Philosophy Discussion Forums

I was within the first 100 pages of 'Man, Beast and Zombie'(A very good book that I recommend), when I found a question. I found the idea that it us possible that we do not discover Earth, but create our vision of it with science. I, personally, have yet to find a stands on this. If metaphysics and similar fields questioning the truth of our reality are taken into account, then there could be a very real possibility that this is not really the real world. We simply invent our own beliefs of what it is. So, what is your opinion on this topic? I think that we do both. We learn and from our learning, we build and through out, form our world.

Essentially, this is the question of whether philosophical realism is correct or not. Often the only alternative to realism presented in discussion is philosophical idealism. That is unfortunate because philosophical anti-realism does not necessarily imply idealism. I am an anti-realist yet I dismiss idealism as fruitless. I certainly believe we invent our reality, but we do so in response to our subjective experience. Presumably, such experience has an underlying ontology but to posit that it is generated by mind puts us into a vicious circle of no utility. Unlike a realist, however, I think it is equally fruitless to believe we can say anything about ontology given that our cognitive toolset is subject to that same ontology, whatever it is. Since the only thing we CAN be sure of is our subjective experience, it is best to work with that as our starting point and invent reality from there.

TigerNinja wrote:I was within the first 100 pages of 'Man, Beast and Zombie'(A very good book that I recommend), when I found a question. I found the idea that it us possible that we do not discover Earth, but create our vision of it with science. I, personally, have yet to find a stands on this. If metaphysics and similar fields questioning the truth of our reality are taken into account, then there could be a very real possibility that this is not really the real world. We simply invent our own beliefs of what it is. So, what is your opinion on this topic? I think that we do both. We learn and from our learning, we build and through out, form our world.

I agree. It's not the real 'world'.

Brain process is creating 'reality'. The universe is one of perception. Our brains do science in every moment. Science is forms of measurement. Thought is measurement.

What is perceived is the sum total of what we are as individuals. The individual perception of world and universe is that individual. No individual can stand outside 'their' perception. Just try to and see.

A Poster He or I wrote:Essentially, this is the question of whether philosophical realism is correct or not. Often the only alternative to realism presented in discussion is philosophical idealism. That is unfortunate because philosophical anti-realism does not necessarily imply idealism. I am an anti-realist yet I dismiss idealism as fruitless. I certainly believe we invent our reality, but we do so in response to our subjective experience. Presumably, such experience has an underlying ontology but to posit that it is generated by mind puts us into a vicious circle of no utility. Unlike a realist, however, I think it is equally fruitless to believe we can say anything about ontology given that our cognitive toolset is subject to that same ontology, whatever it is. Since the only thing we CAN be sure of is our subjective experience, it is best to work with that as our starting point and invent reality from there.

I understand and agree with this, but then what becomes of science? The very purpose, as another person said, science is measurement. What becomes the point of discovering a subjective reality aside from learning to distinguish this (our) reality from the true reality? Then that could make science a form of empirical and experiment manipulating metaphysics.

We have already begun such things. We discovered that a red object is an object being every colour except for red. We discovered the quantum realm: Another layer to both the true and subjective reality. Constantly we are evolving our views on reality. But that's just it. Evolving our VIEWS. Our views are simply what we think of the world, yet not the actual lens through which we experience our world.

Personally, I think that humanity just can't see the universe for what it truly is. We will always have a lens, be it our senses or incorrect science. The true reality is beyond our comprehension. Humans are simple beings after all. Think about it. We really are quite primitive. Our comprehension is quite limited: to our senses and understanding. How often will you find someone with a realistic or even hypothetical idea of the true nature of the quantum realm. Most humans have difficulty unless they have studied this for LONG periods of time and hypothesised from research. Is not an instant knowledge like ' The grass is green' (the colour etc. Do not need to be identified by simply the fact that the grass has that colour about it).

Note that I said humanity. That is because some super intelligent human MAY be able to see the universe for what it truly is, and if not that, at least Earth. I hope.

I believe science is the art of creating rules and regulations we can rationally and meaningfully relate to that are not contradicted by reality.

Wirius wrote:I believe science is the art of creating rules and regulations we can rationally and meaningfully relate to that are not contradicted by reality.

Or a seeking of rules for which to rationalize.

I understand and agree with this, but then what becomes of science?

Science at its very best is nothing more than the proactive correlation of more-and-more experience via systematic modeling. Good modeling (models that correlate with self-consistency broad swaths of diverse experience) allow for predictability, and therefore high utility, because our subjective experience displays consistencies.

Science is lessened whenever scientists (or anyone for that matter) believe that the consistency per se of our subjective experience must imply an objective ontology and that good modeling actually reveals objective qualities about reality. We end up thinking that scientific "truths" and "laws" are aspects of reality beyond our subjective experience.

Since antirealism recognizes that nothing is apprehended outside of subjective experience, the presumption that science can reveal objective aspects of reality is actually an impedance to the best practices of science...and also to the best practices of philosophy, in my opinion.

What becomes the point of discovering a subjective reality aside from learning to distinguish this (our) [subjective] reality from the true reality?

What is discovered in subjective reality are the consistencies in our experience from moment to moment. When these consistencies are systematically correlated by cognitive modeling, the models make predictions that are of marvelous utility. That is the point of "discovering" subjective reality. Any "True" reality (that is, an objective reality beyond our subjective experience) is actually irrelevant to the PRACTICE of science, since Objectivity per se cannot be recognized in practice; it can only be experienced subjectively, thereby robbing it of any actual objectivity.

I concede that for many scientists (and other thinkers) my description does not function as their motive for doing science (their motives being driven by metaphysical presumptions or speculations), but again I find this irrelevant to the actual practice of science.

... some super intelligent human MAY be able to see the universe for what it truly is, and if not that, at least Earth. I hope.

In order for intelligence to operate, it must be predicated on cognitive modeling (and the underlying epistemologies that give cognitive expression coherence), every component of which is a human creation out of subjective experience, and therefore highly suspect in its ability to recognize objective truth per se. So while intelligence would be useful for expressing what one thinks the universe truly is, it is of dubious benefit for perceiving what the universe truly is.

If I were looking for the objectively True nature of reality, I'd look first to a bonafide mystic operating outside of cognitive constructs rather than an Albert Einstein building upon cognitive constructs. In this pursuit, the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama would have greater value to me than the mathematics of scientific theory. And I can say that even though I'm an atheist and a tremendous admirer of science, simply because I don't believe for a second that searching for True reality is the purpose of science (and should be thrown out of philosophy too!).