Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

[greenberg]

Actually there are trends in modern science to do this. The self qualia. The illusion that one exists is an undercurrent philosophy out there. Also cases are made by both religious and scientific people that the notion of a self - here - that looks at things - there is false. This is replaced by ideas of phenomena. I just read a book by a physicist who was putting forward the idea that NOWS are the only things that exist. Not selves. Not objects. Simply Nows.

Sure, but try telling that to the IRS!

Seriously (although that about the IRS is just as serious), there is plenty of ways to deconstruct the notion of self, to expose it as unsubstantiated etc.
But to employ these ways leads to a neurosis, paranoia.

The Western people, and some Eastern, that produced these ways to deconstruct the self are starting from the tradition of Western thought and science: it is only the truth that matters. They didn't take into account that the pursuit of truth might actually make people miserable, worse even, unable to function. Western philosophy has lived, usually, as an intellectual hobby, serious people talking about serious stuff, but not really taking it seriously. They tell you "who you really are", but they can't tell you what good it will do you to know "who you really are".

They instruct you to deconstruct, but they offer no goal for that that a person concerned about their wellbeing would ever pursue.

...
Even when you've had only a first, humbling taste of this freedom, you appreciate how adroitly the teaching on not-self answers the question of "What is skillful?" And you understand why the Buddha recommends putting the question of "Who am I?" aside. To begin with, it wouldn't have taken you to this freedom, and could well have stood in freedom's way. Because your "I" is an activity, any attempt to pin it down before you had mastered the processes of activity would have left you pouncing on shadows, distracted from the real work at hand. Any attempt to deconstruct your "I" before it had become healthy and mature would have led to a release neurotic and insecure: you'd simply be running away from the messy, mismanaged parts of your life. In addition, any answer to the question "Who am I?" would be totally inappropriate to describe your new-found freedom, for it's a dimension apart, where the concepts of "I," "not-I," "am," "am not" do not apply.


From Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Questions of skill

 

[greenberg]

One's own self is the only one one cannot "reason away".

Why not, what's so special about it ?

Try to "reason away your self".

You will go mad.

 

[Enmos]

Yes, I did. It simply continues along the same line and ends up asserting that what we experience is subjective reality. Which is not objective reality. So I see nowhere in there arguments backing up that we are actually in contact with objective reality. In fact, especially given the last sentence, I see a potential argument that we cannot know, since we are left with subjective reality. Did you read what you wrote?

Odd that an issue that has been discussed by philosophers for at least hundreds of years is simply idiotic to you. Second, duh, Enmos. If you can make a good argument AGAINST solipsism, you have taken strong steps to showing that we can know objective reality exists. Can't you see how solipsism is almost a necessary issue to raise given your topic. If we can't know there is an objective reality than what is it we are experiencing? One answer is solipsism.

My argument is that we can know there is an objective reality.
I make my point by using subjective reality. Everyone makes their own subjective reality but because everyones subjective reality is very similar to anyones else's we know they are all based on the same thing; objective reality.

If solipsism is an idiotic idea you should be able to show why. I have seen no signs that you can do this. Calling it arrogant and now idiotic are not arguments and you know this.

I only called it arrogant in a sarcastic way.
Ok, I think it's idiotic. But if something is unfalsifiable it doesn't mean I should give it some serious thought.

You could use solipsism to help make your case. Or you can make a post like the one above. No need to quit, you're fired.

I tried that but then you said:
"No, Enmos. Please don't take that guru role with me. You see the point I was making, please respond to that."

Why don't you just ask Myles to tell you how we know there is an objective reality? Let me clear the space so you two can hang out.

Bye.

From the very first post in this thread you acted like you smelled blood.
I don't know what your irritation is but it's a pity you are choosing to be like this as I always enjoyed discussion with you a lot.

 

[Enmos]

Try to "reason away your self".

You will go mad.

I'm not mad

 

[Yorda]

You say it in a strange way but I think there is actually some common ground here. I never thought I would say that to you lol

it's no fun to always agree because then there's nothing to discuss... that's why i often think different. then it's more fun to agree.

 

[Enmos]

it's no fun to always agree because then there's nothing to discuss... that's why i often think different. then it's more fun to agree.

