REALITY

[Army of GOD]

ITT: BBS is an idiot. Just because it isn't useful doesn't mean it isn't true.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

That does not follow. Consider heat and entropy. The possibility of spontaneous transmission of energy from a cooler to warmer system exists, yet has never occurred because of the overwhelming amount of microstates of the opposite, or what we know as diffusion and heat transfer. The probabilities are too staggering. This is similar to our 9/11 conspiracist.

But that still doesn't mean it can't happen because it CAN happen. If there is a possibility of it occurring regardless of how small, it can still take place. And until it can be proven that 100% without a doubt it can't happen (and I don't think this is possible with anything and think it's naive to say it can), it creates the notion that reality is subjective in my mind.



Also, the fact that this subject is so god damn [f*ck I forgot the word] that I'm probably not communicating my argument how I want to and we're all probably misunderstanding each other's thoughts.

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted the conclusions of my analogy, but I believe it creates the notion that reality is possibly subjective to you, since in my post I compared the possibility of the conspiracy theorist (subjectivity) as one microstate among a vast sea of microstates (objectivity and fixity).

And so, knowing that you have two options, subjectivity vs. the overwhelming objectivity, why do you prefer the former?

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Wut?

You are too young. It has nothing to do with youtube and it's nothing sensationalist. In fact, to be obvious, is about perception. What you think reality is, it's mostly you than what you would call "reality". Your thought patterns and state of being have been imprinted into you since you were in your mommy's belly. The ideas that you consume everyday, from politics to the shape of an hex nut are all chosen for you, and you are just consuming them.

And, to turn the gun in your direction: the current wave of cynic atheists is simply the effect of the wave of authors that popularized the idea (at first subtly) on US television. Yes, cartoons made you guys atheists.

How is being spoon fed atheism/materialism and sticking to it without giving it real, authentic thought is different from being a religious fanatic?

You're confusing reality with world views.

The dictionary:
"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."

-TG

I'm not confusing anything. I'm giving a wide range of examples only to try and show a point.

But, to play ball with you, how would you know what that "state of things" actually is? Don't you trust your mind for that? First with your perception, then using mathematics and models?

Forget all your learned models and ideas, just for a minute. The "real" "reality" wouldn't be a matter of study of metaphysics?

You seem to think you have a trustful medium to access this "reality". But in fact you have not. The fact that the majority, of say, western scientific thinkers think that way doesn't make it a reality.

All we can get to experience for sure is ourselves. "Reality" we perceive with our senses and mind. We form models in our mind after we've heard or read about it.

You cannon claim that you know for sure "reality" exists without making a leaf of faith. That if in the end that might end up to be truth is another thing.

I already explained why that argument is silly. It's great when one is super high, but otherwise it's sophistry.

-TG

To expand, for nietzsche's sake: you are saying that I am arguing a black-and-white, binary existence. That is, things are or are not. You say that I cannot be sure of this because blah blah, our minds interpret sensory input. I am saying that the mere acknowledgement that minds rationalize that input is a proof that things either exist or they don't. One doesn't invent a tool for something that doesn't exist.

-TG

Unless you had hallucinated....

I've tripped plenty of times and never once built a supercomputer while under the influence. But, hey, that's just me.

-TG

[warmonger1981]

If I'm not mistaken Kissinger won a Nobel for ending the war in 73 but the war didnt end entil 75. What's the reality? Is reality written by winners and a select few?

[BigBallinStalin]

ITT: BBS is an idiot. Just because it isn't useful doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well, I already went over what constitutes as truth. Most people use reason, science, and facts to help update their various opinions on the likelihood of moral claim X being superior to moral claim Y. The radical subjectivist can only state his opinion but allow for (implicitly) equally true claims to other moral claims--e.g. genocide. That's the problem of radical subjectivism--not all moral claims are equally true in probability. Some claims are obviously better than others. E.g. "should a society continuously rape their parents and siblings, or should a society not accept that as the norm?" Even better: we don't have to even debate such ridiculousness because of evolutionary biologic arguments (societies which have done such despicable acts don't survive in the long-run---or become significantly inferior relative to other societies which refrain from such ridiculousness). The moral dilemma has been resolved without some people's philosophical concerns.


It's not just about usefulness. It's also about the relative truth of sensible moral and 'objective enough' claims--contingent about one's standard for evidence. And, we can select from a variety of standards for approximating truth. Some are better than others--e.g. "because I said so" is inferior to "because of good reasons x, y, and z." Let's put radical subjectivism to the test: How many in here believe that the Earth is flat? How many in here believe that Nazism is the best form of politics? We already know the arguments against those who'd agree, and we know well enough why they're incorrect. C'mon...

[BigBallinStalin]

Nietzsche's insistence on radical skepticism has annoyed me to the point where I must say something.

And you claim this is the truth. I say you cannot prove this, that you are making a leap of faith.

'Reality' as perceived is real enough. In order to meet nietzsche's standard of proof, we'd need absolute certainty--e.g. in order for the theory of gravity to be a true description of reality, it would need to be accurate to an infinite amount of decimal places (probability=1). Unfortunately, that standard also undermines nietzsche's claims about what is and what isn't reality since he would also fail to meet such a standard. Nietzsche is bound to cut himself with his double-edged sword.

The best that we can do is rely on subjective probabilities for claims on reality--e.g. when I twist that door knob, what is the probability that I'm actually touching a door knob and that it'll open the door? My estimated probability = "pretty fuckin' high." But, does "pretty fuckin' high" meet nietzsche's standard of p=1? No, of course not, but nothing does--not even my last claim, but does this mean I must ponder into the depths of my navel and constantly be confused about 'reality'? No, language traps can be avoided, and it still doesn't follow that we must 'throw the baby outta the bath water' by relying on alternative explanations based on the radical skepticism of human abilities to perceive reality. The alternative offered by nietz and seemingly supported by AoG are simply not warranted.

If you're concerned about the reliance upon subjective probabilities, then you can always compare them to objective probabilities. E.g. what do you think is the probability that you'll die in a car accident v. what is the probability of people dying in car accidents?. However, this is really an issue about people conforming to or failing to conform to Rational Expectations theory. If you're concerned about our ascertaining 'objective' probabilities, then keep reading:

Usefulness of Doubting Reality
Even if we concede to all of AoG's and Nietzsche's points, we can ask a practical question: is it useful to posit radical skepticism/subjectivism? No. It's a deadend, and even worse, its practitioners don't even sincerely follow what they espouse. When nietzsche is about to stand up from his chair, does nietzsche have dreadful moments of skepticism about the reality of the floor? No. He stands up, and everything is fine. "But he can't prove that the floor exists!!!" So what? p=0.99999999999999999999999999999 is good enough. And, if he really did have such problems, he should see a psychiatrist.

Is it useful to take our perception of reality as good enough? Sure, because through that route people invent medicines, provide desirable goods, better homes, greater incomes, better philosophy, and overall greater prosperity. It's not at all absurd to assume that one's perception of reality tends to be correct, and although at times people make perceptual mistakes, they can still update. "But there's some chance that the radical skeptics might be true!!" Sure, but again, who cares. I'll keep making practical decisions in the real enough world, and in return I'll keep making real enough profits.


The Usefulness of Radical Subjectivism
Finally, although relying on a subjectivist reality implies that nothing can be ascertained with certainty, that failure isn't a serious problem for some people, and for most people, that problem is ignored--e.g. "God does exist" v. "God does not exist." Note: p=1 in their claims. How can this problem resolved?

(1) Most people think what they want and continue with their lives as usual (because thinking is costly).

(2) Some people approximate the Truth by comparing varying degrees of evidence for different claims--dependent upon their criteria of truth (e.g. Scientific Method, various theories, prior assumptions like "what I observe is real enough").

For example, consider these claims: 2+2=4 is true v. Judeo-Christian God exists. Recall how some people use different criteria for determining the truth, or 'truth', of each, and notice how some groups flip their standard of evidence/Truth for each claim. This dilemma can be explained: some people don't care to update their analytical tools or to beat down their cognitive biases. It might be too costly for them.

Nevertheless, even within 'subjectivist' reality, some claims are truer than others, but that ascertaining of truth is dependent upon one's criteria for truth, so discrepancies in the claims of truth have causes which can be identified and examined. The Scientist/Philosopher is already on his way to rendering this world more sensible while the radical skepticist or radical subjectivist would still be stuck on stage 1: assume reality is real enough. "Never!" Ask a radical subjectivist if Nazism is morally good and watch how little usefulness is gleaned for their stance. Watch the unwillingness to compare the validity of various claims. In the real enough world, some people can hold wrong moral claims (where p = 0.99999999999), and we can know this by filtering claims through sensible criteria.


In short, it still doesn't follow that our entire sensory mechanism should be completely doubted, thus we should seriously question our perception constantly. Reality-doubters and radical subjectivists need not be taken seriously (and here I am, wasting time, taking them seriously).


[god damn, 1 hour spent on that. Back to BBS-prohibition mode].

