Intuitions and inspirations: I think that I have figured it out

[juvenissun]

That sounds an awful lot like solipsism. I generally find solipsism to be an annoyingly pointless philosophical exercise. Reality may be within us, and no, you technically can't prove otherwise, but for all practical purposes, the world behaves as if an objective reality external to the observer(s) did exist.

If you are a good scientist, then you do have a chance. Right?

On the other hand, if you do not have the assumed "truth" in your mind, then no matter how much you learn scientifically, you still do not have a clear view of the truth. It is much much harder to work it out this way, which is backward way.

In other words:

Truth --> evidences. Easy
Evidences --> truth. Very hard. Usually get lost.

 

[Naraoia]

If you are a good scientist, then you do have a chance. Right?

That an objective reality outside of the observer exists is one of the fundamental assumptions of science. So I'm not sure how a good scientist would go about demonstrating it. (Not scientifically, I suppose)

 

[juvenissun]

That an objective reality outside of the observer exists is one of the fundamental assumptions of science. So I'm not sure how a good scientist would go about demonstrating it. (Not scientifically, I suppose)

Ha ha ... What do you think an "evidence" mean? If you find it in a right way, that is all you need.

In addition, we can make experiment based on the understanding to the evidences. If the experiment turned out to be successful, well, what would you say? Still skeptical? Fine, do another experiment. This is how a truth (objective reality) is "demonstrated".

As a human, that is all we can do.

 

[Naraoia]

Ha ha ... What do you think an "evidence" mean?

I know what evidence means. (It's the thing that tends to slaughter my pet hypotheses ) I'm not talking about individual truths about the outside world. I'm talking about the general idea that reality exists outside our minds.

 

[juvenissun]

I know what evidence means. (It's the thing that tends to slaughter my pet hypotheses ) I'm not talking about individual truths about the outside world. I'm talking about the general idea that reality exists outside our minds.

I know what you meant. Why don't you clearly spell it out: God.
God exists.

 

[Naraoia]

I know what you meant. Why don't you clearly spell it out: God.
God exists.

Huh?

Your reply makes it pretty clear that you don't know what I meant.

 

[juvenissun]

Huh?

Your reply makes it pretty clear that you don't know what I meant.

OK, I don't. Give an example is a good idea of teaching.

 

[Naraoia]

OK, I don't. Give an example is a good idea of teaching.

Fine. Can you show that your computer exists?

You might think you can. You can interact with it. You can see it, touch it, you can press the keys and see the result on the screen, you can even call in your friends and ask whether they see a computer.

However, everything you think you know about the outside world comes through your senses. You don't actually observe the computer - you observe your mind's interpretation of what your senses tell it. You don't even observe the friends you've just asked to verify your observation of the computer. Since you'll always be stuck behind your perception, you can never independently verify that you are actually perceiving external objects and not just making stuff up inside your head.

There is no deductive proof either - to prove anything, you have to assume something, and to prove your assumptions, you have to make other assumptions, ad infinitum.

(For the record, this is where I think philosophy becomes utterly pointless; for all practical purposes, our observations behave as though objective reality existed, deductive reasoning works, and assuming otherwise does nothing to help us learn about the world.)

 

[granpa]

what is the difference between actually existing out there and behaving exactly as if it existed out there?

 

[Naraoia]

what is the difference between actually existing out there and behaving exactly as if it existed out there?

In practical terms, nothing. I guess that's precisely the point.

I possibly had a few too many classes on epistemology in school.

 

[bhsmte]

The achilles heel of pure intuition, is our psychological state or needs will basically use intuition to interpret, what you desire to interpret.

 

[juvenissun]

Fine. Can you show that your computer exists?

You might think you can. You can interact with it. You can see it, touch it, you can press the keys and see the result on the screen, you can even call in your friends and ask whether they see a computer.

However, everything you think you know about the outside world comes through your senses. You don't actually observe the computer - you observe your mind's interpretation of what your senses tell it. You don't even observe the friends you've just asked to verify your observation of the computer. Since you'll always be stuck behind your perception, you can never independently verify that you are actually perceiving external objects and not just making stuff up inside your head.

There is no deductive proof either - to prove anything, you have to assume something, and to prove your assumptions, you have to make other assumptions, ad infinitum.

(For the record, this is where I think philosophy becomes utterly pointless; for all practical purposes, our observations behave as though objective reality existed, deductive reasoning works, and assuming otherwise does nothing to help us learn about the world.)

It is absolutely amazing that a conversation between two persons is seeming talking about one subject, but is absolutely running parallel without even touch each other. That is why I don't like strict philosophical discussion. I can never really know what exactly is talking about.

Now I see your point. And I will reinstate my idea with an example:

I have a computing machine in my mind first (the truth), then when I see a computer, or a calculator or an abacus, I will then say: look, that is the evidence of the truth I have.

In such a way, your problem is not a problem to me at all. I don't need to prove the existence of a computing machine. All I need to do is to show you an evidence which you can sense the same way as I can.

The key is that I need have the idea of a computing machine first. It simply appeared to me from the blue. If I don't have it first, then when I see a computer, calculator or abacus, I may not sense them as a computing machine, but something else not related to computing.

 

[juvenissun]

The achilles heel of pure intuition, is our psychological state or needs will basically use intuition to interpret, what you desire to interpret.

Exactly. Evidence alone will never tell you any truth.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. Evidence alone will never tell you any truth.

Intuition alone, doesn't use external verifiable evidence, which is why it can produce incorrect assumptions.

 

[Naraoia]

That is why I don't like strict philosophical discussion.

Hey, I finally found something we have in common.

In such a way, your problem is not a problem to me at all. I don't need to prove the existence of a computing machine. All I need to do is to show you an evidence which you can sense the same way as I can.

It's not a problem to me either. (See the parenthetical in the post above.)

The key is that I need have the idea of a computing machine first. It simply appeared to me from the blue. If I don't have it first, then when I see a computer, calculator or abacus, I may not sense them as a computing machine, but something else not related to computing.

Haha, I highly doubt you just suddenly had the idea of a computing machine. I find it more likely that you heard about them from someone.

 

[Naraoia]

Exactly. Evidence alone will never tell you any truth.

I thought he said pretty much the exact opposite of that...

 

[juvenissun]

what is the difference between actually existing out there and behaving exactly as if it existed out there?

The difference is on the beholders.

Examples are many, such as a beauty. Is a beautiful girl the evidence on the existence of beauty?

 

[juvenissun]

Intuition alone, doesn't use external verifiable evidence, which is why it can produce incorrect assumptions.

It can also make a evolutional understanding.

 

[granpa]

intuition results from applying inductive reasoning to the evidence at hand

 

[granpa]

The difference is on the beholders.

Examples are many, such as a beauty. Is a beautiful girl the evidence on the existence of beauty?

you missed the point entirely.
If each beholder sees something different then it does not behave exactly as if it existed out there