If I understood you right, your point is that what if we all live in a different reality?
Your idea contains an inherent contradiction. You say that I have equal claims to existing as you, but we might exist in different realities. What if we meet up and describe our worlds to each other? We would be able to agree on whether you are super rich or a bum. It would turn out that we agree quite precisely on objective things, such as whether you are rich or whether, more basic, is there an apple on the table. (We may disagree on how the apple tastes like, since this is subjective. Or we may disagree on the feelings associated with firecrackers, but we would agree that there is a firecracker on the table.) There is coherency in our experience, hence there can be two explanations for this:
a) the outside world is real, and we all live in the same one (although experiencing it differently on a subjective level)
b) you do not exist, and it is only me who exists, and you are also only my imagination
b) is an interesting point, and one, which cannot be disproven.
We can ever only know our own mind, anything outside is unreachable for us. We sense the outside world, but all we ever have is the experience of sensing something. Lets say I see an apple, so I experience its colour and shape. But I never have the apple itself in my brain. This is called the veil of perception.
Now, if we can never know the outside world directly, then there can be no proof that there is one altogether. What if all that exists is just our mind? Or what if we exist in a delusioned state, like people in the Matrix movie? There's no way to tell. Or the way Descarted looked at it, what if I am dreaming in this moment? What if this is a long, consistent dream? What if this is a dream within a dream? Again there is no way to know, because any proof we might have for the opposite must necessarily come from inside the dream. Or what if there is an evil demon feeding me all this sensory information (quite like the Matrix)?
Or the solipsist view (the point b)), that what if all which exists is only my own mind? What if all the other people are imagined by me, like all the rest of the world. Again, there is no way to prove the opposite. I only ever know my own mind.
I do not hold this view, but it is irresputable. Although just because something cannot be proved not to exist, doesn't mean it exists. I do believe that we are part of some form of an external world, and this belief is founded on three things (adapted from John Locke):
1) consistency in my experience - for example, each autumn, the trees shed their leaves. If my car is gray, it still is gray tomorrow. (this might not be the case was it a dream)
2) coherency - we would both agree, that my car is gray. (edit: wouldn't really matter though, if you were imagined by me. This point is assuming outside world)
3) I cannot choose what I experience - if it was all in my head, shouldn't i be able to control it, like in LDs.
This for me is sufficiently convincing, that there is an outside world. What it is like is another question entirely (one on which I wrote under the topic "what is the substance of consciousness", in the same forum).
Also, I do believe that we all experience the world differently. Experience is subjective. I may see the wavelength of light which is near the lowest visible frequency (red) as you experience blue. The experience of red/blue is subjective, each time I have a "red" experience, I associate it with the specific wavelength, but it wouldn't make a difference if the red and blue experience swapped places. We would both still agree on the fact that an apple looks like what we are used to calling red (imagine a perfect apple ). The word red was associated with the experience to us in our childhood. I hope you see what I'm getting at here. The same thing, which I said about red could be said about any experience. Maybe chocolate tastes to you in the way, which I would associate with salt. And due to some freaky reason, you like the taste of salt as much as I like the taste of chocolate. When we compared our experiences we would agree, that it is chocolate that we eat*. There is no way to compare these subjective experiences directly between us, so we would have to use the associations given to us by other people to compare our experience, so we would agree.
So the quality of our experience might (and quite likely is, IMO) be variable. Also, the feelings and attachments each of us feels in respect to any experience are ofcourse also very different, and memories and feelings and attachments are what make up most of our experience. In short, we experience the objective outside world in a personal, subjective way.
hmm.. I always get carried away on this philosophy forum 
*I wonder if there is some biological counter argument for this. Maybe some biological mechanism which would distinguish objectively between salt and chocolate. Anyway, for the subjective act of experiencing, the point still holds. It might just be a bad example.
|
|
Bookmarks