RE: Consciousness is simply an illusion emergent of a Boltzmann brain configuration....
April 5, 2016 at 12:28 pm
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2016 at 12:31 pm by robvalue.)
Thank you 
I agree. I have no grounds for saying this isn't "the" objective reality. Nothing solid, anyway. I'm only noting limitations on our ability to be sure about it. Personally, I am baffled by the idea that it could ever be demonstrated that this is in fact "reality", even by probability. I don't get how it can be done. But I'm open to hearing about attempts that are made in the future, I'm not using my incredulity as an argument.
It seems intuitive that there is a "real" objective reality, somewhere; we just can't be sure that we have ever found it. But really, that's an assumption in itself, because I wouldn't even know how to define what it means that it is "real". The best I can come up with is that it exists independently of any particular viewpoint. And that's again assuming anything can exist independently this way.
Sure, it amounts to mental masturbation, as some call it. It has no bearing on anything, except the pleasure (or otherwise) people get from thinking about it.
Most people simply assume that the objective reality has been found; fair enough. I'm just not bothering to even define what "real" means in the first place, and I accept what I find as "real to me". The end result is exactly the same, of course.
It's just my musings. I feel ultimately vastly under-equipped to make any concrete statements about anything. Hence my reliance on the scientific method to return sound, probabilistic results and to accept them as the best we can ever do.

I agree. I have no grounds for saying this isn't "the" objective reality. Nothing solid, anyway. I'm only noting limitations on our ability to be sure about it. Personally, I am baffled by the idea that it could ever be demonstrated that this is in fact "reality", even by probability. I don't get how it can be done. But I'm open to hearing about attempts that are made in the future, I'm not using my incredulity as an argument.
It seems intuitive that there is a "real" objective reality, somewhere; we just can't be sure that we have ever found it. But really, that's an assumption in itself, because I wouldn't even know how to define what it means that it is "real". The best I can come up with is that it exists independently of any particular viewpoint. And that's again assuming anything can exist independently this way.
Sure, it amounts to mental masturbation, as some call it. It has no bearing on anything, except the pleasure (or otherwise) people get from thinking about it.
Most people simply assume that the objective reality has been found; fair enough. I'm just not bothering to even define what "real" means in the first place, and I accept what I find as "real to me". The end result is exactly the same, of course.
It's just my musings. I feel ultimately vastly under-equipped to make any concrete statements about anything. Hence my reliance on the scientific method to return sound, probabilistic results and to accept them as the best we can ever do.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum