Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc.
We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality, let's refer to it as subjective reality.

Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.

When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- knowledge/believes;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.

This is my view and I am convinced of it's correctness, but feel free to add or criticize.

Discuss :)

We don't know that the world is objectively real. In fact, there's a real argument that our unisverse, its and our past, our memories and lives before this instant is all an illusion, and that that possibility is *more likely* than the theory that it's all real.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=cosmologists&st=nyt&oref=slogin

The problem is that it seems real and treating it like it is real is the best strategy that we have going for us.

...
This is my view and I am convinced of it's correctness, but feel free to add or criticize.

Discuss

I have two questions:

1. What is the relevance of distinguishing between objective reality and subjective reality?

2. How can a person distinguish between objective reality and subjective reality; how does a person know which is which?

So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.

if we would see and experience everything, we would see nothing and experience nothing. reality is like light. it's just... light, but if you separate it, it becomes something/colors. nothing(ness) is objective.

I have two questions:

1. What is the relevance of distinguishing between objective reality and subjective reality?
I don't know, but this question really isn't very relevant to the thread :p

2. How can a person distinguish between objective reality and subjective reality; how does a person know which is which?
A person can't. We cannot directly perceive objective reality.

if we would see and experience everything, we would see nothing and experience nothing. reality is like light. it's just... light, but if you separate it, it becomes something/colors. nothing(ness) is objective.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

We can assume it exists, but we don't know for sure.

We can assume it exists, but we don't know for sure.

What is the alternative ? Where do the senses get their input from ?

jesus

What is the alternative ? Where do the senses get their input from ?

just like IN YOUR DREAMS: everything is inside the mind. everything that exists is thoughts, and we get our input from thoughts.

since the outside is inside our mind, there can't be a real inside either. nothing exists, that's why every possibility (everything) can exist.

What is the alternative ? Where do the senses get their input from ?

I agree, an alternative would be hard to imagine. Maybe we are in a matrix.

just like IN YOUR DREAMS: everything is inside the mind. everything that exists is thoughts, and we get our input from thoughts.

since the outside is inside our mind, there can't be a real inside either. nothing exists, that's why every possibility (everything) can exist.

Oh right, I forgot..

I don't know, but this question really isn't very relevant to the thread

A person can't. We cannot directly perceive objective reality.

Given the title of your thread:

"Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?"

I expect that questions like mine will be relevant.
Otherwise, what is the point in talking about "objective reality"?

Given the title of your thread:

"Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?"

I expect that questions like mine will be relevant.
Otherwise, what is the point in talking about "objective reality"?

I'm sorry.
I took your first question as criticism of the thread rather than criticism of my view.

I agree, an alternative would be hard to imagine. Maybe we are in a matrix.

I don't think anyone can come up with a viable alternative actually.. all views ultimately need an 'outside'.

I don't think anyone can come up with a viable alternative actually.. all views ultimately need an 'outside'.

I refuse to settle. I demand to be creative!

Come on everybody, think of a view of the world that doesn't rest on the inside/outside dichotomy!

Eat some carrots for better vision, some banans for faster thought, and wash it down with some OJ to get those vitamins rocking!:yay:

I refuse to settle. I demand to be creative!

Come on everybody, think of a view of the world that doesn't rest on the inside/outside dichotomy!

Eat some carrots for better vision, some banans for faster thought, and wash it down with some OJ to get those vitamins rocking!

OJ ? lol :p

Edit: oh right duh

Orange juice.

Seriously.
We can usually think of the opposite of everything, right? We say the opposite of white is black, of up is down, of sea is land, and then there's apples and oranges.

So we should be able to think of a worldview that is some sort of opposition to the inside/outside dichotomy.

Orange juice.

Seriously.
We can usually think of the opposite of everything, right? We say the opposite of white is black, of up is down, of sea is land, and then there's apples and oranges.

So we should be able to think of a worldview that is some sort of opposition to the inside/outside dichotomy.

But the question is, is that view a logical one.. take Yorda's view for example..

But the question is, is that view a logical one.. take Yorda's view for example..

I might be logical. But the premises used would likely not be what we would normally consider popular or common observations of the world.


Yorda's views are often logical; but there are sometimes plays of words in Yorda's statements that seem to confuse things.

I might be logical. But the premises used would likely not be what we would normally consider popular or common observations of the world.


Yorda's views are often logical; but there are sometimes plays of words in Yorda's statements that seem to confuse things.

The statement "everything is in the mind" is not logical because something has to support the mind.

The statement "everything is in the mind" is not logical because something has to support the mind.

Why?

Why?

Explain to me how the mind can exist on it's own.

It can't be explained. Any such explanation would necessarily be defeating itself, as it was done using the mind, and not something else.

Explain to me how the mind can exist on it's own.

The problem here is the human perception that if something exists that it must have been created, or that there is a discernable foundation by which all things exist. Could it be that there isnt any possible way to logically explain the function of the mind or reality because we lack the capacity to understand that things may exist that dont consrain to the laws of nature as we see them

Yorda's views are often logical; but there are sometimes plays of words in Yorda's statements that seem to confuse things.

