Is reality only in the mind?

[RAD4921]

Is reality created in the mind or is there an objective reality outside of the mind? It almost seems like an absurd question and most people would say the latter but some philosophers are skeptical.

If you have a candy bar in front of you, you assume that it exist because you can see it. The light from the candy bar reaches the eyes and the electromagnetic signals are sent to the brain where an IMAGE of the candy bar is created. So as far as we know the candy bar only exists in the mind. If you reach out and touch the candy bar the nerves in your fingers send information to the brain and the feeling of the candy bar is created in the brain. Once again the candy bar appears to be only created in the mind. You can taste the candy bar but once again the taste buds on the tongue sends signals to the brain where the taste of the candy bar in interpreted. You can drop the candy bar on the table and it makes a sound which is vibrating air molecules that vibrate the eardrum and the signals that go to the brain are interpreted there. Once again the sound of the candy bar is created in the mind. When you smell the candy bar the same thing happens. The smell is created in the mind. All the information we gather about the “outside” world comes through the senses and gets processed in the brain. There is no way to step outside of you and see if there is really a world “out there”. We have to trust our sense and they do not always provide us with valid information. There are hallucinations, mirages, optical illusions and bias beliefs of the person’s thoughts that can created false truths and even delusions We dream every night and while dreaming we believe these dreams to be reality only to find that when we wake up they were fantasies created by the subconscious. How do we know that our waking state is some sort of dream? We can ask other people about their reality but they too are interpreting the world through the senses and the mind, which cannot be trusted. To take skepticism to an extreme, you cannot even be sure that other people exist.

I have thought about philosophical skepticism to some extent and my theory is that there is PROBABLY a world independent of the mind. We are pretty sure that the universe is billions of years old and it has existed for billions of years before there were any observers in it so I have come to the conclusion that there probably is an outside world but no matter how hard we try, we can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the case.

There is also the issue of the limitation of the senses. White light is a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum so what we see is not all that is out there. Rattlesnakes see in infrared and butterflies and bees see in the ultraviolet. What would the world look like if our eyes could see this part of the spectrum? What if we had x-ray vision? Elephants hear in ultra-low frequencies. Dogs can hear high frequencies. What does the world really sound like? Hound dogs have a very acute sense of smell. What does the world really smell like? Fish have lateral lines in their bodies where they can feel the outer world. What does the world really feel like? We really don’t know all that is out there due to the limitations of our senses and the abilities (or lack of) of the mind. Will we ever know the truth of reality?
RAD

 

[octelcogopod]

It is my opinion that any observer in the world will only see "their portion", their assigned portion of the universe.

Only god can see every part of the spectrum, hear every frequency, smell every smell and feel every touch.
What this means to me personally is that none of that really matters.
For one we have science, so we aren't completely oblivious to what we cannot sense, but also for us personally, we have everything we need, we are built that way.

As for the whole solipsism thing.. Well it's unfalsifiable to a degree, but then again what does that tell us?
It tells us nothing.
Even god has the curse of solipsism.
Why? Because nobody can ever fully understand the system they are built in/upon.
By logic, we can say that anything must be built on some kind of system, thus even god would need a system to run him.

Note that I am in no way talking about a religious god here, I'm talking about an omnipotent and omniscient creator, simply for the purpose of contrasting our existence to one of a such a god.

My conclusion is that infinite regress is everywhere, at all times, no matter where you are, who you are.

 

[Tournesol]

"The light from the candy bar reaches the eyes and the electromagnetic signals are sent to the brain where an IMAGE of the candy bar is created."

yes: that is what science says. The candy bar is real, the light i sreal,
the eye is real, the brain is real..."So as far as we know the candy bar only exists in the mind."

No. The scientific knowledge that tells us there is a chain
of events linking the candy bar to neural activity in the brain regards
every stage of the brain. Science does not warant
regarding the brain as the only real part of the whole chain
of events.

Solispsistic argumnts try to make a selctive appeal to some parts of the scientific picture whilst ignoring others.

 

[Rade]

Is reality created in the mind or is there an objective reality outside of the mind?

