Philosophy

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 7th, 2022, 11:42 amSorry, you've just answered my question (above). OK. ... But Objectivity — 'mind-independent correspondence with that which actually is' — cannot be confirmed (or denied) via "rationality, logic, and deduction". For example, if I thought that we might be brains-in-vats, how would you use these tools to confirm or refute my suspicion? [Remembering that the 'reality' we experience as brains-in-vats is completely identical to what we would experience in a world where 'reality' actually is what our senses show to us.]
Wizard22 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:49 am Objectivity would indicate that predictions, analysis, and answers/solutions, must correspond directly to Reality.
Yes — Objective Reality: 'that which actually is, mind-independently'.

The question here is whether we have access to Objective Reality. We don't, not knowingly. [We could, in theory, stumble across Objective Truth — that which exhibits 'mind-independent correspondence with that which actually is' — coincidentally, but we have no way to demonstrate we have done so, to ourselves or to each other.]


Wizard22 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:49 am Therefore, if "brain in a vat" theory were even remotely probable, then there would be clear and obvious indications for such a theorem. Sadly, there's not. There's no significant or convincing reasons or causes for most people to believe in that theory.
Again, you miss my point. Whether we are brains-in-vats is not a theory. Or at least, it's not presented as such. It is presented as a thought experiment, an illustrative example. And what it illustrates is that we have no way to tell if we are brains-in-vats, or maybe that the apparent reality that our senses seem to show to us is Objective Reality.

You are correct that there are no reasons for "most people to believe in that theory". That's the point: there are no such reasons, just as there are no reasons to believe that Apparent Reality is Objective Reality. And, just as there are no reasons to believe, there are no reasons not to believe either. There is no evidence for or against; none at all.

Lacking evidence, as we do — there is none; none at all — no form of scientific or philosophical analysis is possible, and therefore no conclusions may logically be drawn. It is impossible to say, according to scientific or philosophical standards of any sort, that the idea behind this thought experiment is true or false. No reason to accept; no reason to deny.

Btw, the brain-in-a-vat idea is possible. I would not use the word "probable", as there are no statistical means by which such a probability could be quantified. And even if it was the Objective Truth, there would not be "clear and obvious indications for such a theorem". You assume and assert that there are, but how could there be? Being brains-in-vats is scientifically and philosophically indistinguishable from any alternative explanation (thought experiment).


Wizard22 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:49 am Even with Theories of Gravity, of General Relativity, of Conservation of Energy, Etc. all of these have different degrees of believability.
What scientific or philosophical principles or knowledge confirm this? You blithely refer to believability, implying that you have some basis to determine "believability". What is this basis? I will echo your words: "Is it scientific? Is it empirical?" Or is it, simply, imagined, and asserted without foundation or justification?


Wizard22 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:49 am Is Brain-in-a-Vat theory relevant? Is it scientific? Is it empirical? Or is it, simply, subjective and solipsistic?
No, not that I know of, except as an illustrative example of possibility. No. No. Yes (I'm not sure about "solipsistic" though).

But let's complete the sense of my position, and paraphrase you again, with a balancing example:

Is Apparent Reality theory relevant? Is it scientific? Is it empirical? Or is it, simply, subjective wishful thinking?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

What is "Apparent" revolves around the senses. Objectivity revolves around Logic and Deduction, not the senses. That's the difference.

Your argument presumes that people cannot discern between being awake and a dream, between idea and reality, between what is real versus unreal. That's not true. People have intuition that distinguishes the difference. Again, using "brain-in-a-vat", whether a theory or "thought experiment", is still a bad example and comparison. Because a brain-in-the-vat reality can be compared to a Santa-Clause-is-real reality.

What is the Nature of Reality? You need to explain the difference between intuition, sense, rationality, and distinction of reality. Why is something real to one person, but not to another? And what is *NOT* a subjective reality? What is real, yet, cannot be opined about?

I already mentioned this: rationality. It's not a matter of opinion, that 1+1=2. Because the equation is true, logic does seem to be the only route to an Objective Reality. Your "thought experiment" did not rule out the probability, that one reality maybe more or less real than another.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sy Borg »

Wizard22 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:43 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 6th, 2022, 4:57 pmIf you wish to be told simple nonsense, no doubt fundamentalists can oblige. It seems you prefer this to people pondering the subject without pretending to know everything.

Note that concise and clear answers are the appeal of dictators, who baselessly reduce the complex to the simple for public consumption. Clear and concise answers are provided by advertisers too, although you will find that the missing detail ultimately matters, eg. when your car engine keeps stalling, even though the vehicle appeared to be perfect on TV.
I should be more appreciative of stevie, at least he somewhat answered the question, insufficient as it might be.

"The meaning of life, is to live"

I think this suffices most people, but, it shouldn't. People deserve more. And it is the duty of Philosophers, to provide more.
I would say that most people make their own meaning because there are too many unknowns to understand everything, so we settle for understanding our patch. That, I suppose is why so many think the meaning of life is to live or to reproduce. Yes, they are inadequate answers for me but I can't dispute that these are the meaning of life for them.

When I try to apprehend the question, it's always an endless progression, just as when people wonder about the start of the universe, it's endlessly recessive. If life (or post-life) does not reach some ultimate, final form, then no generation generates ultimate meaning, only subjective meanings.

Same with science. It never actually ends, but our explorations inevitably arrive at a "brick wall" at some stage.

Still, I prefer humble uncertainty to barracking for a definite position, as if all was known.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by stevie »

Wizard22 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:50 am
stevie wrote: August 7th, 2022, 1:30 pmIf that is so then why do you ask your questions here instead of accessing objective reality?
Because there might be Philosophers who have better access to the Objective Realm...than me.

If there are any on this forum, then we'll see, won't we?
No, if there were an objective reality and if there were someone who had better access than you then you would not be able to see that. Why? Because your access would be worse and thus you would have no basis for assessment. It would again boil down to so called "arguments" that might appear persuasive to you (but not to another) and thus your assessment would be based on subjective belief.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Sy Borg wrote: August 8th, 2022, 4:52 pmI would say that most people make their own meaning because there are too many unknowns to understand everything, so we settle for understanding our patch. That, I suppose is why so many think the meaning of life is to live or to reproduce. Yes, they are inadequate answers for me but I can't dispute that these are the meaning of life for them.

When I try to apprehend the question, it's always an endless progression, just as when people wonder about the start of the universe, it's endlessly recessive. If life (or post-life) does not reach some ultimate, final form, then no generation generates ultimate meaning, only subjective meanings.

Same with science. It never actually ends, but our explorations inevitably arrive at a "brick wall" at some stage.

Still, I prefer humble uncertainty to barracking for a definite position, as if all was known.
That's why Religion is the de facto worldly institution for 'Meaning' of Life. People don't want to do the thinking themselves, so they accept what their Priest/Rabbi/Imam lecture them to believe. They receive their meaning of life, their significance, their value, their purpose, from those they perceive as spiritual Authorities.

So where do those so-called Authorities get their Meaning of Life from?
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

stevie wrote: August 9th, 2022, 1:05 amNo, if there were an objective reality and if there were someone who had better access than you then you would not be able to see that. Why? Because your access would be worse and thus you would have no basis for assessment. It would again boil down to so called "arguments" that might appear persuasive to you (but not to another) and thus your assessment would be based on subjective belief.
When somebody is the world record holder of high jump, in track & field, everybody can see their dominance of performance.

The same is true of those attuned to Objective Reality. Everybody immediately accepts them as the best, with no hesitation.

In fact these types are captivating, as is the world record high jumper.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: July 8th, 2022, 3:30 am I pose to you all three "simple" questions:


1. What is the Meaning of Life?

2. Does God Exist (and How)?

3. What is the Nature of Reality?
1. Meaning of life. The only way to answer this is to define Life. Biology has plenty of examples. Aside from that there can only be a personal meaning. Life is what you make it. - a thing lived only once - life is a journey with the same destination - the purpose of life is a life of purpose. Take your Pick. No one can tell you the answer to this one.

2. You might have to define god, there are so many. But no matter how hard you try the more definitions the less likely any of them make any sense. I can find no way to answer in the affirmative except to say god exists as an idea only. It is subjective; god is not an object or person.

3. This is a circular question. Reality is nature. Nature is natural. Reality is real. Naturally nature is what nature does. It's a think we have partial access to via our senses, and often clouded by our expectations, and preconceptions.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:54 am
stevie wrote: August 9th, 2022, 1:05 amNo, if there were an objective reality and if there were someone who had better access than you then you would not be able to see that. Why? Because your access would be worse and thus you would have no basis for assessment. It would again boil down to so called "arguments" that might appear persuasive to you (but not to another) and thus your assessment would be based on subjective belief.
When somebody is the world record holder of high jump, in track & field, everybody can see their dominance of performance.

The same is true of those attuned to Objective Reality. Everybody immediately accepts them as the best, with no hesitation.

In fact these types are captivating, as is the world record high jumper.
You cannot measure a person acuity to objective reality, as that would imply a ruler with an absolute scale.
And no - even if you thought such a person existed it would be false to say "Everybody immediately accepts them ". This is just hyperbole and reveals that you yourself do not have a great grasp of objectivity, though you think you do.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Wizard22 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:53 am That's why Religion is the de facto worldly institution for 'Meaning' of Life. People don't want to do the thinking themselves, so they accept what their Priest/Rabbi/Imam lecture them to believe. They receive their meaning of life, their significance, their value, their purpose, from those they perceive as spiritual Authorities.

So where do those so-called Authorities get their Meaning of Life from?
As they are religious 'authorities', they presumably get their Meaning of Life from God?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:39 am1. Meaning of life. The only way to answer this is to define Life. Biology has plenty of examples. Aside from that there can only be a personal meaning. Life is what you make it. - a thing lived only once - life is a journey with the same destination - the purpose of life is a life of purpose. Take your Pick. No one can tell you the answer to this one.
In previous societies, Elders and wise individuals, who represented the society or tribe's heritage, would have the wisdom to tell young people the answer to lives well lived, versus lives wasted. The postmodern Era, however, has lost this heritage, and seems to have children chasing dreams of internet fame and frivolous, over-indulgent consumption for the sake of capitalist profits. I believe that some individuals can tell the answer.

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:39 am2. You might have to define god, there are so many. But no matter how hard you try the more definitions the less likely any of them make any sense. I can find no way to answer in the affirmative except to say god exists as an idea only. It is subjective; god is not an object or person.
How do you know there are "so many"?

How do you know that god is an idea?

How do you know that god is not an object or person?

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:39 am3. This is a circular question. Reality is nature. Nature is natural. Reality is real. Naturally nature is what nature does. It's a think we have partial access to via our senses, and often clouded by our expectations, and preconceptions.
If nature is reality, then can something be unnatural or unreal? It seems they can. So how is something unnatural? And how is something unreal?

People have true or false, realistic or unrealistic expectations. How does a person know the difference?
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 9th, 2022, 7:17 amAs they are religious 'authorities', they presumably get their Meaning of Life from God?
I asked you first. But, if I have to guess, then I presume a religious authority studies the Bible, or some tome of wisdom, and seeks 'God' for answers. Some claim to know God, and have answers, and thus provide Meaning of Life for themselves and others, from this source. However, religious authorities are disputed, since few can agree on everything. Although, many religious authorities are willing to agree on some central tenants of religion, particularly among Abrahamism, which Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe that they are referring to the same Monotheistic Deity as their source.

As a doubter, I don't know if their God is in fact the same deity. However, it does seem undeniable that it provides their believers, devotees, and advocates Meaning of Life. At least, they certainly believe that it (God) does. They are utterly convinced, and persuaded.

Furthermore, they claim that their God is "Real". What does that mean? As Sculptor just argued—isn't that a conflict of meaning? Is God real, or an ideal? Is God unreal? What measures the "reality" of God, or any god?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 7:40 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:39 am1. Meaning of life. The only way to answer this is to define Life. Biology has plenty of examples. Aside from that there can only be a personal meaning. Life is what you make it. - a thing lived only once - life is a journey with the same destination - the purpose of life is a life of purpose. Take your Pick. No one can tell you the answer to this one.
In previous societies, Elders and wise individuals, who represented the society or tribe's heritage, would have the wisdom to tell young people the answer to lives well lived, versus lives wasted. The postmodern Era, however, has lost this heritage, and seems to have children chasing dreams of internet fame and frivolous, over-indulgent consumption for the sake of capitalist profits. I believe that some individuals can tell the answer.
Nah.
Where is your evidence for the wonder of "previous societies" please?
And we actually do that more than ever we used to. In fact we do it so much it is a dreadful bore. How wonderful was Dame Olivier Newton John?
Temuchin was a great example to millions of Mongols; "“A man's greatest joy is crushing his enemies.”
Now we just have different standards.
There is no right and wrong here - just different.

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:39 am2. You might have to define god, there are so many. But no matter how hard you try the more definitions the less likely any of them make any sense. I can find no way to answer in the affirmative except to say god exists as an idea only. It is subjective; god is not an object or person.
How do you know there are "so many"?

How do you know that god is an idea?

How do you know that god is not an object or person?
I'm not sure why you ask these silly question.

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:39 am3. This is a circular question. Reality is nature. Nature is natural. Reality is real. Naturally nature is what nature does. It's a think we have partial access to via our senses, and often clouded by our expectations, and preconceptions.
If nature is reality, then can something be unnatural or unreal? It seems they can. So how is something unnatural? And how is something unreal?

People have true or false, realistic or unrealistic expectations. How does a person know the difference?
The only case for a thing being "unnatural" is if it is a cultural idea like god; a political party; something purely artificial in the sense of a human construction.
The same is basically true for "unreal", something imaginary.

Some people can tell, some cannot. The clue is usually about human conceit. It's not hard. All you have to do is challenge all the rubbish you have had thrown into you, and have a critical eye.
Is there something in particular you are having a problem with?
Take a look at all the different ideas about what "god" is supposed to be and that should inform you that such ideas are unreal.
Take a look at the ingredients on a packet of Twinkies and ask yourself if these could have come together through nature? A Twinkie is unnatural in constitution, though all the ingredients at some point will have come from nature.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by stevie »

Wizard22 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:54 am
stevie wrote: August 9th, 2022, 1:05 amNo, if there were an objective reality and if there were someone who had better access than you then you would not be able to see that. Why? Because your access would be worse and thus you would have no basis for assessment. It would again boil down to so called "arguments" that might appear persuasive to you (but not to another) and thus your assessment would be based on subjective belief.
When somebody is the world record holder of high jump, in track & field, everybody can see their dominance of performance.

The same is true of those attuned to Objective Reality. Everybody immediately accepts them as the best, with no hesitation.

In fact these types are captivating, as is the world record high jumper.
You are a dreaming believer :lol:
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Wizard22 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 7:45 am Furthermore, they claim that their God is "Real". What does that mean? As Sculptor just argued—isn't that a conflict of meaning? Is God real, or an ideal? Is God unreal? What measures the "reality" of God, or any god?
IMO, any believer who asserts the existence of God, in the sense that a scientist would mean by "existence", is mistaken and misguided. The reality of God is a spiritual matter, not a scientific one. [Also IMO, of course.]
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Wizard22 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 7:42 am Objectivity revolves around Logic and Deduction, not the senses.
As you have not yet clarified the meaning you intend "Objective" to carry, I have already offered the definition that you seem to be following:

Objective Reality is that which actually is, mind-independently; "Objective" means corresponding with Objective Reality.

But, from your words above, I suspect these definitions are not the ones you are using. So please tell me clearly what "Objective" means to you?

Your words seem to imply that Objectivity has nothing to do with that which actually is, and is more of a theoretical concept, revolving, as you say it does, around "Logic and Deduction"?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophers' Lounge”

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