BBS, YOU'VE BEEN TRAPPED!!!

Sure, but your insistence of your position is obviously mistaken; however, given your history, you do sincerely believe what you've been typing. So, which is more likely: your elaborate planning to pull me back into the fora, or you are simply stating what you believe--regardless of my reaction? I'll settle with the latter.

[nietzsche]

Nietzsche's insistence on radical skepticism has annoyed me to the point where I must say something.

And you claim this is the truth. I say you cannot prove this, that you are making a leap of faith.

'Reality' as perceived is real enough. In order to meet nietzsche's standard of proof, we'd need absolute certainty--e.g. in order for the theory of gravity to be a true description of reality, it would need to be accurate to an infinite amount of decimal places (probability=1). Unfortunately, that standard also undermines nietzsche's claims about what is and what isn't reality since he would also fail to meet such a standard. Nietzsche is bound to cut himself with his double-edged sword.

The best that we can do is rely on subjective probabilities for claims on reality--e.g. when I twist that door knob, what is the probability that I'm actually touching a door knob and that it'll open the door? My estimated probability = "pretty fuckin' high." But, does "pretty fuckin' high" meet nietzsche's standard of p=1? No, of course not, but nothing does--not even my last claim, but does this mean I must ponder into the depths of my navel and constantly be confused about 'reality'? No, language traps can be avoided, and it still doesn't follow that we must 'throw the baby outta the bath water' by relying on alternative explanations based on the radical skepticism of human abilities to perceive reality. The alternative offered by nietz and seemingly supported by AoG are simply not warranted.

If you're concerned about the reliance upon subjective probabilities, then you can always compare them to objective probabilities. E.g. what do you think is the probability that you'll die in a car accident v. what is the probability of people dying in car accidents?. However, this is really an issue about people conforming to or failing to conform to Rational Expectations theory. If you're concerned about our ascertaining 'objective' probabilities, then keep reading:

Usefulness of Doubting Reality
Even if we concede to all of AoG's and Nietzsche's points, we can ask a practical question: is it useful to posit radical skepticism/subjectivism? No. It's a deadend, and even worse, its practitioners don't even sincerely follow what they espouse. When nietzsche is about to stand up from his chair, does nietzsche have dreadful moments of skepticism about the reality of the floor? No. He stands up, and everything is fine. "But he can't prove that the floor exists!!!" So what? p=0.99999999999999999999999999999 is good enough. And, if he really did have such problems, he should see a psychiatrist.

Is it useful to take our perception of reality as good enough? Sure, because through that route people invent medicines, provide desirable goods, better homes, greater incomes, better philosophy, and overall greater prosperity. It's not at all absurd to assume that one's perception of reality tends to be correct, and although at times people make perceptual mistakes, they can still update. "But there's some chance that the radical skeptics might be true!!" Sure, but again, who cares. I'll keep making practical decisions in the real enough world, and in return I'll keep making real enough profits.


The Usefulness of Radical Subjectivism
Finally, although relying on a subjectivist reality implies that nothing can be ascertained with certainty, that failure isn't a serious problem for some people, and for most people, that problem is ignored--e.g. "God does exist" v. "God does not exist." Note: p=1 in their claims. How can this problem resolved?

(1) Most people think what they want and continue with their lives as usual (because thinking is costly).

(2) Some people approximate the Truth by comparing varying degrees of evidence for different claims--dependent upon their criteria of truth (e.g. Scientific Method, various theories, prior assumptions like "what I observe is real enough").

For example, consider these claims: 2+2=4 is true v. Judeo-Christian God exists. Recall how some people use different criteria for determining the truth, or 'truth', of each, and notice how some groups flip their standard of evidence/Truth for each claim. This dilemma can be explained: some people don't care to update their analytical tools or to beat down their cognitive biases. It might be too costly for them.

Nevertheless, even within 'subjectivist' reality, some claims are truer than others, but that ascertaining of truth is dependent upon one's criteria for truth, so discrepancies in the claims of truth have causes which can be identified and examined. The Scientist/Philosopher is already on his way to rendering this world more sensible while the radical skepticist or radical subjectivist would still be stuck on stage 1: assume reality is real enough. "Never!" Ask a radical subjectivist if Nazism is morally good and watch how little usefulness is gleaned for their stance. Watch the unwillingness to compare the validity of various claims. In the real enough world, some people can hold wrong moral claims (where p = 0.99999999999), and we can know this by filtering claims through sensible criteria.


In short, it still doesn't follow that our entire sensory mechanism should be completely doubted, thus we should seriously question our perception constantly. Reality-doubters and radical subjectivists need not be taken seriously (and here I am, wasting time, taking them seriously).


