GsTSaien t1_jarb30b wrote
Reply to comment by interstellarclerk in Our emotional experiences reveal facts about the world in the same way our sensory experiences do. Trusting in either requires a leap of faith to some degree. by IAI_Admin
There doesn't need to be evidence against external world skepticism to make a good argument. It just wouldn't make much sense for reality to be made up by just myself right now and nothing to exist. And even if something as extreme as that were the case, what would change about my reality? There is no leap of faith required to trust my senses or emotions, that is literally the default behavior of a human.
PiersPlays t1_jas9i1a wrote
From a scientific perspective, the world as you experience it is unambiguously made up by your brain. There's no directly experiencing the world. Only taking the electrical and chemical inputs from your sensory organs and interpreting them to create a model of what the world most likely is. It is a flawed and imperfect guess at reality based on the best available data. That is why illusions exist.
Thelonious_Cube t1_jatyzpf wrote
> There's no directly experiencing the world.
You say that as if there is some possible world where we experience it "directly" and our current world falls short somehow.
That's a pretty odd view - how much more "directly" could we experience the world?
platoprime t1_jat33ct wrote
>It is a flawed and imperfect guess at reality based on the best available data. That is why illusions exist.
And persistent objective reality is why you can test and find illusions even though they deceive your senses.
> is unambiguously made up by your brain.
Unless you wanna fit the universe inside your brain you're limited to your model but that's very different from external world skepticism.
twoiko t1_jatagwk wrote
>And persistent objective reality is why you can test and find illusions even though they deceive your senses.
Interesting, I wasn't aware there was proof of what objective reality is like to compare to, other than comparing to other flawed models.
platoprime t1_jatfwby wrote
Interesting I wasn't aware I said there was proof of what objective reality is like to compare to something other than models.
twoiko t1_jatgp6z wrote
Then what did you mean by that quote? Are you simply assuming there is an objective reality?
platoprime t1_jatgzqx wrote
What would proof of objective reality look like to you?
twoiko t1_jath72t wrote
I don't know that there is such a thing, that's why I ask
platoprime t1_jathn4p wrote
There is no such thing because you could always be in the Matrix or whatever. It's a stupid thing to take seriously and I doubt many people do.
Let me know when "you" stop paying your bills because objective reality isn't provable. You should check out the incompleteness theorem if you're interested in unprovable truths.
twoiko t1_jatitdx wrote
I pay my bills because evidence supports the idea that it's what keeps me warm and dry, but that's still a leap of faith I'm making, I don't actually know it to be true.
I know all about the incompleteness theorem, I'm not sure what you mean by unprovable truths, maybe my definition of truth is too rigorous for this conversation.
platoprime t1_jatj4u3 wrote
It is not a "leap" to accept that paying bills keeps you warm and dry. There might be a infinitesimal sliver of faith required but that is the level of faith required with all truths.
If you know all about incompleteness then you know incompleteness is the fact that we cannot construct a formal logical system that can prove all true statements.
GsTSaien t1_jas9wdi wrote
It is a slightly flawed interpretation of reality, not a guess. And we use the scientifc method to measure things, even obvious ones, to better understand the world. Our perspective is not limited at all, illusions are fun and they show our brains can be tricked, but we are still pretty damn good at experiencing the world.
twoiko t1_jasy0oa wrote
What metric are you using to determine how close our experience is to objective reality?
Edit: I'm asking in good faith.
I've never heard that we can find the difference between our experience and objective reality beyond comparing our personal perspectives with each other.
TimelessGlassGallery t1_jarssm5 wrote
>It just wouldn't make much sense for reality to be made up by just myself right now and nothing to exist.
You're conflating "making sense" with "able to be proven." It doesn't have to "make sense" to you when nothing else can be proven in any way, shape, or form... But that doesn't mean you have to act based solely on what can be proven.
GsTSaien t1_jas35sc wrote
No, I am not conflating anything. I am just saying that such a ridoculous idea does not require evidence in order to be discarded.
Example: You can't prove I am not actually a raccoon pretending to be a woman online, but the idea is so silly it does not deserve serious consideration.
[deleted] t1_jas3dgi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jas3rsj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jas4k4f wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jas4xn4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jas5eda wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jas5kuc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jat3pjb wrote
[removed]
VitriolicViolet t1_jb2bz20 wrote
> It just wouldn't make much sense for reality to be made up by just myself right now and nothing to exist.
this is why no one takes Solipsism seriously at all.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments