Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Dionysus12
Posts: 333
Joined: March 7th, 2013, 10:29 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dionysus12 »

Dawson wrote:
Yes, by 'experience' I mean 'see', as vision seems to provide the best arena for testing determinable experience. The point I am trying to make can be illustrated by an example. Say you and I are looking at an apple and this particular apple has a very uncharacteristic white spot about 10 mm in diameter on its skin. I can point to the white spot that I see there and confidently predict that when I ask you what you see there, you will report seeing the white spot. This kind of thing is apparently pretty much a universal human experience. I can point to any feature in the visual environment, ask you to describe it, and if you are sane and of good will enough to give a truthful report of what you see, I can be nearly certain that your description will recognizably match what I see. Now since your perceptions are not determined by mine and vice versa, what do you think is the most plausible explanation for this invariance when it comes to detailed particulars? Or, alternatively, what are the possible explanations you can think of?

You say that there is no evidence that we both see the same particulars.I think that assertion flies in the face of common experience and I think the example I gave shows this clearly. If you don't agree, please explain exactly why.
Thanks for your response.

Can I just put one fact right first. I said there is no evidence to show in my brain or optical array that I am perceiving even a single object. I am looking at a computer screen at the moment but there is no evidence to show that this is actually the case.

You say that common sense experience 'flies in the face' of any epistemological doubt that what we actually observe is true. But though we all share the same experience of the apple, say, or the table, this would not mean common sense alone is evidence that the apple or table exists in the world. If I said to another person 'That is an apple' and the other person agrees it is, then we have to face the sceptical claim that the description of something is not what is described. We do not have knowledge of the world, only understanding.

You ask for a possible explanation of why two, or any number of descriptions of a shared object should match. In the case of later Wittgenstein this is a language game. Primitively, we have only agreed upon calling an apple an apple and a table a table, which can be true or false in the world, depending upon whether you are a realist or not. If you are a realist then you have to show how the meaning is determined. Wittgenstein's earlier philosophy (in the Tractatus), which has to be viewed in the light of the later philosophy of his Investigations, says a proposition or a sentence like 'That is an apple' is a simple (atomic) claim between what is described and the description. We are not talking about 'objects' as such that we normally believe we perceive, like the apple, only the primitive psychological 'object' and the primitive 'object' in the world.

When two or more persons agree the apple they are perceiving has a white spot, it is only an agreement, not knowledge of the world. It cannot be demonstrated that they have agreed upon the same thing in the world. When two or more persons agree upon calling an apple an apple then that is simply a semantic agreement, unless it can be shown to be more than this. Let's say Robinson Crusoe on an island calls the monkeys he observes, and which he has not seen before, 'moneyskees'. Let's say, further, that another person is washed ashore and Crusoe says of the monkeys, they are 'moneyskees.' The second person agrees and so monkeys are 'moneyskees'. There has been no change in the world, only in how we describe it.

I hope this clear.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Spiral Out »

Logic_ill wrote:Reality is not only built on consensus, but it's a major part of it.
Why is that? Is it because the people in your head agree with you?
Logic_ill wrote:The individual may have its reality, but how much of it is actually his?
That seems to be the question, as Dionysus12 puts it:
Dionysus12 wrote:I am looking at a computer screen at the moment but there is no evidence to show that this is actually the case.
This is (potentially) true. It cannot be proven that our reality is real in any sense of common experience.

>
Dawson wrote:I can point to the white spot that I see there and confidently predict that when I ask you what you see there, you will report seeing the white spot.
But is the expectation of agreement creating the agreement? Can you show that the person agreeing with you is part of the "real" world? Is it only a perceived consensus that allows us to assume that it is all "real"?

What if your prediction was incorrect and the person disagreed with you? What if everyone disagreed with you? What would you think then? Wouldn't you start to question the validity of your own perception, or your version of perceived "reality"?
Dawson wrote:You say that there is no evidence that we both see the same particulars. I think that assertion flies in the face of common experience and I think the example I gave shows this clearly. If you don't agree, please explain exactly why.
Subjective agreement does not prove any common experience. It only shows that most people may have agreed to provide common "objective" labels to certain subjective experiences. Colors are a good example. Nobody can definitively demonstrate that we all see the same color, only that we have agreed to label what we do see as "red", "blue", "green", etc.