The mind does not create the object [O] of reality (e.g., the candy bar), the mind creates a mental image [O-M] where the object and the mind unite to form a dialectic electro-chemical wavefunction within neurons. Thus exists what can be called a veiled reality of [O] within the mind. In this philosophy (called Objectivism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy) both [O] and [M] are real, that is they exist as things independent until united via observation (e.g., perception). Thus we can never "know" pure [O] as reality, we can only "know" the veiled reality of the image [O+M], but the pure reality of both [O] and [M] as objects that exists holds true. Now, do not be confused by those that would claim this is an example of naive reality--this is false. Naive reality holds that pure reality is the image [O+M] and that neither [O] nor [M] are real as independent objects, e.g., that the real emerges from the unreal, naive indeed.

 

[octelcogopod]

Excellent Rade.

 

[Mickey]

If reality is in the mind, why would you say "only?"

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

The problem with thes types of situations is that they're unproveable, but you can't disprove them either. Solipsists believe everything in the world is created through stimuli from their own subconsiousness (or something to that effect). See stuff like the "Brain in a Vat" experiment.

(And no, not even "I think, therefore I am" works to disprove stuff like virtual worlds because you could easily be programmed/etc. to think that you actually do think, and have a conciousness.)

 

[octelcogopod]

(And no, not even "I think, therefore I am" works to disprove stuff like virtual worlds because you could easily be programmed/etc. to think that you actually do think, and have a conciousness.)

Could you?
How would you go about programming such a thing?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Could you?
How would you go about programming such a thing?

I use programming broadly. You have to realize that there are possibly many stimuli we aren't aware about. Just like bacteria could have no concept of the physics of the real world because of their microscopic state we ourselfs could have no concept of what is actually real.

An example of what I mean about programming is we could possibly be a vitual reality of some super-intelligent race. Everything we percieve and are thinking right now is programmed into some type of computer. We are even programed to think, and to actually "think" that we think (lol). When in actual fact everything we are doing now and do in the future is scripted by a extremely complex program. And the thing is in the end we will never ever really know because there is no way to falsify something like that.

I have to say it would be interesting if in the future we ourselfs can actually create a vitual reality in which the subjects of the reality genuinely think that they're alive and thinking.

~Gelsamel

Edit: And after that, are they considered life? Does it suddenly become unethical to turn off that virtual reality because the subjects inside have conciousness?

 

[Royce]

Reality is. Objective reality is but one form of reality.

The mental image of the objective candy bar is another form of reality.

If reality were only in our mind, would our mind not yet be real?

If our minds are not real then how could it then hold reality in them? If our minds are not real then nothing can be real, for, how can the unreal sense or effect the real?

If our minds are real and reality is only in our minds, then would not our minds be also only within our minds?

You must see the obvious contradictions and paradoxs.

I, therefore, conclude that "reality being only in our minds" is a logically absurd statement. To me at least this proves that reality is real.

The possiblity of an envatted brain is real. Our brains are envatted within our skulls and the only physical contact with the outside world is through our physical senses, our bodies.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

So you've concluded that reality is actually real? Good job.

But what about our reality. The reality that we live on earth, we're humans. I live in Australia. I'm a person. The world works like this. This could all be an illusion we've been forced upon and even our very selfs might not exist. Just because we can't comphrehend such a situation doesn't mean it's false, that would be a logical fallacy.

The possibility of an envatted brain/vitual reality are all very REAL posibilities, but such theories cannot be falsified and are therefore equivilent of religion.

There is nothing hard to comphrehend here. Other then that maybe what we see/hear/feel/smell and think might all just be programmed AI or a brain being stimulated by some mad scientist, producing the illusion we know as life.

I don't personally believe this, just like I don't believe in anything else that can't be falsified (or have any proof in it). I'm just saying it's very possible what the real reality is like.

But because we can't know or measure anything about things like that in the end the question is pointless (ignosticism).


Edit:

"The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man." — B. F. Skinner

 

[Royce]

So you've concluded that reality is actually real? Good job.

But what about our reality. The reality that we live on earth, we're humans. I live in Australia. I'm a person. The world works like this. This could all be an illusion we've been forced upon and even our very selfs might not exist. Just because we can't comprehend such a situation doesn't mean it's false, that would be a logical fallacy.

If reality is define as; all that is real, all that exists, then that which is not real does not exist.

If the world and our lives are illusions there must be, exist, something that is inducing these illusions and there must be something that exists that experiences these illusions. If something exist, it is real; therefore, I who am experiencing these illusions exist and that which supplying the illusion exists and is real. If something exists and is real and is not solely of or in our mind, then the statement; "Reality is only in our minds." is false.

 

[octelcogopod]

That's not entirely correct Royce.

All that is real != all that exists.
Nor does it follow that that which is not real does not exist.

"Reality is only in our minds" cannot be a false statement.

 

[octelcogopod]

So you've concluded that reality is actually real? Good job.

But what about our reality. The reality that we live on earth, we're humans. I live in Australia. I'm a person. The world works like this. This could all be an illusion we've been forced upon and even our very selfs might not exist. Just because we can't comphrehend such a situation doesn't mean it's false, that would be a logical fallacy.

The possibility of an envatted brain/vitual reality are all very REAL posibilities, but such theories cannot be falsified and are therefore equivilent of religion.

There is nothing hard to comphrehend here. Other then that maybe what we see/hear/feel/smell and think might all just be programmed AI or a brain being stimulated by some mad scientist, producing the illusion we know as life.

I don't personally believe this, just like I don't believe in anything else that can't be falsified (or have any proof in it). I'm just saying it's very possible what the real reality is like.

But because we can't know or measure anything about things like that in the end the question is pointless (ignosticism).


Edit:

"The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man." — B. F. Skinner

What's going on here is a power hierarchy.
We can very well put an ant in a simulated ant hill, and it will live there blissfully.
However the reality is that it is not a real ant hill.
Then on the other hand, to the ant, the hill is real, but it's not a real one compared to the other real ones out there.

So the question then becomes, is our world unique, or is it a simulated one?
If one can compare our world to other worlds, that are analogous to ours, but not a simulation, are we being trapped?
Is it real?

Ultimately, there should be a way for us to find out if we are inside a simulation.
The world that runs our simulation cannot be entirely different from our own, so in theory we should be able to escape.

The problem is that the power hierarchy is infinitely regressive, that is to say, anything that exists, even god, can always ask himself "am i inside a simulation?"

What this means exactly I'm not sure, but if there truly is no way of falsifying it..

 

[Pythagorean]

Could you?
How would you go about programming such a thing?

I assume programmed is a loosely used term here that basically implies pre-determinism. That is, our consciousness and our actions are just a cause-effect relationship of mechanical, chemical, an electrical processes.

As for the OP, I think there is a reality, but our experience and observation of that reality is cropped and skewed. It is limited by our most deeply rooted assumptions and our biological (and technological) ability to sense 'reality'. So our perception of reality may be very different from reality itself. This doesn't, however, make use 'safe' from reality.

I still think, however, that terms like "my reality" are valid, as long as you realize that 'your reality' can influence and be influenced by both other singular relaities and all realities as a collective reality, one of those singular realities being the physical 'laws' of the universe (which we have changed, and been changed by ever since we became curious about them)

 

[Royce]

That's not entirely correct Royce.

All that is real != all that exists.
Nor does it follow that that which is not real does not exist.

"Reality is only in our minds" cannot be a false statement.

I think that it is axiomatic that if something exists, it is real. If something does not exist then it is not real.

The reverse is also true, if something is real then it exists and if something is not real then it does not exist.

Therefore, all that exist is real and reality is all that exist.

To repeat my position,

If reality is only in our minds, our minds then must exist and be real.

If our minds exist and are real then our minds must be part of reality.

Therefore in order for "Reality is only in our minds" to be true, our minds must only be in our minds. This is an logically absurd statement and therefore, cannot be true.

It is a thruth that a thing or object cannot contain or be a part of itself.

Aside, to address a previous statement made here.

Regardless of the validity or truth of our experiences, we our something like us must exist to do the experiencing whether real, vertual or total illusion. That which is experiencing must exist to experience anything and therefore, is real. I experience what I take to be reality.
I therefore exist and am real.

In other words; I experience; therefore, I am.

This is the same as; "I think; therefore, I am.

 

[octelcogopod]

imo that's just fancy wording.

The truth is that there is a possibility that our world is generated or simulated, by something other than reality itself.
There is a slight chance that we are indeed in another world, that we have been trapped and made prisoners of, and that our world is generated to hide us from the truth.

While that is extremely melodramatic, it may be.

Also I do not follow your proposition that all that exists must be real.
"Real" is by definition relative to the observer, and it is also relative to how much knowledge you have.
If somehow a person on Earth found a way to travel out of the universe, and into the universe where he had been trapped, what is "real" is suddenly changed.

