Z
Variable Constant
lifegazer, that paragon of logic and reason, insists that no external reality exists, and that the reality we sense is false, being given 'unto us' by the collective God-mind itself.
So in this thread, I hope to analyze the process by which we can reason that an external reality exists beyond what we sense about it.
Groundwork
The first, most important thing to consider when dealing with the idea of an external reality, is whether or not other people exist at all. If we make the assumption that no other people exist, then we are faced with solipsism. This raises two interesting questions:
1) Am I God?
2) Why do I have sensations of people who appear to be external to me, but obviously aren't, who I cannot in any way control?
For the solipsist, the basic answers involve either a higher self/mind, or God the Solipsist. However, solipsism serves no purpose here - for the solipsist, there can be no external reality, because there can be nothing external to the 'self'. And if solipsism is true, then everything - science, theology, philosophy, reason, logic - are all illusionary products of the self/mind. They are tools trapped within the sensed-awareness of the solipsist, and as such, their logical application becomes meaningless.
So let us assume, for a moment, that we are not solipsists, and that there are other people external to ourselves.
We are raised into a mode of common communication with those immediately around us. We learn to understand what they are trying to say to us, and we learn the concepts underlying that communication. Further, we learn of the nature of a consistant world - that fire always burns, that hard things remain hard, that objects that are blue today are likely to be blue tomorrow. Further, we learn that there is a level of consistancy and verifiability in the other people we are aware of. When we ask them to tell us about a thing which we already know the properties of, and they reply with those same properties, we feel that we have verified both our sense of a thing, and the reliability of the person with whom we are speaking.
So, from earliest childhood, we are conditioned to place faith in the external existence of people other than ourselves, and further, to place faith in the reliability of their senses and in the modes of communication common to us.
Ergo, if we ponder the existence of an object which we sense, if we are by ourselves, we have only our own senses to trust. However, if we are with other people - more than one, preferably - we have other people to verify sensory experiences with. If I have learned all my life that a particular sensation is 'cold', and I have verified this with three other people, and they are with me as we ponder the new object, and one says that the object is 'cold', then I know that I can roughly determine what I will feel as I touch it. If both other people agree, then I have a foundation for knowing the object is cold. If I touch it, therefore, and it feels hot, I would guess that my own sensations are incorrect.
At any rate, I digress - Science studies order among those things which we sense - this is true - but also among those things beyond our senses. They do this through inferrence and theory, through tools that translate unsensed-things into sensed-representations that we can study, etc. And, like any experience in sensed-space, if two or more scientists reach the same conclusions, we can more or less accept their conclusions as reasonable and valid. So if scientists tell us that electron flow is responsible for our lights, we have reason to believe this is true.
Further, experiences within this sensed-reality are incredibly persistent and consistent. The rules don't spontaneously change mid-stream; fire doesn't suddenly cause chills, rocks do not suddenly float away, men don't suddenly learn how to survive off of eating arsenic.
So what we have are our senses, other people with their senses, the ability to clearly and consistantly communicate about our sensed-awareness, which in turn brings verification of our senses; and tools which translate non-sensed things into sensed-things.
These, really, are the foundational blocks of believing in a reality which is causal for our sensations of reality.
There is, of course, also the issue of unsensed-things having a real effect upon us. For example, we may develop colds, cancer, or other ailments, yet be completely unaware of their cause, i.e. viruses, bacteria, radiation, etc. We can be killed by bullets that we cannot see nor hear. A person can be crushed to death by a falling meteorite and never have been aware of meteors in the first place.
Of course, once again, this relies on us having faith in the existence of people external to ourselves, as well as faith in the reliability of our senses and communications. IN fact, these are the three pillars of faith for any materialist philosophy.
I suggest that if you wish to argue against an external reality, you have to attack the three pillars successfully first before attempting anything else. Explain and demonstrate why there are no people external to yourself. Explain and demonstrate why our senses are completely unreliable and inconsistent. Explain and demonstrate why communication with other people is unreliable and inconsistent.
