Evidence of Objectivity?

[Edwardo Piet]

Whenever we have evidence of something that evidence always comes either directly from our experience or is indirectly induced from it. I have direct evidence of my own experience, and I can also induce - but I can't deduce it, hence why solipsism isn't disproven - from my experience that other individuals similar to me also experience things, but where is the evidence of anything actually existing besides subjectivity?

Well, I guess, since when someone is unconscious they still exist that's an example of objective existence without subjective experience. But is it? Their unconsciousness is still consciously experienced by others who observe their consciousness, so what if there were no conscious observers at all, what if there were no subjects, would there be any objects then? The subject really does exist subjectively to other subjects even when it itself is unconscious, but that's still a matter of subjectivity so is it really evidence that if there were no subjects there would still be objects (as in, objects separate to subjects)? Is there valid induction there or not?

We have experience of evidence around the world and the universe that indicate that things existed before human or non-human experience existed, but is that evidence also evidence for such a reality separate to our experience of that evidence itself, and if not how can we be sure anything existed before human or non-human experience?

It sounds an utterly absurd thing to question, but incredulity and absurdity are not rational reasons to disbelieve the possibility, they are merely intuitive ones. It may be absurd of us to question this matter, but is it really improbable for it to be true? I intuitively assume that there are probably rational reasons for why this is an absurd thing to question, but I can't think of what those reasons are. So, assuming that our intuition on the matter is correct, how is it?

Discuss.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Scepticism about the eternal world is difficult, if not impossible, to refute. Unless one is an idealist, believing that all things are actually mental, that they are ideas, and that there's no such thing as matter, the generally held view is that objects would still exist if there were no observers.

The subject really does exist subjectively to other subjects even when it itself is unconscious, but that's still a matter of subjectivity so is it really evidence that if there were no subjects there would still be objects (as in, objects separate to subjects)? Is there valid induction there or not?

No, because our subjective experience is perfectly logically compatible with the view that everything we perceive is just a dream. Although, Bertrand Russell I think argues that the regular behaviour of what we perceive to be other people, and other objects, is more explicable by our common sense view than by solipsism, or some other sceptical view. A cat gets hungry at regular times, which is just what we'd expect if it had a mental life like ours. I've probably simplified the argument a little, but that's the gist, I think. Russell admits that it's not a particularly strong argument, but it's an argument nonetheless.

[Edwardo Piet]

I do have an argument against pure solipsism. The apparent similarity between myself and others is an inductive argument that others seemingly similar to me are similarly conscious. What I'm wondering is if there is any actual inductive argument that if there were no observers at all, that there would then still be objects. I'm not sure there is any valid argument there at all, despite it intuitively making common sense to me.

You see, I think that I have uncovered my inductive rationale behind my common sense belief that solipsism is false, so I'm wondering if it is possible for me to do the same thing regarding my common sense belief that Idealism is also false.

[Captain Scarlet]

I do have an argument against pure solipsism. The apparent similarity between myself and others is an inductive argument that others seemingly similar to me are similarly conscious. What I'm wondering is if there is any actual inductive argument that if there were no observers at all, that there would then still be objects. I'm not sure there is any valid argument there at all, despite it intuitively making common sense to me.

You see, I think that I have uncovered my inductive rationale behind my common sense belief that solipsism is false, so I'm wondering if it is possible for me to do the same thing regarding my common sense belief that Idealism is also false.

Isn't existence itself evidence of the objective. If you deny that existence, exists then you would have to exist to utter that sentence or think that thought. Therefore is it not logically impossible to deny the objectivity of existence?

[Edwardo Piet]

Isn't existence itself evidence of the objective.

I thought I made it clear that I was talking about objectivity separate to subjectivity. It's possible that nothing actually exists outside subjective existence.

[...]Therefore is it not logically impossible to deny the objectivity of existence?

Obviously. I'm clearly talking about objectivity apart from subjectivity.

[Captain Scarlet]

So if we can agree existence, exists. Why can't we agree that it exists independent of our subjective experience of it? I may be mising your point here, I admit?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm wondering if there's an argument for objectivity independent of subjectivity, or if we just intuitively believe in it.