This argument is still coherent even if P0 had been: an objective reality does not exist. There is no reason to assume either of these. — khaled

Actually, many people (myself included) believe that we can justify the existence of Objective Reality via Descartes' cogito. Despite the difficulties with who "I" might be, "I think, therefore I am" seems to demonstrate that *something* has Objective existence; therefore Objective Reality exists, and this something is all or part of it. But you can relax: this is the One and Only Objective Truth that a human can knowingly possess. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

There ARE people that doubt the "therefore" in "therefore I am" and they make a pretty good case doing it. — khaled

I didn't say it was universally agreed. But if thinking is going on, something is doing it, and that *something* has Objective Existence. Therefore, as something exists, there is such a thing as Objective Reality. I don't see a problem with "therefore". So there is reason to assume that Objective Reality exists, at least to those who are convinced. You said there wasn't such a reason.

this guy is your man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ORH1dXLUx0.

But if thinking is going on, something is doing it — Pattern-chaser

That is a logical conclusion. Not wise to use those when the big bad devil is trying to twist all of you thinking. WOOOOOOO

Not wise to use those when the big bad devil is trying to twist all of you thinking. WOOOOOOO — khaled

Sorry, you lost me. :confused:

Define "glimpsed objective reality". How could the buddha possibly know that what he saw was the end all be all of reality?

Descartes proposed an "evil deceiver" that twists his reasoning so that 2+2 might actually be 5 but the evil deceiver keeps changing it to 4 in Descartes's mind every time. If you propose such a being you can't go on to then use logic as any time you try to logically reason anything the evil deceiver is going to make you think incorrectly. If you can't trust 2+2=4 I don't know why you'd trust "But if thinking is going on, something is doing it". Both of them should be true by definition but since the evil deceiver is there, you cannot use reason

TLDR; the evil deceiver made you think "if thinking is going on, something is doing it" but it's ACTUALLY "if thinking is going on, 4" (now that I think about it this TLDR is probably more confusing)

Also my last post was also supposed to be a Halloween thing but nvm

Descartes proposed an "evil deceiver" that twists his reasoning so that 2+2 might actually be 5 but the evil deceiver keeps changing it to 4 in Descartes's mind every time. If you propose such a being you can't go on to then use logic as any time you try to logically reason anything the evil deceiver is going to make you think incorrectly. If you can't trust 2+2=4 I don't know why you'd trust "But if thinking is going on, something is doing it". Both of them should be true by definition but since the evil deceiver is there, you cannot use reason — khaled

Then you are doomed! :smile: I'm pretty sure Descartes' demon is not as effective as you describe, but there seems little point in pursuing the matter. Oh, and 2 + 2 = 4 only because we create and define number symbols, number theory, and so forth.

Just apply Occam's Razor.

I don't know why these denialist completely disregard the very likely possibility that the material (for lack of a better term) world is real.

Just apply Occam's Razor; line up your theories and pick the best one. If you have any common sense at all, then it will be the very likely reality, that reality is reality.

Furthermore, reality is really nothing but the reality in which we find ourselves in, whether that is, could be a dream, illusion or whatever, it is entirely moot, as empirical evidence is still the best lead we have. There is nothing else around and it is the only trail of breadcrumbs you have. So the rational thing to do is to examine it and see where it leads. The only other choice here is killing yourself and anyone reading this is clearly not ready yet to test out that option. So it simply does not matter if there is some magical illusion spinning demon as examining those illusions is still our best option.

However, the idea that there is a demon spinning illusions is unverifiable, which means it is about as realistic as the notion that there are mini unicorns that crap gold and gems living in the swears of New York. So how is investing so much of your belief system in an unverifiable entity any different than theism? It is not, and in essence it is the same thing.

These denialist don't even believe their own nonsense, they still eat don't they? They still sleep, shit and type on their keyboards. They claim one thing, but yet they behave as if everything was real, as they realize on some level that is the more likely case and the safest bet. And when you say one thing, yet do another we call that hypocrisy

I am weary of replying to you but I'll try in case you don't troll anymore. Idk which comment you're talking about so I'll assume it's my discussion with unenlightened.

