Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

MysteriousStranger said:
Solipsism requires everything to exist within your own mind. But you say that "any of us may not truly exist." Now if you said that "the only mind I know to exist is my own" and then to reject the existance of all others would be solipsistic.

However, you obviously doubt solipsism a bit, otherwise you would be suffering from solipsism syndrome and if you truly thought I didn't exist you would have no motivation to interact with me.

In the philosophical world solipsism is about as unpopular as nihilism. Not because it's falsified, because it's internally consistent and cannot be disproven, but because it undermines morality and: "Some philosophers hold the viewpoint that solipsism is entirely empty and without content. Like a 'faith' argument, it seems sterile, i.e., allows no further argument, nor can it be falsified."
Click to expand...

well said
I look forward to more of this.
 
Perhaps because I believe that someone else is the perceiver.

I mean, it makes sense. If all that exists is what they imagine within their reality, and they are unaware that this is their reality, then not only do I not exist but I can in no way suppose anyone else does, even though SOMEONE exists. In this case, perhaps there is an objective reality. This is not it and we are not truly parts of it. The one that exists is the reality of the perceiver, and if we imagine other perceivers, their perceptions may or may not be subjective, based on some unknown "hive mind" or something.

If that's the case, then our subjective reality is all that matters, so far as we know. Our thoughts are not truly our own because, again, we do not exist except in the mind of this perceiver. You are a prisoner of a subjective prison within which you are having an unverifiable, private, subjective experience.

Based on this, how in the world can you point to "objective" reality? If all I said was true, are our subjective experiences of similar things within this not-reality evidence that this not-reality is the aforementioned objective reality? The fact we are wrong, does that matter?

Then again, what matters, really?
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Perhaps because I believe that someone else is the perceiver.

I mean, it makes sense. If all that exists is what they imagine within their reality, and they are unaware that this is their reality, then not only do I not exist but I can in no way suppose anyone else does, even though SOMEONE exists. In this case, perhaps there is an objective reality. This is not it and we are not truly parts of it. The one that exists is the reality of the perceiver, and if we imagine other perceivers, their perceptions may or may not be subjective, based on some unknown "hive mind" or something.

If that's the case, then our subjective reality is all that matters, so far as we know. Our thoughts are not truly our own because, again, we do not exist except in the mind of this perceiver. You are a prisoner of a subjective prison within which you are having an unverifiable, private, subjective experience.

Based on this, how in the world can you point to "objective" reality? If all I said was true, are our subjective experiences of similar things within this not-reality evidence that this not-reality is the aforementioned objective reality? The fact we are wrong, does that matter?

Then again, what matters, really?
Click to expand...

Now you see how I feel :confused:


Seriously though, all that matters is our own reality. Our own well being and our own perceptions of it. If something's wrong with your perception of others, it's likely because of that other. Don't take this the wrong way please. Just that what I perceive is not my objective reality, it is probably not an objective reality at all.
Objective reality is objective reality I guess, but, when someone infringes on it it makes it worse.
Surely it has to do something with the issue of being able to see. An error in perception. Any flaw in perception or perceiving of other reality is probably something to do with morality / ethics issues. In which one is infringing upon ones own fate, or destiny.
What must not occur is infringement on destiny if proper view is held.

Within this perspective, sophism, is pretty interesting I suppose. You'd consider that one doesn't have the right to infringe upon others fates, perspectives, and leads into lines of thought that say that it infringes upon ... Hmm. Just some thoughts.

Try objective reality that is being infringed upon. That's all I have the ability to say at present.
 
from:
Objectivity and how it can be acheived
This is exactly how I see what some would consider to be the illusion of what existence is.
A self justifying reality that if you manage to step out of and look back you will see it as a subjective illusion that self justifies for it's participants as being essentially objective. A sort of Cline bottle that allows convoluted self justifications.
Of course we cannot physically step out of this universe but we can, and this is the amazing thing about the human mind, step out using our imaginations.

People [ philosophers ] often complain that the fact that the universe is an illusion of reality then it must be in some way inferior to a real reality which of course is absurd because even a real reality would invariably present a similar illusion.

One of the reasons behind going to the trouble of generating this robot analogy was to help in the understanding that the reality of the universe both in terms of Physics [ laws ] and mind is an illusion that is self correcting and self justifying...thus self evident truth or knowledge can and is available to provide a backdrop to our musings and machinations. [ knowing that that self evident truth and knowledge is really a self justifying self correcting illusion]

Due to the confirmation feedback system that the robot analogy offers this self correction and self justifying is automatically occurring through out the system so that at anytime if an error occurs in the comparison of data the data is automatically corrected by the robots out puts thus the whole system becomes unfalsifiable and self correcting... [ thus the robots can not step outside their environment as we humans can]
Click to expand...
 
Quantum Quack said:
from:
Objectivity and how it can be acheived
Click to expand...


um. Sorry, but the "reality" caused by the observation of your robot friends is to be valid, they'd have to be part of one's own internal experience, and thus not guaranteed that they exist. Are you saying that a "mind" that has created a reality would not be capable of using the tools you describe as needed to regulate that reality for itself?

On a different note, to tnerB, why would the knowledge that neither I nor anyone or anything exists potentially make me want to respect others situations MORE? Why do I care what a nonexistant being thinks or feels?
 
How do we know objective reality exists?

Because there aren't any gods to turn it subjective.
 
When opeerating within the parameters of logic, it is very easy to condlude that objective reality exists. The first rule of course is that logic cannot be presumed. It must be assumed.
 
While I have often lingered on this thought, I always come to the same conclusion. It is pointless to ponder this subject. Here is my body which senses things, I have nothing else to use which might offer another way to sense things, therefore I conclude that I have no reason to believe what I am sensing is incorrect. Thinking about this subject is akin to speculating on the existence of god, useless. It is not falsifiable. I don't believe there is an independent mind, it just seems like there is. Neurons fire in unison and neurotransmitters are released, transported, and bound to receptors which give rise to the feelings we experience and our perception of "I". We are, fundamentally, no different from a rock or a table. The natural sciences are constantly closing in on completely explaining an entirely materialistic world.
 
When you experience something with your senses in a dream, that thing is not objectively real. You only know that something is real when you are certain you are not dreaming.
 
the only way this can be proven is with biased inferences, my colour may be different than yours, yet i've known it to be such my whole life. this leads way to the idea of a perfect spectrum.

i like white stuff in and around my nose.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
When you experience something with your senses in a dream,
Click to expand...

glaucon said:
Contradiction.
Click to expand...


So when you see something coloured red in a dream, that does not use your sense of vision?
I agree that there is no external sensory input, but seeing a colour must use the sense of vision, mustn't it? Otherwise, people blind from birth would be able to imagine colours.
 
Last edited:
Reported.

Goodbye then, I guess..

Edit: That was aimed at a post that's now deleted. It was not aimed at Kremmen's post which is above this one now.
 
Last edited:
Reported?
He should executed for crimes against good taste.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
So when you see something coloured red in a dream, that does not use your sense of vision?
I agree that there is no external sensory input, but seeing a colour must use the sense of vision, mustn't it? Otherwise, people blind from birth would be able to imagine colours.
Click to expand...

This old empirical nugget would require an entire different thread of it's own.
For our concerns here, suffice it to say that you've just described the contradiction itself: "...no external sensory input...". Ergo, when dreaming, there can be no 'sensing', and thereby, no sensing experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top