What is Reality?

[powder]

I am pretty new to this philosophy thing and I am starting to get the idea that it is rooted in 'reality', what is real and verifiable, provable.  Am I correct in that?  

 

Certainly, my philosophy classes in university never gave me that impression - it seemed we were just asked to debate about random and irrelevant 'what if' scenarios, I hated it and assumed that that was what philosophy was about.  

 

From what I am reading here and from listening to and reading some Stef's stuff, it comes across as infinitely more practical and rooted in universal 'truths' or 'objective reality'.   If that is the case, I just don't know exactly what that would look like.  

 

I think someone referenced a series of pod casts on the topic in another thread, like 19 of them or something. Short of listening to all that right away, can a simple and concise definition of what constitutes reality be given?  

 

I ran into this in another thread and it seemed like I did not have an understanding of what was being assumed to be an apparent consensus of what was considered 'real' by some of the posters.  I never got a definition of what that might be so I am interested to know.  In that thread I was claiming that I could not consider myself an atheist because I just don't know what I don't know.  

 

What am I missing when it comes to what constitutes reality from a philosophical perspective?  

[Kevin Beal]

I'd probably sound pretty silly saying it, especially since I am no expert on this (or really any other) issue, but isn't it just the simplest thing in the world? I really think it's as simple as it sounds. Me, this computer I'm typing on, the sun, the moon etc. What we experience with our bodies (our senses) and the extension of our bodies (tools, telescopes, microscopes, thermo goggles etc).

 

Despite that, I'll provide some sort of more sophisticated definition.

 

Reality is a category that encompasses all existing objects. It's distinguished from what is true in that something can be true, but not real (like a math equation). It's distinguished from concepts since we can hold a concept of a unicorn, but it doesn't mean unicorns exist, rather what exists is a person's brain that generates the ontologically subjective experience of that concept.

 

The general philosophical metaphysics around existence is called "ontology", defined as:

 

the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. In the broadest sense, ontologists investigate what makes a human human, relying on institutional, social, and technical conventions representing a nexus of intellectual activities.

 

The introduction to philosophy series is here:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC1647D7F937DDE7A

 

This one is especially relevant (but you may want to watch the knowledge sub-series first):

[cynicist]

Kevin has shared some good stuff but just for the simple explanation objective reality is that which exists independent of our internal mental processes. Reality itself includes objective reality and the truth of our subjective experiences, a simpler version would be reality is that which exists. (this is to clarify that feelings of sadness may exist within our minds but there is no way to verify that objectively) Truth is that which conforms to logic or the evidence of our senses, the former being based on the consistent behavior of matter and energy as described by physics.

 

Let me know if I wasn't clear or missed anything, but I would refer you to the videos by Stefan that Kevin linked above for a more thorough explanation and more on the matter of existence.

[Lians]

Reality is that which exists independent of your consciousness. You can read Stef's master thesis for a more rigorous treatment. You should have access to it in the bronze content section of the board.

 

EDIT:

Dang, cynicist beat me to it!

[cynicist]

Like a ninja.

[Pepin]

A key point is that we know a lot about reality, but most all of what we know is derived through imperfect models. The best example of this is Newtonian physics and how it at first seemed to be able to describe all of reality, until Einstein came along and showed that under certain circumstances the Newtonian model of reality is not accurate, hence special and general relativity came to replace the previous model.

 

There is an idea in physics of an equation that is capable of describing all physical phenomenon, and is often called the theory of everything. If this is even possible to do is not known, but if it is, then reality is a consequent of the laws provided in the theory. Reality is of course not the theory, nor the laws, yet what the laws describe.

[powder]

I'd probably sound pretty silly saying it, especially since I am no expert on this (or really any other) issue, but isn't it just the simplest thing in the world? I really think it's as simple as it sounds. Me, this computer I'm typing on, the sun, the moon etc. What we experience with our bodies (our senses) and the extension of our bodies (tools, telescopes, microscopes, thermo goggles etc).

 

 

Kevin, saying that something exists, or is real, because we experience it with our senses is not a very useful definition to me because our brains simply receive electrical impulses sent by our senses.  We are not 'seeing' the moon, our brain is simply interpreting electrical impulses and our 'senses' are not accurate.  The moon looks as big or bigger than the sun according to our senses.  We cannot distinguish between a dream or an illusion and a 'real' event.  We can be hypnotized to process those signals differently.  I watched a hypnotized guy eat an onion believing he was biting into an apple and he had all the sensory responses associated with eating an apple.  Moreover, our sensory receptors that are sending the electrical impulses are quite limited.  Our noses and ears for example only pick up a fraction of the vibrations that are sensed by animals with more sophisticated organs - these sounds and smells clearly exist, we just cannot 'sense' them.  

 

and thanks, I listened to a bunch of the podcasts that you linked over that last couple of days while I was painting.

Kevin has shared some good stuff but just for the simple explanation objective reality is that which exists independent of our internal mental processes. Reality itself includes objective reality and the truth of our subjective experiences, a simpler version would be reality is that which exists. (this is to clarify that feelings of sadness may exist within our minds but there is no way to verify that objectively) Truth is that which conforms to logic or the evidence of our senses, the former being based on the consistent behavior of matter and energy as described by physics.

 

Let me know if I wasn't clear or missed anything, but I would refer you to the videos by Stefan that Kevin linked above for a more thorough explanation and more on the matter of existence.

I like this: "objective reality is that which exists independent of our internal mental processes, or consciousness" and "reality is that which exists."

 

Then you go on to distinguish reality from truth by saying that "Truth is that which conforms to logic or the evidence of our senses"  

 

can you elaborate on that and give specific examples of what that would look like.  I know it all seems obvious and simple, I just don't know if I am prepared to accept some of the basic premises. 

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, saying that something exists, or is real, because we experience it with our senses is not a very useful definition to me because our brains simply receive electrical impulses sent by our senses.  We are not 'seeing' the moon, our brain is simply interpreting electrical impulses and our 'senses' are not accurate.  The moon looks as big or bigger than the sun according to our senses.  We cannot distinguish between a dream or an illusion and a 'real' event.  We can be hypnotized to process those signals differently.  I watched a hypnotized guy eat an onion believing he was biting into an apple and he had all the sensory responses associated with eating an apple.  Moreover, our sensory receptors that are sending the electrical impulses are quite limited.  Our noses and ears for example only pick up a fraction of the vibrations that are sensed by animals with more sophisticated organs - these sounds and smells clearly exist, we just cannot 'sense' them.

But you can't say that without reference to the actual objects as they actually exist, otherwise, to say that it's not really an accurate representation, or that what we are experiencing is something else becomes entirely meaningless.

 

Those electrical signals are not any different than the moon. To say that one is experienced and the other not makes no logical sense. The very fact that we have a term for dream and illusion is evidence of an objective distinction. The reason we can say that something is an illusion or a dream necessarily implies an objective reference to objective reality, otherwise the distinction would be meaningless.

 

Also, you seem to be implying that because animals have a greater capacity for certain sensual experiences (larger ranges, lower thresholds, etc) you are appealing to an objective standard about what is real about the world. You already accept what I'm telling you. This is implied in what you are saying.

 

That's why I say it's so simple: because everyone already acts as if it's entirely true (and the degree to which they don't they are uniformly recognized as having a serious mental problem).

 

There are three basic positions on the philosophy of mind:

• Nothing is real except our experience
• Some combination of the external world and our internal subjective experience
• the external world is entirely real and concepts do not exist       <----HINT: it's this one

 

Stef goes into these in the Knowledge series. I would suggest you go there since he does a better job than I can. Have you watched any of them yet?

 

How we know that everyone already accepts the above conclusion:

• Mental health is measured (in large part) by how well people can process and navigate the real world.
• Everyone expects consistent behavior of the physical laws (i.e. that gravity won't suddenly reverse)
• A successful scientific theory is reproducible, falsifiable and universally consistent
• etc etc etc

 

The only reason people quibble on these things (as far as I can tell as a layman) is because it serves some political or religious agenda:

• Plato's philosopher kings could access the world of forms and so they should decide what people should do, how society should run
• God exists because reality isn't "purely materialistic" and those who see past this "shallow materialism" can talk to god and "instruct" others
• etc etc etc

 

The only way that people can be controlled is if you undermine their capacity to understand the world objectively for themselves. Or as is sometimes mentioned "freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. From that all else follows". By undermining people's efficacy here, they will rely on the perceived authority: the priest or the politician.

