What Are Your Perspectives on Objective Reality?

[sweetvirgogirl]

your views on it?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Real happiness has real value.

 

[vanesch]

I moved this thread here, where I think it belongs more than in quantum physics (where you might get troubles :-)

My view on objective reality is that this is a very useful working hypothesis to make sense of our subjective experiences.

However, (as some here know), I claim that the relationship between the postulated objective reality and our subjective experiences is a bit more involved than a simple 1-1 relation. This is at least how I can (try to) make sense out of modern physics.

 

[metacristi]

objective reality-your views on it?

I'd argue that currently the view that there is an external reality which we can perceive / understand at least partially (a 'contextual' vision) has a fallible epistemological privilege over all types of idealisms, thus deserving to be the first choice research program for science now (our observations do influence / 'modulate' the external reality to some extent but there is an external reality independent of Mind).

I've answered this question in a broader context on another site, here are my answers there:

subject 'what can science explain?'

____ wrote:

1. There is an external world, i.e. there is a world of physical objects and theoretical entities whose existence (and some of whose properties) are logically and causally independent of the existence of any human minds.

2. Some of our beliefs about that world are correct descriptions, even if partial, of that world.

3. We can determine which of our beliefs about the world are correct descriptions.

Agreement with all three makes you a scientific realist, whereas disagreement with at least one of the above tenets makes you an instrumentalist of some sort.

I define myself a 'weak' realist, more or less what Putnam call an 'internal realist', and yet I am not strongly commited to the answers to your questions...see some clarifications here and below.

Do you agree or disagree with any, all, or some combination of the following statements? What is the justification for your position?


1. There is an external world, i.e. there is a world of physical objects and theoretical entities whose existence (and some of whose properties) are logically and causally independent of the existence of any human minds.

I don't think we are entitled to talk in terms of certitudes in this case, there is no way currently to soundly discard all forms of idealisms. However we can make a 'weak' demarcation in the form of a clear 'ladder of preferences' based on arguments going well beyond the number of facts accommodated.

This 'ladder' has at the first place, at least currently, a form of realism (at least of observables). Indeed the theory of perception 'laden' with realism has a greater coherence with commonsense, the base of empiricism, than those laden with ontological idealisms. Secondly, though we cannot strongly justify our basic scientific enunciations based on direct observations (including the assumption of realism; indeed as Popper observed once realism is as non falsifiable and non verifiable as the different forms of idealisms), realism is the easiest to test (Popper's solution to the problem of empirical basis).

Even if the existing arguments 'pro' realism are not enough to count as a sufficient reason which to solve the problem realism vs idealism once and forever they are enough for justifying the preference, provisionally, for a form of realism as the first choice program for science. This in no way imply that the 'followers' of ontological idealisms (especially the berkeleyan type) do not have the right to pursue further their 'reasearch programmes' in private, no (basically idealisms are huge alternative programmes, very different in the ontologies proposed, in fact incompatible with the ontology of realism, though they cannot be differentiated at the purely pragmatic level, still valid from all we know now).

But in any case have they the right, currently at least, to claim equal epistemological privileges with the research program involving realism (that is equal resources allocated, being presented in science books as being on equal foot with the realist program and thus fully deserving to be taught in schools on par with the realist program etc). Even less that all rational people should believe with necessity in their form of idealism.

2. Some of our beliefs about that world are correct descriptions, even if partial, of that world.

3. We can determine which of our beliefs about the world are correct descriptions.

Being a fallibilist I argue that no scientific enunciation or theoretical construct (not even the observables) has its place granted forever inside the body of accepted scientfic enunciations, basically nothing is immune to being discarded. Not even the basic assumptions of science. At most we have the right to believe and accept within the body of accepted scientific enunciations, again provisionally, that some of our scientific theories (including the theoretical constructs used) are approximately True (in absolute).

Is science the high road to ontology? Can science really tell what the fabric of the universe consists of?

There is no sufficient reason currently to think that the actual minimal methodology cannot bring us to the Truth. Maybe Einstein (and many other scientists) is right and new data can always make the difference, there being a single best possible description of the observed facts and a single 'right path'. But even if we will ever find a TOE (theory of everything), an evolution of the actual Standard Model, having no serious contenders and no puzzles we should be open to the possibility to realize later that very different descriptions, at least equal empirically, exist. While, in my view, in that case we would be justified to hold, inside the provisionally accepted enunciations of science, that that TOE is approximately True we wouldn't be entitled to be certain of that...for we should prove first that there exist only a finite number of alternative theories and that all of them (less that TOE) has been proved as being falsified (or inferior to that TOE). Unfortunately this rarely happen in practice, especially in physics...

