If reality were subjective, meaning that it was different for everyone, then debating it would be unnecessary. It would mean that the things that are true for me are not true for you, and vice versa. It would make it impossible for you to tell me that I am wrong and also impossible for me to do the same to you. It would mean that there is no one single reality, but in fact about 7 billion realities that each have their own truths. New age spiritualists might embrace this way of thinking, but the religious crowd definitely does not. Neither does the rationalist crowd, which makes the following statement a direct challenge to religions of all types.
Religion relies on a shared, objective reality because, without such a framework, it would be impossible to educate people about the "Truth." The spread of religion would be in vain. Likewise, rationalists simply deduce a shared objective reality because the conclusion of subjective realities would lead to paradoxes of juxtaposed scientific findings, and also because solipsism is a masturbatory exercise.
Now we must tackle the task of determining what this shared objective reality is; what are its rules, what are its truths? Asking "why" would be a silly endeavor without first knowing exactly "what" it is we are dealing with. In fact, if you are of the opinion (as I am) that we are in a predicament these days with regards to clashing views of reality, it is precisely because we tried to answer the "why" before we understood the "what."
Let's define reality as the realm of fact upon which we can make statements that are true. For instance, we can make the following statement: the Earth is spheroid in shape. This is clearly a statement that can either be true or false, and in this case it is true. We know it is true because we can measure it in many different ways; the length of shadows at various points along its surface, the shadow the Earth poses on the Moon, the view from satellites in orbit, the horizon, etc. Theists propose the following statement: a supreme being, called god, exists. This statement can have only one of two possible answers: true or false. The question is of how to measure it.
The problem now is that in order to measure for a god so that this claim can be validated, the god must be defined in such a way that a definitive ruling can be made. Theists are not willing to do this. They claim exemption to the rule of reality, pleading that a statement can be true, even if it cannot be verified in any way. This kind of thinking is lacking in any kind of rigor. Anything can be supposed in the place of god and it will thus have the same qualifications.
Using this model of deduction, there are two possible problems; either a statement is impossible to verify (such as the god proposition) or it is too complicated to verify (such as suppositions on the origin of interpersonal love). The difference between these two is that for the first, an answer can never be reached, for the second, an answer CAN be reached, it just needs a little time for the right techniques and technologies to be developed. For these, it is better to lean towards verifiable statements and hold off on claiming any more than that.
For statements that are impossible to verify, from a rationalist standpoint, they are better off not even being made. Because they cannot be verified, it is impossible to assert one statement over a similar-but-conflicting one. All unverifiable statements are equally worthless in rational debate, reasoned thinking, explanatory review, and strategy.
This all brings us back to objective reality and how we all live within it, sharing experiences with things that exist for everyone. How, then, do we explain things that a single person experiences while nobody else does? How do we explain deeply personal beliefs which cannot be verified using the deductive model of truth when the possessor insists upon their validity? Nobody wants to hear the answer.
The answer is that such experiences are only useful in understanding the world within the context of neurological phenomenon, not reflections of reality. That's just a roundabout way of saying that they're all in your head. To push the boundary of influence of these personal experiences beyond your own brain, you are forced to make a statement about shared reality; one that can be verified. One that can be falsified. And you will have to live with the answer that measurement produces.
"The answer is that such experiences are only useful in understanding the world within the context of neurological phenomenon, not reflections of reality." As a student of neuroscience, I must ask you where do you draw this line? Are not neurological phenomenon themselves parts of the "reality," born from/contiguous with this "reality?" How are they any less real just because they exist within rather than without a person? Is grass really green? No, it has no color. Color is imposed my the physical structures of our minds, and not everybody experiences the same colors! Are you not therefore limiting "truth" to what you can convince other people to buy in to? Doesn't science show us "paradoxes of juxtaposed scientific findings" constantly, (example would be theoretical physics over the past 100 years - form bohr model to wavicles and relativity)? Physical experimentation requires interpretation! The statement "the earth is a sphere" is not true! to say it is "spheroid" introduces and hides the element of the gradient so you can seem to make a meaningful categorical statement (true/false) about it. What eccentricity will you accept for a "spheroid" object? What about surface deviations and elevation changes? The point is that the more precise you try to make your definitions, the more you have to approximate reality. This is rationalism, which is a system for stringently including and encoding all of experience into symbolic constructions to introduce verification and normativity... enabling a(n exaggerated) sense of shared reality and the destruction of internal aspect of "real" experience. Rationalism is prostitution of the imaginary (image) to the symbolic (linguistic-verbal), yielding "hallucination" of the real (as you say, "its all in your head"). The map is not the territory my friend.
ReplyDelete"As a student of neuroscience, I must ask you where do you draw this line? Are not neurological phenomenon themselves parts of the 'reality,' born from/contiguous with this 'reality?'"
ReplyDeleteAlso being a student of neuroscience, we cannot confirm what we perceive via "neurological phenomena" is the truth about reality. We can make the assumption that since we evolved in this universe, the tools we use to interact with our environment must be a relatively accurate representation.
"Doesn't science show us 'paradoxes of juxtaposed scientific findings' constantly"
Most certainly, science is a human form of knowledge, without humans, science wouldn't exist. This also means that human biases and incentives can skew research and findings. Science also heavily relies on inductive reasoning, which is why we are constantly discovering new "truths" about the universe and also how models and theories are constantly being modified. However, we are looking at the micro effects of science and not the macro. The macro effects demonstrate that over time, as research, knowledge, and understanding accumulate, the probability of a theory or model being fundamentally wrong decreases. For example, we can claim that evolution via natural selection is a truth about this universe, however using the word "truth" in this sense isn't what it means colloquially. Any time someone mentions a theory or model as "truth" I replace that word with "probably true."
Obviously, our perceptions can only observe a small piece of the "true" universe, but what we can say is that when we conduct science and build knowledge and understanding over time, a statistically probable "truth" arises based upon our senses. However, this notion is based on the premise that the universal laws do not change over time and permeate throughout the entire universe.
Therefore, I take after Descartes when referencing the only we can truly know about this universe is that we exist. So we have to take a pragmatic look at the universe and make the assumption that the world we perceive is the only truth we can conclude even though we know full well we aren't seeing the complete picture.
Anonymous 1: Color has a very objective wavelength that we refer to when we give it a name. If you want to argue that the same green I see is different to you, then 1) you cannot prove it in any way, thus making it an unverifiable claim and a useless one and 2) you're trying to talk about qualia, which has been debunked by better men than me.
ReplyDeleteBesides, no matter how we define what we are talking about, we are still talking about the SAME THING. The words we use are merely ways for us to communicate; they can either be clear or fuzzy. Doesn't matter. Doesn't change the thing we are referencing. You may decry rationalism, but I have a feeling I'd decry whatever system you subscribe to.
I'd like to refer you to my post from the 7th. ;-)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2011/07/critique-on-possibilian.html?showComment=1315579958692#c5264060534361251417
" you're trying to talk about qualia, which has been debunked by better men than me."
ReplyDeleteEven the most prolific philosophers of mind have been unable to "debunk" qualia. Tell me, of whom are you speaking?
'Even the most prolific philosophers of mind have been unable to "debunk" qualia.'
ReplyDeleteSeveral philosophers and neuroscientists have published criticisms of the qualia concept. Whether you believe they succeed or not is, I suppose, up to your own judgment.