charon » February 10th, 2019, 4:25 am wrote:[The essential difference, of course, is that moon is actual
No, that is just an idea!
![]() |
![]() |
charon » February 10th, 2019, 4:25 am wrote:[The essential difference, of course, is that moon is actual
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
TheVat » February 10th, 2019, 2:47 am wrote:A_Seagull » February 9th, 2019, 12:20 am wrote:charon » February 9th, 2019, 3:46 pm wrote:No, that's just an idea. Ideas aren't the answer.
Perhaps not, but as suggested in the OP: in philosophy, ideas are everything.
An atom is an idea, even reality is an idea. Without those ideas no one would have any idea (or knowledge) that they existed.
Isn't there a reality which exists independently of our ideas about it? A physicist at CERN isn't firing two beams of idea at each other. And science works so well (when you board a jet, or undergo medical procedure you seem to accept this) because it refines our perceptions of the regularities in that reality.
Few are interested in solipsism.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
People typically do not differentiate between ‘the world’ and its perception.
The sum total of the perceptions of the world constitute a model of the world; all that one knows of the world is a model.
So when one refers to ‘the world’ one is really referring to one’s model of the world. And while this model is only a model, it does enable one to interact effectively with the world (or model of the world) in order to meet one’s basic needs
In this way the model of the world can be considered to be ‘real’.
While everyone’s model of the world is different from everyone else’s, there is enough commonality for meaningful communication to take place
An illusion is created through having a temporary fault with the sense organs
This is how it can be identified as an illusion and be distinguished from one's useful model of the world.
So there is a qualitative difference between a model of the world and an illusion that is sufficient to conclude that the world, or at least one’s model of the world, is not an illusion.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » February 10th, 2019, 9:01 am wrote:If ideas are everything, right down to atoms, then there can be no beginning to go back to, and nothing to philosophize about, except the self-generated ideas of a self-generated philosopher who can't even presume that he himself is real. If you gaze at your navel too long, there is a danger of falling in.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
A_Seagull » February 9th, 2019, 10:39 pm wrote:\What I said was that philosophy is about ideas and that the idea of an atom is an idea.
Perhaps not, but as suggested in the OP: in philosophy, ideas are everything.
An atom is an idea, even reality is an idea. Without those ideas no one would have any idea (or knowledge) that they existed.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » February 10th, 2019, 4:43 pm wrote:A_Seagull » February 9th, 2019, 10:39 pm wrote:\What I said was that philosophy is about ideas and that the idea of an atom is an idea.
What you said was:Perhaps not, but as suggested in the OP: in philosophy, ideas are everything.
An atom is an idea, even reality is an idea. Without those ideas no one would have any idea (or knowledge) that they existed.
Okay. So you have the idea of reality.
Show me how you go about testing it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
A_Seagull » February 10th, 2019, 12:43 am wrote:
[testing an idea of reality,]
Two ways really:
1. Is it the best theory to fit the available data?
It shouldn't be too hard to argue ,
for example, that the concept of a real exterior world is superior to both virtual reality and a brain-in-a-vat.
2. Pragmatic considerations. Does the belief in the reality of an exterior world facilitate the fulfilment of one's basic needs (and other needs come to that)? I rather suspect that a non-belief in the reality of an exterior world might severely hamper this.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
What I said was that philosophy is about ideas and that the idea of an atom is an idea.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
charon » February 10th, 2019, 11:27 am wrote:Serpent -
The moon, or anything else, is a reality unless one is mad. The word, the idea, the concept, the explanation, the description, is something else entirely. If one can't tell the difference, too bad.
Our minds are very clever, they can invent anything. One of these things is this brain-in-a-vat idea. It's brilliant, it's unprovable. Except for one thing, our mind has invented it. So it's a thing of the mind which can invent something.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
charon » February 10th, 2019, 11:30 am wrote:Not at all, one's model of the world may be all right on a basic level. Mental cases can get up, dress themselves, and function fairly normally on a day to day basis. But they may be completely screwed mentally. They might be depressed or paranoid and think people mean them harm them, etc etc. Or want to kill others, like serial killers. In other words they still see the sky, the clouds, the cars and the people as we all do, but interaction with the world is much more complex than that.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » February 11th, 2019, 1:55 am wrote:A_Seagull » February 10th, 2019, 12:43 am wrote:
[testing an idea of reality,]
Two ways really:
1. Is it the best theory to fit the available data?
As compared to what? Data available, how? You start from an idea - one idea: .
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
My point wasn't that you can't tell the difference between the word and the thing. It's that the word, and the idea, exist because the thing is real - can exist and needs to exist only because the thing is real. The perception>idea>word>communication (encoding and transmission of idea) are part of the relationship between a real thing and a real intelligence. The thing can exist independently of the idea and the intelligence that generates ideas. The intelligence can exist independently of that thing and that idea. But the perception, the idea and the word link the intelligence to the thing.
The word is how an intelligence transmits its experience of the thing to another intelligence. Reality can exist quite happily without ideas and words, but it can't be discussed without words.
That's why the integrity of words is crucial to productive thought.
You've just proved that our minds don't invent anything. A brain exists. A vat exists. You can imagine putting them together in a configuration that hasn't been actualized (yet), but you haven't invented a new thing that's not from reality-as-found.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
A_Seagull » February 10th, 2019, 5:34 pm wrote:
No, you start with a number of possible ideas which you then compare with each other based upon the purely logical criteria of simplicity and accuracy.
The simplicity of the idea or theory can be determined by the amount of data needed to describe it.
The accuracy of the theory can be determined by how well it can recreate the data and how that compares with the actual data.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
charon » February 10th, 2019, 5:49 pm wrote:Okay, but you've only described what we know goes on anyway. It's not new ground. You're just describing a known process, like describing how a computer works.
You're putting a different spin on the word invent. We do invent things, obviously. I'm not saying we take them from anywhere unknown. We can't, obviously, the brain simply re-configures known things.
But you haven't really answered the brain-in-a-vat riddle, that's the point. It's quite right to point out that everything we're experiencing might be an illusion of a brain in a vat or a simulation of some kind. It might be, and the point of it is that we wouldn't know, right? It's an insoluble puzzle.
What I'm saying is that it's not insoluble if one's aware of the way the brain operates subjectively.
If I know that my mind is creating things which aren't factual they cease to have any importance. Lunacy begins when we start taking our own mental concepts seriously, especially harmful ones.
Put it this way, if no one ever thought about the brain-in-a-vat it wouldn't exist. Simple as that really.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
It doesn't (exist), probably. But it could.
How do you find out?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » February 11th, 2019, 10:54 am wrote:A_Seagull » February 10th, 2019, 5:34 pm wrote:
No, you start with a number of possible ideas which you then compare with each other based upon the purely logical criteria of simplicity and accuracy.
The simplicity of the idea or theory can be determined by the amount of data needed to describe it.
The accuracy of the theory can be determined by how well it can recreate the data and how that compares with the actual data.
Actual data - in my world-view, anyway - come from external reality.
Where does your testing information come from?
Have you not, simply by using the words 'actual' and 'data', presumed the existence of an objective reality?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I think you make too ammy assumptions about the whole biv thought experiment ... it is a thought experiment.
To suggest that we are just a disembodied brain is untrue
The physical reality is the brain and body are one thing and if we could replicate all the required brain input (as suggested in this thought experiment and many others) we’d likely have no need to ask several thousand questions we have about human consciousness and brain function.
I’d add too that there is no “side”
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests