Solipsism

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.03.2023 04:40PM

-->

@John00

Does Nothing exist?
if not where did Something come from?
if Nothing does exist then how can it be called nothing?
if it exists it has to be something right?

This is the philosophy section right?

Your kind of getting the idea. Solipsism doesn't prove or disprove and external reality. Rather, it proves nothing but the existence of consciousness can be proven to exist outside the mind.

It demonstrates that everything we know to be true it known to be true within the mind, and the mind itself is subjective and relies on one's perception to understand the world. If we acknowledge that everything we believe to be true is merely our perception of the world, and that we can never truly experience an objective reality, it builds not only a more accurate understanding of why things are valued differently by others. But it cultivates an open mind and the readiness to learn from the subjective experience of others. We know that no person can understand the world through a objective means, but if we accept this we can build a more adaptable mindset to learn from humanities collective subjectivity.

Topic's author

#62

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.03.2023 04:45PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Probably best to run with what you think you know.

Your statement is correct but it doesn't include the whole idea. While it is true to run with what you believe to be true, it is also important to acknowledge nothing you know can be known for certain. This creates an adaptable mindset that can evolve faster and more effectively, it also allows you to move past old ideas and concepts to more accurate and complex understandings of the world.

So while I agree it is important to act upon what you either know or have reason to believe, it is important to keep an open mind that is ready to adapt with deeper and more accurate concepts and ideas as your understanding of the world evolves.

Topic's author

#63

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.03.2023 05:04PM

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

@zedvictor4

@John00

I don't quite see how free will and solipsism correlate. However, a common misconception is that the universe either consists of free will, or determinism. This is not accurate because determinism and free will are independent and not interconnected.

Determinism means everything that will happen in the future is fixed and cannot be changed.

Free will means people are free to act upon their will or feelings.

I must start with saying I accept determinism since we live in a deterministic universe. This is evident by electronics. They consistently operate on the physical evidence that things work based on a set of given rules. However, this doesn't mean I don't believe in free will. I must also adress different people have different levels of free will. Given the description above that free will is the ability to act upon one's will, I can say some people are more capable of acting upon what they know they should do over chosing their present emotions such as laziness or present pleasure over future preparation. Additionally, people aren't free to act upon their will to fly without a machine, or the will to change who they are. Therefore, there is an extent to free will where all are limited, and past that certain people are more free to act upon their will than others.

If anyone is interested I could go in-depth in a separate forum and discuss how people exist with two mindsets or two selves within the mind. The physiological who deals with present emotions and satisfaction, and the conscious self which deals with future preparations. I could also discuss how different people have different balances between the two, and how hippies are more physiologically dominant, while business men who work 80 hours a week are more consciously dominant. It is also important to note one is not better than the other, and that it is necessary to have a balance between the two. One who always acts on their present emotions will never have a better future, while someone who always prepares will never enjoy their preparations.

#64

John00

Debates: 4

Posts: 2

John00

06.03.2023 09:29PM

-->

@Critical-Tim

so given what's been discussed could it be said that the only real 'Truth' in the universe is that it all comes from nothing.

Everything else would be subjective to the perceiver but nothingness cannot be perceived as their is no perceiver, but in order for the perceiver to exists a state of nothingness must be present as a pre cursor to existence.

could it then not also be said that a state of nothing is no real or credible barrier to existence emerging from it as evidenced by our collective perception of existence to be existent rather than non existent.

in the above scenario how can death exist if we know nothingness cant block existence from emerging, isn't nothingness the ultimate idea of what it means to be dead? yet it cant really hold us in that state can it?

Topic's author

#65

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.04.2023 12:01AM

-->

@John00

so given what's been discussed could it be said that the only real 'Truth' in the universe is that it all comes from nothing.

I wouldn't say that the only real truth is the universe comes from nothing. I don't believe Solipsism proves or disproves that the universe came from nothing or from something or even that there is anything outside the mind. It merely questions commonly accepted physical means of proof by invalidating them.

Everything else would be subjective to the perceiver but nothingness cannot be perceived as their is no perceiver, but in order for the perceiver to exists a state of nothingness must be present as a pre cursor to existence.

If I understand you accurately you were saying that everything else in the universe is subjective and dependent on the perception of the individual. However, nothingness itself cannot be perceived because there is no perceiver present. I believe that you're describing the preexistence of consciousness and how if nothing could be conceptualized before Consciousness then we could consider the preconscious age as the age of nothingness. I would say this is an accurate estimation assuming that we understand nothingness as the age of non-conceptualization.

could it then not also be said that a state of nothing is no real or credible barrier to existence emerging from it as evidenced by our collective perception of existence to be existent rather than non existent.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the universe's existence must have come from something, and if the age of pre-consciousness is nothingness, this cannot be true since the universe could not have come to exist from nothing. This is one of the hardest parts of this philosophical concept. Where do we draw the line between the objective and subjective, and the physical and metaphysical? The way the universe now exists is not from the metaphysical nonexistence of the past but from the physical existence from the past. The metaphysical concept of existence and nonexistence is the conceptualization of an idea. We must be sure to separate ideas based on their metaphysical or physical aspects. In the past, before consciousness, we can assume that there was an age of metaphysical nothingness. However, this does not mean there was an age of physical nothingness. These are two separate ideas and confusing them as one and the same will lead to many contradictions.

in the above scenario how can death exist if we know nothingness cant block existence from emerging, isn't nothingness the ultimate idea of what it means to be dead? yet it cant really hold us in that state can it?

This is making the assumption that nothingness can't block the existence from emerging which is not a held assumption in my case. However, if you have a proof, I would be more than glad to hear it, but currently I don't have this assumption.

Topic's author

#66

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.04.2023 12:28AM

-->

@John00

It just occurred to me what you are trying to say.

If solipsism posits the idea that nothing can be known to exist outside the mind, how does this correlate to the age of preconsciousness?

I will need some time to think about this since this is not an easy question, nor have I already considered the answer. I will respond when I have a strong enough solution, as this gives me much to think about. Thank you for presenting such a mentally stimulating question as this one.

Topic's author

#67

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.04.2023 12:56AM

-->

@John00

From a physical view, it makes more sense there was a physical world before the age of consciousness. This is because if something physical exists, then it must have existed, this is known by the conservation of energy within the universe.

From a metaphysical view, Solipsism posits the idea that we cannot know if anything exists outside the mind, for the concept of knowing is to conceptualize, and to conceptualize is to grasp within the mind. Therefore, if we cannot conceptualize it, we cannot know it exists.

We cannot use something metaphysical to prove something physical, and we cannot use something physical to prove something metaphysical. In the same way we cannot use either to disprove the other. They are entirely different aspects of the universe. Think of the metaphysical and physical as light and solids, we cannot measure light as we would a block of wood, neither can we test the brightness of wood if there is no light. The two are entirely independent of one another and cannot be used in any correlation to one another. In essence using the physical past which is a physical evolutionary aspect of the world that there was a time of no consciousness to attempted either proving or disproving the idea of a metaphysical nonexistence or existence is invalid. Ultimately both can be true or false, or contradicting one another while both remain true. Just as we can know that light exists without wood and wood exists without light, there may be no light or wood, and there may be both light and wood, they are entirely independent of one another.

The question I believe you would ask me now is whether or not the past exists. I would tell you from a physical view the past would make sense the past had existed, while at the same time from a metaphysical view, I cannot say for certain if it had existed since I have no consciousness remembrance before my consciousness emerged.

This brings an interesting concept to the table. Something physical must have come from something physical, but someone's consciousness or metaphysical existence can come from an age before there was consciousness, in other words something metaphysical can come from metaphysical nothingness. As you can see, the two are distinct and have quite different properties.

#68

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,551

06.07.2023 02:50AM

-->

@Best.Korea

even if you are a dream character in a dream world

you have still responded

which is positive

verification

#69

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,551

06.07.2023 02:54AM

-->

@Critical-Tim

If something cannot be proven true empirically it doesn't make it true or false but rather an unknown as we cannot validify its correlation to a subjective reference.

that's

why

said

logically necessary

otherwise

it has no "truth value"

#70

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,551

06.07.2023 02:56AM

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

Got stuck on the good old , "Trying to prove" a single fucking thing to be true nonsense .

a pure illusion is impossible

even an illusion must be rooted in substance

#71

Best.Korea

Debates: 270

Posts: 7,793

Best.Korea

06.07.2023 10:30AM

-->

@3RU7AL

you have still responded

There is no any proof that I responded, since there is no proof that my response exists.

Topic's author

#72

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.08.2023 01:28AM

-->

@3RU7AL

a pure illusion is impossible
even an illusion must be rooted in substance

I agree, even if life was an illusion, there must be something for it to illude for there to be an illusion. Additionally, there must be a different real view of the world to be seen that the thing that is being illuded from in order to be an illusion.

Ultimately, for there to be an illusion there must both be the real existence of the thing that is perceiving, and a correct view of the circumstances that are being distracted by the illusion.

21 days later

#73

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

06.29.2023 11:00PM

-->

@3RU7AL

@Critical-Tim

@3RU7AL:

a pure illusion is impossible

even an illusion must be rooted in substance

Define substance.

I agree, even if life was an illusion, there must be something for it to illude for there to be an illusion. Additionally, there must be a different real view of the world to be seen that the thing that is being illuded from in order to be an illusion.

Ultimately, for there to be an illusion there must both be the real existence of the thing that is perceiving, and a correct view of the circumstances that are being distracted by the illusion.

How do you know this?

Topic's author

#74

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.30.2023 03:33AM

-->

@3RU7AL

@Athias

a pure illusion is impossible
even an illusion must be rooted in substance

The forum starts with this sentence: Solipsism is the idea that only one’s own mind or self can be known to exist.

Based on this, do you think there is anything beyond the universe? There is no evidence that would lead us to logically believe so. There might be other universes, but they are either part of the same universe or parallel to it. If we assume hypothetically, we're living in an illusion, we still need something to create that illusion. So, there must be something beyond the illusion (aka real). This does not mean that the universe is real, but rather what the illusion is based on. Similar to how we acknowledge we cannot logically believe in anything beyond the universe we cannot logically believe there is anything beyond what our conception is founded within. We cannot assume anything beyond what our consciousness or illusion is based upon, and we cannot assume to what extent or size the real universe is. For all we know, we could be the only one that exists within a single room and that is the entire universe (there is nothing beyond it), just as there is nothing beyond the universe according to our current knowledge. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to accept the possibility that the entire universe is in fact an illusion. Moreover, this forum does not claim the universe does not exist, but that we can only know one's own mind to exist. Acknowledging the possibility, the entire universe could be an illusion proves that Solipsism is accurate to say that we can only know one's own mind to exist, and that what we think to be the universe is in fact an illusion (including other people). Having no knowledge of what the real universe is and assuming this is an illusion it could in fact be 4 or 5 dimensions. Perhaps the real universe only needs consciousness to experience feeling and emotions. We have no knowledge of this, and we have no proof, but we cannot disprove it either. Are experienced of the universe is what are mind perceives; is it not logical to then say the only universe we can know to exist could be to the extent of one's mind (aka our mind is the universe, forget the room).

The idea is not to prove something but to prove we cannot jump to simple minded conclusions; therefore, leaving room to understand and explore the universe without a constrained view that may have otherwise failed to interpret the universe accurately.