Reality is often logical, but sometimes something plays hide and seek so that we don't find the nothing it is. Scientists don't even find the cause of lightning... but the scandinavians found Thor long ago.

Explain to me how the mind can exist on it's own.

According to the ancient myths that Yorda believes in, the mind is born from nothing, like every other nothing.

I am nothing that is everything. Duality: I am nothing, but the infinity (everything) is outside me. The mind separates nothing into anything like prismas separate light into some colors.

-- just kidding

I'm not sure what you mean here.

If you would see everything, you would just see a blinding light which would blind you so that you would see nothing. And if you would hear everything you would soon hear nothing. And same with the other senses...

So you see, reality is nothing. That's how it was in the "beginning". But then we limited our senses so that we created darkness which allowed us to see something.

Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.


I found this section confusing.

The first sentence is a little odd. It should be 'its', no apostrophe, I assume, but I wasn't sure. And then I wanted it to be very clear what the it is. But here's where the real trouble comes in for me.

You start off saying that some people say it impossible to know if objective reality exists. Then you state that you disagree. Fine. My expectation is that what follows will show why you disagree. What follows however seems to be pointing out that our senses are limited. This doesn't really seem to be backing up the point you made. If you meant to say that our senses are limited but clearly somewhat based on reality, perhaps with the animal vs. human sense examples, you still haven't made the case. All your ideas about the issue are based on senses and memory that may not be based on objective reality.

Could you express again why you disagree with those who say we cannot know objective reality or if it exists?

Explain to me how the mind can exist on it's own.
Explain what assumptions you have about minds that make you think the onus is on him to explain. To you it seems clear a mind must have a 'foundation'. Why are you sure of this? Is it because of Science? But perhaps what you are calling science is merely an illusion that seems logical to a mind - yours. Your memory and your senses being fooled.

What is the alternative ? Where do the senses get their input from ?

You have made several assumptions in the above. 'Inputs'....the very word postulates ideas like outside and inside. Separate. Distance. Containers. And generally 'input', since 1948, has come to mean information. Information being 'about' but not the thing in itself.

So once you phrase your question like this you have already assumed an entire metaphysics. This is what I was trying to get across on the other thread. You take as your starting point something that must be built up to.

I refuse to settle. I demand to be creative!

Come on everybody, think of a view of the world that doesn't rest on the inside/outside dichotomy!

I still like the alternative that we are actually looking inward with our senses and what we call out there is actually us. But when we dream and introspect then we are focusing on something that is not us.

Why do we identify with the inside and not the outside? In fact how do we know which is the inside?

Orange juice.
So we should be able to think of a worldview that is some sort of opposition to the inside/outside dichotomy.
Everything is inside. What ever we perceive is 'in' consciousness. It is always in that field. We tend to section off portions of that field and call it me, mine, inside, or his, theirs, its and outside. But if we pay attention, it is all inside. With no boundaries.

how do we know that reality is the way we know it is? that is part of the larger question of how do we know anything at all? what is the difference between knowing and merely believing? what constitutes proof?

how many times do i have to observe the sun rise in the morning to know that it will rise again the next morning?

It can't be explained. Any such explanation would necessarily be defeating itself, as it was done using the mind, and not something else.

A mind cannot exist on its own if you accept that its existence depends on a brain. Do you think there is an alternative explanation ?

The problem here is the human perception that if something exists that it must have been created, or that there is a discernable foundation by which all things exist. Could it be that there isnt any possible way to logically explain the function of the mind or reality because we lack the capacity to understand that things may exist that dont consrain to the laws of nature as we see them

What is so difficult about saying that the mind is an aspect of the brain without which it could exist. Do you believe that a dead person has a mind. I don't but he still has a non-functioning brain.

Everything is inside. What ever we perceive is 'in' consciousness. It is always in that field. We tend to section off portions of that field and call it me, mine, inside, or his, theirs, its and outside. But if we pay attention, it is all inside. With no boundaries.

Sounds like you have a skull of infinite proportions, give that there is nothing outside of it.

If you would see everything, you would just see a blinding light which would blind you so that you would see nothing. And if you would hear everything you would soon hear nothing. And same with the other senses...

So you see, reality is nothing. That's how it was in the "beginning". But then we limited our senses so that we created darkness which allowed us to see something.

Only if we had a candle.

The problem here is the human perception that if something exists that it must have been created, or that there is a discernable foundation by which all things exist. Could it be that there isnt any possible way to logically explain the function of the mind or reality because we lack the capacity to understand that things may exist that dont consrain to the laws of nature as we see them

If you mean that there may be things we cannot know as they really are would agree.
But if the mind exists on its own somehow, how come it chose to perceive our bodies like it does etc etc. ?
And if the mind exists on it's own then there is no basis for perception, which would mean that none of us would experience reality in remotely the same way.
What I mean is how can we show our neighbor our new car (which is only a fabrication of my mind) ?
The only answer would be that the neighbor is also a fabrication of the mind, and this in turn means that I am the only mind in existence; the lot of you only exist in my mind..
If there is only one of me, why do I exist at all ?

This is not the way.

I found this section confusing.