If you assume that everything and anything, in any dimension or universe is real, then that's a false position in your statement, because you say "Therefore in order for "Reality is only in our minds" to be true, our minds must only be in our minds. ", which would be false if we were indeed trapped in a matrix like universe computer.
This is because 1. the universe would only be in our minds and 2. it would not be a part of itself.

I think I got that right anyway.

 

[Rade]

Royce has it right if we agree with this logical sequence that starts with an axiomatic concept:

1. existence exists
2. reality is that which exists
3. minds are real
4. things not minds are real
5. reality cannot be only in minds

 

[octelcogopod]

If this is some funny wordplay on the fact that he said "only" please stop me now. If that's not the case I offer a serious explanation below.

It just doesn't work that way from my point of view.

The problem is you haven't defined "reality" as I see it.
If my proposition that we are inside a computer simulation is true, then your sequence is only true if we agree that the world the computer simulation is IN, is a part of reality.

But this depends on the conscious being inside the simulation, from his point of view there only exists reality.
However, if there were several realities, all contained in several computer simulations, and then one real world which is NOT inside a computer simulation, then COMPARED to the "real" real world, the computer simulation wouldn't be real, but ONLY to those who knew about the other worlds existence.

What this means is that in your sequence you need to define "reality."

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Even if you agree that everything that is real exists and vice versa that still doesn't mean that we/our minds/etc. are real and exist. You could easily experience things that are non-real. Even your mind can be non-real or non-existant.

The only proof for our minds existing you've given is based off the OPs question, which you yourself disproved.

Now, -OUR- reality could be in a computer, and that would be "real" to us. But in a genuine sense of what is -actually- real our world in the computer would not be real.

Edit: Also you have to ask is it possible for something to have a "mind" or a "conciousness" in a simulation? And does that count as "existing" despite the fact that you could possibily just be 1s and 0s (and is that any different to how our bodies and brains and minds work anyway?)

 

[Royce]

The problem is you haven't defined "reality" as I see it.

What this means is that in your sequence you need to define "reality."

I thought that I had defined reality when I said that reality is all that exist. However if you want a formal definition:

From Merriam Webster on line.

Reality
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs
(2) : the totality of real things and events

b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent
but exists necessarily

real:
2 a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory
b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality
(2) : of or relating to practical or everyday
concerns or activities
(3) : existing as a physical entity …

Reality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reality in everyday usage means "everything that exists". The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature).
In the strict sense of Western philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom.

Even if we were inside a Matrix or computer simulation, we would be experiencing what we think is reality.

We would have to exist to experience anything as would the Matrix or computer. These things that do exist then are the "real" reality and would by necessity exist outside of our minds. Again proving that the statement; "Reality is only in our minds." to be false.

The point is that no matter how you contrive delusion, illusion, simulation or "your reality" it is logically impossible for reality to be only in our minds.

That some of reality is in our minds is of course a true statement and I would say an obviously true statement.

Objective reality is real and exists totally independent of us or our knowing. A rose is a rose is a rose whether anyone is there to experience it or not.

To go even further; there must be at least one mind and/or consciousness for reality to be observed and experienced. That mind is itself a part of reality and therefore reality, and/or by extension the universe, must be conscious and experiencing itself. This of course is a whole nother bag of worms outside of the topic of this thread (I couldn't resist throwing this into the mix just to give us something else to think about in our spare time).

Thanks, Rade, for you support and conditional agreement.

 

[Royce]

Even if you agree that everything that is real exists and vice versa that still doesn't mean that we/our minds/etc. are real and exist. You could easily experience things that are non-real. Even your mind can be non-real or non-existent.

If we are not real and thus, do not exist, we can't experience anything nor observe nor sense anything.
The fact that we all do experience and observe proves that we exist and are, therefore, real

The only proof for our minds existing you've given is based off the OPs question, which you yourself disproved.

Huh?

Now, -OUR- reality could be in a computer, and that would be "real" to us. But in a genuine sense of what is -actually- real our world in the computer would not be real.

That may be true, if I understand what your saying. However, we would be real if we were truly doing the experiencing as would be the computer.

Edit: Also you have to ask is it possible for something to have a "mind" or a "consciousness" in a simulation? And does that count as "existing" despite the fact that you could possibly just be 1s and 0s (and is that any different to how our bodies and brains and minds work anyway?)

