- #1
sweetvirgogirl
- 116
- 0
your views on it?
objective reality-your views on it?
subject 'what can science explain?'
____ wrote:
1. There is an external world, i.e. there is a world of physical objects and theoretical entities whose existence (and some of whose properties) are logically and causally independent of the existence of any human minds.
2. Some of our beliefs about that world are correct descriptions, even if partial, of that world.
3. We can determine which of our beliefs about the world are correct descriptions.
Agreement with all three makes you a scientific realist, whereas disagreement with at least one of the above tenets makes you an instrumentalist of some sort.
Do you agree or disagree with any, all, or some combination of the following statements? What is the justification for your position?
1. There is an external world, i.e. there is a world of physical objects and theoretical entities whose existence (and some of whose properties) are logically and causally independent of the existence of any human minds.
2. Some of our beliefs about that world are correct descriptions, even if partial, of that world.
3. We can determine which of our beliefs about the world are correct descriptions.
Is science the high road to ontology? Can science really tell what the fabric of the universe consists of?
The opposite then would be "Subjective Reality" ? I can see this taking two forms (a) Solipsism Subjective Reality = no thing (anywhere) is real but the self of the solipsist, (b) Non-Solipsism Subjective Realtiy = no thing (anywhere) is real, all is "ideal" (= existing only in the mind as an image). I find both of these alternatives to Objective Reality to be logically lacking. If nothing is real but the self of the objective solipsist, then when the solipsist no longer exists (=death) all reality no longer exists--but I see solipsist die around me each day, yet here I am. Or, even if solipsist reality is defined as the sum of all solipsist that have or will ever exist (including me), then, prior to their collective existence, reality did not exist, or if they were to all die tomorrow at 6:43 am, then at 6:44 am the universe would not longer exist--but such thought is falsified by the 1/2 life of uranium, much older than the 1/2 life of all solipsists. And, if all is "ideal" and exists only in the mind as an image, the "mind" as an objective existent must take primacy over the image, for the simple reason that it is a logical contradiction for "images" to exist within "an image = mind" (that is, images are not attributes of images because images cannot have attributes, images are attributes of "the mind" which is an object existent).sweetvirgogirl said:"Objective Reality"...your views on it?
nazgjunk said:In things like this, I usually find it rather convenient to redefine "objective" being that reality that we all agree upon. I know this doesn't work out in the end (before columbus everyone thought the Earth to be flat, but that did not make it true), but it is rather easy to work with.
dmstifik8ion said:Our certainty of what we know is directly proportional to how well it corresponds to knowledge obtained through, or logically derived from, our direct perception of reality.
Dmstifik8ion said:Unfortunately, reality does not conform to our agreement, even if unanimous. We can improve the quality of our knowledge by relating what we are told to our own experience. Our certainty of what we know is directly proportional to how well it corresponds to knowledge obtained through, or logically derived from, our direct perception of reality.
Rade said:I find both of these alternatives to Objective Reality to be logically lacking. If nothing is real but the self of the objective solipsist, then when the solipsist no longer exists (=death) all reality no longer exists--but I see solipsist die around me each day, yet here I am.
The question begs that I simply state how my views are purely subjective.sweetvirgogirl said:your views on it?
Well, if she tells me that she is in fact a solipsist and she holds that she exists, and I see her die, then I see a dead solipsist. And my observation of her death then falsifies her solipsism philosophy, since as you state, to the solipsist, at the moment of her death, nothing is IN FACT real outside her dead mind. Yet here I am, the non-solipsist alive. Her death falsifies her philosophy for her, since she incorrectly reasoned that others (me) do not exist outside her imagination. And, as I stated above, even if we hold that all humans (100%) are solipsist, their philosophy is still falsified by the existence of the uranium isotope, which has a 1/2 life much longer than the time all humans have existed--thus, the uranium isotope cannot be a pure imagination--before there were solipsists--there were uranium isotopes.vanesch said:I think you misunderstood solipsism. You cannot see "another solipsist dying" You see other bodies die, but the one and only existing subjective reality is your own, and as far as you know, YOU are not dead. By definition, in a solipsist view, others don't exist, but as imaginations in your own subjective experience.
You seem to be saying that humans are are not "objects" that can observe other "objects", including themself--but I do not agree. The fact that humans subjectively (e.g., within the mind) perceive and then differentiate and integrate objects into concepts, does not falsify that this subjective mental process exists within an objective identity, called the individual human being. I have no "opinion" on that which exists, no belief, I have "knowledge" of that which exists, uncertain knowledge, which is one definition of science = knowledge with uncertainty.quantumcarl said:Having made this statement, I must clarify that objectivity and any conclusions derived from objectivity are governed by subjectivity and subjective opinion.This is true only because all evidence of objects and objectivity can only be verified subjectively, regardless of how many similar results are available in the population.
Dmstifik8ion said:Objectivity is a choice.