[god damn, 1 hour spent on that. Back to BBS-prohibition mode].

BBS, YOU'VE BEEN TRAPPED!!!

Sure, but your insistence of your position is obviously mistaken; however, given your history, you do sincerely believe what you've been typing. So, which is more likely: your elaborate planning to pull me back into the fora, or you are simply stating what you believe--regardless of my reaction? I'll settle with the latter.

Jeeeeez you're more serious than cancer.

Go back to your General Discussion, they are boring there, just like you.

[mrswdk]

In the real enough world, some people can hold wrong moral claims

What's a 'wrong moral claim' when it's at home?

[nietzsche]

Nietzsche's insistence on radical skepticism has annoyed me to the point where I must say something.

And you claim this is the truth. I say you cannot prove this, that you are making a leap of faith.

'Reality' as perceived is real enough. In order to meet nietzsche's standard of proof, we'd need absolute certainty--e.g. in order for the theory of gravity to be a true description of reality, it would need to be accurate to an infinite amount of decimal places (probability=1). Unfortunately, that standard also undermines nietzsche's claims about what is and what isn't reality since he would also fail to meet such a standard. Nietzsche is bound to cut himself with his double-edged sword.

The best that we can do is rely on subjective probabilities for claims on reality--e.g. when I twist that door knob, what is the probability that I'm actually touching a door knob and that it'll open the door? My estimated probability = "pretty fuckin' high." But, does "pretty fuckin' high" meet nietzsche's standard of p=1? No, of course not, but nothing does--not even my last claim, but does this mean I must ponder into the depths of my navel and constantly be confused about 'reality'? No, language traps can be avoided, and it still doesn't follow that we must 'throw the baby outta the bath water' by relying on alternative explanations based on the radical skepticism of human abilities to perceive reality. The alternative offered by nietz and seemingly supported by AoG are simply not warranted.

If you're concerned about the reliance upon subjective probabilities, then you can always compare them to objective probabilities. E.g. what do you think is the probability that you'll die in a car accident v. what is the probability of people dying in car accidents?. However, this is really an issue about people conforming to or failing to conform to Rational Expectations theory. If you're concerned about our ascertaining 'objective' probabilities, then keep reading:

Usefulness of Doubting Reality
Even if we concede to all of AoG's and Nietzsche's points, we can ask a practical question: is it useful to posit radical skepticism/subjectivism? No. It's a deadend, and even worse, its practitioners don't even sincerely follow what they espouse. When nietzsche is about to stand up from his chair, does nietzsche have dreadful moments of skepticism about the reality of the floor? No. He stands up, and everything is fine. "But he can't prove that the floor exists!!!" So what? p=0.99999999999999999999999999999 is good enough. And, if he really did have such problems, he should see a psychiatrist.

Is it useful to take our perception of reality as good enough? Sure, because through that route people invent medicines, provide desirable goods, better homes, greater incomes, better philosophy, and overall greater prosperity. It's not at all absurd to assume that one's perception of reality tends to be correct, and although at times people make perceptual mistakes, they can still update. "But there's some chance that the radical skeptics might be true!!" Sure, but again, who cares. I'll keep making practical decisions in the real enough world, and in return I'll keep making real enough profits.


The Usefulness of Radical Subjectivism
Finally, although relying on a subjectivist reality implies that nothing can be ascertained with certainty, that failure isn't a serious problem for some people, and for most people, that problem is ignored--e.g. "God does exist" v. "God does not exist." Note: p=1 in their claims. How can this problem resolved?

(1) Most people think what they want and continue with their lives as usual (because thinking is costly).

(2) Some people approximate the Truth by comparing varying degrees of evidence for different claims--dependent upon their criteria of truth (e.g. Scientific Method, various theories, prior assumptions like "what I observe is real enough").

For example, consider these claims: 2+2=4 is true v. Judeo-Christian God exists. Recall how some people use different criteria for determining the truth, or 'truth', of each, and notice how some groups flip their standard of evidence/Truth for each claim. This dilemma can be explained: some people don't care to update their analytical tools or to beat down their cognitive biases. It might be too costly for them.

Nevertheless, even within 'subjectivist' reality, some claims are truer than others, but that ascertaining of truth is dependent upon one's criteria for truth, so discrepancies in the claims of truth have causes which can be identified and examined. The Scientist/Philosopher is already on his way to rendering this world more sensible while the radical skepticist or radical subjectivist would still be stuck on stage 1: assume reality is real enough. "Never!" Ask a radical subjectivist if Nazism is morally good and watch how little usefulness is gleaned for their stance. Watch the unwillingness to compare the validity of various claims. In the real enough world, some people can hold wrong moral claims (where p = 0.99999999999), and we can know this by filtering claims through sensible criteria.


