|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2010 : 20:42:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, the "other option" is solipsism, which is the null hypothesis. We have rejected it based on observation and logic, not merely by making assumptions that are more utilitarian. |
But weren't the assumptions themselves the ones that allowed observation and logic to have validity?
| We have to assume that the scientific method works, and that induction is valid. Those assumptions are independent of whether or not there is an external reality. An internally consistent fever dream could include reams of "data" on "evolution" even though neither may be real. |
Why must we assume this? How can we even expect consistency with the assumptions about reality we made up?
I think we all agree that the distinction is not particularly important in a practical sense, not that that was really anyone's intention. The refutation of external reality does not seem to do anything in how we proceed forward. We can call it a figment of our unconscious imagination or "real" external reality, either way we're in the same situation. We cannot know unequivocally if empiricism is valid in either case, we cannot know if there are independent agents, etc. I agree with Dave in that it becomes a matter of our inability to know if there is a meta-reality, or a meta-meta-reality, or what have you, by using the tools we have that can exclusively be used within the reality (or unconsciously imaginary system) we perceive. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/19/2010 20:59:49 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 21:47:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
But weren't the assumptions themselves the ones that allowed observation and logic to have validity? |
No. Our senses detect something, but whether that something is an external reality or not is the question being tested, not an assumption. Our observations are merely of what our "senses" report to our "minds" (the quotes indicating that we're not assuming that we even have brains or nerves).
And logic is definitional. We need not have any senses at all to be able to construct logic. Whether or not the simple logic we tend to use here is valid or not is entirely independent of the existence (or non-existence) of any sort of external reality. Logic is a pure abstraction.| We have to assume that the scientific method works, and that induction is valid. Those assumptions are independent of whether or not there is an external reality. An internally consistent fever dream could include reams of "data" on "evolution" even though neither may be real. |
Why must we assume this? How can we even expect consistency with the assumptions about reality we made up? |
We have to assume it because induction cannot prove itself, and empirical science is based on induction.| I think we all agree that the distinction is not particularly important in a practical sense, not that that was really anyone's intention. The refutation of external reality does not seem to do anything in how we proceed forward. We can call it a figment of our unconscious imagination or "real" external reality, either way we're in the same situation. We cannot know unequivocally if empiricism is valid in either case, we cannot know if there are independent agents, etc. I agree with Dave in that it becomes a matter of our inability to know if there is a meta-reality, or a meta-meta-reality, or what have you, by using the tools we have that can exclusively be used within the reality (or unconsciously imaginary system) we perceive. |
Right. Dude asked for a purely deductive proof of an objective reality. That's out of the question, just like all purely deductive proofs of scientific theories are impossible. Then Dude asked for positive empirical evidence of an objective reality, which is like asking for evidence that a 500x microscope is truly a 500x microscope using no tools other than the 500x microscope being tested. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 07:36:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And logic is definitional. We need not have any senses at all to be able to construct logic. |
We would need a mind, though. Can you be sure that you have one (with or without quotes)? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 07:44:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
We would need a mind, though. Can you be sure that you have one (with or without quotes)? |
As a mind, I would have to say that that's the only thing I'm truly sure of. How could it be otherwise? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 08:01:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Hawks
We would need a mind, though. Can you be sure that you have one (with or without quotes)? |
As a mind, I would have to say that that's the only thing I'm truly sure of. How could it be otherwise?
|
How do you know that your experience of reading my post is not simply a random thought floating through somewhere? How do you know that when think back on past experiences that this was not created by a random thought drifting about? How do you know that the chronological coherence of your experiences are not simply created by a single random thought?
Ah, philosophy...
(Please substitute thought for something else if you think that we necessarily need minds to experience anything) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 09:12:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
How do you know that your experience of reading my post is not simply a random thought floating through somewhere? How do you know that when think back on past experiences that this was not created by a random thought drifting about? How do you know that the chronological coherence of your experiences are not simply created by a single random thought? |
Those questions are irrelevant. It doesn't matter how experiences happen or whether thoughts are random, singly or otherwise. I experience consciousness regardless of that experience's construction, coherency or medium. This is why solipsism is the default position. I know that "I" exist through the mere experience of being conscious, but can't prove that anyone or anything else exists or is aware. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 18:01:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Though Ive never met anyone who actually believes this, It takes self-centered to a whole new literal and figurative extreme, to those who would argue it, "What am I, chopped liver?"
|
I met that someone in high school. Odd fellow. And odder still that he refused to sign or write anything in anybody's yearbooks for fear of it coming back at him negatively in the future.
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What would it take...