But overall I'd argue that, currently at least, we just have more 'pro' reasons (however not amounting to a 'proof' or a sufficient reason solving the problem once and forever) to believe that science does approach Truth till some point at least (no real contenders currently to the actual body of still accepted scientific knowledge, sufficiently different, till GR). At least that some theoretical constructs (unobservables) are real and that their description is approximately True, namely those which appear in a series of successive paradigms ever more 'successful' in the absence of serious, sufficiently different, alternatives (unfortunately we cannot extend this to the theories using them, these theories might still be far even from being approximately true). As I've already stressed this, of course, does not imply that things will ever remain the same, 'scientism' is never the best option (thus I argue that it is better to encourage alternative thinking at all times...it's better to have them for reference only than to have nothing and be forced to 'reinvent the wheel' when the main view run into problems, besides some ideas could be lost forever if we do not encourage alternative thinking at all times).
.

 

[Rade]

"Objective Reality"...your views on it?

The opposite then would be "Subjective Reality" ? I can see this taking two forms (a) Solipsism Subjective Reality = no thing (anywhere) is real but the self of the solipsist, (b) Non-Solipsism Subjective Realtiy = no thing (anywhere) is real, all is "ideal" (= existing only in the mind as an image). I find both of these alternatives to Objective Reality to be logically lacking. If nothing is real but the self of the objective solipsist, then when the solipsist no longer exists (=death) all reality no longer exists--but I see solipsist die around me each day, yet here I am. Or, even if solipsist reality is defined as the sum of all solipsist that have or will ever exist (including me), then, prior to their collective existence, reality did not exist, or if they were to all die tomorrow at 6:43 am, then at 6:44 am the universe would not longer exist--but such thought is falsified by the 1/2 life of uranium, much older than the 1/2 life of all solipsists. And, if all is "ideal" and exists only in the mind as an image, the "mind" as an objective existent must take primacy over the image, for the simple reason that it is a logical contradiction for "images" to exist within "an image = mind" (that is, images are not attributes of images because images cannot have attributes, images are attributes of "the mind" which is an object existent).

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

We must (should) never forget the fundamental reason and purpose for all our thoughts and actions, this being the existence of a creature capable, and by virtue of choice willing, not just simply to exist but to become something greater than what we were, this creature being ourselves. Awareness and understanding of this capacity is the justification for and therefore should be at the root of all our efforts to discover and practice truth.

 

[nazgjunk]

In things like this, I usually find it rather convenient to redefine "objective" being that reality that we all agree upon. I know this doesn't work out in the end (before columbus everyone thought the Earth to be flat, but that did not make it true), but it is rather easy to work with.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

In things like this, I usually find it rather convenient to redefine "objective" being that reality that we all agree upon. I know this doesn't work out in the end (before columbus everyone thought the Earth to be flat, but that did not make it true), but it is rather easy to work with.

Unfortunately, reality does not conform to our agreement, even if unanimous. We can improve the quality of our knowledge by relating what we are told to our own experience. Our certainty of what we know is directly proportional to how well it corresponds to knowledge obtained through, or logically derived from, our direct perception of reality.

 

[sameandnot]

Our certainty of what we know is directly proportional to how well it corresponds to knowledge obtained through, or logically derived from, our direct perception of reality.

and now, our own "knowledge" has shown us that there is fundamental uncertainty, in it. funny kind of knowledge.

 

[nazgjunk]

Unfortunately, reality does not conform to our agreement, even if unanimous. We can improve the quality of our knowledge by relating what we are told to our own experience. Our certainty of what we know is directly proportional to how well it corresponds to knowledge obtained through, or logically derived from, our direct perception of reality.

Read my post. I know that, and I only said it's quite useful (and easy, and lazy) to work with.

*sigh*

 

[vanesch]

I find both of these alternatives to Objective Reality to be logically lacking. If nothing is real but the self of the objective solipsist, then when the solipsist no longer exists (=death) all reality no longer exists--but I see solipsist die around me each day, yet here I am.

I think you misunderstood solipsism. You cannot see "another solipsist dying" You see other bodies die, but the one and only existing subjective reality is your own, and as far as you know, YOU are not dead.
By definition, in a solipsist view, others don't exist, but as imaginations in your own subjective experience.

 

[quantumcarl]

Pov

your views on it?