Science Fiction is full of stories of computers becoming sentient, conscious, developing personalities, will and purpose of their own. Prior to that occurrence they were real computers. Afterward they are sentient entities of and by themselves unless someone pulls the plug.
I don't think that 1's and 0's are intelligent nor conscious. It is, at least at present, impossible to simulate true consciousness.

Our bodies and brains are not digital nor do they work the same way that computer do. Our minds, our consciousness and our ability to experience and know is something else entirely different and as yet no one has come up with even a vaguely possible explanation. ( I, of course, have; but, nobody listens to me nor takes me seriously )

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

If we are not real and thus, do not exist, we can't experience anything nor observe nor sense anything.
The fact that we all do experience and observe proves that we exist and are, therefore, real

Phantom limb is an experience where people feel and think they still have a leg (after it's been amputated or something).

Schizophrenics can smell things that aren't actually there.

There are deseases that affect the brain that blind you, yet the individual who is blinded still genuinely believes they can see.

That may be true, if I understand what your saying. However, we would be real if we were truly doing the experiencing as would be the computer.

I think we definitely have a difference in opinion of what "real" is. You think something is real because it experiences, it thinks, it has conciousness. So something, even a virtual AI which genuinly has conscience and intelligence and sense of self etc. is real. I however do not deem that to be the case.

I don't think that 1's and 0's are intelligent nor conscious. It is, at least at present, impossible to simulate true consciousness.

Not 1s and 0s by themselfs, but working together as a full I wouldn't be supprised if consiousness can be produced this way. I even think that one day in the future everything that happens ever about a person and their actions/thoughts etc. will be predictable by simple electrical signals in the brain, even emotion/consiousness/thought.

Our bodies and brains are not digital nor do they work the same way that computer do.

As I said above about what I believe our brains may very well be "digital" (in the sense that they relate to how a computer works).

I, of course, have; but, nobody listens to me nor takes me seriously

Tell us! :) I'll listen, take you seriously depends on how well your views are suited to my own =p.

 

[theName()]

Is reality created in the mind or is there an objective reality outside of the mind? It almost seems like an absurd question and most people would say the latter but some philosophers are skeptical.

If you have a candy bar in front of you, you assume that it exist because you can see it. The light from the candy bar reaches the eyes and the electromagnetic signals are sent to the brain where an IMAGE of the candy bar is created. So as far as we know the candy bar only exists in the mind. If you reach out and touch the candy bar the nerves in your fingers send information to the brain and the feeling of the candy bar is created in the brain. Once again the candy bar appears to be only created in the mind. You can taste the candy bar but once again the taste buds on the tongue sends signals to the brain where the taste of the candy bar in interpreted. You can drop the candy bar on the table and it makes a sound which is vibrating air molecules that vibrate the eardrum and the signals that go to the brain are interpreted there. Once again the sound of the candy bar is created in the mind. When you smell the candy bar the same thing happens. The smell is created in the mind. All the information we gather about the “outside” world comes through the senses and gets processed in the brain. There is no way to step outside of you and see if there is really a world “out there”. We have to trust our sense and they do not always provide us with valid information. There are hallucinations, mirages, optical illusions and bias beliefs of the person’s thoughts that can created false truths and even delusions We dream every night and while dreaming we believe these dreams to be reality only to find that when we wake up they were fantasies created by the subconscious. How do we know that our waking state is some sort of dream? We can ask other people about their reality but they too are interpreting the world through the senses and the mind, which cannot be trusted. To take skepticism to an extreme, you cannot even be sure that other people exist.

I have thought about philosophical skepticism to some extent and my theory is that there is PROBABLY a world independent of the mind. We are pretty sure that the universe is billions of years old and it has existed for billions of years before there were any observers in it so I have come to the conclusion that there probably is an outside world but no matter how hard we try, we can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the case.

There is also the issue of the limitation of the senses. White light is a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum so what we see is not all that is out there. Rattlesnakes see in infrared and butterflies and bees see in the ultraviolet. What would the world look like if our eyes could see this part of the spectrum? What if we had x-ray vision? Elephants hear in ultra-low frequencies. Dogs can hear high frequencies. What does the world really sound like? Hound dogs have a very acute sense of smell. What does the world really smell like? Fish have lateral lines in their bodies where they can feel the outer world. What does the world really feel like? We really don’t know all that is out there due to the limitations of our senses and the abilities (or lack of) of the mind. Will we ever know the truth of reality?
RAD

Well, humen beings make perdictions and uses tools. i think i one can imagine a person as a black box, where stimulous come to us in the form of sensation. suppose at time 1, sensation 1 reach us. If we can uses tools like equations to perdict the physical state of a systen at time 1, 2, 3 ...etc than perhaps, physical world existent independent of the mind` s illusion.

