↪Questioner We're just 'disembodied subjects'? — 180 Proof

No, I wouldn’t say that. We are clearly in bodies. And it is because we are in bodies that we have a reality.

We are clearly in bodies. And it is because we are in bodies that we have a reality. — Questioner

– ergo reality is necessarily more-than-subjective.

But the force of that argument would be logic. The point of the evil demon argument is that it's possible to doubt logic. — frank

Which is why, if someone were to prove that the evil demon argument leads to a contradiction, then such a person would have also demonstrated that it is not possible to doubt logic. And whoever demonstrates that, deserves the Fields medal. Well, maybe I'm being too extreme in my judgement, but it would certainly be a monumental achievement to prove that logic cannot be doubted.

– ergo reality is necessarily more-than-subjective. — 180 Proof

:up: Right there must be something we subjects are being subjected to.

Which is why, if someone were to prove that the evil demon argument leads to a contradiction, then such a person would have also demonstrated that it is not possible to doubt logic. And whoever demonstrates that, deserves the Fields medal. Well, maybe I'm being too extreme in my judgement, but it would certainly be a monumental achievement to prove that logic cannot be doubted. — Arcane Sandwich

The only thing going for the 'evil demon' is that he is not a logical contradiction. Just as it is impossible to prove the existence of anything by logic alone, so it is also impossible to logically prove the non-existence of anything.

If we attempted to doubt logic, what would we be using but logic? Logic is merely a formal procedure. There is no reason to entertain the idea of the evil demon or the brain in a vat or the flying teacup at the other end of the universe. They are all logical possibilities, though.

No, objective reality is just colourless atoms and molecules together with energy interacting. Not my reality at all. — Questioner

That's one way of looking at it.

Our experiences are our reality. — Questioner

That's another.

I think it's objectively true that I am typing this answer. Whatever ontological/metaphysical matters exist to bring this about are possibly irrelevant. You can always unpack any idea and assumptions further and this process may well be endless. Perhaps reality is just an infinite regress of contingencies.

A third alternative is that the notion of an objective reality can't be maintained.

It's true that you are reading this screen. What more is said by "It is objectively true that you are reading this screen"?

It's true that you are reading this screen. What more is said by "It is objectively true that you are reading this screen"? — Banno

Hi. Let me contribute something, in that regard. To me what that means (and I might have a different interpretation than @Tom Storm on that point) is that by saying that something is objectively the case, you're necessarily saying that something subjective is not the case. Or, at the very least, that one (i.e., as a human being) is both a subject and an object at the same time. Objective reality, in some sense, would be different from subjective reality. You can have both. They're not mutually incompatible with each other, at least not necessarily so.

Objective reality, in some sense, would be different from subjective reality. — Arcane Sandwich

Can you say how?

But also, you now have two realities. Contrast that with the view that there is at most one reality. Which do you prefer?

Can you say how? — Banno

It's a tough notion to articulate coherently, I acknowledge that. So, sadly, no, I can't say how. I lack the knowledge.

But also, you now have two realities. Contrast that with the view that there is at most one reality. Which do you prefer? — Banno

The latter. I prefer the one that has both: objective reality and subjective reality. Why? Because it makes everything else more simple. It's true that it's more economic to have one premise than two, but sometimes having two premises can lead to more economic consequences, because realism / anti-realism isn't your only premise. No one has just one premise that they believe in, that's not how the human mind works.

Not quite following - the latter, so you prefer there be at most one reality; but which includes both subjective and objective realities?

And this makes things simpler? Again, I don't think the objective/subjective dichotomy is of much use, nor that it can be tightened up. We can mostly get by without it.

What more is said by "It is objectively true that you are reading this screen"? — Banno

Agree. People seem to want to identify the really real. It’s surely a kind of god surrogate.

Objective reality, in some sense, would be different from subjective reality.
— Arcane Sandwich

Can you say how?

But also, you now have two realities. Contrast that with the view that there is at most one reality. Which do you prefer? — Banno

Yes. This may be boring but I think the issue is I have known many people with psychosis whose reality differs. And less dramatically, people with vastly different values and presuppositions appear to inhabit a different reality to mine. Their world is unrecognisable to me. There may be one reality but how does this help us in practice to make assessments of such experiential differences?

I have known many people with psychosis whose reality differs — Tom Storm

Yep. I'd say that their beliefs differ, rather then their reality. When I worked with such folk one approach was to gently show them how their belief didn't match what was going on, or what others thought, or as least wasn't getting them what they wanted. We called it a "reality rub" - an LSCI term.

While I never worked with the level of psychosis you work with, isn't the objective much the same - to bring about some set of beliefs that are at least a bit more functional?

isn't the objective much the same - to bring about some set of beliefs that are at least a bit more functional? — Banno

I think so. Easier said than done, given psychiatric services here often no longer choose to treat complex people, so their psychosis becomes so foundational to them that even basic communication is often impossible.

to bring about some set of beliefs that are at least a bit more functional? — Banno

But this phrase might well describe the function of philosophy for me. It isn't so much a search for truth or a quest for self-knowledge, it is rather a hope that I might bring some more useful frameworks and capacities to my thinking.

Have you found philosophy useful?

Have you found philosophy useful? — Tom Storm

Well, yes, but not in any grand sense of providing an understanding of the whole of life or such. More in a piecemeal, day-to-day way. More by showing what's not right than by showing what 's right.