The question begs that I simply state how my views are purely subjective.

Having made this statement, I must clarify that objectivity and any conclusions derived from objectivity are governed by subjectivity and subjective opinion.

This is true only because all evidence of objects and objectivity can only be verified subjectively, regardless of how many similar results are available in the population.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Objectivity is a choice. We rely on the perceptually given for all the information we obtain about reality; from that point on the quality of our objectivity is a matter of how well we use reason to make deductions and integrate our knowledge.

(nazgjunk, if you feel like someone is twisting your arm, it is not me. My attempts to clarify are only intended for the benefit of those who may be helped by it, myself included.)

 

[Rade]

I think you misunderstood solipsism. You cannot see "another solipsist dying" You see other bodies die, but the one and only existing subjective reality is your own, and as far as you know, YOU are not dead. By definition, in a solipsist view, others don't exist, but as imaginations in your own subjective experience.

Well, if she tells me that she is in fact a solipsist and she holds that she exists, and I see her die, then I see a dead solipsist. And my observation of her death then falsifies her solipsism philosophy, since as you state, to the solipsist, at the moment of her death, nothing is IN FACT real outside her dead mind. Yet here I am, the non-solipsist alive. Her death falsifies her philosophy for her, since she incorrectly reasoned that others (me) do not exist outside her imagination. And, as I stated above, even if we hold that all humans (100%) are solipsist, their philosophy is still falsified by the existence of the uranium isotope, which has a 1/2 life much longer than the time all humans have existed--thus, the uranium isotope cannot be a pure imagination--before there were solipsists--there were uranium isotopes.

 

[Rade]

Having made this statement, I must clarify that objectivity and any conclusions derived from objectivity are governed by subjectivity and subjective opinion.This is true only because all evidence of objects and objectivity can only be verified subjectively, regardless of how many similar results are available in the population.

You seem to be saying that humans are are not "objects" that can observe other "objects", including themself--but I do not agree. The fact that humans subjectively (e.g., within the mind) perceive and then differentiate and integrate objects into concepts, does not falsify that this subjective mental process exists within an objective identity, called the individual human being. I have no "opinion" on that which exists, no belief, I have "knowledge" of that which exists, uncertain knowledge, which is one definition of science = knowledge with uncertainty.

 

[sameandnot]

Objectivity is a choice.

[subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]
(objectivity issues forth from subjectivity, by choice)

seems so, indeed.

then,

{? ----> [subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]}
(obvious next question: whence does subjectivity issue from?)

this is becoming very interesting... for sure.

 

[vanesch]

Well, if she tells me that she is in fact a solipsist and she holds that she exists, and I see her die, then I see a dead solipsist. And my observation of her death then falsifies her solipsism philosophy, since as you state, to the solipsist, at the moment of her death, nothing is IN FACT real outside her dead mind. Yet here I am, the non-solipsist alive. Her death falsifies her philosophy for her, since she incorrectly reasoned that others (me) do not exist outside her imagination. And, as I stated above, even if we hold that all humans (100%) are solipsist, their philosophy is still falsified by the existence of the uranium isotope, which has a 1/2 life much longer than the time all humans have existed--thus, the uranium isotope cannot be a pure imagination--before there were solipsists--there were uranium isotopes.

No, you don't understand: all those pretended solipsists are only a product of your imagination, as well as the uranium isotope. You are the only solipsist who ignores himself. When YOU die - which you might never do - then the entire world (which is just a product of your imagination) disappears. "Other solipsists" are only suggestive ideas of your own mind to make you see you should be (the only) solipsist. You are in fact nothing else but the memory content of a 7th generation X-box, and someone is playing a reality game on the machine
And of course all this is bull! The real, unique, solipsist is ME ! And you (and your posts here) are nothing else but a product of MY imagination It is a totally futile exercise to try to explain solipsism to one of its own products of imagination (in casu, you).

 

[Rade]

[subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]
(objectivity issues forth from subjectivity, by choice)
seems so, indeed. then,
{? ----> [subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]}
(obvious next question: whence does subjectivity issue from?)
this is becoming very interesting... for sure.

From this
[ subjectivity <-----> objectivity ], a monism, a union. Thus, subjectivity issues forth from objectivity, not by choice.

