I'm a big believer in subjective reality. My reality is different from yours. And since eagles, turtles, bees and shrimp see more and different colours than humans do, their reality is different from ours.

But my reality is very real to me. Reality only exists in the consciousness of the beholder.

Hmm. So you doubt your senses. Therefore you have senses. And you have doubt. Indeed, doubting requires a foundation from which to doubt. That you ask a question implies that there are folk to ask that question of; that you use language implies that you are part of a language community.

You will only doubt the existence of the sandwich until you get hungry.

That you ask a question implies that there are folk to ask that question of; that you use language implies that you are part of a language community.

Does it? I'm willing to allow that radical skepticism is largely just insincere affectation, and that true solipsists are mentally unwell, but the idea that: "everyone else is a hylic, a p-zombie" and perhaps "these p-zombies that slip out of existence when I am not interacting with them" isn't incoherent. We can perfectly picture what it would entail, it's not some sort of logical impossibility. I am not sure if "implies" would be the correct term at least.

Nor does the idea of an android that is able to mimic human language behaviors well enough without being conscious seem particularly far-fetched these days. But if one could live in a community of such androids, it would be a "language community" only on a very behaviorist view of what constitutes such a community. At the same time, it seems a human child could learn a language from such tutors, at least to some basic level. Granted, such things couldn't be developed without language existing first, but it sort of lends credence to the idea.

And since eagles, turtles, bees and shrimp see more and different colours than humans do, their reality is different from ours.

Well, their experiences would be different. Their reality? Is what you've said about turtles and bees really true?

Does it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep. As your asking me that very question implies that you understood my post and what to do about it. Doubt sits in a background of certainty. That's a step beyond the insincere affectation, into the nature of discourse.

As if one might have a large language model without a large language.

As if one might have a large language model without a large language. — Banno

Maybe you were tricked by a demon.

Maybe you were tricked by a demon. — frank

See, this is what I'm saying. We need the modal equivalent to Moore's hand argument in order to refute claims like that. "Maybe such and such ..." Well it depends on what such and such is, in each case. Maybe I was tricked by a demon? No, demons don't exist. Why not? Here's a hand, mate, ask a scientist.

Does that do anything for you, or should I excuse myself on the way out?

I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; It's just me and you — A Realist

As far as I know, you are not me. You have invited others to your solipsism party.

See, this is what I'm saying. We need the modal equivalent to Moore's hand argument in order to refute claims like that. "Maybe such and such ..." Well it depends on what such and such is, in each case. Maybe I was tricked by a demon? No, demons don't exist. Why not? Here's a hand, mate, ask a scientist.

Does that do anything for you, or should I excuse myself on the way out? — Arcane Sandwich

I don't need more certainty than what comes naturally. I'm fine with the possibility that I've been tricked by a demon. Why do you need to conquer that doubt?

I don't need more certainty than what comes naturally. I'm fine with the possibility that I've been tricked by a demon. Why do you need to conquer that doubt? — frank

Do you want the honest answer, or some bullshit?

Do you want the honest answer, or some bullshit? — Arcane Sandwich

Honesty is fine.

Your post would make sense if I was claiming to doubt that other people exist. I'm not though. What I am doubting is that it is a logical impossibility for language to exist in the case of solipsism.

For instance, Muslims, Christians, and Jews would hold that God could understand human speech before God created human beings. It was not somehow beyond God or unfathomable. Yet this assumes understanding of a language in the absence of a community.

Now, perhaps people might not believe in God, but it hardly seems like one could use the "impossibility" of language in the absence of community to somehow disprove God or else divine omniscience.

Honesty is fine. — frank

Then the answer to your question, as to why I would need to conquer that doubt (to wit, that I might have been tricked by a demon), all I can say is that it would bring me much mental comfort, if I could just see an elegant argument, preferably in ordinary language, that shows how it would be impossible (in the modal sense) for demons to exist.

Call it aesthetics, call it being a nerd, call it whatever you want to call it. It's just a preference in matters that involve the intellect.

With the knowledge of science, I say it's possible to know this.

What I am doubting is that it is a logical impossibility for language to exist in the case of solipsism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Did someone suggest that?

Well, what did you mean by "implies" here?

That you ask a question implies that there are folk to ask that question of; that you use language implies that you are part of a language community.

So you're a 'disembodied subject'?

We're just 'disembodied subjects'?

What "demon"?

:up:

:up: :up:

Just the usual. That you continue this conversation implies all sorts of expectations and assumptions on your part. Like that you understood my reply, that you think it inadequate, that you would like me to give more by way of explanation, that we both understand English, that this is a conversation about language and not V8 supercars, and so on.

Unless, of corse, you are a LLM.

But even then, there is a background of assumed language.

all I can say is that it would bring me much mental comfort, if I could just see an elegant argument, preferably in ordinary language, that shows how it would be impossible (in the modal sense) for demons to exist. — Arcane Sandwich

You'd have to show that it's a contradiction. I don't think it is.

If someone were to craft such an argument, that person should be regarded as being very intelligent, and noble. That person should be awarded the logical equivalent to the Fields medal. It would be one of humanity's most resounding moral victories over ignorance and superstition. Something like that would have enormous value. It would be at the level of Beethoven's Ode to Joy.

I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; — A Realist

It is a commonplace, legitimate, and useful metaphysical position that an objective reality doesn't exist. From that point of view, there is no ultimate truth about reality.

[edited]

You will only doubt the existence of the sandwich until you get hungry. — Banno

Wonderful. I love when you often leave remarkable phrases like that one.

From that point of view, there is no ultimate truth about reality. — T Clark

Why do you dare to question your senses in the first place?

The concept of "false" (as pertains to the "real" part of reality) only has meaning in the presence of "truth". Thus if you conclude there is no truth, reality falls apart, from your perspective.

:wink: Thanks.

reality — A Realist

What reason do you have for assuming that we can ever know the ultimate truth about reality?

What reason do you have for assuming that we can ever know the ultimate truth about reality? — RussellA

Yes. But I wonder also whether the quest to identify the 'really real' might not just be a secular replacement for god.

It is a commonplace, legitimate, and useful metaphysical position that an objective reality doesn't exist. From that point of view, there is no ultimate truth about reality. — T Clark

I have sympathy for this frame. The notion of reality is a human construct and seems to be tied to our sense making capacities. While I agree that there are realities about certain matters - temperature, facts, dates, places, the fact that I am typing - these are all contingent. Once we try find the ultimate reality above and beyond the contingent, we are probably just chasing our tails.

But I wonder also whether the quest to identify the 'really real' might not just be a secular replacement for god. — Tom Storm

I wonder whether even if we knew that the ultimate truth about reality was God, would we be any more knowledgeable than knowing that the ultimate truth about reality was 42.

My senses can deceive me, so if I cannot trust my senses, I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; It's just me and you; but if my senses cannot be always trusted then your existence must also might be an illusion. — A Realist

If you admit and are sure that you doubt everything in the world, then you cannot deny the fact you doubt everything in the world. Therefore you found one thing in the world that you cannot doubt, which is the fact that you doubt everything in the world. So the fact that you doubt everything in the world is your ultimate truth about the reality? Makes sense?

As always, one can only deduce one truth: "I exist", whoever "I" is... :-) — A Realist

You cannot deduce "you exist" as the only truth, if you doubt everything in the reality. You will be doubting your existence is illusion.

If someone were to craft such an argument, that person should be regarded as being very intelligent, and noble. That person should be awarded the logical equivalent to the Fields medal. It would be one of humanity's most resounding moral victories over ignorance and superstition. Something like that would have enormous value. It would be at the level of Beethoven's Ode to Joy. — Arcane Sandwich

But the force of that argument would be logic. The point of the evil demon argument is that it's possible to doubt logic.

And since eagles, turtles, bees and shrimp see more and different colours than humans do, their reality is different from ours.

Well, their experiences would be different. Their reality? Is what you've said about turtles and bees really true? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Our experiences are our reality.

Consider that the objective reality is made up of aggregations of atoms and molecules that do not have any colour. We, for instance, are colourless blobs in a particular shape in a vast system of these atoms and molecules interacting. Nothing we see is the thing we see, only the light reflected from it. This makes up our physical reality, together with whatever else we sense. For example, sound is not heard without a sense of hearing.

Furthermore, our mental reality is made up in our minds by however it was stimulated as it developed. Part of my reality is knowing that my mother loves me. Is this a part of an objective reality? No, objective reality is just colourless atoms and molecules together with energy interacting. Not my reality at all.