"Reality is what I perceive it to be"

[jimtron]

On another forum I'm engaged in a discussion that has devolved into the old favorite--"how do we know anything is real" argument. Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?

I know this has popped up here on the JREF forums as well...

[bob_kark]

Descartes?

ETA: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_descarte.html

[jimtron]

Thanks, I should have read this by now anyway. Nice to have the PDFs.

[luchog]

On another forum I'm engaged in a discussion that has devolved into the old favorite--"how do we know anything is real" argument. Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?

I know this has popped up here on the JREF forums as well...
I am having that same argument on another forum as well.

My solution is to just accept that the person i'm arguing with is an idiot who just wants to avoid thinking; and go have another drink. Maybe if I kill enough brain cells I'll understand his viewpoint.

[politas]

The biggest problem with such a standpoint is utility. We assume that what we percieve is real because such an assumption is effective and useful in our lives.

From Wikipedia:
An objection, raised by David Deutsch, among others, is that since the solipsist has no control over the "universe" he is creating for himself, there must be some unconscious part of his mind creating it. If the solipsist makes his unconscious mind the object of scientific study (e.g., by conducting experiments), he will find that it behaves with the same complexity as the universe offered by realism; therefore, the distinction between realism and solipsism collapses. What realism calls "the universe", solipsism calls "one's unconscious mind." But these are just different names for the same thing. Both are massively complex processes other than the solipsist's conscious mind, and the cause of all the solipsist's experiences; possibly merely a labelling distinction. Application of Occam's Razor might then suggest that postulating the existence of 'reality' may be a simpler solution than a massive unconscious mind.

[MRC_Hans]

Or in other words, quoting Pixy Misa: The world acts as if it is real.

.. And experience shows you need to treat it as if it is. Cannot resist reposting ye olde:

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)
Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans :D

[TobiasTheViking]

On another forum I'm engaged in a discussion that has devolved into the old favorite--"how do we know anything is real" argument. Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?

I know this has popped up here on the JREF forums as well...
IF nothing is real, then he shouldn't mind selling his firstborn as a loveslave to you.

IF he doesn't wanna do that, ask him why not, if it isn't real.
:D

[Ausmerican]

Here is, in one word, proof that reality isn't formed by your mind. The word is "sniper." You don't see a sniper, you don't know he is there. So therefore in your reality he doesn't exist. And yet, try explaining the effects of the non existant bullet on your head.

[UrsulaV]

I've always found the tactic of smackin' 'em around while yelling "STOP HITTING YOURSELF!" to be effective, if juvenile.

[aerosolben]

The biggest problem with such a standpoint is utility. We assume that what we percieve is real because such an assumption is effective and useful in our lives.
Absolutely. The fact is, solipsism is not really falsifiable (beyond the death of the solipsist) - the suggestions about putting the solipsist in a painful situation are amusing but easily incorporated in a solipsistic philosophy. The existence of ourselves and our immediate experiences are perhaps the only assumptions we can make about reality with 100% certainty, so solipsism has a rational basis in that regard.

The issue is, as politas put it, that the philosophy is totally useless - there's nowhere to go after your starting premises. The sensible solution is to make some additional assumptions that we can't be 100% sure about, but make sense in the context of our observations. Things like "the observed world appears to operate (in some form) when I'm not looking, so I'll assume that's true" and "The observed world appears to behave in a relatively consistent fashion, so I'll assume that". Eventually, I think you end up with something like physicalism (or at least a framework which allows you to incorporate your observation of the world in order to define it better - i.e., science).

[Stellafane]

The most irrefutable debunking of the non-materialistic theory of reality involves Dr. Samuel Johnson, as recorded by Boswell (hopefully the following quote violates no forum policy):

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- 'I refute it thus.'"

I refute it thus -- someday that'll be my sig, when I get around to creating one.


ETA: BTW Jimtron, sorry to derail but who's that in your avatar? I swear I've seen that person before, maybe on some old TV show like Batman or Bewitched, but I can't remember exactly, and it's driving me nuts. Those are the most stoned-looking eyes I've ever seen, not that I would know of course...

