Solipsism , Idealism , Realism
YOELK
Let me ask several questions :
1) Is there extenal (objective) reality ?
2) Do we have access for the objective reality ?
2) Can we prove that ?
3) If we can't, is there any problem with it ?
My opinion on these questions is :
1) I suppose that there is an objective reality.
This is an axiom (almost). I am very much certain about it, as far as I can
be.
But I would not rule out *any* possibility that I am wrong here.
The possibility that I am wrong about that does not bother me much, because
it is neglible for me.
2) What we call reality is a mental picture of the *objective* reality we
produce by our mind, mostly unintentionally, using our senses and reason.
The blue sky, are blue in our perception. In the physical reality
there is no meaning for 'blueness' . Instead, we can talk about wavelength
of the light, but this wavelength is not particulary blue.
This *mental* reality is all that we really have. Now, I assume that this
*mental* reality has something to do with the *objective* reqality.
It does not bother me much if I am wrong here, because there are no
other viable alternatives for this aproach.
Why it is important for me to understand that ?
Because some of the reality - the human reality - can be altered ,
we can modify it and change it. This is what writers, artists, philosophers,
politicians, and simple (like me) people do.
3,4) I cannot prove my assumptions, because these are my initial
assumptions.
I can imagine them being false, but I right now I don't consider that
possibility
substential.
Regards
----------
YOELK
PS. Sorry for the spelling.
Denis Loubet
YOELK <jk...@shani.net> wrote in message
news:88b7m4$o15$1...@lnews.actcom.co.il...
>
> Let me ask several questions :
> 1) Is there extenal (objective) reality ?
Doesn't matter. I've got what seems to be an objective reality, and that's
good enough.
> 2) Do we have access for the objective reality ?
You mean *to* the objective reality? It seems that way, and that's good
enough. If it's real, then I function in a real world. If it's imaginary,
then I function in an imaginary world that I can't tell from a real one.
Since I can't tell the difference, I might as well treat it as what it
appears to be; an objective reality. It's easier that way.
> 2) Can we prove that ?
Oh, heck no! But since I'm trapped in what appears to be an objective
reality, I treat it as such, and get on with my life.
> 3) If we can't, is there any problem with it ?
Not one that I can see. Even if I'm in The Matrix, unknowingly living my
life as a biological battery in some hideous future, there's very little I
can do about it if I can't know it. I've got to go with what I know.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http:www.io.com/~dloubet
Charles Fiterman
YOELK wrote:
> Let me ask several questions :
> 1) Is there extenal (objective) reality ?
> 2) Do we have access for the objective reality ?
> 2) Can we prove that ?
> 3) If we can't, is there any problem with it ?
Let me start from another direction. First proof is simply convincing argument.
Peer reviewed mathmatics has been wrong. If you really don't believe in
objective reality nobody is going to provide convincing argument for you.
So how does knowlege get started?
The mind is the result of brain function and the brain is a computer built by
evolution. Animals seriously unconvinced by objective reality didn't live to
have children and since you are the product of a billion years of evolution the
question is only a problem in philosophy class. The answer your teacher wants on
the test is you can't disprove solipsism you can only say how much you dislike
it. Trust me, other answers get bad grades.
Evolution doesn't always build the right answers into brain function. That's
only a problem in philosophy class. In the real world we can fix most wrong
brain function programming in the enclosing software. For example brain function
says natural motion is circular just like Aristotle says. But natural motion is
linear. It took Newton to discover the facts. But now we get the correct answer
in physics class and the bad answer in the wiring doesn't matter.
red foster
YOELK wrote in message <88b7m4$o15$1...@lnews.actcom.co.il>...
>
>Let me ask several questions :
>1) Is there extenal (objective) reality ?
There is only one reality that is neither external nor internal but one's
existence appears to split it, as follows:
Of my experiences, some appear to be quite subject to my choice (e.g. "I am
thinking about transporting Charleze Theron here and her expressing her
undying love for me, right now.)"
Others appear to be quite the opposite (e.g., "I am transporting Charleze
Theron here and she is expressing her undying love for me, right now.")
I call things of the former "internal, subjective reality" (as the thought
is a real thought)" and the latter a "external, objective reality".
There is some fuzziness, such as relief of pain by biofeedback but not by
simply wishing it away, and the dream state, but this only serves to show it
is a gradient of "one" reality.
Interestingly, by this criterion, an omnipotent deity is a solipsist - there
is nothing that falls into the criterion of external objective reality.
Well, perhaps the logically impossible is "other" to it, if it is an
Aquinian omnipotence..
>2) Do we have access for the objective reality ?
By the above criterion, yes.
>2) Can we prove that ?
By the above criterion, let me try. Yes, I proved it, to my own sad
satisfaction.
>3) If we can't, is there any problem with it ?
It depends on your criteria of external reality and of proof. It seems to me
that any proof that does not beg the question in some way has to be of the
sort I suggest above -- proof to oneself, by demonstration.
red foster
pan
>
>Let me ask several questions :
>1) Is there extenal (objective) reality ?
>2) Do we have access for the objective reality ?
>2) Can we prove that ?
>3) If we can't, is there any problem with it ?
>
The primary reason we 'believe' in our perception of the world (based
on our senses) is because of the consistency of this perception.
Consistent as to how both 'I' and 'others' perceive it.
Solipsism can't be disproved, but what it boils down to is this:
If I cannot trust my senses, and if even my sense of consistency is
an illusion then I can't even be sure that I exist as an 'entity'.
e.g. that perhaps all existence is literally and *only* this present
thought/perception.
Some theists here seem to be saying: If we can't prove that anything
exists then how can atheists chide theists because of their 'lack of
evidence'(?).
-and-
That they (theists) believe in their 'God', just as everyone believes
in the world they perceive. That is, we each take for granted that
the basis for believing these perceptions are true, without need of
further evidence.
*But*
Theists do not come close to the same level of consistency in their
beliefs, as compared to the common perception of the world by our
senses.
It is common for theists to be absolutely sure 'beyond a doubt' what
their god(s) want from them; only to change their minds later.
Religious do's-and-don'ts seem to change like political ideals:
people just change how they feel about what is (or isn't) important,
over time.
There isn't a very consistent view of what god(s) are, or what
it(they) what from us.
In practice, nearly all theists are 'almost' as suspicious of
religious beliefs as atheists are.
For instance
Most theists think of religious experiences (and views) as true
interpretations of some supernatural world *only* when these
experiences come from someone who holds similar religious beliefs; and
the experience confirms some aspect of the theist's belief system.
In other words:
The vast majority of theists (also) seem to view religious experiences
(in general), as highly unreliable.
Theists themselves seem to doubt the process which has created
religions (i.e. religious 'experiences')
YOELK
> >1) Is there extenal (objective) reality ?
> >2) Do we have access for the objective reality ?
> >2) Can we prove that ?
> >3) If we can't, is there any problem with it ?
>
>
> Senebyte
Yes, there is - curiosity.
But this is a matter of a personal taste...
-----
YOELK