zone)


text:
William Nelson

William Nelson may refer to:

 * Billy Nelson (athlete) (William Andrew Nelson, born 1984), American steeplechaser
 * William Nelson (governor) (1711–1772), American colonial governor of Virginia

 * William Nelson (British judge) (born c. 1981), British district judge
 * William Nelson (MP) (c. 1462–1525), member of parliament for the City of York
 * William Nelson (New York politician) (1784–1869), U.S. congressman for New York
 * William Nelson (Wisconsin politician) (1839–1913), member of the Wisconsin State Senate
 * William Nelson (wrestler), American wrestler who won a bronze medal at the 1904 Olympics
 * William Nelson, 1st Earl Nelson (1757–1835), elder brother of Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson
 * William "Bull" Nelson (1824–1862), Union army general in the American Civil War
 * William E. Nelson (died 1991), murdered by his wife Omaima Nelson
 * William G. Nelson (fl. 1980s–2020s), American cancer researcher and professor
 * Harold Nelson (athlete) (William Harold Nelson, 1923–2011), New Zealand runner
 * William L. Nelson (politician) (1875–1946), U.S. congressman for Missouri
 * William L. Nelson (Medal of Honor) (1918–1943), World War II Medal of Honor recipient
 * William Lambie Nelson (1807–1887), member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly
 * William T. Nelson (1908–1994), U.S. Navy rear admiral
 * William Rockhill Nelson (1841–1915), American journalist and publisher
 * William Nelson (industrialist) (1843–1932), New Zealand farmer and industrialist
 * William Nelson (inventor) (died 1903), American inventor killed by own invention

title: William Nelson


text:
Billy Bass Nelson

William "Billy Bass" Nelson (born January 28, 1951) is an American musician, who was the original bassist for Funkadelic. He is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, inducted in 1997 with fifteen other members of Parliament-Funkadelic.

Career
Nelson was born in Plainfield, New Jersey and as a teenager worked at George Clinton's barbershop, sweeping the floor and singing and dancing for the customers. Clinton was a member of the doo wop vocal group the Parliaments, who scored a nationwide hit in 1967 with the song "(I Wanna) Testify". Clinton put together a backing band as musical support for a tour and recruited Nelson, who in turn recommended his friend Eddie Hazel. Nelson and Hazel eventually took on bass and lead guitar roles respectively. The backing band was originally unnamed, but Nelson later coined the name "Funkadelic" to reflect the style (funk) and connect it with the then-burgeoning psychedelic music scene.

By 1970, Funkadelic was a full band consisting of Nelson, Hazel, drummer Tiki Fulwood, guitarist Tawl Ross, and keyboardist Mickey Atkins (later replaced by Bernie Worrell). Since 1967 the band had been billed as the musical backing for The Parliaments. Due to legal problems, in the early 1970s Clinton had temporarily lost the rights to the name "The Parliaments" and instead signed the entire ensemble to Westbound Records under the name Funkadelic. Nelson was a prominent contributor to the first three Funkadelic albums, Funkadelic (1970), Free Your Mind... and Your Ass Will Follow (1970), and Maggot Brain (1971).

Nelson left the group in late 1971 after a financial dispute with George Clinton (making Nelson the first Parliament-Funkadelic member to defect over such concerns, foreshadowing a major problem that would haunt Clinton in the late 1970s). Nelson and Hazel next performed with The Temptations. Nelson rejoined Funkadelic briefly in the studio in 1975, playing on the track "Better By the Pound" on the Funkadelic album Let's Take It To The Stage. Nelson later played with The Commodores, Chairmen of the Board, Fishbone, Jermaine Jackson, Parlet, Lionel Richie, Smokey Robinson, and Lenny Williams.