[powder]

Kevin, yes I did listen to several of those podcasts, and I am still stumped, ...  perhaps this is good practice for you cuz I am a bit thick with this kind of discourse, but I need you to be more precise, and concise...  

 

But you can't say that without reference to the actual objects as they actually exist, otherwise, to say that it's not really an accurate representation, or that what we are experiencing is something else becomes entirely meaningless.  

 

I can't say what exactly?  yes, I am referencing objects that we agree upon their objective nature, still, our senses are telling us that the moon is the same size as the sun, it isn't.  the onion is an apple, it isn't.  I am saying that to claim that reality is what we experience through our senses is problematic.  

 

Those electrical signals are not any different than the moon. To say that one is experienced and the other not makes no logical sense.

 

There is something out there that we all agree is the moon, but it is separate and different from our perception and interpretation of it.  

 

The very fact that we have a term for dream and illusion is evidence of an objective distinction. The reason we can say that something is an illusion or a dream necessarily implies an objective reference to objective reality, otherwise the distinction would be meaningless.

 

Agreed, except that when you are dreaming or having an illusion, or under hypnosis, or having your brain poked with a needle, you don't know the difference between that and 'objective reality.'  So why not say that reality is all that exists outside of our mental processes instead?

 

Also, you seem to be implying that because animals have a greater capacity for certain sensual experiences (larger ranges, lower thresholds, etc) you are appealing to an objective standard about what is real about the world. You already accept what I'm telling you. This is implied in what you are saying.

 

I am saying that there are things that we cannot experience because of our limited and problematic senses, that does not mean that they do not exist and are not real.  What exactly, as concisely as possible, are you telling me that I already accept?  I assume it is that objective reality is what we experience thru our senses.  

 

That's why I say it's so simple: because everyone already acts as if it's entirely true (and the degree to which they don't they are uniformly recognized as having a serious mental problem).

 

There are three basic positions on the philosophy of mind:

• Nothing is real except our experience
• Some combination of the external world and our internal subjective experience
• the external world is entirely real and concepts do not exist       <----HINT: it's this one

 

Stef goes into these in the Knowledge series. I would suggest you go there since he does a better job than I can. Have you watched any of them yet?

 

How we know that everyone already accepts the above conclusion:  

 

Which conclusion is that exactly?

• Mental health is measured (in large part) by how well people can process and navigate the real world.
• Everyone expects consistent behavior of the physical laws (i.e. that gravity won't suddenly reverse)
• A successful scientific theory is reproducible, falsifiable and universally consistent
• etc etc etc

 

The only reason people quibble on these things (as far as I can tell as a layman) is because it serves some political or religious agenda:

• Plato's philosopher kings could access the world of forms and so they should decide what people should do, how society should run
• God exists because reality isn't "purely materialistic" and those who see past this "shallow materialism" can talk to god and "instruct" others
• etc etc etc

 

The only way that people can be controlled is if you undermine their capacity to understand the world objectively for themselves. Or as is sometimes mentioned "freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. From that all else follows". By undermining people's efficacy here, they will rely on the perceived authority: the priest or the politician.

 

I certainly have no political or religious agenda, I just have a problem with anyone claiming to know the truth about everything.  

[MrCapitalism]

A Classic about using sense to determine reality... for your painting pleasure.. 

FDR 25: Validating the Senses

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/validating_the_senses.mp3

[cynicist]

I like this: "objective reality is that which exists independent of our internal mental processes, or consciousness" and "reality is that which exists."

 

Then you go on to distinguish reality from truth by saying that "Truth is that which conforms to logic or the evidence of our senses"  

 

can you elaborate on that and give specific examples of what that would look like.  I know it all seems obvious and simple, I just don't know if I am prepared to accept some of the basic premises. 

 

It's not obvious and simple, at least it wasn't for me. I can only describe it that way after spending a long time trying to understand philosophy and unlearning a lot of garbage I was taught growing up. I'll elaborate on some of the examples you brought up to help clarify since I think I see where some of these things are unclear for you. 

 

 

We are not 'seeing' the moon, our brain is simply interpreting electrical impulses and our 'senses' are not accurate.  The moon looks as big or bigger than the sun according to our senses.  

 

It's not that our senses are inaccurate, we are just drawing incorrect conclusions based on what we see. You could say our perspective is limited, just like the perspective of an ant would be limited based on it's size, but that doesn't mean the ants senses are broken or don't reflect reality. 

 

We cannot distinguish between a dream or an illusion and a 'real' event.  

 

This is tricky but if we couldn't distinguish between reality and dreams, how would we know that we were dreaming? 

 

Moreover, our sensory receptors that are sending the electrical impulses are quite limited.  Our noses and ears for example only pick up a fraction of the vibrations that are sensed by animals with more sophisticated organs - these sounds and smells clearly exist, we just cannot 'sense' them.  

 

Our senses have limitations that is certainly true, but within the range of functionality they offer us what we see corresponds to what is true. Just because we can't perceive the entirety of existence unaided by technology doesn't mean that what we are perceiving is not real or valid. If I say that the sky is blue I'm saying that I perceive a particular wavelength (visible light) when I look at this area above the earth. So even though I can't see infrared or ultraviolet it doesn't make my statement any less factual. Even if I can't perceive those things I can still detect them and their impact on the world and that is reflected in my experience. (when we invent things like x-ray machines and so on, or see the effects of gravity on objects)

[powder]

thanks Mrcapitalism, I'll have a listen to that one.  

 

thanks too cynicist, this helps, I sense that I am getting close now  

 

a couple of responses and clarifications below...

 

It's not obvious and simple, at least it wasn't for me. I can only describe it that way after spending a long time trying to understand philosophy and unlearning a lot of garbage I was taught growing up. I'll elaborate on some of the examples you brought up to help clarify since I think I see where some of these things are unclear for you. 

 

 

 

It's not that our senses are inaccurate, we are just drawing incorrect conclusions based on what we see. You could say our perspective is limited, just like the perspective of an ant would be limited based on it's size, but that doesn't mean the ants senses are broken or don't reflect reality. 

 

No, I didn't say broken, but limited, and therefore not an accurate or even complete reflection of reality.  Our ears can only hear from 40 to 20,000 hrz or whatever it is - they are not malfunctioning but there are a lot of 'real' sounds out there we are not hearing.   Incorrect conclusions is not a problem when assessing what is real?  

 

 

This is tricky but if we couldn't distinguish between reality and dreams, how would we know that we were dreaming? 

 

My point is that when it is happening we cannot distinguish, only after the fact, so our senses are not reliable gauges in that way.  If you are hypnotized or having an illusion and you wake up, or recover from you trip, you can distinguish.  

 

 

Our senses have limitations that is certainly true, but within the range of functionality they offer us what we see corresponds to what is true. Just because we can't perceive the entirety of existence unaided by technology doesn't mean that what we are perceiving is not real or valid. If I say that the sky is blue I'm saying that I perceive a particular wavelength (visible light) when I look at this area above the earth. So even though I can't see infrared or ultraviolet it doesn't make my statement any less factual. Even if I can't perceive those things I can still detect them and their impact on the world and that is reflected in my experience. (when we invent things like x-ray machines and so on, or see the effects of gravity on objects)

 

gotta let that sentence sink in for a while...  

[cynicist]

No, I didn't say broken, but limited, and therefore not an accurate or even complete reflection of reality.  Our ears can only hear from 40 to 20,000 hrz or whatever it is - they are not malfunctioning but there are a lot of 'real' sounds out there we are not hearing.   Incorrect conclusions is not a problem when assessing what is real?  

 

Our perceptions being limited doesn't mean they are inaccurate, because the accuracy is relative to our senses. As an example you wouldn't say that a machine designed to detect x-rays was inaccurate because it didn't pick up every possible wavelength in existence, since it was designed with a smaller scope in mind. This is a challenge for building an accurate model of reality in our minds, but we can use logic and science to overcome the inherent limitations of our physiology. (remember even though we can't see x-rays directly we can see the effect of them on the body or the output of machines through our senses)

 

My point is that when it is happening we cannot distinguish, only after the fact, so our senses are not reliable gauges in that way.  If you are hypnotized or having an illusion and you wake up, or recover from you trip, you can distinguish.  

 

I don't understand how that means our senses aren't reliable. To be more precise, it is possible that what we call reality is actually an illusion or dream but there is no way for us to prove that. Imagine a Matrix-style scenario where everything we perceive is just made up of electrical impulses fed to us by some amazingly complicated computer, how could we prove it? If it is in fact true that we are living in an illusion that we cannot escape or even detect, does that have any practical consequence for how we behave? If it is true and is detectable in some way, then our senses are again 'reliable' despite our current lack of knowledge around the situation. (I put reliable in quotes because I'm not sure that is the right way to phrase it, it's not like we can say our eyesight is unreliable because we can't detect distant stars using them)

 

gotta let that sentence sink in for a while...  

 

Yeah it is tricky, I hope the example at the beginning of this post helps.

[Kevin Beal]

Who's claiming to know the truth about everything?

[P. Mason]

Reality is what I have to face after my hot chics dream comes to an end.

[powder]

Our perceptions being limited doesn't mean they are inaccurate, because the accuracy is relative to our senses. As an example you wouldn't say that a machine designed to detect x-rays was inaccurate because it didn't pick up every possible wavelength in existence, since it was designed with a smaller scope in mind. This is a challenge for building an accurate model of reality in our minds, but we can use logic and science to overcome the inherent limitations of our physiology. (remember even though we can't see x-rays directly we can see the effect of them on the body or the output of machines through our senses)

 

 

I don't understand how that means our senses aren't reliable. To be more precise, it is possible that what we call reality is actually an illusion or dream but there is no way for us to prove that. Imagine a Matrix-style scenario where everything we perceive is just made up of electrical impulses fed to us by some amazingly complicated computer, how could we prove it? If it is in fact true that we are living in an illusion that we cannot escape or even detect, does that have any practical consequence for how we behave? If it is true and is detectable in some way, then our senses are again 'reliable' despite our current lack of knowledge around the situation. (I put reliable in quotes because I'm not sure that is the right way to phrase it, it's not like we can say our eyesight is unreliable because we can't detect distant stars using them)

 

 

Yeah it is tricky, I hope the example at the beginning of this post helps.

'Unreliable' is relative to the discussion at hand.  Sure they are doing the job they are capable of, and designed to do, but as a gauge to assess all that exists, they are clearly unreliable, just as an ant's are.  An ant's entire universe is my back yard, from the perspective of the ant, that is true and real, but it is not accurate.  Is that what we are talking about here?  

 

To say, that everything that exists, the whole of reality, is what we perceive and verify thru our senses falls short for me. Unless I am mistaken, I think that is what I keep bumping into.  ---That is the source of my quote about 'knowing everything' Kevin.  It reminds me too much of religious dogma - here is the answer to all your questions and the simple formula for resolving all the mysteries of life and the universe kind of thing.  

 

cynicist you have said a couple of things that I think are steering me onto the right track.  Perhaps I am getting hung up on the language or some definitions, which is the purpose of the thread of course.  It seems to me that the scientific method requires that we say "based on the known laws of (  ), it is not possible", or "I don't know", or "it is possible, or probably, I need more proof or evidence"  etc.  not "I can't perceive it thru my senses so it does not exist"  

[Kevin Beal]

To say, that everything that exists, the whole of reality, is what we perceive and verify thru our senses falls short for me. Unless I am mistaken, I think that is what I keep bumping into.  ---That is the source of my quote about 'knowing everything' Kevin.  It reminds me too much of religious dogma - here is the answer to all your questions and the simple formula for resolving all the mysteries of life and the universe kind of thing.

But that's not actually to know everything about the truth, right? Knowing everything and trusting your senses to respond with accurate sense data are not the same thing.

 

I think it's an important thing to stop and address because, if it's true that reality is plain to see for what it actually is, and it's true that these erroneous conclusions you point out that people have made using their senses are really only confirmation of this self evident truth, then it's not a logical problem that needs to be addressed, right?

 

Does that make sense?

[Pepin]

Who really knows what reality actually is, all we can do is make statements and hypotheses in order to test them. It is not needed to have any sort of full knowledge of reality in order to describe it, just as you do not need to know anything more about a falling baseball in order to say that it is falling. 

 

Descriptions of what exists are of only of course accurate to the degree that they are verified. We only have models, models that are constructed and built upon a rational testing of senses. Newtonian physics was thought to give a complete and accurate description of everything, until ideas underpinning fell way with the advent of Einstein's theory and quantum mechanics. Unimaginable properties and behaviors were discovered and confirmed. The warping of space-time, time slowing down due to acceleration, fundamental particles having a probabilistic nature, and so on.

 

The inaccuracies to be found in any current or future model of reality is not an invalidation of the senses, yet is a complete and utter validation of them. This might at first sound like a contradiction, yet it is vital to realize that invalidation of any model can only be achieved through the senses, and the claim of accuracy can only be made in comparison to what is being measured. The invalidation does not destroy the previous model, yet it remains as an accurate description within the now known parameters of accuracy and circumstances.

[cynicist]

'Unreliable' is relative to the discussion at hand.  Sure they are doing the job they are capable of, and designed to do, but as a gauge to assess all that exists, they are clearly unreliable, just as an ant's are.  An ant's entire universe is my back yard, from the perspective of the ant, that is true and real, but it is not accurate.  Is that what we are talking about here?  

 

Yeah I have a quibble with that argument. What the ant sees is accurate, it's just limited. We may discover new things in the future that we didn't know about, but that doesn't mean our senses are faulty. Your standard makes it sound like our senses have to be able to detect everything for us to be able to claim what is true, but we don't require perfect and complete knowledge in order to make truth statements. I think you are confusing our ability to be incorrect with our mental model of the universe (ex. horizon making the earth look flat) with our senses being incorrect. In the example of a flat horizon our eyes are seeing things clearly it's just our perspective is leading us to incorrect assumptions about the world. The way we correct our misconception about the earth being flat is using the evidence of our eyes as well as logic. (we travel and the earth doesn't actually end, and we can see this with our eyes) If our senses were inaccurate we would never be able to determine anything with certainty, truth would be impossible.

 

 

To say, that everything that exists, the whole of reality, is what we perceive and verify thru our senses falls short for me. Unless I am mistaken, I think that is what I keep bumping into.  ---That is the source of my quote about 'knowing everything' Kevin.  It reminds me too much of religious dogma - here is the answer to all your questions and the simple formula for resolving all the mysteries of life and the universe kind of thing.  

 

Haha that's the opposite though. It would be religious to suggest any other way of gaining knowledge (besides logic, which is still superseded by our senses). I mean how do you know anything exists at all? If the simplicity of the answer surprises you I think it is important to look at the question more. You are only aware of this post because of your eyes. If you couldn't see or hear or feel, how would you know that my post existed? 

 

cynicist you have said a couple of things that I think are steering me onto the right track.  Perhaps I am getting hung up on the language or some definitions, which is the purpose of the thread of course.  It seems to me that the scientific method requires that we say "based on the known laws of (  ), it is not possible", or "I don't know", or "it is possible, or probably, I need more proof or evidence"  etc.  not "I can't perceive it thru my senses so it does not exist"  

 

I'm glad this is helping. It may take time to digest all of this so don't be hard on yourself if it seems simple and you think you are not getting it. It is simple, but can be hard to understand due to our histories. The argument is not "I can't perceive it through my senses so it does not exist", it's "I know X is true because I have validated it using my senses". So we start out knowing very little and add to that knowledge one step at a time through this validation. That's why in science you don't try to prove that something doesn't exist. How could you? By definition something that doesn't exist is not detectable through our senses. We use logic as well, but anytime logic and empirical observation conflict, we accept the evidence of our senses as the primary way of knowing what is true.

[powder]

But that's not actually to know everything about the truth, right? Knowing everything and trusting your senses to respond with accurate sense data are not the same thing.

 

I think it's an important thing to stop and address because, if it's true that reality is plain to see for what it actually is, and it's true that these erroneous conclusions you point out that people have made using their senses are really only confirmation of this self evident truth, then it's not a logical problem that needs to be addressed, right?

 

Does that make sense?

that does make sense, well put.  

 

thanks for all the input guys, I think it is starting to sink in, I do understand what you are saying, I am going to need more time to articulate it for myself.  Still, I am not sure why someone would say, "  " does not exist because I cannot perceive it with my senses.  Or is it just a different way of saying "it is not a logical problem that needs to be solved"?  which I totally get and can get behind.  

 

how would this discussion go for you guys:

 

Bob:  "I think ghosts exist and are real."  

Me:  "What do you define as a ghost?"  

Bob:  "Blah, Blah = ghost"

Me:  "Perhaps it is possible that ghosts exist.  I don't have any experience with that, I need more information, evidence, proof."  

[Pepin]

If you accept that empiricism through sense perception is the only way to make claims about reality, then someone who says "ghosts exist" without any sense evidence cannot be right because they are making a claim about reality without sense perception. I do not believe such a claim because I cannot perceive ghosts with my senses, yet rather because the other person's belief was not perceived with their's. The focus in not on your lack of perception of the phenomenon, but rather, the other's.

 

If the person provides sense evidence, then I can test the claims against reality. In the example of ghosts, I can evaluate the evidence in relation to the claim, and make rational arguments as to what the evidence is. For instance, these spherical orbs often found in photographs are claimed to be ghosts. I don't reject the existence of the orbs provided there is no reason to believe the photograph was manipulated, but I do weigh if this would be evidence for ghosts and attempt to provide more likely explanations if the conclusion of ghosts seems unlikely or unrelated. If I had a hypothesis as to what the orbs really are, I use the empirical testing to establish the relation of my claim to reality. If the arguments for claiming that the orbs are ghosts are beyond weak or non-nonsensical, I don't have to provide any explanation as to what the orbs are, rather I just have to show that the ghost theory is false.

[Kevin Beal]

Bob:  "I think ghosts exist and are real."  

Me:  "What do you define as a ghost?"  

Bob:  "Blah, Blah = ghost"

Me:  "Perhaps it is possible that ghosts exist.  I don't have any experience with that, I need more information, evidence, proof."  

The onus is on bob to show that ghosts are real. You can try to disprove ghosts now that you have a definition, but in most cases there is not enough there to even disprove. That's why it's on him so that you know exactly what you are disproving.

[powder]

If you accept that empiricism through sense perception is the only way to make claims about reality, then someone who says "ghosts exist" without any sense evidence cannot be right because they are making a claim about reality without sense perception. I do not believe such a claim because I cannot perceive ghosts with my senses, yet rather because the other person's belief was not perceived with their's. The focus in not on your lack of perception of the phenomenon, but rather, the other's.

 

If the person provides sense evidence, then I can test the claims against reality. In the example of ghosts, I can evaluate the evidence in relation to the claim, and make rational arguments as to what the evidence is. For instance, these spherical orbs often found in photographs are claimed to be ghosts. I don't reject the existence of the orbs provided there is no reason to believe the photograph was manipulated, but I do weigh if this would be evidence for ghosts and attempt to provide more likely explanations if the conclusion of ghosts seems unlikely or unrelated. If I had a hypothesis as to what the orbs really are, I use the empirical testing to establish the relation of my claim to reality. If the arguments for claiming that the orbs are ghosts are beyond weak or non-nonsensical, I don't have to provide any explanation as to what the orbs are, rather I just have to show that the ghost theory is false.

I understand and totally agree with the argument and the methodology.  But I think it is missing the point I am trying to make, or the question I am posing.  Just because I am not able to perceive something thru my senses does not mean I am prepared to say it does not exist, just that I don't know without more evidence, or that my perception may be too limited for me to make a judgement.  

The onus is on bob to show that ghosts are real. You can try to disprove ghosts now that you have a definition, but in most cases there is not enough there to even disprove. That's why it's on him so that you know exactly what you are disproving.

Agreed, the onus is on bob, which is why I would ask him to present his case.  I general, I would have no interest in dis-proving something that others claim that has little or no sense evidence or impact on my life.  I get that, but would you say to bob, "ghosts do not exist"?  

 

my question is, how would you guys respond to bob?  I really do understand now, thanks for walking me thru it, but I think those kinds of direct examples will help me articulate these concepts better.  

[Kevin Beal]

my question is, how would you guys respond to bob?  I really do understand now, thanks for walking me thru it, but I think those kinds of direct examples will help me articulate these concepts better.  

Personally, I would say "ghosts don't exist". I wouldn't even ask him to present the case. I think having a debate about it gives it way too much credit. I would feel silly debating the existence of ghosts.

 

Somebody to believe in ghosts could not get there thru a rational evaluation of the facts. And I would suspect a much more personal emotional explanation. I don't know how I could get thru to someone like that, but I wouldn't waste mine or Bob's time debating it.

 

I would feel inclined to just say straight up that it's boloney and that the person ought look at a psychological explanation for this belief, but they'd have to trust me a lot for me to do that. Maybe if I were to demonstrate extraordinary self knowledge, or something like that. I don't know. (Mostly thinking out loud).

[Pepin]

Just because I am not able to perceive something thru my senses does not mean I am prepared to say it does not exist, just that I don't know without more evidence, or that my perception may be too limited for me to make a judgement.

 

That is perfectly reasonable, but based on your ghost example, I feel like you apply this in places that it does not.

 

In physics there was a particle theorized in the 60's called the Higg's Boson, and though we had no ability to detect it through the senses at the time, physicists were quite convinced it exists because of the very compelling arguments. A good physicists would not claim that the Higgs did not exist, nor that it does, yet rather that they have great reason to believe it exists and a methodology that will validate or invalidate its existence. At the moment, string theorists are making models of what they think would be the most fundamental particles, they have a lot of reason to support their model, but they are unsure if the theory is true and admit that its testing is at the moment outside the senses. These physicists are not prepared to say that string like particles don't exist or do exist, rather that there is reason to believe that they exist and they wish to test their model against reality to find out. These are quite valid examples of belief without sense evidence. Ghosts and god are completely invalid examples of the sort of claim.

[powder]

That is perfectly reasonable, but based on your ghost example, I feel like you apply this in places that it does not.

 

In physics there was a particle theorized in the 60's called the Higg's Boson, and though we had no ability to detect it through the senses at the time, physicists were quite convinced it exists because of the very compelling arguments. A good physicists would not claim that the Higgs did not exist, nor that they did, yet rather that they have great reason to believe it exists and a methodology that will validate or invalidate its existence. At the moment, string theorists are making models of what they think would be the most fundamental particles, they have a lot of reason to support their model, but they are unsure if the theory is true and admit that its testing is at the moment outside the senses. These physicists are not prepared to say that string like particles don't exist or do exist, rather that there is reason to believe that they exist. These are quite valid examples of belief without sense evidence. Ghosts and god are completely invalid examples of the sort of claim.

good explanation pepin.  

 

"Ghosts and god are completely invalid examples of the sort of claim."

 

Why exactly is that the case.  Articulate that argument for me please.  

[cynicist]

good explanation pepin.  

 

"Ghosts and god are completely invalid examples of the sort of claim."

 

Why exactly is that the case.  Articulate that argument for me please.  

 

There is no physical evidence or logical argument to support the existence of those things, and worse than that, the very concepts go against everything we see around us. Ghosts and gods are claimed to be consciousness without physical form, able to have an effect on matter while being immaterial themselves, unable to be detected using conventional means, beings that are immortal and neither alive nor dead, and in the case of god also all knowing and all powerful. That would make them unique relative to every other form of consciousness that we are aware of.

 

Since those are pretty amazing claims to make, making them with any kind of certainty requires evidence just as strong. Scientists who make arguments around Higg's Boson at least have a theory around math which can be disproven (and math is an objective discipline based on logic and empirical evidence). Claims around gods and ghosts are typically unfalsifiable because of the qualities people attribute to them.