Person 1:
1-Senses are reliable
2-I sense a coffee pot

Person 2:
1-Senses are unreliable
2-I may be sensing a coffee pot in actuality idk

Occam's razor doesn't do anything, they make the same number of assumptions. One. And neither assumption is more speculative, just one is way more practical than the other

I am weary of replying to you — khaled

That is a lie, you sent me a bunch of PMs. It is clear to me, that you want me to response.

I don't know why these denialists completely disregard... — Jeremiah

Just apply Occam's Razor — Jeremiah

But Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, a guideline, a way of guessing. Denialists are looking for something certain. Now I consider this an unreasonable expectation, and so do you, it seems, but you are offering seekers after certainty ... a way of guessing. That isn't what they're looking for.

I don't care what they are looking for, this is the only rational course of action. There are only two choices, either you kill yourself, or you engage the reality you find yourself in. There are no other choices, so people can abuse the term "logic" all they want and they can fantasize about magical demons, but when you get right down to it the only true way to deny reality is to kill yourself, and if you do anything other than that, then you accept the truth of reality.

I won't talk about PMs here because that's what the P in PM stands for

If you have any common sense at all, — Jeremiah

What do you do with people who do not have this common sense? You just admitted of a relativism. This "common sense" seems to be your pivot

So it simply does not matter if there is some magical illusion spinning demon as examining those illusions is still our best option. — Jeremiah

When did I advocate that

this is the only rational course of action — Jeremiah

You take rationality as a pivot. If someone does not your argument breaks down. That is the point. You continuously conflate my claim of an objective reality not being achievable with the claim that I, personally ought to (for some reason) choose a very rare and unusual set of pivots to be consistent. I do not know why you do that

I sent you 3 texts. The first one was begging you to stop trolling me IN THREAD and to instead do it in pm. The second was expressing how I saw the situation. I said you were trolling and trying to pleasure yourself off of my ignorance without helping. The last was a statement of fact about how after all your troll posts were removed, the thread lost a pagefull of "discussion"

Not if you don't make a case, to begin with. If you actually want to cooperate please do so. If you don't leave. This is an open forum, you are expected to actually participate and not ridicule. There is nothing paradoxical about me expecting moral conduct from myself and others (as I am currently doing) and me saying that an objective moral conduct is impossible. I am moral but do not need a God or a universal principle to tell me to be so. It is a choice. It is that simple. This will be my last comment to you as you clearly are not intent on changing your attitude

Please try to stay on topic, you are derailing the thread.

Clearly, I cannot tell you what Buddha has experienced. Nor am I in a position to define objective reality myself. My point is that to experience objective reality, thus transcending the human experience, if it is at all possible, is not trivial and will probably take a lifetime of dedication. Those who may have gotten close, at the very least closer than I, did not return with the message that nothing has meaning. While this isn't conclusive evidence, it is enough for me to accept the possibility of inherent meaning.

There is a bit of nuance here. I do not define objective as impossible for anyone to disagree with I defined it as "What exists regardless of what anyone thinks about it". I then proceeded to show that objectivity is impossible to achieve as one never knows when he has it as you said — khaled

Well of course. If you have defined objectivity as independent from thinking then objectivity is clearly not what is achieved by thinking. That's self-evident.

When I say "an objective knowledge/morality/value doesn't exist" that is a fault of mine. I really should be saying is "an objective knowledge/morality/value is unachievable to man". That is all my argument is about. Whether or not it exists I don't care because we will never achieve it — khaled

Yes, when you define "objective" in that way, such that whatever is objective is necessarily independent from thinking, then clearly objectivity cannot be something achieved by human thinking.

My point is it is paradoxical to say someone has experienced objective reality because experience is always subjective. The Buddha could not have possibly known that he has reached "the end of the road". Or at least that's what I think about it

But this is the meaning of objectivity as it is usually used. Ask a scientist about why particles interact in this way or that and he will say that "It is an objective nature of reality". Ask a religious fundamentalist why he thinks God exists and he will say "It is an objective nature of reality". My definition is what most people use and as it is used it is impossible.

On the other hand, objectivity defined as "Agreed upon by multiple subjective observers due to the persuasiveness of evidence and practicality". Then yes many many objective things exist. I don't know why whenever people hear "skeptic" or "nihilist" they assume that individual is critiquing this second type of objective when they are critiquing the first most of the time.

While I do not think it is paradoxical, as I do not see the impossibility of objective experience as a proven fact, I understand your point. However, Buddha was an example. If, as we have agreed, even a person like Buddha, who dedicated his entire life to transcendence of the human experience, cannot present us with indisputable evidence of the nature of reality, then who are we, as ignorant as we are of the true nature of reality, to claim the contrary?

But this is the meaning of objectivity as it is usually used. Ask a scientist about why particles interact in this way or that and he will say that "It is an objective nature of reality". Ask a religious fundamentalist why he thinks God exists and he will say "It is an objective nature of reality". — khaled

I don't really agree with you on this. "Objective", as employed in science, refers to method, standards, conventions, norms. So this sense of "objective" refers to agreement amongst subjects, and is really what is called by philosophers "inter-subjectivity". "Objective nature of reality" is a philosophical phrase, not a scientific one.

My definition is what most people use and as it is used it is impossible. — khaled

Since there are many different ways in which "objective" is used, there is no such thing as the way most people use it, there is no single convention for how it ought to be used. If you want to define "objective" in such a way that objectivity is impossible, that's OK, but what is the point? If you equivocate, and conflate two distinct definitions, such that objectivity is not possible, your argument doesn't really represent how anyone actually uses "objective".

On the other hand, objectivity defined as "Agreed upon by multiple subjective observers due to the persuasiveness of evidence and practicality". Then yes many many objective things exist. I don't know why whenever people hear "skeptic" or "nihilist" they assume that individual is critiquing this second type of objective when they are critiquing the first most of the time. — khaled

But this is the way that "objective" is used in science, the method is agreed upon by many subjective observers, such that the knowledge produced is "objective" in that sense. Now you cannot take a sense of "objective" employed in philosophy, which refers to something independent of thought, and claim that this is how "objective" is used when people say that science produces objective knowledge.

To YOU the coffee pot is empty because of 2 things

1-Senses are reliable
2-I sense a coffee pot — khaled

No, that is not how it goes.I don't make an argument. I don't make assumptions. I see that the coffee has run out, and I make more coffee. It's not that senses are reliable, it's that that's all there is. Logic can't even get me to the toilet when I want to piss. As to the schizophrenic or the genetic disorder or anyone else who finds themselves living in another world, I have nothing to say to them, because there is no commonality on which to base communication. Perhaps it is they who live in 'the real world', but I live in this one, and I talk about this one.

yes and what I'm saying is, there is no way to disagree with someone who lives "in another world" (you just admitted this) ergo relativism. Most people that "share worlds" so to say think very much alike and are usually convinced by the same logic and reasoning. It's the people from other worlds that are the problem. There is no way to bridge these worlds is my basic argument here and that is the definition of relativism. You can only tell someone they're wrong in your world.

I'm not using it to mean when people say objective in the science. I'm using it to mean when they use it in religion or ethics debates. In THOSE cases everyone uses the definition of objective as "what is there regardless of what anyone thinks about it" and pretends they have the answer. And even in the sciences it is very often that scientists themselves conflate "inter subjective" with that definition of objective and those are the people I'm targeting.

