Everything I build starts with the assumption that the experience I have in this moment is real and I’m experiencing it. Everything else is a probabilistic belief. I might have come to exist just now with all my memories implanted, and disappear before I finish writing. Sure I believe that to be unlikely, but the point is that only thing that I feel comfortable claiming as truly real is the instantaneous moment of perception.
I believe with great certainty that laws of physics will keep working tomorrow as they did today, but in the hierarchy that’s a belief based on a belief that the memories of my experiences are real. EDIT:(Clarification, I treat the experience of remembering as real, the belief is that the content of the memory is real)
(I will not argue that instantaneous experience is fundamental and the only thing we can truly know, because it seems fairly self evident to me)
What does that entail
What it means is that the only thing that I value is the quality of that experience. Any system that I promote will be with the assumption that it will maximize my own experiences. Because as I said that’s the only thing I treat as real. While the memories are in a sense a model that predicts the outcomes of my actions using the the inputs from “reality” that I’m experiencing at that moment.
Reality is in quotes because I want to make it clear that my conception of reality is a belief not a statement of truth. In general I do assume that the universe is an external truth that exists without me, but not axiomatically.
In simple terms I’m telling you that I’m a selfish bastard who doesn’t believe that objective morality exists. Fortunately for you though, I for one enjoy the experience of doing good to others. And two believe that the best way to maximize my experiences coincides with a general maximization of the groups experiences. So despite being an internally selfish bastard, I function as an outwardly good person with largely egalitarian beliefs. Subject to change depending on if masses keep voting for people like Trump.
Why do you disagree? (Error theory, I think?)
Now that I have given you description of my beliefs in 340 words instead of 100k words like many philosophy books like to do it. What are your arguments against this very simple, yet in my opinion unquestionable belief system. In so far as I assume that my experiences are largely the same as those of other people. Because our inherent sense of goodness is simply a biological protocol that outcompeted other less fit protocols.
There’s a reason philosophy books are 100k words
Yes, my description is 340 words because I’m not rigorously defining every concept I use. Still most philosophy books are needlessly long and filled with jargon.
Curious how the forums have become a place for folk to set out how things are, rather than a place for discourse.
The reason that those books are so long is that the folk who write them are interested in the discussion, and not just in presenting their opinion. If you are interested in thinking rather then merely in expounding, they may be worth a look.
There are three obvious problems with your account.
Novelty. We are sometimes surprised by things that are unexpected. How is this possible if all that there is, is one’s experiences?
Agreement. You and I agree as to what is the case. How is that possible unless there is something apart from us both, on which to agree?
Error. We sometimes are wrong about how things are. How can this be possible if there is not a way that things are, independent of what we experience?
Finally, if all you have is your own experiences, then your life amounts to a form of onanism, and you will forgive me for avoiding further participation in your activities.
You assume the universe is real without you, but you do not believe it to be axiomatically the case. What is this self you are describing? Your perceptions or your awareness of your perceptions? How does control factor in? Is control important when describing the self? Does a universe therefore exist independent of you when since you cannot control it other than maintaining the pattern that it sets out for you? In short, is awareness a necessary foundation or it an emergent effect?
Curious how the forums have become a place for folk to set out how things are, rather than a place for discourse.
I’m quite literally asking you to attack my position. I guess you can criticize my tone, but I believe I gave fairly good summary of my beliefs that you can respond to.
The reason that those books are so long is that the folk who write them are interested in the discussion, and not just in presenting their opinion. If you are interested in thinking rather then merely in expounding, they may be worth a look.
I’d say most of those folk are interested in prestige that comes with convoluted explanations of simple ideas. Or are simply bad at writing.
Novelty . We are sometimes surprised by things that are unexpected. How is this possible if all that there is, is one’s experiences?
Because as I said, my mind uses past experiences/memories as a model with which to predict future. Surprise is the current input not matching the memory of the future prediction for that input. There being storage of past for continuity doesn’t contradict that my instantaneous experience is fundamentally different than any retention of what inputs I experienced few seconds ago. Unless you want to say that I somehow have the same level of access to the past information as I do present.
Agreement . You and I agree as to what is the case. How is that possible unless there is something apart from us both, on which to agree?
