0

If you can't be 100 percent sure about your senses, how can you be sure that anything is real?

MathematicalPhysicist
  • 473
  • 2
  • 10
  • 1
    The reason that philosophy exists... the quest to understand the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A great question. – Alistair Riddoch Mar 20 '24 at 05:47
  • 1
    We have sufficiently proved ... that everything intuited in space or in time, hence all objects of an experience possible for us, are nothing but appearances. Note: This is not something "eastern" or "other-worldly", eg. Vedanta but the most canonical of the European canon: Immanuel Kant So you are justified in asking!! [And tnx @AlistairRiddoch! You are at least not dismissive of the whole philosophical enterprise as some others!] – Rushi Mar 20 '24 at 07:59
  • 2
    Vow! +4 -4. You seem to have hit a balancing point — Kudos – Rushi Mar 20 '24 at 08:05
  • 2
    A common prompt question in Nonduality discussions is: "What do you know for sure?" – Scott Rowe Mar 20 '24 at 10:49
  • 1
    Bingo @ScottRowe. The great non dual exponent Nisargadatta M said All your assumptions about yourself eg your birthday, your name and ultimately your body are mediocre second-hand and by hearsay – Rushi Mar 20 '24 at 11:20
  • Somewhat more prosaically: If your conviction of your senses in 98% maybe your conviction of the naive sense of things being real should be 98%? Seriously: If you wish to really question the 98% you need to invest in dream experience: Do you know for sure you are not dreaming? Do you know that when you are dreaming?? – Rushi Mar 20 '24 at 12:11
  • It's not so much the perceptions of the senses which are uncertain (although they can be), but the causes and meanings we put on them. They are entirely subjective, although there is a thread of 'common sense' which runs through them. – Weather Vane Mar 20 '24 at 20:34

3 Answers3

2

That’s the old question which Descartes answers by “Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)”.

Descartes decided to put in doubt everything. In order to see if something remains, that he cannot put in doubt. He concluded that he cannot put in doubt that he is doubting. This was his radical method to ensure to oneself the own existence. He considered the method safe against mental delusion.

See “Descartes; Meditations on First Philosophy”.

For an introduction see Cartesian doubt and Cogito ergo sum, and more in depth Descartes, Chap. 2.2.

Jo Wehler
  • 30,912
  • 3
  • 29
  • 94
  • If you doubt everything how can you prove the claim I think therefore I am? Obviously he thinks, or so he thinks that he thinks, vicious circle.... He cannot doubt that he thinks because that would be an self defeating assumption. @Jo Wehler – MathematicalPhysicist Mar 20 '24 at 04:47
  • Doubting is a mental action. If you think that you think, than at least your thinking is real. I consider this argument to be the trick of Descartes. – Jo Wehler Mar 20 '24 at 05:51
2

Many people take the common sense view that they are so close to being 100% sure that they can ignore the residual uncertainty. I suggest that there are very few people who spend their lives paralysed by doubt about whether the world they perceive is real. Indeed, many humans seem content to adopt a feeling of certainty about all kinds of beliefs, whether or not those beliefs have ever been bolstered by first-hand perceptions. For example, I am prepared to believe there are craters on the dark side of the Moon, even though I have never seen it.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the tendency of humans to form beliefs is one that has arisen through evolution, as have our other fundamental characteristics. We acquire beliefs over time both through direct and second-hand perceptions. Through direct observation, I am sure I have mole above my left knee; through indirect observation I am sure that Africa is larger than Birkenhead and that Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert.

Of course, the human's ability to form beliefs is not infallible, and is open to exploitation by the unscrupulous, which is why some people believe what they are told by politicians, religious figures and marketing companies.

If we feel it necessary to assess the validity of our beliefs, the tools at our disposal are perception and critical thinking. If you can subject your beliefs to open minded scrutiny, you might change your mind about some. If you cannot, or will not, then you can remain happy in your bigoted ignorance.

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64
  • 1
    Your posts are always refreshing with their balanced assessment and resulting dismissal of excessive views. – Jo Wehler Mar 20 '24 at 07:21
  • @JoWehler you are too kind! I fear, however, judging by the downvote my answer has received, that not everyone agrees with your assessment! – Marco Ocram Mar 20 '24 at 09:51
  • 2
    @JoWehler, separately, I must say that since I discovered this site a year or so ago, I have been struck by how little explicit attention is given to the link between philosophy and evolution. It seems obvious to me, with hindsight, that the way we think and perceive the world, are purely the product of evolution, yet many ideas that shape philosophy pre-date knowledge of evolution and so are almost certainly missing something. – Marco Ocram Mar 20 '24 at 10:00
  • Hi Marco! Also me, I learnt that you cannot be everybody’s darling :-) I think that's OK. After all it's a platform for philosophy. Of course, often one would like to know the reason for a downvoting. – I agree with you, that until now we did not exploit the full explanatory potential of the theory of evolution. Its potential to explain those unconscious dispositions, which lay at the base of many of our humans traits. Even to change what is conscious is often so difficult, because it is phylogenetically inherited. – Jo Wehler Mar 20 '24 at 11:40
0

I think, in the world view accessible to humans, there is no absolute or universal reality. Our "real" is always a mirror of some relative version of reality. One of the billions of versions/copies of reality. Some of these versions are currently running while others are frozen in time. But if you abridge to the version of reality that your personal view is currently connected to, then a lot of things are real (for you).

TheMatrix Equation-balance
  • 500
  • 1
  • 8
  • 1
    Our "real" is always a mirror of some relative version of reality. " If so, we have a reality (that is mirrored (whatever it mean)) in "our reality": then, reality is "the real" and we human have a (limited) knowledge of it due to our specific point of view. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 20 '24 at 10:38
  • Right, the billions of versions correspond to the billions of people, each with their own perception and timeline. Its a meat Matrix, mate. Have a cup of maté and chill. – Scott Rowe Mar 20 '24 at 10:56
  • When you play Sony PlayStation with people online, you get a copy of the game runtime locally, but you also share metadata with other people/copies as well as a central (universal) database. – TheMatrix Equation-balance Mar 20 '24 at 23:20