 

[sameandnot]

From this
[ subjectivity <-----> objectivity ], a monism, a union. Thus, subjectivity issues forth from objectivity, not by choice.

if a monism, then objectivity also must issue forth from subjectivity, as well. (strictly logically speaking)

but let's not try and go too far, without examining one very essential aspect of this.

subjectivity and objectivity are the two "sides" of the monism.
Which came first, "the chicken or the egg?"

many would like to believe that subjectivity strictly arises from objectivity, but then the idea of a monism/union is utterly incompatible.

we cannot stop here. we must examine this issue further. in doing so, we notice that, both, subjectivity and objectivity are dependent upon an even deeper, absolutely single Reality.

"from One, came Two"

the One is equally present in and transcendent of either and both of the Two (subjective and objective) realities.

Whence to they obtain their existence?

so it must be seen that, logically:
{One-->[Two: subject. and object.-->(Many: the multitudinous manifestations of both)]}

Because: if a union... then what is the One, in which they are united? see?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

[subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]
(objectivity issues forth from subjectivity, by choice)
seems so, indeed.
then,
{? ----> [subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]}
(obvious next question: whence does subjectivity issue from?)
this is becoming very interesting... for sure.

Please see my latest post #34 in "Shouldn't we define 'Existence/Being'?"

 

[octelcogopod]

sameandnot, can't it be as simple as this:

The universe is vibrating, and evolving, the atoms are binding into molecules for almost an eternity.
Nobody knows why however.
Then suddenly, on the planets, life evolves.
It starts out simple, but then they grow more and more advanced and gain intelligence.
Remember that the objective physical reality has been here for many years before life itself.
Then these beings become selfaware, and what happens now, is a duality.
These beings must realize a few things:

1. They can never sense or see any other part of the universe other than what their senses allow them to sense..
2. That means to them, the objective reality will always be a subjective experience.
3. Which means they can never fully prove that the objective reality exists objectively. (As in there will always be a 1% uncertainty that this external world isn't what it is, but does that even mean anything to them, or to anyone else?)

BUT, isn't it more sane to say, that this is just their viewpoint in this external world, rather than it being the SOLUTION to this world?

 

[sameandnot]

physical reality is not an equivalent term as objective reality. this is key.

objective reality, is the subjective movement to "make objects" of the perceived/physical world. see the difference?

objective reality is a human invention, whereas physical reality is the world in which humans have defined "objects" as separate entities (themselves being one). The only thing that suggests a world of separate entities is a crude form of perception of the human mind. (which is the common way of human perception)
Though, there have been and are people existing who fail to make such absolute distinctions, not by ignorance or stupidity, but by an earnest exploration/inquiry/enquiry. to those people, objective reality is an illusion, because reality is known to be far too interconnected (perhaps even endlessly interconnected) to make such crude distinctions.
this is the case with quantum mechanics and the crumbling notions of time/space that are in its examination.

the subject is the object, that he/she perceives, as the "object" is an invention of their mind, based on a gross/crude sense of perception.

i will stop here, and go to school now. this idea is quite fascinating.

 

[quantumcarl]

The real, unique, solipsist is ME ! And you (and your posts here) are nothing else but a product of MY imagination It is a totally futile exercise to try to explain solipsism to one of its own products of imagination (in casu, you).

Solipsism is a product of conceptual beliefs just as subjectivity and objectivity are products of beliefs.

Beliefs are supported by nothing more than what is believed which is constructed by nothing other than reactions to evidence which cannot effectively be proven to exist.

All evidence of objectivity, subjecitivity and other concepts is rendered ineffective and non-admissible by the fact that it is compiled and interpreted by the subjective matrix of an individual's thoughts.

Proving that "thoughts" exist with "thoughts" is a fatally flawed logic. It is cyclical and, as stated, inadmissible. Furthermore, using another's beliefs to prove one's own is generally considered an ineffective and sloppy investigative technique.

 

[Rade]

No, you don't understand: all those pretended solipsists are only a product of your imagination...,

Here is what I understand. (1) That solipsism is defined (Webster, unabridged) as: the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self. (2) thus solipsist hold that one, and only one, existent exists in the universe and is also real--them. (3) the solipsist comes to existence via the unreal since by definition there is no real to come from (4) it is an axiom (e.g., cannot be argued against) that all solipsist come from gametes (in this day at least the egg cell is required), (5) by definition gametes are not real (as held by the solipsist), thus the solipsist which comes from gametes cannot be real, (6) arguments # 2 & 5 result in a logical condradiction, (7) thus, the solipsist philosophy concerning what is and what is not real (them) is logically falsified. Solipsism is folly.

 

[Rade]

if a monism, then objectivity also must issue forth from subjectivity, as well....Because: if a union... then what is the One, in which they are united? see?

