Keith Russell

Naked:

You make an excellent point.

In here (on-line Internet forum, all we have at our disposal are words, which by themselves can yield no sort of proof. (Words are only ever able to form claims, which must them be proved--but words do not and cannot provide proof.)

In a coffeehouse, though, you have real objects (apart from claims) at your disposal. You have spoons, forks--and knives. You have hot liquids, slick floors, nourishment, and people face to face.

Anyone can easily reject claims made via words.

It's a bit harder to try to reject the fact that a fork to the back of the hand is imaginary, or that a hot espresso is no different from an iced mocha, when a finger is dipped in either.

Keith.

Skepticos

I define reality as the totality of perceptions. Whether or not these perceptions are caused by, and resemble, a universe external to them is a question that cannot be answered by reason. Of course, this does not make me a solipsist!

Cheers!

- Skepticos

Keith Russell

Skepticos:

Do you believe (or even suspect) that 'the totality of your perceptions' originates from within your own consciousness?

Keith.

Skepticos

Keith writes:

"Do you believe (or even suspect) that 'the totality of your perceptions' originates from within your own consciousness?"

No. I believe that my perceptions are caused by, and resemble, an external universe; for no other reason than I cannot help but believe it to be so. This belief in the externality and independence of the objects of perception is the product of some inexorable "instinct" of the mind, and is not the product of reason.

True, I can doubt whether or not there is such a correspondence between perceptions and the objects of perception, but once I turn my attention back to the issues of common life, my belief in the externality and independence of the objects of perception invariably returns.

But, I recognize that the totality of perceptions may be nothing more than the production of some (unknown to me) faculty of the mind. So, the question of whether or not my perceptions are caused by, and resemble, an external universe cannot be answered by reason.

- Skepticos

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]</p>

Tom Sawyer

I've always seen the philosophy that reality is no more than our perceptions to be an extremely arrogant one. The idea that any aspect of the universe is dependent upon us for its existence just seems nonsensical.

We are animals that have developed within a universe that already exists. Any perceptive abilities that we have have evolved in a way that allows us to interact with the universe. The external reality of what is has absolutely nothing to do with us. A case can be made that our perceptions of reality are all different, but reality itself stays the same regardless of what we know or think about it.

AtlanticCitySlave

It seems to me they (and you) are overlooking a glaring contradiction, or inconsistency, in their viewpoint. If they are arguing that reality is simply a "perception" (perceptions are obviously a part of reality), then you, being a part of their perception, are simply just that, a "perception" to them, and hence hey cannot know if "you" really have any thoughts, if you really exist, and what not, yet it's obvious they carry on discussions with you, assume you exist and have a mind, and being your friends, they probably play games, watch movies, and everything else with you, thus seeming to contradict their own position that reality is simply a perception. Why act like there is an objective reality, an objective "you" whom they label "friend", if in fact, to them, there is not reality, or one that can be known, but it's only a perception?


Their position is also self-defeating (as Schick points out in "How to Think About Weird Things"). They are claiming, it seems, that you cannot really know anything, hence their question "how do you know what you know?", but this is self-defeating, since claiming one cannot know anything with certainty is a knowledge claim of certainty, i.e. they contradict themselves.


You could also ask them, since they are claiming reality is only perception, "how do you know that reality is only a perception?" The entire history of humankind, science, and pretty much everything we, as humans, have gone through, it testament to the fact that there is an objective reality out there. We don't need to be able to prove this with complete certainty. While philosophers of one brand or another would like to do that, it is not necessary to sit and show why every POSSIBLE deceptive state of affairs doesn't exist or to prove with certainty that there is an objective reality outside our perceptions. You can tell them we are concerned with what is PROBABLE, not POSSIBLE, and simply because it's possible our reality is nothing but a perception (assuming it is coherent, which you could argue it's not), it doesn't mean you should drop everything and start walking around like a solipsist.


Many, if not the majority, of modern epistemological philosophers today hold that one does not need absolute certainty to make a knowledge claim. After all, how can your friends know with absolutely certainty that knowledge requires absolute certainty (as I already pointed out)?

The underlying problem your friends are pointing out seems to be what Nagel devotes his entire book, The View From Nowhere on, namely, how to combine the objective reality and our own subjective reality into a modified worldview taking both the objective and subjective into consideration. This is a major problem, if not the main problem, in all of philosophy, and it's not one your friends can expect any great philosopher in the world to answer with certainty, let alone you (assuming you're not a great philosopher of course; you could be Kripke for all I know). There is nothing at all irrational about holding there is an objective reality or that you exist.

(Edited to add: You may want to go purchase "The Matrix and Philosophy", which is edited by William Irwin. Since you brought up the matrix I thought you could find some useful information there. At least around me, Barnes and Noble has started carrying it, so you may find it there, assuming Barnes and Noble really exists that is. )

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

Skepticos

It seems that some people believe that I am making the claim that reality is *only* the totality of perceptions - that an external world, independent of perception, does not exist. This is not my claim; and hopefully I can remove some confusion engendered by my previous posts.

My point is this: reason (and it is definitely important to define what I mean by reason - something I have done in other posts) cannot answer the question of whether or not our perceptions are caused by, and resemble, an external universe. Thus, if I am to define reality, keeping this understanding in mind, then reality is the totality of perceptions (of course, I recognize that our thoughts are a part of reality, so that a more precise definition of reality will be the totality of our thoughts and perceptions).

But I believe, like all of us do, that there exists a universe independent of perception. Read my earlier post. I believe this because the mind is predisposed to form such a belief, and no amount of argumentation can drive it from the realm of our beliefs.

BTW, I already own the book about The Matrix. But thanks for the suggestion. =)

- Skepticos

Starboy

Skepticos,

I agree that reason can't prove objective reality. Is there anything wrong with assuming the existance of objective reality as a working hypothesis?

Starboy

Answerer

I guess it is true to some extent but this doesn't mean that it is true for all cases and situations. At least, the existence of various religions do give us some insights into humans' subjective view of reality. However, this again doesn't mean that all humans' views on reality are wrong and none are correct. After a few thousands of debate and thinking, there are sure to be a few humans' perceptions that described the nature of reality very accurately.

Skepticos

Starboy writes:

"I agree that reason can't prove objective reality. Is there anything wrong with assuming the existance of objective reality as a working hypothesis?"

It is always a pleasure to reach an agreement. But I am not sure that I understand your question. What do you mean by a "working hypothesis" in this context?

- Skepticos