The first sentence is a little odd. It should be 'its', no apostrophe, I assume, but I wasn't sure. And then I wanted it to be very clear what the it is. But here's where the real trouble comes in for me.
Aye, it should be 'its'.

You start off saying that some people say it impossible to know if objective reality exists. Then you state that you disagree. Fine. My expectation is that what follows will show why you disagree. What follows however seems to be pointing out that our senses are limited. This doesn't really seem to be backing up the point you made. If you meant to say that our senses are limited but clearly somewhat based on reality, perhaps with the animal vs. human sense examples, you still haven't made the case. All your ideas about the issue are based on senses and memory that may not be based on objective reality.

Could you express again why you disagree with those who say we cannot know objective reality or if it exists?
I think I made my point in the OP though. I explained how subjective reality is created by us, the senses part was just to begin at the beginning.

Why do we identify with the inside and not the outside?

It apparently serves a purpose to identify in this manner. If it would serve no purpose at all, such identifying would have ceased.

What I mean is how can we show our neighbor our new car (which is only a fabrication of my mind) ?
The only answer would be that the neighbor is also a fabrication of the mind, and this in turn means that I am the only mind in existence; the lot of you only exist in my mind..
If there is only one of me, why do I exist at all ?

This is not the way.

Why not?

Enter solipsism.

Why not?

Enter solipsism.

Solipsism is a laugh.. come on.

Aye, it should be 'its'.


I think I made my point in the OP though. I explained how subjective reality is created by us, the senses part was just to begin at the beginning.

I don't see how this idea backs up your assertion. It could be used to disagree with your assertion.

I don't see how this idea backs up your assertion. It could be used to disagree with your assertion.

How ?

If there is only one of me, why do I exist at all ?

This is not the way.
That question is almost like how a theist thinks? You are asking for objective purpose for your existence. You think it would be absurd if there was just you and this is seen as proof that there are others. A similar argument could be made for, for example, the everlasting soul. Or God.
Since life would be absurd if we simply died. Etc.

It apparently serves a purpose to identify in this manner. If it would serve no purpose at all, such identifying would have ceased.

Sure. I was trying to be creative. Also I have a gut feeling there is some nugget of truth in there also.

Or, to be provocative: perhaps the time has come to notice this purpose is no longer necessary and I am one of the first ones to notice.

That question is almost like how a theist thinks? You are asking for objective purpose for your existence. You think it would be absurd if there was just you and this is seen as proof that there are others. A similar argument could be made for, for example, the everlasting soul. Or God.
Since life would be absurd if we simply died. Etc.

No it's experience with nature..
If you see a particular animal, there are more of them.

Solipsism is a laugh.. come on.

Solipsism might be a laugh, but it is also irrefutable, and all ways of thinking eventually end up in solipsism.

Solipsism is quite the formidable enemy, nothing to laugh at.

Solipsism might be a laugh, but it is also irrefutable, and all ways of thinking eventually end up in solipsism.

Solipsism is quite the formidable enemy, nothing to laugh at.

Not my way of thinking :p

I think solipsism is a totally ridiculous attempt to arrive at the same implications as my view does. It only falls short, solipsism that is.

No it's experience with nature..
If you see a particular animal, there are more of them.

I don't think that constitutes proof. There are plant forms called Rhizomes that can be enormous individuals - root systems - which look like many individuals but are not. There is no reason a planet couldn't have one large rhizome structure, period. And no other members to that species. Also nature has many exceptions: animals and plants with singular qualities that are not shared by other species.

And last: if you are the only thing that is, those animals are really a part of you. A part of your dream. Or a part of the phenomenological realm that is you.

Not my way of thinking

What, so now you have a your way of thinking?
Your way, yours and yours alone, and screw objectivity?

I don't think that constitutes proof. There are plant forms called Rhizomes that can be enormous individuals - root systems - which look like many individuals but are not. There is no reason a planet couldn't have one large rhizome structure, period. And no other members to that species. Also nature has many exceptions: animals and plants with singular qualities that are not shared by other species.
It can of course, but it is not the rule. There is no procreation if there is only one individual of a species.

And last: if you are the only thing that is, those animals are really a part of you. A part of your dream. Or a part of the phenomenological realm that is you.
Which is totally ridiculous. Solipsism failed to do away with the self and as a result becomes ridiculous.

What, so now you have a your way of thinking?
Your way, yours and yours alone, and screw objectivity?

I meant what I described in the OP. And I didn't implicate that no one else has the same view. Myles seems to agree with most of it, if not all.

It can of course, but it is not the rule. There is no procreation if there is only one individual of a species.So? This does not mean that the world is actually a part of you. You are trying to prove something using details from a model that might be false.

Which is totally ridiculous. Solipsism failed to do away with the self and as a result becomes ridiculous.
Solipsism was not an attempt to do away with the self.

And last: if you are the only thing that is, those animals are really a part of you. A part of your dream. Or a part of the phenomenological realm that is you.

With no outside, only you ?
Dream implicates an outside.
'phenomenological' implicates an outside.

So? This does not mean that the world is actually a part of you. You are trying to prove something using details from a model that might be false.


Solipsism was not an attempt to do away with the self.

But it has done away with all the other selves. Maybe it's an attempt at the ultimate arrogance.