Yes, you already made the first argument above, thus:
objectivity must issue forth from subjectivity, by choice
subjectivity must issue forth from objectivity, not by choice
The "One" that unites is that which, first, not by choice, then second, by choice, is issued forth, and that "One" is called "existence"

 

[sameandnot]

unless all individual selves/individual subjects are reflections of One Self/One Subject... right?
i mean, that argument is not falsified on the grounds that there is only One Self and all things are derived from its existence, it appears.

--what is real must exist.
--so, what is eternal is the Real.
We could say that the self alone is Real (always existing) as it is the eternal ground of structure and structuring as well as consciousness.

just saying...

 

[sameandnot]

it's not a matter of choice, rade.
if we are talking about a monism, the two realities are mutually dependent, so choice is no factor, as they would both have to exist simultaneously, always.

therefore, the One cannot be one or the other. The One is something entirely transcendent of each of them.

 

[Rade]

it's not a matter of choice, rade.
if we are talking about a monism, the two realities are mutually dependent, so choice is no factor, as they would both have to exist simultaneously, always.

Perhaps a bit abstract, but in my view subjectivity and objectivity do exist "simultaneously" as electro-chemical wave functions that intermingle as they move across 10,000 neurons/sec. By choice, I mean that the wavefunctions of consciousness (objectivity) act by volition to integrate that which issues forth via perception, not by choice, from the wavefunctions of the unconscious (subjectivity). In this way the two are mutually dependent, thus the monism holds.

 

[sameandnot]

The "One" that unites is that which, first, not by choice, then second, by choice, is issued forth, and that "One" is called "existence"

but you say that one issues first and the other second... such is not the meaning of simultaneity. neither arises first or second, as they are mutually arising within each other.

but, yes, it appears that the One is "existence"

 

[vanesch]

Here is what I understand. (1) That solipsism is defined (Webster, unabridged) as: the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self. (2) thus solipsist hold that one, and only one, existent exists in the universe and is also real--them. (3) the solipsist comes to existence via the unreal since by definition there is no real to come from

There are no multiple solipsists. There is just your subjective experience in solipsism, which does not even have to have a material carrier such as a brain.

(4) it is an axiom (e.g., cannot be argued against) that all solipsist come from gametes (in this day at least the egg cell is required),

This argument is of course fatally flawed here. In the solipsist picture, you do not even have a body. The concept of "having a body" is just a working hypothesis which allows you to organize your subjective experience and try to make sense of it. And within that working hypothesis, you can make refinements, and make hypotheses about gametes, about a sun and an earth, and a lot of other useful organizing concepts which help you to make sense of your subjective experiences. But it is nothing else but an illusion, just as in a computer game.

 

[Rade]

but you say that one issues first and the other second... such is not the meaning of simultaneity. neither arises first or second, as they are mutually arising within each other.

What I am saying is that perception of the One must proceed conception of the One, and that the simultaneity results when perception forms union with conception, at that moment in time, we get:
[subjectivity <------> objectivity]. But this is all very abstract and I may be false in where my thinking is taking me--perhaps in a circle ?

 

[sameandnot]

i see, what you are saying.
as i see it:
"objectivity" is defined thusly, because reality is conceptualized as "objects", by a subject who has perceptions.
therefore, objectivity obtains its existence from subjectivity; the subjective conception of the perception of reality, thusly objectified, is objectivity.
objectivity is contained within subjectivity.
there is no difference between subject and object.

so, what is the reality?

 

[quantumcarl]

The statement "I think therefore I am" is insufficent evidence for any kind of existence. It does not provide support for the concept of the existence of the subjective-self or of an "objective-reality".

No jury, court, lab or otherwise would accept that a thought exists because it thinks it does... This would be accepting prejudicial bias and be outside of reason. It would be cerebropomorphic (if that's a word).

It is each individual's experiences that help them decide if they exist or anything else exists (including subjectivity and objectivity).

No one can prove that these concepts exist because the only proof of the many things we think we know, for each individual, is an amorphic thought or string of thoughts. And thoughts could not provide a rough-draft let-alone (a) proof that anything exists not even the thought itself.

 

[vanesch]

The statement "I think therefore I am" is insufficent evidence for any kind of existence.

The statement by *someone else* is of course insufficient, but for one self, it should do, no ? The very fact that you have subjective experiences should be proof that those subjective experiences exist. I would even say that it is the ONLY thing you REALLY know for sure: that your subjective experiences exist.
Of course, it is totally impossible to convince something or someone else that they exist ; especially since you might not even be totally sure that the someone or something you try to convince even has an existence itself. But I don't see how you can deny to yourself the existence of your own subjective experience.

