Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

lixluke said:
No. LMAO! What brought on the label is a clear case of psychotic subjectivism in which somebody reads the clear definition in the dictionary, and sees it as the exact opposite. LOL!
Click to expand...
Setting aside whether the label was correct or not, I was pointing out that you did not catch him in a contradiction. He did not say that the members of the set of people who think there is objective reality are solipsists.


HOW ABOUT THIS:
If objective reality exists.
If X is true in objective reality.
If Barfalamule believes that X is true.
Then Barfalamule has knowledge that X is true.
Click to expand...
I find this really unclear.
1) the periods
2) I am not sure why, in context, you think you can just start by assuming that objective reality exists. Isn't this part of the bone of contention between you and some of the others?
3) I think it needs an example of X. Is X a description/assertion about something real?
 
Billy T said:
Possibly, but as it is impossible* to prove something does not exist, that burden is impossible to carry.
Click to expand...
Which only backs up the notion that assertions of non-existence are problematic. Those who make them, you are saying, cannot carry the burden. But it is still their burden if they make the assertion.
 
wise acre said:
to quote myself



Another way to put this is you start with an assumption that there are explanations of reality that work independent of bodies/perceivers.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't.
But if you mean that I am 'assuming' that reality exists when no one observes it, then you are correct. But it is hardly an assumption, is it ?
If you go into a dense rainforest where no one has ever been before, you'll see trees all around. Cut one of those trees down and see how big it's circumference is. Then count the rings to get an idea of it's age. It was growing in that exact spot all this time without anyone observing it. Reality exists independent of observation.
 
Enmos said:
No, I didn't.
Click to expand...
I think you must be assuming this, otherwise all your descriptions of 'objective reality' are all subjective.

But if you mean that I am 'assuming' that reality exists when no one observes it, then you are correct. But it is hardly an assumption, is it ?
Click to expand...
Of course it is an assumption. Most people consider their assumptions obvious, but that does not make them less assumptions (or axioms).

If you go into a dense rainforest where no one has ever been before, you'll see trees all around. Cut one of those trees down and see how big it's circumference is. Then count the rings to get an idea of it's age. It was growing in that exact spot all this time without anyone observing it.
Click to expand...
This does not constitute a truth. Further every word you used only makes sense to describe phenomena, not things in themselves. You are not describing 'objective reality' you are describing experiences. You are therefore assuming the subject object split and then reifying 'objects' out of these phenomena - this part is me, this part is the object - and calling those pieces of phenomena that you claim are not you
'objective.'

Reality exists independent of observation.
Click to expand...
That is an assumption.

and then at a second level - is it possible to describe this 'reality' you speak of objectively?
 
wise acre said:
I think you must be assuming this, otherwise all your descriptions of 'objective reality' are all subjective.

Of course it is an assumption. Most people consider their assumptions obvious, but that does not make them less assumptions (or axioms).

This does not constitute a truth. Further every word you used only makes sense to describe phenomena, not things in themselves. You are not describing 'objective reality' you are describing experiences. You are therefore assuming the subject object split and then reifying 'objects' out of these phenomena - this part is me, this part is the object - and calling those pieces of phenomena that you claim are not you
'objective.'

That is an assumption.

and then at a second level - is it possible to describe this 'reality' you speak of objectively?
Click to expand...

Dude, did I ever say I could accurately describe objective reality ? It can't be done.
All I'm saying is that it can be known that objective reality exists. It's pretty clear from my posts in this thread.
 
Enmos- You know that can't be "known" only assumed. You are mistaking the experience of something existing outside of your experience as proof of anything. You can "believe" whatever you want to which you have not experienced, but that belief is not true knowledge, is it?

Or shall we talk about religious beliefs and true knowledge and what the difference is?
 
No, sorry. I am saying that your belief in others' theoretical experiences is no more proof of anything than my word that I have a blue cat. More to the point, perhaps we are constructs of some unknown being, in which case we do not really exist and our subjective reality is only hallucination.

For the record, I think I am arguing solipsism. Oh well.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
No, sorry. I am saying that your belief in others' theoretical experiences is no more proof of anything than my word that I have a blue cat. More to the point, perhaps we are constructs of some unknown being, in which case we do not really exist and our subjective reality is only hallucination.

For the record, I think I am arguing solipsism. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I reject solipsism straight out.
 
