my own reality is now in question

[mack7963]

the other week i was thinking as to why we still rely on pixels for our computer displays, so i asked chat GPT why that is, its answer explained it fairly well and i was happy with that, then something chat GPT said popped back into my head, "light enters the eyes and those signals are sent to the brain which processes the image" so i asked Chat GPT "Does that mean that i don't see with my eyes"?, "yes" was the answer.
since then this realised thought has been constant and I'm not sure what to make of it, my entire life has been spent assuming that what i have seen was always through my eyes, now i am left wondering what i have been seeing my entire life, are all the people I've met real or just npc's i have placed in 'my' world, even the 'how do i know my entire history wasn't downloaded into my brain this morning, i hope someone can help me understand how to make sense of this.

[Noax]

Really, you're having some kind of crisis because some GPT happens to agree with some oddly worded statement of yours? It is programmed to find a way to agree with almost anything put to it, to encourage exploration of new ideas.

"light enters the eyes and those signals are sent to the brain which processes the image"

Sounds to me like 'eyes' was part of that description. OK, a few people see with their ears, but only because their eyes don't work.
Try covering your eyes. Can you still see? No? Eyes are probably involved in the process then. Are eyes the only component involved? No, but the question didn't ask if they were.

What's this got to do with pixels? Seems pretty natural. Your eyes essentially implement a 2D collection of pixels, just like the video screen, except the former is input and the latter is output.

[accelafine]

'how do i know my entire history wasn't downloaded into my brain this morning, i hope someone can help me understand how to make sense of this.

You don't know. There's actually a reasonably high chance that it was. You should listen to Donald Hoffman some time. He's pretty convincing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4&t=4s

[Noax]

'how do i know my entire history wasn't downloaded into my brain this morning, i hope someone can help me understand how to make sense of this.

You don't know. There's actually a reasonably high chance that it was. You should listen to Donald Hoffman some time. He's pretty convincing.

Hoffman suggests that a brain is capable of being downloaded into? Not only capable, but likely to have happened?
I didn't watch the video and suspect he suggests something completely different.

[accelafine]

'how do i know my entire history wasn't downloaded into my brain this morning, i hope someone can help me understand how to make sense of this.

You don't know. There's actually a reasonably high chance that it was. You should listen to Donald Hoffman some time. He's pretty convincing.

Hoffman suggests that a brain is capable of being downloaded into? Not only capable, but likely to have happened?
I didn't watch the video and suspect he suggests something completely different.

He doesn't claim to know exactly what's going on. I only suggested him as being one person he could listen to who has interesting things to say about what we think of as 'reality'.

[mack7963]

What's this got to do with pixels? Seems pretty natural. Your eyes essentially implement a 2D collection of pixels, just like the video screen, except the former is input and the latter is output.

wait, you believe the eyes use pixels? really?.

[Wizard22]

wait, you believe the eyes use pixels? really?.

How old are you mack, and which country are you from?

Yes it's true that the brain processes sense-data information, perception, not your "eyes" per se. Your eyes, your nose, even your touch, are all processed by your brain. Therefore, "Reality" is a simulation produced by the brain.

[Flannel Jesus]

the other week i was thinking as to why we still rely on pixels for our computer displays, so i asked chat GPT why that is, its answer explained it fairly well and i was happy with that, then something chat GPT said popped back into my head, "light enters the eyes and those signals are sent to the brain which processes the image" so i asked Chat GPT "Does that mean that i don't see with my eyes"?, "yes" was the answer.
since then this realised thought has been constant and I'm not sure what to make of it, my entire life has been spent assuming that what i have seen was always through my eyes, now i am left wondering what i have been seeing my entire life, are all the people I've met real or just npc's i have placed in 'my' world, even the 'how do i know my entire history wasn't downloaded into my brain this morning, i hope someone can help me understand how to make sense of this.

Radical skepticism is an important thought process for any thinker to go through. You should not get permanently stuck on it, however. If we are in some kind of "matrix", there's almost certainly no way out - you are a creature of this matrix and as such, this is your reality. Even if it's not strictly provable that it's real, the balance of utility is that it's more useful to treat it as if it's real.

So from there, we go on to just behaving and generally assuming it's real (while still allowing our thoughts occasionally to wander around in the skepticism about this so-called reality we're experiencing), and we try to discover whatever truths we can about this so-called reality.

That's my take anyway.

[mack7963]

wait, you believe the eyes use pixels? really?.

How old are you mack, and which country are you from?

Yes it's true that the brain processes sense-data information, perception, not your "eyes" per se. Your eyes, your nose, even your touch, are all processed by your brain. Therefore, "Reality" is a simulation produced by the brain.

im still curious about your eyes use pixels statement, i mean we both know that's not true, right?

[mack7963]

Radical skepticism is an important thought process for any thinker to go through. You should not get permanently stuck on it, however. If we are in some kind of "matrix", there's almost certainly no way out - you are a creature of this matrix and as such, this is your reality. Even if it's not strictly provable that it's real, the balance of utility is that it's more useful to treat it as if it's real.

So from there, we go on to just behaving and generally assuming it's real (while still allowing our thoughts occasionally to wander around in the skepticism about this so-called reality we're experiencing), and we try to discover whatever truths we can about this so-called reality.

That's my take anyway.

i guess my biggest problem is wondering why this isn't something that's discussed more, or are most people under the impression we actually see with our eyes and never question it?

[Flannel Jesus]

I actually think it's discussed quite a lot in academic philosophy. Radical skepticism makes fundamental sense, how do we deal with it? How do we move past it without getting trapped in a sense of solipsism?

I don't think this is a super rare topic to see professional philosophers write about. It's a really important stepping stone, I think, for any account of an epistemology.

[FlashDangerpants]

What's this got to do with pixels? Seems pretty natural. Your eyes essentially implement a 2D collection of pixels, just like the video screen, except the former is input and the latter is output.

wait, you believe the eyes use pixels? really?.

There's an array of rods and cones and stuff each individually reporting a state isn't there? The pixels analogy doesn't seem problematic to me. You can substitute in talk of qualia or the concept of the sense-datum if you prefer, but effectively it's all just whatever dots of visual information are indivisible due to system limits.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm going to be a little naughty and do a VA - post a convo I had with Chat GPT. The difference between what I'm doing and what VA is doing, however, is I'm not remotely using chat gpt as a source of *objective facts*, but instead as a jumping off point for your further research. I don't care how Chat GPT personally wants to treat the problem of radical skepticism, instead I'm using Chat GPT as a librarian, asking it to help me find other resources where I can find real answers. So, it's like VA's bullshit, but in an important way, it's also not:

Any philosopher, in my view, will eventually come head-to-head with the idea of radical skepticism -- that MAYBE all my experiences are giving me a completely false sense of reality. Is this topic talked about a lot in professional philosophy? What are the common or popular ways professional philosophers get over this problem, where they can begin to treat their experience as "real"?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Yes, radical skepticism is a well-known and widely discussed issue in professional philosophy. Philosophers have been grappling with this problem for centuries, from ancient skepticism to modern epistemology. The challenge is exactly what you said: How can we trust that our experiences give us access to reality, rather than being illusions or fabrications (e.g., a brain-in-a-vat scenario)?

Here are some of the major approaches philosophers take to "get over" radical skepticism:

1. Fallibilism (Pragmatic Acceptance)
Some philosophers (like Charles Peirce and Hilary Putnam) argue that even if we can't prove our experiences reflect reality, we should accept them as such because they work. In other words, if treating the world as real allows us to make reliable predictions and function effectively, that’s good enough.
2. Externalism (We Don’t Need to “Prove” Reality)
Externalists (like Alvin Goldman and Hilary Putnam) argue that as long as our beliefs are caused in the right way—say, through a reliable causal connection to the external world—they count as knowledge. Even if we can’t rule out radical skepticism, it doesn’t matter because knowledge doesn’t require that kind of certainty.
3. Contextualism (Skepticism Only Matters in Certain Contexts)
Philosophers like David Lewis and Keith DeRose argue that skepticism only becomes a real issue when we deliberately raise it as a possibility. In everyday life, we don’t question reality, and that’s fine—context determines what counts as "knowing."
4. Moorean Common Sense (Just Deny the Skeptic)
G.E. Moore famously responded to skepticism by holding up his hands and saying, “Here is one hand, and here is another.” His argument? Some things are so obvious that they outweigh skeptical doubts. This “common sense” approach says we have more reason to trust our experiences than to doubt them.
5. Phenomenal Conservatism (If It Seems Real, Treat It as Such)
Some philosophers (like Michael Huemer) argue that unless we have a specific reason to doubt our experiences, we should take them at face value. If reality seems real, then we’re justified in believing it is.
6. Naturalized Epistemology (Science and Evolution Explain Why We Trust Reality)
Some philosophers (like W.V.O. Quine) argue that skepticism is irrelevant because human cognition evolved to track reality, at least roughly. Science itself presupposes reality and has worked well, so there’s no need for further justification.
7. Kantian Approach (Reality is Structured by Our Mind)
Kant would say we don’t even have access to “reality in itself,” but our minds impose a structure on experience. The world we perceive is "real" in the sense that it’s the only world we can perceive.
In short, professional philosophers take skepticism seriously, but most don’t let it paralyze them. They find ways to justify treating experience as reliable without needing absolute certainty. Do any of these approaches resonate with you?

[mack7963]

In short, professional philosophers take skepticism seriously, but most don’t let it paralyze them. They find ways to justify treating experience as reliable without needing absolute certainty. Do any of these approaches resonate with you?

yes, they all seem to make perfect sense in the just accept reality cause we don't have any real answers to the contrary, and i guess thats what i have done my entire life, right up until my realisation, but at least one good thing has come from this, i now have a very good reading list to start trying to understand this a little better and i thank you for that.

[Flannel Jesus]

, i now have a very good reading list to start trying to understand this a little better and i thank you for that.

No problem

The reality is, radical skepticism of some kind is always lurking. We don't just receive reality raw as it is, our senses are fallible, our memory is fallible, and we COULD all be in matrix land. So the question isn't "how can I prove reality is real and this isn't matrix land?". The question is, "How can I come to accept this place for what it is, and not let my doubts about this possible matrix-land ruin my time here?"

You don't ever have to stop having some doubt. In fact I think you should. It shouldn't consume you though, and you shouldn't let the "matrix land" hypothesis become a certainty in your mind.