And thoughts could not provide a rough-draft let-alone (a) proof that anything exists not even the thought itself.

I don't see how you can arrive at that. An experienced thought exists, as an experience, no ? Otherwise you wouldn't experience it in the first place! It doesn't mean that the object of the thought exists, but the very subjective experience of having a thought does have existence if you experience it, no ?

 

[quantumcarl]

The very fact that you have subjective experiences should be proof that those subjective experiences exist. I would even say that it is the ONLY thing you REALLY know for sure: that your subjective experiences exist.

That would be the subjective argument for existence but just because a thought says it exists does not mean it does. There needs to be secondary, direct evidence separate from thought.

We experience our thoughts. We experience experience but no one else can prove we do nor can we prove that others experience these things.

The only proof we have of "experience" is the hypothesis that suggests that "we think we experience thought". And thoughts remain unproven to exist other than the fact that it is thought to exist. This is true for all objectivism. It is reliant upon subjective analysis. When objectivism is applied to the idea of subjectivism the objective investigation stops due to a lack of evidence.

An experienced thought exists, as an experience, no ? Otherwise you wouldn't experience it in the first place! It doesn't mean that the object of the thought exists, but the very subjective experience of having a thought does have existence if you experience it, no ?

No, you "think" you have experienced thought etc... In most circles, this is insufficent evidence of existence.

Subjectivity and objectivity are built on beliefs and faith, not proof. That's it, as far as I can tell.

 

[vanesch]

That would be the subjective argument for existence but just because a thought says it exists does not mean it does.

Ok, let's assume that the thought you are experiencing doesn't exist, as an experience. How can you experience a non-existing experience ? A non-existing experience being something that is not experienced of course (because the fact of being experienced is all that is required for the "existence" of an experience).

 

[quantumcarl]

Ok, let's assume that the thought you are experiencing doesn't exist, as an experience. How can you experience a non-existing experience ?

I can imagine a "non- existing experience" in the same manner that you have come-up with the idea of a "non-existing experience" on your own.

All I've pointed out is that, under objective scrutiny, a statement like

"I think I experience existence, therefore I do exist"

does not hold up as evidence of an existence.

Then again, everything I've claimed does not hold up under objective scrutiny. This is because my opinion is wholey and completely a regional and individual rumination of my subjective calculations on any matter.

These calculations leave no trace of addmissible evidence because anyone considering the evidence only "thinks" the evidence exists or that it may support an objective claim to an objective reality... of some sort.

 

[sameandnot]

and you would have the experience of having imagined a non-existing experience, which contradicts the idea that it is really non-existent.

 

[vanesch]

I can imagine a "non- existing experience" in the same manner that you have come-up with the idea of a "non-existing experience" on your own.

I want to make a difference between the existence of the experience itself, and the suggested content of the experience. It is not because I have a dream of a sportscar that my sportscar exists ; however, I find it hard to deny that the dream of the sportscar, as an experience, exists.
As such, I can think of "non-existing experience" which doesn't give existence to a "non-existing experience" ; however, the having of a thought of a non-existing experience, can, at that moment, hardly be denied, no ?

What's (to me) sufficient for "an experience to exist" is that it is experienced. What else would it mean for "an experience to exist" ? And if it is experienced, that's then sufficient to establish its existence.

 

[quantumcarl]

What's (to me) sufficient for "an experience to exist" is that it is experienced. What else would it mean for "an experience to exist" ? And if it is experienced, that's then sufficient to establish its existence.

The thread asks for views on "objective reality". Is this what you would term as an objective reality... or a subjective one?

 

[vanesch]

The thread asks for views on "objective reality". Is this what you would term as an objective reality... or a subjective one?

Ok, I agree that we drifted off a bit. Clearly this is a subjective reality (only available to the entity that is experiencing it) - and the point was that solipsism only acknowledges a subjective reality. It is because some poster (Rade) in post #5 had IMO a misunderstanding of what solipsism was about (I answered that in #11), that a discussion on solipsism followed.

However, there is of course a relationship to the original post. The point is that solipsism is undeniable (or unfalsifiable) - as such, it is sometimes considered a useless concept, but I think that that is wrong, because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong. So objective reality always will remain a hypothetical concept. Nevertheless, the concept of "objective reality" is a strong organizing principle, so it does very well as a *working hypothesis*. In fact, physics (and science in general) is the pushing through to the extreme of that working hypothesis, namely that our subjective reality finds its origin in an objective reality. One has to admit that it works very well.

