25



Item 22 (Tue, Sep 27, 1988 (18:34)) Joe Durnavich (jjd)
The Fundamentals of Reality

Ben, I'm still having trouble getting a complete picture of
your view of objective reality. I find your viewpoint interesting
because of your confidence when answering certain questions.
In the tree item, it seemed most people felt the answer was
unknowable, irrelevant, or uncertain. But you answered
with a definite, "YES, it does make a sound!" I'm still not
sure why you are so sure, but it seems to involve objective
reality. So I wouldn't cause the causality item to drift, I
started a new item.

To get started, I'm just going to blurt out some statements
and let you comment on them:

There is an objective reality.
It is external to the mind.
The senses are your only way of getting knowledge about reality.

[PAUSE] 123 responses total.


-------------------------
22.1 Tue Sep 27 22:31:27 1988 Ben Kovitz (kiwi)
I know the title of this item, jjd, means that you want to talk about
metaphysics (the fundamentals of reality), but in your message you said
you wanted to know why I am "so sure". So, I'm goint to talk about
epistemology (how we get knowledge). And, I'm going to write my reply
off-line. Be back in a while...

-------------------------
22.2 Tue Sep 27 22:41:40 1988 Joe Durnavich (jjd)
You're right. I already put the title in before I realized it wasn't
really appropriate. But at least I spelled everything right this time.

-------------------------
22.3 Wed Sep 28 00:04:41 1988 Ben Kovitz (kiwi)
Well, I think the title was right, though. My previous response didn't
say exactly what I wanted to say. Aarghs, I'll just finish my big
response...

-------------------------
22.4 Mon Oct 3 08:08:44 1988 H¡en Kovitz (kiwi)
[PAUSE] A friend of mine used to teach classes in word processors, spreadsheets,
and other "productivity" software. Often he would be hired to teach a
class in a program he had never seen or used before. He would spend one
night or so reading the manual and playing with the program, and then he
would be all ready to teach--and the companies hiring him had no complaint
with this. They were fully aware that he had never touched the software
before, and yet were quite willing to pay him $500 an afternoon to teach
their employees how to use it.

Now, doesn't this strike you as a bit bizarre? This guy spends one night
learning a program and suddenly is able to teach it to others. Why not
just let those other people spend a night learning on their own, forget
the whole teaching setup, and save $500? What do they need him for?

You might be tempted to answer that the reason he is able to learn the
programs so much faster than his students is because he is familiar with
certain general concepts which are common to all software of that type.
That is true, but there is an even more fundamental aspect to this.

He is only able to learn those programs much faster than his students
because he already knows the important concepts which are necessary for
gaining a detailed knowledge of that kind of software. His students, in
order to reach that same level of knowledge of just one word processor,
must *first* learn those fundamental concepts. For example, in the case of [PAUSE] a word processor, some basic concepts which newcomers to computers always
have a hard time grasping are: the difference between the copy of the
document that is being edited and the copy that is stored on disk; the
difference between the text of a document and its format (i.e., information
about paragraphing, pagination, indents, margins, etc.); the difference
between a keystroke which enters a character into a document and a
keystroke which gives a command to the word processor. A great deal of a
naive user's early time at a word processor is spent grasping these basic
concepts, because until he knows them there is no way he can get a detailed
understanding of how to use the program.

That last point is the one I'm trying to stress. Until a user knows about
the fact that the word processor allows him to edit an edit buffer, which
is in volatile RAM, and not a disk file, which is stored in a medium which
retains its data even after the computer is shut off, he's not going to be
able to understand the "SAVE" command, no matter how it's implemented on
the particular word processor he's using. I've done my share of trai7{ing
users on word processors (never made $500 an afternoon, though), and I've
lost track of the number of times I've had users shut off the computer
before they've saved their document, only to call me up the next day
wondering what happened.

Another concept which one must grasp before one can understand the SAVE
command, besides the concepts of volatile and permanent storage, is the [PAUSE] concept of a document. If you don't know what a document is, you can't
understand the SAVE command, because what is it saving? This never
presents a problem for people learning to use a word processor, though,
because everyone who has a need of using a word processor already knows
about books, letters, articles, and has a very solid grasp of the concept
"document". I am only bringing this up to (a) further amplify my point
some knowledge cannot be acquired until one has first acquired more basic
knowledge, and (b) to begin linking back to the original question.

In general, one cannot grasp any concept of action, until one has grasped
the concept of that which acts. In the word processor example, SAVEing is
an action, impossible to grasp until one understands the concept of a
document, or that which is SAVEd. And here are three fundamental concepts:
entity, nature, and action--and here is a fundamental principle of reality:
an entity's actions are caused by its nature. When you PRINT (another
action) document A, what shows up on the printer is different than when you
print document B, because the two documents are different. If you put a
different print-wheel in the printer, the form of the letters on the page
is different, beCAUSE the nature of the printwheel (the shape of the
letters) is different.

But suppose someone were to say that there are no entities, only actions;
that there are no documents, there are only the actions of saving,
printing, etc. That is obvious nonsense: if there are no documents, then [PAUSE] documents cannot be saved, printed, or anything else. If the concept of
"entity" is bogus, then so is the concept of "action". To affirm the
latter while denying the former is to deny one's own premises.

Now, is there anything which must be grasped before one can grasp the
concept "knowledge"? Yes: "that which is known"--i.e., reality. Speaking
on the most fundamental level possible, before one can identify that one is
conscious, one must have been conscious of something. This basic fact,
existence, must be identified before ANYTHING else, and it is implicit and
self-evident in every perception. If the concept of existence is bogus,
then so is any concept pertaining to consciousness--or anything else.
Unless and until you have identified that what you perceive exists, and
that you do perceive it, you aren't going to get anywhere, you aren't going
to learn anything, and you aren't even going to be able to ask stupid
questions like "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear
it, does it make a sound?" What are trees? What are forests? What is
hearing? How did you find out about those? You could not have formed any
of these concepts without using the fundamental concepts of existence and
consciousness. For example, you could not have formed the concept
"hearing" until you had first identified WHAT you are hearing. Some time
you might want to observe children being taught about the five senses, and
observe that the only way to do it is to have them identify some quality
they can directly perceive, and then have them close their eyes, cover
their ears, etc., until they finally grasp that not only are there sounds, [PAUSE] but that they hear them. And then think to yourself how horrible it would
be to try telling them that all they can really know is their sensations,
that consciousness creates reality, how you can't *know* that the tree
makes a sound, and how they can't *know* that reality will behave
consistently, since that is only an "assumption", etc., etc., etc. All
those phony pseudo-intellectual games would do is cripple the child's mind
before it had a chance to develop, no less than if you had smashed his
skull with a hammer.

Now, perhaps, you see not only why I am so sure about the existence of an
objective reality, but why I feel so strongly about attempts to deny it.

-------------------------
22.5 Mon Oct 3 19:03:47 1988 Joe Durnavich (jjd)
Your response came at a good time since I am in the middle of
reading some of Descarte's Meditations on the First Philosophy.
He comes to some of the same conclusions you do: he knows he has a mind
mind and at least some of the ideas in it had to come
from an external, formal reality (through cause and effect if
I understand him right). He uses the term "objective reality"
to mean *ideas in the mind* which represent real objects. Your
definition implies objective reality is the real objects
themselves, which are outside the mind. Did the definition
change over time?
[PAUSE]
So far, I understand and agree that:
- I have a mind.

- There is an objective (external to my mind) reality.

- To know I had a mind I had to be conscious of something first.
In other words, one of the main functions of my mind is to
perceive a reality. If there is no reality to perceive, then
my mind is useless and I'm stuck. To see I had a mind, my
mind must have first perceived something that exists
in reality. I know I have a mind. Therefore, I know
reality exists.

Now, I am going to ask some more stupid and pseudo-intellectual
questions because that is the only way I know how to approach
this subject. Can I know what reality is made out of, or can
I only know its nature (how it behaves)? In other words, I
could be nothing more than a brain in a jar connected to a
computer. My brain would still contain my mind, and the
computer would provide the external reality. The computer
stimulates all my senses so that it looks to me like I am
a human living on the planet Earth, typing in this message
on this bbs. Can I figure out that I am really a brain in
[PAUSE] a jar connected to a computer, or can I only understand
the reality the computer program is showing me. (That is
the silliest question I have ever asked anybody, so feel
free to say whatever you feel like, however mean and nasty.)

-------------------------
22.6 Mon Oct 3 21:16:57 1988 Bronis Vidugiris (bhv)
I would say that there is no way for you, me, or anyone else to KNOW they
are not a computer simulation.

