Objective Reality: Exploring Your Viewpoints

[vanesch]

That would be the subjective argument for existence but just because a thought says it exists does not mean it does.

Ok, let's assume that the thought you are experiencing doesn't exist, as an experience. How can you experience a non-existing experience ? A non-existing experience being something that is not experienced of course (because the fact of being experienced is all that is required for the "existence" of an experience).

 

[quantumcarl]

Ok, let's assume that the thought you are experiencing doesn't exist, as an experience. How can you experience a non-existing experience ?

I can imagine a "non- existing experience" in the same manner that you have come-up with the idea of a "non-existing experience" on your own.

All I've pointed out is that, under objective scrutiny, a statement like

"I think I experience existence, therefore I do exist"

does not hold up as evidence of an existence.

Then again, everything I've claimed does not hold up under objective scrutiny. This is because my opinion is wholey and completely a regional and individual rumination of my subjective calculations on any matter.

These calculations leave no trace of addmissible evidence because anyone considering the evidence only "thinks" the evidence exists or that it may support an objective claim to an objective reality... of some sort.

 

[sameandnot]

and you would have the experience of having imagined a non-existing experience, which contradicts the idea that it is really non-existent.

 

[vanesch]

I can imagine a "non- existing experience" in the same manner that you have come-up with the idea of a "non-existing experience" on your own.

I want to make a difference between the existence of the experience itself, and the suggested content of the experience. It is not because I have a dream of a sportscar that my sportscar exists ; however, I find it hard to deny that the dream of the sportscar, as an experience, exists.
As such, I can think of "non-existing experience" which doesn't give existence to a "non-existing experience" ; however, the having of a thought of a non-existing experience, can, at that moment, hardly be denied, no ?

What's (to me) sufficient for "an experience to exist" is that it is experienced. What else would it mean for "an experience to exist" ? And if it is experienced, that's then sufficient to establish its existence.

 

[quantumcarl]

What's (to me) sufficient for "an experience to exist" is that it is experienced. What else would it mean for "an experience to exist" ? And if it is experienced, that's then sufficient to establish its existence.

The thread asks for views on "objective reality". Is this what you would term as an objective reality... or a subjective one?

 

[vanesch]

The thread asks for views on "objective reality". Is this what you would term as an objective reality... or a subjective one?

Ok, I agree that we drifted off a bit. Clearly this is a subjective reality (only available to the entity that is experiencing it) - and the point was that solipsism only acknowledges a subjective reality. It is because some poster (Rade) in post #5 had IMO a misunderstanding of what solipsism was about (I answered that in #11), that a discussion on solipsism followed.

However, there is of course a relationship to the original post. The point is that solipsism is undeniable (or unfalsifiable) - as such, it is sometimes considered a useless concept, but I think that that is wrong, because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong. So objective reality always will remain a hypothetical concept. Nevertheless, the concept of "objective reality" is a strong organizing principle, so it does very well as a *working hypothesis*. In fact, physics (and science in general) is the pushing through to the extreme of that working hypothesis, namely that our subjective reality finds its origin in an objective reality. One has to admit that it works very well.

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

 

[quantumcarl]

Ok, I agree that we drifted off a bit. Clearly this is a subjective reality (only available to the entity that is experiencing it) - and the point was that solipsism only acknowledges a subjective reality. It is because some poster (Rade) in post #5 had IMO a misunderstanding of what solipsism was about (I answered that in #11), that a discussion on solipsism followed.
However, there is of course a relationship to the original post. The point is that solipsism is undeniable (or unfalsifiable) - as such, it is sometimes considered a useless concept, but I think that that is wrong, because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong. So objective reality always will remain a hypothetical concept. Nevertheless, the concept of "objective reality" is a strong organizing principle, so it does very well as a *working hypothesis*. In fact, physics (and science in general) is the pushing through to the extreme of that working hypothesis, namely that our subjective reality finds its origin in an objective reality. One has to admit that it works very well.
As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

Thank you for your eloquent clarification of how we have arrived where we are in this thread.