With no outside, only you ?
Dream implicates an outside.
'phenomenological' implicates an outside.

Sure. I am pointing out your assumptions. Yes, perhaps there is no outside.
Dream implicate an outside, but as you have made painfully clear in other threads you consider them COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. It seems like they are about objects, but dreams are actually not in contact with objects. You accepted exceptions for sounds in the room, etc. But we can see that even in the absence of outside stimuli the sleeper can imagine that all these external objects and beings exist. Later he or she wakes up and realizes it was not the case. Or Myles and Enmos can tell him that none of these things were external. The same could be be true for waking life.

phenomenological actually brackets off ideas of subject and object. It sets to the side notions of what is real and focuses on experience. I think you meant 'implies' not implicates.

But it has done away with all the other selves. Maybe it's an attempt at the ultimate arrogance.

I see solipsism as the mark of utter philosophical despair. Not arrogance.

Or Myles and Enmos can tell him that none of these things were external. The same could be be true for waking life.
You are almost there :)

phenomenological actually brackets off ideas of subject and object. It sets to the side notions of what is real and focuses on experience. I think you meant 'implies' not implicates.
Ok fair enough.

I see solipsism as the mark of utter philosophical despair. Not arrogance.

It's just not consequent or logical to reason away all the other selves but not your own.

You are almost there :) No, Enmos. Please don't take that guru role with me. You see the point I was making, please respond to that.

How ?
No, Enmos. Please show me how it backs up your assertion. I already explained the problem with it.

But it has done away with all the other selves. Maybe it's an attempt at the ultimate arrogance.
You're now arguing against a metaphysical theory because it is arrogant. And yes, it has done away with other selves, but not the self as you asserted.

It's just not consequent or logical to reason away all the other selves but not your own. Can you show us why? Also the point at least on my part, but perhaps also Greenberg's, of bring up solipsism is to point out the assumptions you are making. Solipsism is very hard to prove wrong. It would also be very hard to prove right. What it does do is point out that you are making assumptions that are very hard to prove, in fact I would say impossible, to prove. Some people call that faith.

And pointing out that a universe that is a single self is weird - which seems to me to be your position - or arrogant hardly constitutes proof.

The universe is weird, whatever its nature. And arrogance is irrelevent.

No, Enmos. Please don't take that guru role with me. You see the point I was making, please respond to that.

Sure. I am pointing out your assumptions. Yes, perhaps there is no outside.
Dream implicate an outside, but as you have made painfully clear in other threads you consider them COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. It seems like they are about objects, but dreams are actually not in contact with objects. You accepted exceptions for sounds in the room, etc. But we can see that even in the absence of outside stimuli the sleeper can imagine that all these external objects and beings exist. Later he or she wakes up and realizes it was not the case. Or Myles and Enmos can tell him that none of these things were external. The same could be be true for waking life.

I agree with that, but you obviously do not.
I don't know what exactly was your point. Unless you are saying that because we can dream of anything, everything 'outside' could as well be in our head.
I just can't fathom why you don't except my explanation of dreaming..

It's just not consequent or logical to reason away all the other selves but not your own.

One's own self is the only one one cannot "reason away".

No, Enmos. Please show me how it backs up your assertion. I already explained the problem with it.

I truly don't see the problem. Can't you explain further what you meant ?

You're now arguing against a metaphysical theory because it is arrogant. And yes, it has done away with other selves, but not the self as you asserted.

That was sarcastic.

One's own self is the only one one cannot "reason away".
Actually there are trends in modern science to do this. The self qualia. The illusion that one exists is an undercurrent philosophy out there. Also cases are made by both religious and scientific people that the notion of a self - here - that looks at things - there is false. This is replaced by ideas of phenomena. I just read a book by a physicist who was putting forward the idea that NOWS are the only things that exist. Not selves. Not objects. Simply Nows.

Can you show us why? Also the point at least on my part, but perhaps also Greenberg's, of bring up solipsism is to point out the assumptions you are making. Solipsism is very hard to prove wrong. It would also be very hard to prove right. What it does do is point out that you are making assumptions that are very hard to prove, in fact I would say impossible, to prove. Some people call that faith.

And pointing out that a universe that is a single self is weird - which seems to me to be your position - or arrogant hardly constitutes proof.

The universe is weird, whatever its nature. And arrogance is irrelevent.

What is so special about the self that remains ? Why can the others be done away with but not your own ?

I don't think I am making assumptions that are very hard to prove. Most it (if not all) is mainstream science.

How can the universe be weird ? In comparison to what ? It may be weird to us but that, again, is completely subjective.

One's own self is the only one one cannot "reason away".

Why not, what's so special about it ?

I truly don't see the problem. Can't you explain further what you meant ?


Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.

