Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

Enmos said:
But it has done away with all the other selves. Maybe it's an attempt at the ultimate arrogance.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Enmos said:
It's just not consequent or logical to reason away all the other selves but not your own.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
No, Enmos. Please don't take that guru role with me. You see the point I was making, please respond to that.
Click to expand...

sowhatifit'sdark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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..
 
greenberg said:
One's own self is the only one one cannot "reason away".
Click to expand...
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.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enmos said:
I truly don't see the problem. Can't you explain further what you meant ?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enmos said:
What is so special about the self that remains ? Why can the others be done away with but not your own ?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Precisely, so your thinking that solipsism is arrogant is completely irrelevent.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
Why is that necessary?
Click to expand...
I don't understand that question in relation to my questions.

sowhatifit'sdark said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well yea maybe, but isn't any view ? That, then, is what I believe in.

sowhatifit'sdark said:
Precisely, so your thinking that solipsism is arrogant is completely irrelevent.
Click to expand...
No I don't think it's arrogant.
 
Enmos said:
It's just not consequent or logical to reason away all the other selves but not your own.
Click to expand...

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.

Enmos said:
Why not, what's so special about it ?
Click to expand...

When buddha realized that he was a no body, he did away with his self too... or so he thought.
 
Yorda said:
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.
Click to expand...

If solipsism is true there is no God.
 
Yorda said:
Yes, but it isn't true. It's only true for some people. Nothing is true, so everything can be true.
Click to expand...

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 ;)
 
Enmos said:
Did you not read this part ?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top