"Reality is what I perceive it to be"

jimtron

Illuminator
jimtron
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
3,105
Location
Los Angeles, California
On another forum I'm engaged in a discussion that has devolved into the old favorite--"how do we know anything is real" argument. Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?

I know this has popped up here on the JREF forums as well...
 
jimtron said:
On another forum I'm engaged in a discussion that has devolved into the old favorite--"how do we know anything is real" argument. Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?

I know this has popped up here on the JREF forums as well...
Click to expand...
I am having that same argument on another forum as well.

My solution is to just accept that the person i'm arguing with is an idiot who just wants to avoid thinking; and go have another drink. Maybe if I kill enough brain cells I'll understand his viewpoint.
 
The biggest problem with such a standpoint is utility. We assume that what we percieve is real because such an assumption is effective and useful in our lives.

From Wikipedia:
An objection, raised by David Deutsch, among others, is that since the solipsist has no control over the "universe" he is creating for himself, there must be some unconscious part of his mind creating it. If the solipsist makes his unconscious mind the object of scientific study (e.g., by conducting experiments), he will find that it behaves with the same complexity as the universe offered by realism; therefore, the distinction between realism and solipsism collapses. What realism calls "the universe", solipsism calls "one's unconscious mind." But these are just different names for the same thing. Both are massively complex processes other than the solipsist's conscious mind, and the cause of all the solipsist's experiences; possibly merely a labelling distinction. Application of Occam's Razor might then suggest that postulating the existence of 'reality' may be a simpler solution than a massive unconscious mind.
 
Or in other words, quoting Pixy Misa: The world acts as if it is real.

.. And experience shows you need to treat it as if it is. Cannot resist reposting ye olde:

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)
Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans :D
 
jimtron said:
On another forum I'm engaged in a discussion that has devolved into the old favorite--"how do we know anything is real" argument. Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?

I know this has popped up here on the JREF forums as well...
Click to expand...
IF nothing is real, then he shouldn't mind selling his firstborn as a loveslave to you.

IF he doesn't wanna do that, ask him why not, if it isn't real.
:D
 
Here is, in one word, proof that reality isn't formed by your mind. The word is "sniper." You don't see a sniper, you don't know he is there. So therefore in your reality he doesn't exist. And yet, try explaining the effects of the non existant bullet on your head.
 
I've always found the tactic of smackin' 'em around while yelling "STOP HITTING YOURSELF!" to be effective, if juvenile.
 
politas said:
The biggest problem with such a standpoint is utility. We assume that what we percieve is real because such an assumption is effective and useful in our lives.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The fact is, solipsism is not really falsifiable (beyond the death of the solipsist) - the suggestions about putting the solipsist in a painful situation are amusing but easily incorporated in a solipsistic philosophy. The existence of ourselves and our immediate experiences are perhaps the only assumptions we can make about reality with 100% certainty, so solipsism has a rational basis in that regard.

The issue is, as politas put it, that the philosophy is totally useless - there's nowhere to go after your starting premises. The sensible solution is to make some additional assumptions that we can't be 100% sure about, but make sense in the context of our observations. Things like "the observed world appears to operate (in some form) when I'm not looking, so I'll assume that's true" and "The observed world appears to behave in a relatively consistent fashion, so I'll assume that". Eventually, I think you end up with something like physicalism (or at least a framework which allows you to incorporate your observation of the world in order to define it better - i.e., science).
 
Dr Samuel Johnson

The most irrefutable debunking of the non-materialistic theory of reality involves Dr. Samuel Johnson, as recorded by Boswell (hopefully the following quote violates no forum policy):

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- 'I refute it thus.'"

I refute it thus -- someday that'll be my sig, when I get around to creating one.


ETA: BTW Jimtron, sorry to derail but who's that in your avatar? I swear I've seen that person before, maybe on some old TV show like Batman or Bewitched, but I can't remember exactly, and it's driving me nuts. Those are the most stoned-looking eyes I've ever seen, not that I would know of course...
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Or in other words, quoting Pixy Misa: The world acts as if it is real.

