Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Enmos-Yep, you got me in semantics, but it's a hollow victory, isn't it?

If the stimuli have nothing to do with the senses, then how are the stimuli detected?

You have to assume a lot of things before you can perceive any reality, directly or otherwise. One of those things is that you believe your perceptions. Billy just told us why it's silly to always believe your perceptions.

If you can't trust your perceptions then you cannot perceive any reality successfully, thus all that you experience is based on an unprovable belief. Since you agree with Billy, you agree with me. woohoo!

 

[Enmos]

Enmos-Yep, you got me in semantics, but it's a hollow victory, isn't it?

Semantics ?
If you agree with this:

SUMMARY: All of your senses are demonstrable very subject to error and much more so than what might be called illusion, but of course that is a sense error also.

Then you acknowledge the existence of objective reality :shrug:

If the stimuli have nothing to do with the senses, then how are the stimuli detected?

See post 221.

If you can't trust your perceptions then you cannot perceive any reality successfully

Once again, this agrees with objective reality.

 

[Billy T]

... Then you acknowledge the existence of objective reality ...

Not with certainty. I have a Ph.D. in physics so of course I tend to believe "objective reality" does exist, but my belief and professional career in which I found no reason not to believe that are not proof that it exists. Berkeley had a very good reason to expect that the non-existent objective reality should APPEAR to follow regular rules or "laws." (So God could occasionally do miracle, which by definition is a violation of the physics laws. I.e. No physical laws, no miracles, just more chaos.)

Let me make an analogy: What I was saying is sort of like I had a ruler made of a very stretchy material and I knew that sometime when I measured my height with it concluded I was 3 feet tall and at other times 8 feet tall (and everything in between at other times). I.e. I know that my senses and my ruler are very error prone. So what the ruler or my senses lead me to believe cannot be trusted 100% to be correct.

It sure does look like the sun goes around the Earth, etc. In most all areas physics (and its instruments) does, I believe, give more accurate idea of what objective reality may be than the senses.

 

[Enmos]

Not with certainty. I have a Ph.D. in physics so of course I tend to believe "objective reality" does exist, but my belief and professional career in which I found no reason not to believe that are not proof that it exists. Berkeley had a very good reason to expect that the non-existent objective reality should APPEAR to follow regular rules or "laws." (So God could occasionally do miracle, which by definition is a violation of the physics laws. I.e. No physical laws, no miracles, just more chaos.)

Let me make an analogy: What I was saying is sort of like I had a ruler made of a very stretchy material and I knew that sometime when I measured my height with it concluded I was 3 feet tall and at other times 8 feet tall (and everything in between at other times). I.e. I know that my senses and my ruler are very error prone. So what the ruler or my senses lead me to believe cannot be trusted 100% to be correct.

It sure does look like the sun goes around the Earth, etc. In most all areas physics (and its instruments) does, I believe, give more accurate idea of what objective reality may be than the senses.

I can only agree, however I'm not getting the 'not with certainty' statement at the beginning of the post.

Imagine, I put a red Porsche 911 Carrera and a blue skippy ball in a remote field. Then I send a letter to 10 random people to go to that location on a specific day and write me back what they saw there (of course I'll have to promise them some money ).
I'm 100% sure all people will at least write me that there was a red car and a blue skippy ball there.
If not for objective reality, how does one explain this ?

 

[ning]

Imagine you put two quantum states in a field, and write three people a letter, telling them to go look at them; what will each one write back, about what they saw?

 

[Enmos]

Imagine you put two quantum states in a field, and write three people a letter, telling them to go look at them; what will each one write back, about what they saw?

All will write back that they saw nothing.
Why don't you try to answer my post above..

 

[wise acre]

In fact, nowhere does the data leave objective reality (we are apart of it ourselves). Therefor consciousness/awareness/experience is an illusion (for lack of a better word).

This illusion is the only 'thing' through which you have gained all of your information and ideas. If it is an illusion, how can you be certain any of the information you received is correct?

If this model weren't correct then how come different people have similar perception of the same object independently of one another ?

as you pointed out solipsism is one answer to this.
Another approach would be to say there is only subjectivity but there is also intersubjectivity. IOW there are no chairs 'out there' when no one is perceiving them, but our experiences overlap.

A very important problem at a slightly different level is that perhaps one can say 'there is something beyond our perception, but we cannot say anything about it, because all of language is based on experiencing. Language cannot be objective because it is all about bodies experiencing - and even this language is tainted by assumptions.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Enmos-So acknowledging the possibility of something is agreeing it's true? The fact is that, according to you, we should believe objective reality exists because of coincidental occurences, and without direct observation.

Tell me, do you believe in many things which cannot be directly perceived? Why do you choose not to believe in some things of this nature but not others?

I assert that because objective reality cannot be shown to exist without any doubt, there is no reason to believe it exists. If those people get the wrong address and go to another field which holds a red fiat and a blue baseball, and report back to you they saw a red car and a blue ball, you know nothing. Perhaps each went to a different field. Perhaps they contacted one another and sent one to look. Perhaps they are all hallucinations of yours and will report whatever you subconsciously choose.

Part of the problem, Enmos, is that you are saying this is all or nothing. I mean, come on. You must accept the possibility that there is no objective reality, even if you choose to believe it does.

 

[Enmos]

This illusion is the only 'thing' through which you have gained all of your information and ideas. If it is an illusion, how can you be certain any of the information you received is correct?

:wallbang:

as you pointed out solipsism is one answer to this.
Another approach would be to say there is only subjectivity but there is also intersubjectivity. IOW there are no chairs 'out there' when no one is perceiving them, but our experiences overlap.

