Universe a projection?

[Mercury]

Ah. When you say "reality", you refer to apparent reality. Fair enough, it's the only 'reality' to which we have access. And I agree with what you say about science. I thought you were claiming Objective knowledge of Objective Reality — that which actually, and mind-independently, is — but it seems you are/were not.

If you think we agree, you've misunderstood. Reality is not merely apparent; it exists independently of our knowledge or perception of it. A tree falling in the forest makes a noise whether or not anyone is there to hear it. That is objective reality. How do I know it does? Because that's how physics works. That's objective knowledge. What aspect of this is tripping you up?

Yes, I misunderstood. I was right the first time. You are claiming knowledge of 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'. And you claim this without evidence. For example:

"Reality is not merely apparent; it exists independently of our knowledge or perception of it."
Here, you confuse apparent reality with Objective Reality. It is certainly possible that the two are one and the same thing, but it is also possible that they are not. There is no evidence to support either possibility; no evidence at all. It is not even possible — logically, and in accord with the (non-existent!) evidence — to state that one is more likely than the other.

"A tree falling in the forest makes a noise whether or not anyone is there to hear it"
And yet Quantum Mechanics — science's most successful and exhaustively-tested theory — tells us that the very act of observation can cause things to happen that would otherwise not have happened. This is not metaphysics, as my previous paragraph describes, it is well-known and well-tested science.

Yes, that's right. There's no room in my philosophy for the unlikely idea that a demon might be deceiving me. I'm not a brain in a jar. Radically skeptical doubts are dismissed by Occam's Razor - in that, to entertain such a notion requires a far more complex explanation than simply assuming the reality I experience exists.

I don't confuse anything; I know some physics - at least enough to understand that physics constitutes a systematic description of the energy relations of matter. I know some chemistry, and understand how this relates to physics, and some biology - and how this relates to chemistry and physics. It's a lot to dismiss as merely apparent; not least because it works.

We can take that understanding and apply it to create technologies that work, reliably, within a causal reality; and what is more, work better the closer the technology approximates the underlying scientific principle. The knowledge is proven by the functionality of the technology. It CANNOT be false, and therefore reality CANNOT be merely apparent. We can, and do achieve valid knowledge of objective reality.

All you can claim in this context, is that I fail to appreciate the genius of the deceiving demon, the granular detail of the false reality projected into my brain jar. And when you say that, I am entirely entitled to say, either provide any scrap of proof of that, or knock it off with the skeptical nonsense. Do you not realise the damage you're doing by undermining our best understanding of reality with this idiocy? The existence of the species is at stake; the horrible suffering of billions of people. And you don't even know if reality exists? And you call this philosophy; the love of wisdom. I ask you, is this wise? Might it not be better, given the terrible threat humankind is faced with - to argue that science is true and we should recognise that and act accordingly?

[Pattern-chaser]

There's no room in my philosophy for the unlikely idea that a demon might be deceiving me. I'm not a brain in a jar.

If you are prepared to believe such things, without evidence, then I suppose that's your choice. But it isn't logical, and it isn't really in accord with philosophical investigation and understanding of ... life, the universe and everything.

[amorphos_ii]

i'd just like to point out that photons are transparent! though i do think there is an objective reality, because if there were just mind or an observer, then that would be its own objective reality. if niether, then reality doesn't exist - what do we mean by that? we could say that the non existent reality is still 'here' being observed even if observers are not real. so we have a 'something' or an illusion, which we are not prepared to say are real - but it is there! so there is a thereness by any name, and we are just arguing over terms.

[Mercury]

There's no room in my philosophy for the unlikely idea that a demon might be deceiving me. I'm not a brain in a jar.

If you are prepared to believe such things, without evidence, then I suppose that's your choice. But it isn't logical, and it isn't really in accord with philosophical investigation and understanding of ... life, the universe and everything.

