I know it's related to the idea of an internal reality but if you can't visualize it or anything.
Is it still a meaningful concept or an empty phrase?

asdfjkl wrote:I know it's related to the idea of an internal reality but if you can't visualize it or anything.
Is it still a meaningful concept or an empty phrase?

It's a very good question, actually. One which is only evaded by pretending that 'experience' isn't happening... thus endorsing eliminative materialism to its extreme. The alternative is dualism, which is the crock of all crocks.

Is external reality a meaningful concept?
Yes, the phrase does convey a coherent idea to me.

the PC apeman wrote:Is external reality a meaningful concept?
Yes, the phrase does convey a coherent idea to me.

What's it like, then?

jamest wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:I know it's related to the idea of an internal reality but if you can't visualize it or anything.
Is it still a meaningful concept or an empty phrase?

It's a very good question, actually. One which is only evaded by pretending that 'experience' isn't happening... thus endorsing eliminative materialism to its extreme. The alternative is dualism, which is the crock of all crocks.

Another one hating on the dualism. I mean, I'm just a naive philosopher; but all identity is dual-state due to the illusion of time.

We are just computers of pattern, recognizing it and reinforcing it. "Objective reality" is just an exemplar of the most reinforced pattern.

houseofcantor wrote:

jamest wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:I know it's related to the idea of an internal reality but if you can't visualize it or anything.
Is it still a meaningful concept or an empty phrase?

It's a very good question, actually. One which is only evaded by pretending that 'experience' isn't happening... thus endorsing eliminative materialism to its extreme. The alternative is dualism, which is the crock of all crocks.

Another one hating on the dualism. I mean, I'm just a naive philosopher; but all identity is dual-state due to the illusion of time.

We are just computers of pattern, recognizing it and reinforcing it. "Objective reality" is just an exemplar of the most reinforced pattern.

That doesn't really translate as anything meaningful to me. It's like I'm a blind man and you're trying to explain to me what 'red' is.

Is this a bull shit question? What do blind people think of an external reality? I'll bet they don't even believe it exists.

Grace wrote:Is this a bull shit question? What do blind people think of an external reality? I'll bet they don't even believe it exists.

You think that the sense of sight is directly about the world, but that the other 4+ senses are not?

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:Is external reality a meaningful concept?
Yes, the phrase does convey a coherent idea to me.

What's it like, then?

I explained that recently in a response to Destroyer here.

the PC apeman wrote:... We both have a model, the scientific model as you call it, that has a great deal of coherence and parsimony. Part of this model describes hairless apes/ugly bags of mostly water/humans/what-have-you with central nervous systems that produce what we term internal experiences and the rest of the model we term the external world. ...

We can usefully employ phrases such as "internal experiences" and "external reality" in this model without taking the unnecessary step of taking a stance on whether or not the model portrays any ontological facts.

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:Is external reality a meaningful concept?
Yes, the phrase does convey a coherent idea to me.

What's it like, then?

I explained that recently in a response to Destroyer here.

the PC apeman wrote:... We both have a model, the scientific model as you call it, that has a great deal of coherence and parsimony. Part of this model describes hairless apes/ugly bags of mostly water/humans/what-have-you with central nervous systems that produce what we term internal experiences and the rest of the model we term the external world. ...

We can usefully employ phrases such as "internal experiences" and "external reality" in this model without taking the unnecessary step of taking a stance on whether or not the model portrays any ontological facts.

Why do you think that the 'scientific model' is a model of the world itself? How can it be, when we cannot observe an external world?

Science is about the order inherent within experience. It's just a rational take on events happening within.

Yes. But you need at least one working ear, or eye, or sensors working in your mouth or nose, or functioning nerve endings on your skin. Or be photosensitive (plants etc)

jamest wrote:Why do you think that the 'scientific model' is a model of the world itself?

Where did I make such a claim? My position in these threads, and many others, is that taking any ontological stance (including materialism) is unnecessary. But that doesn't mean that the phrase "external reality" cannot convey a coherent idea. It just means that the issue of whether or not there is an actual referent isn't addressed.

james1v wrote:Yes. But you need at least one working ear, or eye, or sensors working in your mouth or nose, or functioning nerve endings on your skin. Or be photosensitive (plants etc)

1) Every thing that you mentioned, there, is an experienced entity/thing (we are not privy to any entity that is not an experienced entity).

2) Importantly, experienced entities don't have agency. The experienced sun, for example, is not the cause of experienced shadows.

3) Therefore, what we can be certain of, is that experienced entities are not the cause of experience.

4) Therefore, we don't need experienced ears, eyes, or even brains, etc., to experience.

5) Therefore, why are you making stuff up?

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:Why do you think that the 'scientific model' is a model of the world itself?

Where did I make such a claim?

Well, when I asked you what external reality was like, you spoke of the scientific model. This was after you told us that external reality does convey a coherent idea to you.

My position in these threads, and many others, is that taking any ontological stance (including materialism) is unnecessary.

