Why do some people doubt reality, again?

[Junkhead]

I forgot the actual answer to this...was it the apparent lack of "proof"? Because I don't think many people would doubt it, unless they watched The Matrix or been reading about Descartes.

[Djeets]

it's because people never get satisfied with how "reality" was, so they dream for a higher meaning of existency, no even beyond the word "existency" and "real". or something like that

Edited October 17, 2013 by Pukuriripo

[Espinosa]

Some people think that if it doesn't make sense, it's not real. It can also be hard to prove that anything outside your mind really exists.

[Junkhead]

Oh yeah, the "phaneron"...but in that case, why don't they take others' viewpoint as a whole reference? I mean, if can share alot of the things you see yourself, as well as other senses then why don't philosophers rely on that?

Also, what doesn't "make sense" about the world?

[Shahrivar]

Philosophers are searching for the truth, of course they doubt reality.

There is a difference between theory and practice, in practice I expect the chair to exist and carry my weight. But I don't have any prove for it's existence or my body's-

I don't know if I count towards your "normal people", but I'm studying philosophy,

[Esau of Isaac]

Oh yeah, the "phaneron"...but in that case, why don't they take others' viewpoint as a whole reference? I mean, if can share alot of the things you see yourself, as well as other senses then why don't philosophers rely on that?

Also, what doesn't "make sense" about the world?

You can't accept others' viewpoints as strongly as your own because they have the possibility of being false. Similarly, you can't accept most of your perceptions as strictly true because they have the possibility of also being tampered with.

The only surest thing any one person can possibly know as an immutable fact is that they themselves exist. While the vast majority of us will accept the reality we experience as truth there is always the slim possibility that it is entirely false. Thus it can be said the standards of accepting what is and is not truth gradually increase as you move away from your self.

[Junkhead]

I don't see why not, when we can agree on most things. Most trivial things, that is...not going into detail like exact eye color, or something.

[BK-201]

The doubting of reality is commonly associated with skepticism, the philosophical belief that we can't truly verify "knowledge" and thus knowledge isn't necessarily real. Like in the Matrix which has its philosophical undertones, the world of the matrix is indistinguishable from reality to most but in reality, the matrix is all occurring in the mind.

So Descartes is one of the earlier writers on this, in his meditations where the argument boils down to: My senses are capable of deceiving me, I cannot trust anything that has deceived me without a doubt, all of what I know comes from my senses, therefore all of what I know might be false. But he tries to answer this with foundationalism beginning with some basic truths and from that deriving the rest of knowledge.

There is the cogito argument that we can verify our own existence because we must exist to harbor such notions and its inconceivable to myself that I don't exist because otherwise there would be nothing to formulate such a thought. But it is possible none of this exists because you could all be sensory projections from my own mind or whatever.

So in short, the reason people doubt reality is because there is no 100% verification that what we perceive is reality because we can always go to some hypothetical matrix scenario in which we would have to concede if that scenario were true, then our perception is not reality.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't see why not, when we can agree on most things. Most trivial things, that is...not going into detail like exact eye color, or something.

Whether another person can agree with your interpretation of something doesn't necessarily validate it in the truest sense. Who is to say the person is not a figment of your imagination in the first place? It may very well be that all of your senses are being manipulated by someone or something outside of your perception.

We don't lend credence to these viewpoints because they are by their nature impossible to verify, but the fact remains that the possibility they are true is greater than zero.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix Wright]

because other ppl R not as zmart as me so they cnt really understand tru realit u kno?

Taking a physics twist, if you look into quantum mechanics, literally nothing makes intuitive sense (like, Newtonian mechanics just make sense). It's all fucking crazy insane (but as far as we know, correct) physics.

So, as Espinosa said, people doubt reality sometimes because it doesn't make sense to them. To them I say, "What does it even mean to make sense?"

[Green Poet]

Well, it's an understandable concept. I've heard a few arguments on nihilism that base their rejection of reality on some assumptions of faith, such as that everything one can perceive is adulterated in some way, making all of that person's experiences questionable.

Hmm, Esau seems to have put that thought better than I already.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Green Poet

[Makaze]

It is healthy and rational to seek out and use a consistent model of your world to navigate your daily life. Whether you are in the Matrix or a physical world, it is still silly to ignore what happened the last time you touched the stove.

Despite that, it is also perfectly healthy and rational to question reality.

As such, I wouldn't say it's the lack of proof so much as logical necessity. Pick your poison.

