Forums → WEPR → An Issue of Reality

We perceive it as such because our mind does not want to look at light and see constant white, white, and more white. The mind must make sense of the world.

There is a story I heard (from my psychology teacher) where a student was in a Philosophy class and they were taking their last test of the year. The teacher placed a chair on his desk and told the students that for their test they had to prove that the chair was actually there/existed. The student wrote 1 sentence on his paper, turned it in, and got an A. All he put on the paper was "What chair?" (your questioning reminded me of this story)

What causes this reflection of light? The atoms.

If what we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel is a simulation, how can we tell what exactly the original stimuli is? Yes we can tell something is there but how do we tell WHAT is there?

Measurements and observations using instruments, thus bypassing the limitations of our senses. Just look at physics, for example.

If what we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel is a simulation, how can we tell what exactly the original stimuli is? Yes we can tell something is there but how do we tell WHAT is there?

Everything we use to detect and tell what is real is built around our 5 senses so it can be given to us in a way that our brains can comprehend. Even with this, our perceptions still limit our ability to tell what really is there. These instruments tell us simply that what is there is energy in different wavelengths all the way across the spectrum and matter, in the form of particles, that make atoms, that make molecules and so on. Our senses tell us different things so do we trust the machines to tell us that the only things there are different forms of energy? (Since matter, according to Einstein, is also energy in an altered state.)

But if direct realism is false, where does that leave us? It seems prudent to adopt at least some amount of skepticism regarding our perceptions, but how much? Should we embrace the extreme skepticism of idealists or phenomenologists? Certainly there must be some middle ground, but how to we define it?

Though it always depends on the scale we look at, for example do Newtons laws function perfectly on the scale of processes that we humans are confronted with daily, but are unusable at the astrophysical scale where they are replaced by Einsteins theorems.

However, in my opinion doubting the reality of reality simply because we are naturally not omniscient is idle talk.

This is how i feel that physics cannot sum up the rules surrounding the universe. Quantum physics do not work with the equations dealing with larger bodies, so how can either be correct? If the atoms create galaxies, shouldn't the rules for the behaviors of atoms fit into the equations for the behaviors of galaxies? If not, how can we be sure of anything at all?

while philosophers sit around watching Matrix and entertaining them with hypothetical situations, physicists are working on getting there.

That's not a very accurate (or nice!) description of what philosophers do. And keep in mind that physicists might make certain discoveries, but without philosophy, there would not be limitations or justification for what can reasonably infer from these discoveries. Some may think that we philosophers just have our heads in the clouds, but in fact we are the ones who keep other disciplines grounded.

There's one part of me thinking some discussions are interesting and raise legitimate questions about several real issues. There's also a prominent part of me thinking philosophy artificially creates unnecessary problems it can't even solve and is a lot about who uses the most fancy words and thoughts ^^ almost like poetry, come to think of it.

Sorry, forgot this existed for a while haha

There's one part of me thinking some discussions are interesting and raise legitimate questions about several real issues. There's also a prominent part of me thinking philosophy artificially creates unnecessary problems it can't even solve and is a lot about who uses the most fancy words and thoughts ^^ almost like poetry, come to think of it.

So this doesn't raise a legitimate question? Science just goes along, typically taking the data that the machines they use spit out as fact after it works out in equations, that may or may not be correct in every instance.

If what we think is there, isn't there, then wouldn't we have to rethink a lot of things?

If the moon were made of cheese it would change a lot of things too. There's a difference in philosophical possibility and realistic probability. Why don't you start naming some of these machines that science just accepts works? There is no just accepting it. The tests are repeated time and time again. The data gets subjected to tests for accuracy and precision in accordance with the calibration. They're calibrated with known entities (controls) and give consistent results with different known substances or whatever the things being studied are. When there are deviations from the norm (ie color blindness) there are consistent qualifiable/quantifiable reasons that can be discoverable and known. Even if this were the matrix the colors we know and love would be real in that they'd be emergent properties of said matrix... Just as they are emergent properties of radiation in reality. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to be able to perceive it... Color blindness

Also, all of these tests are coupled with other tests from other machines that once calibrated are used to check each other and then add their own brush strokes to develop the overall painting that is the science.

Data is not just taken as fact. Data is not just collected, but also interpreted, analysed, critiqued by others etc. As I already said, instruments were designed to assess a specific type of informations, those who understand how the instrument works exactly know what sort of data they get and how to treat them. Besides, we don't need philosophers to know that a mere difference in callibration can affect the data. Just as much as a statistician doesn't need a philosopher to know when a result makes sense or not. Philosophy, as Moegreche said, can discuss what we do with the gained knowledge however, but can do nothing with a raw set of data.

Sure. We should under all circumstances always stay critical to any kind of result. But most of our gained knowledge have proven to be correct; and besides, hypothesizing about whether everything is real or not won't advance anything as it doesn't pose any alternative.

If the moon were made of cheese it would change a lot of things too. There's a difference in philosophical possibility and realistic probability. Why don't you start naming some of these machines that science just accepts works? There is no just accepting it. The tests are repeated time and time again. The data gets subjected to tests for accuracy and precision in accordance with the calibration. They're calibrated with known entities (controls) and give consistent results with different known substances or whatever the things being studied are. When there are deviations from the norm (ie color blindness) there are consistent qualifiable/quantifiable reasons that can be discoverable and known. Even if this were the matrix the colors we know and love would be real in that they'd be emergent properties of said matrix... Just as they are emergent properties of radiation in reality. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to be able to perceive it... Color blindness

Also, all of these tests are coupled with other tests from other machines that once calibrated are used to check each other and then add their own brush strokes to develop the overall painting that is the science.