P1: If reality is a construction of my mind, then I can control it.
P2: I can’t control reality.
C: Thus, it isn’t a construction of my mind.
I guess it proves naive idealism is false and realism, the idea that there exists an external world independent of our mind is true.
The question is: can we know anything about the external world? There are two epistemological or metaphysical hypotheses regarding this question. The first is the alignment hypothesis, which says our subjective experiences and the external world matches. For example, right now I am experiencing using a mobile phone to write a post on a website with my hands. According to this hypothesis, in the actual external world this is the case: there is a humanoid figure holding a phone and writing this post. So, my subjective experiences and the external world matches.
Then we have the misalignment hypothesis, which states that our subjective experiences don’t match with the external world. There are infinitely many ways this is possible, but notable examples include the brain-in-a-vat scenario. I might be a brain in a vat getting these subjective experiences of writing this post, but in the actual external world I am just a brain in a vat receiving artificial electrical signals that cause the brain to generate these subjective experiences. The external world and our subjective experiences don’t match at all. Then there is another scenario called the simulation hypothesis, which says that in the external world I am just a few lines of computer code or a computer character living in a simulation, and somehow the simulation is producing these specific subjective experiences. There are infinitely many ways this misalignment between our subjective experiences and the actual external world is possible. So, I think we should talk about this in general terms.
Now, deductively we can’t rule out one of these metaphysical hypotheses. So what remains is inductive reasoning or abductive reasoning. Now you might use the principle of parsimony to say the misalignment hypothesis is likely false and the alignment hypothesis is likely true. But the principle of parsimony isn’t proven, nor is it justified. We just believe in it. In the same way, many other principles you might use to conclude that the alignment hypothesis is likely true are unjustified and unproven. So, the question is: can you show me, using justified or proven logical principles, that the alignment hypothesis or the misalignment hypothesis is likely to be true? Or will we forever remain in agnosticism, where we say we can never know which hypothesis is true or likely true, that it is impossible to know?
We will forever remain in agnosticism. Kant ran away from accepting this agnosticism, and pretended that we can know with certainty that the external world is completely unknowable. So I guess that would be the ultimate misalignment hypothesis. Imo his stance is actually really stupid, but Kant hid it in 1000 pages of obnoxious text and became the greatest philosopher since Plato.
Now if we include science and psychology, those seem to agree that indirect realism is correct, so they support the alignment hypothesis. Not perfect alignment, but enough alignment (unless the brain/mind is seriously malfunctioning).
So imo if we unify philosophy with science and psychology, the alignment hypothesis is more likely to be correct.
The version of the principle of parsimony that is not a belief is just avoiding supposing unneeded things. That’s precisely what brings you to the state you’re in: supposing the situation is one rather than the other is an unneeded supposition.
Be aware that likelihood (probability) is subjective, so you are on your starting point again (we all are). For example, the likelihood of a coin landing heads is different for me, rather than for an observer with a high-speed camera - the coin being the same.
You can prove the universe is causeless, for example. Yeah, all that based on subjective things, for sure, but nevertheless stands
Science doesn’t entail realism is correct, since science works exactly the same in any of those situations.
Wouldn’t concluding there is an external world mean we think we know something about it? That it’s not the internal world. That it is one of two worlds. IOW doesn’t that model already assume knowledge about the external world? And whatever process we used to decide this is inner and that is outer, wouldn’t that include assumptions of knowledge about, well, at least this isn’t internal so we put it in the other set and then worry we are wrong about it?
It is true because lucid dreaming is possible and if something originated from conscious mind. Then it will be controllable unless it is from subconscious mind or something beyond it.
What’s all this business about an external world if we can’t even know anything about it? You must know something about it in order to even ask the question, am I right?
That something is that there definitely exists an external world. The question is does that external world exists the way it appears to us or it doesn’t exist the way it appears to us and we might be in many skeptical scenarios like brain in a vat, simulation hypothesis and many others?
