"You don't need philosophy to prove reality" - Geeser

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2569494&postcount=79

Must admit, kind of a koan-like thing to say.

I just thought I would provide an opportunity for him, or other similarly minded persons, to elaborate on this point.

(Perhaps the philosophy forum isn't the right place to post since the moment one starts talking philosophy, one immediately contradicts the statement)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the next sentence need to be included...

I think 'prove' is probably a poor word choice. 'Show', 'demonstrate' 'convince someone of' might be better.

My 2 problems with his statements are....
1) how would we know?
and
2) the word 'reality' is completely absent of meaning, because any meaning the word might have is a meaning to minds, in minds' terms.

It reminds me of a discussion I ended up in elsewhere where thinking (the person) said to me:

One problem with this is, at least according to science, there is no 'thing' that is 'brought in' to me from the without. (note the metaphors for perception and perhaps knowledge). This ends up with a homonculus inside me looking at stuff that is brought in. Which begs the question of where the experiencer is in the brain/mind.

On the other hand, geesers remarks might be similar to ones I would make in certain contexts. These remarks DO something. Language is not a container. Now suddenly reminded of zen masters hitting people.

In any case, here what comes in is 'information'. Information - when we are talking about sentient beings - tends to be 'about something'. To me that is abstract. Interestingly the word abstract....

is defined, again with a metaphor, as 'away' from concrete realities. If the information is 'in the brain/mind' it is 'away from' whatever concrete reality it is 'about'. Further the mind does not simply reproduce what is 'out there' - how we would test this conclusively I don't know - but represents or translates input. And it fills in gaps, draws conclusions about patterns, infused current perception with memory - there are nerves running from memory centers and the eyes to those parts of the brain active in 'seeing something visually in the mind''

All of this seems to indicate abstraction.

Unless someone wants to move outside current scientific paradigms about perception. Which would be fine with me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Doreen:
previous to that statement of mine above, there were several other interactions between myself and Lightgigantic, one of which I stated "nothing can be gleaned completely or even partially from philosophy, it is a subjective discipline all you could possibly glean is an opinion. "now admittedly I sometimes use a poor choice of words, but could you tell me is philosophy not a subjective discipline? and why it isn't, if you think that way, that is.

Also does a rock(label it whatever way you wish)cease being a rock if I don't exist. Does reality stop being reality, simply because I'm not there, If I cease to exist, does reality continue for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Geeser, if I am understanding you correctly, you are basically asking LG or anyone else to show to you how philosophy is not a subjective discipline.

 

Yes but I think LG failed to grasp that.
for some reason he things you can glean objective truth from merely discussing it. Whereas you can only glean a possibility, an opinion.

 

geeser,

This question begs both its contrary, as well as a definition:

What discipline would qualify as non-subjective?

And a definition for "subjective" would help.

 

especially in light of here and here when you suggest that evidence somehow stands outside the problem of subjectivity or even philosophy

 

An objective one, unless you belief we are all suffering from solipsism syndrome.

I presume your serious here so I will play along.

The subjective is only based on ones private introspections, opinions. IE takes place in the mind, (mind-dependant). The subjective describes an individual's personal judgement about how likely a particular event is to occur. It is not always based on any precise knowledge but is often a reasonable assessment, however a person's subjective assessment regarding an event/thing only describes his/her degree of belief in the event/thing.

Whereas the objective is generally considered to be true when its conditions are (mind-independent) which are not the result of any decisions made by a sapient/conscious entity, based purely on facts, not influenced by personal feelings.

Put simply objective is based on observable facts, and subjective is how you wish to interpret it.

 

Sorry, equivocation won't cut it here.
Try again.

And you maintain that this judgment of objectivity as so construed can be similarly asserted by some sort of non-personal consciousness?

Interesting.

 

Equivocation is fallacious reasoning, whereas the use of objective, isn't. However I could have used transeunt or verifiable. None of those would be fallacious, unless of course you have or there is another unknown opposite or contra to subjective. Please feel free to posit it.

No, I didn't say that. Reread it, it doesn't mention any consciousness. the opposite in fact.

With thanks to glaucon for the above quote.

 

You were asked to provide an explanation of a non-subjective discipline.
Simply responding by saying 'an objective one', is clearly insufficient.
I'm afraid the onus falls to you.

I suggest you reread.
Your words:

my emphasis
​

As I said, the appellation "objective" is always granted by an entity that judges it to be so.

 

How so, given the converse of subjective is objective. Epistemology is an objective discipline, Engineering is another.
The very core of science is committed to the objectivity of evaluation, thus it is not wrong to treat evaluation as an objective discipline.
Thus science is or ought to be an objective discipline whilst religion is altogether a subjective one. No discipline, certainly not science can proceed without truth.

A Companion to Epistemology By Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa, Matthias Steup. pages 558-559.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...v=onepage&q="an objective discipline"&f=false
The social study of language (conversation analysis) is classed as an objective discipline http://www.alexandragiroux.net/conv...g-approaches-to-the-social-study-of-language/

Then you take another look you've missed it again.

My emphasis

Lol, does that mean that objective reality ceases to exist if the said entity judges it to be non existent, or is reality the only thing that must be true.
Reality (objective ) is the only truth that remains regardless on whether you or I exist.

 

Fair enough then; I misunderstood you. You're using the terms in a strictly epistemological sense, which is fine as, in that sense I'm in complete agreement with you. There are others herein who make use of the term "objective" in an ontological sense beyond your usage, and it was in that way that I thought you were using it.

Oh I caught that, to be sure. It seems to me however, that you're hedging somewhat.
What I was critical of in particular was this:

my emphasis

Despite the methodology, with which I agree with you, it is this determination that is subject to being 'subjective'...

Which, as we all know from Descartes, cannot logically be asserted. While we can epistemologically maintain a functioning sense of "objective reality" (as you've described above), what we cannot do is maintain such an ontological position.

 

Well, you've kind of caught yourself in a bind. If we are about to discuss the topic Is philosophy only subjective? and you take the affirmative, you cannot win. Otherwise you would have been objective while doing philosophy. IOW: It would be a philosophical discussion. And in this philophical discussion you, using logic, would have shown something to be objectively true. Hence giving us an example of philosophy used to reach not merely subjective conclusions.

That is a different issue from the sentences quoted in the OP. It depends how we define reality and rock and really....I don't know. But I would like to again note, that you are making a philosophical argument which, it seems, you think objectively shows that the idea you are arguing against is wrong. IOW you seem to be acting here in this thread as if a philosophical discussion can lead to objective conclusions.

 

So are you saying that without philosophy reality ceases?
or is reality/existence there anyway, and yes any discussion of this nature can be deemed a philosophical one, but I not asking you to prove reality, or philosophise over it, am I. I'm asking you to either agree or disagree that it's there regardless.
Solipsism tends to agree with your don't know, I myself however don't suffer that way as I try not to use a subjective methodology to ascertain truth.

 

As long as you are the one trying to ascertain truth, there is an element of subjectivity in your endeavor.

 

I am trying to understand how you have arrived at posing this dichotomy.


Thinking about existence is part of existence.

We do not actually know how the world would be, and whether it would be at all, even if just one living entity would be annulled.

 

Exactly. Geeser's position does not withstand reflexive criticism.

His position is, in effect, solipsistic.

 

I think she is asking you what exactly do you think you are "proving" reality with, if not philosophy .... which in turn contradicts your original assertion as referenced in the OP

IOW neither an argument nor evidence for (or against, for that matter) reality can be made without the tools of philosophy (so, to go back to the issue of the OP, to try and claim the upper hand in a discussion about reality by chiming in "oh, but you are merely raising philosophical issues", what to speaking of sealing the debate, shoots one's self in the foot)

 

... and philosophy too, I might add ...