Enmos said:
Dude, did I ever say I could accurately describe objective reality ?
Click to expand...
So we know its there but we can't accurately describe it. Does that include that the tree was there before you got there. I don't think you see the implications of your arguments.


All I'm saying is that it can be known that objective reality exists. It's pretty clear from my posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
It's clear that you believe it. But if you cannot describe it accurately what is this 'it' you are referring to?

An important addition. I spent some effort going point for point on your argument. Instead of responding to the points, where I deal with some of the implications of your position, you simply repeat your position and tell me it is clear. That's fine, it's an internet forum and some people work like that. But I don't and will drop the discussion with you very fast if this continues.
 
I think subjective reality would be this world and time we live in. Objective reality would be after death or heaven/hell. I am only saying this because once we die, it seems we would have more purpose that way than just to live and die on this Earth.
 
wise acre said:
So we know its there but we can't accurately describe it. Does that include that the tree was there before you got there. I don't think you see the implications of your arguments.


It's clear that you believe it. But if you cannot describe it accurately what is this 'it' you are referring to?

An important addition. I spent some effort going point for point on your argument. Instead of responding to the points, where I deal with some of the implications of your position, you simply repeat your position and tell me it is clear. That's fine, it's an internet forum and some people work like that. But I don't and will drop the discussion with you very fast if this continues.
Click to expand...

I'll save you the trouble and drop it for you. You need to add something to the discussion instead of just disagreeing with me.
Where does the data come from that our senses pick up ? Answer that one for starters..
 
-ND- said:
I think subjective reality would be this world and time we live in. Objective reality would be after death or heaven/hell. I am only saying this because once we die, it seems we would have more purpose that way than just to live and die on this Earth.
Click to expand...

I think you're not particularly clear on what the concepts of objective reality and subjective reality are.
This is also not the religion forum.
 
Why do you reject solipsism straight out? I mean, if something can't be disproven, shouldn't that give it more credence?
 
Enmos said:
I'll save you the trouble and drop it for you. You need to add something to the discussion instead of just disagreeing with me.
Where does the data come from that our senses pick up ? Answer that one for starters..
Click to expand...

I raised a number of issues. I did more than simply disagree with you.

Note here: your model assumes a subject object split.

'reality' -------> data ------> senses ------> us

So your model seems to give evidence of 'objective' reality. But it is part of the assumptions you make.

By the way, dropping it will not include asking me questions.

If my first two responses I went into some arguments which you have chosen not to respond to.

In the post you are responding to you here, I raised a specific issue

But if you cannot describe it accurately what is this 'it' you are referring to?
Click to expand...

Which means I was not 'simply disagreeing with you.'

In another post I responded

This does not constitute a truth. Further every word you used only makes sense to describe phenomena, not things in themselves. You are not describing 'objective reality' you are describing experiences. You are therefore assuming the subject object split and then reifying 'objects' out of these phenomena - this part is me, this part is the object - and calling those pieces of phenomena that you claim are not you
'objective.'
Click to expand...

and in my first response I said
My problem with this is that it glides by an issue and I think a core one. It is not so much that perception is fallible and thus our image of objective reality is somehow partly correct, but rather that words like 'object' only have meaning to a perceiver - even this wording distresses me since it invokes the whole subject perception object model.
Click to expand...

At no point have you explained why you think a model with a subject object split must be true. The example of the tree in the jungle does not address this issue.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Why do you reject solipsism straight out? I mean, if something can't be disproven, shouldn't that give it more credence?
Click to expand...

Uh no. If something is unfalsifiable is does not gain any credence.
It's pointless to discuss unfalsifiable concepts really.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
... If something can't be disproven, shouldn't that give it more credence?
Click to expand...
So do you believe there is more than 50/50 chance that there are unicorns on the Earth sized planet just inferred to exist by the "wobble" of the star it is circling? Certainly no one can prove there are not unicorns there as it is the "habital zone" of that star. I.e. where water in the liquid state can exist.
 
Why not? Maybe it's inhabited entirely by elves who breathe methane.

Solipsism is one possibility among many when it comes to reality. Does it help that I could probably argue for objective reality just as well?

My biggest problem is not so much the solipsist view, but the fact I can believe that ANYTHING might be the case. Solipsism just happens to be the underdog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top