 

[paigetheoracle]

Looked at from the psychological and political perspective solipsism has a role. A meglomaniac not only believes only he exists(has rights), his actions aim to ensure nobody else does: Hitler and the concentration camps plus anybody who makes war upon anybody else.

Peace is saying every other thing in existence has the right to exist and we allow them to (Paranoia is in my opnion and the way I define it, the belief that you personally don't believe you exist or have the right to exist in the outside world: Self imprisonment of the consciousness, of that being).

Bishop Berkeley questioned whether the universe existed without his presence to witness it, which is solipstic and can be countered by the statement - only if he created it and with his mind. What can be said with certainty about this attitude is that our presence ensures the world is altered in our image by us being there and working on its physical existence, through ideas created in our minds and our absence allows other beings to alter it to their preferences (other humans or nature in the form of plants and animals).

Likewise events beyond our personal ability to manipulate them (wars, famines, natural disasters), indicate that the personal self is limited in its capacity to control external existence and that therefore this is good evidence to indicate solipsism, if true, is at the mercy of larger forces than personal ones: The world outside and the world inside, interact, to change our perception and its external appearance as well as our own.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Anyone who plays the solipsist card with me will find that two can play at that game.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Reality resides only in the mind, but existence is eternal and omnipresent even devoid of human consciousness. And I don't mean individualized existence, I mean existence in the scope of the entirety of the universe(s). There will always and only be existence because nothing cannot, and does not exist. Even if everything were to vanish, it wouldn't be of substance because only nothing would ever know it and nothing doesn't exist.

 

[coolazice]

Pragmatism & Buddhism

Let's consider the alternatives:

1. There exists a real, physical world independent of whatever my mind can conceive or experience.
2. There does not exist a real, physical world independent of what my mind experiences.

Let me postulate my position:

3. We cannot ever know whether 1 or 2 (or both) are true.

Now, when somebody comes up with the proof or convincing argument for one or the other, than I will happily withdraw number 3 in favour of whichever theory is more convincing. But, if we accept premise 3, then an additional question needs to be asked:

Which is it better to believe in?

If I believe in 2, that nothing really exists independentally of my mind, then I might start treating other beings in callous and cruel ways. On the other hand, I might gain from believing that nuclear bombs and genocide does not exist.

If I believe in 1, the opposite is true.

At the end of the day, if you don't have enough evidence, it's probably wise to choose the position that makes you a wiser, saner, healthier and better person.

Certain Buddhist schools, interestingly enough, teach something quite similar. The Buddhist position on reality is that of Pratītyasamutpāda (Dependant Arising) - that events and objects do not exist independantly, nor are they involved in direct causation (which, as Hume well knew, is not a logical assumption). This seems to imply model 2. However, the famous Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna taught that truth exists in conventional and ultimate forms, particularly in relation to the ideas of being, causation and identity. The Buddha said as much himself:

'This world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.'

The great thing that Buddhism introduced to philosophy was a sense of pragmatism - one can argue over and over over these issues, but ultimately it's what you do with the ideas that count (perhaps old Marx was right after all).

 

[thethinker1]

I haven't read everyone's answers, but how do we know that others around us exist? To me, the senses can be fooled into thinking that you experience something. Who has the power to do this? God, I think. If you believe that God exists and created the Universe, then he can certainly fool you into believing you are experiencing something. Why would he do that? I don't know that he would, but Humanity is even sure why it's here, either... Any thoughts...

 

[selfAdjoint]

I haven't read everyone's answers, but how do we know that others around us exist? To me, the senses can be fooled into thinking that you experience something. Who has the power to do this? God, I think. If you believe that God exists and created the Universe, then he can certainly fool you into believing you are experiencing something. Why would he do that? I don't know that he would, but Humanity is even sure why it's here, either... Any thoughts...

This philosophical position, sceptical solipsism, can not be firmly refuted by either reason or empiricism. To accept that an outside world exists beyond your own mind requires a leap of faith.