I’m not sure if I’m interpreting right. But assuming that case is just a stand in for some agreement. Just because I think that it’s a belief and lesser than my experience, doesn’t mean that I treat it as if it doesn’t exist at all. I can believe that free will doesn’t exist, while practically function as if it does, for example.
Error . We sometimes are wrong about how things are. How can this be possible if there is not a way that things are, independent of what we experience?
I don’t know. The point is that reality is simply a simulation in my brain of what this supposed reality is. I can only access it as far as I perceive it. I am certain that without my perception I will have no notion of reality, I am not so certain that without reality I will have no perception.
Finally, if all you have is your own experiences, then your life amounts to a form of onanism, and you will forgive me for avoiding further participation in your activities.
What’s the point of this? I clearly stated that practically I live as if there is external truth because that’s what my past experiences tell me. I don’t need certainty to make decisions. Just like it would be enough for you to take a 1% chance of winning a million if it cost you 1 cent.
What is this self you are describing? Your perceptions or your awareness of your perceptions?
What is the difference? How can there be a perception if I’m not aware of it?
How does control factor in? Is control important when describing the self?
I would have to think more on it, but initially I don’t think that it’s important. Control is an aspect of self, but not totality, I can in principle imagine a self without a control. And might even argue that there is no control to begin with, only an illusion of it.
Does a universe therefore exist independent of you when since you cannot control it other than maintaining the pattern that it sets out for you?
Given that I don’t think that control is relevant, the conclusion doesn’t follow by default. But the point I’m making is that universe exists only through my perception. I am certain that without my perception I would have no notion of reality, while I’m not so certain that without reality I would have no notion of perception.
In short, is awareness a necessary foundation or it an emergent effect?
That would simply determine whether or not the universe is an external or internal reality. But I have no way to distinguish between the two, so it doesn’t matter.
Because consciousness consists of a synthesis of the present and the non-present. There is a minimum of persistence in my experiences. As the persistence of the objects of experience, memory acts constantly and gives us something that is no longer there, that has already passed, that is no longer present. Consciousness needs the unconscious to endure. This unconscious is the other side of consciousness. Is not the unconscious the world?
An anti-realist shouldn’t feel comfortable claiming that there is something truly real.
Perception is a lot more than an instantaneous moment. It’s a biological phenomenon that enables animals to identify things in their environment.
When I see a cloud in the sky, a particular kind of experience arises in my conscious awareness, and it goes on as long as I’m looking. It’s like a continuous flow in which the cloud appears, changes form, and moves across the sky independent of my will. I can’t undo or explain away what I see.
So it seems evident that something exists independent of my will, and it’s open for discovery. Hence realism.
Memories, imaginations, or dreams of the cloud are less recalcitrant. They are not fixed by the visible behaviour and whereabouts of a cloud. Instead they are composed of whatever one can remember or imagine about clouds.
I like your concise and bold style, man. This old, British, cup-of-tea philosophy club known as TPF desperately needs more of that.
You are actively seeking a closure of Reality. This is indeed psychologically necessary for action, because thinking is mathematically infinite; without arbitrary closure, it spirals straight into the schizophrenic psychiatric ward. So, if this framework works for you personally, it is inherently valid.
However, on a universal scale—i.e., relative to everything else in Philosophy—the fatal problem is that your core axiom is time-related.
Time is a strict, exclusive property of the Matter category. It does not exist in the more fundamental Quantum category below it. Furthermore, the subsequent categories built above Matter—Life and Thought (i.e., YOU!)—are causally independent of it.
For example: the equation 2+2=4 is a real object of the Thought category, and it clearly has absolutely nothing to do with time. Yes, it is instantiated in your biological brain at a specific time, but that is purely contingent. Its own Being, its structural reality, has nothing to do with time.
There is a lot more to say about the fundamental flaws and truths of an “anti-realist” position, but getting into it here would just trigger another infinite, vapor-weak, cup-of-tea discussion typical of TPF.
An anti-realist shouldn’t feel comfortable claiming that there is something truly real.
From my understanding anti-realism is the rejection of mind independent truths, not rejection of all truths. Otherwise it becomes a nonsensical position.
Perception is a lot more than an instantaneous moment. It’s a biological phenomenon that enables animals to identify things in their environment.
