Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

[Enmos]

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.

Even a spirit, and certainly a product of some greater spirit, require an 'outside'.
Besides, lets first establish the existence of 'spirit' or at least define it.

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 refuse to discuss solipsism.

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. )

Sending Christ to redeem man doesn't really fit solipsism.. I'm confused..

 

[Billy T]

Even a spirit, and certainly a product of some greater spirit, require an 'outside'.
Besides, lets first establish the existence of 'spirit' or at least define it.
I refuse to discuss solipsism.
Sending Christ to redeem man doesn't really fit solipsism.. I'm confused..

Why is an "outside" required? Or perhaps I am asking what an “outside” is?

A spirit is usually taken to mean some unknown non-material thing capable of thought and or perception.

I was not asking you to discuss solipsism. I only answered your question as to why I started prior reply with "not 100% certain" ... I.e. there is the logical possibility of solipsism, which no one has yet shown to be impossible. (And many have tried since Berkeley first put forth this POV.)

I was just saying that Descartes was a fraud in claiming to proceed by logic. He merely rationalized his prior beliefs. Berkeley defended his prior beliefs (He was a bishop) but did not violate logic to do so - I.e. He stayed on the logically safe ground of solipsism, but did make speculations. The one I liked best was his suggestion as to why the greater spirit made his perception that the experienced "real world" followed rules - I.e. so the Great Spirit could occasionally make a miracle by violating these natural laws.

 

[Enmos]

Why is an "outside" required? Or perhaps I am asking what an “outside” is?

A spirit is usually taken to mean some unknown non-material thing capable of thought and or perception.

Yes, but a spirit still has to be somewhere or in something. It has to adhere to some part of reality on order to exist at all.

Unless, of course, the spirit is all there is.
By the way, following through this line of thought far enough usually gets me into trouble I end up concluding that nothing exists, which is of course bull.

I was not asking you to discuss solipsism. I only answered your question as to why I started prior reply with "not 100% certain" ... I.e. there is the logical possibility of solipsism, which no one has yet shown to be impossible. (And many have tried since Berkeley first put forth this POV.)

I know, I was just making it clear
Sorry if it came across as rude.

I was just saying that Descartes was a fraud in claiming to proceed by logic. He merely rationalized his prior beliefs. Berkeley defended his prior beliefs (He was a bishop) but did not violate logic to do so - I.e. He stayed on the logically safe ground of solipsism, but did make speculations. The one I liked best was his suggestion as to why the greater spirit made his perception that the experienced "real world" followed rules - I.e. so the Great Spirit could occasionally make a miracle by violating these natural laws.

I may be in error, but solipsism doesn't seem logical to me at all. It seems self-refuting.

 

[Billy T]

... I may be in error, but solipsism doesn't seem logical to me at all. It seems self-refuting.

If you can expand that in some persuasive manner then you will earn quite an important place in the history of philosophy.

Yes, but a spirit still has to be somewhere or in something. It has to adhere to some part of reality on order to exist at all. ...

Not if that spirit IS all of reality, but I thought we had agreed not to discuss solipsism. :shrug:

 

[glaucon]

I may be in error, but solipsism doesn't seem logical to me at all. It seems self-refuting.

Alas, solipsism is in fact, the most logical position one can take (epistemologically speaking). Billy T was quite correct in his comments: if Descartes had stuck to his methodology he would have ended up in solipsism. However, Rene decided to introduce an (unfounded) a priori axiom into his system to avoid this conclusion, namely, god. Were it not for the particular environment in which he found himself, instead of becoming a champion of Rationalism, the good Rene would have ushered us handily towards 20th Century Positivism.

sigh

Regardless, I do apologize for this, as you did say you weren't interested in discussing solipsism.

 

[Enmos]

If you can expand that in some persuasive manner then you will earn quite an important place in the history of philosophy.
Not if that spirit IS all of reality..

So is this spirit a set of things that make up 'spirit', or not ?
If it is then what's the difference with the conventional view of reality ?
If it isn't, how can it exist ? It then cannot interact, it cannot even do or be anything. It cannot exists.

..but I thought we had agreed not to discuss solipsism. :shrug:

I know

 

[Enmos]

Alas, solipsism is in fact, the most logical position one can take (epistemologically speaking). Billy T was quite correct in his comments: if Descartes had stuck to his methodology he would have ended up in solipsism. However, Rene decided to introduce an (unfounded) a priori axiom into his system to avoid this conclusion, namely, god. Were it not for the particular environment in which he found himself, instead of becoming a champion of Rationalism, the good Rene would have ushered us handily towards 20th Century Positivism.

sigh

Regardless, I do apologize for this, as you did say you weren't interested in discussing solipsism.

No prob., I'm at it myself now
I find solipsism the apex of stupidity..

