Metaphysics: Things we can know to be true about reality without the scientific method

[HarryStotle]

A brute fact needs no explanation. I have no idea what you mean by “intrinsically explicable”. If you use it as “it explains itself”, then you have a linguistic nonsense. Explanation is a set of propositions, which reduce a complex phenomenon to an already understood simple one.

And how do you determine when a fact needs no explanation but is merely “brute?”

Other than just declaring to be so because you have run into the limits of your capacity to explain it, that is?

Quite arbitrary.

You may as well declare, again quite arbitrarily, that the existence of any and all things is inexplicable from the get-go because at some point you are going to resort to calling things “brute facts” because you have run out of explanatory power.

You are, however, assuming that reality is nothing but your concept of it. You may as well assume reality is, at ground, merely a function of your mental faculty since there is nothing there that can be discovered and understood objectively.

You are assuming, surreptitiously, what you are trying to demonstrate, but you haven’t demonstrated anything except your capacity to bypass reality by defining reality as nothing more than what you conceive it to be.

This is why you have punted to the law of non-contradiction applying only to propositions. It saves you the trouble of connecting metaphysics to ontology, making the entire enterprise divorced from existential reality from the get go. As if how things are conceived are a whole 'nuther world, completely unrelated to ontological reality because, you assume, there is no such thing as reality independent of your idea of it.

You assume the matrix which is why you end up in it. The entire enterprise is a question-begging morass.

 

[HarryStotle]

Wesrock:

Can you explain why you believe this to be true?

Well, the word “explanation” is simply a line of argument which reduces something complex unto something simpler.

I do not mean it in the “basic” sense.

And that is the problem.

It depends on the field we’re talking about. Certainly political realism is different than philosophical realism, which is a position on the reality of abstract objects (or in the broader sense, universals). Not to confuse the idea with physical objects or to imply any spatialtemporality or causal power. More so just the sense of objective truths.

This is the underlying problem. you use the words in a special way, which I do not accept. Too bad.

In other words, reality is what you make it out to be as expressed in the words (as defined by you) that you are willing to accept. Nothing like assuming from the get go what you set out to prove (or, more precisely) what you set out to explain away. A completely closed system completely cut off (by design) from the (name removed by moderator)ut of reality.

Ideological brain in an ideological vat – quite the little matrix pickle you find yourself in – albeit very comfy and secure, having cocooned yourself entirely from questioning the nature of reality. Reality is what you decide to make of it, is your final solution. Based upon what? What you choose to make relevant to the question. Simple and simplistic at the same time.

No entanglement with that confusing stuff everyone refers to as “reality.” Just wash your hands and mind of it and move on.

 

[Sophia]

Ideological brain in an ideological vat…

Of course we are all brains in a vat, or elements in the Matrix. It is impossible to emerge from the vat or leave the Matrix and check the “outside”, or look “what reality really is”. This is the basic principle. We MUST accept that reality is what our senses tell us. There cannot be a “universal skepticism”. It is a basic “epistemological” stance.

Just think about it for a second. How could you invalidate what your senses tell you? You cannot use your senses, because you just doubted their veracity. Is there anything else? Nope.

So the acceptance of the veracity of the senses is axiomatically true.

 

[ccmnxc]

There are two branches of epistemology. One is the study of the objective, physical reality, which is based upon observations. It is called the “scientific method”, because all science relies on it. The other one is the deductive, axiomatic system, which is based upon arbitrarily selected axioms. This kind is abstract, it does not rely on empirical verification.

This epistemology thing has been rehashed before, both with Hume’s Fork and with the Logical Positivists, and both times it has failed precisely because the classification of epistemology into the two categories you have listed does not draw from either observation or some a priori deductive system. Gilson was right when he said metaphysics always buries its undertakers given that, in this case at least, to say reality is exhausted by the empirical and the axiomatic is to literally be doing metaphysics, since, by your own two categories you list here, it definitely cannot be epistemology.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Ideological brain in an ideological vat…

Of course we are all brains in a vat, or elements in the Matrix. It is impossible to emerge from the vat or leave the Matrix and check the “outside”, or look “what reality really is”. This is the basic principle. We MUST accept that reality is what our senses tell us. There cannot be a “universal skepticism”. It is a basic “epistemological” stance.

Just think about it for a second. How could you invalidate what your senses tell you? You cannot use your senses, because you just doubted their veracity. Is there anything else? Nope.

So the acceptance of the veracity of the senses is axiomatically true.

Sure, it makes perfect sense to accept what the senses present at face value, but the “veracity” of what the perceptual data signify is an entirely different story. The percepts qua percepts present themselves and are to be taken for what they are – percepts. However, what they signify or entail is something else entirely. There is always a conceptual framework by which percepts are filtered and schematized.

You appear to be mashing that part of the process together with the “making sense of percepts” as if they are one and the same thing, which is apparent from your “veracity” claim. They aren’t the same thing.

The truth value (veracity) is how the perceptual data fits into or corresponds to the bigger picture, i.e., is made intelligible within a conceptual framework. What appears to our senses is a different matter from what the thing actually is. The conceptual framework which helps us to make sense of the world has been developed over years of development as intelligent beings. What our senses presented when we were five or ten years old is very likely the same thing as we perceive now, but what those same colours, shapes, etc., signify is something quite different as we grow intellectually. In fact, our intellectual growth might guide us to gather more sense data by looking at things more assiduously to intentionally gather crucial data that we may have missed when we didn’t know what we were actually looking at.

 

[ccmnxc]

It suddenly occurred to me, that without realizing it, you’ve proposed that something can indeed pop into existence out of nothing. Because from your description of the uncaused cause it would seem irrefutable that it must have popped into existence out of nothing.

Now I have no doubt that you’ll claim that that’s not true, that the uncaused cause didn’t pop into existence out of nothing, but rather it has always existed.

But what you don’t realize is, that’s exactly what it would look like if something did indeed pop into existence out of nothing. It would look as if it had always existed, because there would be no such thing as “ before ” it existed. But since it didn’t come from something, it must have come from nothing.

So the inescapable conclusion is, things can indeed pop into existence out of nothing. At least that’s what your line of reasoning would have us believe.

It’s telling that you make use of “as if” and “looks like” language in your post, because if you outright said that something always existing just is something popping into being, nobody here would be able to take your post seriously. Yet, that is exactly what you need to say for your conclusion to go through. Yet, for God and His eternity, He is outside time entirely. So not only is there no “before,” but there is also no “after.” Further, God, standing outside of time, is thus not in any way dependent upon it, but rather, time would be dependent upon the uncaused cause. However, for something merely popping into existence, it would indeed have an “after” and it would be co-dependent with time.
In short, you’re equivocating on what it means to always exist, where you fixate on the fact that there is no “before” for either scenario while neglecting to take note of other relevant differences that would distinguish something popping into existence from its existing eternally.

 

[neophyte]

Wow. Just… wow… have you ever looked in a mirror? You’ve just called into question your ability to make any observation or any coherent asessment of fact.

He explicitly denied that there is evidence that things exist that could have not always existed, but such evidence has been slapping him in the face almost continuously since he was an infant. He himself is one of those things.

I don’t call into question all observations, and all coherent assessments of fact, just those that claim a knowledge of something for which no such knowledge is possible. So if I should happen to question your particular version of the truth, don’t take it personally…I question pretty much everything.

Now that I’ve addressed some of the misconceptions that people have about me…

I’ve always found it gratifying when someone thinks they’ve corrected me, when in fact they’ve proven my point.

It’s telling that you make use of “as if” and “looks like” language in your post, because if you outright said that something always existing just is something popping into being, nobody here would be able to take your post seriously.

He’s certainly made sure that no one can, even with that. I don’t know whether to call Poe on him or not.

 

[Sophia]

Sure, it makes perfect sense to accept what the senses present at face value, but the “veracity” of what the perceptual data signify is an entirely different story.

