My reasoning behind my opinion oddly comes from hallucinogens. I dont mean out of body experiences, or colorful imagery. These things come from limiting the sensory receptors, and pull from the subconscious, defunct of logic. I'm talking about heightened sensory perception. Where time, physics, logic, and other laws of science do not exists. I've even experienced telepathy, and events that defy coincidence. Sure, you can say "you're on drugs man" but thats where my point comes in. How can you be sure your mind is not the one that is operating in a altered state? You dont have to do drugs to have an altered state. People who are "insane" dont know they are insane. Because of what they perceive to be reality follows all logic and is so strong that there is no doubt in their mind its reality. Which brings me back to my original point...
Edit: I need to change this quote "Where time, physics, logic, and other laws of science do not exist." These do exist, but are not contained by the same rules of the general (for lack of a better word) perception of reality.
I understand what you are saying.
How can we be certain that what we are experiencing is reality?
It's an interesting question and it is interesting to think about.
However, you mention hallucinogens and altered states and "insane" people...
1. The use of drugs, or any "altered" state of mind is... well, altered. So that can be ruled out as reality. A bio-chemical reaction that produces visual hallucinations, suppresses the senses, or enhances them, can't be reality even if it "feels" real. There is science to explain, logically, what effect these substances have on the body.
If you are on a crazy peyote trip are you really contacting the spirit world or are you just trippin' out? What will everyone else who is not on a trip see?
2. "Insanity" (which is not a definitive term in psychology) is definitely not a good basis for establishing reality since that too is not the "normal" state of mind. There are many, many, psychological disorders (have you ever seen the DSM?) and many are associated with abnormal perceptions (note that when discussing "normal" you must first define what "abnormal" is in contrast to "normal"). For example, anorexia nervosa is a common one in american culture. This disorder is characterized by an "incorrect" body image and of course poor diet. Now, would you say that a 20 year old female anorexic at 5'5, 75lbs is "fat?" Certainly not. At that point she is probably almost dead. However, her perception is that she is overweight. So, which is reality? Her perception, or the objective measurement of body fat, weight, and waist size?
So, if we ask, "how can reality exist without subjectivity if everyone experiences/perceives differently," here is what I have to say to that:
In order to ask that question, or to mention perception at all, you are implying that there is something being experienced/perceived. That thing being experienced and perceived is reality. If a colorblind person that cannot differentiate between violet, blue, and cyan sees a 445nm laser, a 405nm laser, and a 473nm laser and says they are all the same color, does that mean that the wavelengths that are entering his/her eye are all the same?
I like the definition Cyparagon provided for us earlier: "the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be."
@Random person:
Nice points...... nothing is more annoying than when people religiously believe in their "scientific" views and are willing to "debate" to insanely illogical and emotional levels. (Christians and atheists alike)
Hang on, there... Insanely illogical? Science is all logic. And religion is not logic at all. If science becomes illogical then it is no longer science. If mathematics was illogical it would be wrong and would then be irrelevant.
If religion was logical, I would believe it. I don't. And that isn't meant as an insult to anyone who is religious. Anyone who believes in some religion also, by default, believes that their deity or deities are not bound by the comprehension and logic of mankind. Religion is supposed to be illogical.
So your statement here is illogical.
Also, I like that you say that debate is "annoying" when it is taken to "emotional levels" and then proceed to tell us that global warming pisses you off. :na:
All science is generally dis proven overtime and endless amounts of new theories are then invented. Concepts of gravity, theory of solid state electronics, and the atomic model are examples of this. Yes, *ultra gasp* evolution is no exception and will probably be disproved in due time as will our current perceptions of gravity, time, light...ect. These theories will then be replaced with new and better ones....
Well, theories are not meant to be accepted as "truths."
They are a general explanation of how things work based on observation and experimentation.
The fact that scientific theories can be adjusted and refined is what gets us closer to the truth, not further from it, and that is one of the best things about science. Science is all about questioning what we believe in. Religion is the opposite.
Also, just because we don't fully understand gravity or electromagnetism does not mean that our understanding of them is false, necessarily. Just incomplete. Just because we don't yet know what gravity is does not mean that we have not measured some phenomena that binds the solar system and keeps us on the ground.