Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

[wise acre]

Enmos, Billy, Glaucon,

I disagree. The burden of proof is on those that claim solipsism, just like the burden of proof is on those that claim god exists.

What are the criteria for determining burden of proof?

(I think this brings up the uncomfortable intersection where Common Sense, Scientific Knowledge, Intuition and Habit (culture, sensory filters, etc.) meet and do not meet.

I think most people's ideas about who gets burden of proof include a strong intuitive component. Though few admit this.

A lot of people use Ockham's Razor to determine burden of proof. Solipsism posits less entities. It is more parsimonious.

 

[Billy T]

... What are the criteria for determining burden of proof?...
A lot of people use Ockham's Razor to determine burden of proof. Solipsism posits less entities. It is more parsimonious.

Yes. You have answered your own question.

Ockham's razor essentially states: That if some observation can be explained or understood by two different means (theories, etc.) which I will call, A & B where A requires (a,b,& c) conditions be facts or true but B requires only two of (a,b,c) be true then B is the preferred explanation.

If despite this, one wants to support A as correct, then the burden of proof is on them.

Solipsism is as parsimonious as it gets. S requires only something is having experiences. S does not postulate anything more, such as a body or external world. I'll symbolically represent this as: S(e) where “e" is experiences.

A theory that postulates both experiences and an our side world, w, that in some way often causes the e I'll symbolically represent as N(w, i,e ) & M(e,w) where "N" is short for "Normal belief" and i means that outside objects in the world induces many of the experiences e. "M" is for "Minimal" in that it postulates a body having the experiences and a outside world, but not that there is any causal relationship between w and e. Very few support M. - Perhaps only someone in insane asylums who think they are god and made a world but went away and do not even see it.

Applying Ockham's razor to the choice between S(e) and either N(w,i,e) or M(w,e) clearly indicates the burden of proof is on those who support N or M and not on S. S is a lesser (or more parsimonious) sub set of the other two which include w as well as e.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos, Billy, Glaucon,




What are the criteria for determining burden of proof?

(I think this brings up the uncomfortable intersection where Common Sense, Scientific Knowledge, Intuition and Habit (culture, sensory filters, etc.) meet and do not meet.

I think most people's ideas about who gets burden of proof include a strong intuitive component. Though few admit this.

A lot of people use Ockham's Razor to determine burden of proof. Solipsism posits less entities. It is more parsimonious.

If you are just a figment of my imagination, why should I take anything you say seriously ?
There's no need for you to reply either because a mere figment of my imagination isn't going to change my mind.

 

[Billy T]

If you are just a figment of my imagination, why should I take anything you say seriously ? ...

Because you are construcing these alter egos and their counter points - don't you trust yourself?

 

[Enmos]

Because you are construcing these alter egos and their counter points - don't you trust your self?

In the case that solipsism is true ? NO
If I'd know beyond any doubt that it was true I'd off myself immediately.

 

[wise acre]

Yes. You have answered your own question.

Actually I think there are problems with using Ockham's Razor. And I don't think everyone does, obviously. Further you can have wholly other systems. Say Chinese Medicine vs. Western Medicine where you might even end up with the same number of entities but they look nothing like each other.

Further you have problems if the experiences of the two people (groups) are radically different. Then they cannot agree that the set x with y entities covers everything. A group of stranded sighted people on an island of blind people should not be talked about of certain entities due to parsimony.

Solipsism is as parsimonious as it gets. Phenomenalism is also pretty parsimonious. One cannot win a fight with the other using the OR.

 

[wise acre]

If you are just a figment of my imagination, why should I take anything you say seriously ?
There's no need for you to reply either because a mere figment of my imagination isn't going to change my mind.

Cute. But the problem is I would be part of your mind, maybe the part that really gets what is going on. I am no more a figment than anything else. Think of me as the part of you that knows there is something you should be doing. You keep ignoring this part and then realize, shit, you were supposed to be at the dentist now.

All there is phenomenalism you need to contend with. Here you have no subject object split, just events.

This is also more parsimonius.

 

[wise acre]

In the case that solipsism is true ? NO
If I'd know beyond any doubt that it was true I'd off myself immediately.

Perhaps that is why you hide the truth from yourself.

But still, it is not only solipsism that posits less entities.

I mean seriously guys, I'll bet the three of you would unify against a theist positing a God, but once the OR starts whittling precious entities away, suddenly the OR gets thrown out the window.

 

[Enmos]

Cute. But the problem is I would be part of your mind, maybe the part that really gets what is going on. I am no more a figment than anything else. Think of me as the part of you that knows there is something you should be doing. You keep ignoring this part and then realize, shit, you were supposed to be at the dentist now.

Sorry to repeat, but cute. Shame it's also easily reversible.

And if there are different parts of me, these are 'outside' entities to each other that communicate.

All there is phenomenalism you need to contend with. Here you have no subject object split, just events.

With this I agree.

