Then does the question make sense?
I think I’ll chase my tail now… 
I wonder what Wittgenstien would say after said rhino gored him.
Can you prove I am bleeding to death?
he’d say “your propaganda and junk science is not proof of global warming”
-Imp
Russell and Witty were playing around with the problems of sense-data, language, and the indentity principle.
They wanted to conjur up the most ridiculous argument that could possibly be “philosophical” and still logically sound.
It might of sounded something like this:
“Look, its a rhino.”
“No its not.”
“Prove it”
“Okay, I see a table.”
“What is a table?”
“A collection of sensory data.”
“What is a rhino?”
“A collection of sensory data.”
“What’s the difference then?”
“They don’t look alike.”
"What is “looking”?
“Thinking with images after the eyes are impressed with light waves.”
“Don’t rhino bodies refract light waves”?
“Sure”.
“Then what is the difference”?
Etc., etc…
There could be a microscopic rhino. In the real world, proof requires one to scurry across all possible aspects and eliminate error, which is usually tedious. We live on borrowed certainty.
It seems to me there must be some mental prompt or cue that the questioner experiences which allows him to feel that the question is worth asking at all. The neurological process that leads from the thought (and the suspicion that there may indeed be a rhinoceros in the room) to the utterance of the question is, perhaps, the beginning of a kind of objective evidence towards the probability of an affirmative answer.
"I read recently about how Russell and Wittgenstein would debate in Russell’s’ office over whether one could prove that there was or was not a Rhinoceros in the office. "
Where did you read this? The debate was one of ontology not epistemology. Neither Russell or Witt were concerned here with proof of a rhinoceros, but whether negative facts such as “There is no rhinoceros in this room” have any place in a respectable ontology. For Witt, negative facts such as this were unacceptable/nonsensical.
“If words are defined only by more words and language itself is observer-relative, how can we ever prove that there is an objective external observer-independent world?”
This was nothing like Witt’s position. W of the Tractatus was absolutely opposed to relativism.
Twiffy:
“Fundamentally we can’t prove that there’s any reality beyond our perceptions.”
Well, such proofs are offered which you would really need to assess individually (e.g. G.E Moore, Husserl). You seem to be assuming (along with Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume etc) a theory of sense-data; That perception involves contact with mental entities (such as an ‘image’ of a rhinoceros). The critical realist will respond that that is itself an unjustified assumption. Why do you get to suppose that we DON’T encounter the real world in perception? Scepticism can plausibly support either direct realism or your ‘sense-data’ equally well, so one might as well accept the more common-sensical direct realism.
I was reading a biography on Wittgenstein in a book store. I can’t remember what the name of the book was. If you type in “Wittgenstein Rhinoceros” in Google, you come up with some results regarding the Russell Witt Rhino conversation. Like the link below.
Interesting. This sounds very much in line with the little I have read about Witty.
Haven’t read it but know well of it and is on my Amazon wish list. 
I know that Witty is some of the toughest philosophical stuff to read and digest.
Interesting, I want to hear more.
I am not creating a sort of Cartesian dualistic separation of mind image and ‘reality’, so to speak. How can an observer, regardless of how the process in which they observe or perceive works, ever have an objective perspective? An empirical observer is always an observer.
Please elaborate on this ‘unjustified assumption’. I don’t see it as assumption. Perhaps the idea of a ‘mental image’ is an assumption, but it is not an assumption I am making. I don’t know exactly how our brain works. What I do know is that we are empirical observers. We are subjective observers. This will never change.
In short, how can a subjective observer ever be anything else than subjective? Doesn’t a subjective observer HAVE to assume that objective reality exists? Aren’t realists still making this age old assumption?
I believe we do encounter the real world. I believe there is reality and a world ‘outside’ my perceptions. But it is exactly that… a subjetive belief of mine. An assumption. Are you telling me that I can ‘prove’ to you that I am real? Can you ‘prove’ to me that you exist? I know that solipsism is absolutely ridiculous, but I am needing someone to help me out of this quagmire. I had assumed that we could at least prove that there is objective reality, but recently had been persuaded otherwise. Please lead me on the path to show that objective reality outside of me can be proved and is not an assumption that I have to make.
Does this mean accepting that objective reality is an assumption? Or does direct realism deny this basic assumption that a subjective observer MUST make?
Heavens, to prove or not prove there is a rhino in the room get an elephant gun and start shooting in every direction. I am fairly certain that anyone else in the room will quickly agree with your perspective. And if there is a Rhino well, Rhinos don’t belong in the living room anyway, It would be much harder to get a live one out then a dead one. A good winch and a truck outside will drag it out quite easy. If there wasn’t one well you probably needed to patch and paint anyway.
end of theory. Just aproach problem pragmatically and simply.
“To the winch wench!” Quote - Never Ending Story
I really hope Pearlsbeforeswine responds soon. I’m interested in what he or she has to say.
