-->
@secularmerlin
Your perceptions would be accompanied by the judgment that they are illusory. I don't think they'd be different at all besides this. It'd be like being in a dream and then realizing you're in a dream.
Solipsism.
Posts
Total:
153
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the difference?
A radical skeptic would doubt even solipsism.
-->
@Shed12
How would you realize it? Don't your perceptions seem "real"? How does one go about determining the difference between seems real and is real?
-->
@Shed12
What do you mean by "doubt"? I cannot be objectively certain of anything except that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory. Is being uncertain of something the same as doubting it?A radical skeptic would doubt even solipsism
-->
@secularmerlin
How would you realize it? Don't your perceptions seem "real"? How does one go about determining the difference between seems real and is real?
These are the kind of questions that make me say radical skepticism and not also solipsism. Because even a solipsist recognizes the difference between reality and illusion. There isn't a way out of a position like this. I don't think I can give you a satisfying answer.
I don't know what happens behind the scenes of dreams. As bizarre as they can be I don't always realize I was dreaming until after I wake up. But it's not like I am consciously making the evaluation that a dream is real or illusion while I'm dreaming, I just live it.
I don't think your perceptions seem like anything as long as you don't think about it. The distinction isn't salient until something you've made up to be the case turns out not to be. Assuming you're a soft solipsist, is there anything about your experience that has lead you to adopt soft solipsism? If it's about knowledge then I don't think you can even get to "the idea that our universe isn't real" or "that my experience may be completely illusory"
without working out something more fundamental.
What do you mean by "doubt"? I cannot be objectively certain of anything except that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory. Is being uncertain of something the same as doubting it?
By doubt I meant to reject solipsism as being the case. Being uncertain isn't the same as doubting. It's more like reserving judgement. And sure you can be objectively certain of things... if you've ever measured something like your height for example.
People determine what seems real and what is real all the time but what your looking for can't be found. It's like the Meno problem. To try to find the starting point in experience is to engage in infinite regress or to be stagnant. And again perceptions don't seem like anything. When you realize something is not true, the true thing that brings out this realization will be qualitatively different than the "taken for granted" realness that we live by without thinking. Until you forget about it.
-->
@Shed12
I understand that there is a functional difference between real and illusory, what I am unable to do is to tell you the difference between reality (whatever that turns out to be) and a convincing and persistent illusion.
Also height is measured in subjectively decided terms. We decided how long an inch is and the term "inch" has no objective meaning without our subjective agreement upon that length.
-->
@secularmerlin
If you know what is real, you know what is illusory. If you don't know what's reality, how can you go about saying what is illusion? If you know what's up you know what's down, but trying to decide direction without reference is meaningless. It's fine to be uncertain, but there's nowhere to go from there. You could not even say you are a solipsist.
It's true inches are subjectively decided, but 12 inches will always be 12 inches no matter where you are, no matter what refence besides the refence of one inch. A height of 5 feet 10 inches is objective in that sense, even if the inch is "subjectively decided." And you say, "[it] has no objective meaning without our subjective agreement upon that length." That's true, and it goes to show you cannot have objectivity without subjectivity. Likewise you cannot have up without down and you cannot have reality without illusion.
Do you think because something is subjective, it cannot be real?
-->
@Shed12
Actually I do not believe that humans can have objective certainty about anything. All we have is subjectivity. Up and down are largely meaningless distinctions unless viewed subjectively and height is only objective if our perceptions reflect reality which we cannot be certain of. You are correct that quanta is meaningless without qualia but we cannot be certain that the quanta we have observed is more than our observations of an illusion. If we accept our perceptions reflect reality then we can make certain inferences from those perceptions, particularly with the application of the scientific method.
-->
@Shed12
Not that it cannot be real only that we cannot accurately make that determination.Do you think because something is subjective, it cannot be real?
-->
@secularmerlin
All we have is subjectivity.
What does that mean?
Up and down are largely meaningless distinctions unless viewed subjectively and height is only objective if our perceptions reflect reality which we cannot be certain of.
What is subjective about up and down? They are relative if anything. And what baring does reality have on the objectivity of height? You don't need to worry about what seems to be 10 units long and what is actually 10 units long if you know what a unit is. Its veracity doesn't matter unless you think there's an actual, real unit and the units we use are just representations of the real unit.
If we accept our perceptions reflect reality then we can make certain inferences from those perceptions, particularly with the application of the scientific method.
If illusion is consistent with itself, I think it doesn't matter.
You are correct that quanta is meaningless without qualia but we cannot be certain that the quanta we have observed is more than our observations of an illusion.but we cannot be certain that the quanta we have observed is more than our observations of an illusion.
I guess so.
-->
@Shed12
What is subjective about up and down?
Your position relative to the nearest substantial gravity well. There is no up or down in deep space.
real unit and the units we use are just representations of the real unit.
Only if physical reality as we perceive it exists which is far from certain.
If illusion is consistent with itself, I think it doesn't matter.
No one made the claim that anything matters unless you did.
I guess so.
Indeed guessing is all we can do.
I mean you can make inferences from perceptions whether they are real or illusory.No one made the claim that anything matters unless you did.
-->
@Shed12
Which leaves us with no way to prove that our observable universe is "real" even as we become more learned about the physical laws that govern it.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes.
-->
@Shed12
Yes
You therefore cannot dismiss solipsism as a possibility philosophically. You are functionally a soft solipsist too. This does not prevent us from accepting "reality" at face value both as the only reality we know and as a convenience I order to maximize our experience (real or not).
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe it is safe enough to say that what is "real" is quantifiable by corroborated scientific observation.So I don't have a definition for what is "real" although I accept my perceptions as "real" for convenience sake.
But that doesn't cover very much. The rest of it is sort of a "best guess" of "uncharted unstable territory".
Netflix has a new series called "Maniac" which is an interesting exploration on this subject.
-->
@3RU7AL
Providing our perceptions reflect reality.I believe it is safe enough to say that what is "real" is quantifiable by corroborated scientific observation.
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe it is safe enough to say that what is "real" is quantifiable by corroborated scientific observation.Providing our perceptions reflect reality.
It would seem to be axiomatic if the term "reality" is defined as "what is reliably perceptible and/or scientifically corroborated".
Illusion or hallucination or Gnosis or metaphysics might be "what is unreliably perceptible and/or unable to be scientifically corroborated".
-->
@3RU7AL
If your definition of what is real is what you perceive then yes but if your definition is whatever qaulia exist regardless of our ability to confirm said qualia then we just cannot be certain.
-->
@Shed12
Reference = frame of reference = relativity.If you know what's up you know what's down, but trying to decide direction without reference is meaningless.
Up = cosmically not-point-to-able { Fuller }, out away from center of gravity or from the individuals positional frame of reference ex all directions away from 'me' are out.
Down = cosmically point-to-able { Fuller }, in towards the center of gravity or any specificed frame of reference ex into the bedroom, into the moon, into the ocean etc.
Around = to orbit around, and sometimes falling INward and sometimes falling OUTward. Ex comets that come IN towards { around } the sun and tehn go back OUT away from sun.
In, Out and Around are the three cosmic directions Thank you Bucky Fuller
Real { royal } = real estate i.e. royal estate assigned only by the king. If it is not assigned to you by the royality { King } then it is not really yours.
-->
@secularmerlin
Doctor: Are you really dead or just pretending to be dead?
Nurs/PAe: the machine is not registering any brain activity.
Doctor: the maching could be broken and needs to be calibrated.
Nurse/PA: this is the fifth machine you have had us bring in to test for clinically brain dead.
Doctor: we will come back at a future time and do the tests again, just to be sure the patient is not pretending to be dead
Nurse/PA: but doctor, tommorrow is just an illusionary future that never arrives, there is only the here and now present
Doctor: good point. So death is a present and the patient should be grateful for their present
Nurse/PA: oh I see, the present is our gift, and reality or illusion is irrelevant?
Doctor: sure, sounds good to me, but then I'm not a philosophy major.
-->
@secularmerlin
If your definition of what is real is what you perceive then yes but if your definition is whatever qaulia exist regardless of our ability to confirm said qualia then we just cannot be certain.
I believe that anything considered qualia is fundamentally unverifiable and as such does not qualify as "extant".
This is one of the core misunderstandings I've identified.
For example, many people tend to believe that "love" is "real" because they "feel" it, but it is, in fact, instead, one of many (important) qualia that is unquantifiable.
People tend to think that only "real" things are important, however, this is backwards.
Quanta is inherently meaningless.
Everything that is truly important and meaningful is qualia.
What is illusion?
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything that is truly important and meaningful is qualia.
Yeah, right. Those photons that tan your skin brown or burn your skin via UV or ionization are not important.
The problem with atheist, theist etc is ego blockage to rational, logical common sense.
Ego is metaphysical-1, ergo mind/intellect/conceptual illusion
Gravity is the quasi-illusion of mass-attraction via some speculative quanta we label as gravition.
Dark Energy is the quasi-illusion of mass-repulsion via some speculative quanta I label as darkion.
Virtual Particles are an quasi-illusion via their affects on other real particles.
Illusion = hand-waving, --or mind-waving--- magic via magician .
-->
@mustardness
You are begging the question. The phenomena you mention are not "important" in and of themselves.Yeah, right. Those photons that tan your skin brown or burn your skin via UV or ionization are not important.
Photons contacting human skin are merely incidental in most cases. They only become "important" if a person is trying to avoid the discomfort associated with prolonged exposure or if you are concerned about the tone of the exposed skin or other associated potential health risks.
Just like with everything else, your environment is only important in as much as it affects your qualitative experience.
-->
@3RU7AL
Finally you seem to get it.Just like with everything else, your environment is only important in as much as it affects your qualitative experience.
Our environment has oxygen ergo we exist to have concepts of an objective and subjective nature.
Yeah, environment is definitely important to all humans. You think?
Yeah, no oxygen and the quality of life is just nor worth living anymore.
Oxymoronic philosophy?
-->
@mustardness
It's begging the question to say that prerequisites to life are inherently "important" (to living things).
Without the prerequisites to life, there would, axiomatically, be no life, and therefore nothing to "value" the prerequisites to life or life itself as a concept.
The prerequisites to life are only "valuable" to living things because of their survival instinct.
The prerequisites to life are generally incidental and taken completely for granted.
The fact that most (but not all) living things wish to survive as long as possible is merely a subjective value judgement and as such, pure qualia.
-->
@3RU7AL
Brutal wrote:
"The fact that most (but not all) living things wish to survive as long as possible is merely a subjective value judgement and as such, pure qualia."
You seem very ill-disposed towards the subjective and qualia! If the universe was devoid of consciousness, there would be no subjectivity or qualia, but there is consciousness so there is subjectivity and qualia.
As I see it, if the universe was devoid of matter it would be free of 'quanta', but it isn't free of matter so there are 'quanta' - and that argument applies to consciousness and qualia equally well.
I view things in terms of 'two big bangs'. The first Big Bang is the regular one - the emergence of the physical universe (U1) of matter and energy. The second big bang occurred when consciousness arose. When consciousness arose many things came into being that had not existed before - awareness, subjectivity, and later such things as love, hope and duty. Such things constitute U2.
As humans - conscious entities - we are inhabitants of both u1 and u2. Neither is 'more important' nor 'less important' in a context-free setting. To understand our existence it is good to keep in mind our 'dual citizenship'.