The Case Against Reality - Dr. Hoffman

[Atla]

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

You are a genius! Now could you transfer all your money to my bank account please, money isn't real and you don't exist either so you won't need it.

[commonsense]

... 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...

Nail on head, HQ. I mebbe playing to illustrate a point like you say, but you probably also know that I am serious about the point, which is about the impossibility of truly knowing as you noted.

I do so miss the days of the robots!

[commonsense]

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?

I, too, enjoy the discussion. For every point I raise, I.e. every argument I provide, I look forward to a counter argument that can move the conversation forward.

[commonsense]

... 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.

But who will watch the camera for me? Who will assure me that the camera did not disappear and reappear?

Someone who could actually be a zombie? How am I to accept its word on the matter?

Although I am not diaphoretic, I am stressed over the possibility that my things won’t be there when I want them.

[RCSaunders]

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.

I think our take on Hoffman is not that different. I do not know what the phrase, "ultimate objective reality all the way," means, so cannot agree or disagree with that. Would you care to illucidate?

[commonsense]

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.

Yes, but I should have added this exception to the unknowable existence of everything: I believe I exist because I have direct evidence of self in my own case.

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.

I admit that I am living my life as a hypocrite. I would jump off the track.

Of course, it could be true that the train is mere illusion and cannot hurt me. It could instead be true that this illusion would cause me to suffer imaginary harm. And it is possible, as well, that the chances of the train being really real are extremely small.

But I will jump because the consequences of being run over by a really real train, no matter how small the likelihood of the train being really real, are so severe that I prudently (or you might say, hypocritically) dare not take the risk of being run over by an empirically real train.

[commonsense]

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.

It is merely evidence that I am afraid that there’s at least a chance that the train is real.

[RCSaunders]

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?

None of the above.

[commonsense]

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

You are a genius! Now could you transfer all your money to my bank account please, money isn't real and you don't exist either so you won't need it.

Nice try, but I know that I exist and that it is at least possible that money is real.

[Atla]

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

You are a genius! Now could you transfer all your money to my bank account please, money isn't real and you don't exist either so you won't need it.

Nice try, but I know that I exist and that it is at least possible that money is real.

Damn.. why doesn't this ever work?

[RCSaunders]

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.

"Obviously?" You mean you can establish that just by observation?

What is the difference between, "empirically-real," and, "really-real?" You have to admit that it is unusual usage, don't you think? Doesn't, "real," usually mean that which actually is versus that which is only imagined or made-up (fiction)? Eagles exist, but phoenix only exist as mythical birds of ancient Egypt. (Not sure if phoenix can be a plural, perhaps it should be phoenixes.)

So how would you classify the phoenix? It certainly doesn't exist "empirically," I would think, and I'm sure its not what you call, "really-real." Do we have three classes of real?

I may not actually disagree with you, but I'd have to know how your are differentiating what you call empirically-real from really-real.

[commonsense]

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.

"Obviously?" You mean you can establish that just by observation?

What is the difference between, "empirically-real," and, "really-real?" You have to admit that it is unusual usage, don't you think? Doesn't, "real," usually mean that which actually is versus that which is only imagined or made-up (fiction)? Eagles exist, but phoenix only exist as mythical birds of ancient Egypt. (Not sure if phoenix can be a plural, perhaps it should be phoenixes.)

So how would you classify the phoenix? It certainly doesn't exist "empirically," I would think, and I'm sure its not what you call, "really-real." Do we have three classes of real?

I may not actually disagree with you, but I'd have to know how your are differentiating what you call empirically-real from really-real.

I confess: I do no differentiate “real”, “actually real”, really real”, “physically real” and “empirically real”. I use them to assimilate the vernacular of this forum into my writing style.

[RCSaunders]

But who will watch the camera for me? Who will assure me that the camera did not disappear and reappear?

Someone who could actually be a zombie? How am I to accept its word on the matter?

Although I am not diaphoretic, I am stressed over the possibility that my things won’t be there when I want them.

I'm sorry to hear that, but my commiseration is a bit limited, since I have a nagging doubt that you are being totally ingenuous. You know whatever the camera records is its own evidence of its persistent existence, and you also know that there is no actual zombie. Of course, you don't have to accept any evidence and can continue to live in chronic doubt, if that's what you like. Is it what you like? (That would be a kind of psychological masochism, wouldn't it?)

[RCSaunders]

I, too, enjoy the discussion.

Good! That's the only reason for it, as far as I'm concerned.

[RCSaunders]

I confess: I do no differentiate “real”, “actually real”, really real”, “physically real” and “empirically real”. I use them to assimilate the vernacular of this forum into my writing style.

But that is not very helpful, Common. If you are going to use some term in a conversation, unless you intend obfuscation, you are going to have to use terms in a way others will understand. You can use them any way you like so long as you make it clear to those you are using them to communicate with, what you precisely mean by those terms.

So, what do you mean by, "real?"