Kris, what do you think of my last post above?
Can you prove to me you exist and aren’t a phantom?
(In other words, can you prove to me, a subjective observer, that there is an objective reality beyond me?)
Bane, It is more important to our own existence that we prove to ourselves that others exist or don’t exist. Anytime you try to get someone to prove they exist you still have doubt. Anytime you try to get someone else other than you to prove an object exists there is doubt.
That is what my post was about.
We within ourselves must be the final judge of what exists or does not exist. If we try to live with someone elses thoughts then we leave doubt. We create a vaccum of responsibility, of strength and trust of self. We deny ourselves ourself. There is no possible way you can prove to me anything that leaves no shadow or hint of doubt, Other than killing me. Then you would win your point.
I need to prove to myself only, that the Rhino exists, it is irrelevent to my existence as me, wether you believe or see the same, well other than entertainment factors. Arguing is fun. If you need me to prove the rhino exists then you might be having a conflict of trusting yourself or denying yourself.
All reality is based upon each creature’s individual acceptance of reality.
That is why we have prisons and mental hospitals and why animals will kill members of their own packs, pods , flocks etc…
Thanks for the response Kris.
In keeping to the heart of why I posted this Rhino thread, it seems that overall you are saying that you agree that we each must accept and make the assumption that there is a world ‘beyond’ us. We have to accept that we are assuming ‘objective reality’ beyond us.
There is no way for a subjective being to ever get beyond their subjectivity.
Please post again Pearlsbeforeswine. I liked the direction you were coming from.
One thought that I keep having is that there is no particular exact point in space. This sounds like it is from left field, but it is not. In saying this I am talking about how there is no self. There is no particular point that an observer sees from. It is like trying to look inside a body with a microscope for the ‘self’ or ‘soul’. You won’t find it. There is no self. There is no exact location of perspective. After having said this, I believe that there is reality. I believe a ‘mind’s eye’ or mental image and dualistic ideas are ill-conceived and incorrect. There is everything. There is objective reality. But if we are to group a hunk of matter together and call it a human being named Bane, that grouping of matter, that being, will have a subjective perspective. Sorry I’m meandering everywhere in my thoughts, but I am enjoying the thoughts that I’m piecing together.
In saying there is no self, perhaps one could say that there is no such thing as perspective at all! There is only reality. Objective and real. We are a part of this reality and it appears to us that we have perspective… but there is no concrete ‘us’ to perceive things.
Perhaps in saying that we, as subjective observers, must assume there is objective reality, we must realize that this assumption is founded on the deeper assumption that we (as observing entities) actually exist at all! Because as we look deeper, our ‘perspective’ isn’t really from anywhere at all. We don’t have to ‘assume’ objective reality exists outside us… because we don’t exist! 
Is this possibly similar to realists interpretation of reality Pearlsbeforeswine?
Bane you are going to burn your brain out, Take it from one who does it all the time. 
construct subjective objective duality perspective reality; the words of thinking goes on, we can get lost in these words so easy.
Am I real are you real is the tree real are the sounds real are we in touch. My god we can lose any grip we have by these questions. Then add to that someone elses thoughts. Tornados can be gentler.
We need to expand our self, we need to learn, we need to understand, this for many of us can be thought of as a hunger. The above are the foods we feed this hunger. Sadly they are more like cotton candy, sweet, good but, hardly filling or solid.
It would be nice to get one computer to take all known thoughts, data and written words on philospohy and religious beliefs and correllate them into the best guess at reality. Then we could move on. It seems we are stuck on one word…Proof.
Proof is the hallmark word in debates of philosophy and religion. Physical science can grasp at proof so easily compared to these two mental sciences.
Proof for these two exists outside these bodies. LOL And ethics forbids human experiments to test theorys. All we can do is get mired in quandrys and beliefs until we expire. Unless it is possible to skip proof and theories and trust in your own self. Being social creatures that is a difficult prospect and perhaps a frightening one.
In existence of ourself we feel the hunger to prove to ourself that we exist. attitudes vary. Some believe there is a safety net called God, some believe when our body dies our soul ends too. Some believe that we are mere fragments of something else.
What if as individuals the truth varies? Why must all humans and creatures follow popular paths? Meaning: Whatever you truly truly heartfelt know and believe is the absolute truth for you. It will happen for you the way you see it.
It seems we have a need to take others with us, like drowning people dragging others down with them. Or kids refusing to go down a darkened path on halloween alone, they drag their companions with them, all are curious but, there is safety in numbers. Alone, something dire may happen.
What if we are meant to go down these paths alone? Perhaps we are not evolving as we should because we are stuck on a path during Halloween.
