I'd say pretty much only that. I'm not aware of any person who I know to take a metaphysical position on something but who lacks all sensory organs. And I don't know any person with sensory organs who doesn't use them as part of the process of deciding what they believe to be the case.stevie wrote:Yes, but not only that because what is observed is believed as being really existent.Steve3007 wrote:Yes, and that would be based on what is observed.
The conventional name of what?stevie wrote:For the purpose of applying the conventional name and for other purposes like e.g. scientific investigation.Steve3007 wrote:It depends what you mean by "completely unnecessary". Unnecessary for what purpose?
That depends on what you think scientific investigation is for. If the purpose of scientific investigation is to figure out how the world works, then the concepts of reality and existence are necessary. If the purpose of scientific investigation is only to be able to accurately describe and predict the patterns in reported sensations, then maybe you're right. Although we'd then be left wondering what we're using to receive those sensations. Real eyes? Real ears?
No, you haven't (as far as I know) explicitly described yourself as a solipsist. But your words makes you appear a bit like one.stevie wrote:Nowhere have I expressed such a view.Steve3007 wrote:It looks like you're taking a solipsistic view that the only thing we have evidence for is a bunch of sensations.
OK, so the reports of sensations are publicly accessible. I don't think that alters the point about solipsism.stevie wrote:On the contrary sensations are not evident because they cannot be publically observed independent of beliefs. However verbal expressions about sensations are evident because these can be publically heared or read independent of beliefs.
If you and me are seeing a car then the car is an evident appearance.
I'm referring to the way in which we examine the common features of our various sensations, and those reported by others, and draw the conclusion that the best explanation for those common features is the existence of a real world which we propose to be the common cause of those sensations.stevie wrote:Maybe you are referring to subjective evidence?Steve3007 wrote:I take the view that the patterns and similarities in those sensations are evidence for the existence of a thing called reality. You can call that reality a model in my mind whose purpose is to help me to describe and predict those sensations if you like. But there's no good reason to do that.
OK. To me, evidence is not necessarily connected with public observability. If, as Macbeth, I have the sensation of seeing a dagger in front of me, and if I then try to clutch that dagger, I'm trying to use one sense to confirm the evidence of another sense in order to gather evidence as to whether the dagger can consistently be considered to be real. That act, in itself, doesn't require anything public. Although, of course, further evidence could be gathered by asking other people if they can see and/or clutch the dagger.stevie wrote:From my perspective evidence is necessarily connected with public observability, i.e. accessibility by the five senses independent of beliefs.
I'm referring to both. Obviously as verbal expressions they're also sensations.stevie wrote:But if you are referring to "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as verbal expressions but not the "patterns and similarities in those sensations" as such then these verbal expressions of course are evident.
It's this kind of comment that makes me think of your view as solipsistic. (It seems to be a very common view in philosophy forums.) I'd say reality functions as more than just the basis for speculations. It functions as a useful and practical model telling me what I'm likely to experience next. My office door is currently shut. I find the notion that the world outside my office is real very useful when trying to predict what I'll see when I open that door. Likewise with everything else in life.stevie wrote:They function as the basis for speculations. If someone feels the need to speculate then "reality" is necessary for this indvidual.Steve3007 wrote:So do you see no function for concepts like "reality"?
OK. As I said above, it depend on our view of what science is for.stevie wrote:But the concept isn't needed for e.g. scientific investigations.