And I was talking ONLY about the RAW data that our senses report for processing. The claim presented by anti-empiricists is always questioning if we can rely on the empirical data, if the “reality” is different from the data our senses report to us. Just as you say in the next quote:

What appears to our senses is a different matter from what the thing actually is.

What does this mean? Our sense report that fire is hot, and ice is cold… but the “reality” is different? Of course we can interpret the data incorrectly, like misunderstanding the mirage in a distance and we may think that it is a lake, but that has nothing to do with the actual RAW data.

So it looks like that we had a giant miscommunication. And you do not question the veracity of our senses. The reality is exactly what the senses report, but that does not prevent us from incorrectly processing the RAW information.

As an illustration, take the “mirage”. We see something in the distance which “looks like” a lake. How to decide if it is “really” a lake, or just an illusion? By going close, and then place our hand into the water, drinking a few droplets, and going for a swim. The “universal skeptic” cannot assert that our senses “can” be incorrect, and “maybe” we are confused, and despite our direct experience of the lake and the water… we “might” be mistaken.

As a matter of fact, only our visual data can be misinterpreted, because it is the only “far perception”. No one can misinterpret a drum solo and “mistake” it for the sound of a violin. No one can sniff at a rotten piece of meat and mistakenly think that it is “really” a rose. Touching a piece of silk cannot be mistaken for touching a raw plank of wood. Tasting a bitter quinine pill cannot be misinterpreted and mistake it for a piece of chocolate.

There can be visual illusions, but no auditory, tactile, olfactory or gustatory illusions.

Of course we have to rely on our senses. There is nothing else.

 

[Sophia]

You’re kidding right, you’ve never heard of synesthesia?

That is not what was talking about. Can you mistake a drum beat for a violin solo?

 

[IWantGod]

The entirety of what you perceive to be the external world may be nothing more than an illusion.

Except for change and being (in general, because while the external world may be an illusion, there is still existence and change.).

 

[IWantGod]

Change very well could be.

That cannot be possible, something has to be changing, otherwise you would never experience a procession.

 

[IWantGod]

But the only thing that you can be certain is changing…is your perception of reality,

While the object of our experiences may not have an external reality, if your experiences are changing, then that is exactly what you are experiencing. Illusions are limited. The motion picture for example can be considered an illusion but you cannot experience that illusion without something actually changing. Otherwise you would not experience change at all, not even an illusion of it. It’s meaningless and illogical to argue otherwise.

 

[IWantGod]

No, the mind can create illusions out of whole clothe,

We are talking about change. If an effect begins to be actual then that is a change. You cannot say that change doesn’t exist and then say that you can experience the illusion of change. An illusion of change still requires a procession in your experience, otherwise you would not experience it, and for that matter you would never experience anything different or distinct. It’s impossible. It’s a contradiction.

 

[Sophia]

Yes. Are you aware that Chinese speakers who can’t pronounce the letter "R’, can’t even hear the letter “R”. To them “R” and “L” are exactly the same. The brain can interpret the signals that it receives in whatever manner it’s been programmed to interpret them. So yes, the brain can take a signal that you associate with a drum and interpret it as a violin solo.

Yes, you can teach someone some Pavlovian response… within some constraints. So what?

 

[IWantGod]

The idea that if the mind changes, then there must be something external to it that causes that change, is completely an assumption.

Your mind has been experiencing change for as-long as you have known anything. Something is causing that change. Something is causing potential to become actual. Perhaps you cause some kinds of change consistent with your intentionality, but I am not going to argue about what is the cause of all the change in your experience. It is you who is assuming that your mind could be the cause of all change. You have no real reason to believe that especially since your experiences had a beginning as far as you can tell. The evidence doesn’t really stand in your favor regardless of whether i can prove there was an external cause or not.

 

[IWantGod]

Here’s what I will grant you, the mind can’t be the cause of its own existence. But I won’t grant you that it can’t be the cause of its own change.