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

 

[quantumcarl]

Ok, I agree that we drifted off a bit. Clearly this is a subjective reality (only available to the entity that is experiencing it) - and the point was that solipsism only acknowledges a subjective reality. It is because some poster (Rade) in post #5 had IMO a misunderstanding of what solipsism was about (I answered that in #11), that a discussion on solipsism followed.
However, there is of course a relationship to the original post. The point is that solipsism is undeniable (or unfalsifiable) - as such, it is sometimes considered a useless concept, but I think that that is wrong, because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong. So objective reality always will remain a hypothetical concept. Nevertheless, the concept of "objective reality" is a strong organizing principle, so it does very well as a *working hypothesis*. In fact, physics (and science in general) is the pushing through to the extreme of that working hypothesis, namely that our subjective reality finds its origin in an objective reality. One has to admit that it works very well.
As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

Thank you for your eloquent clarification of how we have arrived where we are in this thread.

This brings me to what I tried to point out earlier, in another thread, which is this:

What lies beyond consciousness is the knowledge most of us are unable to acknowledge due to the biological nature of our consciousness and what we peceive as the physical restrictions of what is perceived as a physical universe.

There is knowledge we are unaware of or unconscious of because, so far, this information is perceived to threaten the stability and survival of our species. So, true to the mechanism of natural selection, our brains and our condition as a species has selected to dis-acknowledge the knowledge which remains outside of our range of consciousness in favour of more convenient, physiopomorphic concepts which support survival.

This is what an objective reality is: our construct which fits the parameters and boundaries of our perceived physical condition. However, to be able to say so speaks of another type of objectivity that could be defined as utilizing that information which is outside of our biological consciousness.

True objectivity aligns itself with nothing more than truth. And truth is only discernable by using a stand-point of detached observationalism. A state that is unbound by physical or aphysical interests and bound only by that which describes an overall truth with regard to existence.

 

[sameandnot]

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

we know that "objective reality" is invented by the subject, don't we?
or else, who came up with the concept that the world was full of "objects"

so, we see that it is at least an illusion, that "objective reality" is real, because "obective reality" is an idea, and the idea is never the reality, but, rather, the idea is derived from and points to the reality.

so we can say that the idea "objective reality" is invented, and further, the belief that it is Real, is, in fact, illusory.

secondly, the subjective can be considered an "object", but the "object" is an idea and therefore not Real. The subject, we all agree, is Real, so if the subject is not an "object/idea" what is it?

we have built the idea of "objectivity" around the idea that the subject is a body. the body is an idea/ a working hypothesis, which forms the foundation of the idea of "objective" reality.

is the subject a body? or does the subject use a body? is the subject a mind? or does the subject use a mind?

the contemplation of these questions will, surely, yield a totally different perspective of Reality, than "objective" reality, so what is the Reality?

Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

 

[Rade]

... so what is the Reality? ...Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

Yes, I agree--but with a few modifications (not corrections but fine tuning). The Reality as you state it must be "name-less" (do birds and ants give names to the Reality they perceive ?). The name-less Reality entangles with the human senses (as with many higher animals that have similar senses) as things that "exist" (e.g., existents--name-less existents). The mind then takes those name-less existents (specific parts of the holism of Reality) and first, as you say "differentiates" them from other "existents" (most of this process is stored in the unconscious), but then the more important second phase of the consciousness, it "integrates" them into CONCEPTS. Thus, I agree with your thought--the Reality is the name-less of that which exists.

 

[Rade]

There are no multiple solipsists. There is just your subjective experience in solipsism, which does not even have to have a material carrier such as a brain.

No, this is incorrect--you make up your own definition of solipsist--read the definition from Webster--the "self" , is defined as "the identity, charcater, or essential qualitites of any person or thing". By definition (Webster) the solipsist holds that "they exist" as a "self", as an identity (mind+body+soul+etc.), as a thing that exists. What you argue against is not solipsism, so your argument in no way relates to my post above. Again, the definition that you need to falsify: (1) That solipsism is defined (Webster, unabridged) as: the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self.

This argument is of course fatally flawed here. In the solipsist picture, you do not even have a body.

