h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A summary seems in order.

We all believe there is a reality external to ourselves, and we believe that our personal perspectives amount to three differing views of the same reality. We agree that the 'objective' nature of this reality cannot be recognised or verified by a human being. [This doesn't mean its wrong - we all believe it's right! - only that we can't verify it.]

I prefer to explicitly state that reality, from a human viewpoint, is uncertain and cannot be shown to be objective.

Ictoan retains a belief in the objectivity of the reality that we all believe in, despite the absence of confirmation of this notion to objective standards.

Noggin prefers to retreat into our collective mindworld, and reason from in there, where certainty helps to keep the reasoning simple.

If I've got anything wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

thought I'd take a break to distance myself from the arguments and come back with a refreshed mind as, as I feared, we have been going round in circle s(well, PC and I have) for some time now, whether due to incomprehension of each other or unwillingness to relinquish our point of argument I'm not too sure

"I prefer to explicitly state that reality, from a human viewpoint, is uncertain and cannot be shown to be objective."
And also to not recognise the inherent internal inconsistancy of that view.
You also have not defined what this reality is, or how it is in anyway different from my assumed objective reality.

"Ictoan retains a belief in the objectivity of the reality that we all believe in, despite the absence of confirmation of this notion to objective standards."
Ictoan does not believe this.
Ictoan thinks that there is an objective reality and that to assume its existence is a useful mental tool without which we'd still be swinging from the trees.
Also he does not think this 'despite the absence...', rather he thinks that the 'despite the absence...' caveat on the above is not relevant to what he actually thinks.

"Noggin prefers to retreat into our collective mindworld, and reason from in there, where certainty helps to keep the reasoning simple."
A smiley might have helped this come across as rather less condescending y'know

I'd rather say the Noggin is providing some interesting leads and arguments to get us out of the solipsist trap.

When we say 'I think therefore I am' we are excluding everything outside of our conscious thoughts to the realms of the unknown.
This is not a very useful point from which argue, or indeed from which to live our lives.
(BTW I'm still not overly convinced by cogito ergo sum - what is the 'I' to which I am referring, and how do I know that the thoughts I am having are of my own making?)
Therefore we need a way round it. Something which can provide a useful framework which both explains what we collectively recognise as existing, and being real, but also accounts for the differences we each experience.
The assumption of *some* external truth is required for us to in anyway lead our lives.

I haven't been ignoring you either! I've been trying to come up with a different way of saying the same thing; I have nothing more to add that is original.





You've commented on this before. I can't see how I was being condescending, unless you take "retreat" to be some kind of act of cowardice? I'm anyway, because condescension was on my agenda.





I haven't defined this reality because I don't know how. If I did, I wouldn't need to assume its existence, would I? I think there is little difference between the reality you and I recognise. As I've said before, the only significant difference between us (that I can see) is the objectivity you ascribe to reality.



Oh it's a useful mental tool alright! But let's take a couple of steps back. To assume the existence of reality is unavoidable, in practice at least. To assume it's objective (I think) is unjustified. Objectivity is the ultimate form of truth and certainty, being absolute and universally applicable, no matter what any individual may think.

To *assume* objectivity is to *define* reality to be objective, which reduces the 'ultimate' form of truth and certainty to the level of "1 + 1 = 2", whose certainty is trivial in the sense that it's certain because it's defined to be so. To define anything as objective is to fail to do what you were aiming to do. You can't define that degree of certainty. You just end up saying 'it's objective because I say so', which isn't the same thing at all.

The payback from objectivity is that certain things can be said or done that aren't otherwise valid or justified. In an objective context, for example, we can ask the question "does God exist?", and know that a yes/no answer is possible and meaningful. In the uncertain context of being a human in the real world, this is invalid, and such questions can only be answered 'maybe'.

So objectivity gives us an unjustified means to avoid the very difficult reasoning that an uncertain world makes necessary, and to use instead the simpler Aristotleian binary logical reasoning of which we are so enamoured.



'Unknown'? 'Uncertain', surely?



The 'I' is a label to identify the entity doing the thinking. 'Cogito...' says you have the thoughts; their origin is, as you observe, unspecified.



We do?

I agree with virtually all you say, except your ascription of objectivity to reality (which is quite possible, but impossible to prove or verify to a human). It's unjustified, and leads to invalid assumptions (of certainty, and the like) at the very base of all our thinking.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Condescension was *NOT* on my agenda!!!! More apologies!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Feynman is a primary inspiration for the argument I'm advancing:

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."

"If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain.... In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar."

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

And, of the confusion that can result from unjustified assumptions of certainty:

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

Obviously, nothing is correct just because Feynman - or even the Demon Dawkins - says so. But I agree with what Feynman seems to be getting at, and the above quotes exemplify well what I'm saying, and why I'm saying it.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

In one sense this is true, but since the existence of an external world seems to be necessary for the term objective to have any meaning perhaps the distinction objective/not objective isn't applicable to the "bare existence" of an external world (as opposed to our knowledge of any of its contents)?

Noggin

Hi Noggin!

I *think* what you're saying is what I'm saying, restated from a slightly different perspective, yes? I certainly () can't see anything in what you say to disagree with.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P.S. If I condescended in your general direction (), many apologies!

