Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Detached9 · 07-10-2003, 06:21 AM

You know it's the end of the world when someone refers to The Matrix in this discussion.

One point here that others haven't mentioned: the senses are neither trustworthy or untrustworthy. Perception is what is trustworthy or untrustworthy.

Oh yeah, and another point: how do you (the subjectivists and solipsists, namely) know perception exists? Any answer to that will defeat your argument(s) for various reasons. For instance, if you say "When two people look at the same object, they interpret it differently. That's perception" you have admitted three things: the existence of other minds, the existence of an object, and the existence of someone with poor critical thinking skills.

ComestibleVenom · 07-10-2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Detached9
One point here that others haven't mentioned: the senses are neither trustworthy or untrustworthy. Perception is what is trustworthy or untrustworthy.

Oh yeah, and another point: how do you (the subjectivists and solipsists, namely) know perception exists?

Excellent points. I believe that anti-realism and empiricism are two peas in a pod.

The centrality of the self, the infallibility of the cartesian theater underscore both positions. But if the outside world can be an illusion, might not that illusion apply to our retinas? What about our entire brain except one neuron? How would that neuron be special?

John Page · 07-10-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
The centrality of the self, the infallibility of the cartesian theater underscore both positions. But if the outside world can be an illusion, might not that illusion apply to our retinas? What about our entire brain except one neuron? How would that neuron be special?

Yes, an idealist is saying "illusion is reality".

But all neurons are special.

Cheers, john

jpbrooks · 07-10-2003, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
Excellent points. I believe that anti-realism and empiricism are two peas in a pod.

The centrality of the self, the infallibility of the cartesian theater underscore both positions. But if the outside world can be an illusion, might not that illusion apply to our retinas? What about our entire brain except one neuron? How would that neuron be special?

This is a very interesting point! But in the case of anti-realism, there seems to be the additional problem of determining in whose mind the neurons would exist if they are not deemed "illusory", since for anti-realism, whatever is not (itself) a mind is "mind dependent". And I'm not certain how that issue would pose a problem for empiricism. But, of course, I could be wrong.

(More later.)

JERDOG · 07-10-2003, 04:26 PM

WELL SAID DETACHED9 !

phil · 08-01-2003, 06:40 PM

The true problem here is not whether reality exists or not. It comes down to this:

There are two opposing systems when it comes to thinking; BELIEF and SKEPTICISM.

People of both sides are proud of their stance, however, both have fatal flaws.

Those who take the BELIEF side believe anything and everything. They never discover anything new, are gullible, and therefore end up believing both lies and truth (they cannot distinguish between the 2).

Those who take the SKEPTICAL side question everything and believe nothing. They discover new things, however, they can never believe anything no matter how much evidence there is because they always question everything.

Most of us combine these two systems together. Ideally, one should have a perfect balance between belief and skepticism. Skepticism weeds out lies and belief brings sanity to the mind.

There is a great amount of evidence to support that reality exists. You must come to a point where you can realize it is absurd to further question a topic. You must balance belief with skepticism and skepticism with belief.

I could write much more, but I want to try to keep things as succinct as possible. BTW, Raezzor & Koyaanisqatsi, you guys have some interesting agruments.

-phil

paul30 · 08-02-2003, 07:13 AM

The current issue of Scientific American has an article that says our perception of 3 (or 4) dimensions may be entirely illusory.

I think there is something to this.

I am with you, Yggdrasil. I think the belief in "reality" is subject to extreme and permanent doubt. There are some arguments against this doubt, but they are not completely convincing.

PJPSYCO · 08-02-2003, 10:28 PM

I would put it simply. If reality is an illusion it doesn't make it anyless reality. Deal with it. You can make up things outside of reality all day. It won't make reality go away. I am going to dodge the table, walk through the doorways - as opposed to walls, and trying to prolong this reality. I have no dream world to wake up to. Be a pity to pick wrong and give up on this reality in hopes for one more fleeting.

John Page · 08-03-2003, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PJPSYCO
If reality is an illusion it doesn't make it anyless reality.

Smack on - if soemthing called an illusion exists then it is part of reality.

Cheers, John

ComestibleVenom · 08-03-2003, 02:09 PM

Scientific investigation shows that our thoughts, hallucinations, vericimilious models and delusions have an observable place in the observable world.

Irrespective of the ultimate status our world-models have, the notion that reality could be non-existant could only apply if humanity is nothingness that has forgotten it doesn't exist.

In that case scientific investigation is the best way to remind ourselves whereupon we will wink out of an existence that didn't exist - merely mistakenly mused that it existed.

08-03-2003, 02:09 PM	#40
ComestibleVenom Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 2,320	Dreams are a PART of reality. Scientific investigation shows that our thoughts, hallucinations, vericimilious models and delusions have an observable place in the observable world. Irrespective of the ultimate status our world-models have, the notion that reality could be non-existant could only apply if humanity is nothingness that has forgotten it doesn't exist. In that case scientific investigation is the best way to remind ourselves whereupon we will wink out of an existence that didn't exist - merely mistakenly mused that it existed.

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

07-10-2003, 06:21 AM	#31
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	You know it's the end of the world when someone refers to The Matrix in this discussion. One point here that others haven't mentioned: the senses are neither trustworthy or untrustworthy. Perception is what is trustworthy or untrustworthy. Oh yeah, and another point: how do you (the subjectivists and solipsists, namely) know perception exists? Any answer to that will defeat your argument(s) for various reasons. For instance, if you say "When two people look at the same object, they interpret it differently. That's perception" you have admitted three things: the existence of other minds, the existence of an object, and the existence of someone with poor critical thinking skills.

07-10-2003, 04:26 PM	#35
JERDOG Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lousyana with the best politicians money can buy. Posts: 944	WELL SAID DETACHED9 !

08-01-2003, 06:40 PM	#36
phil Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 170	The true problem here is not whether reality exists or not. It comes down to this: There are two opposing systems when it comes to thinking; BELIEF and SKEPTICISM. People of both sides are proud of their stance, however, both have fatal flaws. Those who take the BELIEF side believe anything and everything. They never discover anything new, are gullible, and therefore end up believing both lies and truth (they cannot distinguish between the 2). Those who take the SKEPTICAL side question everything and believe nothing. They discover new things, however, they can never believe anything no matter how much evidence there is because they always question everything. Most of us combine these two systems together. Ideally, one should have a perfect balance between belief and skepticism. Skepticism weeds out lies and belief brings sanity to the mind. There is a great amount of evidence to support that reality exists. You must come to a point where you can realize it is absurd to further question a topic. You must balance belief with skepticism and skepticism with belief. I could write much more, but I want to try to keep things as succinct as possible. BTW, Raezzor & Koyaanisqatsi, you guys have some interesting agruments. -phil

08-02-2003, 07:13 AM	#37
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	The current issue of Scientific American has an article that says our perception of 3 (or 4) dimensions may be entirely illusory. I think there is something to this. I am with you, Yggdrasil. I think the belief in "reality" is subject to extreme and permanent doubt. There are some arguments against this doubt, but they are not completely convincing.

08-02-2003, 10:28 PM	#38
PJPSYCO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rolla, Missouri Posts: 830	I would put it simply. If reality is an illusion it doesn't make it anyless reality. Deal with it. You can make up things outside of reality all day. It won't make reality go away. I am going to dodge the table, walk through the doorways - as opposed to walls, and trying to prolong this reality. I have no dream world to wake up to. Be a pity to pick wrong and give up on this reality in hopes for one more fleeting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.