Whose view represents reality the best?

[atanu]

 

[blü 2]

"...an objective reality ..."

Hail, old friend!

Well, you know my PoV. Since I can't demonstrate the correctness of what I think without first assuming that what I think is correct, I simply assume that ─

a world exists external to me
my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and
reason is a valid tool.​

Assumptions which you plainly share, or you wouldn't bother posting reasoned arguments here.

So I trust you agree that unless and until we encounter a problem which invalidates any of those those assumptions, we can go on agreeing that a world exists external to the self (called 'objective reality', 'nature' &c), that we know about it through our senses, and that we can reason about it.

On these points it's no embarrassment to agree with Vladimir ─ and it'd be silly to agree with Arthur.

 

[Ella S.]

Hail, old friend!

Well, you know my PoV. Since I can't demonstrate the correctness of what I think without first assuming that what I think is correct, I simply assume that ─

a world exists external to me
my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and
reason is a valid tool.​

Assumptions which you plainly share, or you wouldn't bother posting reasoned arguments here.

So I trust you agree that unless and until we encounter a problem which invalidates any of those those assumptions, we can go on agreeing that a world exists external to the self (called 'objective reality', 'nature' &c), that we know about it through our senses, and that we can reason about it.

On these points it's no embarrassment to agree with Vladimir ─ and it'd be silly to agree with Arthur.

Personally, I start with one major assumption: Formal logic is a reliable tool for approximating truth.

From there, I have a second leap (although not really an assumption) of plugging my observations into the premises, because I don't really have anything else to put in them. I don't assume that my observations are accurate, but they're simply all I have.

From just inductive logic and observation, I can derive that the world outside of me is very likely to be independent of my existence. There are other reasons why the world might appear this way, such as solipsism, but I would argue that solipsism makes more assumptions and, therefore, would be less likely according to induction.

I can also conclude, through inductive logic and observation, that my observations are probably faulty in a variety of ways. I'm susceptible to optical and auditory illusions, for instance, and I can only see a narrow band of the full electromagnetic spectrum.

The full proofs of these are rather lengthy, but I went through an epistemology-induced existential crisis a year or so ago, so I actually have them all written down somewhere in symbolic logic.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm voting Schopenhauer as I do not feel materialism can best address 'what consciousness is'.

 

[atanu]

Hail, old friend!
On these points it's no embarrassment to agree with Vladimir ─ and it'd be silly to agree with Arthur.

Which of the above view leads to the following.

(Tribalism of I-Me-Mine of identity politics: political ideology, language, country, colour of skin, religion, gender etc.)

 

[atanu]

Hail, old friend!

Well, you know my PoV. Since I can't demonstrate the correctness of what I think without first assuming that what I think is correct, I simply assume that ─

a world exists external to me
my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and
reason is a valid tool.​

Assumptions which you plainly share, or you wouldn't bother posting reasoned arguments here...

Yes. Old foe. How do you do? I do know your inflexible ideology.

I wanted to say that the red does not necessarily lead to the blue.

 

[The Hammer]

Which of the above view leads to the following.

(Tribalism of I-Me-Mine of identity politics: political ideology, language, country, colour of skin, religion, gender etc.)

Both. It's an inherent human quality related to connection to ones community.

Edited

 

[atanu]

..

I can also conclude, through inductive logic and observation, that my observations are probably faulty in a variety of ways. I'm susceptible to optical and auditory illusions, for instance, and I can only see a narrow band of the full electromagnetic spectrum...

What about the difficulty (if not impossibility) of discerning the truth of 'yourself' beneath the activity of mind-senses?

 

[atanu]

I'm voting Schopenhauer as I do not feel materialism can best address 'what consciousness is'.

I agree.

 

[Ella S.]

What about the difficulty (if not impossibility) of discerning the truth of 'yourself' beneath the activity of mind-senses?

Cogito ergo sum

 

[epronovost]

I would go with Lenin since Schopenhauer is simply wrong in his assessment of materialism. Materialism does take account of perceptions, biases and other mind phenomenon.

In the end, as a pragmatic, materialism is the most valuable philosophical position since its the only that can provide reliable observations and usages in a consistent manner even if were to be completely wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Reality is forever independent of all views, opinions, conceptualizations, etc..

 

[sun rise]

Which of the above view leads to the following.

(Tribalism of I-Me-Mine of identity politics: political ideology, language, country, colour of skin, religion, gender etc.)

Materialism as expressed by Lenin which was all about us (workers and peasants) versus them (land owners, capitalists).

But really either can result in us/them as @The Hammer noted.

 

[blü 2]

Personally, I start with one major assumption: Formal logic is a reliable tool for approximating truth.

As to 'truth', I favor the 'correspondence' definition ─ that truth is a quality of statements and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

How do you define 'truth'? What's the test?

I don't assume that my observations are accurate, but they're simply all I have.

Indeed, we're not capable of perfect objectivity ─ if we were completely objective, we'd never prefer one purpose or one observation above another, so we'd do nothing. But we are capable of maximizing objectivity, and this is part of reasoned skeptical enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset. Purpose, method and result are clearly stated and published to allow others to test the results, sponsors are named, experiments with human attitudes and responses use double-blind techniques &c. And of course it's why cops use speed cameras and the like.

From just inductive logic and observation, I can derive that the world outside of me is very likely to be independent of my existence. There are other reasons why the world might appear this way, such as solipsism, but I would argue that solipsism makes more assumptions and, therefore, would be less likely according to induction.

I dare say you'll also be struck by the consistency of the results from this assumption.

I'm susceptible to optical and auditory illusions, for instance, and I can only see a narrow band of the full electromagnetic spectrum.

Who hasn't delighted in a good optical or auditory illusion!

Good luck with the symbolic logic! May the last line read,

⸫ "I am"​

 

[blü 2]

Which of the above view leads to the following.

The Angels, of course! They've been agitating to be made material for goodness knows how long now!

 

[blü 2]

Yes. Old foe. How do you do? I do know your inflexible ideology.

I love the idea of an inflexible assumption!

I wanted to say that the red does not necessarily lead to the blue.

Republican Fiend to Democrat Angel? Not easy, I agree.

 

[atanu]

I love the idea of an inflexible assumption!

Presumption.

Republican Fiend to Democrat Angel? Not easy, I agree.

Not really. I believe and follow dialectical materialism at the level of phenomenal life. But I think that Marx was not a deterministic materialist— at least he propagated the idea that human beings can and must change their lot. And Quantum physics now proposes Contextuality (and doubts Realism).

Please refer to your assumptions in your first post (I call them presumptions). They are invalid in that you are begging the question. If space-time is contained in another fundamental reality, the interactions that we are having will hold but your assumptions will not. You are assuming that space-time is fundamental realty, objects are separate realities, and that objects give rise to consciousness.

These are the points that you need to prove. And there is no way anything can be proven independent of the awareness itself.

Otherwise also, as per materialism (and as per you) there must be some abstract world out there and the brain creates subjectivity. You decide that the correspondence is true based on inter subjective agreement. But that can happen otherwise also — if space-time is a product.

Therefore, in my opinion, Schopenhauer’s view represents reality better. This view does not invalidate any of science and does have to do wrestling to explain how matter (defined by mass, charge, and spin) computes to self awareness.

…

 

[Kooky]

Personally, I start with one major assumption: Formal logic is a reliable tool for approximating truth.

For example, thanks to logic, we now know that a bachelor is an unmarried man, that Socrates is a man and therefore mortal, and that all horse heads are the heads of animals.

 

[blü 2]

Presumption.

Like the Presumption of Mary? ─ oops, that too was an Assumption.

Not really. I believe and follow dialectical materialism at the level of phenomenal life. But I think that Marx was not a deterministic materialist— at least he propagated the idea that human beings can and must change their lot. And Quantum physics now proposes Contextuality (and doubts Realism).

Please refer to your assumptions in your first post (I call them presumptions). They are invalid in that you are begging the question.

They aren't invalid as assumptions, since the test of their success is whether they work or not, and they work very well, very persuasively.

If space-time is contained in another fundamental reality, the interactions that we are having will hold but your assumptions will not.

I don't think we know enough for you to say that ─ rather, should those circumstances ever arise, each assumption may or may not be valid.

You are assuming that space-time is fundamental realty

Reality is the world external to the self, the place where things with objective existence are found.

objects are separate realities

It's the case that our brains sort the things that exist out there in reality into categories, so that this arrangement of earth and plants is a garden, that one is a forest, the other is park &c. Things with objective existence will generally be distinct things, but they're all part of the one reality, just as every quark is part of the one reality.

and that objects give rise to consciousness.

Yes, that's what all the science tells us ─ that our material brains produce consciousness. The demonstration is fairly simple ─ no functioning brain, no consciousness.

 

[Secret Chief]

Mine, since I had my cataract operation.