This brings me to what I tried to point out earlier, in another thread, which is this:

What lies beyond consciousness is the knowledge most of us are unable to acknowledge due to the biological nature of our consciousness and what we peceive as the physical restrictions of what is perceived as a physical universe.

There is knowledge we are unaware of or unconscious of because, so far, this information is perceived to threaten the stability and survival of our species. So, true to the mechanism of natural selection, our brains and our condition as a species has selected to dis-acknowledge the knowledge which remains outside of our range of consciousness in favour of more convenient, physiopomorphic concepts which support survival.

This is what an objective reality is: our construct which fits the parameters and boundaries of our perceived physical condition. However, to be able to say so speaks of another type of objectivity that could be defined as utilizing that information which is outside of our biological consciousness.

True objectivity aligns itself with nothing more than truth. And truth is only discernable by using a stand-point of detached observationalism. A state that is unbound by physical or aphysical interests and bound only by that which describes an overall truth with regard to existence.

 

[sameandnot]

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

we know that "objective reality" is invented by the subject, don't we?
or else, who came up with the concept that the world was full of "objects"

so, we see that it is at least an illusion, that "objective reality" is real, because "obective reality" is an idea, and the idea is never the reality, but, rather, the idea is derived from and points to the reality.

so we can say that the idea "objective reality" is invented, and further, the belief that it is Real, is, in fact, illusory.

secondly, the subjective can be considered an "object", but the "object" is an idea and therefore not Real. The subject, we all agree, is Real, so if the subject is not an "object/idea" what is it?

we have built the idea of "objectivity" around the idea that the subject is a body. the body is an idea/ a working hypothesis, which forms the foundation of the idea of "objective" reality.

is the subject a body? or does the subject use a body? is the subject a mind? or does the subject use a mind?

the contemplation of these questions will, surely, yield a totally different perspective of Reality, than "objective" reality, so what is the Reality?

Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

 

[Rade]

... so what is the Reality? ...Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

Yes, I agree--but with a few modifications (not corrections but fine tuning). The Reality as you state it must be "name-less" (do birds and ants give names to the Reality they perceive ?). The name-less Reality entangles with the human senses (as with many higher animals that have similar senses) as things that "exist" (e.g., existents--name-less existents). The mind then takes those name-less existents (specific parts of the holism of Reality) and first, as you say "differentiates" them from other "existents" (most of this process is stored in the unconscious), but then the more important second phase of the consciousness, it "integrates" them into CONCEPTS. Thus, I agree with your thought--the Reality is the name-less of that which exists.

 

[Rade]

There are no multiple solipsists. There is just your subjective experience in solipsism, which does not even have to have a material carrier such as a brain.

No, this is incorrect--you make up your own definition of solipsist--read the definition from Webster--the "self" , is defined as "the identity, charcater, or essential qualitites of any person or thing". By definition (Webster) the solipsist holds that "they exist" as a "self", as an identity (mind+body+soul+etc.), as a thing that exists. What you argue against is not solipsism, so your argument in no way relates to my post above. Again, the definition that you need to falsify: (1) That solipsism is defined (Webster, unabridged) as: the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self.

This argument is of course fatally flawed here. In the solipsist picture, you do not even have a body.

Nonsense--as just explained--by definition the solipsist always hold that they have a "self" (mind+body+soul+you add it), in fact, this is the only thing that does exist. I can only conclude that as a good solipsist, you have invented in your own mind your own definition of what you are, but unfortunately what you have invented thus logically falsifies the philosophy you hold. Thus none of what you say here negates my post above--you will have to try again with another argument. But of course, because solipsism is based on a logical contradiction, it is by definition falsified--the only way to save solipsism is to argue outside logic.

 

[Rade]

... because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong.

NO, solipsism only teaches us the definition of FOLLY. It is easy to falsify, it is by definition a logical contradiction. Solipsism does not teach about relativity of reality, existence teaches about the relativity of reality because by definition it can never be known except as a monism between the subject+object. And, it is incorrect to say that from the solipsist viewpoint objective reality is an illusion, as seen from my post above, the solipsist holds that they exist as a "self", which is an object that they hold exists (true the only one in the universe, but 1=1 and there they are, conforming to the Law of Identity A = A, 1 = 1, solipsist A = solipsist A). Now, the rest of your post makes logical sense--it is the thinking of the rational scientist.

 

[quantumcarl]

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.
we know that "objective reality" is invented by the subject, don't we?
or else, who came up with the concept that the world was full of "objects"
so, we see that it is at least an illusion, that "objective reality" is real, because "obective reality" is an idea, and the idea is never the reality, but, rather, the idea is derived from and points to the reality.
so we can say that the idea "objective reality" is invented, and further, the belief that it is Real, is, in fact, illusory.
secondly, the subjective can be considered an "object", but the "object" is an idea and therefore not Real. The subject, we all agree, is Real, so if the subject is not an "object/idea" what is it?
we have built the idea of "objectivity" around the idea that the subject is a body. the body is an idea/ a working hypothesis, which forms the foundation of the idea of "objective" reality.
is the subject a body? or does the subject use a body? is the subject a mind? or does the subject use a mind?
the contemplation of these questions will, surely, yield a totally different perspective of Reality, than "objective" reality, so what is the Reality?
Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

I count about eighty-three (exagration) occasions where you use the word "real" in your post.

Objective analysis is all about finding out what "real" is and what is "real". You use the word like you know what it means.

Please define "real" in your own words.

 

[sameandnot]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

 

[Rade]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

Yes. Another way to state this: Reality is that which Exists independent of thought (mind). We can never know "pure" Reality, it comes to thought as an entanglement of the object [O] plus subject as [O+S]. But, and here is where confusion rains, just because humans cannot know pure Reality, does not mean it does not exist, it depends on what philosophy you hold. But now, what is it exactly that "exists" (or as sameandnot says--"what is") ? All philosophy must start with at least one fundamental axiom, you either accept it or not. Once you accept it you develop the rest of your philosophy from it. Of course, you could also develop a philosophy from 2 or 3 or any number of fundamental axioms, each with equal weight. The philosophy I hold has only one fundamental axiom (it thus meets Occum's Razor), but it does have corollary axioms that logically connect to allow all aspects of the philosophy to be developed (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, etc.). And the axiom is "existence exists", from the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Now, I do not hold that all that Rand holds is logical, I may even agree that most of what she holds is not logical, but when she starts her thinking, her philosophy, with the axiom "existence exist", I see no logical reason not to follow the logic of where that path takes thinking. Some have tried to argue that "existence exists" is not an axiom, I find all such arguments wanting.

 

[quantumcarl]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

Thank you for your thought on the matter.

Real is what the truth is.

The truth is what "real" is? The truth is real?

Probably. But, it is hard to know what the truth behind a matter really is. There are so many influences that create an event that it is difficult to research every one of them all and compose a picture of the truth or what is real with regard to an event or matter.

It may sound egocentric but, whatever a person is experiencing, true or not, can be considered real, by my standards. It is their truth.

A person in a flight simulator experiences the Gs and the sensation of flight and the cockpit can be as real as the real thing.

They are not truly flying but it is a real experience and a real approximation of flying a fighter jet... or whathaveyou. It has to be to prepare the pilot for actual flight time.

So, deception is real. So is truth. All things and the absence those things are real.

So, when you say:

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

would you agree that the idea or the thought of what real is is as real as real itself?

The thought that one has been healed because some Jamacian dude pulled chicken guts out of a fold in your abdomen is real. Often the thought of being healed is all some people need to be healed.

What a person thinks may not be true and may not have any basis in reality but, it can have profound effects on their body anyway... it becomes very real in this sense.