This is also more parsimonius.

I'm not familiar with that term..

 

[Enmos]

Perhaps that is why you hide the truth from yourself.

But still, it is not only solipsism that posits less entities.

I mean seriously guys, I'll bet the three of you would unify against a theist positing a God, but once the OR starts whittling precious entities away, suddenly the OR gets thrown out the window.

OK, so why do I 'imagine' things the way I do ?
Why have I invented eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth ?
Why do we startle, die, hurt, get into accidents ?

 

[wise acre]

Sorry to repeat, but cute. Shame it's also easily reversible.

Not really. And the onus is still on the person saying there are more things.

With this I agree.

Well, this creates problems for an 'objective reality' also.

I'm not familiar with that term..

Adjective form of

par·si·mo·ny (pär'sə-mō'nē)
n.

1. Unusual or excessive frugality; extreme economy or stinginess.
2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.

 

[wise acre]

OK, so why do I 'imagine' things the way I do ?
Why have I invented eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth ?
Why do we startle, die, hurt, get into accidents ?

There is no reason to assume you have invented these 'things' - note the objective speak. The self need not be in control. It may simply be the only thing. You are looking at solipsism through the eyes of a believer in objective reality. This will distort it.

 

[Enmos]

Not really. And the onus is still on the person saying there are more things.

Yes it is. Why did you put me on ignore earlier ? Etc.

Well, this creates problems for an 'objective reality' also.

Why ?

Adjective form of

Ah.. thanks.

 

[Enmos]

There is no reason to assume you have invented these 'things' - note the objective speak. The self need not be in control. It may simply be the only thing. You are looking at solipsism through the eyes of a believer in objective reality. This will distort it.

This will distort it ? I'm not looking through 'the eyes of a believer in objective reality', I'm just using common sense.
If not the self, who or what is in control ? And wouldn't this something be an outside to the self ?

 

[wise acre]

Yes it is. Why did you put me on ignore earlier ? Etc.

Relevence? Or are you saying that if you are the only thing I wouldn't have done this?

Why ?

Because there are simply phenomena. No self. No world. Just phenomena. An objective world is something distinct from perception. Phenomenalism removes the subject/ive object/ive split.

 

[wise acre]

This will distort it ? I'm not looking through 'the eyes of a believer in objective reality', I'm just using common sense.

Common sense is often wrong. And again, it is not empirically supported. Nor can it be.

If not the self, who or what is in control ? And wouldn't this something be an outside to the self ?

No, not necessarily. There could be no control. Just as many determinists would say about how things are. In determinism you simply have events unfolding as determined by conditions as long ago as the Big Bang. there is an illusion of control, but really things simply happen. This is widely accepted, but suddenly if we are talking about solipsism or phenomenalism for that matter, somebody or something must be in control? Solipsism could be determined also. A film that plays only there is nothing else.

 

[Enmos]

Relevence? Or are you saying that if you are the only thing I wouldn't have done this?

No I meant that the other way around. Why would you invent me the way I am if you end up putting me on ignore ?
And if you say you didn't invent me.. how come I exist (in your mind) ?

Because there are simply phenomena. No self. No world. Just phenomena. An objective world is something distinct from perception. Phenomenalism removes the subject/ive object/ive split.

Nothing is distinct from objective reality. Subjective reality is just a name we've given to certain aspects of it.

 

[Enmos]

Common sense is often wrong.

Perhaps so, but it's the best thing we have here, because:

And again, it is not empirically supported. Nor can it be.

The same goes for solipsism.

No, not necessarily. There could be no control. Just as many determinists would say about how things are. In determinism you simply have events unfolding as determined by conditions as long ago as the Big Bang. there is an illusion of control, but really things simply happen. This is widely accepted, but suddenly if we are talking about solipsism or phenomenalism for that matter, somebody or something must be in control? Solipsism could be determined also. A film that plays only there is nothing else.

Determinism doesn't hold if solipsism is true, because if it's true there exists only one thing; you.

 

[thinking]

Are you Bishadi in disguise? I wonder this because it's obvious you cannot read.

NO I'm me , me , myself and I , thinking

I did not say that oxygen doesn't exist.

no you didn't , so you missed the point

the point is that oxygen is vital for life , you can neither smell it , touch it , taste it , hear it , or basically perceive oxygen in any sense

yet oxygen exists

now what ?

 

[wise acre]

No I meant that the other way around. Why would you invent me the way I am if you end up putting me on ignore ?
And if you say you didn't invent me.. how come I exist (in your mind) ?

You mean you never have thoughts you push away. Or things you realized you felt but didn't want to face or parts of yourself you feel the need to control?

Nothing is distinct from objective reality. Subjective reality is just a name we've given to certain aspects of it.

So one can directly experience objective reality, then?

I really need to hear what your criteria are for determining what or who has the burden of proof? It does not seem like Ockham's Razor is your method, nor parsimony. So?