Then your argument serves no purpose in this discussion. I'm looking for proof. If you cannot offer it, then there really isn't room for you here. Apologies for being a bit cold.
However, someone might be able to convince you that "effective" reality (rather than "absolute" reality) exists by relentlessly poking you with a sharp stick until you agreed that effective reality is all that really matters. Inwardly you might complain that nothing was really proven because pain is just a feeling and it might all be a dream, but the point of the stick is the point of the stick.
Point taken. Ouch! Roz
0 Replies
Logicus
1
Reply
Wed 24 Jul, 2013 01:51 pm
@rosborne979,
Yes. That is the whole point of the argument. You're version of, "reality" would be the stick. What I'm trying to state is that it isn't a stick, but a simulation of something poking you.
But I do agree that something is poking you. That part is mutually agreed on.
0 Replies
neologist
1
Reply
Wed 24 Jul, 2013 01:57 pm
@Logicus,
What we are saying with the pain illustration is,
from the point of view of naive realism, what is, is.
In our everyday lives, we are (mostly) all naive realists.
Science always begins with doubt. Doubt of common sense. Einstein said, I think, "Common sense is the accumulation of prejudices until the age of eighteen."
0 Replies
neologist
1
Reply
Wed 24 Jul, 2013 02:02 pm
@Logicus,
Logicus, answering Lusty wrote:
Then your argument serves no purpose in this discussion. I'm looking for proof. If you cannot offer it, then there really isn't room for you here. Apologies for being a bit cold.
Have you taken into account the myriad definitions of reality from which your question may be approached? Lusty has more to offer than you give credit.
That is what I'm asking you to prove. Not that the computer simulations could be our reality, but to prove if things aren't simulations.
My point was if the simulation is itself the only thing, then it simulates nothing other then what itself is, n thus what is, is WHAT IS REAL ! Hope you get it now Log...
If you think ontological issues (re"existence") are the exclusive province of what we call "science" you might as well try to play football using the rules of tennis!
I have given you a Wittgensteinian analysis of the word "illusion" following his adage "meaning is usage". In that way he showed that many so-called "philosophical problems" such as the one you attempt to pose, can be dissipated as "pseudo-problems".
It isn't the only thing. For simulations to happen, you need someone, or something running it.
0 Replies
Logicus
1
Reply
Wed 24 Jul, 2013 02:07 pm
@fresco,
Science and philosophy are closely related. Science focuses on how, and philosophy focuses on why. They require each other to be efficient. At least you agree to that, hopefully.
My question, or rather, request was to hear an argument for the existence of things. I am not certain, but it seems like he did not offer anything.
The answer from the beginning has been naive realism provides practical certainty, whereas from the epistemilogical aproach you have uncertainty (mostly).
I guess I'm taking the epistemilogical approach then. These terms are very confusing. Apologies.
0 Replies
rosborne979
1
Reply
Wed 24 Jul, 2013 02:23 pm
@Logicus,
Logicus wrote:
Yes. That is the whole point of the argument. You're version of, "reality" would be the stick. What I'm trying to state is that it isn't a stick, but a simulation of something poking you.
And I'm going beyond that by asking does it really matter if it's a stick or a simulation (or a dream, or something you don't understand).
To dwell in the purely academic only seems worthwhile if the end result is some increase in knowledge, but for those of us who have been down this road many times before, the end result is accepting a state of not being able to know anything for certain, and then recognizing that functional realities are more meaningful and informative than absolute realities.
Science and philosophy are closely related. Science focuses on how, and philosophy focuses on why. They require each other to be efficient. At least you agree to that, hopefully.