No, you don't understand: all those pretended solipsists are only a product of your imagination, as well as the uranium isotope. You are the only solipsist who ignores himself. When YOU die - which you might never do - then the entire world (which is just a product of your imagination) disappears. "Other solipsists" are only suggestive ideas of your own mind to make you see you should be (the only) solipsist. You are in fact nothing else but the memory content of a 7th generation X-box, and someone is playing a reality game on the machineRade said:Well, if she tells me that she is in fact a solipsist and she holds that she exists, and I see her die, then I see a dead solipsist. And my observation of her death then falsifies her solipsism philosophy, since as you state, to the solipsist, at the moment of her death, nothing is IN FACT real outside her dead mind. Yet here I am, the non-solipsist alive. Her death falsifies her philosophy for her, since she incorrectly reasoned that others (me) do not exist outside her imagination. And, as I stated above, even if we hold that all humans (100%) are solipsist, their philosophy is still falsified by the existence of the uranium isotope, which has a 1/2 life much longer than the time all humans have existed--thus, the uranium isotope cannot be a pure imagination--before there were solipsists--there were uranium isotopes.
From thissameandnot said:[subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]
(objectivity issues forth from subjectivity, by choice)
seems so, indeed. then,
{? ----> [subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]}
(obvious next question: whence does subjectivity issue from?)
this is becoming very interesting... for sure.
Rade said:From this
[ subjectivity <-----> objectivity ], a monism, a union. Thus, subjectivity issues forth from objectivity, not by choice.
sameandnot said:[subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]
(objectivity issues forth from subjectivity, by choice)
seems so, indeed.
then,
{? ----> [subjectivity ----> (objectivity)]}
(obvious next question: whence does subjectivity issue from?)
this is becoming very interesting... for sure.
vanesch said:The real, unique, solipsist is ME ! And you (and your posts here) are nothing else but a product of MY imagination It is a totally futile exercise to try to explain solipsism to one of its own products of imagination (in casu, you).
Here is what I understand. (1) That solipsism is defined (Webster, unabridged) as: the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self. (2) thus solipsist hold that one, and only one, existent exists in the universe and is also real--them. (3) the solipsist comes to existence via the unreal since by definition there is no real to come from (4) it is an axiom (e.g., cannot be argued against) that all solipsist come from gametes (in this day at least the egg cell is required), (5) by definition gametes are not real (as held by the solipsist), thus the solipsist which comes from gametes cannot be real, (6) arguments # 2 & 5 result in a logical condradiction, (7) thus, the solipsist philosophy concerning what is and what is not real (them) is logically falsified. Solipsism is folly.vanesch said:No, you don't understand: all those pretended solipsists are only a product of your imagination...,
Yes, you already made the first argument above, thus:sameandnot said:if a monism, then objectivity also must issue forth from subjectivity, as well....Because: if a union... then what is the One, in which they are united? see?
Perhaps a bit abstract, but in my view subjectivity and objectivity do exist "simultaneously" as electro-chemical wave functions that intermingle as they move across 10,000 neurons/sec. By choice, I mean that the wavefunctions of consciousness (objectivity) act by volition to integrate that which issues forth via perception, not by choice, from the wavefunctions of the unconscious (subjectivity). In this way the two are mutually dependent, thus the monism holds.sameandnot said:it's not a matter of choice, rade.
if we are talking about a monism, the two realities are mutually dependent, so choice is no factor, as they would both have to exist simultaneously, always.
rade said:The "One" that unites is that which, first, not by choice, then second, by choice, is issued forth, and that "One" is called "existence"
Rade said:Here is what I understand. (1) That solipsism is defined (Webster, unabridged) as: the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self. (2) thus solipsist hold that one, and only one, existent exists in the universe and is also real--them. (3) the solipsist comes to existence via the unreal since by definition there is no real to come from
(4) it is an axiom (e.g., cannot be argued against) that all solipsist come from gametes (in this day at least the egg cell is required),
What I am saying is that perception of the One must proceed conception of the One, and that the simultaneity results when perception forms union with conception, at that moment in time, we get:sameandnot said:but you say that one issues first and the other second... such is not the meaning of simultaneity. neither arises first or second, as they are mutually arising within each other.
The statement by *someone else* is of course insufficient, but for one self, it should do, no ? The very fact that you have subjective experiences should be proof that those subjective experiences exist. I would even say that it is the ONLY thing you REALLY know for sure: that your subjective experiences exist.quantumcarl said:The statement "I think therefore I am" is insufficent evidence for any kind of existence.
And thoughts could not provide a rough-draft let-alone (a) proof that anything exists not even the thought itself.
vanesch said:The very fact that you have subjective experiences should be proof that those subjective experiences exist. I would even say that it is the ONLY thing you REALLY know for sure: that your subjective experiences exist.
vanesch said:An experienced thought exists, as an experience, no ? Otherwise you wouldn't experience it in the first place! It doesn't mean that the object of the thought exists, but the very subjective experience of having a thought does have existence if you experience it, no ?