>
Spiral Out wrote:But is imagination and assumption really to be considered "knowledge"?
Okisites wrote:Yes. Because it seems that it eventually tend to give you the ability to control everything in the universe, in really effective ways, and no one can help it.
What do we control?
Okisites wrote:However I think you have very skillfully changed the question itself.
What was the question that I changed?
Okisites wrote:Would you like to clearly clarify, why there is so much difference in OP question, and the question running right now.
It's still the question of whether the subjective and objective points of view are justifiable and/or consistent with Human experience and apparent function:

"My primary assertions for this debate are that the concept of so-called “objectivity”: a) has no realistic application to the vital functions of Human life. b) has no relative meaning to Human considerations. c) is impossible for inherently subjective beings to recognize. d) is actually just merely a perceived commonality of subjective Human perspectives."

Note: This thread was started initially as a debate specifically between FerrumIntellectus and I in relation to a comment he made in another thread, which I think has since been deleted. But I opened it up for a more broad discussion.

"While I am certainly far from being a Solipsist, I am of the mind that “all is mind” and that we may only know our common environment, which I would call the “objective common environment”, or “OCE”, through the limited perception of our senses, and as interpreted based on our emotions, primarily our desires and fears. This philosophical position is mostly contrary to Objective Realism (OR)."

I think the current discussions are still following the initial premise of the OP.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
Dawson
Posts: 552
Joined: March 26th, 2013, 6:46 pm

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dawson »

Dionysus12 wrote:Dawson wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


Thanks for your response.

Can I just put one fact right first. I said there is no evidence to show in my brain or optical array that I am perceiving even a single object. I am looking at a computer screen at the moment but there is no evidence to show that this is actually the case.

You say that common sense experience 'flies in the face' of any epistemological doubt that what we actually observe is true. But though we all share the same experience of the apple, say, or the table, this would not mean common sense alone is evidence that the apple or table exists in the world. If I said to another person 'That is an apple' and the other person agrees it is, then we have to face the sceptical claim that the description of something is not what is described. We do not have knowledge of the world, only understanding.

You ask for a possible explanation of why two, or any number of descriptions of a shared object should match. In the case of later Wittgenstein this is a language game. Primitively, we have only agreed upon calling an apple an apple and a table a table, which can be true or false in the world, depending upon whether you are a realist or not. If you are a realist then you have to show how the meaning is determined. Wittgenstein's earlier philosophy (in the Tractatus), which has to be viewed in the light of the later philosophy of his Investigations, says a proposition or a sentence like 'That is an apple' is a simple (atomic) claim between what is described and the description. We are not talking about 'objects' as such that we normally believe we perceive, like the apple, only the primitive psychological 'object' and the primitive 'object' in the world.

When two or more persons agree the apple they are perceiving has a white spot, it is only an agreement, not knowledge of the world. It cannot be demonstrated that they have agreed upon the same thing in the world. When two or more persons agree upon calling an apple an apple then that is simply a semantic agreement, unless it can be shown to be more than this. Let's say Robinson Crusoe on an island calls the monkeys he observes, and which he has not seen before, 'moneyskees'. Let's say, further, that another person is washed ashore and Crusoe says of the monkeys, they are 'moneyskees.' The second person agrees and so monkeys are 'moneyskees'. There has been no change in the world, only in how we describe it.

I hope this clear.

I am not arguing that whatever is appearing in our common experience as that particular white spot on that particular apple must be the 'same thing' (whatever that might mean) as all the actual individual perceptions of the white spot enjoyed by all the different people who look at it.

I am only arguing that there is a more or less universally encountered commonality and invariance of experience, which requires explanation. I am asking what you think the most likely explanation for this phenomenon could be. Or if you don't want to commit to that, then perhaps you could propose a range of conceivable explanations for this obvious facet of human experience.

Wittgenstein's "Language games" is a possible explanation for invariances in the ways we describe perceived objects, not for the invariant nature of the objects themselves. If you think it can account for the latter, please explain.