Ok, maybe you should every once in a while say it straight forward lol

 

[Myles]

Yes, I did. It simply continues along the same line and ends up asserting that what we experience is subjective reality. Which is not objective reality. So I see nowhere in there arguments backing up that we are actually in contact with objective reality. In fact, especially given the last sentence, I see a potential argument that we cannot know, since we are left with subjective reality. Did you read what you wrote?



Odd that an issue that has been discussed by philosophers for at least hundreds of years is simply idiotic to you. Second, duh, Enmos. If you can make a good argument AGAINST solipsism, you have taken strong steps to showing that we can know objective reality exists. Can't you see how solipsism is almost a necessary issue to raise given your topic. If we can't know there is an objective reality than what is it we are experiencing? One answer is solipsism.

If solipsism is an idiotic idea you should be able to show why. I have seen no signs that you can do this. Calling it arrogant and now idiotic are not arguments and you know this.

You could use solipsism to help make your case. Or you can make a post like the one above. No need to quit, you're fired.

Why don't you just ask Myles to tell you how we know there is an objective reality? Let me clear the space so you two can hang out.
Bye.

That's the most sensible thing you've said to date. Simply devasting !

If only I has realized that two people disagreeing with a third makes the third party right. How about I join you and then Enmos will be right ?

 

[greenberg]

I'm not mad

You haven't "reasoned away your self", have you?

 

[shichimenshyo]

What is so difficult about saying that the mind is an aspect of the brain without which it could exist. Do you believe that a dead person has a mind. I don't but he still has a non-functioning brain.

Now dont get me wrong here I tend to believe that without the brain the mind cannot exist, but just because our minds are built around the idea that there has to be some foundation or base for everythng doesnt mean the vey fabric of existence is structured that way, :shrug:

 

[Enmos]

You haven't "reasoned away your self", have you?

Not in the way solipsism I imagine would. But I do say that we are in essence nothing more than dead matter organized in such a way that it has particular characteristics.
A consequence of my view is that what we call the self is nothing more than a manifestation of the chemical and electrical processes going in the brain.
This is essentially reasoning away the 'mythical self' or 'supernatural self' a lot of people think it is.

 

[Enmos]

Now dont get me wrong here I tend to believe that without the brain the mind cannot exist, but just because our minds are built around the idea that there has to be some foundation or base for everythng doesnt mean the vey fabric of existence is structured that way, :shrug:

No, but it's at the very least far-fetched to assume a mind existing on it's own made everything up the way it is.
Why would this mind make up that we have arms and legs ?
Why would this mind make up particular areas in the brain that coordinate these limbs ?
Why would this mind be unaware of this until it 'hears' of scientists discovering about these areas ?
And why would this mind, on occasion, get startled by something ? After all it makes everything up itself. So why get startled ?
I think these are questions to consider when thinking about or discussing solipsism.

 

[Myles]

Now dont get me wrong here I tend to believe that without the brain the mind cannot exist, but just because our minds are built around the idea that there has to be some foundation or base for everythng doesnt mean the vey fabric of existence is structured that way, :shrug:

I don't get you wrong;I just don't get you. Please explain what you mean. What is " the very fabric of existence" ? As far as I am aware , nobody has said our senses do other than provide an interpretation of what is out there. Why do you disagree ?

 

[Myles]

You haven't "reasoned away your self", have you?

What is there to reason away ?

 

[Enmos]

Can we please let go of this solipsism stuff and focus on the OP ?

 

[greenberg]

Not in the way solipsism I imagine would. But I do say that we are in essence nothing more than dead matter organized in such a way that it has particular characteristics.
A consequence of my view is that what we call the self is nothing more than a manifestation of the chemical and electrical processes going in the brain.
This is essentially reasoning away the 'mythical self' or 'supernatural self' a lot of people think it is.

Okay. And how does thinking about the self this way help you in your everyday life?

 

[Enmos]

Okay. And how does thinking about the self this way help you in your everyday life?

It doesn't.. but it doesn't bother me either.

 

[greenberg]

It doesn't.. but it doesn't bother me either.

... yet.

 

[Myles]

Greenberg,

Are you suggesting that if thinking about something in a particular way is not benefical to ones life, that one should abandon it and seek another way of thinking that will ?

 

[greenberg]

Yes.

 

[Myles]

Even if it means departing from what one regards as truth ?