[aggle-rithm]

Or in other words, quoting Pixy Misa: The world acts as if it is real.

.. And experience shows you need to treat it as if it is. Cannot resist reposting ye olde:


I was going to try and find that old post, but you beat me to it!

Thanks, MRC_Hans.

[aggle-rithm]

Here is, in one word, proof that reality isn't formed by your mind. The word is "sniper." You don't see a sniper, you don't know he is there. So therefore in your reality he doesn't exist. And yet, try explaining the effects of the non existant bullet on your head.


But, if you are killed instantly, then you cease to exist and the sniper never really existed as a subjective experience. How does that fit in?

No, really, I'm asking because I'd prefer not to to think about it too much....

[Hutch]

ETA: BTW Jimtron, sorry to derail but who's that in your avatar? I swear I've seen that person before, maybe on some old TV show like Batman or Bewitched, but I can't remember exactly, and it's driving me nuts. Those are the most stoned-looking eyes I've ever seen, not that I would know of course...

I'm not Jimtron, but I do remember Ernie Kovacs and his characterizations, one of them being the poet Percy Dovetonsils, whom you are seeing as his avatar.

FWIW, Ernie Kovacs was perhaps one of the 3-4 true comedic geniuses produced by the United States in the 20th Century, IMHO.

[JamesDillon]

Aerosolben articulated the answer quite nicely. Jimtron, is the person you're debating making the argument:

1. I believe that all perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind (or impulses fed to my brain in a vat, whatever); or
2. It is impossible for me to know that all perceived reality is not merely a projection of my mind.

The former argument is true solipsism; it sounds to me like he's making the latter. There's nothing lame, as you suggest, about the latter argument; I think it's a valid epistemological point. As other posts have pointed out, it's impossible to falsify the argument in (1), so the best we can do is assume that our perceptions more or less accurately reflect an external reality and continue on the basis of that assumption. It's still only an assumption.

[jimtron]

I've always found the tactic of smackin' 'em around while yelling "STOP HITTING YOURSELF!" to be effective, if juvenile.

I LIKE this solution. What's the juvenile part?

Hutch: right and right. Kovacs had a TV show that was way ahead of its time; very brilliant and hilarious. Or maybe I just imagined it...

Thanks everyone for your helpful suggestions.

[jimtron]

Aerosolben articulated the answer quite nicely. Jimtron, is the person you're debating making the argument:

1. I believe that all perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind (or impulses fed to my brain in a vat, whatever); or
2. It is impossible for me to know that all perceived reality is not merely a projection of my mind.

The former argument is true solipsism; it sounds to me like he's making the latter. There's nothing lame, as you suggest, about the latter argument; I think it's a valid epistemological point. As other posts have pointed out, it's impossible to falsify the argument in (1), so the best we can do is assume that our perceptions more or less accurately reflect an external reality and continue on the basis of that assumption. It's still only an assumption.

I think it's more two, although the this person hasn't gotten into it too deeply. I agree that the argument isn't lame, I guess I should have said it was lame logic to go to that argument in the context of the discussion.

[Jimbo07]

It's still only an assumption.

I think this is the sort of language that led us into 4 threads worth of trouble with Piggy...

It is 'only' an assumption, but it is the most important assumption that any of us make. We all act on it, long before we've ever taken our first philosophy courses...

[JamesDillon]

I think this is the sort of language that led us into 4 threads worth of trouble with Piggy...
I think you're right. I'm waiting for the "verbal trickery" rebuttal.

It is 'only' an assumption, but it is the most important assumption that any of us make. We all act on it, long before we've ever taken our first philosophy courses...
No question about that, but I think there's some value in recognizing these fundamental assumptions on which we base everything else as essentially unprovable (or falsifiable), even if, having done so, there's nothing we can do about it but go back to relying on them.

[CFLarsen]

The Krazy Kat Experiment (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/krazykat.htm)

[Morrigan]

Solipsim is simply a useless, counterproductive way of thinking for idiots who want to avoid the responsibility of having to think critically.

[Yahzi]

Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?
I humbly submit my modest proposal:

The Yahzi Patented Baseball Bat Test (TM):

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.

Step 2. Fix your mind firmly on the notion that reality is what you think it is.

Step 3. Strike yourself forcefully in the head with the bat until step 2 is no longer possible.


The best thing is, the test is guaranteed to succeed! Either by coming to your senses, or destroying your brain, you will eventually reach step 2.

:D

(One can view this as either an update of Johnsons' refutation of Berkely, or a twist on Goedel's proof that brute observation trumps all formal systems.)

[JamesDillon]

I think it's more two, although the this person hasn't gotten into it too deeply. I agree that the argument isn't lame, I guess I should have said it was lame logic to go to that argument in the context of the discussion.

What was the context of the discussion? You're right that the insurmountable uncertainty regarding external perceptions is right up there with quantum mechanics on the list of principles that frequently are misapplied so as to support nutty conclusions, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the principle itself.

[aerosolben]

1. I believe that all perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind (or impulses fed to my brain in a vat, whatever); or
2. It is impossible for me to know that all perceived reality is not merely a projection of my mind.

I think many here are fixating on a variation of #1, which is "All perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind which I can control.", which is easily falsifiable (via the simple hammer/brick/bat scenarios) and not really worth consideration. I doubt the subject of the thread espouses this view, or jimtron would have dispatched him easily without creating this thread.

[aerosolben]

The Krazy Kat Experiment (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/krazykat.htm)
The brick may not kill Shirley, but not for the reasons you outline. To a solipsist, your mind does not exist as a seperate entity from their own mind - therefore, the thrown brick and the falling brick are equivalent scenarios. So this is not a good avenue to pursue - your phrase "while you - her creation - simultaneously constructs her" does not appear to be accurate.

In terms of needing to be aware of the brick before it hits, this is also not really applicable. The solipsist should (if they want to make any coherent sense) postulate the existence of an entity which creates the world they perceive - this could be their unconscious mind, the computer running the brain vat, etc. This is what creates the brick and drives it into their skull; the conscious mind is functionally seperate and does not need to participate in the action (beyond experiencing it).

There's a less violent scenario you can test at home - you simply sneak up behind them and poke them in the back of the head. If they admit to not consciously intending to feel the poke, then they've conceded the existence of such an entity.

[CFLarsen]

The brick may not kill Shirley, but not for the reasons you outline. To a solipsist, your mind does not exist as a seperate entity from their own mind - therefore, the thrown brick and the falling brick are equivalent scenarios. So this is not a good avenue to pursue - your phrase "while you - her creation - simultaneously constructs her" does not appear to be accurate.

In terms of needing to be aware of the brick before it hits, this is also not really applicable. The solipsist should (if they want to make any coherent sense) postulate the existence of an entity which creates the world they perceive - this could be their unconscious mind, the computer running the brain vat, etc. This is what creates the brick and drives it into their skull; the conscious mind is functionally seperate and does not need to participate in the action (beyond experiencing it).

There's a less violent scenario you can test at home - you simply sneak up behind them and poke them in the back of the head. If they admit to not consciously intending to feel the poke, then they've conceded the existence of such an entity.

No, no: Shirley's mind exists outside her brain. In fact, it creates the whole universe!

Besides, it isn't to prove solipsism, but to show how silly it is.

[jimtron]

What was the context of the discussion? You're right that the insurmountable uncertainty regarding external perceptions is right up there with quantum mechanics on the list of principles that frequently are misapplied so as to support nutty conclusions, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the principle itself.

You can judge for yourself if you like; here's a link (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=162782&forum=27&109&start=30):


The post by Jackscratch that starts with "What I am saying..." is one of the posts I was referring to (unfortunately the posts aren't numbered).

