Personal vs Impersonal Reality

[AnCap AllCaps]

On another forum, the DailyPaul, there was a thread on the topic of "faith:" http://goo.gl/HdkDzBMyself (Enjoying The Deep End) and another member (Micah68) got on to a topic that he (Micah68) presented. You can go to the link and look at the back and forth there for full details into my thinking and his.Here is the argument. Having challenged him, he posted several different "versions" or "wordings" of the argument:

 

 

Version 1:

 

Everyone has "faith" that one of the following is true:Either reality is impersonal in nature, in which case "person, love, reason, mind, will, etc... is just mere temporary illusions on top of of a substrate of dead, meaningless energy, quantum mechanics, etc..."Or...Reality is personal, in which case "person, love, reason, mind, will, etc... is not an illusion, and "personhood" is the basis for reality."

 

 

Version 2: (Verbatim from Micah68)An impersonal reality (chain of mere cause and effect) cannot exhibit or develop reason, which involves processes, inferences which stand apart from such cause and effect. We witness reason in ourselves, in this reality. Therefore a personal reality with eternally existing reason exists.

 

 

Version 3: (My rewording of Micah68's argument)A personal reality would exhibit features such as reasoning, logic, and personhood. We witness reasoning, logic, and personhood. Therefore a personal reality exists.

 

Now I propose that the argument is fallacious. I propose that the argument ASSUMES that "personal realities" exist. I ask "How do we know that there is EVEN SUCH A THING as a PERSONAL REALITY?"I could equally posit a: "Feminine reality vs masculine reality," "Structured reality vs impulsive reality," "Joyful reality vs miserable reality," "Tasty reality vs bland reality," Bald reality vs hairy reality," etc....And does my mere proposing these "types of realities" therefore necessitate THAT THEY ACTUALLY EXIST? So there is actually a "Tasty Reality?"----

 

I see the argument as a "Begging the question fallacy." Because the premise necessitates the conclusion be true; that a "personal reality exists." 

The argument merely ASSERTS that "personal realities exist."----So can you guys jump in here with your thoughts? Let me know what your "position on the argument" is, and "if you think the argument is even valid or if it contains a fallacy." So do you think there is such a thing as an "impersonal reality" or a "personal reality?" Do you think these categories exist? And do you take a position on it; do you think reality is personal?I look forward to your thoughts.Thanks

[Pepin]

I would say that the main issue is the application of the word "personal". It isn't a concept that applies to reality. It is the same as asking "what color is the number two?".

 

A logical error is that if reality is shared between seven billion people, then reality cannot be personal as the same is reality is shared by seven billion people.

 

Worse, what does it even mean? That each person's version of reality is different? That reality was made for each individual and everyone in your reality is an illusion?

 

A good response would go into physics and evolution.

 

It seems to be claimed that an impersonal reality would entail an illusion of self, yet if the self relates itself to reality in any manner, then it is not an illusion.