Nonsense--as just explained--by definition the solipsist always hold that they have a "self" (mind+body+soul+you add it), in fact, this is the only thing that does exist. I can only conclude that as a good solipsist, you have invented in your own mind your own definition of what you are, but unfortunately what you have invented thus logically falsifies the philosophy you hold. Thus none of what you say here negates my post above--you will have to try again with another argument. But of course, because solipsism is based on a logical contradiction, it is by definition falsified--the only way to save solipsism is to argue outside logic.

 

[Rade]

... because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong.

NO, solipsism only teaches us the definition of FOLLY. It is easy to falsify, it is by definition a logical contradiction. Solipsism does not teach about relativity of reality, existence teaches about the relativity of reality because by definition it can never be known except as a monism between the subject+object. And, it is incorrect to say that from the solipsist viewpoint objective reality is an illusion, as seen from my post above, the solipsist holds that they exist as a "self", which is an object that they hold exists (true the only one in the universe, but 1=1 and there they are, conforming to the Law of Identity A = A, 1 = 1, solipsist A = solipsist A). Now, the rest of your post makes logical sense--it is the thinking of the rational scientist.

 

[quantumcarl]

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.
we know that "objective reality" is invented by the subject, don't we?
or else, who came up with the concept that the world was full of "objects"
so, we see that it is at least an illusion, that "objective reality" is real, because "obective reality" is an idea, and the idea is never the reality, but, rather, the idea is derived from and points to the reality.
so we can say that the idea "objective reality" is invented, and further, the belief that it is Real, is, in fact, illusory.
secondly, the subjective can be considered an "object", but the "object" is an idea and therefore not Real. The subject, we all agree, is Real, so if the subject is not an "object/idea" what is it?
we have built the idea of "objectivity" around the idea that the subject is a body. the body is an idea/ a working hypothesis, which forms the foundation of the idea of "objective" reality.
is the subject a body? or does the subject use a body? is the subject a mind? or does the subject use a mind?
the contemplation of these questions will, surely, yield a totally different perspective of Reality, than "objective" reality, so what is the Reality?
Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

I count about eighty-three (exagration) occasions where you use the word "real" in your post.

Objective analysis is all about finding out what "real" is and what is "real". You use the word like you know what it means.

Please define "real" in your own words.

 

[sameandnot]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

 

[Rade]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

Yes. Another way to state this: Reality is that which Exists independent of thought (mind). We can never know "pure" Reality, it comes to thought as an entanglement of the object [O] plus subject as [O+S]. But, and here is where confusion rains, just because humans cannot know pure Reality, does not mean it does not exist, it depends on what philosophy you hold. But now, what is it exactly that "exists" (or as sameandnot says--"what is") ? All philosophy must start with at least one fundamental axiom, you either accept it or not. Once you accept it you develop the rest of your philosophy from it. Of course, you could also develop a philosophy from 2 or 3 or any number of fundamental axioms, each with equal weight. The philosophy I hold has only one fundamental axiom (it thus meets Occum's Razor), but it does have corollary axioms that logically connect to allow all aspects of the philosophy to be developed (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, etc.). And the axiom is "existence exists", from the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Now, I do not hold that all that Rand holds is logical, I may even agree that most of what she holds is not logical, but when she starts her thinking, her philosophy, with the axiom "existence exist", I see no logical reason not to follow the logic of where that path takes thinking. Some have tried to argue that "existence exists" is not an axiom, I find all such arguments wanting.

 

[quantumcarl]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

Thank you for your thought on the matter.

Real is what the truth is.

The truth is what "real" is? The truth is real?

Probably. But, it is hard to know what the truth behind a matter really is. There are so many influences that create an event that it is difficult to research every one of them all and compose a picture of the truth or what is real with regard to an event or matter.

It may sound egocentric but, whatever a person is experiencing, true or not, can be considered real, by my standards. It is their truth.

A person in a flight simulator experiences the Gs and the sensation of flight and the cockpit can be as real as the real thing.

They are not truly flying but it is a real experience and a real approximation of flying a fighter jet... or whathaveyou. It has to be to prepare the pilot for actual flight time.

So, deception is real. So is truth. All things and the absence those things are real.

So, when you say:

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

would you agree that the idea or the thought of what real is is as real as real itself?

The thought that one has been healed because some Jamacian dude pulled chicken guts out of a fold in your abdomen is real. Often the thought of being healed is all some people need to be healed.

What a person thinks may not be true and may not have any basis in reality but, it can have profound effects on their body anyway... it becomes very real in this sense.

It is this kind of power that can be found in an objective reality... from this reality you can objectively utilize the subjective reality of the mind.