[aerosolben]

No, no: Shirley's mind exists outside her brain. In fact, it creates the whole universe!
Her brain doesn't need to exist as a physical entity. Your mind doesn't need to exist as a seperate entity from hers. Your statement is partly what I've already said and partly nonsensical. Are you sure you're talking about solipsism?

Let me be more explicit. Your argument breaks down here:
Before the brick hits Shirley, I shoot myself through the head, killing myself instantly. The question is: What happens? My mind cannot create the brick anymore, so it must vanish.
In this scenario, your mind most likely does not exist - you, as an entity, are simply a creation of her mind. Your mind is not creating the brick, hers is. Her mind has certainly not vanished at this point - there's is no reason why your death should have any impact on the brick, any more than dissipation of the gust of wind which knocks the brick off the roof would stop it from falling.

Besides, it isn't to prove solipsism, but to show how silly it is.
It's a straw man, and therefore shows nothing.

Note that I'm assuming Shirley MacLaine is a solipsist - there is not enough evidence in the link to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

[JamesDillon]

You can judge for yourself if you like; here's a link (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=162782&forum=27&109&start=30):


The post by Jackscratch that starts with "What I am saying..." is one of the posts I was referring to (unfortunately the posts aren't numbered).
Ok, that is a silly argument, not because Jackscratch points out the impossibility of certainty that our sense impressions accurately reflect external reality, but becuase he assumes that this means that we have some conscious control over the content of those impressions-- e.g., I want to believe that I'm a Martian, therefore I will literally see myself as one, or something like that. The fact that we can't be absolutely sure about perceived reality in no way suggests that we can exercise that kind of control over our impressions.

[JamesDillon]

You can judge for yourself if you like; here's a link (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=162782&forum=27&109&start=30):


The post by Jackscratch that starts with "What I am saying..." is one of the posts I was referring to (unfortunately the posts aren't numbered).
Ok, that is a silly argument, not because Jackscratch points out the impossibility of certainty that our sense impressions accurately reflect external reality, but becuase he assumes that this means that we have some conscious control over the content of those impressions-- e.g., I want to believe that I'm a Martian, therefore I will literally see myself as one, or something like that. The fact that we can't be absolutely sure about perceived reality in no way suggests that we can exercise that kind of control over our impressions.

[Red Siegfried]

I just tell them that if reality is subjective then reality is what I perceive it to be too and therefore my reality cancels out their reality. Two contradictory realities existing simultaneously in the same space/time framework is logically impossible, therefore the idea that reality is subjective can't be correct.

Failing that, I just smack them and then tell them it didn't happen. I don't have time for solopsism or isolationism. Intellectual masturbation, like the sexual kind, is a harmless, but self-centered activity. It satisfies yourself but nobody else.

If a tree falls on Shirley MacLaine in the woods, does anybody care?

[JamesDillon]

Failing that, I just smack them and then tell them it didn't happen. I don't have time for solopsism or isolationism. Intellectual masturbation, like the sexual kind, is a harmless, but self-centered activity. It satisfies yourself but nobody else.

Right, physical violence is always the best means of proving that your world view is superior to someone else's. Solipsism is entirely speculative, and we can never hope to find a shred of evidence for or against it. Believing it to be true is perhaps slightly more irrational than disbelieving it, but the appropriate position to take on this and all non-falsifiable claims is that we just can't know with certainty.

[aerosolben]

I just tell them that if reality is subjective then reality is what I perceive it to be too and therefore my reality cancels out their reality. Two contradictory realities existing simultaneously in the same space/time framework is logically impossible, therefore the idea that reality is subjective can't be correct.
You're a figment of the solipsist's imagination - you don't have a reality.

If a tree falls on Shirley MacLaine in the woods, does anybody care?Ah, practicalism.

[Red Siegfried]

Right, physical violence is always the best means of proving that your world view is superior to someone else's.

It's not ALWAYS the best, but ... ah, that's another debate.