• Each measurement you take of your world measures the tool you use to take the measurement as much as the thing you are measuring. e.g. A microscope tells you as much about the properties of the microscope as the thing you view through it. The same applies to your eyes and other senses.
• No matter how consistent the tool you measure with, you can never know for certain that it will not fail the next time you try.
• Which tool you use can be arbitrary. e.g. Light consistently appears to be a particle using one tool and consistently appears to be a wave with another.
• No matter how much you know, you can not know that there is nothing more to learn. There is no way to tell a difference between the limit of your own subjective capacity for knowledge and the true limit of knowledge.
• The only basis of comparison we have for the reality of our past is our memory. The only basis of comparison we have for the reality our present is our past. We have no basis of comparison for the reality of our first experience.
• Reality is functionally identical to perception. Feeling the sensation of pain in a hallucination or dream is similar in every way to 'actually' being in pain.

It can be easy to assume that you don't need to doubt reality because your world has become easy to navigate and you don't feel as lost as you once did. I don't think we should do that because it puts a limit on our potential and allows us to forgo advances in lieu of complacency and contentment.

People need doubt because they need to find out how to get what they want from the world around them. Doubt is what makes us ask questions instead of assuming things. The answers to those questions form patterns that make it easier to get what we from the world without hesitation. We can never be close enough to perfection. The more answers we have, the better our predictions will be, and to that end we are always doubting everything we can.

We could all stand to be a little more skeptical of our realities.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Makaze

[BluBlaDe]

Philosopher didn't have porn, videos games or work to do so they basically had jack shit to do. When you have nothing to do you basically start thinking like hell and you come up with all sort of crazy stuff and even sometimes they came up with pretty good stuff.

So why do people doubt reality? Because they had nothing to do and basically came up with theories or something.

[Dark Sage]

Philosopher didn't have porn, videos games or work to do so they basically had jack shit to do. When you have nothing to do you basically start thinking like hell and you come up with all sort of crazy stuff and even sometimes they came up with pretty good stuff.

So why do people doubt reality? Because they had nothing to do and basically came up with theories or something.

you're fucking hillarious

I don't know if I count towards your "normal people", but I'm studying philosophy,

Edited October 27, 2013 by Jack Frost

[Esau of Isaac]

Philosopher didn't have porn, videos games or work to do so they basically had jack shit to do. When you have nothing to do you basically start thinking like hell and you come up with all sort of crazy stuff and even sometimes they came up with pretty good stuff.

So why do people doubt reality? Because they had nothing to do and basically came up with theories or something.

This has got to be a gag. I don't know how you've kept it up for years but goddamnit it's impressive and I shake your hand sir and/or madam.

[Skynstein]

I studied Descartes briefly in law school and I've never associated him with doubting reality itself. What he proposes is a scientific method based on doubt as opposed to believing given or predetermined knowledge, as the foundation of rationalism, since his line of thought is a rupture with acceptance of traditions like what was done before him.

[BK-201]

I studied Descartes briefly in law school and I've never associated him with doubting reality itself. What he proposes is a scientific method based on doubt as opposed to believing given or predetermined knowledge, as the foundation of rationalism, since his line of thought is a rupture with acceptance of traditions like what was done before him.

In his meditations, Descartes talks about initially trending towards skepticism based off doubt and then constructs multiple foundational truths in an attempt to verify reality.

[Steampunk]

I forgot the actual answer to this...was it the apparent lack of "proof"? Because I don't think many people would doubt it, unless they watched The Matrix or been reading about Descartes.

tl;dr - because the human brain is hella drug.

The mind is a powerful thing. It really is. That's ultimately where I think the challenge lies: the human brain can make anything, no matter how ludicrous feel incredibly real. Dreams are a perfect example: no matter how incoherent or irrational events in your dreams may be, they can still feel as real as anything you experience while awake. When the mind can make anything feel real, some people can't help but wonder if the mind is playing tricks on you when you don't believe it is.

Considering that the brain can make misspelled words appear correct, and that there are blind spots in your peripheral vision that the brain automatically "fills in" so you don't notice them, it's not too unreasonable to wonder how many other things the brain changes to make sense of everything we experience. That's not even getting in to disorders like Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personalities) or Capgras delusion (believing everyone you know has been replaced with an imposter). Most people don't care: real or fake, this is the life they have so they're going to make the most of it. Others take these things more seriously because of how their brain is wired. So really, it comes down to each person why they accept reality or not. One person may believe everything isn't real as a coping mechanism due to severe trauma while others may reject reality because of delusion. People who don't have those issues may have no probem accepting reality at all, and some people with dissociative disorders may have times where they reject reality, but they are aware they are doing it.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Dieselpunk

[Chiki]

I don't know why the various explanations here are so long and complicated. It's quite simple.

You can't conclusively prove that you're not a brain in the vat who just receives experience from some program. You can't disprove that you're being controlled by an evil demon--which is what Descartes mentions in his Meditations.

Sadly enough, he's completely right. There is absolutely nothing that can be conclusively proven or disproven with 100% certainty. You can always make up some possible reason to doubt a piece of evidence. How do you know an evil demon isn't deceiving you?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Chiki

[Rapier]

Because you see reality with your own eyes and bias, from your own viewpoint. When it contrasts it, you think it's false until proven true (in a way that your point of view accepts the answer). Sometimes you can't bring yourself to accept some things, sometimes you accept some things as 'true' even if they're 'false' because they are real enough for you. We are limited to our viewpoints and only a few can get past it enough to get a grasp of how reality truly is.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't know why the various explanations here are so long and complicated. It's quite simple.

You can't conclusively prove that you're not a brain in the vat who just receives experience from some program. You can't disprove that you're being controlled by an evil demon--which is what Descartes mentions in his Meditations.

Sadly enough, he's completely right. There is absolutely nothing that can be conclusively proven or disproven with 100% certainty. You can always make up some possible reason to doubt a piece of evidence. How do you know an evil demon isn't deceiving you?

Well, there can't be any question of your own existence. You can't be deceived of your own existence because deception would obviously require their existence.

[Chiki]

Well, there can't be any question of your own existence. You can't be deceived of your own existence because deception would obviously require their existence.

I'm very confused. You just proved yourself wrong in your own post. It requires their existence, not your existence.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm very confused. You just proved yourself wrong in your own post. It requires their existence, not your existence.

I cannot verify to certainty their existence, but I can verify my own existence to a certainty. In other words, there cannot exist the possibility that an existent entity is exerting control over a non-existing entity to make said non-existent entity incorrectly believe it exists. You don't have to worry that something is fooling you into thinking you are real when in fact you are not because it would be a paradox to at once not exist and also consider whether you exist.

I suppose I worded it poorly on my end.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Chiki]

I cannot verify to certainty their existence, but I can verify my own existence to a certainty. In other words, there cannot exist the possibility that an existent entity is exerting control over a non-existing entity to make said non-existent entity incorrectly believe it exists. You don't have to worry that something is fooling you into thinking you are real when in fact you are not because it would be a paradox to at once not exist and also consider whether you exist.

I suppose I worded it poorly on my end.

Bolded part. There's a few ways this is possible. The first way would be to deny that personal identity exists at all. Consider a person getting cut into a perfect half and both halves surviving--with the left hemisphere being one person and the right hemisphere being the other person. Which one is the original person? The right or left hemisphere? It seems impossible to pick which one. So identity seems like a difficult concept to defend when considering the fission case, and there is no "I" that exists.

And there's another way. Some people think that what matters in personhood could be a person's personality and memory. So, for example, Hitler is Hitler if and only if something has Hitler's memories, his hatred towards Jews, and so on. But what if an existent entity deceives some existing thing (but not Hitler) into thinking that it has Hitler's personality and memory, when it doesn't?

It seems impossible to conclude that nothing exists, to be fair to Descartes. Something has to exist for deception to occur. But that doesn't mean I exist.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Chiki

[Esau of Isaac]

Bolded part. There's a few ways this is possible. The first way would be to deny that personal identity exists at all. Consider a person getting cut into a perfect half and both halves surviving--with the left hemisphere being one person and the right hemisphere being the other person. Which one is the original person? The right or left hemisphere? It seems impossible to pick which one. So identity seems like a difficult concept to defend when considering the fission case, and there is no "I" that exists.

Are we to assume for the sake of this experiment that both halves are somehow functioning as though together? That would contradict the reality of brain chemistry would it not? A person is the sum total of their pieces, and their loss effects them in different and numerous ways.

While it is difficult to define specifically where an "I" begins, if we are to start with the premise that something is considering an event then it cannot be questioned whether that entity exists.

And there's another way. Some people think that what matters in personhood could be a person's personality and memory. So, for example, Hitler is Hitler if and only if something has Hitler's memories, his hatred towards Jews, and so on. But what if an existent entity deceives some existing thing (but not Hitler) into thinking that it has Hitler's personality and memory, when it doesn't?

Then that entity is yet an entity. They are deceived into believing something that is false but they are not a non-entity deceived into believing they are an entity.

It seems impossible to conclude that nothing exists, to be fair to Descartes. Something has to exist for deception to occur. But that doesn't mean I exist.

I certainly won't argue that what constitutes "You" is debatable. I am merely saying that one can be assured that they as an entity are existent for a certain fact.