I just don't *want* to believe!

[pitabread]

IMO they're "real" in the sense that you're experiencing them, phenomenologically.

Sure, but that's getting away from my prior point in that any hallucinations experienced are not representative of real, physical objects.

If I see a real tree, for example, I can independently verify its physical presence in the world.

If I hallucinate a tree, I can't.

 

[ananda]

Sure, but that's getting away from my prior point in that any hallucinations experienced are not representative of real, physical objects.

If I see a real tree, for example, I can independently verify its physical presence in the world.

If I hallucinate a tree, I can't.

I would say that if we see a "real" tree, even then we're still experiencing a mental impression of that tree, and not the tree itself.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "real" and "reality".

On the phenomenological level of reality, whatever I feel or experience in the mind is indeed "real" and "reality", as the experience more often than not affects my thoughts, perceptions, feelings, drives, motivations, etc. ... even if those things experienced do not exist on the physical level of reality.

-_- I just stated that the signals in the brain WERE real, and that in the case of an hallucination, do not convey messages that represent reality.

Any lasting influence a hallucination has on a person that doesn't demand that they fail to realize that they were hallucinating is pointless, and any that is the result of considering the hallucination to represent reality is more likely to do harm than not.

Consider this: if you had a stroke that made you forget cacti exist, would cacti cease to exist? No. But, if that same stroke removed all memories of any dream or hallucination you had ever had, would they cease to exist? Yes, because they only existed as ideas, and since they weren't based in actual events that occurred, there's no way for them to come into existence again.

Anything for which its existence depends solely upon the memories of those currently alive isn't real to me. Quantum physics could be rediscovered. Math could be made anew. But your personal hallucinations die with you and anyone else you tell them to. This is because YOU were their physical form. The connections in your brain that made that memory were the only aspect of it that was real.

 

[pitabread]

I would say that if we see a "real" tree, even then we're still experiencing a mental impression of that tree, and not the tree itself.

In the case of a real tree, we're experiencing the result of external sensory input.

In the case of a hallucinated tree, we're not.

 

[ananda]

-_- I just stated that the signals in the brain WERE real, and that in the case of an hallucination, do not convey messages that represent reality.

Any lasting influence a hallucination has on a person that doesn't demand that they fail to realize that they were hallucinating is pointless, and any that is the result of considering the hallucination to represent reality is more likely to do harm than not.

Consider this: if you had a stroke that made you forget cacti exist, would cacti cease to exist? No. But, if that same stroke removed all memories of any dream or hallucination you had ever had, would they cease to exist? Yes, because they only existed as ideas, and since they weren't based in actual events that occurred, there's no way for them to come into existence again.

Anything for which its existence depends solely upon the memories of those currently alive isn't real to me. Quantum physics could be rediscovered. Math could be made anew. But your personal hallucinations die with you and anyone else you tell them to. This is because YOU were their physical form. The connections in your brain that made that memory were the only aspect of it that was real.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out the existence of different levels of reality.

 

[ananda]

In the case of a real tree, we're experiencing the result of external sensory input.

In the case of a hallucinated tree, we're not.

I don't disagree with you either. Either way, we're still directly experiencing a mental object.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out the existence of different levels of reality.

It's not a different level at all, your brain is as much physical matter as the ground beneath your feet. All of your memories are physical, regardless as to whether it's of a hallucination or viewing existing matter. And they crumble into dust along with you after you die. The memory can be real while the event isn't, and a hallucinated event never becomes real just because you have a memory of it. The memory and the event are not one and the same.

 

[ananda]

It's not a different level at all, your brain is as much physical matter as the ground beneath your feet. All of your memories are physical, regardless as to whether it's of a hallucination or viewing existing matter. And they crumble into dust along with you after you die. The memory can be real while the event isn't, and a hallucinated event never becomes real just because you have a memory of it. The memory and the event are not one and the same.

I can't say I know that for sure, as I take an approach close to solipsism.

 

[pitabread]

I don't disagree with you either. Either way, we're still directly experiencing a mental object.

Sure. My prior point is simply due to the fact it's possible to hallucinate the appearance of a physical object is why I don't rank personal "experience" above independent lines of evidence.

 

[ananda]

Sure. My prior point is simply due to the fact it's possible to hallucinate the appearance of a physical object is why I don't rank personal "experience" above independent lines of evidence.

Since things we might consider to be "objective" (even things like "independent lines of evidence") are, IMO, still experienced subjectively, is there really anything truly "objective"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I can't say I know that for sure, as I take an approach close to solipsism.

-_- by that philosophy, nothing you are perceiving is real, just your memories of it. It's not the same as what you've been implying.

 

[pitabread]

Since things we might consider to be "objective" (even things like "independent lines of evidence") are, IMO, still experienced subjectively, is there really anything truly "objective"?

If there weren't then none of this would matter now would it?

 

[dysert]

Owkay.
So… do you consider that to be a rational / reasonable position to find yourself in?
Isn't this like... literally being intellectually dishonest with yourself?

Tbh, I don't know if my belief system is rational / reasonable, but it doesn't matter to me. It is what it is. And actually, I think I'm being intellectually honest with myself to admit that I don't want to believe some of the stuff I mentioned in the OP.

It is typically true for fundamentalist theists. And to an extent, theists in general.
It's like Fox Mulder so famously said: "I want to believe".

Me? No. I want to believe as many true things as possible and the least false things possible. I care about what is actually true. I care about being justified in my beliefs. I can like or dislike reality, sure. But why would you consider that a factor in if you should be believing something or not? That makes no sense to me.

What good could possible come from not accepting something that can be 100% proven, because you don't "like" it?

I see it as finding lost keys. If you lost your keys, you search for them. But after you've found them you don't keep searching. I've found what I believe to be true, so I don't need to keep searching. In fact, I'm not even interested in searching further.

 

[ananda]

-_- by that philosophy, nothing you are perceiving is real, just your memories of it. It's not the same as what you've been implying.

How so? It is my perspective that the closest we can come to "reality" is the on the phenomenological level. Note that I'm not claiming that other things, e.g. the physical, aren't real, but we must ultimately grapple with the phenomenological at the core of all things.

 

[ananda]

If there weren't then none of this would matter now would it?

Things ultimately matters in how they effects each of us ... on the phenomenological level.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How so? It is my perspective that the closest we can come to "reality" is the on the phenomenological level. Note that I'm not claiming that other things, e.g. the physical, aren't real, but we must ultimately grapple with the phenomenological at the core of all things.

By the definition of what solipsism is. That's the view that the only thing you can know to exist is yourself.

 

[JIMINZ]

Unfortunately this falls under the typical "you'll believe when you believe" circular reasoning that usually results in not having any other demonstrative evidence to support the existence of something.

.
To put is in the simplest terms I can so you are fully able to comprehend it.

It isn't a matter of your believing when you believe, the fact of the matter is, you are requiring a sign before you will even consider believing, that just ain't goin to happen.

This is what Jesus said to those of His time about seeking a sign.

It is applicable here.

Luke 11:29-32
29) And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
30) For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
31) The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
32) The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

 

[pitabread]

It isn't a matter of your believing when you believe, the fact of the matter is, you are requiring a sign before you will even consider believing, that just ain't goin to happen.

I look at it like this: if there is an all-powerful supernatural deity that desires my belief/worship/whatever, then they will already know what it will take to convince me of their existence. Because otherwise they either don't actively desire my belief and/or they simply don't exist in the first place.

On top of that I find Christian theology fundamentally illogical. In fact, there are quite a number of religions I would consider over Christianity if I happened to be shopping for a new belief system. But I'm not, having already arrived at a philosophical viewpoint that I am comfortable with.

 

[JIMINZ]

I look at it like this: if there is an all-powerful supernatural deity that desires my belief/worship/whatever, then they will already know what it will take to convince me of their existence. Because otherwise they either don't actively desire my belief and/or they simply don't exist in the first place.

On top of that I find Christian theology fundamentally illogical. In fact, there are quite a number of religions I would consider over Christianity if I happened to be shopping for a new belief system. But I'm not, having already arrived at a philosophical viewpoint that I am comfortable with.

.
The REALITY of God, or what you call the proof (sign) of Him to you, is what you have walked in and through every day of your life, but still the fact remains, you cannot acknowledge Him as the architect of your reality.

Rom 1:18-21
18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

That's all I've got to say on the subject, accept it or not.

 

[ananda]

By the definition of what solipsism is. That's the view that the only thing you can know to exist is yourself.

... or the view that the only one's mind is sure to exist.