Yep. As your asking me that very question implies that you understood my post and what to do about it. Doubt sits in a background of certainty. That's a step beyond the insincere affectation, into the nature of discourse. — Banno

Reaction to this post:

Sometimes in philosophy we show by arranging our concepts into a persuasive paradigms. This is very different than presenting logical arguments from true premises to demonstrated conclusions. Like “cause and effect”, we accept these concepts and enjoy the fruits, not born from logical demonstration but life forces these concepts on us. Accepting the sandwich, our big bang to certainty.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Not quite following - the latter, so you prefer there be at most one reality; but which includes both subjective and objective realities?

And this makes things simpler? Again, I don't think the objective/subjective dichotomy is of much use, nor that it can be tightened up. We can mostly get by without it. — Banno

Then let me just quote the Tao Te Ching:

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 25

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name.
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Being great, it flows.
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns.

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural. — Tao Te Ching

The lesson here, in my opinion (the most important one) is that the Tao itself is not the Ultimate, be-all, end-all, sort of thing, because the Tao itself follows something else: it follows what is natural. So, if you "believe" in the Tao, you must, at the very least on logical grounds (to say nothing of moral grounds) follow what is natural, instead of following the Tao, because the Tao itself follows what is natural.

So, if you "believe" in the Tao, you must, at the very least on logical grounds (to say nothing of moral grounds) follow what is natural, instead of following the Tao, because the Tao itself follows what is natural. — Arcane Sandwich

I have never read it that way. "Tao (the way) follows what is natural" means the way is just natural, in other words nothing over and above nature itself. So it is not following the natural "instead of following the Tao".

I have never read it that way. "Tao (the way) follows what is natural" means the way is just natural, in other words nothing over and above nature itself. So it is not following the natural "instead of following the Tao". — Janus

What can I say? I read Chapter 25 literally. I'll quote the relevant part, once more:

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural. — Tao Te Ching, Chapter 25

I'll translate it to Propositional Logic first:

1) If p, the q.
2) If q, then r.
3) If r, then s.
4) If s, then t.

And what I'm arguing, is the following:

5) If t, then u.

Thanks, but the translation into propositional logic made no sense to me. I understand the way of the Tao to be the way of nature, pure and simple.

Thanks, but the translation into propositional logic made no sense to me. — Janus

Well, what you just said there is technically a fallacy, since it's an appeal "to the stone". Welcome to my world, dude.

@Bob Ross would you be so kind as to weigh in with your honest opinion, here? In your honest opinion, who is right in this discussion, @Janus or myself? Or neither of us?

It was not an "appeal to the stone" I simply don't understand what you are trying to say by translating the verse into propositional logic.

↪Arcane Sandwich
It was not an "appeal to the stone" I simply don't understand what you are trying to say by translating the verse into propositional logic. — Janus

And I said, "Welcome to my world, dude". This is the kind of "intellectual stuff" that I have to deal with, lately.

I still don't know what you are talking about.

Arcane Sandwich
I still don't know what you are talking about. — Janus

Ok, do you have a moment, then? I could explain it to you, but it's just my point of view. It has errors, I'm sure of it. But it's not without merit, if I may say such a thing.

From The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - and Its Implications, by David Deutsch.

There is a standard philosophical joke about a professor who gives a lecture in defence of solipsism. So persuasive is the lecture that as soon as it ends, several enthusiastic students hurry forward to shake the professor’s hand. ‘Wonderful. I agreed with every word,’ says one student earnestly. ‘So did I,’ says another. ‘I am very gratified to hear it,’ says the professor. ‘One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists.’ — David Deutsch

This thread is titled " How can one know the ultimate truth about reality?"

The title itself is the question of the Thread, and of the Original Post itself. The author of the post then says:

My senses can deceive me, so if I cannot trust my senses, I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; It's just me and you; but if my senses cannot be always trusted then your existence must also might be an illusion.

As always, one can only deduce one truth: "I exist", whoever "I" is... :-) — A Realist

The first thesis ("My senses can device me" is a skeptical premise), from there the author asks a conditional statement: "If p (I cannot trust my senses), then q (I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist".

That's questionable. That very statement. For it could well be that "p", the antecedent, is True, while the consequent, "q", is false. In other words, it could be true that I cannot trust my senses, but it does not follow from there that "I might as well conclude that outside reality doesnt exist." That part of the sentence, is false. Why? Because your senses are not the only thing through which you are connected to other res extensa. The very act of breathing, the physical act of breathing, demonstrates that from a purely Physical point of view (as in, what professional physicists study), you are not an isolated physical system, you are instead merely a closed physical system instead of being an open physical system. That's thermodynamics.

If we can agree on that, then I can explain to you the last Verse in Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching, and what it has to do with Propositional Logic. If not, then I cannot say much more on that subject.

The first thesis ("My senses can device me" is a skeptical premise), from there the author asks a conditional statement: "If p (I cannot trust my senses), then q (I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist".

That's questionable. That very statement. — Arcane Sandwich

Of course it's questionable. If outside reality didn't exist, we wouldn't have ways of sensing it.

Ok, do you have a moment, then? I could explain it to you, but it's just my point of view. It has errors, I'm sure of it. But it's not without merit, if I may say such a thing. — Arcane Sandwich

I'd be happy to get some more explanation. We all have different points of view, and all with some merit, no doubt.

I'd be happy to get some more explanation. We all have different points of view, and all with some merit, no doubt. — Janus

Ok. The final Verse of Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching, in my honest opinion, literally means the following:

First premise) If one follows Man, then one also follows the Earth.
Second premise) If one follows the Earth, then one follows Heaven.
Third premise) If one follows Heaven, one follows the Tao.
Fourth premise) If the Tao follows what is natural, then one follows what is natural.

That is what the final Verse of Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching means to me. From there, I am arguing for a new proposition:

Fifth premise) One follows something that is not the Tao, because One follows what is natural, and "what is natural" is what the Tao itself follows.