The Case Against Reality - Dr. Hoffman

[henry quirk]

Puzzle me some evidence that reality really exists.

Do you doubt that anything exists? I'm asking, because there are those who say they do, and I haven't seen whether you make that claim or not. If you don't believe anything exists you can disregard the next questions.

If you do believe something exists, whatever that something is, that is what is meant by reality. So the question is not, "does reality exist?" but, "what is the nature of reality," or, "what is the nature of that which really exists?" What do you believe really exists?

As for evidence, if you believe anything exists, whatever you base that belief on is your evidence. It may not be evidence to jayjacobus or to me, but it is evidence to you isn't it?

Nice argument on your part, but I don’t believe anything exists.

Then you're a madman, and I'm gonna stay waaaay the hell away from you.

See, folks? That's how a direct realist deals with loopy folks who say the apple ain't real, or is sumthin' other than what it is.

Dramatically bitin' into the apple as you walk away works too.

[RCSaunders]

... 2) even if the senses were reliable, I still don’t know what happens to the apple if I am not looking, touching or tasting it.

Get yourself a simple digital motion picture camera and let it keep track of your apple while your not looking at it.

You don't have to believe in the principles of chemistry and physics that convince those of us who understand how those sciences explain why physical things like apples persist irrespective of anyone's awareness or knowledge of them, (which must leave you in a constant sweat about everything you own, never knowing if the next time you look for your car, food, clothing, wife, or pet, it will be there or not), so a camera might help relieve some of that anxiety.

[Skepdick]

I do not believe everything exists in the same way, however.

And I would ask you "How many ways of existence are there?"

And you would reduce existence into categories.

You will go from Monism to Pluralism.

[henry quirk]

... 2) even if the senses were reliable, I still don’t know what happens to the apple if I am not looking, touching or tasting it.

Get yourself a simple digital motion picture camera and let it keep track of your apple while your not looking at it.

You don't have to believe in the principles of chemistry and physics that convince those of us who understand how those sciences explain why physical things like apples persist irrespective of anyone's awareness or knowledge of them, (which must leave you in a constant sweat about everything you own, never knowing if the next time you look for your car, food, clothing, wife, or pet, it will be there or not), so a camera might help relieve some of that anxiety.

RC,

I like Common. He's just about my favorite Robot Overlord. He knows this and so won't be too offended when I say: he's fuckin' with you in a LARGE way. He'll cobble up an objection no matter which way you go. I suspect he's playin' the madman to illustrate a point (sumthin' about the impossibility of truly knowing). So, properly armed, and with your tongue in cheek, carry on, carry on...

[RCSaunders]

I do not believe everything exists in the same way, however.

And I would ask you "How many ways of existence are there?"

And you would reduce existence into categories.

You will go from Monism to Pluralism.

Well you certainly cannot read minds and you're not much better at guessing.

There are only two fundamental kinds of existence, 1. that which exists ontologically, that is, all that exists and has the nature it has whether anyone is aware of or knows what that existense is or not, and, 2. that which exists epistemologically as the creation or product of the human mind like all knowledge methods (language, logic, and mathematics), the sciences, philosophy, technology, invention, literature (content, not artifacts), history, geography, and all other intellectual creations.

There is nothing profound about this. Snow exists ontologically and has the nature it has whether or not anyone ever sees snow or knows what it is. The Snow Queen also exists, but only exists as the fictional creation of Hans Christian Andersen, and only in the minds of those who are aware of that story. No, "...isms," are required to understand this.

[RCSaunders]

... 2) even if the senses were reliable, I still don’t know what happens to the apple if I am not looking, touching or tasting it.

Get yourself a simple digital motion picture camera and let it keep track of your apple while your not looking at it.

You don't have to believe in the principles of chemistry and physics that convince those of us who understand how those sciences explain why physical things like apples persist irrespective of anyone's awareness or knowledge of them, (which must leave you in a constant sweat about everything you own, never knowing if the next time you look for your car, food, clothing, wife, or pet, it will be there or not), so a camera might help relieve some of that anxiety.

