But that isn’t true in all cases. How do you know that what you know is real? You touch a tree, it feels hard to you, but if we could, in reality, see that tree as it actually is, and not only how our sense of touch and sight allow us to feel and see it, then we would know a different reality.
i think that the first step in discerning what is real is to ask ourself the question: Do we REALLY want to know what is real? And then we have to define what we mean by 'real". Is it the physical evidence which we see, is it the dream manufactured by the brain interfacing with the inner and outer world? After all that is also real in a sense - to us. Is it the fantasy which we flow into by way of our imagination and thoughts? We can say that’s real in a sense since we experienced it…perhaps in a fuller way that we do our normal life. We’ve just had the experience on another plane.
We feel that we know what we know, that our subjective thoughts and opinions are real- they become our true knowledge but they are at times so far from what is real, what is truth. Knowing and reality cannot always be the same thing, very often are not, because many of us would like to and do live within a matrix. We lie to ourselves and that hides reality.
Why would the question not make sense to you, Smears? It came to you in a dream which on a deeper unconscious level might make more sense than any way we could answer it. It doesn’t necessarily have to be answered in the way in which the question is asked. If those words came to me in a dream, I would examine the way in which I am looking at my life. I would look for something which I am not looking at, something I am not seeing. There is always something! It has to be there or it wouldn’t be sent in the first place.
But really, I think it’s an excellent question for all of us to ask. We dont’ necessarily have to answer it but listen to what comes to us. At the very least, it’s a beacon. Now I know that what I wrote isn’t necessarily what you were looking for but if someone asks a philosophical question and it doesn’t lead people into their selves, why bother? Philosophy ought not to be simply intellectual but also spiritual - in the wider sense of the word.
To any materialist, it would seem obvious that the world “out there” exists. It’s not an easy assumption to get rid of when you build your life around it.
And yet we are faced with the problem that we don’t even have any access to it at all, even by materialist scientific explanations of how we sense. To use vision as an example, we don’t see objects “over there”, it’s not even the light being reflected off them that we experience, nor perhaps even the electrical signals that are tramsmitted to our brains - I don’t “see” electricity… What I see is an image that appears to have no physical location despite seemingly having spatial dimensions, nor any apparent existence in the physical world whatsoever. Nobody even has any idea how these physical signals could possibly be converted into such a thing… into what seems to be an entirely separate plain of existence. It’s irreconcilable.
And yet…
The faith in materialism will simply block out this dilemma and maintain the belief in a world independent of any perception.
I simply cannot accept this. Matter and the physical independent world are results of our perception, not the other way around. This is the only solution. It takes work to come to terms with all the implications of this, which the materialist is simply too lazy or unable to do. It’s not good enough.
Ridding oneself of this senseless worldview, one can appreciate that there is no “reality” “out there”. All we can try and hold onto are “views of reality” - only they could be any “reality” that could make any sense. And yet, it’s still useless as a constant benchmark against which to gauge the “true” value of things because it’s so inconstant, and alters with the times through all kinds of possible permutations. What people want it to be changes all the time, and whilst some things are slower to change than others, there’s no completely reliable constancy, and all the while it’s founded on nothing more than a particular set of senses which are by no means exhaustive, nor necessarily reliable in themselves.
I cannot think of anything more damning to contradictory worldviews like the one von is clinging to.
So, in short, you fail to see sense datum as evidence of anything existing apart from you. I’m still not sure I understand why though. What more would you need?
I lived many years as a materialist. I understand it through and through, but could not bear the failure to see sense data as just that and nothing more. It’s not even evidence of me. I can wish it to be evidence of a concept “me”, I can even wish it to be evidence of an outside world - I just see that doing either adds nothing. I still know what I sense and what I don’t, what appears reliable and what doesn’t, I even know of reasons why and why not - and all without positing the existence of a realm that cannot even be accessed. It’s minimal, it’s internally consistent, and it makes sense - what more or less would you need?
What do you mean it adds nothing? It adds the existence of the external world. Your position doesn’t make sense to me insofar as you haven’t presented any good reason to not regard sense data as evidence of an external world. Errors are bound to arise when we regard sense data as evidence of physical objects, but that doesn’t mean the whole enterprise is erroneous. And I’m still not sure what you mean when you say the realm can’t be accessed.
Excuse me, it adds nothing of any value (if you value internal consistency).
The idea of an external world is redundant.
I honestly don’t live as if an external world exists. The significant thing, though, is that you can’t tell the difference between how I live my life and how someone else does who believes in an external world. This is the whole poignant demonstration of its irrelevance!
My sensory data are simply experiences without cause from an outside world.
What?! I just gave the whole argument:
That is why all materialists ARE positing a realm that can’t be accessed - even if they don’t understand why.
That is why we ought not to regard sense data as evidence of an external world… if we value internal consistency.
Or maybe it shows just how inconsistent your behavior is with your beliefs. If reality is all in your head, why are so many things out of your control?
What, specifically, is the reason why? You keep saying we don’t have access, but I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying that because sense data is interpreted internally into experiences, we shouldn’t regard it as coming from an external source?
That is essentially the core of rationalist philosophy and its derived epistemology of materialism, existentialism, natural philosophy, and science.
Sense data is not evidence of an external world. The external world can only be accessible through _______. Here, the philosopher will say reason, the scientific agnostics will say “I don’t know”, and the religious will say God.
Yeah that’s a pretty interesting one. Are we saying that the lens through which we view the sense data could well be the source of all that we perceive to be data coming through said lens? I can understand a bit of distortion in the mix, but to say that that negates evidence that the percept came from someplace at all is a bit strange in my current state of mind. I’m not saying I hold a firm opinion, but I’d love to hear arguments from those who do.
Uh, spare me the unquestioned assumptions.
You think what is “in your head” (not a phrase I would use if I wanted to be accurate) HAS to be under your control? Things that are not under your control HAVE to come from some different source?
Who made those rules?
Did you not read the REASON that we don’t have access? You don’t sense the object, nor even the various energy waves that your sensory organs are supposed to pick up, nor even the electrical signals stimulating your brain - somehow the result of this physical process is some completely different outcome (non-physical consciousness) that is in all senses irreconcilable with any material that is “supposed” to cause it. You don’t get this?
You can’t just be lazy and say “well sense data just is interpreted internally into experiences”. How the hell does that even happen? Does anyone even know? They don’t because it makes no sense - at some point the physical is supposed to become something completely non-physical. This is all elementary philosophy of mind here - surely you’ve covered it back in your noob days? Sure, it’s presented as a dilemma, but when you think of it how I do, suddenly you’re just left with what you know, and anything that doesn’t make sense is eliminated. Solved and consistent.
It’s as annoying as hell that you keep saying I’m being inconsistent. The only thing I’m being inconsistent with is the flawed belief of those who have an inconsistent belief (but apparently don’t (and can’t?) know it).
Exactly. Finally, someone who’s studied philosophy. Except my stance is set apart from these doctrines through the simple questioning of whether we’ve even been asking the right question.
GIVEN the external world, it can only be accessible through _______. I question the “given”.
Not at all. I think that there is clearly a difference of control over what I think versus what I perceive as belonging to the external world. Why can one not be controlled like the other if they share the same basic nature? For example, I can picture a television in my head and I can imagine anything I’d like to appear on that television. A real television, on the other hand, I can’t control with my imagination.
What then, in your opinion, do we sense?
I’m not saying that. I was asking if that was your view. I’m trying to make sense of what you’re saying due to your apparent inability to give straight, concise answers.
It’s even more annoying that you can’t see how you’re being inconsistent. You’re saying you don’t have any reason to believe anything exists apart from you, yet I seriously doubt you treat every object you come into contact with as a part of you or a mere figment of your imagination. How do you obtain new information if all the sources of information are contained within you to begin with?
Yeah, same nature, but some is controllable and some isn’t. Why is this so hard?
We sense what we sense. It’s a lot simpler than you think.
I’m answering your questions and giving explanations. That solves the straight part, but maybe I should skip the explanation part for the sake of being more concise? No thanks, unbacked claims mean nobody is gonna get anywhere.
You’re putting those same words in my mouth again that I already denied saying. I’m not claiming the “apart from you” bit at all. I don’t treat objects I come into contact with EITHER as a figment of my imagination OR as real objects. Maybe it’s the thinking outside of the box part that’s troubling you. I just treat everything I sense as something I sense, and if it’s something that I can influence more easily then great, and if it’s not then also great. It’s sense data either way. “New” is likewise just sense data combined with a feeling (of newness), which is also a sense datum.
Maybe you need to go have a think about this for a bit: consider what you deem real and imaginary both as sensory data, one you have more control over and one less so, one has more effect on other people, the other doesn’t, one is more vivid than the other yet it’s all just sense data that comes in different flavours. You learn how to distinguish and treat either, deal with either, and all the while you don’t need to mentally put it in any “real” box or “imaginery” box.
A thought experiment for you (and anyone still reading).
Outstanding Silhouette, I just read your last post and some of your earlier one’s this thread, but there’s no need to read more, it’s like you teaching English to non-English speakers. I was for a minute confusing you for Nah being that I remember from a thread I made he had some interest in Sartre, but now I rememeber you were the one who couldn’t get past Sartre’s abrasive style. Maybe my responce to you got lost in the others but here it is:
The reason I bring it up is because I agree with so much of what you say and Sartre consists of 99% of philosophical influence. I would also recommend you try to make since of this essay I wrote (including my responce to Anon). If you have the time and think you’d like to take an antagonistic approach to it I would be equally happy.
I thought this was nicely put. I wanted to add to this an inner outer version. Solipsism can be seen as the claim that Everything is inner. And hence under my Control - as if we were in Control of ourselves completely in any worldview. But there is no reason to assume that anything is inner or outer or that these are mutually exclusive.
In part I mention this because the dichotemy is often made between the real and imaginary, it can also be made between inner and outer. But both of these ‘seemingly obvious’ dualisms may not at all be the case.
You aren’t able to discern any sort of pattern amongst the things that are versus those that aren’t?
I see, you just suspend judgment at that point. That’s fine, I suppose; but I don’t see any good reason to do that.
Look, I’m not claiming certainty here. Objectivity is largely an assumption for me. We have every reason to believe that objects exist externally from us. Maybe different flavors of sense data correspond to different types of objects. I see no reason to suspend judgment at “we sense what we sense”. I’m not saying I can prove to you that an external reality exists. I’m just saying we have every reason to infer that it does.
I wouldn’t necessarily say it is all completely under control. I just mean to say that you can exhibit a certain type of control over that which is “inner”, as you put it. And I don’t think Sil agrees that Solipsism means everything is inner.
I agree about the mutually exclusive part, but we literally have every reason to discern inner from outer. I think we arrive at the distinction quite naturally, and I don’t see any reason to completely throw it out.
You’re right, they may not be. I’m not arguing that they must be the case. I think we have every reason to assume it probably is the case, and that doing so is the most practical and prudent course.
Of course…
It’s the same stuff, and some is more controllable and some is less so: the more controllable stuff is less vivid, it has less effect on other people, it is strongest when I concentrate more, the less controllable stuff is more vivid, it has more effect on people and is strongest when I concentrate less. Sometimes one happens before I wake up, sometimes the other. Either way, those experiences seem to stop affecting people afterwards, whether vivid or not, whether they affected people before or not, whether I was concentrating or not.
I know how anyone else distinguishes between reality and non-reality. I just don’t take the unnecessary step of boxing things into those categories, but instead just take sense data for what they are.
Because we’re not suspending judgment at that point, we’re just refraining from attributing existence to any inaccessible realms from that point. Judgment is actively encouraged from this point, just without the unnecessary detours.
I think these two statements are worth exploring, especially how the latter directly follows the former.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. Inner is pretty meaningless without outer. But I think that was what Moreno meant.
Thank you again, Stuart.
I wouldn’t say I found Sartre abrasive, I think I just used the word dry. Not uncommon for philosophy. It wasn’t so much that I found things he said outrageous, not at all really, I was just persistently hit with frustration that he had missed things when making points. I don’t even have any particular objections that pop into my head, it’s just a general disagreement. I have a working overview of what he tackled, and I like the same subject matter. His focus on nothingness inspired me, but I quickly found that my own thoughts were at odds with his.
That’s just it. The pattern suggests they aren’t the same stuff. And the external/internal distinction works great to explain why. At this point, I seriously doubt that you even care to ask yourself why that is.
You’re right, it’s probably not necessary. However, I think it is an entirely justified assumption that actually simplifies things.
But you are. You’re saying “we sense what we sense”, and you refuse to go any further because you don’t think it necessary. But I’m not really saying it’s necessary. I’m saying it’s justified.
You mean in the sense that inference doesn’t constitute proof? I think the inference is more reasonable than solipsism.
Everybody has a body, brain, and biology that “knows reality”, whether you are even conscious or not.
This is your consciousness being startled awake during a nightmare while dreaming of death. I’ve seen this happen to people in comas too. Somebody inside an induced coma, will fight and struggle to come out of it. This is the body’s reaction to knowing reality. The body tries to reject death, and reject the comatose state, even while unconscious or within the subconscious. Therefore, you don’t even need to be consciously aware of reality, to know reality.
It has to be there or it wouldn’t be sent in the first place.
but if someone asks a philosophical question and it doesn’t lead people into their selves, why bother? Philosophy ought not to be simply intellectual but also spiritual - in the wider sense of the word.