Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 10-11-2002, 08:38 PM

Wouldn't an obvious test for objective reality be a requirement that two or more people compare the results of their sensory experience? Is it common for all philosophical concepts to be based around a single individual? Or doesn't philosophy allow for the reality of shared experience?

Starboy

Skepticos · 10-11-2002, 09:07 PM

Starboy,

Wouldn't such a scenario actually reveal nothing about objective reality? That is, wouldn't I simply have to *assume* the objective reality of the other person and their testimony? And wouldn't this be an instance of reasoning in a circle?

In other words, how would I verify the objective reality of the other person, and their testimony? How could I determine that the existence of such an "other" is not simply just another manifestation of my consciousness? Does the comparison of testimony allow me to escape from this egocentric predicament? I am prone to think not.

If the scenario were to work, I would have to simply assume that the other person in question exists as an element of objective reality, and then use *this* objective reality in order to verify objective reality. And that would be reasoning in a circle.

- Skepticos

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]

Starboy · 10-12-2002, 07:31 AM

Skepticos

The demand for a perfect test of reality is IMO ridiculous. It doesn't matter whether everything you see is a product of some imagination or not. You are still faced with the same dilemma, what is it and how does it work? There may be no test to determine if you live in matrix land, but wherever you exist, if subjectivity is possible then a better test would be to use more than one individual, and certainly if you do indeed live in matrix land and if it is possible to detect, then the more you know about its objective reality the more likely you will figure it out. The only resolution to this dilemma is to make some assumptions and march on. If they work it doesn�t mean you have resolved the problem but at least you know more then you did before. Philosophical armchair explorations of reality are no replacement for actual exploration.

Starboy

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

galiel · 10-12-2002, 12:46 PM

It's all just mental masturbation.

(Hey, I'm starting to get the hang of Mad Mardiganism)

Skepticos · 10-13-2002, 06:09 AM

Starboy,

Well, I agree with your statement. I have recently been studying Hume's writings on this topic, and I essentially agree with him: there is simply no way of verifying if the senses reveal an external world. While studying this topic, I vaguely remembered that Objectivism took a different view, so that is why I posed the question for this thread.

And I'm also amused that you brought up The Matrix. For if Hume is right, then it doesn't really matter whether you take the blue pill or the red pill. <grin>

- Skepticos

John Page · 10-13-2002, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Ayn Rand said that sensations (percepts) tell us that something is, but they don't tell us what something is.

For that, we must use reason.

Keith.

.....with reason being the processing of subjectively experienced sense data....

Cheers, John

luvluv · 10-13-2002, 10:29 AM

What would this say then about the notion of religious experience as a basis for religious belief?

If a person believes that their experience is valid, and that they have in some way or combination of ways "perceived" God, why should they doubt that perception?

10-13-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Keith: Its axiomatic because you cannot reject the evidence provided by the senses, without first referring to the senses and the data they provide.

Asserting that our sensory modalities provide us with misleading information presupposes that they exist (by definition) but we do not need to presume their veracity.

Quote:

Keith: Contextual? In what way is sense data not absolute?

In every way. Sensory interpretation is theory-laden. The content of our senses, therefore, is open to revision in light of high-level theory modification. What we percieve at time A with Knowledge a to be a homogenous sensation (eg, a guitar tone) with training will appear at time B with knowledge b to be a compound of several.

In other words, what we experience is not a determinate matter but one that is constantly shifting as the whole of our epistemic network undergoes revision.

Quote:

Keith: I disagree. Even if we were brains in jars, receiving piped-in sensations, we are receiving sensory perceptions externally, and so the senses do reveal that an outside world exists. The sense data would not necessarily correspond accurately to this external world, but I believe that they do guarantee its existence. (Remember, our brains exist in that world whether in our heads, or in jars in shelves.

Yes I agree that even if we are being decieved, there is clearly SOME sort of information being processed. This is not the same, however, as contending that sensation is "absolute" because like any theory, there are numerous ways in which it can fool us.

Quote:

Keith: The senses don't disprove one another, they help to validate one another. If you 'see' a mirage, and yet you feel no water, and taste only dirt, you did see a refraction in the atmosphere that looked like water. The problem isn't your sense of sight, but how your consciousness interpreted what you actually did see. You really did see something, and you incorrectly interpreted it as water.