RC,

I like Common. He's just about my favorite Robot Overlord. He knows this and so won't be too offended when I say: he's fuckin' with you in a LARGE way. He'll cobble up an objection no matter which way you go. I suspect he's playin' the madman to illustrate a point (sumthin' about the impossibility of truly knowing). So, properly armed, and with your tongue in cheek, carry on, carry on...

Thanks for the advice, Henry. Actually I find Common quite reasonable, so I rather enjoy the conversation, though we'll probably never agree. The belief that true knowledge is not possible is the dominant academic philosophy of the age, especially since Hume and Kant, so it's totally expected. It's actually kind of fun discussing differences with someone who admits up front, they really don't know anything, isn't it?

[henry quirk]

Get yourself a simple digital motion picture camera and let it keep track of your apple while your not looking at it.

You don't have to believe in the principles of chemistry and physics that convince those of us who understand how those sciences explain why physical things like apples persist irrespective of anyone's awareness or knowledge of them, (which must leave you in a constant sweat about everything you own, never knowing if the next time you look for your car, food, clothing, wife, or pet, it will be there or not), so a camera might help relieve some of that anxiety.

RC,

I like Common. He's just about my favorite Robot Overlord. He knows this and so won't be too offended when I say: he's fuckin' with you in a LARGE way. He'll cobble up an objection no matter which way you go. I suspect he's playin' the madman to illustrate a point (sumthin' about the impossibility of truly knowing). So, properly armed, and with your tongue in cheek, carry on, carry on...

Thanks for the advice, Henry. Actually I find Common quite reasonable, so I rather enjoy the conversation, though we'll probably never agree. The belief that true knowledge is not possible is the dominant academic philosophy of the age, especially since Hume and Kant, so it's totally expected. It's actually kind of fun discussing differences with someone who admits up front, they really don't know anything, isn't it?

Absolutely (especially when *money is involved).









*theirs, in my pocket

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be a serious philosopher, one cannot banked solely on common sense ...

If you think I'm advocating, "common sense," over rigorous reason, I am sorry I gave that impression. There is no way to know the truth other than clear non-contradictory reason.

I have no idea who you think a, "serious philosopher," might be, but if Russell is an example, he is an example of all that is wrong with what is called philosophy, especially all philosophers since Hume.

A serious philosopher is one who dig deep and wide, then present his arguments in a sequential and systematic manner.
In this manner, anyone can check the sequential premises to verify whether they are true or false.

A non-serious philosopher is one who use rhetoric and jumps to conclusion with flimsy premises without digging deep and wide.
An example of a non-serious philosopher is one who rely on dogma and faith without sound justifications.

There is no need for a real apple or other physical object for scientist to study "models," of, "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks."

Then what do they study? They do not study models, they create the models to explain what they study, the actual chemical elements, which atoms were visualized to explain their properties, the behavior of actual physical bodies for which the concepts of mass, momentum, and gravity were formed to explain the behavior of those bodies.

It meant there is no need for a really-real apple [as you claimed] or other objects.
Scientist will study whatever is observed and hypothesized.
The concepts and labels are merely a convenience of communications.

I think you got your ideas from so-called, "serious philosophers," or some other pseudo-intellecutal academic con men. I believe you are too intelligent to have fallen for that nonsense on your own.

What counts is whether my arguments [whichever] are sound or not.

Bertrand Russell was a "serious philosophers" who dug deep and wide, and he always presented his arguments sequentially and systematically.
Such a presentation from him enable me to agree with him on some of his conclusion and disagree on others based on a rational analysis of his systematic arguments. And I know precisely at which point and on what premise I disagree with him.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How odd! The, "empirically real," is exactly the thing Hoffman denies.

Nah! Hoffman stated evolution has "hidden" from us the really-real and gives us only the empirically-real which is what is observed and experienced.

One might take philosophy a little more seriously if philosophers actually learned something from past philosophical dead-ends, but in fact, they just keep repeating the same philosophical nonsense with different terminology.

Hoffman's is just the latest version of Plato's cave. "What you see is not real because the real is hidden by (pick any of the latest irrational explanations), and the really real is different (in some inexplicable way) from the world we actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste.