In short, it still doesn't follow that our entire sensory mechanism should be completely doubted, thus we should seriously question our perception constantly. Reality-doubters and radical subjectivists need not be taken seriously (and here I am, wasting time, taking them seriously).


[god damn, 1 hour spent on that. Back to BBS-prohibition mode].

Finally took the time to read your post.

I don't disagree with your analisis of the usefulness and pragmatism of doubting the real existence of an outside reality, and never did I say we should stay in our heads pondering endlessly about it.

I'm glad you get my point, because I was worried I was in this conversation deep enough that I would have to engage in and endless debate with you, because if you took the time I had some moral obligation to do the same.

Once realized, the gap stays there and we move on. I was only concerned with neglecting to acknowledge the gap.

I still don't see why Tailgunner won't acknowledge like you that we gotta just acept it and move on, even Descartes did, he used a diferent exit perhaps but he nevertheless was willing to move on.

The door is open though, and we can go back if we want, if we ever find our models of the world are not accurate or simply not satisfying enough anymore, because we have cleared the way. If we were to deny the gap, we would be in an error and no pisibility for a clear understanding and a move back to square 1.

[nietzsche]

I see why you think I'm speaking of two different things. Depending on your state of being you perceive reality to be. Now, this is what you call world views. I say this perception is all we have, and the further rationalizations that enclose what we perceive in a model or theory. Some of this models include concepts like time or space that we've learned are relative, yet other filters we apply to our perception are based heavily on understandings of time and space as linear and fixed; "nevermind the contradictions, it must be true, I cannot be wrong".

However, you seem to be completely sure of the existence of an outside reality of this most immediate experience we have. And you claim this is the truth. I say you cannot prove this, that you are making a leap of faith. You deem this so obvious that you think you need not to prove anything, the burden falls on me, I have to prove otherwise. But I counter: what proof do you have of the existence of this outside reality? Or are you like Locke and think that what you hold to be true is common sense?

I am saying that the mere acknowledgement that minds rationalize that input is a proof that things either exist or they don't.

Not necessarily.

[AndyDufresne]

I think this sums up the discussion so far:




--Andy

[nietzsche]

I see why you think I'm speaking of two different things. Depending on your state of being you perceive reality to be. Now, this is what you call world views. I say this perception is all we have, and the further rationalizations that enclose what we perceive in a model or theory. Some of this models include concepts like time or space that we've learned are relative, yet other filters we apply to our perception are based heavily on understandings of time and space as linear and fixed; "nevermind the contradictions, it must be true, I cannot be wrong".

However, you seem to be completely sure of the existence of an outside reality of this most immediate experience we have. And you claim this is the truth. I say you cannot prove this, that you are making a leap of faith. You deem this so obvious that you think you need not to prove anything, the burden falls on me, I have to prove otherwise. But I counter: what proof do you have of the existence of this outside reality? Or are you like Locke and think that what you hold to be true is common sense?

I am saying that the mere acknowledgement that minds rationalize that input is a proof that things either exist or they don't.

Not necessarily.

Maybe because you are using the word "input". But you can use your imagination for how it won't necesaary be an "input".

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I see why you think I'm speaking of two different things. Depending on your state of being you perceive reality to be. Now, this is what you call world views. I say this perception is all we have, and the further rationalizations that enclose what we perceive in a model or theory. Some of this models include concepts like time or space that we've learned are relative, yet other filters we apply to our perception are based heavily on understandings of time and space as linear and fixed; "nevermind the contradictions, it must be true, I cannot be wrong".

However, you seem to be completely sure of the existence of an outside reality of this most immediate experience we have. And you claim this is the truth. I say you cannot prove this, that you are making a leap of faith. You deem this so obvious that you think you need not to prove anything, the burden falls on me, I have to prove otherwise. But I counter: what proof do you have of the existence of this outside reality? Or are you like Locke and think that what you hold to be true is common sense?

I am saying that the mere acknowledgement that minds rationalize that input is a proof that things either exist or they don't.

Not necessarily.

Maybe because you are using the word "input". But you can use your imagination for how it won't necesaary be an "input".

No, not really. If there is a brain that generates these "realities", or an organ whereby cells communicate via electrochemical gradients, then there is matter. If these "realities" are somehow generated in contrast to what we know about physical laws, that is, a quasi-spiritual existence imagining things outside of matter, then this argument reverts back to my earlier point.

-TG

[nietzsche]

I see why you think I'm speaking of two different things. Depending on your state of being you perceive reality to be. Now, this is what you call world views. I say this perception is all we have, and the further rationalizations that enclose what we perceive in a model or theory. Some of this models include concepts like time or space that we've learned are relative, yet other filters we apply to our perception are based heavily on understandings of time and space as linear and fixed; "nevermind the contradictions, it must be true, I cannot be wrong".

However, you seem to be completely sure of the existence of an outside reality of this most immediate experience we have. And you claim this is the truth. I say you cannot prove this, that you are making a leap of faith. You deem this so obvious that you think you need not to prove anything, the burden falls on me, I have to prove otherwise. But I counter: what proof do you have of the existence of this outside reality? Or are you like Locke and think that what you hold to be true is common sense?

I am saying that the mere acknowledgement that minds rationalize that input is a proof that things either exist or they don't.

Not necessarily.

Maybe because you are using the word "input". But you can use your imagination for how it won't necesaary be an "input".

No, not really. If there is a brain that generates these "realities", or an organ whereby cells communicate via electrochemical gradients, then there is matter. If these "realities" are somehow generated in contrast to what we know about physical laws, that is, a quasi-spiritual existence imagining things outside of matter, then this argument reverts back to my earlier point.

-TG

If we assume we are using a physical brain (physical nervous system to be more exact) to be the one experiencing then it's almost necessary to admit that the "inputs" would be physical as well. Almost. It's still not a fact, we assuming for all practical matters but it's not a fact. We could use our imagination and say perhaps, that everything is included in the brain, without the need of an outside reality. By the assumption of a physical brain we will be making a fact only just that, that there's a nervous system that it's physical.

But that is not the only possibility, the possibility of a non physical existence still exists. Also, there's the the possibility of a physical reality that is above this one, the reality of this one being simply rules that we've pre-arranged for the sake of an experience. This reality (the one above this one) coudl be pretty much different than the one we are experiencing here.

The core of the issue is that there's a gap, undeniable, that impede us to know for a fact what really is.

My point is not to say which is the real answer, my point is to point out that we cannot say with 100% of certainty there's an outside physical reality, we can't even be sure we are perceiving correctly what it's out there, if there's indeed something. We apply many filters, meaning, to what we perceive, we cannot stop doing that because we are, and by being something we are not being something else, that would perceive reality differently.

We have ways of knowing, and these ways shouldn't be the only ones, why would they be? Isn't this the kind of childish bias you would use against a religious person who would say God shares the same values with men? To this you would say: "mathematics". Ok, what makes you think we are the most precious thinking machine that can possibly exist? A different creature could evolve in a couple of billions years with a capacity of knowledge much much more advanced than ours.

In fact, science is pointing out to weird phenomena in the microworld, phenomena that we try make fit in a model, and doesn't mean it will always fit there. The relativity of time and space, the fact that we like to think our world as full of mass, yet we know now that it's mostly void. The fact that we don't know how many fields are at work.

I really don't see, and this is just an opinion, given all that we know we don't really understand, I don't see how we could be so bold to say there's a fact that outside reality exists. Yes, we play along for all practical matters, and when something doesn't fit we say "it's ok, 99.99% of the time does", but we really don't know.

This is an era where the scientific discoveries and the technological advancements have improved the quality of life of billions, have won wars, have stopped diseases, etc. It's only natural that we jump to the conclusion that we eventually will conquer every area, every particle of our world and we will find all the answers. To the point that Science and the Scientific thought, and even worse, those who jump in because they read an mini-article on facebook, have started to dismiss life's most thought-of questions, deeming them irrelevant, "it's just human foolishness", even if they are dying inside. Those questions need not to have religious answers, even though religions have been trying answers forever. The questions remain nonetheless, and they are not religious in nature, they are part of us.

I say all that, because I perceive and inseparable relationship, in the thought of this era, of materialism and cynicism. A conformity on the answers (or no-answers) provided by positivism. And fear to separate ourselves from this herd, our times herd, is what stop us from even entertaining the idea of some sort of causality that is not physical. Why not? just fucking think about it, if it doesn't convince you big deal, move on. But give it a real honest thought.

"Consciousness as an epiphenomenon", yeah that makes much more sense! Come on. It's just as absurd to our minds! We have just accepted that and give it no further thought, I even think that we never give it any thought at all.

[crispybits]

I think the main problem I have with solipism is the same broadly as BBS, it's just not useful. Worse than that, it's not falsifiable and that's the real key.