First sentence makes an assertion about what some people believe. WE can't know objective reality exists. You disagree. To back this up you talk about the fallilbility of the sense. Your last sentence asserts that the sense can only sense a specific portion of reality. Except you did not prove this. What you showed was that IF the senses are reacting to a real, external, objective reality, we know the senses distort and select. At no point in any of this did you show that they actually are in any way in contact with objective reality. By admitting that they distort, you open the door for wondering how we can be sure they do not MAKE UP. That they are not creative functions rather than perceiving ones. again like in dreams. I think it is a weak argument and not well thought out. Fine. It's in an internet discussion forum. So, of course, we all do that. But that was what I was focusing on.

objective reality exists
the sense are fallible
is an odd jump.
And if you read the concluding sentence it seems part of some other argument, not one designed to show that senses are in fact registering something objective.

What is so special about the self that remains ? Why can the others be done away with but not your own ?
Why is that necessary?
I don't think I am making assumptions that are very hard to prove. Most it (if not all) is mainstream science.
Mainstream science has axioms that is accepts. It has not proved them. It starts, generally, with a kind of realism. Which is a specific philosophical stance.


How can the universe be weird ? In comparison to what ? It may be weird to us but that, again, is completely subjective.

Precisely, so your thinking that solipsism is arrogant is completely irrelevent.

First sentence makes an assertion about what some people believe. WE can't know objective reality exists. You disagree. To back this up you talk about the fallilbility of the sense. Your last sentence asserts that the sense can only sense a specific portion of reality. Except you did not prove this. What you showed was that IF the senses are reacting to a real, external, objective reality, we know the senses distort and select. At no point in any of this did you show that they actually are in any way in contact with objective reality. By admitting that they distort, you open the door for wondering how we can be sure they do not MAKE UP. That they are not creative functions rather than perceiving ones. again like in dreams. I think it is a weak argument and not well thought out. Fine. It's in an internet discussion forum. So, of course, we all do that. But that was what I was focusing on.

objective reality exists
the sense are fallible
is an odd jump.
And if you read the concluding sentence it seems part of some other argument, not one designed to show that senses are in fact registering something objective.

Did you not read this part ?

When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- knowledge/believes;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.

The senses thing was just to start at the beginning (like I said before).


By the way, if you continue this solipsism thing and keep arguing that the senses make up their own signals I won't be answering those posts. Sorry.. but that is just too far out. I was hoping to discuss how we can know objective reality exists, not what idiotic alternatives we can come up with.

Why is that necessary?
I don't understand that question in relation to my questions.

Mainstream science has axioms that is accepts. It has not proved them. It starts, generally, with a kind of realism. Which is a specific philosophical stance.
Well yea maybe, but isn't any view ? That, then, is what I believe in.

Precisely, so your thinking that solipsism is arrogant is completely irrelevent.
No I don't think it's arrogant.

It's just not consequent or logical to reason away all the other selves but not your own.

There are so many selves in this universe that for some people it can be logical to reason away all the other selves, sometimes.

But in reality, there is only one God/life, who controls everybody. Everybody is that God, or self.

Why not, what's so special about it ?

When buddha realized that he was a no body, he did away with his self too... or so he thought.

There are so many selves in this universe that for some people it can be logical to reason away all the other selves.

In reality, there is only one God/life, who controls everybody. Everybody is that God, or self.



When buddha realized that he was a no body, he did away with his self too... or so he thought.

If solipsism is true there is no God.

If solipsism is true there is no God.

Yes, but it isn't true. It's only true for some people. Nothing is true, so everything can be true.

Yes, but it isn't true. It's only true for some people. Nothing is true, so everything can be true.

You say it in a strange way but I think there is actually some common ground here. I never thought I would say that to you lol ;)

Did you not read this part ? Yes, I did. It simply continues along the same line and ends up asserting that what we experience is subjective reality. Which is not objective reality. So I see nowhere in there arguments backing up that we are actually in contact with objective reality. In fact, especially given the last sentence, I see a potential argument that we cannot know, since we are left with subjective reality. Did you read what you wrote?


By the way, if you continue this solipsism thing and keep arguing that the senses make up their own signals I won't be answering those posts. Sorry.. but that is just too far out. I was hoping to discuss how we can know objective reality exists, not what idiotic alternatives we can come up with.

Odd that an issue that has been discussed by philosophers for at least hundreds of years is simply idiotic to you. Second, duh, Enmos. If you can make a good argument AGAINST solipsism, you have taken strong steps to showing that we can know objective reality exists. Can't you see how solipsism is almost a necessary issue to raise given your topic. If we can't know there is an objective reality than what is it we are experiencing? One answer is solipsism.

If solipsism is an idiotic idea you should be able to show why. I have seen no signs that you can do this. Calling it arrogant and now idiotic are not arguments and you know this.

You could use solipsism to help make your case. Or you can make a post like the one above. No need to quit, you're fired.

Why don't you just ask Myles to tell you how we know there is an objective reality? Let me clear the space so you two can hang out.

Bye.

Actually there are trends in modern science to do this. The self qualia. The illusion that one exists is an undercurrent philosophy out there. Also cases are made by both religious and scientific people that the notion of a self - here - that looks at things - there is false. This is replaced by ideas of phenomena. I just read a book by a physicist who was putting forward the idea that NOWS are the only things that exist. Not selves. Not objects. Simply Nows.

Sure, but try telling that to the IRS!

Seriously (although that about the IRS is just as serious), there is plenty of ways to deconstruct the notion of self, to expose it as unsubstantiated etc.
But to employ these ways leads to a neurosis, paranoia.