 

[glaucon]

I find solipsism the apex of stupidity..

Yes, because it conflicts with our day-to-day mindset that we make use of to get through the day. But it does have its uses.

What is critical to understanding solipsism is that its objective is certainty, and nothing less. We can all say that we're sure that tomorrow the sun will rise, but as the good Mr.Hume pointed out, of this we cannot be certain.

 

[Billy T]

So is this spirit a set of things that make up 'spirit', or not ?...If it isn't, how can it exist ?...

No, not a set of things. You asked me to define "spirit" and I did in post 262 as follows:

A spirit is usually taken to mean some unknown non-material thing capable of thought and or perception.

but now I have made two words bold.

I do not think the problem of only spirit existing is any greater than how a universe can be existing. Both are beyond human ability to comprehend how, I think.

In fact the religious answer to the second problem postulates the existence of a non-material spirit to create the universe of material.

I have always had a bias toward Hoyl's steady state universe, but there is now too much evidence against that. (Assuming the big spirit, is not just having fun by puzzling me in my non-solipsistic BELIEFS. Perhaps He is trying to lead me back to the truth of solipsism? :shrug

 

[Enmos]

Yes, because it conflicts with our day-to-day mindset that we make use of to get through the day. But it does have its uses.

What is critical to understanding solipsism is that its objective is certainty, and nothing less. We can all say that we're sure that tomorrow the sun will rise, but as the good Mr.Hume pointed out, of this we cannot be certain.

No, not a set of things. You asked me to define "spirit" and I did in post 262 as follows:

A spirit is usually taken to mean some unknown non-material thing capable of thought and or perception.

but now I have made two words bold.

I do not think the problem of only spirit existing is any greater than how a universe can be existing. Both are beyond human ability to comprehend how, I think.

In fact the religious answer to the second problem postulates the existence of a non-material spirit to create the universe of material.

I have always had a bias toward Hoyl's steady state universe, but there is now too much evidence against that. (Assuming the big spirit, is not just having fun by puzzling me in my non-solipsistic BELIEFS. Perhaps He is trying to lead me back to the truth of solipsism? :shrug

Even assuming all of reality is really one 'spirit', objective reality must still exist. Obviously this 'spirit' doesn't know its real self. It doesn't know what makes it tick so to speak. In fact, it must be completely oblivious to itself.

 

[glaucon]

Even assuming all of reality is really one 'spirit', objective reality must still exist. Obviously this 'spirit' doesn't know its real self. It doesn't know what makes it tick so to speak. In fact, it must be completely oblivious to itself.

Alas, I can't comment.

To me, the word 'spirit' has no meaning.

 

[Enmos]

Alas, I can't comment.

To me, the word 'spirit' has no meaning.

It doesn't have meaning to me either. I have to go by how Billy defined it (which was pretty vague btw).

 

[swarm]

Greater spirit? Like Everclear?

 

[wise acre]

Alas, I can't comment.

To me, the word 'spirit' has no meaning.

I have that trouble with the word 'reality' since it always seems to mean something other than experience. In fact it seems to be a set that has no overlap with experience which is denigrated to epiphenomenon, as if we knew where the center was.

And then there is that word 'objective' which I can follow the abstract definition of, but the moment someone tries to connect it to 'reality' it all seems like gibberish to me.

Is this the modern metaphysics....to make a lot of proclamations including the repeated use of 'reality' and 'objectivity' - and all the other forms of these words?

 

[-ND-]

You would only reach objective reality when you die, unless God says so otherwise.

 

[scifes]

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.

i totally agree.. everything might be an illusion.. except the complexity of the illusion..which leaves us with only two definite facts..
1-we (who precieve) exist one way or another)
2-the complexity of the creator of the "possible illusion" (which could be something like WOW btw)

but in both cases it's easier to act as if it's real..cuz what's real other what we want it to be??

 

[swarm]

We can all say that we're sure that tomorrow the sun will rise, but as the good Mr.Hume pointed out, of this we cannot be certain.

Actually the point is we cannot have absolute certainty. But effective certainty or reasonable certainty is possible and all you really need to get the job done.

 

[granpa]

we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. there is no 'reason' to believe that it wont. (and every 'reason' to believe that it will)

but no, we dont know beyond an unreasonable doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[wise acre]

we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. there is no 'reason' to believe that it wont. (and every 'reason' to believe that it will)

but no, we dont know beyond an unreasonable doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Of course this can be taken as we have reasonable certainty that a certain experience will repeat tomorrow and not necessarily anything about an objective world that exists outside of experiencers.

 

[thinking]

Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.

good and true

No observer can perceive objective reality directly.

yes the observer can

because the observer cannot change the enviromental situation that the observer is in

and even if the observer could change the enviroment , the changes made are still based on the reality of the enviroment that the observer is in