I think perception might not have been the right word to use. Awareness might be the more apt term.
When I see a cloud in the sky, a particular kind of experience arises in my conscious awareness, and it goes on as long as I’m looking. It’s like a continuous flow in which the cloud appears, changes form, and moves across the sky independent of my will. I can’t undo or explain away what I see.
I agree practically, but not philosophically. I’m a physicist I obviously live as if there is an external universe that my mind is interacting with.
So it seems evident that something exists independent of my will, and it’s open for discovery. Hence realism.
I’m not saying that there are not things independent of will. I’m saying that the only thing I can know with certainty is my instantaneous awareness, or that there are no thing independent of awareness. The external universe is downstream of awareness, hence uncertain and dependant on what exactly is awareness. But since I cannot know the true origin of awareness, I also cannot know the true origin of the thing that I perceive as the external universe.
Memories, imaginations, or dreams of the cloud are less recalcitrant. They are not fixed by the visible behaviour and whereabouts of a cloud. Instead they are composed of whatever one can remember or imagine about clouds.
I would say that the act of remembering or imagining the cloud is more real than the cloud. But for all intents and purposes I live as if the cloud is real.
Looks like skepticism based on the false assumption that you never see objects and states of affairs directly, only your own awareness of things. Under that assumption there is no certainty about the reality of anything.
If the object of which you’re aware (e.g. the cloud) is not the cloud but a figment of your brain’s processing of sense-data, then how could you be certain that it is of real sense-data and not just an hallucination? Then, is it an hallucination or are you merely publishing the words “aware of hallucination” like a p-zombie who lacks awareness? In what sense are those words real?
This never-ending skepticism arises under the false assumption that all objects of perception or awareness are mental constructs. But if the assumption was true, then perceptual experiences should not be any different from dreams or imaginations. Unlike a memory or dream, the cloud that I see looks and behaves in ways that I don’t control. It’s evidently independent from the observer. How do I know that the cloud is real? By rejecting the false assumption from which the question arises. Not all objects of which I’m aware are mental. We have direct access to real objects. The cloud that I see is the real cloud.
I cannot be an anti-realist because the terms often used to describe the objects of anti-realist ontology, like “experience” or “awareness”, cannot be proven to refer to anything at all. On the other hand I can observe and explore most objects of the realist ontology. Finally, the mistrust of the rest of the world proves to be a handicap.
You can be an anti-realist about fictions, and at the same time be a realist about facts.
But is time a fiction as the word game suggests? Reality is weird. Past, present, and future may coexist in a fourdimensional space time block. It is also possible that time (and space) emerge from more fundamental phenomena (loop quantum gravity/cosmology).
I shouldn’t have written that post, but anti-realism as framed very much resembles presentism.
As for 4 D block universe, Einstein said it best: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. This signifies nothing. For us believing physicists the distinction past, present, future is a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
“What then is time? If no one asks I know. If I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not.” ~ St. Augustine.
There’s the short essay, The unreality of time. I haven’t read it myself, but it’s sometimes mentioned in casual conversation and in formal discourse.
Lastly, this temporal turn to the thread may not be in the OP’s best interests.
It might come as a surprise to those whose degrees in accounting or engineering have set them up so perfectly to consider philosophical issues, but antirealism is the view that classical binary logic does not apply to the area under consideration. It involves the rejection of bivalence.
It’s also quite coherent to be antirealist in one area but not in another. It’s not a global position.
I completely deny that last bit. If you’re going down that path (a worthy one to explore, yes), then in fact you cannot know that you are experiencing anything real at all. Current information (if it exists at all) is, per our belief, still some time away from your awareness of it. Hence you currently experience only memories of recent (fraction of second) past, which indeed may be implanted per the Last-Tuesday skepticism.
This illustrates the inability to demonstrate that you’re not a Boltzmann Brain since all empirical evidence would be fake news so to speak. You don’t even know if you’re a 3-dimensional being or not. Boltzmann Brains are not just a fringe skeptic argument. They’re a real problem affecting real physical theory. It’s important.
I haven’t figured out what any of this has to do with anti-realism.
This old, British, cup-of-tea philosophy club known as TPF desperately needs more of that.