Timeline for I have seven steps to conclude a dualist reality. Which of these steps are considered controversial/wrong?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2023 at 11:32 | comment | added | tejasvi | @Frank Dreams are not entirely based on prior experience. | |
| Apr 7, 2023 at 23:15 | comment | added | Frank | @NickAlger But those are only based on prior experience. So the constraints and resistances in the dreams are reflections of constraints and resistances experienced before? | |
| Apr 7, 2023 at 22:04 | comment | added | Nick Alger | How would this argument account for dreams? These are full of constraints and resistances like gravity, yet generated within one's own mind. | |
| Apr 7, 2023 at 16:11 | history | edited | Frank | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 159 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2023 at 13:40 | comment | added | Idran | @justhalf That's the conclusion I keep coming to; at minimum, that there exists something other than my own thoughts that prevents me from having full control over my own thoughts, and so it stands to reason that such a thing could also exist in the subjective reality generated by my mind. Though this is probably getting to the point that it warrants a separate question. | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 8:11 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | I think most philosophers would agree that the existence of objective reality, roughly as we perceive it, is the "probable conclusion". But the problem they're trying to solve is to conclusively prove it, through logic alone (which I'd consider to be expecting too much of logic). | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 3:44 | comment | added | justhalf | @JustinHilyard would that lead to the thought that there is an objectiveness in depression and anxiety? | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 21:57 | comment | added | Idran | I'll admit, while I'm not solipsist myself, I never entirely followed that argument against it. I can't even will anything I want in my own mind, I can't will myself out of depression or anxiety or the like. So why would true solipsism imply being able to will anything I want in the reality generated by my mind, that nothing in that reality would be contrary to my conscious, proactive desires? | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 21:00 | comment | added | Frank | @Bumble Yes, if I were the only thing in here, I should be able to will anything I want. But that's not the case, there are things I cannot will and that are given to me. Those we can call "objective reality", objective meaning here: not in the subject. Not in the subject because the subject is powerless to do anything about those. It's as if "pure subjectivity" entails "no limits", but the fact that there are limits in what we experience leads to "object outside the subject". | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 20:33 | comment | added | Bumble | Your point about things resisting our will is interesting. David Deutsch makes a similar claim in defence of realism. He says that what assures us that the world is real is that when we push against it, it pushes back. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 19:14 | comment | added | Frank | @RyderRude Not sure we are speaking of the same probabilistic argument. The one I wanted to make is that it looks very improbable that all those things I'm perceiving are generated by my mind, therefore it is likely that they exist independently and somehow manifest themselves in my experience. By the way, I think Spinoza has written on that topic. For him, if I remember correctly, those manifestations in our experience that seem external are actually in the mind of God. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 19:00 | comment | added | Frank | @RyderRude I think it's legit though - you can argue for dualism from a probabilistic perspective. It's just another way to infer the existence of an objective reality. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 18:52 | history | edited | Frank | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 188 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2023 at 16:07 | comment | added | Ryder Rude | I'm sorry but the probabilistic argument has no jurisdiction here. In this context, probabilities would be rules just like the laws of physics that you invent to explain the behavior of aspects of your perceptions. In the other thread, I can accept this argument because there we are just defining "objective" and "subjective" as useful terms to refer to different parts of our experience. In this thread, we are trying to infer the existence of things independent of our experience. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 15:45 | history | answered | Frank | CC BY-SA 4.0 |