The Western people, and some Eastern, that produced these ways to deconstruct the self are starting from the tradition of Western thought and science: it is only the truth that matters. They didn't take into account that the pursuit of truth might actually make people miserable, worse even, unable to function. Western philosophy has lived, usually, as an intellectual hobby, serious people talking about serious stuff, but not really taking it seriously. They tell you "who you really are", but they can't tell you what good it will do you to know "who you really are".

They instruct you to deconstruct, but they offer no goal for that that a person concerned about their wellbeing would ever pursue.


...
Even when you've had only a first, humbling taste of this freedom, you appreciate how adroitly the teaching on not-self answers the question of "What is skillful?" And you understand why the Buddha recommends putting the question of "Who am I?" aside. To begin with, it wouldn't have taken you to this freedom, and could well have stood in freedom's way. Because your "I" is an activity, any attempt to pin it down before you had mastered the processes of activity would have left you pouncing on shadows, distracted from the real work at hand. Any attempt to deconstruct your "I" before it had become healthy and mature would have led to a release neurotic and insecure: you'd simply be running away from the messy, mismanaged parts of your life. In addition, any answer to the question "Who am I?" would be totally inappropriate to describe your new-found freedom, for it's a dimension apart, where the concepts of "I," "not-I," "am," "am not" do not apply.


From Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Questions of skill (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions.html)

One's own self is the only one one cannot "reason away".
Why not, what's so special about it ?

Try to "reason away your self".

You will go mad.

Yes, I did. It simply continues along the same line and ends up asserting that what we experience is subjective reality. Which is not objective reality. So I see nowhere in there arguments backing up that we are actually in contact with objective reality. In fact, especially given the last sentence, I see a potential argument that we cannot know, since we are left with subjective reality. Did you read what you wrote?

Odd that an issue that has been discussed by philosophers for at least hundreds of years is simply idiotic to you. Second, duh, Enmos. If you can make a good argument AGAINST solipsism, you have taken strong steps to showing that we can know objective reality exists. Can't you see how solipsism is almost a necessary issue to raise given your topic. If we can't know there is an objective reality than what is it we are experiencing? One answer is solipsism.
My argument is that we can know there is an objective reality.
I make my point by using subjective reality. Everyone makes their own subjective reality but because everyones subjective reality is very similar to anyones else's we know they are all based on the same thing; objective reality.

If solipsism is an idiotic idea you should be able to show why. I have seen no signs that you can do this. Calling it arrogant and now idiotic are not arguments and you know this.
I only called it arrogant in a sarcastic way.
Ok, I think it's idiotic. But if something is unfalsifiable it doesn't mean I should give it some serious thought.

You could use solipsism to help make your case. Or you can make a post like the one above. No need to quit, you're fired.
I tried that but then you said:
"No, Enmos. Please don't take that guru role with me. You see the point I was making, please respond to that."

Why don't you just ask Myles to tell you how we know there is an objective reality? Let me clear the space so you two can hang out.

Bye.
From the very first post in this thread you acted like you smelled blood.
I don't know what your irritation is but it's a pity you are choosing to be like this as I always enjoyed discussion with you a lot.
:(

Try to "reason away your self".

You will go mad.

I'm not mad :p

You say it in a strange way but I think there is actually some common ground here. I never thought I would say that to you lol ;)

it's no fun to always agree because then there's nothing to discuss... that's why i often think different. then it's more fun to agree.

it's no fun to always agree because then there's nothing to discuss... that's why i often think different. then it's more fun to agree.

Ok, maybe you should every once in a while say it straight forward lol

Yes, I did. It simply continues along the same line and ends up asserting that what we experience is subjective reality. Which is not objective reality. So I see nowhere in there arguments backing up that we are actually in contact with objective reality. In fact, especially given the last sentence, I see a potential argument that we cannot know, since we are left with subjective reality. Did you read what you wrote?



Odd that an issue that has been discussed by philosophers for at least hundreds of years is simply idiotic to you. Second, duh, Enmos. If you can make a good argument AGAINST solipsism, you have taken strong steps to showing that we can know objective reality exists. Can't you see how solipsism is almost a necessary issue to raise given your topic. If we can't know there is an objective reality than what is it we are experiencing? One answer is solipsism.

If solipsism is an idiotic idea you should be able to show why. I have seen no signs that you can do this. Calling it arrogant and now idiotic are not arguments and you know this.

You could use solipsism to help make your case. Or you can make a post like the one above. No need to quit, you're fired.

Why don't you just ask Myles to tell you how we know there is an objective reality? Let me clear the space so you two can hang out.
Bye.

That's the most sensible thing you've said to date. Simply devasting !

If only I has realized that two people disagreeing with a third makes the third party right. How about I join you and then Enmos will be right ?

I'm not mad

You haven't "reasoned away your self", have you?

What is so difficult about saying that the mind is an aspect of the brain without which it could exist. Do you believe that a dead person has a mind. I don't but he still has a non-functioning brain.

Now dont get me wrong here I tend to believe that without the brain the mind cannot exist, but just because our minds are built around the idea that there has to be some foundation or base for everythng doesnt mean the vey fabric of existence is structured that way, :shrug:

You haven't "reasoned away your self", have you?