Like i said, some kinds of change are consistent with the power of your intentionality. But if your mind began to exist, either there were changes before your mind existed, or when your mind began to exist, your mind was the first change in existence. In other words the existence of your mind is an effect insofar as it is an actualize potential. If your mind is the only effect in existence, then it’s cause cannot be an actualized potential. It must be an uncaused cause, and the cause of all change cannot also be changing.

 

[Sophia]

Yes, you can teach someone some Pavlovian response… within some constraints. So what?

Actually, I have to amend that - there are no constraints. With a properly designed and correctly executed brain washing technique you can “teach” anyone to “love Big Brother”. You can even teach the prisoners in a concentration camp to feel nothing at all when they are ordered to throw their loved ones into a gas chamber.

And you can teach infants to abhor flowers and music, as described in Brave New World".

But I have to keep the last question: “So what???”

 

[HarryStotle]

Just think about it for a second. How could you invalidate what your senses tell you? You cannot use your senses, because you just doubted their veracity. Is there anything else? Nope.

So the acceptance of the veracity of the senses is axiomatically true.

You seem to still be missing the point.

The percepts presented by the senses ought to be accepted (most of the time) for what they are as percepts, but that is all. Their “veracity” relates to whether they correspond accurately to objective reality. There are various good reasons why the veracity (correspondence to reality) of percepts can be questioned, given the subject has adequate warrant to do so. For example: it appeared, at first, to be a man standing in the shadows, but it turned out to be an oddly shaped tree trunk.

You wouldn’t claim the first perception (a man in the shadows) ought to have been taken as “true,” are you? I didn’t think so. We are constantly “verifying” our perceptions in terms of first appearances, so it would be incorrect to claim the veracity of the senses is just axiomatically true and not subject to verification.

In fact, often what we perceive isn’t immediately obvious nor verifiable. We have to think about what we have perceived and even have to go back and look again more carefully to determine what it could have been, precisely because our initial sensory experience may be insufficient and doesn’t always provide a complete set of data – i.e., isn’t at all verifiable.

 

[HarryStotle]

Sophia:

Yes, you can teach someone some Pavlovian response… within some constraints. So what?

Actually, I have to amend that - there are no constraints. With a properly designed and correctly executed brain washing technique you can “teach” anyone to “love Big Brother”. You can even teach the prisoners in a concentration camp to feel nothing at all when they are ordered to throw their loved ones into a gas chamber.

And you can teach infants to abhor flowers and music, as described in Brave New World".

But I have to keep the last question: “So what???”

Yes, “you can” do so, but it doesn’t mean you will or can do so with any consistency.

There are constraints alright. Merely prefacing your claim with “properly designed and correctly executed” doesn’t guarantee actual success. It merely punts the entire claim to the level of the hypothetical – given every logical impediment is accounted for, it will happen. Uh huh.

 

[Sophia]

You seem to still be missing the point.

No, I don’t think so. You are still talking about “apples” and I am talking “oranges”. There was no need to bring up the tree trunk, I already gave you the question of the mirage vs. the lake.

You wouldn’t claim the first perception (a man in the shadows) ought to have been taken as “true,” are you?

I am STILL not talking about the interpretation of the photons reaching our eyes, rather about the photons themselves. Why do I have to repeat it? The RAW data is exactly what reaches the senses. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the photons. The interpretation is a TOTALLY different issue - and it is not the point here. The universal skeptics assert that the RAW data is unreliable, and assert that since we can doubt the veracity of this data, it is reasonable to doubt the interpretation of it. Please read this a few times, if necessary. This is the whole point I am making. Our senses are the “window” into the objective reality (in other words - reality IS what our senses “say” it is), but we are responsible to interpret the data properly.

There are constraints alright. Merely prefacing your claim with "properly designed and correctly executed doesn’t guarantee actual success. It merely punts the entire claim to the level of the hypothetical – given every logical impediment is accounted for, it will happen. Uh huh.

Would you volunteer to be the guinea pig in such an experiment? I would not. (By the way, EVERYTHING is hypothetical in a discussion like this.)