The reason why I have presented this idea is from my previous comment #14:

One way solipsism can help us understand the world more accurately is by emphasizing the subjective nature of our perceptions and experiences. It prompts us to critically examine the limitations of our own senses, biases, and interpretations. By recognizing that our perception of reality is filtered through our individual consciousness, we become more aware of the potential for bias and subjective distortions in our understanding.

Moreover, contemplating solipsism can foster a sense of intellectual humility and curiosity. It reminds us that our understanding of the world is limited and encourages us to remain open to different perspectives and possibilities. By acknowledging the subjective nature of our own consciousness, we may become more receptive to alternative viewpoints and more willing to engage in intellectual inquiry and exploration.

#75

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

06.30.2023 04:08AM

-->

@Critical-Tim

If we assume hypothetically, we're living in an illusion, we still need something to create that illusion. So, there must be something beyond the illusion (aka real).

That's the issue right there: assuming perception is an illusion. If there's "something" beyond perception, then it is irrational.

Moreover, this forum does not claim the universe does not exist, but that we can only know one's own mind to exist.

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I would instead put it this way: only that which we can perceive and rationalize with the functions of our mind have epistemological relevance. All other considerations are exercises in attempting to examine irrationality.

Acknowledging the possibility, the entire universe could be an illusion proves that Solipsism is accurate to say that we can only know one's own mind to exist, and that what we think to be the universe is in fact an illusion (including other people).

Except in the reflexive acknowledgement of material existence in the distinction between "mind," and lack of a better term, "matter." In other words, I'm proposing that it's all ontonlogically indistinguishable (i.e. mental, physical, spiritual, etc.)

Having no knowledge of what the real universe is and assuming this is an illusion it could in fact be 4 or 5 dimensions. Perhaps the real universe only needs consciousness to experience feeling and emotions. We have no knowledge of this, and we have no proof, but we cannot disprove it either.

It's not even subject to proof because proof is within the realm of reason; that which one posits lies independent of our minds, is not within the realm of reason.

is it not logical to then say the only universe we can know to exist could be to the extent of one's mind

It's actually necessary to state that the universe--or as I like to refer to it, "everything"--goes only as far as our minds' abilities to perceive, conceive, and rationalize it.

(aka our mind is the universe, forget the room).

Our minds are the universe, and the room doesn't matter. To control for that which we experience independent of our private or public experiences, we would have to be able to shut our minds off, and perceive, conceive, observe, and rationalize. This is a logically absurd proposal.

One way solipsism can help us understand the world more accurately is by emphasizing the subjective nature of our perceptions and experiences.

Perception and experience are necessarily subjective. Objectivity is irrational.

By recognizing that our perception of reality is filtered through our individual consciousness, we become more aware of the potential for bias and subjective distortions in our understanding.

What is your basis for presuming that data accumulation through perception is "filtered" as opposed to "conceived" through individual consciousness?

#76

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,310

zedvictor4

06.30.2023 07:19AM

-->

@Athias

Classic Athias.

Good to see you back.

Topic's author

#77

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

06.30.2023 06:25PM

-->

@Athias

If we assume hypothetically, we're living in an illusion, we still need something to create that illusion. So, there must be something beyond the illusion (aka real).
That's the issue right there: assuming perception is an illusion. If there's "something" beyond perception, then it is irrational.

The mistake here is that I said Hypothetically we could assume our perception is an illusion, not that I assume the universe is an illusion. The point is to say that our perception cannot be known to match reality since we can only see what we can perceive. Again, my point is not that the universe does not exist, but that we cannot know the universe exists how we see it.

I don't believe that things beyond perception are irrational, but that believing in things with no evidence supporting them is illogical. However, acknowledging that something that has no evidence to support it may still exist is not illogical or irrational. To say that nothing exists that we don't have evidence to believe is both illogical and irrational. My case is that it is possible that our perception of the universe is an illusion and therefore it is accurate to say, "one can only know one's own mind to exist."

Additionally, I feel like these words are being thrown around too generally, and I would like to clearly define them:

Illogical means that something lacks logical consistency and does not follow the rules bound by logic.

Irrational typically means lacking rationality which consists of clear levelheaded thought that is not emotional or impulsive.

Moreover, this forum does not claim the universe does not exist, but that we can only know one's own mind to exist.
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I would instead put it this way: only that which we can perceive and rationalize with the functions of our mind have epistemological relevance. All other considerations are exercises in attempting to examine irrationality.

I agree with the first part of the sentence but not the second.

"Only that which we can perceive and rationalize with the functions of our mind have epistemological relevance."

I entirely agree, it is only logical to make the most probable assumption and the most supported based on empirically verifiable evidence, and believing in things that have no empirically verifiable evidence to support them is illogical.

"All other considerations are exercises in attempting to examine irrationality."

As seen here you have used irrationality as an idea to be examined, but no one examines irrationality nor is irrationality a thing that examines; this is because it is an emotional impulse. Therefore, it was not correctly used here, but I have a good idea of what you intended to convey. I will show the presumed sentence below.

"All other considerations are merely philosophical exercises which would be illogical and irrational if used literally."

Assuming, this is what you meant to say, I don't believe that this is accurate. I believe that certain things have utility and others do not and to say that philosophical ideas, such as this one, are all illogical and irrational if used literally is a broad brush overly generalized statement that was not very definitively thought out. again, I am not saying I believe that the universe is entirely an illusion nor do I. What I'm attempting to say clearly is that it's possible; therefore, we cannot know with certainty that what we see is what really exists.

Acknowledging the possibility, the entire universe could be an illusion proves that Solipsism is accurate to say that we can only know one's own mind to exist, and that what we think to be the universe is in fact an illusion (including other people).
Except in the reflexive acknowledgement of material existence in the distinction between "mind," and lack of a better term, "matter." In other words, I'm proposing that it's all ontologically indistinguishable (i.e. mental, physical, spiritual, etc.)

I believe what you're saying here is that in the quote, "one can only know one's own mind exists," you interpret mind as something that is mental or spiritual. I interpret the mind as the thing thinks (the consciousness of you), which includes whichever aspects are necessary in whatever universe the mind exists.

Having no knowledge of what the real universe is and assuming this is an illusion it could in fact be 4 or 5 dimensions. Perhaps the real universe only needs consciousness to experience feeling and emotions. We have no knowledge of this, and we have no proof, but we cannot disprove it either.
It's not even subject to proof because proof is within the realm of reason; that which one posits lies independent of our minds, is not within the realm of reason.

I believe you're saying: "The statement that there are certain things or concepts that are beyond the scope of proof because they exist independently of our minds and are not within the realm of reason. It implies that some aspects of reality or existence may be beyond the reach of rational understanding or logical proof."

Let me readdress the quote, "one can only know one's mind exists." There is no conflict with what this says or with what you say. This quote does not claim nothing exists outside the mind, but that you cannot know if there is something outside the mind. This is because it would be conceived, and therefore within your mind.

is it not logical to then say the only universe we can know to exist could be to the extent of one's mind
It's actually necessary to state that the universe--or as I like to refer to it, "everything"--goes only as far as our minds' abilities to perceive, conceive, and rationalize it.

I disagree, I believe that you could not know if the universe goes beyond our minds or if it is to the extent of our minds. This is the point; we can only know that our mind exists and what is within the mind while everything external is merely a projection of what we believe.

(aka our mind is the universe, forget the room).
Our minds are the universe, and the room doesn't matter. To control for that which we experience independent of our private or public experiences, we would have to be able to shut our minds off, and perceive, conceive, observe, and rationalize. This is a logically absurd proposal.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this; however, I think it quite plausible (not with certainty of one way or the other, rather valid potential). You only believe what you know because you have perceived it and you only think you think what you know because you think it; this is not because of external factors or a result of an objective reality but it is entirely built upon how you have perceived it or think that you have perceived it. It is logically valid to then claim potential that the external reality which we believe to exist is merely our perception's own creation and that it's possible the universe is to the extent of one's own mind.

One way solipsism can help us understand the world more accurately is by emphasizing the subjective nature of our perceptions and experiences.
Perception and experience are necessarily subjective. Objectivity is irrational.

You claim here that perception is subjective, and objectivity is irrational. I agree that perception is subjective, but I disagree objectivity is irrational. I would not claim that a hammer is logical or illogical, or that it's rational or irrational; Instead, I would claim that the user is the one who is considered illogical or irrational. After all, irrationality is the emotional impulse and lack of thought put towards understanding an idea and the hammer does none of that. Therefore, I think it foolish to claim objectivity as irrational, but rather objectivity and subjectivity are ideas, and they exist nonetheless.

By recognizing that our perception of reality is filtered through our individual consciousness, we become more aware of the potential for bias and subjective distortions in our understanding.
What is your basis for presuming that data accumulation through perception is "filtered" as opposed to "conceived" through individual consciousness?

I believe that the best way to understand the world is to see it in the way that is the most understandable, which is quite self-evident. You know when you are correct in understanding when you can consistently predict outcomes and inevitability of certain situations. The more consistently you can predict events and understand certain situations the more you know that you have an accurate understanding. From my observation not everyone likes the same things, and this includes music, movies, foods, colors, and more. I also recognize that from a darwinian perspective everything has a certain obligation towards itself a sort of bias. To me these seem like valid contributions to my basis for presuming that people's perception is biased and not consistent. A clear example would be how people notice the things that affect them the most even if they saw the same image as another. Their eyes and ears naturally detect what their brain is subconsciously determined as pertinent to them and them only.

#78

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

06.30.2023 08:18PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Thanks, man.

#79

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

06.30.2023 09:57PM

-->

@Critical-Tim

The mistake here is that I said Hypothetically we could assume our perception is an illusion,

Hypotheticals necessarily incorporate an assumption. Hence, my statement. If you glance again at that which had followed my statement, you'll see that it applies. Why would one entertain irrationality even as a hypothetical?

Again, my point is not that the universe does not exist, but that we cannot know the universe exists how we see it.

And this reflexively proposes that there's a universe outside of how we see it. Posits of that which lies independent of perception (independence being a prerequisite for existing outside or beyond) are irrational and epistemologically irrelevant. In order to establish independence, we'd have to control for that which is devoid of our minds' use and influence. That would be logically absurd.

I don't believe that things beyond perception are irrational,

They are.

but that believing in things with no evidence supporting them is illogical.

Belief may be subject to reason, but not necessarily bound by the rules of logic.

However, acknowledging that something that has no evidence to support it may still exist is not illogical or irrational. To say that nothing exists that we don't have evidence to believe is both illogical and irrational.

Correct, otherwise one risks imputing an argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance.)

My case is that it is possible that our perception of the universe is an illusion and therefore it is accurate to say, "one can only know one's own mind to exist."

If you're entertaining the possibility, then how can one propose that the perception of our universe is an illusion and state one can only know one's own mind to exist? Isn't the description, "illusion," being used comparatively?

Illogical means that something lacks logical consistency and does not follow the rules bound by logic.
Irrational typically means lacking rationality which consists of clear levelheaded thought that is not emotional or impulsive.

I appreciate the submission of your descriptions. I would like to add that "irrational" can also be described as that which is incapable of being rationalized, or that which is absent/devoid of reason.

I agree with the first part of the sentence but not the second.

The second is a necessary consequence of the first.

As seen here you have used irrationality as an idea to be examined, but no one examines irrationality nor is irrationality a thing that examines; this is because it is an emotional impulse. Therefore, it was not correctly used here, but I have a good idea of what you intended to convey. I will show the presumed sentence below.

I'm not using "irrationality" in the context of emotional impulse given that the connotative application of this term does not apply to our discussion.

I am not saying I believe that the universe is entirely an illusion nor do I. What I'm attempting to say clearly is that it's possible; therefore, we cannot know with certainty that what we see is what really exists.

This is the concern I brought up earlier. When you describe it as an "illusion," you're suggesting a comparative error--i.e. what we see, and what (allegedly) "really" is. Now, if what we see is an "illusion" because our perception is essentially subject to the bias of our minds, then how does any assessment or measure of that which one alleges "really exists" less immune, for lack of a better term, to the bias of our minds?

I believe what you're saying here is that in the quote, "one can only know one's own mind exists," you interpret mind as something that is mental or spiritual

I don't restrict the mind to just the the mental and/or spiritual. As I stated earlier, it's all indistinguishable--i.e. mental, spiritual, physical, etc.

I interpret the mind as the thing thinks (the consciousness of you), which includes whichever aspects are necessary in whatever universe the mind exists.

Are you proposing that you and your mind exist in two separate universes?

"The statement that there are certain things or concepts that are beyond the scope of proof because they exist independently of our minds and are not within the realm of reason. It implies that some aspects of reality or existence may be beyond the reach of rational understanding or logical proof."

No. I would never posit that anything exists independently of our minds because I maintain that nothing exists independently of our minds. I'm actually arguing quite the opposite:

there are certain things or concepts that are [independent] of proof [but nothing can] exist independently of our minds [because it is] not within the realm of reason. It implies that [no aspect] of reality or existence may be beyond the reach of rational understanding or logical proof."

I disagree, I believe that you could not know if the universe goes beyond our minds or if it is to the extent of our minds.

How?

This is the point; we can only know that our mind exists and what is within the mind while everything external is merely a projection of what we believe.

How have you rationalized that which is external?

I think it quite plausible (not with certainty of one way or the other, rather valid potential). You only believe what you know because you have perceived it and you only think you think what you know because you think it; this is not because of external factors or a result of an objective reality but it is entirely built upon how you have perceived it or think that you have perceived it. It is logically valid to then claim potential that the external reality which we believe to exist is merely our perception's own creation and that it's possible the universe is to the extent of one's own mind.

Bingo! Well stated!

You claim here that perception is subjective, and objectivity is irrational. I agree that perception is subjective, but I disagree objectivity is irrational.

Objectivity is irrational because there's no ontological experience, observation, determination, examination without a subject. It's important to note that CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVITY. Neither does "peer review."

You know when you are correct in understanding when you can consistently predict outcomes and inevitability of certain situations. The more consistently you can predict events and understand certain situations the more you know that you have an accurate understanding.

Accuracy is a description you've given to a desired end, not necessarily an indicator of "truth," much less one which exists independent of your capacity to understand and rationalize it. But that doesn't equate "consistency" to "objectivity." Because through all your experience of consistency, you've never stopped being the subject.

I also recognize that from a darwinian perspective everything has a certain obligation towards itself a sort of bias.

Explain.

To me these seem like valid contributions to my basis for presuming that people's perception is biased and not consistent.

CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVITY.

Topic's author

#80

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

07.01.2023 03:52AM

-->

@Athias

I believe we have a sort of misunderstanding although I'm having a hard time definitively identifying it. I believe the best way to understand each other is to work from a large picture and hone in on what exactly we disagree with if it is not a miscommunication of definition. To do this I would like to find what we agree with and work towards understanding our disagreements. After all, there is no point in arguing about a symptom to the root cause of our dispute, it is only by getting to the source that we can make progress in our discussion.

Please let me know that we are in agreement for the definitions I have found for these commonly misunderstood words:

Subjectivity means something that is based on one’s feelings, opinions, beliefs, or assumptions.
Objectivity means something that is based on facts, data, or evidence.
Rational means sensible or reasonable.
Logical means being well reasoned.
Hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.
Theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.
Illusion is a distortion of the senses, such as a misinterpretation of a true sensation.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It is the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge.
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

Assuming that you are familiar with these definitions I will continue, working from the larger picture to the more minute and nuanced disagreements.

You clearly stated:

CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVITY.

Being that a consensus is a general agreement among a group of individuals, I believe you are confusing collective subjectivity with general objectivity. While they may be quite similar, they are not the same. The reason being, is there may be many similarities among subjective individuals, but this does not establish anything more than a commonality or majority standard and does not necessarily indicate an objective standard. No person is capable of being completely objective, nor can they perceive the world objectively. I want to make sure we have a mutually established foundation before going into the nuances of this complex topic.

A possible Darwinian perspective on human perception (why humans are only capable of viewing the world through a subjective lens) is that it is shaped by natural selection and adaptation to the environment. Humans are incapable of perceiving the world through an objective lens because they have evolved to perceive what is relevant and useful for their survival and reproduction, not what is true or accurate. Everyone is subjective to their own biases and view of perception, which are influenced by their genes, culture, experience, and goals. These factors affect how humans process information, interpret stimuli, and respond emotionally and behaviorally.

Some evidence for this perspective can be found in the following sources:

Ernst Mayr argues that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has profoundly changed the way modern people think about the world and their place in it. He claims that Darwin's ideas challenged the traditional views of human nature, morality, and purpose, and introduced a secular and scientific worldview that recognizes the diversity and variability of life.
Peter J. Richerson et al. review how modern theories of human evolution reflect Darwin's insights in The Descent of Man. They emphasize how cooperation, social learning, and cumulative culture in the ancestors of modern humans were key to our evolution and were enhanced during the environmental upheavals of the Pleistocene.
Sergey Gavrilets and Frans B. M. de Waal discuss how Darwin considered the problems of instinctive behavior and heart rate control to be connected. They explain how Darwin questioned why heart rate and emotions can be influenced both by conscious will and unconscious physiological mechanisms, and how these processes have adaptive functions for humans and other animals.
Alex Mesoudi et al. examine whether human cultural evolution is Darwinian. They argue that human culture exhibits many of the features of biological evolution, such as variation, inheritance, selection, and adaptation, but also has some unique characteristics that require additional explanations.

According to the Darwinian perspective, humans are products of evolution by natural selection, which means humans cannot have an objective view of the world because they are part of the world, not outside of it. They are subjects within the universe, not observers of it. Therefore, anything that exists is subjectively experiencing the universe because it exists within the universe. The only thing that could be objective is the thing that does not exist, such as a metaphysical concept or consciousness itself. The reason being is that it is nonexistent and therefore has no biases. It is not an evolutionary byproduct and therefore not self-interested or skewed in its views. It can see the universe clearly and accurately. Therefore, anything that does not exist can still be real, such as a plan, a strategy, or an abstract concept, even without physical properties and natural characteristics. These things can be objective because they are not influenced by the subjective factors that affect human perception.

*** This is not my currently held belief nor am I willing to stand by the following, but I figured I must say something since it has been teasing me lately. Perhaps it is possible for a subject within the universe to use consciousness to project an ideal of themselves which would be considered a metaphysical construct and therefore the ideal would be unbiased and objective. It would then be possible for the bias subject within the universe to make the decision to follow the guidance of their own ideal metaphysical construct and act as if they were the ideal. It's important to keep in mind that even in this hypothetical scenario the individual would still be subject to minor subjective confines as they are still projecting the metaphysical construct with a biased mindset skewed towards their own existence and pursuits. Nonetheless, I thought it a fascinating concept and would be interested in your insights. ***

*** In response to the above I suppose that describing one's ideal would be a detrimental task as it would be done by the subjective individual and determining the moral relevance of the metaphysical ideal is impossible from a subjective standpoint and therefore objectivity is unattainable. Choosing the moral standard would be relative to the culture, in fact I would determine this as moral relativism. I suppose this would be considered a form of subjectivity. It seems to be a complex topic as it is almost a sort of subjectivity that underlines the objective choices, Similar to a hybrid structure. Yes, it seems that an individual could create a metaphysical construct of their ideal self as an unbiased version that would act objectively and not personally skewed in one way or another and not affected by emotions or impulse almost like a deity. However, the goal of this ideal self and the values that it's given would almost be subjective as they were created by the subjective individual and so even though the metaphysical construct is an objective self it is still underlined with the set goal of a subjective individual of which it would pursue the goals objectively therefore creating a sort of hybrid structure, acting objectively-subjective. ***

I apologize for the drift in thought, but I figured I should not lose the moment to write it down. I hope we can now move forward.

#81

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

07.03.2023 07:55PM

-->

@Critical-Tim

After all, there is no point in arguing about a symptom to the root cause of our dispute, it is only by getting to the source that we can make progress in our discussion.

Agreed.

Please let me know that we are in agreement for the definitions I have found for these commonly misunderstood words:
Subjectivity means something that is based on one’s feelings, opinions, beliefs, or assumptions.
Objectivity means something that is based on facts, data, or evidence.
Rational means sensible or reasonable.
Logical means being well reasoned.
Hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.
Theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.
Illusion is a distortion of the senses, such as a misinterpretation of a true sensation.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It is the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge.
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.3

1. Subjective is that which is subject to perception and experience.

2. Objective is that which is independent of perception and experience.

3. Ok.

4. Ok.

5. A hypothetical requires an assumption, its being based on theory notwithstanding.

6. Theoretical describes the attempt to explain phenomena based on observational data.

7. Ok.

8. Ok.

9. "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is [unreasonable]; the external world and other minds cannot be known and [can] not exist outside the mind."

Being that a consensus is a general agreement among a group of individuals, I believe you are confusing collective subjectivity with general objectivity.

I am not. My intention was to establish that objectivity =/= consensus (e.g. collective subjectivity.)

No person is capable of being completely objective, nor can they perceive the world objectively.

So explain how Objectivity can be rational?

Therefore, anything that exists is subjectively experiencing the universe because it exists within the universe.

What are the controls for the experiment which established this conclusion?

The only thing that could be objective is the thing that does not exist

How can the nonexistent bear any description if it, in fact, does not exist?

such as a metaphysical concept or consciousness itself.

Consciousness does not exist?

The reason being is that it is nonexistent and therefore has no biases. It is not an evolutionary byproduct and therefore not self-interested or skewed in its views. It can see the universe clearly and accurately.

How can it "see the universe clearly and accurately" if it does not exist? How are subjective beings able to confirm this "accuracy" if their observations inextricably tied to their being subjects in their own experiences?

Therefore, anything that does not exist can still be real, such as a plan, a strategy, or an abstract concept, even without physical properties and natural characteristics. These things can be objective because they are not influenced by the subjective factors that affect human perception.

*** This is not my currently held belief nor am I willing to stand by the following, but I figured I must say something since it has been teasing me lately. Perhaps it is possible for a subject within the universe to use consciousness to project an ideal of themselves which would be considered a metaphysical construct and therefore the ideal would be unbiased and objective. It would then be possible for the bias subject within the universe to make the decision to follow the guidance of their own ideal metaphysical construct and act as if they were the ideal. It's important to keep in mind that even in this hypothetical scenario the individual would still be subject to minor subjective confines as they are still projecting the metaphysical construct with a biased mindset skewed towards their own existence and pursuits. Nonetheless, I thought it a fascinating concept and would be interested in your insights. ***

*** In response to the above I suppose that describing one's ideal would be a detrimental task as it would be done by the subjective individual and determining the moral relevance of the metaphysical ideal is impossible from a subjective standpoint and therefore objectivity is unattainable. Choosing the moral standard would be relative to the culture, in fact I would determine this as moral relativism. I suppose this would be considered a form of subjectivity. It seems to be a complex topic as it is almost a sort of subjectivity that underlines the objective choices, Similar to a hybrid structure. Yes, it seems that an individual could create a metaphysical construct of their ideal self as an unbiased version that would act objectively and not personally skewed in one way or another and not affected by emotions or impulse almost like a deity. However, the goal of this ideal self and the values that it's given would almost be subjective as they were created by the subjective individual and so even though the metaphysical construct is an objective self it is still underlined with the set goal of a subjective individual of which it would pursue the goals objectively therefore creating a sort of hybrid structure, acting objectively-subjective. ***

I apologize for the drift in thought, but I figured I should not lose the moment to write it down. I hope we can now move forward.

The problem with the materialistic approach in ontology is that all physical and natural properties are subject to abstracts. The materialistic approach attempts to create distinction between that which is within our minds (e.g. plans, strategies, abstracts, etc.) and that which is physical. In order to create this distinction, one must establish a control; in order to establish a control, one must establish independence. Materialistic reasoning has yet to do anything of the sort.

Topic's author

#82

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

https://www.learnreligions.com/objective-vs-subjective-philosophy-and-religion-250573

07.04.2023 12:43AM

-->

@Athias

Subjectivity means something that is based on one’s feelings, opinions, beliefs, or assumptions.
Objectivity means something that is based on facts, data, or evidence.
1. Subjective is that which is subject to perception and experience.
2. Objective is that which is independent of perception and experience.

I'm willing to look past this for the sake of moving on since the discrepancies are nuanced. However, based on my Bing search, this is incorrect:

These definitions capture the general sense of the words, but they may not apply to every context or usage. For example, in grammar, subjective and objective refer to different cases of nouns and pronouns, not to perception and experience. In philosophy, subjective and objective have more nuanced meanings that relate to the nature of reality and knowledge.

Subjective is that which is based on or influenced by the mind of the perceiving subject, as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself). Subjective can also refer to the nature of consciousness and experience, or to the style or expression of an artist.
Objective is that which is not based on or influenced by the mind of the perceiving subject, but rather by the properties of the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself). Objective can also refer to the nature of reality and knowledge, or to the content or meaning of a work of art.

Cited by the following:

https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2020033

Hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.
5. A hypothetical requires an assumption, its being based on theory notwithstanding.

Based on my Bing search, this is incorrect:

According to various dictionaries, hypothetical means “of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis”, “supposed but not necessarily real or true”, or “involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory”. A hypothesis is “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation” Therefore, hypothetical does require an assumption, but it does not imply that the assumption is based on theory. It could be based on observation, intuition, speculation, or imagination. The correct definition is as follows; hypothetical means something that is based on a suggested idea or theory, but not necessarily true or real.

Cited by the following:

1. bing.com

2. merriam-webster.com

3. dictionary.cambridge.org

4. collinsdictionary.com

Theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.
6. Theoretical describes the attempt to explain phenomena based on observational data.

Based on my Bing search, this is incorrect:

According to various dictionaries, theoretical means “relating to or having the character of theory”, “confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications”, or “based on theory or on possibilities”. A theory is “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation". Therefore, theoretical does describe the attempt to explain phenomena based on observational data, but it also implies that the explanation is not necessarily proven or verified by practice. The correct definition is as follows; theoretical means something that is based on theory rather than experience or practice.

Cited by the following:

1. merriam-webster.com

2. dictionary.cambridge.org

3. britannica.com

4. en.wikipedia.org

9. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
9. "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is [unreasonable]; the external world and other minds cannot be known and [can] not exist outside the mind."

I think you have misunderstood the meaning and implications of this philosophical position. Your revision changes the words “unsure” and “might not” to “unreasonable” and “cannot”, which alters the nature and scope of solipsism in significant ways. Let me explain why.

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. This means that solipsism is a form of skepticism or idealism, which questions or denies the possibility or validity of knowledge or reality beyond one’s own mind. It does not mean that solipsism is a form of dogmatism or irrationalism, which asserts or assumes the impossibility or invalidity of knowledge or reality beyond one’s own mind.

By changing “unsure” to “unreasonable”, you imply that solipsism is not just a descriptive position, but also a normative position. In other words, you suggest that solipsism is not just about what we can or cannot know, but also about what we should or should not believe. This is not how solipsism is usually understood in philosophy, where it is a challenge or a problem, not a solution or a doctrine. Solipsists do not necessarily claim that it is unreasonable to believe in anything outside their own mind, but rather that they have no sufficient reason or evidence to do so.

By changing “might not” to “cannot”, you imply that solipsism is not just an epistemological position, but also a metaphysical position. In other words, you suggest that solipsism is not just about the limits of our knowledge, but also about the nature of reality. This is not how solipsism is usually understood in philosophy, where it is a form of subjective idealism, which holds that reality is dependent on or identical to one’s own mind. It does not mean that solipsism is a form of nihilism or monism, which holds that reality is nonexistent or reducible to one’s own mind.

Your revision also contradicts itself, because if the external world and other minds cannot exist outside the mind, then how can you claim to know that? You would have to assume some kind of access to an objective reality that you deny. This is a logical fallacy known as self-refutation.