Our existence is a fearful thing. It is safer to have others believe, so we convert, drag, coerce, cajole others onto our vision’s path. We question our existence but, do we really want the truth yet? It seems to me if we did, we would step forward alone and allow our curiosity to propell us down that darkened path alone to see if we exist, to see if there is a god, to see if we can go on without these bodies etc… What ever our self tells us is our future.
yep, there lies the proof. And we want nothing to do with it yet unless Mikey goes first. Heck I admit I don’t want to walk the path I see. I would have to give up all that I love temporarily and I can’t do that because all that I love does not see what I see. Since that is truth, I will wait.
I am that rhino
"I was reading a biography on Wittgenstein in a book store. I can’t remember what the name of the book was. If you type in “Wittgenstein Rhinoceros” in Google, you come up with some results regarding the Russell Witt Rhino conversation. Like the link below. "
I’m well aware of the Rhino conversation. I meant where did you read that there was any debate over PROOF as to whether there was a Rhinoceros in the room. The exerpt from Russell that you link to contains no such thing.
“I know that Witty is some of the toughest philosophical stuff to read and digest”.
I’d disagree. Heidegger, for example, has had more academic philosophical discussion than any Philosopher of the 20th century (BBC documentary). He is a much harder read that Witt. Levinas is incredibly abstruse. And what about Kant…
The great thing about early Witt is that his Tract follows so closely from the problematic of Frege (and to a much lesser extent Russell). If you understand the ontological and epistemological problems of F, then Witt comes like breath of fresh air.
“How can an observer, regardless of how the process in which they observe or perceive works, ever have an objective perspective? An empirical observer is always an observer.”
You’re making unjustified assumptions here. Who is this “empirical observer” you speak of? You’ve certainly given no argument for its existence. You might try and give some sort of 'self evident" argument like Descarte’s cogito. But, you’ll find any such argument you provide will be subject to sceptical criticisms as much as realism. The Cogito (of course), is a fallacious argument.
“What I do know is that we are empirical observers. We are subjective observers. This will never change”.
No, you don’t know this. Any argument you give for this knowledge claim (like all knowledge claims) will be subject to scepticism. You have no proof that we are subjective observers if you are being truly sceptical.
“Does this mean accepting that objective reality is an assumption? Or does direct realism deny this basic assumption that a subjective observer MUST make?”
Well, G.E Moore’s direct realism which I suggest you investigate, would posit objective reality as an assumption, but as I’ve pointed out, solipsism makes assumptions also (though it may not appear to). Of course it may also be possible to ground objective reality in subjective experience alone. This is the Phenomenological project (Husserl).
"we must realize that this assumption is founded on the deeper assumption that we (as observing entities) actually exist at all! "
You’re getting there. Avoiding assumptions is nigh on impossible. If the idealist/solipsist is making unjustified assumptions (which they are), and the realist is making unjustified assumptions, then there is no reason to not keep being a realist if that is the way you are inclined.
I guess your smart. I’m dumb.
What?
Any observer or subjective being. Are you arguing that observers, other beings, and subjectivity do not exist?
If I am not a subjective observer in an objective world, then I am objective and I am the world. (Solipsism). This is my very point. Either we give to solipsism (which is stupid) or we assume/accept that we are observers in a world ‘beyond’ us. A world outside us.
All sounds good to me.
Double negative? So ultimately it sounds as if we are agreeing on almost all counts. Neither of us would deny the need for basic root assumptions. Whether we are realists or idealists/solipsists, we must make basic assumptions. And I agree with you as well on the point that we should keep to the realist side, as solipsism errors in the wrong direction. Simply in the name of pragmatism or progress, we should take the realist road, because the road down solipsism leads NOWHERE!
You seem to have got an ‘observer’ from somewhere. I want to know where because it seems like you’re making an assumption about its existence.
No. I’m arguing that they don’t necessarily exist. Unless you can give an argument for subjectivity’s existence, then you’re simply assuming it.
That’s a false dichotomy. There are not only two opposing positions. For example, you claim a solipsist must say “I am my world”. I could reply “Give me an argument for the existence of the ‘I’!” The solipsist will have to give an argument like “it is self-evident”. Such arguments never work.
In short, could a consistent sceptic not be both sceptical of realism and solipsism? Why can’t a sceptic say “I don’t have enough evidence to believe in either” and simply suspend believe in metaphysical claims.
.
No, we disagree here. I don’t think we should be realists because solipsism “goes in the wrong direction”. I’m saying if you care to be a realist, then you are just as justified in holding that metaphysic as the solipsist is in holding theirs. Therefore, the solipsist has no right to ask you for proof of your position.
I am completely against rejecting solipsism on pragmatic grounds. The solipsist need not accept that realism is the more pragmatic option (though they probably should!). But, if I am correct (about scepticism denying solipsism as much as it denies realism), then the solipsist must accept that their metaphysic is just as reasonable as mine. This is a much better knockdown of the solipsist than “your road leads nowhere”.
I would like some of our doubting Thomas’s to tell me just what is causing my perception / sensory experiences.
For those of you mucking about “proof,” who ever said that the standard for proof is objective? What is your basis for that claim, eh?