Objection! The moment that you sought to justify the meaning of an 'external reality', is the moment you entered the twilight zone. At that moment, you distinguished between two different realms of existence and were trying to justify the existence of one [of them] - of which you are not privy.

jamest wrote:

james1v wrote:Yes. But you need at least one working ear, or eye, or sensors working in your mouth or nose, or functioning nerve endings on your skin. Or be photosensitive (plants etc)

1) Every thing that you mentioned, there, is an experienced entity/thing (we are not privy to any entity that is not an experienced entity).

2) Importantly, experienced entities don't have agency. The experienced sun, for example, is not the cause of experienced shadows.

3) Therefore, what we can be certain of, is that experienced entities are not the cause of experience.

4) Therefore, we don't need experienced ears, eyes, or even brains, etc., to experience.

5) Therefore, why are you making stuff up?

Headbutt a rock, then make up an expletive.

james1v wrote:

jamest wrote:

james1v wrote:Yes. But you need at least one working ear, or eye, or sensors working in your mouth or nose, or functioning nerve endings on your skin. Or be photosensitive (plants etc)

1) Every thing that you mentioned, there, is an experienced entity/thing (we are not privy to any entity that is not an experienced entity).

2) Importantly, experienced entities don't have agency. The experienced sun, for example, is not the cause of experienced shadows.

3) Therefore, what we can be certain of, is that experienced entities are not the cause of experience.

4) Therefore, we don't need experienced ears, eyes, or even brains, etc., to experience.

5) Therefore, why are you making stuff up?

Headbutt a rock, then make up an expletive.

The experienced rock is not the cause of my experienced pain, Sir. Think about it.

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:Why do you think that the 'scientific model' is a model of the world itself?

Where did I make such a claim?

Well, when I asked you what external reality was like, you spoke of the scientific model. This was after you told us that external reality does convey a coherent idea to you.

Is it your position that a coherent idea must have an actual referent? If not then I'm at a loss to understand how you could read my responses and come up with the questions you do.

My position in these threads, and many others, is that taking any ontological stance (including materialism) is unnecessary.

Objection! The moment that you sought to justify the meaning of an 'external reality', is the moment you entered the twilight zone. At that moment, you distinguished between two different realms of existence and were trying to justify the existence of one [of them] - of which you are not privy.

Objection to you too. I never tried to justify the existence of any elements of the model. It's just a model and not necessarily a model of anything. I think you are reading too much into my posts and not reading enough of what I put in them.

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:
Where did I make such a claim?

Well, when I asked you what external reality was like, you spoke of the scientific model. This was after you told us that external reality does convey a coherent idea to you.

Is it your position that a coherent idea must have an actual referent? If not then I'm at a loss to understand how you could read my responses and come up with the questions you do.

Well, I don't see how an idea can be coherent if you have no idea of what that idea is about. So, if you say that the idea of an external reality is 'coherent' and I ask you what that reality is like, then unless you've got some ideas about what it is like then where's the coherency?

My position in these threads, and many others, is that taking any ontological stance (including materialism) is unnecessary.

Objection! The moment that you sought to justify the meaning of an 'external reality', is the moment you entered the twilight zone. At that moment, you distinguished between two different realms of existence and were trying to justify the existence of one [of them] - of which you are not privy.

Objection to you too. I never tried to justify the existence of any elements of the model.

To be exact, you were trying to justify the notion of an 'external reality'. That is, you said that external reality was coherent to you, which means that the reality of things themselves - beyond their perception - means something to you. When I asked you what 'it' (said reality) was like, you presented us with the scientific model of things. This can only mean that you think scientific discourse is a reflection of [external] reality itself.

It's just a model and not necessarily a model of anything.

Well, as I explained, science is about the order which we can actually observe. Therefore, science is about ~something~... though not about an external reality, as you purported.

I think you are reading too much into my posts and not reading enough of what I put in them.

There are major gaffes in what you have said. External reality cannot be a coherent idea, since we cannot observe it; study it; discern its order; nor even be sure that such a thing exists. Certainly, justifying it with the scientific model, is a major gaffe.

jamest wrote:

james1v wrote:

jamest wrote:
1) Every thing that you mentioned, there, is an experienced entity/thing (we are not privy to any entity that is not an experienced entity).

2) Importantly, experienced entities don't have agency. The experienced sun, for example, is not the cause of experienced shadows.

3) Therefore, what we can be certain of, is that experienced entities are not the cause of experience.

4) Therefore, we don't need experienced ears, eyes, or even brains, etc., to experience.

5) Therefore, why are you making stuff up?

Headbutt a rock, then make up an expletive.

The experienced rock is not the cause of my experienced pain, Sir. Think about it.

Those beautiful cuffs you just pulled out of your jacket sleeves, look the business, dont they? The collar (of the pure silk shirt) you just turned up, to look like Elvis, is the business ain't it! The Jacket! Wow! That's the height of fashion, cut from the finest skinned cow ever! Your hair cut! Phew! That cost a hundred quid! Cut by the finest barber on earth!

Oops! There's a problem! Your a nude bald guy, looking into a mirror, i'm stood behind you, i can see the reality that's you.

Well external reality does seem coherent to a degree, since we can understand the concepts of "external" and "reality" separately.
But it doesn't seem like an entirely coherent idea tho.
Also I'm almost 100% certain my body etc is "real" so it gives more reason to believe in external stuff no?