A very important problem at a slightly different level is that perhaps one can say 'there is something beyond our perception, but we cannot say anything about it, because all of language is based on experiencing. Language cannot be objective because it is all about bodies experiencing - and even this language is tainted by assumptions.

Subjectivity itself requires objective reality.. :bugeye.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos-So acknowledging the possibility of something is agreeing it's true? The fact is that, according to you, we should believe objective reality exists because of coincidental occurences, and without direct observation.

You were agreeing with his statements, not with the possibility that his statements were true.

Tell me, do you believe in many things which cannot be directly perceived? Why do you choose not to believe in some things of this nature but not others?

:shrug:

I assert that because objective reality cannot be shown to exist without any doubt, there is no reason to believe it exists.

It can be shown to exist beyond any doubt.. it's the only viable explanation.

If those people get the wrong address and go to another field which holds a red fiat and a blue baseball, and report back to you they saw a red car and a blue ball, you know nothing. Perhaps each went to a different field. Perhaps they contacted one another and sent one to look. Perhaps they are all hallucinations of yours and will report whatever you subconsciously choose.

Oh don't be stupid :bugeye:
It is a thought experiment Ham.
And I'm not even going reply to that solipsistic remark.

Part of the problem, Enmos, is that you are saying this is all or nothing.

Uh what ? Explain ?

I mean, come on. You must accept the possibility that there is no objective reality, even if you choose to believe it does.

No, I do not and cannot accept that possibility. The alternative is ludicrous.

 

[wise acre]

Subjectivity itself requires objective reality

I am denying the distinction. Language is heavily weighted toward this distinction and saying that there are 'things' independent of our perception/experience.

You have not addressed the language issue.

 

[wise acre]

:wallbang:

I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. In what sense is experience/consciousness an illusion?

We can go back to sentence 1?

Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.

Is experience/consciousness not real?
And be careful, I am not saying that it is correct when it draws conclusions about other parts of reality if there are any. I am saying, is not experience real?
If so, how can it, at least, be independent of mind?

 

[Enmos]

I am denying the distinction. Language is heavily weighted toward this distinction and saying that there are 'things' independent of our perception/experience.

You have not addressed the language issue.

You are denying the distinction while saying that language cannot be objective.. ok.
If there is no distinction then everything is objective, which is essentially true. But we have named the part of reality that is made up of our experiences, (which are eventually nothing more than carefully coordinated chemical signals, subjective reality.

 

[Enmos]

I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. In what sense is experience/consciousness an illusion?

We can go back to sentence 1?



Is experience/consciousness not real?
And be careful, I am not saying that it is correct when it draws conclusions about other parts of reality if there are any. I am saying, is not experience real?
If so, how can it, at least, be independent of mind?

Doesn't cut it ? It should have..

"..how can you be certain any of the information you received is correct?"

In relation to what ?

 

[wise acre]

You are denying the distinction while saying that language cannot be objective.. ok.

It cannot be objective in the sense most people use the term. As descriptions of things in themselves.

If there is no distinction then everything is objective, which is essentially true.

That doesn't quite make sense. See above.

But we have named the part of reality that is made up of our experiences, (which are eventually nothing more than carefully coordinated chemical signals, subjective reality.

1) Is it real?
2) I still do not know how you know there is anything else - note my suggestion about inter consciousness - as an explanation for shared experiences. For this we do not have to posit an independent external world that exists without experiencers. There could also be theist explanations - for example that consciousness is present throughout, iow a kind of pantheism.

 

[wise acre]

Doesn't cut it ? It should have..

"..how can you be certain any of the information you received is correct?"

In relation to what ?

You, Enmos, gather all your ideas, sense data via experience. One of your ideas is that experience is an illusion. I see that as self-contradictory.

Imagine a police report....

I know that he committed the crime because his fingerprints matched those at the scene when tested by our illusory laboratory. I have illusory witness testimony that he was at the scene holding a gun pointed at the victim. The illusory body of the victim we found had a bullet that, when tested by our illusory lab, was shown to be shot by his gun.

 

[Enmos]

I give up. I suggest you read all of my threads on the matter.

 

[wise acre]

I give up. I suggest you read all of my threads on the matter.

After not once addressing the problem of how we can use language based completely on experience to describe things in themselves as they are when not experienced. OK. I suggest you work in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a while. Search under Things in Themselves, Phenomenalism, Problems with Empiricism. That would be a good set of starters.

 

[Enmos]

After not once addressing the problem of how we can use language based completely on experience to describe things in themselves as they are when not experienced. OK.

Your call. Apparently I fail in explaining my views to you. Perhaps reading these threads will help.
I'm done with it for now, sorry.

 

[Billy T]

I can only agree, however I'm not getting the 'not with certainty' statement at the beginning of the post.

Imagine, I put a red Porsche 911 Carrera and a blue skippy ball in a remote field. Then I send a letter to 10 random people to go to that location on a specific day and write me back what they saw there (of course I'll have to promise them some money ).
I'm 100% sure all people will at least write me that there was a red car and a blue skippy ball there.
If not for objective reality, how does one explain this ?

The "not with certainty" refers to the impossible to prove false possibility that you are just a spirit, the product of some greater spirit, as Berkeley suggested > 300 years ago. In your car /ball example, there is a possibility that not only do they not exist (except in your perception) but neither do the 10 people or their agreeing reports. - All could be just your perception given your spirit by a greater spirit.

I will not argue for this POV as I do not find it useful but despite the efforts of many during the last 300 years no one has found any way to show Berkeley’s view is wrong or even contains some internal inconsistencies. Perhaps you should read his very logical papers.
Unlike Descartes, who also start with the irrefutable fact that something is perceiving / thinking and about 20 pages later has concluded that God had to send Christ to redeem sinful man, Berkeley goes only as far as one can rationally go. (None the less he too writes a whole book about it. )