Debate mk.III: The Real World (no spam please)

[frogus]

Alright, here's another one. It might be a bit abstract to last long, and might not flare up passion like Marriage, Why Worship God etc...but here you go:

IS THERE A 'REAL WORLD' i.e. IS THERE A WORLD WHICH EXISTS INDEPENDANT OF HUMANS?

or is the universe only a collection of sensory observations?
can something exist without being observed to exist?
does the tree falling alone make a noise?
is 'I think therefore I am' all we really know?
does the universe neccesarily exist outside your own head?

(@fable, I hope this discussion will persuade you that the Matrix really is a good movie )

[Nightmare]

Originally posted by frogus
(@fable, I hope this discussion will persuade you that the Matrix really is a good movie )

Amen to that!

Who knows if there is a "real world" or not? Maybe we are, say, a fleating daydream of a flea? Are we the dream, or the dreamers?

I personally think that there is are real world, that the world can and will exist without us.

[Aegis]

Just for my sake, are you asking if we really exist?

[frogus]

I believe that 'I think therefore I am' proves undeniably that I exist. As for you, you can say the same thing and conclude that you exist, but we cannot do it for oneanother.
Two interesting books on the subject are Heinlein's Sci-Fi classic 'The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathon Hoag' and Nietzsche's 'Twilight of the Idols', the latter being a little more serious (though also a great deal less coherent) than the former.

anyway, to put us back on track;

Can we really prove anything other than that we (as selves) exist?
If we cannot, can we ever really know anything, and if we cannot, is there any chance that any of our actions will be good?
Is the concept of good and evil dead if we believe that nothing else exists in a permanent and eternal form except for ourselves?

[Curdis]

deja vu - existentialism AGAIN

frogus,

The whole range of these issues were touched upon in 'The relevence of Philosophy' thread.

The first issue is the observer as a single consciousness and the means of securing proof/truth/external stimuli. It all grinds to a halt and bogs down right here unless one starts to make some assumptions about being in a 'real world'.

I have never seen a coherent 'proof' that the 'real world' exists. More to the point defining where our living consciousness is physically 'located' is problematic AND recent cognative theories suggest that what we believe is the conscious is pretty much a subconscious brain invention to keep our conscious selves (egos) out of trouble/happy (Think of the Conscious ego as being like the pilot of a fly by wire plane, it is making control inputs, and getting appropriate feedback, but when it comes right down to it something else is flying the plane). Unfortunately to even get here we have to assume that there is a 'real world'.

The second issue is the anthropomorphic principle. Even once we assume that there is a 'real world' external to ourselves, there are other similar conscious entities in the external 'real world' and that there is the shared collective definition of 'the universe' (='real world'), does it have a sensible meaningful existence without us the beholder? That the 'real world' exists without an observer is really a secondary point. What make a rock a rock? It is a model that our individual consciousnesses construct and we share a collective definition of (that we are taught as children- etc.) take away the consciousness and we take away the meaning and indeed the means for anything to have a meaning (as such). Things may still exist, but without us to define them they don't have a meaningful existence!

Can we really prove anything other than that we (as selves) exist?

Not until we assume a few things so - NO. BTW Decarte's Cogito is disputable (Although who is having the dispute and with whom becomes immediately problematic ).

If we cannot, can we ever really know anything, and if we cannot, is there any chance that any of our actions will be good?

See my synopsis below. This is mental porrige, it turns on the word 'really'. There is no proof, there is no guarantee - but 'if you are cut do you not bleed?'. There is no definitional process which can not be disputed. So if 'real' proof is required (beyond the acceptance of a shared collective reality) we are lost, because all shared meaning - hence all 'real' meaning is lost.

Is the concept of good and evil dead if we believe that nothing else exists in a permanent and eternal form except for ourselves?

This is the same as the previous question (or at least my answer is the same. To the symantics - 'we believe' -You are assuming the collective so good and evil is not dead (it is part of the shared collective reality, which we are taught about as children - etc). Where does 'permanent and eternal' come into the arguement? If you recast the question as 'Is the concept of good and evil dead if *I* believe that nothing else exists apart from myself?' Then the answer is - the concept of good and evil is alive or dead depending on your particular personal definitions, HOWEVER if you try to project this onto the collective be prepared for some real problems.

So my synopsis is this: Don't concern yourself with issue one or two. In any question just add them to the list of assumptions being made. I recommend that you look at your assumptions rigourously and regularily in any (intellectual) endeavour, just don't get hung up on them.

BTW you aren't using this to write your philosophy papers are you ? - Curdis !

[Lazarus]

yadda-yadda-yadda-philosophy-yadda-yadda

@frogus: the only reasonable response to your query is: if you don't exist, then there is no reason for me to be discussing this with you.