Not in the way solipsism I imagine would. But I do say that we are in essence nothing more than dead matter organized in such a way that it has particular characteristics.
A consequence of my view is that what we call the self is nothing more than a manifestation of the chemical and electrical processes going in the brain.
This is essentially reasoning away the 'mythical self' or 'supernatural self' a lot of people think it is.

Now dont get me wrong here I tend to believe that without the brain the mind cannot exist, but just because our minds are built around the idea that there has to be some foundation or base for everythng doesnt mean the vey fabric of existence is structured that way, :shrug:

No, but it's at the very least far-fetched to assume a mind existing on it's own made everything up the way it is.
Why would this mind make up that we have arms and legs ?
Why would this mind make up particular areas in the brain that coordinate these limbs ?
Why would this mind be unaware of this until it 'hears' of scientists discovering about these areas ?
And why would this mind, on occasion, get startled by something ? After all it makes everything up itself. So why get startled ?
I think these are questions to consider when thinking about or discussing solipsism.

Now dont get me wrong here I tend to believe that without the brain the mind cannot exist, but just because our minds are built around the idea that there has to be some foundation or base for everythng doesnt mean the vey fabric of existence is structured that way, :shrug:

I don't get you wrong;I just don't get you. Please explain what you mean. What is " the very fabric of existence" ? As far as I am aware , nobody has said our senses do other than provide an interpretation of what is out there. Why do you disagree ?

You haven't "reasoned away your self", have you?

What is there to reason away ?

Can we please let go of this solipsism stuff and focus on the OP ? :)

Not in the way solipsism I imagine would. But I do say that we are in essence nothing more than dead matter organized in such a way that it has particular characteristics.
A consequence of my view is that what we call the self is nothing more than a manifestation of the chemical and electrical processes going in the brain.
This is essentially reasoning away the 'mythical self' or 'supernatural self' a lot of people think it is.

Okay. And how does thinking about the self this way help you in your everyday life?

Okay. And how does thinking about the self this way help you in your everyday life?

It doesn't.. but it doesn't bother me either.

It doesn't.. but it doesn't bother me either.

... yet.

Greenberg,

Are you suggesting that if thinking about something in a particular way is not benefical to ones life, that one should abandon it and seek another way of thinking that will ?

Yes.

Even if it means departing from what one regards as truth ?

Yes.

There is plenty of things that are true, but completely useless.

So people should ignore certain truths to make them feel better ? I refuse..

Edit: Anyhow, seeing that this is already my view, how do you suppose I change it ?

Clarify, please: Which view have you got in mind here?

Clarify, please: Which view have you got in mind here?

As stated in the OP, but any will work to make my point i guess.

So people should ignore certain truths to make them feel better ? I refuse..

Edit: Anyhow, seeing that this is already my view, how do you suppose I change it ?

By focusing on those truths that seem useful, and working from there.

Trying to recalibrate your whole philosophical system at once -in the way one would format a computer and upload a new OS- doesn't really work, IMO.

By focusing on those truths that seem useful, and working from there.

Trying to recalibrate your whole philosophical system at once -in the way one would format a computer and upload a new OS- doesn't really work, IMO.

Unless I am proven wrong of course.

But as that isn't likely to happen IMO, you are suggesting to deliberately delude myself..

But as that isn't likely to happen IMO, you are suggesting to deliberately delude myself..

I can see how this might look so from your perspective. But it's not what I'm suggesting.

For example, let's say that in 6th grade, you stole something at a store. You weren't caught, but you still feel very guilty about it, and sometimes, it really brings you down. It is a truth that you stole something. But dwelling on that particular truth ("I stole something") isn't going to help you now.

You'd probably do better to focus on other truths related to that truth - like that beating yourself up doesn't help you, or that the reason you feel so bad about stealing is that your mother found that stolen thing and you lied to her about where you got it.

Focusing on those other truths isn't deluding yourself, it's looking to resolve psychological discomfort.

And similar can be done with other truths.

But I wouldn't be psychologically comfortable with the knowledge that I was denying something I believed to be true.

As for your example of the stealing incident., it seems to me that you are more concerned with making yourself comfortable by selecting what you will choose to believe. Is that not being intellectually dishonest ?

But I wouldn't be psychologically comfortable with the knowledge that I was denying something I believed to be true.

As for your example of the stealing incident., it seems to me that you are more concerned with making yourself comfortable by selecting what you will choose to believe. Is that not being intellectually dishonest ?

So, per you, if I don't focus on "Oh, I'm so bad, I stole!", I am being intellectually dishonest?

So, per you, if I don't focus on "Oh, I'm so bad, I stole!", I am being intellectually dishonest?

I didn't say that, but an earlier post of your suggested that one should ignore anything which was not " helpful ". Why cannot one take a balanced view and accept that we are a mixture of good and bad and accept ourselves on that basis ?

Why cannot one take a balanced view and accept that we are a mixture of good and bad and accept ourselves on that basis ?

If you want a status quo, then I suppose what you are suggesting above is the thing to do.