-------------------------
22.7 Mon Oct 3 21:22:16 1988 Leslie Mikesell (les)
Even very young children know that they participate in the act of
seeing. Cover your eyes and you don't see any more.

-------------------------
22.8 Tue Oct 4 23:56:51 1988 tom chapin (tjc)
OK. Now you've read DesCartes. Remember that if he was right, then
God has been shown to exist... Now read Hume's response. Then read
Kant to get thoroughly confused...

-------------------------
22.9 Wed Oct 5 01:54:50 1988 Ben Kovitz (kiwi)
jjd: A question is not stupid, silly, or pseudo-intellectual if it is asked [PAUSE] honestly. I do think a lot of people who ask the question about the tree
falling in the forest (and, yes, the brain in the jar) do it, not because
they
want to know the answer, but because they delight in subverting other
people's
ability to think. A lot, but certainly not all of them.

First, about Descartes: it is my understanding that his central argument goes
that you can't be sure of anything, because you can doubt everything, with
one
exception: since the act of doubting is itself an act of consciousness, you
CAN be sure that you are conscious. Hence, "I think therefore I am". He
wanted to defend the existence of the reality outside the mind, and so he
cooked up a rather convoluted argument to get from his famous axiom to the
existence of reality. However, it is impossible to prove existence on the
basis of anything which is derived from it; any such argument is totally
circular. Consequently, philosophers after Descartes were quick to point out
the flaws, and ever since, subjectivism has been gaining dominance in the
Western world. (Notice that only two people said that the tree makes a sound;
if you asked that question at a university philosophy department, the results
would be even more disappointing.)

The primary problem with Descartes' argument is that you can't identify the
fact that you are conscious until you are conscious of something. First you [PAUSE] identify some fact of reality, e.g., "the table is there", and only then can
you reflect and identify that "I know the table is there". His attempt to
prove existence on the basis of consciousness breeds subjectivism, because it
says, in effect, that if you believe something, that is proof that it's so.
It denies that the role of your mind is to perceive reality, and that the
proper use of your mind consists in rigorously keeping it it accord with
reality, and says instead that reality is whatever happens to be in your
mind.
It's not a long leap from there to "I wish it, therefore it is so."

A few other problems that occur to me off the top of my head are: why is
doubt the basis for a philosophy? A philosophy starts by identifying
fundamental truths; a "fundamental doubt" is a contradiction in terms. The
arguments consists of taking a random, arbitrary conjecture, i.e., "how do I
know there is not an evil demon controlling all of my perceptions?", and then
saying that it is not the arbitrary conjecture which must be proven, but its
contrary. This is a basic logical fallacy, known as "appealing to
ignorance".
Notice that the argument contains a train of reasoning: because of X, Y
logically follows. (I.e., because doubting is an act of the mind, I have a
mind.) That means the argument presupposes the laws of logic (despite the
fallacy), which depend on the fact that everything that exists, possesses a
certain, definite, specific nature. Descartes' argument is a classic example
of that denying of one's own premises I was trying to illustrate in that [PAUSE] example of saying that there are actions but not entities. However, none of
the problems in this paragraph are as bad or important as the basic idea of
subjectivism I was describing in the previous paragraph.

Now, about the brain in the jar. How did you find out about brains? How did
you find out about jars? How did you find out about computers? How are
computers created? Do these things exist? Do you know about them? If not,
if you say that there is no objective reality or that you can't know about
objective reality, then there is no way you could discover all of these
things. Do you see what I am getting at here? To doubt that what you see is
real, because you have seen brains, jars, and computers, is craziness!

(I should add, though, that computer simulations, while they are not the same
thing as what they simulate, nevertheless do possess definite properties of
their own, and are real.)

But, getting more serious here, when I read, think, and talk about
philosophy,
I am trying to find answers: real, useable answers which I can apply in real
life, here in the real world. Debating about whether we can ever know that
we
are not a computer simulation just doesn't have anything to do with real
life.
What is the proper relationship between one's intellect and one's emotions? [PAUSE] What is the right kind of life for a human being? What are correct
guidelines
for generalizing from observation? How does one prove a causal relationship?
What obligations (if any) do I have toward other people? These are important
questions, and questions only philosophy can answer. And they cannot be
answered by concocting arbitrary conjectures about brains in jars hooked up
to
computers. Ever since I was very young, I have *hated* schools, but *loved*
learning; much of my interest in epistemology has grown out of this: in order
to develop a correct theory of learning and teaching, it is necessary to have
a correct theory of knowledge and proof. Again, random speculations about
brains in jars don't help much to accomplish anything constructive, in the
field of education or anywhere else.