 

[moving finger]

This philosophical position, sceptical solipsism, can not be firmly refuted by either reason or empiricism. To accept that an outside world exists beyond your own mind requires a leap of faith.

concur 101%. Similarly, to deny that an outside world exists beyond your own mind requires a leap of faith.

When you get down to it, faith (of one kind or another) is our bedrock.

Best Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

concur 101%. Similarly, to deny that an outside world exists beyond your own mind requires a leap of faith.

When you get down to it, faith (of one kind or another) is our bedrock.

Best Regards

This kind of undercuts your attempt to brand certain ideas (like UR) as "incoherent". Suggestion: Everything we do and think is incoherent if you dig deep enough

 

[moving finger]

This kind of undercuts your attempt to brand certain ideas (like UR) as "incoherent". Suggestion: Everything we do and think is incoherent if you dig deep enough

Suggestion? I'm glad it's only a suggestion, because I certainly don't agree. For some of us, coherency and consistency are fundamental parts of philosophy. I would agree that some philosophies are more coherent and/or more consistent than others, but not that all philosophies are incoherent.

To say that everything supervenes on premises is not the same as saying that everything is incoherent - these are two quite different things. Whatever our premises, we must have faith in our premises (otherwise they wouldn't be premises, would they?). But faith is not necessarily incoherent.

Coherency arises when premises and theory hang together, when they form an intelligible, consistent, logical and rational "whole" which can be understood and explained. When premises and theory do not hang together (as in the case of any attempt to explain UR naturalistically), then we end up with incoherency. No amount of faith turns an incoherent model of reality into a coherent one.

An interesting case to examine is the explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment. Which of the many alternative ontological interpretations of QM (ie combination of premises and explanatory theory) forms a coherent and consistent whole when compared with the results of this experiment? (Bearing in mind that the Copenhagen Interpretation, or SUAC, is not in fact an ontological interpretation, it is simply a mathematical tool).

Another interesting case is number theory. I have yet to find anyone who can coherently explain to me how the cardinality of the set of integers can be infinite (ie there is an infinite number of integers) whilst at the same time there is no such thing as an infinite integer. Total nonsense (but this is at the root of conventional maths).

Best Regards

 

[Royce]

This philosophical position, sceptical solipsism, can not be firmly refuted by either reason or empiricism. To accept that an outside world exists beyond your own mind requires a leap of faith.

I have addressed this issue a number of times in different threads.

The fact that my mind experiences, thinks, is logical proof that my mind, I, exist.

My mind, I, must exist somewhere in some real state or in reality; therefore, there must exist something not in or of my mind but outside of my mind in which my mind exists.

The fact that I can come to know information and/or knowledge that I can personally verify that does not originate within me or my mind proves that there is something that exists outside of my mind independent of me as it existed prior to my knowledge of it.
An example that I gave in another thread:
I have a friend who comes from a town that I never heard of before. He gives me detailed directions to this town and then to his former home there where his mother still lives. I follow his directions and come to this town that has existed for years without my knowledge, awareness or experience. I find his home and meet his mother. She asks me inside to talk about my friend. I see a recent picture of him on a table along with other pictures of him when he was much younger. She tells me things about my friend that I never knew that he later verifies.

This proves that my friend exists and has existed long before I ever knew him as he gave me verifiable information that I never before knew. Information that came from outside of myself. It also verifies that the town and his mother exists completely independent of my mind or my experience.

Could this be an induced illusion by some Cartesian Demon, God or Matrix?
Yes, but that still entails something or someone existing outside of my mind thus ruling out Sceptical Solipsism.

 

[moving finger]

The fact that my mind experiences, thinks, is logical proof that my mind, I, exist.

Does your mind actually experience things - or do you just think that you are in possession of a mind that is experiencing things? How could you tell?

This proves that my friend exists and has existed long before I ever knew him as he gave me verifiable information that I never before knew.

It proves nothing of the sort. The entire thing could be an illusion created for "your" benefit.

Could this be an induced illusion by some Cartesian Demon, God or Matrix?
Yes, but that still entails something or someone existing outside of my mind thus ruling out Sceptical Solipsism.

Not if you are the demon, creating illusions for yourself, with nothing else in existence but you and your illusions. There is simply no way that you can rule such a thing out with certainty.

Best Regards