Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

[wise acre]

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

1) it is not an 'it', each culture and each person has their own set of beliefs they think of as common sense.

The same goes for solipsism.

2) but solipsism has the parsimony advantage. Theists face parsimony and OR based arguments ALL THE TIME. But it seems you have another method.

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

But there is no reason to assume this you is not determined. It could be like a hologram watching itself unfold. There is no reason a solipsistic self cannot be utterly determined. The entire universe is in the usual scientific way of looking a things. In this case the entire universe is a self.

This notion of control might be illusory. There is no need to assume it, that's for certain. You're mixing apples and bicycles.

It's like saying there is only the self so nothing is seen.
Why?
Because their is just the self and no vision.
No, no. The self includes this visualness.

 

[thinking]

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?

So one can directly experience objective reality, then?

of course you do it every day

 

[Enmos]

I'm really getting tired of this solipsism business.
What's the point of bringing it up in this thread other then to confuse the subject ?

 

[thinking]

I'm really getting tired of this solipsism business.
What's the point of bringing it up in this thread other then to confuse the subject ?

I agree

so what must be done is to define objective reality as oppossed to subjective reality

so here I will define both ;

objective reality , is that regardless of the observer and experiencer position of the observer the object and enviroment remains true ;

and subjective reality , is that which seems to be true but is questionable

objective reality is not questionable

subjective reality is

 

[glaucon]

And Glaucon, I can't fathom why you said that it's irrelevant whether or not there is an 'outside'.

I explained why.
The interior/exterior question is an epistemological one.

 

[wise acre]

of course you do it every day

Well you could take this up with Enmos.

It seems to me objectivity would have to be NO 'experiencings'.

 

[glaucon]

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 ?

No, you missed the point.
The empirical evidence in support of our concept "oxygen" is exactly what you described (i.e. it's a vital condition for us to be here to question it...).
However, this says nothing about it's ontological status. Rather, all it says about "oxygen" is that the term describes a part of our environment, and nothing more.

 

[thinking]

“ It seems to me objectivity would have to be NO 'experiencings'.

why ?

 

[wise acre]

I'm really getting tired of this solipsism business.
What's the point of bringing it up in this thread other then to confuse the subject ?

1) it is one of a few direct challenge to the OP and is extremely relevent to the OP.
2) one of the weakness of your assertions in the OP is a lack of parsimony and also the meaning of a term like 'objective reality'.

You said...

Everything that is not construed by the mind is objective.

which does not fit with

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

and this is also relevent to the OP and it comes up when you try to deal with solipsism. And phenomenalism, for that matter.

You still have not said what your criteria are for determining burden of proof also, and this is also relevent to the OP.

I mean, this is a philosophy forum. You have presented some philosophical assertions. Solipsism and other philosophies that do not have objective reality, at least not in the same sense, are perfect ways to challenge a philosophical position.

 

[glaucon]

I'm really getting tired of this solipsism business.
What's the point of bringing it up in this thread other then to confuse the subject ?

You're correct in a sense, although the whole 'Other Minds' problem is bound to come up when we're discussing 'objective'.

Perhaps for the remainder of the discussion we can just grant that there are, in fact, 'other things' beyond ourselves.?
I'd be fine with this.

 

[wise acre]

why ?

Ask enmos. You could also ask about...

Everything that is not construed by the mind is objective.

Which implies, heavily, that subjective experience in not this.

and then from the op...

No observer can perceive objective reality directly.

Subjective experiences seem to be perceived directly - unless you want to open this up to a problematic regress.

These assumptions see to run counter to your assertion earlier.

I am not an objectivist so I will watch with interest to see how this is sorted out.

 

[wise acre]

You're correct in a sense, although the whole 'Other Minds' problem is bound to come up when we're discussing 'objective'.

Perhaps for the remainder of the discussion we can just grant that there are, in fact, 'other things' beyond ourselves.?
I'd be fine with this.

I am happy to accept your ruling, but basically you are saying that the OP cannot be challenged.

 

[glaucon]

I actually felt you raised the issue with the self-label 'materialist'.

True, yet Materialism isn't necessarily Essentialism...

To me that sounds like objective speak. You have posited something which is not experience which we experience and called it matter.

Right. Just as I cannot experience 'electrical flow'.
From a Materialist POV, though we cannot (with certainty) assert anything about the ontological status of anything 'other', we do have an operational methodology of describing and predicting the 'behaviour' of our environment.
So, it's a pragmatic conceit.

But why reify. I mean I can see the use of reifying 'objects'. But why imply an essential substance. Can't you avoid that since you seem biased against such things?

Concepts are reified just to the extent that they fit our conceptual framework. This doesn't imply any essentialism. (Although, strictly speaking, if anything could be said to be reified here, it would be the TOR...)

Materialism seems very heavily to indicate WHAT reality is made of? Even your use of 'within' above seems a call to talking about what is outside? Do we need to? And why material? Why not energiism? Fieldism? Tensionsim? Dynamism? Fluctuationism?

Not 'made of', in the constituent sense, but rather described as.
It's just handy, linguistically.

 

[glaucon]

I am happy to accept your ruling, but basically you are saying that the OP cannot be challenged.

Yeah, that's partly why I was reluctant to try and avoid the 'Other Minds' issue.
I'm trying to think of a way in which we can grant 'other' in such a way that it doesn't automatically thereby also grant 'objective'....

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking

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 ?

No, you missed the point.
The empirical evidence in support of our concept "oxygen" is exactly what you described (i.e. it's a vital condition for us to be here to question it...).
However, this says nothing about it's ontological status. Rather, all it says about "oxygen" is that the term describes a part of our environment, and nothing more.

really this makes sense too you

so if you go without oxygen for an hour you will survive ?

 

[glaucon]

really this makes sense too you

so if you go without oxygen for an hour you will survive ?

Try to read.

 

[thinking]

Try to read.

try to understand

 

[glaucon]

try to understand

lol

It is your lack of comprehension that is presenting you with a problem.

You seem incapable of realizing that there is more than one way in which a thing can be ontologically asserted.

 

[thinking]

lol

It is your lack of comprehension that is presenting you with a problem.

You seem incapable of realizing that there is more than one way in which a thing can be ontologically asserted.

for example

 

[glaucon]

for example

Do try and do your own research in the future.

But for now: Frankenstein's Monster (FM) enjoys a particular kind of ontological status that differs from that of paper.