It is just that kind of irrational belief in some ineffable reality that is beyond human comprehension that is the basis for all religions and superstitions. You have it backwards:

This is especially so when we use common sense and pure reason to jump to the conclusion that God exists because creations must have a creator, thus God exists as the creator.
However the conclusion of such a common sense had led theists to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of their God. This terrible evil is very evident and indisputable.

No rigorous reason, not even, "common sense," leads to the kind of irrational belief in some mystical intangible reality behind the actual physical world we experience and live in. Only religionists, Platonists, and pseudo-intellectuals like Hoffman could believe and promote such destructive ideas, and, of course, those who swallow their nonsense.

I agree with you in relating Hoffman in a way with Plato.
However Hoffman is hopeful whatever is of Plato's ideas had to be backed by Science.
Nevertheless this is wishful thinking and there is no way Science will ever reconcile with Plato's ideas.

Nonetheless, Hoffman's idea is interesting where he brought in elements of evolution in the in-between processes.
I disagree with Hoffman's ultimate objective reality which in a way is related to Plato's ideas.
To me there is no ultimate objective reality all the way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA thinks that the only alternative to absolute mind-dependence is absolute mind-independence. One has to be pretty dense to not realize that that's a false dichotomy, and that both these extreme positions are wrong.

Straw-man!!
I don't believe in the absolute, i.e. the absolutely-absolute.
What is most realistic is mind-interdependent.

[Skepdick]

And I would ask you "How many ways of existence are there?"

And you would reduce existence into categories.

You will go from Monism to Pluralism.

Well you certainly cannot read minds and you're not much better at guessing.

I think I guessed (read your mind?) just fine... you reduced existence into "ontological" and "epistemological".

That's two categories - hence plural. Congratulations. You are a dualist.

There are only two fundamental kinds of existence, 1. that which exists ontologically, that is, all that exists and has the nature it has whether anyone is aware of or knows what that existense is or not, and, 2. that which exists epistemologically as the creation or product of the human mind like all knowledge methods (language, logic, and mathematics), the sciences, philosophy, technology, invention, literature (content, not artifacts), history, geography, and all other intellectual creations.

And much like every dualist you are using the word "ALL" in a rather weird way...

First you say, "ALL that exists" (and I would've thought that much like the word "everything" the word "all" needs no definition or explanation), but then you go on to list things things like science, philosophy, technology etc., which apparently don't fall under your definition of ALL *shrug*

It's peculiar to me for reasons that I will try to unpack using the language of set theory. If ontological existence is a set (lets call it O), and epistemological existence is a set (lets call it E). In your purview which one of the following best describes the relationship between the sets O and E?

1. E is a subset of O ( O is a superset of E)
2. There is an intersection between O and E (they are adjoint)
3. There is no intersection between O and E (they are disjoint)
4. There is a complete overlap between O and E (there is 1:1 correspondence)

Which one best describes your conception?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you doubt that anything exists? I'm asking, because there are those who say they do, and I haven't seen whether you make that claim or not. If you don't believe anything exists you can disregard the next questions.

If you do believe something exists, whatever that something is, that is what is meant by reality. So the question is not, "does reality exist?" but, "what is the nature of reality," or, "what is the nature of that which really exists?" What do you believe really exists?

As for evidence, if you believe anything exists, whatever you base that belief on is your evidence. It may not be evidence to jayjacobus or to me, but it is evidence to you isn't it?

Nice argument on your part, but I don’t believe anything exists.

Then you're a madman, and I'm gonna stay waaaay the hell away from you.

See, folks? That's how a direct realist deals with loopy folks who say the apple ain't real, or is sumthin' other than what it is.

Dramatically bitin' into the apple as you walk away works too.

Re "I don’t believe anything exists" meant exists are really-real independently or a thing-in-itself.

Obviously things exist as empirically-real, i.e. an oncoming train on the track one is standing on is empirically real.
Thus one will have to jump off the track upon seeing the oncoming empirically-real train.

[jayjacobus]

Nice argument on your part, but I don’t believe anything exists.

Then you're a madman, and I'm gonna stay waaaay the hell away from you.

See, folks? That's how a direct realist deals with loopy folks who say the apple ain't real, or is sumthin' other than what it is.

Dramatically bitin' into the apple as you walk away works too.