To assume that the senses perceive an objectively existing reality is the smallest possible assumption one might make to reconcile the solipsistic dilemma; the fact that I am "in here" and reality is "out there." It is an assumption, because in theory I could be a brain in a jar. But to proceed on the basis that I am a brain in a jar would be ludicrous. And yet that is exactly what Western philosophy has done, in terror of the Church, since Galileo was on trial for his life and soul, and Descartes put self preservation before intellectual honesty.

"The result was The World (1633), an important text in that it essentially contains the blueprints of the mechanical/geometric physics, as well as the vortex theory of planetary motion, that Descartes would continue to refine and develop over the course of his scientific career. Before publishing the treatise, however, he learned of the Church’s (1633) condemnation of Galileo for promoting Copernicanism, which prompted Descartes to withdraw his work from publication..."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/

It's difficult to imagine how things would have differed had the Church been forced to welcome Galileo as "discovering the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation" - as well they might. Science would have been far more central to the politics and economics of European nations - and there would not be this intellectual schism; a shard driven through my brain since infancy, a violent contradiction between the magical thinking of a divinely justified religious, political and economic architecture of society - against the rational truths of science.

Had science been welcomed by the Church, and pursued and integrated on an ongoing basis, it's difficult to imagine we'd have climate change, nuclear weapons and a brutal fossil fuel addiction - that between them almost guarantee our extinction. The pace of scientific discovery and the development and application of technology would have been different; but even so - we could not have engaged in climate change denial for 70 years, while building world killing weapons, and positively resisting viable energy alternatives - like, my favourite, magma energy.

No-one could have imagined an act of intellectual cowardice would condemn humankind by consigning philosophy to a subjectivist cul-de-sac, religion to dis-allusion, and science to industrial scale abuse? Not Descartes, surely - and not the Church either; nor indeed, anyone in the subsequent 400 years. I am wholly convinced that you just don't see it; whereas I cannot but see it - and for a long time I thought it was me. But it's not me; your philosophy is designed to deny perception of reality, in order to refute scientific epistemology; to maintain the divine rights of kings at the cost of the evidence of the senses.

Even now, knowing we face a global scale catastrophe - we cannot agree that science is true and act accordingly. It's not a cruel truth. In scientific terms, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless quantities of heat energy, easily translated into base load electricity and hydrogen fuel - massively more than sufficient to meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land and recycle all our waste. We could have a long and prosperous future. Instead, it seems destined to be cut short by an inability to recognise things that are true for the sake of adherence to the ideological conventions of a world described; not in terms of physics, chemistry and biology - but in terms of Gods, flags and money!

Understanding this; I do not imagine we can change it, but perhaps we can see past it to an existential exception to the rule. Maybe; faced with hell on earth we can step outside ourselves a moment and do what's scientifically true and morally right to save ourselves from oblivion.

[Pattern-chaser]

To assume that the senses perceive an objectively existing reality is the smallest possible assumption one might make to reconcile the solipsistic dilemma; the fact that I am "in here" and reality is "out there." It is an assumption, because in theory I could be a brain in a jar. But to proceed on the basis that I am a brain in a jar would be ludicrous.

Indeed it would. Equally, to proceed on the basis that apparent reality is Objective Reality is also ludicrous, for exactly the same reasons. In practice, pragmatically, we proceed on the basis of our senses and perception, because it's all we've got (isn't it?). But if we start proclaiming our own wishful thinking as fact, then we are on a philosophical path to nowhere, in my view.

I like my assumptions to be conscious ones, that I am aware of making. It reminds me that uncertainty is everywhere in the 'reality' that I experience, and that my very thoughts are not immune to this apparent shortcoming. The search for certainty is a search that cannot end in success, not for a human, anyway.

But uncertainty is not randomness or chaos. There are things in which we are confident, and a few things in which we are very, very, confident. And that confidence is usually justified. This has always been enough for us, and it remains so. But I will not waste my time in a pointless search for certainty. There are so many more interesting things to do.

[Mercury]

To assume that the senses perceive an objectively existing reality is the smallest possible assumption one might make to reconcile the solipsistic dilemma; the fact that I am "in here" and reality is "out there." It is an assumption, because in theory I could be a brain in a jar. But to proceed on the basis that I am a brain in a jar would be ludicrous.

Indeed it would. Equally, to proceed on the basis that apparent reality is Objective Reality is also ludicrous, for exactly the same reasons. In practice, pragmatically, we proceed on the basis of our senses and perception, because it's all we've got (isn't it?). But if we start proclaiming our own wishful thinking as fact, then we are on a philosophical path to nowhere, in my view.

I like my assumptions to be conscious ones, that I am aware of making. It reminds me that uncertainty is everywhere in the 'reality' that I experience, and that my very thoughts are not immune to this apparent shortcoming. The search for certainty is a search that cannot end in success, not for a human, anyway.

But uncertainty is not randomness or chaos. There are things in which we are confident, and a few things in which we are very, very, confident. And that confidence is usually justified. This has always been enough for us, and it remains so. But I will not waste my time in a pointless search for certainty. There are so many more interesting things to do.

You have confused and conflated terms here; with two senses of the term 'objective.'

Objectively existing reality is the same as saying there's a reality that exists 'out there' independently of human perception.

This is not the same as saying "apparent reality is Objective Reality." No-one is saying that perception is comprehensive of reality.

Perception is accurate to reality, in that what we perceive exists. But we perceive a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum for example, and our visual acuity is quite poor. We cannot see the atomic structure of matter, but it exists. Perception is limited, but accurate to reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

Objectively existing reality is the same as saying there's a reality that exists 'out there' independently of human perception.

Yes, but you seem to say more. You seem to say that apparent reality and Objective Reality are one and the same, yes?

This is not the same as saying "apparent reality is Objective Reality." No-one is saying that perception is comprehensive of reality.

OK...

Perception is accurate to reality, in that what we perceive exists. But we perceive a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum for example, and our visual acuity is quite poor. We cannot see the atomic structure of matter, but it exists. Perception is limited, but accurate to reality.

"Accurate to" what "reality"? You have no evidence that even suggests that "what we perceive exists".

Our inability to 'see' Objectively is not just down to the limitations of the EM wavelengths we can detect. As part of our internal and pre-conscious process of perception, our brains make up an awful lot. Sometimes we get it 'right', other times not. There are many reasons why our perception is less than perfect, and the simple limitations you refer to are the least of them.

[Mercury]

Objectively existing reality is the same as saying there's a reality that exists 'out there' independently of human perception.
Perception is accurate to reality, in that what we perceive exists. But we perceive a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum for example, and our visual acuity is quite poor. We cannot see the atomic structure of matter, but it exists. Perception is limited, but accurate to reality.

"Accurate to" what "reality"? You have no evidence that even suggests that "what we perceive exists". Our inability to 'see' Objectively is not just down to the limitations of the EM wavelengths we can detect. As part of our internal and pre-conscious process of perception, our brains make up an awful lot. Sometimes we get it 'right', other times not. There are many reasons why our perception is less than perfect, and the simple limitations you refer to are the least of them.

On the contrary; I have overwhelming evidence that what we perceive exists. I assume as much in all my behaviours, and so do you. I approach a cliff edge, I stop. I don't keep walking because perception is doubtful and reality an illusion; and nor do you, and nor did our evolutionary ancestors. The very fact that we are here, having this stupid argument is testament to the fact that our ancestors were able to perceive reality and negotiate the physical environment successfully. If that were not enough, there are things like traffic lights, television programs, literary descriptions of sunsets, colour coded electrical wires, and a billion other things that show sensory perception is similar person to person.

Subjectivism is massively over-stated; and there are historic religious and political reasons for this. Galileo was put on trial for proving earth orbits the sun, and Descartes invented subjectivist epistemology to save his own skin. Philosophy followed in the Cartesian tradition, and then forgot they were papering over the Church's mistake. Otherwise, scientific empiricism would have had the intellect of generations lavished upon it for 400 years, and a subjectivist viewpoint would just seem silly. It would be patently obvious that what we see exists; that we can methodologically exclude bias, and account for the limitations of perception, and so establish valid knowledge of reality that must be true because it works - experimentally and technologically.

Subjectivism not only claims that sensory perception is not evidence of reality, but that it's idiosyncratic - in that my constructed reality is not your constructed reality. How is that possible? How could there be any organised activity whatsoever? How could you read this and know what I mean? Who are you even talking to? Yourself?

[Pattern-chaser]

I have overwhelming evidence that what we perceive exists.

Then I expect the Nobel Prize for Metaphysics will be along shortly. Congratulations!

[Mercury]

I have overwhelming evidence that what we perceive exists.

Then I expect the Nobel Prize for Metaphysics will be along shortly. Congratulations!

Speaking from the philosophical tradition of the alternate history that didn't occur because Galileo was persecuted rather than celebrated; in that world it wouldn't be an arms manufacturer handing out prizes to "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefits to humankind."

[Pattern-chaser]

I have overwhelming evidence that what we perceive exists.

A scientist might observe — more correctly, and in accord with the evidence, than you have done — that you have much evidence to suggest the consistency of your apparent 'reality'.

[Mercury]

I have overwhelming evidence that what we perceive exists.

A scientist might observe — more correctly, and in accord with the evidence, than you have done — that you have much evidence to suggest the consistency of your apparent 'reality'.

How can this person be a scientist if they do not accept the ideas of observation, and empirical confirmation by an independent observer? Do you mean social scientist?

[Pattern-chaser]

I have overwhelming evidence that what we perceive exists.

A scientist might observe — more correctly, and in accord with the evidence, than you have done — that you have much evidence to suggest the consistency of your apparent 'reality'.

How can this person be a scientist if they do not accept the ideas of observation, and empirical confirmation by an independent observer? Do you mean social scientist?

No, I refer to scientists, who study and practice science. Science is necessarily and unavoidably evidence-based. Scientists reason from the evidence, and do not go beyond what the evidence suggests. One way to do this is to state clearly what the evidence is, and what it suggests, without adding personal conclusions (non-evidence-based beliefs) that are not conclusively supported by the evidence. That is what I attempted to do with your own words, above, by restating them, including only a description of the evidence.

[Mercury]

I have overwhelming evidence that what we perceive exists.

A scientist might observe — more correctly, and in accord with the evidence, than you have done — that you have much evidence to suggest the consistency of your apparent 'reality'.

How can this person be a scientist if they do not accept the ideas of observation, and empirical confirmation by an independent observer? Do you mean social scientist?

No, I refer to scientists, who study and practice science. Science is necessarily and unavoidably evidence-based. Scientists reason from the evidence, and do not go beyond what the evidence suggests. One way to do this is to state clearly what the evidence is, and what it suggests, without adding personal conclusions (non-evidence-based beliefs) that are not conclusively supported by the evidence. That is what I attempted to do with your own words, above, by restating them, including only a description of the evidence.

Right, but the question is how can a person be a scientist unless they accept an objective reality exists, and can be known by sensory perception, and that experimental results are confirmed by independent observation? You cannot scientifically prove science is bunk - because you are relying on the very ideas you would claim to disprove. You cannot say "a scientist might observe...the evidence [only] shows...the consistency of your apparent reality" because they can only appeal to their apparent reality.

My bases for concluding that the reality I perceive exists are:
1. evolutionary survival.
2. the functionality of technology.
3. commonality of perception person to person.

Again, I do not claim that perception is comprehensive of reality - if that's what you mean by 'apparent reality.'
If not, please define what you mean by the term.

[amorphos_ii]

i would say that, at the very least, what we percieve exists in and of itself. if you only take it that only you exists that is. it is difficult to state that in your own existence, that that percieved world does not exist. what do we mean by that - semantics?
the question then becomes, what 'existence' is outside of your individual perciever, and how did this perciever come into existence, what went before you existed etc.
i would state that there is definately this perciever and 'something' external to it, if for no other reason than this perciever had a beginning.

thats a starting point for where we can eventually state that there is an external world and other percievers!