It is this kind of power that can be found in an objective reality... from this reality you can objectively utilize the subjective reality of the mind.

 

[Rade]

...would you agree that the idea or the thought of what real is is as real as real itself?

No, I would not agree that the idea of real is "as real" as real itself. I view that which is "real itself" (let us call it R) is just that, Real itself (e.g. it does not require any thing outside itself to cause it to be Real--such as a human observer). However, what you call the "idea of real" must be an entanglement of that which is Real itself (R) with that which forms the idea (let us call it I). Thus, the idea of real is the set [R+I]. So, we have:
[R] = Real itself, which is independent of idea
[R+I] = Idea of Real itself which is not independent of Real itself.
So the answer to your question become clear, the Idea of Real, while it is a real object within the mind [R+I] is not "as real" as Real itself [R]. The logical reason being that what is Real itself does not require an idea to exist, while an idea, with nothing real to idealize, is a contradiction of terms. For this reason, what is Real itself always takes primacy over an ideal of what is real, they are not identical concepts.

 

[quantumcarl]

No, I would not agree that the idea of real is "as real" as real itself. I view that which is "real itself" (let us call it R) is just that, Real itself (e.g. it does not require any thing outside itself to cause it to be Real--such as a human observer). However, what you call the "idea of real" must be an entanglement of that which is Real itself (R) with that which forms the idea (let us call it I). Thus, the idea of real is the set [R+I]. So, we have:
[R] = Real itself, which is independent of idea
[R+I] = Idea of Real itself which is not independent of Real itself.
So the answer to your question become clear, the Idea of Real, while it is a real object within the mind [R+I] is not "as real" as Real itself [R]. The logical reason being that what is Real itself does not require an idea to exist, while an idea, with nothing real to idealize, is a contradiction of terms. For this reason, what is Real itself always takes primacy over an ideal of what is real, they are not identical concepts.

Terrifically asstute of you to point this out, however, a thought or idea is real in the sense that it is the product of stimulus and also serves as stimulus in a very real way and in many ways.

A thought or idea can stimulate any number of other real events or matters. In fact, ideas and thoughts are real events and they are also created by matter as well as affect matter in many ways... observed or not.

Ideas are not dependent upon being observed, they are a result of real neurotransmitters and stimulus of various kinds... but this does not make them any less real since neurotransmitters and stimulus of various kinds are a result of something else... also. Both sets are as real. Both come under the heading "real"... or "R" if you prefer.

So, in conclusion, I will suggest that you have not studied what an idea or the thought process is, in physical terms or terminology. Perhaps you have succummed to the general, failing view that ideas are not real events or matters. Try telling that to Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.

Furthermore, my reply was to sameandnot if you and he arethesame please let sweetvirgogirl know... or are you sheaswell?

 

[sameandnot]

hmmm... how to answer such a question... we are confronted with Reality all of the time, yet we are usually in a dreamworld/"imaginary world" of our thought, and fail to recognize it, as it is.

can we say that "thought" creates a hue, a distortion, of what the Real is, in itself? that what is perceived by a "subject" is subject to particular pre-conceptions and prejudices and judgments, which are not of the "thing" itself, but are, rather, superimposed on the "thing"? it appears that we can say this much about subjectivity.

now, this model demands that the subject be of such a kind that it (the subject) "colors" the world with it's fantasies, desires, fears, anxieties, etc., thereby distancing it (the subject) from the Reality of the situation (and existence on the whole). a "delusional distance", if you will, where the perception of Reality is distorted, proportianally to, the "farther away" one's perception of it (Reality) is.

this creates a whole "world of delusions" and mis-takings.

on a further, disjointed but connected position, canwe say that:
what is Real, must exist. Also, it cannot not exist.

not to say that transient and fleeting existences are entirely unReal, but only that their "realness" comes from the Reality... which is not prone, or subject or fated, to non-existence.