I started this thread asking people to change my mind by doing exactly that, show me this "experience of objective reality". Since no one has found this experience it is reasonable to assume it doesn't exist until proven otherwise

There are some who claim to have experienced it, and such persons are revered in many places on Earth, but it is up to you whether you believe them or not. Other than that, I would argue the nihilistic point of view is all but reasonable. You're claiming something so central to the human experience does not exist, you're also denying the possibility of its existence beyond the human experience, which is an area you and I are completely ignorant of, and you are dismissing any claims of those who have made very thorough attempts at finding the truth. I wouldn't call that any more reasonable than a person who claims that there is nothing beyond our universe, despite not being a scientist and despite scientists' educated guesses that there might be more.

Reasonable would be to accept that we have no idea.

Furthermore, what would be the purpose of your assumption? Will you now act in accordance to your beliefs that nothing has value and morality that doesn't exist? I doubt it. Do you think it is a constructive model upon which our society should be built? For much the same reasons, I doubt it. The only purpose I can think of that such an assumption would serve is personal comfort. Perhaps some prefer to feign certainty than to accept doubt. Perhaps it is comforting to some individuals that they can project their own perceived meaninglessness on others. But I am open to hearing other grounds for your assumption.

I'm not using it to mean when people say objective in the science. I'm using it to mean when they use it in religion or ethics debates. In THOSE cases everyone uses the definition of objective as "what is there regardless of what anyone thinks about it" and pretends they have the answer. And even in the sciences it is very often that scientists themselves conflate "inter subjective" with that definition of objective and those are the people I'm targeting. — khaled

OK, so we're back to what I said earlier.

"Yes, when you define "objective" in that way, such that whatever is objective is necessarily independent from thinking, then clearly objectivity cannot be something achieved by human thinking."

Now my question is, when you define objectivity in this way, why would you expect to find objectivity in logic, which is a case of human thinking? You have given examples of how objectivity is impossible to obtain with logic, but you have defined "objective" such that it is self-evident that objectivity cannot be obtained by human thinking, and logic is a form of human thinking.

What is the point of this thread? Here's what you stated in the op:

The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled

All these things, value, knowledge, and morality, are known to be the products of human thought. Now you define "objective" as independent from human thought. So what are you questioning? Are you wondering whether value, knowledge, and morality could exist independently of human thought? How could that be possible?

you're also denying the possibility of its existence beyond the human experience — Tzeentch

Incorrect. I am claiming that going beyond the human experience is impossible and so anyone who claims to have experienced that "objective meaning" is lying. I will believe them if they show it to me but no one has

Will you now act in accordance to your beliefs that nothing has value and morality that doesn't exist? I doubt it. Do you think it is a constructive model upon which our society should be built? — Tzeentch

You are once again conflating my beliefs. I don't believe nothing has value. I believe nothing has objective value as defined above. I am a contractarian when it comes to morality. I believe it is nothing more than a contract that maximized survival. Yes I believe atheism and nihilism are great grounds for modeling society because then people will no longer hold on to dogmatic beliefs but instead will design morality to be whatever fits the situation the best (that's what they've always been doing anyways but now they'll admit it)

Other grounds for my assumption? How about the fact that morality, value and knowledge despite being so "objective" supposedly have seen drastic changes from the Jews in old times building their houses on the bodies of their first born children to today when even teachers are not allowed to harm children. The grounds of my belief are the fact that there has never been an objective knowledge/value/morality for more than a few hundred years. I find YOUR claims for their existence the ones in severe need for grounds. Explain your objective morality to ISIS and see if they agree.

Perhaps some prefer to feign certainty than to accept doubt. — Tzeentch

Nihilism is being certain that there will always be doubt. It is the definition of accepting doubt. I will always believe there is doubt until someone can derive a morality out of purely self evident premises

Perhaps it is comforting to some individuals that they can project their own perceived meaninglessness on others — Tzeentch

Now you're just being cynical. The goal of this post is to get people to change my mind not for me to impose anything on others. Also, are you seriously suggesting that nihilism is a COMFORTING belief???? COMFORTING out of all things? Trust me from someone who used to be religious I did NOT find nihilism comforting