I was most likely over reacting on the condescending thing. I do tend to be overly sensitive to potential offense, usually cos I seem to manage to get misinterpreted myself when I least mean to cause offence (and often not understood when I do mean to cause offence! Never could get the hang of thursdays). Anyway, it was more a 'this could be taken as' rather than thinking you might mean it, I certainly don;t describe so immature a response to you! I think we've all managed to prove we can discuss things quite maturely on here!
Anyway, I have it on good authority that Noggin is not the delicate little flower I took him to be and can stand up for himself

As for the rest I do think on the assumption of certainty thing that we'll probably not have a meeting of minds on this.
I see three options, assumption of objective reality, assumption of no objective reality and "don't know". I fail to see how the latter two could provide any useful framework for life and decision making. You on the other hand do Guess that's what makes the (objective) world go round

"...In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar."
This shows the other difference, I think, in our views. I don't see that assuming certainty necessarily closes the door on the unknown. Indeed the fact that I think that there is objective reality is one of the reasons I want to explore the unknown. If there is no objective reality then there is no point in exploring the unknown, since it doesn;t necessarily exist in any meaningful way outside of your mind.

BTW, Noggin, I'm afraid I'm having difficulty understanding your last post! Could you render it comprehensible for a computer scientist ?

Which bit is a problem, Ictoan?

No apologies necessary, P-c.

So how do we get from an external reality to a "working model" of reality in our heads?

Noggin

This bit:

" perhaps the distinction objective/not objective isn't applicable to the "bare existence" of an external world"

<...on the assumption of certainty thing that we'll probably not have a meeting of minds on this.>

That's a shame.



What happened to "assumption of external reality with objective status unspecified"? This is clearly a possibility, but is not accounted for in your list. I wonder why you didn't include it? And I wonder too why you didn't respond to my point that assuming objectivity doesn't deliver what you intended?

The Holy Grail, the Real Thing, is: objectively verified knowledge that the existence of our reality is certain and absolute, independent of the perceptions, opinions or beliefs of any observer. It has objective existence. The Real Thing spits fire; it has power and potency. It is awesome!

Contrast this with what you get when you *assume* objectivity: a defined truth. A pale copy of the Real Thing. It has no power. It is impotent. It does not and cannot deliver what you wanted from it, what you intended when you assumed it.

You cannot assume that reality is objective. Or at least you can, but it doesn't have the effect you intended. It has no usefully meaningful (or meaningfully useful ) properties. It does not empower and validate the binary logic reasoning that certainty allows. Only the Real Thing can do that.

I see no reason why we can't have a meeting of minds on this. We'd like objectivity, because it would ease our reasoning, but we'd like to win the lottery too, and that ain't gonna happen either. In RL we are without objectivity and lottery money, and that's the way of it. Can we really doubt this, even for an instant?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<> This is roughly what I was getting at, I think.

But this I'm less sure of:

<>

Seems to me that the *assumption* that "the existence of our (external?) reality is certain and absolute...of any observer", which underlies the whole of empiricism, including science, has shown itself to have considerable potency.

But again I ask, "How do we get from that to the model of that reality we have in our heads?"

Noggin

I think empiricism, including science, has the potency. The assumption is a sham. We pretended what we didn't have and got away with it. After all, none of us seriously believe that reality does not have objective existence. Our disagreement concerns intellectual honesty, and its consequences, not the truth of our beliefs.



I'm not exactly sure what the question is, but here's a stab at an answer. We didn't 'get' there consciously; we found ourselves there already. I think it may be unavoidable. Having non-objective perception, we can't apprehend reality directly. Maybe we need some kind of model to give us an idea of what going on in reality, to help us to keep track of it?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"What happened to "assumption of external reality with objective status unspecified"?"
That's Option 3 : "don't know". Assuming, of course, that 'external' means 'external to all observers', which you don;t define so your view of what external means in this case may be different

"but is not accounted for in your list"
Oh yes it is

"And I wonder too why you didn't respond to my point that assuming objectivity doesn't deliver what you intended?"
Because I disagree with you on what seems to be a fairly fundamental base. I've made my points, you've made yours. Yours, after consideration, did not lead me to change my thoughts. I disagree with your conclusions and with quite a few of your arguments.
Mine equally did not lead you to change yours. My answer to your point would have been the same as it always was and, as such, a waste of my time in typing it and yours in reading it


p.s.
"That's a shame."
Why? Nothing wrong with having a discussion and concluding on both sides that the other's arguments are unconvincing and carrying on with dioffering views. Although I must say mine have been clarified somewhat by the discussion!

<>

But couldn't the same be said of the assumption of external reality? Effectively, we "start from there". Philosophy cannot tell us The Truth; it can only analyse how concepts hang together (or in some cases hang separately).

Perhaps we should consider how we "know" about perception?

Icky, is your disagreement with P-c about the possibility of Objective knowledge of an external reality? If so, perhaps we should move on to the suggestion above, and see whether it takes us in a circle or a spiral?

Noggin

P-C:

I:

So you see no significant difference between what I called the Real Thing, and assumed objectivity?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Noggin:

There may be many ways in which a human could function in RL. But the way we have evolved (), we use our memories of past events, and our memories of how reality has worked in (similar circumstances in) the past, and we come up with what we hope is 'appropriate action'.

Our 'mental world model' may be characterised as 'our memories of how reality has worked in the past' (and maybe more than that as well). Thus a mental world model seems to be an unavoidable consequence of having memory, and using it to help us live our lives in the real world.

Does this take us forward?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Not sure. Althoughy I'd say that it isn't just our memories but our processing of those memories. Erm. Our memories are of events. 'how it works' is an internal process we apply to those events (or memories of events).

Have you come across Personal Construct theory? It's very old (1940s) idea but I find it interesting in the way it can handles our understanding of the world around us.