What is the Reality that is never non-existent? the "ground of being", or whatever...

 

[hypnagogue]

NO, solipsism only teaches us the definition of FOLLY. It is easy to falsify, it is by definition a logical contradiction.

How so? Can you demonstrate for us how solipsism can be shown to be false?

And, it is incorrect to say that from the solipsist viewpoint objective reality is an illusion

It depends on how one interprets the relevant terms. If objective reality is understood to mean something like "that which exists independently from one's subjective experience" then a solipsist would deny that anything like objective reality exists.

 

[Rade]

...Perhaps you have succummed to the general, failing view that ideas are not real events or matters. Try telling that to Henry Ford or Thomas Edison...Furthermore, my reply was to sameandnot...

No, as I stated, ideas are "real", but, they are not "as real" as Reality itself--which was the comment you posted that I argued against. The mind invents "real ideas", it discovers "Reality", the two concepts are not identical. Second, this is a "forum" not your personal dialog with others.

 

[Rade]

How so? Can you demonstrate for us how solipsism can be shown to be false? ... It depends on how one interprets the relevant terms. If objective reality is understood to mean something like "that which exists independently from one's subjective experience" then a solipsist would deny that anything like objective reality exists.

Well, the argument to show how solipsism as a way of thinking is a logical condradiction has been developed and modified over the course of these discussion post numbers with "Vanesch": 5,11,14,17,24,30,41,45,46. Perhaps, let me know why you think it cannot be false and I will enter again into the conversation. As to your second point, yes, definitions of terms are important, and the definition of solipsism from Webster in post no. 24 shows that the solipsist holds that nothing is real but self. Now, since by definition (Webster), a self is an identity of body+mind (an object), solipsism does in fact hold that one objective reality exists in the universe, the self--and, as I develop the argument in my posts from # 24, it is this assumption that leads to its falsification.

 

[sameandnot]

whatever, let's just lock it.

 

[quantumcarl]

No, as I stated, ideas are "real", but, they are not "as real" as Reality itself--which was the comment you posted that I argued against. The mind invents "real ideas", it discovers "Reality", the two concepts are not identical. Second, this is a "forum" not your personal dialog with others.

Yes yes, my mistake. Egocentrifical forces gets the better of me sometimes.

Let's see: is there such a thing as "as real"? Real is real as far as I know.

You put forth that the idea of what is real is not as real as what is real.

I put forth that... the idea of "what is real" is as real as real itself.

I mean if an obsession with the idea of cancer gives you cancer, is it any less real than cancer itself?

Is there a way to prove which one of us is correct?

Or, democratically, we might decide that both views are correct because there is no way to prove which idea is incorrect. These are equal ideas.

Oh, dear, there's that cunnundrum again... both assertations are ideas. So both are on equal footing and both are unprovable.

Sounds a bit like communism to me... but, more like the foundations of a democracy... where all things are equal.

Sounds like easy pickin's for someone who wants to win an argument all the time. Just get into philosophy where there is no way to prove who is right and who is wrong.

Anyway, merry Solstice, Quanza, Hanukha, Christmas, Xmas, Tongo Tongo etc etc...

 

[Rade]

1. You put forth that the "idea of what is real" is not as real as what is real.
2. I put forth that... the idea of "what is real" is as real as real itself.
Is there a way to prove which one of us is correct?:

Suppose I have an "idea" of God, but have never seen God. Would my "idea" of what is real, be "as real" as the "Real God" ? Or, suppose I have an "idea" of how the nucleus of a simple atom, such as deuteron [NP] is put together, would my "idea" of what is real about [NP] be "as real" as the Real [NP]--that is, how it really is put together independent of my idea about it ? All I am saying here is that I hold that the answer is no to such questions--and I do not see anything in your comments that logically would cause me to change this viewpoint--but I am most clearly open to suggestions. And Merry Christmas to you also, if anyone wanted humans to use their minds to think about things, it was the man whos name is attached to this holiday.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Yule Brenner?
Yule Gibbons?
Yule know who when you think of them?

 

[Rade]

Yule Brenner? Yule Gibbons? Yule know who when you think of them?

Very nice example, but "Yule Idea" differs fundamentally from "Yule Reality". Thus, from Webster we find that Idea = "appearance of a thing as opposed to its reality". Thus, while yes, clearly your mind has an "idea" (appearance) of the difference between Yule B & G--I repeat my argument--that the "idea" of the two Yules in your mind is not "as real" as the "Real Yules". I argue here only against this claim, not that "ideas" are not real, nor that they cannot be differentiated, nor "appear" very similar to that which is Real. All you most likely know about Yule Brenner and Yule Gibbons is their names--you do not really know the Real Yules. In fact, one could argue that it is impossible to know the Real of anyone or anything outside self. "Ideas" are by definition "opposed" to Reality, not "as real" as Reality.

 

[quantumcarl]

Wrong idea.

Ideas are a reality unto themselves.

 

[Rade]

Ideas are a reality unto themselves.

Yes, as I stated above, "ideas" are a reality unto themselves, but they are not as real as the "Reality" of the idea that exists independent of the mind that invents "real ideas". For example, Tesla, while sitting on a park bench, invented in his mind the Alternating Current machine--working gears and all--he knew it would function. He went to his lab, built his idea, and of course it generated AC electricity. But, the "real idea" of the machine in his mind was not "as real" as the Real machine he built--how could it be, the real machine had real atoms of metal, wires, etc.--his idea had only abstract appearance of forms (wires, metal, etc.)--there were no copper atoms within his "real idea" they were only present in the Real machine he built based on the blueprint of his real idea.

 

[quantumcarl]

Yes, as I stated above, "ideas" are a reality unto themselves, but they are not as real as the "Reality" of the idea that exists independent of the mind that invents "real ideas". For example, Tesla, while sitting on a park bench, invented in his mind the Alternating Current machine--working gears and all--he knew it would function. He went to his lab, built his idea, and of course it generated AC electricity. But, the "real idea" of the machine in his mind was not "as real" as the Real machine he built--how could it be, the real machine had real atoms of metal, wires, etc.--his idea had only abstract appearance of forms (wires, metal, etc.)--there were no copper atoms within his "real idea" they were only present in the Real machine he built based on the blueprint of his real idea.

You're missing my point. Ideas are as real as anything else... or as I stated, "as real as real itself". This is because they are made of molecules and fields and elements and states and are also a product of these realities. Both tesla's machine and tesla's ideas are as real as each other.

They are both real entities. They are both realities unto themselves. Neither is "more real than the other". All things being equal.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You're missing my point. Ideas are as real as anything else... or as I stated, "as real as real itself". This is because they are made of molecules and fields and elements and states and are also a product of these realities. Both tesla's machine and tesla's ideas are as real as each other.
They are both real entities. They are both realities unto themselves. Neither is "more real than the other". All things being equal.

I think in a sense you are both right. All ideas are real to the person who has them but only some ideas are real enough to survive communication between people. As I have said before, these are the (mathematically) well-formed ideas. Their properties are suffiently limited and clear that they can be parsed (sic!) between people without misunderstanding.

 

[Doctordick]

Another perspective on "Objective Reality"

On a number of occasions I have attempted to present my view or "objective reality" with little success. Since the question has arisen once more, I'll try another attack. Try to picture all we know and believe as a mountain range of information. Seen as a whole, it has the vast span of a mountain range but examined in detail it is a massive collection of specific knowledge and beliefs; each and every aspect of it is a defined concept or relationship. This is the world we find ourselves in. Every living thing finds itself in such a world; it is the basis from which all of their actions of any kind stem. Certainly human intelligence is not required in order to have such a construct. Many animals live quite complex lives without any ability to objectively understand the basis of their actions. It should be clear that they nonetheless possesses some sort of such a basis for those actions (I think one could say a squirrel believes a branch is there when they jump for it). Though very few people would want to use the word "belief", even a plant is influenced by its environment via incoming information which we could define as "where the sunlight is coming from" or "where the water is". Though of course the abstract concept itself is certainly beyond the plants capability, it still forms the basis of some very definite actions by that plant.