(However, I have spent plenty of time grappling with the computer-simulation
question, and doing so was very valuable. It taught me quite a lot, both
about fundamental principles of reality, and about epistemology. I wish
someone had said something like the above two paragraphs to me back then, but
I doubt it would have sped me up that much, because no matter how much truth
you hear, you still have to understand it for yourself, and that takes time.
So, if you are really having troubles with this problem of how do you
validate
that there is an objective reality and even if there is, how can you ever
know
[PAUSE] anything about it, don't take the previous paragraph to mean that you should
just suddenly quit thinking about it even if you aren't confident that your
answer is right.)

Lastly, about "Can I know what reality is made of, or can I only know its
nature (how it behaves)?", this doesn't seem to be the same question as the
one about the brain in the jar. I'm not sure what you mean by "what reality
is made of"; it's made of reality, of course! Nothing exists except reality;
there is no more fundamental, "substrate" of reality which is the "real"
reality, compared to the mere "surface", "fake" reality. (I've been thinking
about starting a "real reality vs. what only looks that way" item, since
that
seems to be at the center of all my disputes with Bronis, but I haven't
thought of a good way to explain my view on this, though.) Even in the
brain-in-the-jar conjecture, the things the computer is showing you are no
less real than the computer. Then again, I'm not sure I'm answering the
question you had in mind.

-------------------------
22.10 Wed Oct 5 05:41:52 1988 Duffy Toler (duffy)
I took a similar stance on a discussion of "accepted reality" with
Dave Sueme some months ago. I didn't realise how stupid it sounds
untill i noticed my own thoughts on the matter echoed in the above
response.
[PAUSE] After considering that the Pythagorean's killed the fellow who
discovered irrational numbers, and considering the numerous
misconceptions about the nature of how everything from the universe
to the human body works, it seems that my current view of what's
"real" is colored by current scientific understanding. That view
is not only subject to change, it is probable that it really will
change according to historic precedent.
While it seems incomprehensible that we will someday discover
that we are disembodied brains in jars, i suspect that a person
from ancient times would find it equally incomprehensible that
his heart was just a pump.
A computer simulation would have an even more difficult time
discovering the nature of reality because it could have been
programmed not to discover it. The way to prevent it from
discovering the real world would be to programm it so that
it thinks it knows The Truth.

-------------------------
22.11 Wed Oct 5 12:40:46 1988 Leslie Mikesell (les)
Ben: I don't think that the concept of consciousness creating reality
leads directly to "I wish it, therefore it is so". First, there is
the difference between thinking "about" something and the thought
that creates an action. For example you can think about running or
wish you were running while sitting perfectly still. But, running is
[PAUSE] certainly a conscious activity. There is a "thought" that makes your
foot move, although it is not the same as thinking "about" moving.
Second, there is no reason to suppose that there would be no limits on
the possibilities that could exist. Obviously any reasonable explanation
of reality must be able to produce exactly the results that we experience.
Beyond that, there is no basis for any kind of judgement.

-------------------------
22.12 Wed Oct 5 17:27:35 1988 Bronis Vidugiris (bhv)
My position on this, and similar topics, is that the possibility of me
being a computer simulation is a futile question to think about BECAUSE
there is no way to disprove it experimentally.

-------------------------
22.13 Wed Oct 5 18:40:55 1988 Joe Durnavich (jjd)
tjc: I read some Hume once, but all I remember is something about
billiard balls. I will read him again to see what he has to
say about Descartes' ideas. I don't want to dwell *too* much
on this subject though, because I can only spend so much time
wondering if reality exists before I have to get up and leave
for work.

As for your response Ben, I see my mistake now of trying to
create a meta-reality with objects from the real reality
[PAUSE] (i.e., brains, jars, and computers). I was trying to find
the extent of your definition of reality by trying to go
beyond or above it. I can't seem to do that unless I bring
in a God of some sort (supernatural, infinite, etc.). But
comparing the finite with the infinite doesn't tell me
anything either. I guess I am stuck with the reality I am
immersed in then.

Which brings me too your "But, getting more serious" paragraph.
I agree with you that philosophy is supposed to find real
usable answers for real questions asked by real human people
living real human lives. But I did not intend for this item
to be a reflection of what philosophy was all about. I am
not a philosopher. I know *little* about philosophy. I
was hoping all you guys would show me what it was all about.
Most of the debates here reduced themselves to an objective
versus subjective reality debate. I wanted to get to the
bottom of things here. Maybe getting this out of the way
will allow this conference to move on to more useful things.

-------------------------
22.14 Wed Oct 5 18:55:27 1988 Joe Durnavich (jjd)
(Oh by the way, I am begging everybody to please keep this discussion
on at least a semi-intelligent level. Please, no more fighting
[PAUSE] and hurling of insults at each other. Specifically, please don't ignore
anybody Ben, not even Duffy. Say what you will about his responses,
but don't just ignore him. Otherwise I have no choice but to believe
*everything* he says. And everybody else, you can tell Ben he is
an obnoxious snob in the "Why I Hate Kiwi" item in the ccc conference.
Let's just try to attack his *responses* here.)

-------------------------
22.15 Wed Oct 5 23:45:02 1988 tom chapin (tjc)
As Ben was ably pointing out, the difference between DesCartes and
Hume IS one of trying to find objective reality versus subjective
one. DesCartes tried to use doubt, hoping that whatever could not
be doubted had to be true, and that consciousness could not be doubted.
This led him to believe in thobjective reality of existence. But
Hume replied that our consciousness was not of objective reality, but
only of our sense-impressions, and our senses filter reality, and
cannot be depended on to give on objective reality, but only a
subjective one.

And as Ben pointed out, since then, philosophers have tended to move
from objectivism to subjectivism. While there seems to be an objective
reality out there somewhere, our senses are so limited, so likely to
filter and alter reality as it comes to us, and since our very brains
are limited and may be unable to organize our sense-impressions into
[PAUSE] a true picture of objective reality, all we have left is our
subjective view.

-------------------------
22.16 Thu Oct 6 10:33:47 1988 Leslie Mikesell (les)
A necessary problem, though. Our senses function by organizing reality
into patterns, so that repeating patterns can be recognized. This is
reenforced by assigning words to the patterns so that we can talk and
think about them. As my example of the TV image showed, it doesn't
really matter that the underlying reality is only slightly related to
the pattern that it projects. The real process of learning is to perceive
the same patterns as everyone else. Perhaps unfortunately, it is a
creative process, but without it we would have nothing to talk about.

-------------------------
22.17 Thu Oct 6 17:44:53 1988 Joe Durnavich (jjd)
It seems the only way everyone can get more accurate patterns
into their brains though, is to pay closer attention to that
underlying reality. Eventually, you will figure out that the
TV image is just a dot moving rapidly on the screen...

-------------------------
22.18 Thu Oct 6 21:32:38 1988 Leslie Mikesell (les)
I don't think so. When you stop seeing the agreed upon patterns, things [PAUSE] are no longer interesting. How may people would keep a TV around if
they just saw the electron beam instead of the image? Even if someone
does perceive something "underneath" the patterns, there are no words
to describe it. How often do you notice the pressure of air on your
body? It is one of the main forces that affects you, but since it is
uniform it does not present a pattern that you generally recognize.

-------------------------
22.19 Thu Oct 6 22:01:52 1988 Ben Kovitz (kiwi)
Here is my refutation of the "we can't be objective, because our senses
'filter' reality" argument, at least in brief outline.

The argument (and it was Kant who really developed it into its most fully
developed form, not Hume) rests on the premise that there is a way things
"really" look, which is different from the way they look to us. However,
what something looks like is not an attribute intrinsic to that object, it
depends on *both* the nature of the object and the nature of person looking
at it.

Stating this principle in more abstract terms, every perception has both a
CONTENT and a FORM. (Please note that I am not using "form" as a synonym
for "shape".) The content is the thing which is perceived. The form is
what it looks like to the perceiver. What the subjectivist argument fails
to recognize is that there can be no such thing as a "formless" perception; [PAUSE] it says that our perceptions, because they have a form which is partly
dictated by the nature of the mind, are not "true", because they are not a
"formless" perception, dictated by nothing but the content.

Several months ago, I got into a length argument about this on another BBS,

---
■ Synchronet ■ Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 IBBS Games