-- Updated November 17th, 2013, 8:23 pm to add the following --

Spiral Out:
Dawson wrote:I can point to the white spot that I see there and confidently predict that when I ask you what you see there, you will report seeing the white spot.
But is the expectation of agreement creating the agreement? Can you show that the person agreeing with you is part of the "real" world? Is it only a perceived consensus that allows us to assume that it is all "real"?
No, the fact that we might all agree on the presence and characteristics of that particular thing, in this case the white spot, cannot be explained by expectations of agreement. As I said to Dionysus 12, our common discourses can accouont for invariance in the ways in which we describe or interpret phenomena, but not for shared perceptions of the same phenomena. I am not saying that we can know what the real nature of whatever it is that is appearing to all of us as the white spot is. If we have any knowledge of the 'objective world' it can only be via our sensory experience of it. But I think that the fact of consensus as to the particulars of whatever it is that we are all experiencing means that we are entitled to infer that it is both dynamic and differentiated. We know that much at least about what lies beyond experience.
What if your prediction was incorrect and the person disagreed with you? What if everyone disagreed with you? What would you think then? Wouldn't you start to question the validity of your own perception, or your version of perceived "reality"?
I would have to conclude that I am probably hallucinating. That is the very point; via consensus we know that we all see substantially the same things in the world. In fact that is how the very idea of 'hallucination' comes into play.
Dionysus12
Posts: 333
Joined: March 7th, 2013, 10:29 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dionysus12 »

Dawson wrote:
I am not arguing that whatever is appearing in our common experience as that particular white spot on that particular apple must be the 'same thing' (whatever that might mean) as all the actual individual perceptions of the white spot enjoyed by all the different people who look at it.

I am only arguing that there is a more or less universally encountered commonality and invariance of experience, which requires explanation. I am asking what you think the most likely explanation for this phenomenon could be. Or if you don't want to commit to that, then perhaps you could propose a range of conceivable explanations for this obvious facet of human experience.

Wittgenstein's "Language games" is a possible explanation for invariances in the ways we describe perceived objects, not for the invariant nature of the objects themselves. If you think it can account for the latter, please explain.
I have already indicated that we don't know if the perceived object is invariant, only that it is reported to be invariant. That is one of the problems under discussion. How do you know the object we perceive and share is invariant? There is no point me trying to explain the invariance of objects we perceive when we cannot show that they are invariant. Are you asking for an explanation of common sense experience? If you are then that is a different question, but is still answered with the same sceptical question. How do we know each of us has the same experience of the same object? There is no verifiable object. If you believe in the representational theory of perception, then you have to show what the relation is between the representation and what it represents. My own view is to deny that perception represents anything in the world. As I have already mentioned the common sense view of the world is insufficient reason for believing what we do.

To take this a little further. Recent research was carried out in New Zealand in 2013. After a brain haemorrhage the patient reported that he could no longer perceive colours, but when he was given hundreds of tests for colours he got them 98% correct. He reported he could not see colours, but could in fact see colours, so there may well be a separation between how we perceive and what we report as perceived. The colour of the object is not, of course, the object itself. To perceive is already to detach the perceiver from what is perceived, otherwise we would not perceive anything.

To overcome many of the complexities of the problems under discussion I posited a metaphysical hypothesis earlier in this thread. I said that each life-form receives an impression of the world, like a watermark in paper. On this view all individual life-forms are in their own world and are the world they live in and each world is transparent to the other. It is only a working hypothesis and I can't prove it to be true, but is a plausible view to hold. This might explain why we intuit the world to be what we normally take it be.
Last edited by Dionysus12 on November 18th, 2013, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Okisites »

Spiral Out wrote:
What do we control?
It seems according to the real knowledge (cause and effect knowledge) gained till now, human became able to use the knowledge to produce predetermined results, make changes in the system as per the desired goal, control the situations to achieve the end. This is all appear to me as an act of controlling, but certainly the perfect control is exercised to the extent of perfect knowledge one have, and lack of controlling appears due to lack of knowledge. So the knowledge seems like to have a property to bestow the holder the ability to control.

Secondly when we control by application of knowledge or get controlled by lack of knowledge, I think it confirms the reality and perfection in object outside that we see or comprehend by any ways because a small misconception in calculation of the reality or object outside may result in extremely undesired outcome. So knowledge seems to have a property of had related with perfect or imperfect understanding of cause and effect, which in same extent grant the possessor the ability to control.

The understanding which do not resemble to cause and effect kind of understanding does not really constitute the Knowledge IMO.

So let us have some examples. Suppose I have the ability the change your views that means 1) I exist, 2) there is something real outside which have something like cause and effect which are able to effect you without your approval. For more clearer understanding, if somebody gives a sleeping pills to other without getting him acknowledge and get the result (having slept) then that means there is someone outside and something that is really effective to cause the effect as desired by the person with the use of the object.

I hope that I have explained to the understandable level. I know that I tried harder but the topic itself is harder. If I have mistaken, I hope that you will clear the more complexity that I had not grasped.
What was the question that I changed?
Before it was stated as related with human matters and perception of which differs person to person because of emotions, desires, fears. And now it seems like you have changed it to related to objects, a perception of which differs from person to person due to the confusion like “Whether we all see same colour with same name”.

First is profound and accept the objective reality outside and only human matters are considered to be subject of differences due to emotions, desires, fears etc. While the second is illusory and probably reject the perfect reality of objective world outside and the differences in perception between different person is due to sensory organs and not emotions. I think this is huge change which is changing the OP question to “mind-body problem” kind of thing. I think this should be first resolved what you wanted to consider because I feel the two concepts do not meet each other and create confusions if taken together.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller
Logic_ill
Posts: 1624
Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Logic_ill »

I've been pondering on the variance of perceived objects, and think that it's true. However, the variances, in many cases can be very subtle, so that we can more or less describe objects objectively and reach a collective consensus. I think all objects (animate and inanimate) are subject to change.
Last edited by Logic_ill on November 18th, 2013, 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dawson
Posts: 552
Joined: March 26th, 2013, 6:46 pm

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dawson »

Dionysus 12 wrote:
I have already indicated that we don't know if the perceived object is invariant, only that it is reported to be invariant. That is one of the problems under discussion. How do you know the object we perceive and share is invariant? There is no point me trying to explain the invariance of objects we perceive when we cannot show that they are invariant. Are you asking for an explanation of common sense experience? If you are then that is a different question, but is still answered with the same sceptical question. How do we know each of us has the same experience of the same object? There is no verifiable object. If you believe in the representational theory of perception, then you have to show what the relation is between the representation and what it represents. My own view is to deny that perception represents anything in the world. As I have already mentioned the common sense view of the world is insufficient reason for believing what we do.
The object of this thought experiment, which is under discussion is invariantly perceived by all (normal) perceivers as the white spot on the apple. To this extent, at least, it is invariant. From this fact it is not unreasonable to infer that the object is itself (relatively, not absolutely) invariant and differentiable from its 'surroundings'. The slight differences between the ways in which individual observers might perceive or describe the white spot can be reasonably attributed to individual differences in their perceptual 'apparatuses'.

What other possibilities can you imagine (ideas in the mind of God?) to explain the common fact of perceptual invariance?
Dionysus12
Posts: 333
Joined: March 7th, 2013, 10:29 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dionysus12 »

Dawson wrote:
The object of this thought experiment, which is under discussion is invariantly perceived by all (normal) perceivers as the white spot on the apple. To this extent, at least, it is invariant. From this fact it is not unreasonable to infer that the object is itself (relatively, not absolutely) invariant and differentiable from its 'surroundings'. The slight differences between the ways in which individual observers might perceive or describe the white spot can be reasonably attributed to individual differences in their perceptual 'apparatuses'.

What other possibilities can you imagine (ideas in the mind of God?) to explain the common fact of perceptual invariance?
You keep pressing the same point and I have to keep pressing on you the same replies, which you seem unable to take on board. Your already admitting that there might be slight differences between how individuals perceive the details of an object, so why do you persist in saying it is invariant? Your first statement above is unproven so the rest of what you say does not follow.
User avatar
Dawson
Posts: 552
Joined: March 26th, 2013, 6:46 pm

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dawson »

Dionysus12 wrote:Dawson wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


You keep pressing the same point and I have to keep pressing on you the same replies, which you seem unable to take on board. Your already admitting that there might be slight differences between how individuals perceive the details of an object, so why do you persist in saying it is invariant? Your first statement above is unproven so the rest of what you say does not follow.
Ok, you're still misunderstanding the argument. Imagine you take two red balls and you place a 10 mm white sticker on one of them. You then ask 10,000 people who have been presented with the two balls for the first time if they can see any difference between the two. What do you think will happen? How many people do you think would fail to say that there is a white sticker on one of the balls?
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Spiral Out »

Okisites,

We may have a bit of a misunderstanding as to the primary issue being considered.
Okisites wrote:Suppose I have the ability the change your views that means 1) I exist, 2) there is something real outside which have something like cause and effect which are able to effect you without your approval.
In the OP I had stated:
"The reason I said that my philosophical position contains a minor secondary element of OR is because I do not deny the assumption that there exists an objective common environment (OCE) that we all share. (We can surely assume its existence, although there is no genuine reason to do so since we cannot experience it directly or objectively for what it really is.) I only deny that we are able to experience this common (the term “common” is intended to mean “shared” although I do think the term “common” is a more apt descriptor) environment objectively as it exists in its natural, or objective, form."

So I do not disagree that there is some form of objective common environment that we share.
Okisites wrote:Before it was stated as related with human matters and perception of which differs person to person because of emotions, desires, fears. And now it seems like you have changed it to related to objects, a perception of which differs from person to person due to the confusion like “Whether we all see same colour with same name”.
This falls under my initial claim in the OP:
"My primary assertions for this debate are that the concept of so-called “objectivity”:
a) has no realistic application to the vital functions of Human life.
b) has no relative meaning to Human considerations.
c) is impossible for inherently subjective beings to recognize.
d) is actually just merely a perceived commonality of subjective Human perspectives."


They are still both illustrative of the same concept of "perceptive differences of the same object" whether it's due to psychological factors or physical factors. The mind/body problem still must take into account that we are primarily physical, albeit emotionally driven, beings.
Okisites wrote:I think this should be first resolved what you wanted to consider because I feel the two concepts do not meet each other and create confusions if taken together.
Specifically how do they differ in your opinion? Do they not both illustrate the differences in perception based on our individuality?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
Pastabake
Posts: 1076
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 5:30 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Pastabake »

To use an analogy without the OCE it would be like a house without the superstructure. Sure we don't see it, all we see is the wood, the wallpaper, flooring etc ... take away the superstructure and what you end up with is a pile.
Dionysus12
Posts: 333
Joined: March 7th, 2013, 10:29 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dionysus12 »

Dawson wrote:
Ok, you're still misunderstanding the argument. Imagine you take two red balls and you place a 10 mm white sticker on one of them. You then ask 10,000 people who have been presented with the two balls for the first time if they can see any difference between the two. What do you think will happen? How many people do you think would fail to say that there is a white sticker on one of the balls?
I can't see the point you are trying to make.
User avatar
Dawson
Posts: 552
Joined: March 26th, 2013, 6:46 pm

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dawson »

Dionysus12 wrote:Dawson wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


I can't see the point you are trying to make.
The point is very simple; given that most people will report the same phenomena,e.g. that one of the red balls has a white sticker on it, the suggestion is that the objects of perception possess independent and persistent characteristics which are identifiable by any 'normal' perceiver.

Do you disagree with this conclusion, and, if so, why?

When you say:
I have already indicated that we don't know if the perceived object is invariant, only that it is reported to be invariant. That is one of the problems under discussion. How do you know the object we perceive and share is invariant?
you show that you misunderstand my argument entirely. We do know (not absolutely but with a fair degree of certainty) that objects as perceived by different people are perceived as being at least the same kinds of things. How often have you experienced a situation where you point at a dog and said "Look at the size of that dog!" and the person you are with says "That's not a dog, it's a car"?

Given the fact that you both see a dog, that is there is agreement between your perceptions,do you think your perceptions are dependent on hers, hers on yours or do you think they both depend on an independent 'reality' of some kind? Or do think for some reason that this whole experience of agreement is somehow an illusion, requires no explanation or is simply inexplicable?

So,there is this, at the very least almost, universally present phenomena of the human experience of perceptual commonality ( which makes possible science and any kind of consensual functioning in the world at all) to consider. We need to explain the fact that we can agree as to 'what is' and 'where it is' in the world of our common perception and I am saying it is reasonable to infer a degree of independent invariance and differentiation in 'things themselves', sufficient to explain why we all ( or at least most of us) see the same things. There are other explanations; such that the world of perceived objects are stabilized ideas in the mind of God, or a universal mind or collective human unconscious, etc.

These hypotheses are alternatives to the idea that there are actual independent physical aggregates which appear to us as objects of perception. I never said or suggested that we know, or can know, with certainty, which of these alternatives, if any, are true. All I have asked you is which of them do you find most plausible, and whether you can think of any other explanatory hypotheses. If you reject the whole idea of plausibility, then there wouldn't seem to be much point in trying to do philosophy at all!

Of course this whole process we call reality might be nothing but a dream. But if it is, it is either a collective dream or there is only one dreamer, and that dreamer must be me. I can also infer that from your perspective the solitary dreamer must be you, but that wouldn't work for me!

-- Updated November 19th, 2013, 7:45 pm to add the following --

Spiral Out wrote:
In the OP I had stated: "The reason I said that my philosophical position contains a minor secondary element of OR is because I do not deny the assumption that there exists an objective common environment (OCE) that we all share. (We can surely assume its existence, although there is no genuine reason to do so since we cannot experience it directly or objectively for what it really is.) I only deny that we are able to experience this common (the term “common” is intended to mean “shared” although I do think the term “common” is a more apt descriptor) environment objectively as it exists in its natural, or objective, form."

So I do not disagree that there is some form of objective common environment that we share.
Spiral, if you do not deny the assumption of an "OCE", then I fail to see the exact point of your arguments. If you want to say that we all bring our own unique characteristics, assumptions, interpretations, etc, to our experience of this "OCE", then I would say that this is both obvious and unarguable.

But this doesn't bear on the question of the existence of an "OCE", or even on the question of its 'real nature'.

When you say:
We can surely assume its existence, although there is no genuine reason to do so since we cannot experience it directly or objectively for what it really is.
I want to reply that we do experience it directly via the senses, while acknowledging that our sensory experience is always interpreted within the context of our overall implicit understanding of the nature of the 'world', not to mention other constitutional 'limitations'. Note that I acknowledge we can only conceive of these "limitations" of ours from 'within' those very limitations. These limitations themselves are part of the objective reality we are trying to understand. (If there is no objective reality then there is nothing to understand and philosophy is poetry at best and mental masturbation at worst).

I believe that science offers the most reliable tools for approaching an understanding of the 'real nature' of things in themselves. According to Peirce, objects of experience are always already interpreted objects. The actual uninterpreted object Peirce referred to as the "dynamic object". The "dynamic object" for us will always be the object of our current interpretation, but since this interpretation will change over time, it cannot be the "dynamic object in itself". Our knowledge of the dynamic object can only improve via better and better interpretations among the community of enquirers. This is the essence of Peirce's "pragmatism"; that the opinions of the community of enquirers should approach but never reach, via elimination of error, total accordance with the real nature of the dynamic object.

The success of our interpretations (theories) can only be estimated via the testing of abductive hypotheses which make predictions. Only observation and experiment can show whether these predictions are fulfilled. If they are, then we may have some confidence in our theories. Nothing can ever be absolutely proven; this goes without saying; we can only ever speak in terms of plausibility when it comes to drawing conclusions about 'reality'.
Dionysus12
Posts: 333
Joined: March 7th, 2013, 10:29 am

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by Dionysus12 »

Dawson:

I am grateful for more detail.

Dawson wrote:
The point is very simple; given that most people will report the same phenomena,e.g. that one of the red balls has a white sticker on it, the suggestion is that the objects of perception possess independent and persistent characteristics which are identifiable by any 'normal' perceiver.

Do you disagree with this conclusion, and, if so, why?
Your point is not a simple one, it is a confused one. I can summarise this in two questions: if the objects of perception are independent of the perceiver then how do we identify them? If we report the same phenomena, which I have previously said such reports may be erroneous, then what other evidence is there for the existence of the 'objects.'?
you show that you misunderstand my argument entirely. We do know (not absolutely but with a fair degree of certainty) that objects as perceived by different people are perceived as being at least the same kinds of things. How often have you experienced a situation where you point at a dog and said "Look at the size of that dog!" and the person you are with says "That's not a dog, it's a car"?
I have not misunderstood your argument, you have not understood what has previously been said. Though we all report a dog is a dog and a car is a car, we cannot show, or more evidence is required, that my report is the same as your report. There is no evidence to show my report is the same as yours. As I have already said, we agree a car is a car and a dog is a dog, but that is only an agreement, not something that is epistemologically true. If I was able to show that a dog is a dog and a car is a car then we would all agree on their attributes. Look, all we have done, primitively, is pointed to the 'object' and named it, but this does not mean the 'object' therefore exists in the world. It only exists semantically and as has been suggested the semantic 'object' is no object at all.
Given the fact that you both see a dog, that is there is agreement between your perceptions,do you think your perceptions are dependent on hers, hers on yours or do you think they both depend on an independent 'reality' of some kind? Or do think for some reason that this whole experience of agreement is somehow an illusion, requires no explanation or is simply inexplicable?
Any number of persons can agree what to name something, but that does not mean what is named in the world is true, It might be true or false. And, yes, the agreement holds and that is what we mean, but if you wish to show the name has meaning then you have to demonstrate its meaning can be determined in the world. An agreement is nothing more than that and my view is that the world is an illusion as there is no physical, semantic or perceptual basis on which to believe otherwise.
So,there is this, at the very least almost, universally present phenomena of the human experience of perceptual commonality ( which makes possible science and any kind of consensual functioning in the world at all) to consider. We need to explain the fact that we can agree as to 'what is' and 'where it is' in the world of our common perception and I am saying it is reasonable to infer a degree of independent invariance and differentiation in 'things themselves', sufficient to explain why we all ( or at least most of us) see the same things. There are other explanations; such that the world of perceived objects are stabilized ideas in the mind of God, or a universal mind or collective human unconscious, etc.
I have no qualm that we have agreed upon what things are or should be, but this is not necessarily epistemologically true. As I mentioned previously, we do not have knowledge of the world, only understanding. Each of us has our own understanding of our own world and this may be transparent to others understanding of it.
These hypotheses are alternatives to the idea that there are actual independent physical aggregates which appear to us as objects of perception. I never said or suggested that we know, or can know, with certainty, which of these alternatives, if any, are true. All I have asked you is which of them do you find most plausible, and whether you can think of any other explanatory hypotheses. If you reject the whole idea of plausibility, then there wouldn't seem to be much point in trying to do philosophy at all!
What hypotheses? There are three ways we 'experience' the 'world'. Through our senses, semantically and physically. The former two still need to be explained and the last, physicalism, still needs to be defined. If you believe the world is independent of our mind then you have to explain how we can experience it? To overcome these complexities I have already given earlier in this thread what I believe metaphysically to be the case.
Of course this whole process we call reality might be nothing but a dream. But if it is, it is either a collective dream or there is only one dreamer, and that dreamer must be me. I can also infer that from your perspective the solitary dreamer must be you, but that wouldn't work for me!
You may not currently see reality as a dream or an illusion until you do, if ever you do. My experience is not your experience.
User avatar
MindForgedManacle
Posts: 135
Joined: June 8th, 2013, 1:16 am
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein and Hume
Location: Texas

Re: Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Open Topic

Post by MindForgedManacle »

My only problem with joining in on discussions of realism vs. some kind of idealism is that it seems like neither is provable, or even abductively favored. Combined with my general philosophical noobness, it mostly just seems beyond me. :/
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021