Human beings are unique in their ability to examine that mountain range of information and think about the situation they find themselves in. The great majority of what they find are the gray rocks of intuitive knowledge; the well established foundation on which everything they think and do is based. (It is reasonable to presume the animals also find themselves in a similar circumstance.) Most of which they are so sure of that there is absolutely no doubt as to its veracity. I suspect animals in general lack doubt entirely, (as do some humans by the way). But it should be clear that this terrain is not reality, it is actually no more than what we think reality is. It is a mental construct; something quite different from reality itself. It is very different from "reality" in that it can be wrong whereas "reality" cannot possibility be wrong (note that animal concepts of reality can also be wrong; in fact, we use their proclivity for certain errors to trap and kill them).

But the world view of human beings (that vast realm of knowledge and belief I am talking about above) differs in a unique way from those other animals (at least it appears that some humans are different). Within our world views there exists, occasionally, small deposits of gold in among those gray rocks of intuitive knowledge. What I am talking about are the pieces of information in that world view which are connected by formal deductive logic. These nuggets connect two pieces of otherwise unrelated knowledge (or beliefs). If one is true (the axioms), then so must the other be true (the logical consequences). But that "if" is very important.

Thus it is that I see our world view as being constructed of two very different components, one of which probably does not exist in the absence of intellect. In any case, both components arise by the power of those organs we call brains. I have put forth an adjective "squirrel" to denote that vast construct of gray rock which goes to make up our world view (a world view in the absence of those golden nuggets). I did that because I have a serious belief that squirrels lack that component in their concept of the world. I put things the way I did because I am trying to bring forth the great disparity between these two, very different, components of our understanding of the universe (what we believe reality to be).

Most scientists concern themselves with expanding and extending those nuggets of formal logic. From their perspective (and the central interest of their lives), those golden nuggets form the basis of their understanding of the universe and loom large and overpowering. They see that gray rock of their personal intuition as truth just waiting to be connected up with golden filaments of logic. This imaginary construct they hold in their heads is what they call "objective reality". In actual fact, the realm of exact science almost negligibly small compared to that vast squirrel construct of our beliefs. They may be able to accomplished great deeds of magic inconceivable from the perspective of most men but, in reality they understand very little of what they know. Science occasionally discovers that some subtle structure of that great mountain of intuitive gray rock is a false belief and changes in the mountain of accepted belief occur but it is never seen as a change in "objective reality" because "objective reality" is what's real.

I personally considered that problem as a constraint issue and have discovered a rather unique solution. I can not guarrentee that my solution is the only solution but I certainly can show that there exists no solution (and that would be a concept of "objective reality") which cannot be interpreted as a particular case of my solution. In essence that amounts to an explicit mathematical constraint on what could constitute "objective reality" and I think it would be worth while for people to be aware of my work. If anyone is interested, they might read something I wrote a while ago concerning a the consequences of internal self consistency. Take a look at http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm on physicsforums. To date I have received very little "objective" criticism of anything I have said.

Have fun -- Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

 

[quantumcarl]

I think in a sense you are both right. All ideas are real to the person who has them but only some ideas are real enough to survive communication between people. As I have said before, these are the (mathematically) well-formed ideas. Their properties are suffiently limited and clear that they can be parsed (sic!) between people without misunderstanding.

My view of the idea is one of an objective reality as objective reality applies to all things. As far as we are able to ascertain ideas are the result of neurotransmitters and inhibitors acting between dendrites and axions and following existing neuronal paths and creating new ones.

This is an objective view of the reality of an idea.

When you call an idea "real enough" you are referring to its accuracy in portraying an objective reality. This is the subjective reality of an idea and how it relates to a separate, objective reality such as the idea of Puerto Rico as opposed to the actual location. This misses the point I'm making as well.

I am quite simply and repeatedly reminding you that, ideas on their own, without being compared to anything but objective reality, are real, physical and effectual events just as the firing of an engine cylinder is a real, objective event. Ideas are real events that have effects and consequences the way any and every event has effects and consequences.

That's my idea on the subject.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

And the really good ideas have really good consequences when they are implemented in a way that serves our best interest.

 

[selfAdjoint]

When you call an idea "real enough" you are referring to its accuracy in portraying an objective reality. This is the subjective reality of an idea and how it relates to a separate, objective reality such as the idea of Puerto Rico as opposed to the actual location. This misses the point I'm making as well.

No, I am refreering to its ability to be shared via language. I assume nothing about its referents. A well-formed idea might be about triangles or unicorns, but its properties are not in question between well prepared discussants.

 

[vanesch]

It depends on how one interprets the relevant terms. If objective reality is understood to mean something like "that which exists independently from one's subjective experience" then a solipsist would deny that anything like objective reality exists.

I would even say that it is a necessary requirement to make solipsism coherent as a viewpoint. Rade arrives at a conclusion of logical contradiction of the solipsist viewpoint exactly because of the denial of this denial (hum...). (I have found another example of such a (fallacious) reasoning at the end of this post.)

Of course you get into trouble when a solipsist takes it that objective reality does not exist, but that his body does (which Rade seems to take implicitly part of solipsism, based upon his Webster dictionary definition). Because if the body exists objectively (and corresponds to the perceived image in the subjective experience of its owner), then, because of perceived interactions of the body with other things, you have to postulate also that these other things exist, etc... and you end up postulating the existence of an entire chunk of the universe around you, which is then indeed in contradiction with the original viewpoint of solipsism.

As to what is the standard definition of the concept "solipsism" (which I thought I was adhering to when I used it), maybe Webster is not the greatest place to look up philosophy items.

Have a look here: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/SOLIPSISM.html
(it is at my home university):

The theory that locates reality entirely in the mind of the beholder. It specifically denies the existence of involuntary experiences with an outside world be it through direct perception of something or through vicarious experiences created in the process of communication. For contrast see epistemology and constructivism in cybernetics.

So there is NO hypothesis of the reality of the BODY of a solipsist.

There is the Wiki entry on it, but I find it less clear on what is exactly assumed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

In a certain way, the entry on immaterialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism comes closer ; apart from the fact that several minds can exist in this viewpoint, and there seems to be some collective illusion of an objective reality.

A good read on the subject can also be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm

...except for the strange statement that no great philosopher was a solipsist, followed by the (accurate!) analysis of Decartes' solipsism (which he can only avoid by invoking god). To me, Descartes is the founder of the solipsist idea! As to whether he was a great philosopher...

Also, it seems to me that the "inconsistency proof" of solipsism because of the necessity of public language, in the last section of this link, seems to me to go in exactly the same (misguided IMO) sense as Rade's "proof of inconsistency" by assuming the existence of a body. After all, a single mind could have imagined a "public language" with his illusions of other people, in order for him to formulate, for himself, his ideas about solipsism. The trap of the inconsistency proofs of solipsism seems always to rest on the implicit assumption of of some aspect of objective reality (in this case, the objective existence of "public language", and in Rade's case, the objective existence of a body), hence already including implicitly a contradiction in the assumptions of the "proof", which means it is not difficult to arrive at a contradiction at the end.

For your information, I'm not (necessarily) a solipsist! I only wanted to point out that solipsism seems to be a logical possibility which cannot be falsified, and as such, is a counter argument to all "proof of objective existence" of what so ever without extra assumption. So all acceptance of the objective existence of something must include an assumption which is logically equivalent to assume exactly that objective existence, so it will always have the status of a hypothesis.