Richard Hughes wrote: > But, I think of myself as a realist, that is I assume > the world is pretty much as it appears, obviously like > everyone else my only contact with outside reality is > via my senses and there lies the problem. > According to my Professor, A.J. Bahm, there are six statements that summarize the naive realist view:
1. Objects which are known exist indepentently of their being known. 2. Objects have qualities or properties, which are parts of the objects. 3. Objects are not affected merely by being known. 4. Objects seem as they are and are as they seem. 5. Objects are known directly. 6. Objects are public. > Of the small amount of reality my brain actually > recieves to interpret it can only manage around 20% > so what I call reality is, like everyone else, simply > my own little world. > If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, which sense shall we accept as reliable? If we observe the realist closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, we are still more baffled. The realist is unaware that he has no criterion of the reality or unreality of objects experienced. He has faith in the reality of movie action while it lasts, otherwise he could not really enjoy it. He has faith in his own action, otherwise how could he really enjoy life. But how reliable is such faith? > So I have to accept that it is a possibilty that I'm > part of some huge computer programme, however unlikely > it may seem. Anything is possible, but is it probable? > I think it's sane to assume not as there is no > evidence whatsoever. I say sane, because without > evidence whatever evil scheme you imagine to be the > ultimate reality is your own private delusion isn't > it? > Maybe so. You are the human bio-computer that is meta-programmed to act and feel exactly the way you do. Comparison of present paradoxes with past expexiences simply involves greater possibilities of error and greater paradoxes. For past experiences, to be compared, must be remembered. But memory often fails us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing us again? Maybe past experiences may have been erroneous consistently. The realist thinks he sees directly back into an existing past which in reality has ceased to exist! > I assume an outside reality that more or less > correlates with what I see, even though I know my > consciousness has limitations, because to assume it's > all a conspiracy is to invent things I have no > evidence for simply to pander to day dreams, and > I've come up with some brilliant ideas for nightmare > scenarios but I know it's created in me. If it turns > out I am in the matrix I'd think it's way cool and > bust out for some kung-fu in mere moments. > Doubts sometimes lead to experimentation. Also, if past experiences can have been consistently in error, why not present and future experiences? How can one ever be sure that he is not in error? > Best thing to do is not worry and accept things as > they are until they turn out to be different. > Maybe so. When doubts become serious, we naturally consult others. Most of us have mistaken manikins, mirror images, and movie motions for real men. Or, in dreams we have consulted our friends and have gained their agreement. What proof do we have that there are real people to consult? Secondly, even if we actually consult real people, are they not subject to the same errors as we? Cannot people be in agreement and yet in error? For centuries people agreed that the earth was flat. If others share our error, how can we profit by consulting them for proof? > As for not knowing who I am, I'm who I think I am > today. > The last resort of the naive realist is an appeal to instruments. But this appeal to instruments is the final blow to naive realism. For an appeal to instruments, like the appeal to other senses, to past experiences, to repetition, and to other persons, is a confession of failure. For it is a confession that apparently obvious objects are NOT self-evident. The aliens in our midst may be simply invisible; of another level of reality. They may be in fact, managing our every thought and action, unseen by us, unknown to us, who peer as we do into the night sky, asking ourselves 'where are they'?