In the 1990s, Nelson enjoyed a surge of name-checking by such legendary bassists as John Norwood Fisher (of Fishbone) and Flea (of the Red Hot Chili Peppers), while his early Funkadelic work was being sampled often by hip hop artists. Joining with some other P-Funk alumni, in 1994 Nelson released the album Out of the Dark under the name O.G. Funk. Since 1994 he has served in various touring lineups of Parliament-Funkadelic. He has also toured with P-Funk spinoff acts the 420 Funk Mob and Sons of Funk.

title: Billy Bass Nelson


text:
The Fever (The Twilight Zone)

"The Fever" is the seventeenth episode of the American television anthology series The Twilight Zone. It originally aired on January 29, 1960, on CBS. The complete, original text for this story was run in the debut issue of Harvey Kurtzman’s Help!, cover dated August, 1960.

Opening narration
Mr. and Mrs. Franklin Gibbs, three days and two nights all expenses paid at a Las Vegas hotel, won by virtue of Mrs. Gibbs's knack with a phrase. But unbeknownst to either Mr. or Mrs. Gibbs is the fact that there's a prize in their package, neither expected nor bargained for. In just a moment, one of them will succumb to an illness worse than any virus can produce. A most inoperative, deadly life-shattering affliction known as the Fever.

Plot
Franklin Gibbs and his wife Flora go to Las Vegas because she won a slogan contest. He detests gambling, but his wife is excited about their vacation. In a casino, she puts a nickel in a slot machine and Franklin admonishes her for wasting money. She convinces him to let her pull the arm since she already put the money in, but wins nothing on the spin. Happy that his point was made, he implores her to go back to their room so they can get ready for dinner. As they walk, Franklin is given a silver dollar by a drunk man who makes him use it in a different machine that advertises a $10,000 jackpot. He wins and tells Flora that they should keep the winnings and not lose it back like other people. As they depart, Franklin believes he hears the slot machine calling his name in a monstrous-sounding voice.

Franklin continues to hear the voice as he tries to sleep. He gets out of bed, telling his wife he cannot keep "tainted" money, and that he is going to get rid of it by putting it back in the machine. Later, Flora goes to the casino and finds Franklin playing the machine obsessively. When Flora tries to coax him to stop, he declares that he has lost so much that he has to try to win some of it back. He becomes enraged when she presses him to leave; he declares that the machine is "inhuman," that it "teases you, [...] sucks you in." The casino workers watch and talk about him as he constantly plays and ignores his wife's pleas to go to bed. When Franklin puts his last dollar into the machine, it suddenly malfunctions and the reels will not spin. He loses his temper, knocks the machine over, and is taken screaming out of the casino.

Later in bed, Franklin tells Flora that it was about to pay off, but deliberately broke down so that it would not have to give him his money. He again hears the machine calling his name, then sees it coming down the hallway toward the couple's room and pursuing him. To his horror, its coin hopper is now covered by a hood etched with a large smile. Flora can neither see nor hear the machine as it backs Franklin up toward the window, until he crashes backwards through it and falls to his death. The police stand over his body, noting that his wife had stated that he had not slept in 24 hours, and a casino manager comments that he has never seen anyone develop a gambling addiction so quickly and severely. Franklin's last dollar rolls across the pavement to stop by his outstretched hand, and the camera pans in the direction from which it came and stops on the "smiling" machine.

Closing narration
Mr. Franklin Gibbs, visitor to Las Vegas, who lost his money, his reason, and finally his life to an inanimate, metal machine, variously described as a "one-armed bandit", a "slot machine", or, in Mr. Franklin Gibbs' words, a "monster with a will all of its own." For our purposes, we'll stick with the latter definition because we're in the Twilight Zone.

Episode notes
In Serling: The Rise and Twilight of Television's Last Angry Man, Gordon F. Sander wrote, "Serling celebrated the signing of his new show, The Twilight Zone by spending a weekend in Las Vegas. While Carol Serling was having good luck nearby, he became enslaved by a merciless one-armed bandit, an incident he would turn into one of his first Twilight Zone episodes."

The slot machine was reused in the later episodes "A Nice Place to Visit" and "The Prime Mover".

This is one of several episodes from Season One with its opening title sequence plastered over with the opening for Season Two. This was done during the Summer of 1961 to help the Season One shows fit in with the new look the show had taken during the following season. This is also one of three Season One episodes with Marius Constant's theme instead of Bernard Herrmann's over the closing credits.

title: The Fever (The Twilight Zone)