If you want a status quo, then I suppose what you are suggesting above is the thing to do.

Status quo means keeping things as they were. It is not possible to do so in the circumstances we are discussing. We have no choice but to move on, such that what we regard as a balanced view today will be modified by our future actions.

I can see how this might look so from your perspective. But it's not what I'm suggesting.

For example, let's say that in 6th grade, you stole something at a store. You weren't caught, but you still feel very guilty about it, and sometimes, it really brings you down. It is a truth that you stole something. But dwelling on that particular truth ("I stole something") isn't going to help you now.

You'd probably do better to focus on other truths related to that truth - like that beating yourself up doesn't help you, or that the reason you feel so bad about stealing is that your mother found that stolen thing and you lied to her about where you got it.

Focusing on those other truths isn't deluding yourself, it's looking to resolve psychological discomfort.

And similar can be done with other truths.

I see your point, but I don't suffer any ill-effects from thinking the way I do.
And, IMO, if we follow the analogy correctly I would be actively trying to deny the fact that I did steal. That's what I call deliberately deluding oneself.

So, per you, if I don't focus on "Oh, I'm so bad, I stole!", I am being intellectually dishonest?

I would also say that your analogy is loaded, because stealing is widely regarded as a bad thing. I would definitely not compare it to arguing for objective reality.

"There are 1000 people standing around a wall. The wall is made of solid reinforced concrete. It is for all intents and purposes impassable by those 1000 people"

Is the wall an objective reality?
Or more precisely is the walls ability to "obstruct" passage to everything in this material universe [ matter ] an objective reality?

No ant or fly or bird or person can pass through this wall. regardless of what is percieved or sensed the wall can not be passed through.
Does this qualify the wall to being objective if only for it's impassability?

Some thought, suggests that everything is a collective imagination that it is a universal imagination that has rules and order.
It could be said that the wall in question is also a part of that collective imagination and yes it must obey certain rules and physical laws as do the entities trying to pass through it.

Is this enough to suggest objectivity is available, even if not to the senses and perception but to the material facts?

Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc.
We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality, let's refer to it as subjective reality.

Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.

When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- knowledge/believes;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.

This is my view and I am convinced of it's correctness, but feel free to add or criticize.

Discuss :)Everything to us is subjective reality, that is the reality that is objective to us.

As far as I understand there is no reality that everyone can see that isn't subjective (seen by the observer).

The camera doesn't observe a objective reality, in order to observe a objective reality it has to have a subjective one.

Therefor everything objective is subjective for it to have any meaning (otherwise it equates to nothing at all - as in the cameras perspective).

We have a subjective reality and through that we can call what we observe "objective" because we know that others can see it as well (but it is only a definition), while we can call feelings and thoughts subjective, simply because only we can see it, and that is not a definition, that is experiance.

There is no objective experiance that I can understand (everything works from the inside).

ha...
question:
How long do 1000 people bang there heads against a concrete wall before they can be sure they are doing it?
I suppose until they knock themselves unconscious.....:bugeye:

Sorry, but I have been following these objective/ subjective threads for some time and as usuall we assusme that the mind and it's capacity to sense is all there is.
Fortunately the mind also comes attatched to a physical body and that physical body is what determines objectivity IMO.

Try and exist with out it and you will see what I mean....

Matter can not pass through matter....whilst the mind can subjectively do so the body cannot. This is the objective reality.
You will have to prove that matter is subjective to give credit to the arguement that everything is subjective....

Subjective and objective "realities" are a crock.

There's this "me" that I perceive. I can perceive that "I" can see and hear things, and touch them. So there's this thing that's "me" - my awareness of my seeing and hearing, etc, and my awareness that I have a material "self" that contains "me", and contains my "awareness".

Then there are all the other things that aren't "me". These are all the things I perceive that aren't a "part" of me and my awareness (of me and the things that aren't me).

Some idiots say I have to call the "me" thing, subjective, and the things that aren't "me", objective.
But that's because they're a bunch of idiots.

ha...
question:
How long do 1000 people bang there heads against a concrete wall before they can be sure they are doing it?
I suppose until they knock themselves unconscious.....:bugeye:

Sorry, but I have been following these objective/ subjective threads for some time and as usuall we assusme that the mind and it's capacity to sense is all there is.
Fortunately the mind also comes attatched to a physical body and that physical body is what determines objectivity IMO.

Try and exist with out it and you will see what I mean....

Matter can not pass through matter....whilst the mind can subjectively do so the body cannot. This is the objective reality.
You will have to prove that matter is subjective to give credit to the arguement that everything is subjective....

Eh.. I think we kind of agree then :shrug:

Subjective and objective "realities" are a crock.

There's this "me" that I perceive. I can perceive that "I" can see and hear things, and touch them. So there's this thing that's "me" - my awareness of my seeing and hearing, etc, and my awareness that I have a material "self" that contains "me", and contains my "awareness".

Then there are all the other things that aren't "me". These are all the things I perceive that aren't a "part" of me and my awareness (of me and the things that aren't me).

Some idiots say I have to call the "me" thing, subjective, and the things that aren't "me", objective.
But that's because they're a bunch of idiots.

Thank you for sharing that.