1.2.1.5 Indicators of Reality

Version 1.0 July 2016                                     (Previous Version)

We shall make no progress if we are paralysed by the extreme form of doubt that leads us only to “me� and “not-me�.  People suffering anxiety are often unable to take sensible action in the world because that are overwhelmed by uncertainty, of which systematic doubt is an extreme form.  Psychotic people have difficulty distinguishing between those parts of reality that that are external and those that are internal mental events.

Begin with Me and Not-Me

To work out how we are to behave, we have to work out what we can confidently believe in, so that we can choose between the options available to us.

We believe that the existence of some aspects of reality is independent of ourselves.  It doesn’t depend on our perceptions, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, or beliefs.  Nor does it depend on our visceral emotions or our conscious thoughts. 

The problem is that we can know things only as they are related to us, under our forms of perception and understanding, insofar as they fall into our preconceived conceptual schemes, so, we cannot know things as they are in themselves.  How can we rise above this limitation? 

Firstly there is no need to accept a priori, without looking at the facts, that there is no connection between appearances and reality.  We may not be sure what the connection is, we are aware of all the doubts the sceptics raise, but these doubts are not sufficient to assume no connection. 

We do accept that the sensory perceptions we have are likely (if not always) to be sourced from some object or event in the external world that is likely (if not always) to exist whether it is being perceived or not.  We cannot prove this to be true, but our understanding of what we experience is greatly facilitated by adopting this position. 

This way to begin working out the nature of reality is to start from within our minds, with the only single thing that we cannot doubt: existence itself.  This is illuminating and points out some issues that need to be resolved.  But we don't need to be constrained by this starting point.  We can look at the problem slightly differently. 

Assuming you are real, and other minds are real, and each of these minds sees a “me� and “not-me� perhaps there is some overlap between all the “not-me� parts.  Can we assume they refer to almost the same thing?  My “not-me� includes you and perhaps some of your “not-me�.  Perhaps we are all minds participating in a mostly shared external environment.

Common Sense Reality

We can anticipate what is said in other sections, and suggest that this “shared external environment� corresponds with the common sense view of reality that merges into the scientific view.  This is essentially the view we must adopt if we are to have a conversation. 

If I write this and you read this we already made a bucket load of assumptions or choices about the nature of reality.  Being fully aware of the risk of illusion and error raised by the sceptics, we can at least imagine that perhaps there are real physical objects out there, including the parts of our bodies, and that our sensory perceptions and visceral emotions are “grounded� or sourced from those objects in some way.  Given that this is a conversation, why should I assume that I am the only participant?

When referring to the common sense view of reality that merges into the scientific view here we are not at this stage accepting the whole concept in its entirety.  We do not leap from systematic doubt to accepting all of science’s strange theories.  At this point we are only accepting the minimalist view that there are objects out there and that these are the grounds of our perceptions in some way.

When we later go through all the analyses of different approached to metaphysics, such as nihilism, idealism, monism, dualism, pluralism, realism, materialism and so on, we come to the conclusion that the common sense view of reality that merges into the scientific view is the simplest, the most coherent and the most logical.  Simplicity, coherence and consistency are the fundamental tools we have for determining the most likely truth out of a competing set of explanations (see 1.1.7).

We have to accept that this is not an obviously persuasive argument.  We have no objective measures of how good or true one approach is compared to another.  We can't say how the coherence or simplicity of a theory affects its goodness as an explanation.  In a way this is a bit embarrassing, but it is the best we, as individuals and as a species, can do, so that’s why we choose it.  And virtually no philosopher suggests we do otherwise.

A Third Force

A third possible way to begin is to assume there is some third force intervening in the process between our minds and our perceptions.  This third force may be the Jedi force, or God, or some other amazing, fantastic or magical entity or indeed a collection of entities. 

•        This third force could be sending signals to us via our perceptions, to tell us things, so that we can reach certain conclusions, and form beliefs which are the basis of our action choices. 

•        If this is the case then the universe as we perceive it could be full of meaning, or at least some part of it, however small, may be more than it seems. 

•        We could perhaps discover some of the meanings emanating from this third force by using the epistemological techniques outline in Chapter 1.1 Philosophy, such as induction and reasoning. 

•        If these failed, and most people probably expect they would, then some people will turn to revelation (see 1.1.5) to discover the hidden meanings behind appearances. 

•        We discuss the concerns we have with this option in section 1.2.7 Non-Materialist Approaches and in Chapter 1.3 Theology.  But there is no reason to believe such a third force is benign, caring or intelligent.  It could just as well be malevolent or simply an automaton. 

•        The signals, the so called meaning behind our perceptions, may simply be of no use.

But one again we reject this as a starting point, without yet rejecting the supernatural itself, because of Occam’s Razor: there is no need to suppose a third force in order to explain the link between ordinary sense data and reality.  Common sense reality merging into scientific reality will do.  Believing in a third intermediary unnecessarily complicates things and adds no explanatory value.  Once we accept that our perceptions are indications of what is out there in reality, then we can evaluate whether God or supernatural beings are part of that reality.

So that we can continue our analysis and work out how to behave, in metaphysics we end up making multiple choices that lead to the acceptance of public reality as a core value. 

Before we examine how we perceive, we look at what other assumptions it seems we can't do without.