Sure, you can posit the idea of a non-physical causality or objective reality that is completely unrelated to our perceptions of reality, and you can point out the gap between knowing that reality exists roughly as perceived vs reality actually existing roughly as perceived (roughly because even if you disregard solipism as junk there undeniably exist phenomena which in various ways "deceive" our sensory inputs). But because you've basically ruled out EVERYTHING as objective evidence you're effectively making a completely worthless statement. Even if you were snapped out of it now and could perceive this non-physical alternative reality you propose might exist, you'd STILL have the gap. Unless you can give me some scenario where I couldn't just say "assuming that's true, and I snap you into that reality, the gap still exists" then it's mental masturbation at best.

[nietzsche]

I think the main problem I have with solipism is the same broadly as BBS, it's just not useful. Worse than that, it's not falsifiable and that's the real key.

Sure, you can posit the idea of a non-physical causality or objective reality that is completely unrelated to our perceptions of reality, and you can point out the gap between knowing that reality exists roughly as perceived vs reality actually existing roughly as perceived (roughly because even if you disregard solipism as junk there undeniably exist phenomena which in various ways "deceive" our sensory inputs). But because you've basically ruled out EVERYTHING as objective evidence you're effectively making a completely worthless statement. Even if you were snapped out of it now and could perceive this non-physical alternative reality you propose might exist, you'd STILL have the gap. Unless you can give me some scenario where I couldn't just say "assuming that's true, and I snap you into that reality, the gap still exists" then it's mental masturbation at best.

Why does it have to be useful? Mental masturbation if you wish, i call it clearity of mind. It doesn't mean that if you acknowledge it you will stop being practical.

You need all the facts that you can gather to correctly asses a situation. If the fact is evident why not acknowledge it and realize you can't do nothing about it and move on to the things you can do something about it? It's like being fearful of something and denying it, running from it.

Also, when has philosophy worried about immediate usefulness.

[crispybits]

Because if it's not useful it's worthless. I didn't say IMMEDIATELY useful, there's plenty of interesting and worthwhile philosophy that isn't immeditely useful. But there has to be some form of usefulness for it to be worthwhile talking about it for very long.

The point with this is that you can never submit evidence either way. You can point to the gap and I'll happily admit it's there. The gap exists. I said that in my last post too. But what evidence could you ever put forward that could either bridge or close that gap? Anything you've gained through your senses could be a hallucination and therefore cannot be trusted within that context. We know the limits of what we can establish a priori. So what's the point of the assertion? What usefulness can it ever provide given this?

[nietzsche]

Because if it's not useful it's worthless. I didn't say IMMEDIATELY useful, there's plenty of interesting and worthwhile philosophy that isn't immeditely useful. But there has to be some form of usefulness for it to be worthwhile talking about it for very long.

The point with this is that you can never submit evidence either way. You can point to the gap and I'll happily admit it's there. The gap exists. I said that in my last post too. But what evidence could you ever put forward that could either bridge or close that gap? Anything you've gained through your senses could be a hallucination and therefore cannot be trusted within that context. We know the limits of what we can establish a priori. So what's the point of the assertion? What usefulness can it ever provide given this?

I get your point.

I don't think it's useless. It's part of the analysis of what we can now. Furthermore I think, given that we know there's a limit to what we can now in our current framework, we cannot say for sure it's useless.

I can only use imagination to think of scenarios in which this could be useful, but they are as likely as any other scenario. I don't think we should censor or deny the knowledge of it only because we know or can't think of any use for it.

Would you rather not know it only because you consider it's useless to know?

I think it's comes from the zetgeist. We tend to think we are in a quest to dominate nature. If this is the goal, I can understand how one can undervalue knowledge or understanding that doesn't produce results.

[crispybits]

It's not that I'd rather not know it because it's useless, it's that (and I'm disproving my own point slightly by entering the conversation I admit) I would generally rather spend time and mental effort thinking about things that aren't unfalsifiable and consequence-free.

The solipsist says "the gap exists". I say "OK, I agree, the gap exists, now what?"

Where does the conversation go after that?

[BigBallinStalin]

It goes in circles.

[warmonger1981]

Bingo. Realativity...Its all subjective to propaganda from generation to generation. Ancient Mysteries Religions believed that illuminated humans are actually all individual galaxies. Its just that we are all enslaved by our materialism and physical addiction. Once you free your mind you can space travel by electric waves of cosmic souls. What's reality? Reality is anything and everything. Case closed. Where's my check?

[crispybits]

Not really - the conversation goes to one of two places as far as I see it.