If you are unable to explain these three things, then perhaps you should reconsider attacking a reality external to sensed-awareness.
So in this thread, I hope to analyze the process by which we can reason that an external reality exists beyond what we sense about it.
Groundwork
The first, most important thing to consider when dealing with the idea of an external reality, is whether or not other people exist at all. If we make the assumption that no other people exist, then we are faced with solipsism. This raises two interesting questions:
1) Am I God?
2) Why do I have sensations of people who appear to be external to me, but obviously aren't, who I cannot in any way control?
For the solipsist, the basic answers involve either a higher self/mind, or God the Solipsist. However, solipsism serves no purpose here - for the solipsist, there can be no external reality, because there can be nothing external to the 'self'. And if solipsism is true, then everything - science, theology, philosophy, reason, logic - are all illusionary products of the self/mind. They are tools trapped within the sensed-awareness of the solipsist, and as such, their logical application becomes meaningless.
So let us assume, for a moment, that we are not solipsists, and that there are other people external to ourselves.
We are raised into a mode of common communication with those immediately around us. We learn to understand what they are trying to say to us, and we learn the concepts underlying that communication. Further, we learn of the nature of a consistant world - that fire always burns, that hard things remain hard, that objects that are blue today are likely to be blue tomorrow. Further, we learn that there is a level of consistancy and verifiability in the other people we are aware of. When we ask them to tell us about a thing which we already know the properties of, and they reply with those same properties, we feel that we have verified both our sense of a thing, and the reliability of the person with whom we are speaking.
So, from earliest childhood, we are conditioned to place faith in the external existence of people other than ourselves, and further, to place faith in the reliability of their senses and in the modes of communication common to us.
Ergo, if we ponder the existence of an object which we sense, if we are by ourselves, we have only our own senses to trust. However, if we are with other people - more than one, preferably - we have other people to verify sensory experiences with. If I have learned all my life that a particular sensation is 'cold', and I have verified this with three other people, and they are with me as we ponder the new object, and one says that the object is 'cold', then I know that I can roughly determine what I will feel as I touch it. If both other people agree, then I have a foundation for knowing the object is cold. If I touch it, therefore, and it feels hot, I would guess that my own sensations are incorrect.
At any rate, I digress - Science studies order among those things which we sense - this is true - but also among those things beyond our senses. They do this through inferrence and theory, through tools that translate unsensed-things into sensed-representations that we can study, etc. And, like any experience in sensed-space, if two or more scientists reach the same conclusions, we can more or less accept their conclusions as reasonable and valid. So if scientists tell us that electron flow is responsible for our lights, we have reason to believe this is true.
Further, experiences within this sensed-reality are incredibly persistent and consistent. The rules don't spontaneously change mid-stream; fire doesn't suddenly cause chills, rocks do not suddenly float away, men don't suddenly learn how to survive off of eating arsenic.
So what we have are our senses, other people with their senses, the ability to clearly and consistantly communicate about our sensed-awareness, which in turn brings verification of our senses; and tools which translate non-sensed things into sensed-things.
These, really, are the foundational blocks of believing in a reality which is causal for our sensations of reality.
There is, of course, also the issue of unsensed-things having a real effect upon us. For example, we may develop colds, cancer, or other ailments, yet be completely unaware of their cause, i.e. viruses, bacteria, radiation, etc. We can be killed by bullets that we cannot see nor hear. A person can be crushed to death by a falling meteorite and never have been aware of meteors in the first place.
Of course, once again, this relies on us having faith in the existence of people external to ourselves, as well as faith in the reliability of our senses and communications. IN fact, these are the three pillars of faith for any materialist philosophy.
I suggest that if you wish to argue against an external reality, you have to attack the three pillars successfully first before attempting anything else. Explain and demonstrate why there are no people external to yourself. Explain and demonstrate why our senses are completely unreliable and inconsistent. Explain and demonstrate why communication with other people is unreliable and inconsistent.
If you are unable to explain these three things, then perhaps you should reconsider attacking a reality external to sensed-awareness.