The difference between “unsure” and “unreasonable”, and between “might not” and “cannot”, is important to acknowledge, because it reflects the difference between being open-minded and being closed-minded, and between being humble and being arrogant. Solipsism is a challenging philosophical position that raises many questions and doubts about our knowledge and reality, but it does not necessarily mean that we should reject or ignore any possibility that contradicts it.

You can find more information and examples of solipsism and its criticisms in these sources:

Solipsism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Solipsism - Wikipedia

Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I hope this clarifies my position and shows why your revision is inaccurate and misleading. I hope with these citations we can move past our opinionative definitions.

Topic's author

#83

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

07.04.2023 02:28AM

-->

@Athias

Being that a consensus is a general agreement among a group of individuals, I believe you are confusing collective subjectivity with general objectivity.
I am not. My intention was to establish that objectivity =/= consensus (e.g. collective subjectivity.)

Even I have learned something today (which I always enjoy doing), so thank you.

Collective subjectivity is not the equivalent of consensus because they are different kinds of terms that refer to different aspects of science. Collective subjectivity is a descriptive term that refers to what a group of people perceive or experience, while consensus is a normative term that refers to what a group of people agree or disagree on. Collective subjectivity does not necessarily imply consensus, and consensus does not necessarily imply collective subjectivity. For example, a group of people may have a collective subjective experience of seeing a mirage in the desert, but they may not agree on what it is or what it means. Conversely, a group of people may reach a consensus on a scientific hypothesis based on empirical evidence, but they may not have the same subjective experience of observing or interpreting the data.

The difference between objectivity and consensus is that objectivity is a criterion for evaluating the quality and validity of scientific knowledge, while consensus is a result of communicating and collaborating among scientific agents. Objectivity does not necessarily imply consensus, and consensus does not necessarily imply objectivity. For example, a scientific claim may be objective in the sense that it is based on reliable evidence and rigorous methods, but it may not have consensus in the sense that it is disputed or rejected by some scientists for various reasons. Conversely, a scientific claim may have consensus in the sense that it is widely accepted or endorsed by most scientists, but it may not be objective in the sense that it is based on biased or flawed evidence or methods.

Objectivity is a property of various aspects of science, such as claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves. It expresses the idea that these aspects are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.
Consensus is a state of agreement or harmony among a group of people, such as scientists, experts, or peers. Consensus can be achieved through various methods, such as voting, deliberation, negotiation, or experimentation. Consensus can be a sign of objectivity, but it is not the same as objectivity. Consensus can also be influenced by social, political, or cultural factors that may not reflect the objective reality.
Subjectivity is a property of various aspects of science, such as claims, methods, results, and scientists themselves. It expresses the idea that these aspects are based on or influenced by personal perception and experience. Subjectivity is often associated with ideas such as opinion, bias and uncertainty.
Collective subjectivity is a term that can refer to the shared or common perception and experience of a group of people, such as scientists, experts, or peers. Collective subjectivity can be a source of knowledge and understanding, but it can also be a source of error and misunderstanding. Collective subjectivity can be contrasted with individual subjectivity, which refers to the unique perception and experience of a single person.

Cited by the following:

Scientific Objectivity - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Beyond subjective and objective in statistics - Department of Statistics

Topic's author

#84

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

07.04.2023 02:36AM

-->

@Athias

The reason being is that it is nonexistent and therefore has no biases. It is not an evolutionary byproduct and therefore not self-interested or skewed in its views. It can see the universe clearly and accurately.
How can it "see the universe clearly and accurately" if it does not exist? How are subjective beings able to confirm this "accuracy" if their observations inextricably tied to their being subjects in their own experiences?

This is the very concept I am trying to describe, as I understand it, objective reality is merely a theoretical projection based on all our subjective interpretations combined. I will go into much more detail as I have stumbled upon some new thoughts along the way, but I will work on the answers to the questions you asked before this one.

Topic's author

#85

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

07.04.2023 02:46AM

-->

@Athias

No person is capable of being completely objective, nor can they perceive the world objectively.
So explain how Objectivity can be rational?

I believe it is rational to rely on objective reality as a sort of standard in which to live your life since it seems to have benefits. Though, I don't necessarily agree anyone can experience objective reality.

Therefore, anything that exists is subjectively experiencing the universe because it exists within the universe.
What are the controls for the experiment which established this conclusion?

As I understand it subjective reality is when a person experiences the universe subjectively; therefore, they are a subject of the universe and subject to circumstance and bias within their physical being (physical needs and desire (not the biological projection of the conscious self)).

The only thing that could be objective is the thing that does not exist
How can the nonexistent bear any description if it, in fact, does not exist?

I do not understand this question. However, it seems to relate to my decision of being agnostic. I remain rational and logical and act only upon what I believed to be true and seemed to work for me such as what people call objective reality though I remain open to the possibility that there could be supernatural entities or things that we don't understand in the world and are yet to be discovered. After all, we couldn't have imagined we would have an iPhone 500 years ago and here we are because people remained open to discovery and research and progress and therefore, I think it completely rational to believe in the possibility of things that are yet to be explained. I am also open to the possibility that there are some things in the universe that cannot be explained, however I believe that there is lack of evidence to prove this and so I choose to believe (without 100% certainty of anything) everything is eventually understandable if researched and then understood.

such as a metaphysical concept or consciousness itself.
Consciousness does not exist?

I believe consciousness is a physiological projection of the metaphysical self therefore it is not a thing that exists but is nonetheless real. Similarly, I believe that the future does not exist but that it is nonetheless real, and we must make our decisions based on it as a theoretical reality.

Topic's author

#86

Debates: 3

Posts: 902