One is down a deep dark pit of total nihilism, where nothing matters because this isn't real anyhow

The other is that we are forced to make a pragmatic assumption that until some unknown kind of non-experiential evidence presents itself to give us any indication that the reality we all perceive as objective reality is not in fact real we're going to treat it as if it is real and that there are other minds, etc etc.

Human beings do actually do one of those things every day and get reliable, constructive and useful results from it, and I'll give you a clue it's not the nihilism one...

[pimpdave]

Best slam of violence in the media ever made. Addresses directly these questions of reality. A must see, but be advised, most people get really upset and bothered by it, even though there's very little on screen violence.

The german original is on Netflix right now, but it's worth renting from Amazon Prime to get the English shot for shot remake by the same guy who wrote and directed the original. I've seen both. Every line is comparable. Just watch the English cause Michael Pitt, Tim Roth, and goddamn Naomi Watts are thoroughly believable.

That final image...

Here, the last image of the film is the bottom right corner image. When you see the film it'll haunt your dreams.

[nietzsche]

Not really - the conversation goes to one of two places as far as I see it.

One is down a deep dark pit of total nihilism, where nothing matters because this isn't real anyhow

The other is that we are forced to make a pragmatic assumption that until some unknown kind of non-experiential evidence presents itself to give us any indication that the reality we all perceive as objective reality is not in fact real we're going to treat it as if it is real and that there are other minds, etc etc.

Human beings do actually do one of those things every day and get reliable, constructive and useful results from it, and I'll give you a clue it's not the nihilism one...

How cannot be real if you are experiencing it? Why shouldn't it matter only because it's not made of atoms? You are parting from a materialistic point of view, which is not the only one. All this is assuming there's no physical reality at all, that though can't be proved, it's still a possibility.

The second place you mention is what we do, most people without considering the other possibility, and some of us considering, but using different arrangements of assumptions for it. A similar situation is that we don't know if we are going to die tomorrow, but yet we act knowing that though it's a possibility, we cannot paralyze ourselves with fear.

Going back to your "first place": Say you are terrified of the possibility a a terrorist attack in the next days, while, it might be that your reasons for fear are non-sensical to some point, your experience of the fear is real. Say time passes and there's no attack, what was your reality? Your reality is that you experienced fear.

When you adopt a materialistic point of view, many calculations go on in your mind that you don't notice, other beliefs change and adopt what your materialistic belief says must be true. Your cognitive abilities and analytical tools adapt, or change completely. You perceive, think, believe materialistically. By this I do not mean that materialism is wrong (for this argument), but simply try to show light on the fact that your analysis of the results of adopting solipsism as the truth might be a little bit catastrophical.

As if, you've been thinking you'll get an apple at the end of the day, and if they tell you there's no apple, you'll go on despair. Maybe there's an orange? Or maybe the apple was going to kill you. We assign meaning, we can reassign it. If we are to philosophize we should be aware of it, and assign as little meaning as we can, for a beautiful detachment.

[crispybits]

Where did I say anything about materialism? I trust that the reality I have consistently experienced for my entire life (barring the bits where I know I was dreaming or tripping) is real. I don't claim that I have experienced the sum total of reality and disproved anything beyond what we can experience (directly or indirectly). I'm simply saying that given a subjective reality in which there appears to be an outer world and other minds, that has held consistent for my entire waking sober life, I'll trust that given the vast amount of evidence I've personally experienced that the reality I perceive is objectively real until something comes along that in some way effectively shows that this reality is not objectively real. That argument allows for the gap, it allows for the possibility that I'm mistaken and I readily admit that I'm making a kind of leap of faith to bridge the gap between subjective experience and objective reality that I can't actually justify beyond simply claiming pragmatism.

But to defeat the pragmatic assumption it's not enough to say "you might be wrong". If you make a claim about something, including the solipsistic claim that the gap exists and we can't really be sure of anything, then it should be analysed in the same way as we analyse every other claim. Using argument and evidence. The argument exists and is very difficult to either prove or disprove because it rules out all of the known types of evidence. So the sensible thing to do is what we do for every other claim where the argument is valid but for which there is no evidence either way. I could argue that there is a vast civilisation on one of the planets in the Andromeda galaxy that is technologically superior to us. The way we use that claim is to say "well we have no evidence it's there, but we also cannot say with certainty it's false, so lets not bother even talking about it until we're actually in a position to verify or disprove it". The same goes for solipsism, we admit it could be true, but until something comes along that either verifies it or disproves it we ignore it and live based on the reality that we do all seem to experience as objectively real.