Either way, you are the one who decides how to respond to whichever environment appears to you. No environment could appear to you unless all appearance traces back to that which appears itself first. That which appears itself first is the ground for all other appearance, so you exist ultimately in that ground, and all appearances are possible because all appearance is either in its image, or in defiance of it. If you value the truth of reality, don’t appear in defiance of it. Align yourself with the ground of all appearing. All substance that acts according to its intelligible function/value is in alignment with the ground of all appearing.
Only a person can purposefully appear itself. Be a person, and treat all appearing persons as persons like yourself, lest you self-destruct.
If you see a person self-destructing, or defying reality of original personhood, show them how to realign by being an example of a person even if they don’t reciprocate—while they are still out of alignment or in defiance.
If you want to multiply value & not just match it, make more of another person without expecting anything in return. Original personhood will multiply what is not returned.
It has been demonstrated. Let me know if you want the receipts
But it still doesn’t answer the question that is the external reality exists the way we perceive it or it doesn’t exist the way we perceive it and we might be in skeptical scenarios like brain in a vat, simulation hypothesis, Descartes evil demon and many others?
All information comes through subjective experience - if that was not the case, you wouldn’t get that information. Some subjective things are also objective, like ‘something exists at all’.
It seems like you are saying we can control everything in our minds because we can have lucid dreams. But there are plenty of other mental phenomena that are much harder to control than dreams - and even those who lucid dream, like me, can’t control everything in lucid dreams. Some things or qualities simply arise, even if I can choose the core story/location and my own actions in the lucid dream. But try stopping believing in certain things or the appearance of certain thoughts. And if you are going to apply a distinction between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind, then C should be: Thus it isn’t a construction of my conscious mind. Further, believing you can distinguish between inner and outer has inherent beliefs about what is out there (and what is in here) or how would you notice ah that is an outer thing, that’s not my my inner experience.
Yes there are mental phenomena which you can’t control it. But atleast you will figure out you are having it same way in lucid dreaming you can’t control everything but you can control most of the thing. The fact right now you can’t control your perception and you don’t get the realisation that it is a hallucination, all indicating that the reality isn’t a construction of your mind or anyone’s mind.
And the distinction we have between the inner and outer. Is that our perception is the inner thing likely caused by an outer thing when we are awake. The question is do our perception matches with the external world. Or it doesn’t and we might in many skeptical or misalignment scenarios like brain in a vat, simulation, Descartes evil demon, and many others skeptical or misalignment scenarios where our perception and the external world is radically different?
Its really just another form of the god paradox, isnt it?
If god makes an immovable object, can he move it?
How would you be aware of self limitations?
If you want to go all the way down that rabbit-hole, then the first step to answer your question would be to know who or what you are and whether or not you exist in the first place.
Our existence is nothing more than some faint memories.
One day as a child we started to remember memories, and since that day, we collect experiences. That is the net sum of who and what we are. Not more and not less. Take away all we learned, all we know and there remains nothing but a shell, incapable of speaking, understanding, incapable of everything except base biological instincts.
So to circle back to your question: How would you know what limitations you posed on yourself?
Heck, for all intents and purposes you could be god, or we could be all god, living out a self created scenario, held together by the rules we ourselves crafted before we started the play.
The question inevitably circles back to the most basic building blocks:
What are we?
Are we?
What is reality?
And the answer will always be: We do not know, and we cannot know.
But oddly you can’t control the thoughts and desires you have in the lucid dream (apart from facets of the ‘world’ you are in). So, the dreaming mind itself cannot control itself.
Hallucinations are by definition when you take something as real when it isn’t. So, you can’t have that realization and have the hallucation.
I couldn’t understand this part.
But a more important problem with the OP is that you are talking about all people. But other people are part of YOUR external world. If you believe the argument in the OP applies to you, how can you be sure of anything about the rest of us?
Kant mixed empiricism and rationalism. How can one possibly draw conclusions about anything without first-hand subjective emotional animal experience. Our words would have no meaning at all without first-hand subjective experience.