Our interpretation of the world simply cannot be understood with only reference to sense-data. Since sense-data is theoretically constructed, it's validity and contribution to knowledge can only be concieved by considering it's broader theoretical framework.

Quote:

I agree with 1. 2 has the problem of assuming that the senses make mistakes, and I'm not sure I agree. We'd have to define what consitutes 'mistakes', in a sensory sense.

A mistake is not perceptible by any sensory modality. The very same processes by which we make mistakes (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) are those that are behind our success. The difference is only possible to assess in the context of the global excellence of our theories.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

John Page · 10-13-2002, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
What would this say then about the notion of religious experience as a basis for religious belief?

If a person believes that their experience is valid, and that they have in some way or combination of ways "perceived" God, why should they doubt that perception?

Because it is a self fulfulling prophecy? e.g. I believe in x therefore x exists. If x is a mirage I believe in mirages. Therefore I believe in anything.

Show me the god and then we'll talk....

Cheers, John

Primal · 10-14-2002, 12:40 PM

How does it follow that since reason processes sense data that rationality is determined by sense data?

A graphics card on a computer may be made to process data fed into the computer, but does putting in data of a top-notch video game turn a G Force-1 graphics card into a G Force-4? Nope. Hence one cannot say that because reason processes sensations as a graphics card processes graphics; that reason is wholly determined by sensations just as a graphics card is not wholly determined by graphics.

10-11-2002, 09:07 PM	#12
Skepticos Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Richardson, Texas Posts: 77	Starboy, Wouldn't such a scenario actually reveal nothing about objective reality? That is, wouldn't I simply have to assume the objective reality of the other person and their testimony? And wouldn't this be an instance of reasoning in a circle? In other words, how would I verify the objective reality of the other person, and their testimony? How could I determine that the existence of such an "other" is not simply just another manifestation of my consciousness? Does the comparison of testimony allow me to escape from this egocentric predicament? I am prone to think not. If the scenario were to work, I would have to simply assume that the other person in question exists as an element of objective reality, and then use this objective reality in order to verify objective reality. And that would be reasoning in a circle. - Skepticos [ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]</p>

10-12-2002, 07:31 AM	#13
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Skepticos The demand for a perfect test of reality is IMO ridiculous. It doesn't matter whether everything you see is a product of some imagination or not. You are still faced with the same dilemma, what is it and how does it work? There may be no test to determine if you live in matrix land, but wherever you exist, if subjectivity is possible then a better test would be to use more than one individual, and certainly if you do indeed live in matrix land and if it is possible to detect, then the more you know about its objective reality the more likely you will figure it out. The only resolution to this dilemma is to make some assumptions and march on. If they work it doesn�t mean you have resolved the problem but at least you know more then you did before. Philosophical armchair explorations of reality are no replacement for actual exploration. Starboy [ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2002, 08:38 PM	#11
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Wouldn't an obvious test for objective reality be a requirement that two or more people compare the results of their sensory experience? Is it common for all philosophical concepts to be based around a single individual? Or doesn't philosophy allow for the reality of shared experience? Starboy

10-12-2002, 12:46 PM	#14
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	It's all just mental masturbation. (Hey, I'm starting to get the hang of Mad Mardiganism)

10-13-2002, 06:09 AM	#15
Skepticos Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Richardson, Texas Posts: 77	Starboy, Well, I agree with your statement. I have recently been studying Hume's writings on this topic, and I essentially agree with him: there is simply no way of verifying if the senses reveal an external world. While studying this topic, I vaguely remembered that Objectivism took a different view, so that is why I posed the question for this thread. And I'm also amused that you brought up The Matrix. For if Hume is right, then it doesn't really matter whether you take the blue pill or the red pill. <grin> - Skepticos

10-13-2002, 10:29 AM	#17
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	What would this say then about the notion of religious experience as a basis for religious belief? If a person believes that their experience is valid, and that they have in some way or combination of ways "perceived" God, why should they doubt that perception?

10-14-2002, 12:40 PM	#20
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	How does it follow that since reason processes sense data that rationality is determined by sense data? A graphics card on a computer may be made to process data fed into the computer, but does putting in data of a top-notch video game turn a G Force-1 graphics card into a G Force-4? Nope. Hence one cannot say that because reason processes sensations as a graphics card processes graphics; that reason is wholly determined by sensations just as a graphics card is not wholly determined by graphics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.