Yes & no. It's true that anything non-physical cannot be perceived via our physical sensory organs. Yet Metaphysics (at least in my definition) is not about Perception but Conception. By using our power of conception (to give birth to novelties), we can create mental images (abstractions) of things that are not there, and we can "see" into the future by conceptually projecting current trends. So metaphysics may be impossible for lower animals, but humans do it all the time.David Hume (non-verbatim) says doing metaphysics is impossible because what is beyond the physical cannot be perceived. — Samuel Lacrampe
You wonder if the perception is true or false, i.e. if the oasis is real or merely an hallucination — Samuel Lacrampe
This is missing the point (which admittedly with hindsight is unsurprising when using the desert example). We could have used the perception of a unicorn in a room instead. If I am the only subject, then I would second-guess my perception, but if many subjects perceive the same unicorn, then it is reasonable to suppose that it is real, until given a reason to believe otherwise.What they wonder is whether or not what they see is a mirage, which is a form of illusion, not a hallucination. — unenlightened
Samuel Lacrampe
777
↪unenlightened ↪Frank Apisa Hello.
What they wonder is whether or not what they see is a mirage, which is a form of illusion, not a hallucination.
— unenlightened
This is missing the point (which admittedly with hindsight is unsurprising when using the desert example). We could have used the perception of a unicorn in a room instead. If I am the only subject, then I would second-guess my perception, but if many subjects perceive the same unicorn, then it is reasonable to suppose that it is real, until given a reason to believe otherwise. — Samuel Lacrampe
This is missing the point (which admittedly with hindsight is unsurprising when using the desert example). We could have used the perception of a unicorn in a room instead. — Samuel Lacrampe
True. Unless you have confirmed before that the crowd is real (through interacting with them in the past, or seeing, hearing and touching them, etc). Let's say that's the case here.if one can hallucinate a unicorn, one can surely equally hallucinate a crowd of other people — unenlightened
I agree only when it comes to votes based on opinions without reason. Otherwise, we do this all the time, and reasonably so. If 9 out 10 cancer experts claim you have cancer, is this not grounds to take the claim more seriously than if it was 1 out of 10?The idea that reality is to be decided by a vote is repugnant. — unenlightened
But some things CAN be perceived. And the PUP connects the perception to conclusions about reality, which is metaphysics. — Samuel Lacrampe
Samuel Lacrampe
781
↪Frank Apisa
Still missing the point. Let's tweet the story some more.
Replace unicorn with horse; replace room with "field on the other side of the fence" (so that you cannot verify its existence by touching it). You still wouldn't believe it is real? — Samuel Lacrampe
I think I understand your point, that to quantify the likelihood or probability of hallucination demands a reference that must be more certain. But rather than using Probability, I am using Complexity of the explanation to appeal to the Principle of Parsimony. Regardless of the probability, the explanation that the object is real is simpler than the explanation of collective hallucination, because it would also need to explain where the hallucination comes from, and how come it is so consistent among all subjects etc.You say a collective hallucination is "less likely" but what is that judgement based on? If you're basing it on empirical research on hallucinations, then you're just referencing another phenomenon, which might be just as illusory as any other. — Echarmion
It seems I have trouble clarifying to you what I think Hume is saying. But in a way it is not relevant, for the point of the OP is not to determine if I answer Hume's problem, but if the PUP is a valid principle.Anyway, I would like to be clearer about what exactly is the position you're attributing to Hume before considering whether what you are proposing is or is not an answer to it. — Nagase
Problem: David Hume (non-verbatim) says doing metaphysics is impossible because what is beyond the physical cannot be perceived. — Samuel Lacrampe
Sounds good; I accept the correction on Hume's position. Then the PUP also solves that new problem; that the actual objects can reasonably be predicted if the perceptions are consistent among the subjects.Hume notes that the only things we can perceive are perceptions (i.e. internal and perishing existences), but the vulgar confuse perceptions with actual objects; that is, they confuse representations with what is actually represented. — Wolfman
I think I understand your point, that to quantify the likelihood or probability of hallucination demands a reference that must be more certain. But rather than using Probability, I am using Complexity of the explanation to appeal to the Principle of Parsimony. Regardless of the probability, the explanation that the object is real is simpler than the explanation of collective hallucination, because it would also need to explain where the hallucination comes from, and how come it is so consistent among all subjects etc. — Samuel Lacrampe
Sounds good; I accept the correction on Hume's position. Then the PUP also solves that new problem; that the actual objects can reasonably be predicted if the perceptions are consistent among the subjects. — Samuel Lacrampe
Samuel Lacrampe
786
↪Frank Apisa
This is admittedly nitpicky, but doesn't "knowing" imply certainty? Math is indeed certain. But for the horse story, there is the alternative possibility of collective hallucination (though of course nobody in their right mind would choose it I think).
That aside, whether we use the word belief or knowledge, it sounds like it is a yes. Now consider 2 scenarios with 10 subjects trying to determine if there is a horse in a field:
(1) 9 out of 10 subjects see a horse; the other 1 does not.
(2) 1 out of 10 subjects see a horse; the other 9 do not.
In which of the 2 scenarios is it more reasonable to believe the horse is real? — Samuel Lacrampe
Now consider 2 scenarios with 10 subjects trying to determine if there is a horse in a field:
(1) 9 out of 10 subjects see a horse; the other 1 does not.
(2) 1 out of 10 subjects see a horse; the other 9 do not.
In which of the 2 scenarios is it more reasonable to believe the horse is real? — Samuel Lacrampe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.