Re "I don’t believe anything exists" meant exists are really-real independently or a thing-in-itself.

Obviously things exist as empirically-real, i.e. an oncoming train on the track one is standing on is empirically real.
Thus one will have to jump off the track upon seeing the oncoming empirically-real train.

If you jump off the track upon seeing the oncoming train, that is circumstantial evidence that the train is real.

[RCSaunders]

To be a serious philosopher, one cannot banked solely on common sense ...

If you think I'm advocating, "common sense," over rigorous reason, I am sorry I gave that impression. There is no way to know the truth other than clear non-contradictory reason.

I have no idea who you think a, "serious philosopher," might be, but if Russell is an example, he is an example of all that is wrong with what is called philosophy, especially all philosophers since Hume.

A serious philosopher is one who dig deep and wide, then present his arguments in a sequential and systematic manner.
In this manner, anyone can check the sequential premises to verify whether they are true or false.

A non-serious philosopher is one who use rhetoric and jumps to conclusion with flimsy premises without digging deep and wide.
An example of a non-serious philosopher is one who rely on dogma and faith without sound justifications.

There is no need for a real apple or other physical object for scientist to study "models," of, "molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks."

Then what do they study? They do not study models, they create the models to explain what they study, the actual chemical elements, which atoms were visualized to explain their properties, the behavior of actual physical bodies for which the concepts of mass, momentum, and gravity were formed to explain the behavior of those bodies.

It meant there is no need for a really-real apple [as you claimed] or other objects.
Scientist will study whatever is observed and hypothesized.
The concepts and labels are merely a convenience of communications.

I think you got your ideas from so-called, "serious philosophers," or some other pseudo-intellecutal academic con men. I believe you are too intelligent to have fallen for that nonsense on your own.

What counts is whether my arguments [whichever] are sound or not.

Bertrand Russell was a "serious philosophers" who dug deep and wide, and he always presented his arguments sequentially and systematically.
Such a presentation from him enable me to agree with him on some of his conclusion and disagree on others based on a rational analysis of his systematic arguments. And I know precisely at which point and on what premise I disagree with him.

No one can read Russell without at least admiring his writing, and I agree that many of his arguments are quite plausible. I cannot agree that, "a non-serious philosopher is one who use rhetoric," if you think that doesn't apply to Russell. His writing is full of interesting and entertaining rhetoric. Who else could reduce the entire debate between empiricists and idealists to, "no matter, never mind," or correctly explain that, "mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." If you've you read his marvelous, A History of Western Philosophy, and his shorter works that popularized philosophy, you know his writing style (and rhetoric) is one major reason for his success.

I have no doubt that Russell was a, "serious," philosopher if that means he sincerely took his own work seriously. After all, that was his profession. I also think, early on, he actually made some real progress in philosophy, but somewhere in his early years began to entertain ideas without any sound logical foundation, possibly because of the influence of Hume (concepts are little pictures in one's head) and Liebnitz (the best of all possible worlds) and his own fantasies about windowless monads. Once he and Whitehead (Principia Mathemtica) and the other logical positivists, Ludwig Wittgenstein et. al. put their collective heads together and attempted to reduce reason to the manipulation of symbols (like Boolean algebra) they very nearly destroyed philosophy. [They were actually a little late, since Kant had already done that.]

I think you are absolutely right that to do philosophy right one must honestly examine everything, "deep and wide," as you put it, and apply rigorous reasoning to every question and be able to explain one's conclusions, "sequentially and systematically," again as you put it, which means allowing no baseless assumptions and no contradictions in any part of that reasoning.

[Atla]

VA thinks that the only alternative to absolute mind-dependence is absolute mind-independence. One has to be pretty dense to not realize that that's a false dichotomy, and that both these extreme positions are wrong.

Straw-man!!
I don't believe in the absolute, i.e. the absolutely-absolute.
What is most realistic is mind-interdependent.

No, you believe in an absolute form of mind-dependence and call it interdependence. It's a destructive, some would say malignant position.

The correct view is of course neither mind-dependence nor mind-independence, but that the (real) human mind is continuous with the (real) world 'out there'. It's just that the world 'out there' can't be directly percieved in any way, shape or form (because we always experience the inside of our own head).