.. And experience shows you need to treat it as if it is. Cannot resist reposting ye olde:
Click to expand...

I was going to try and find that old post, but you beat me to it!

Thanks, MRC_Hans.
 
Ausmerican said:
Here is, in one word, proof that reality isn't formed by your mind. The word is "sniper." You don't see a sniper, you don't know he is there. So therefore in your reality he doesn't exist. And yet, try explaining the effects of the non existant bullet on your head.
Click to expand...


But, if you are killed instantly, then you cease to exist and the sniper never really existed as a subjective experience. How does that fit in?

No, really, I'm asking because I'd prefer not to to think about it too much....
 
Stellafane said:
ETA: BTW Jimtron, sorry to derail but who's that in your avatar? I swear I've seen that person before, maybe on some old TV show like Batman or Bewitched, but I can't remember exactly, and it's driving me nuts. Those are the most stoned-looking eyes I've ever seen, not that I would know of course...
Click to expand...

I'm not Jimtron, but I do remember Ernie Kovacs and his characterizations, one of them being the poet Percy Dovetonsils, whom you are seeing as his avatar.

FWIW, Ernie Kovacs was perhaps one of the 3-4 true comedic geniuses produced by the United States in the 20th Century, IMHO.
 
Aerosolben articulated the answer quite nicely. Jimtron, is the person you're debating making the argument:

1. I believe that all perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind (or impulses fed to my brain in a vat, whatever); or
2. It is impossible for me to know that all perceived reality is not merely a projection of my mind.

The former argument is true solipsism; it sounds to me like he's making the latter. There's nothing lame, as you suggest, about the latter argument; I think it's a valid epistemological point. As other posts have pointed out, it's impossible to falsify the argument in (1), so the best we can do is assume that our perceptions more or less accurately reflect an external reality and continue on the basis of that assumption. It's still only an assumption.
 
I've always found the tactic of smackin' 'em around while yelling "STOP HITTING YOURSELF!" to be effective, if juvenile.
Click to expand...

I LIKE this solution. What's the juvenile part?

Hutch: right and right. Kovacs had a TV show that was way ahead of its time; very brilliant and hilarious. Or maybe I just imagined it...

Thanks everyone for your helpful suggestions.
 
JamesDillon said:
Aerosolben articulated the answer quite nicely. Jimtron, is the person you're debating making the argument:

1. I believe that all perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind (or impulses fed to my brain in a vat, whatever); or
2. It is impossible for me to know that all perceived reality is not merely a projection of my mind.

The former argument is true solipsism; it sounds to me like he's making the latter. There's nothing lame, as you suggest, about the latter argument; I think it's a valid epistemological point. As other posts have pointed out, it's impossible to falsify the argument in (1), so the best we can do is assume that our perceptions more or less accurately reflect an external reality and continue on the basis of that assumption. It's still only an assumption.
Click to expand...

I think it's more two, although the this person hasn't gotten into it too deeply. I agree that the argument isn't lame, I guess I should have said it was lame logic to go to that argument in the context of the discussion.
 
JamesDillon said:
It's still only an assumption.
Click to expand...

I think this is the sort of language that led us into 4 threads worth of trouble with Piggy...

It is 'only' an assumption, but it is the most important assumption that any of us make. We all act on it, long before we've ever taken our first philosophy courses...
 
Jimbo07 said:
I think this is the sort of language that led us into 4 threads worth of trouble with Piggy...
Click to expand...
I think you're right. I'm waiting for the "verbal trickery" rebuttal.

It is 'only' an assumption, but it is the most important assumption that any of us make. We all act on it, long before we've ever taken our first philosophy courses...
Click to expand...
No question about that, but I think there's some value in recognizing these fundamental assumptions on which we base everything else as essentially unprovable (or falsifiable), even if, having done so, there's nothing we can do about it but go back to relying on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom