Despite what you seem to think, human experience defers to the objective reality. I'm going to presuppose an objective reality because while it's not absolutely guaranteed that it exists (we could be brains in jars, etc.), Solipsism is not a useful basis for modelling your reality. All you can say is "My mind (the thing that is cogitating right now) exists. I may not have a body, despite the fact it appears I have one. It could be a trick. I can't say anything else whatsoever because it may be wrong. The end." Not useful for how to build bridges or live your life.
The sun rises every day primarily because the human-invented English word "day" is defined by solar activity. The solar activity operates regardless of our knowledge about it, and it imposes its "will" on us. We had better learn about it, because we're incapable of changing it. The same is true of gravity, wind, light and so on. Anything we want to say about them has to match up with observation. Reality has the final say. If we predict reality will do something, and a consensus of people perceive that it doesn't, then we were wrong. This is the correspondence theory of truth. We recognise that we're basing it around human observation, but this covers most of the basics, insofar as explaining they exist. Having invented tools like microscopes, telescopes, infra-red/ultra-violet cameras, spectral analysers, etc. - things which can capture the empirical details that humans would miss - we can now get empirical data beyond our senses.
As Kant points out, we learn facts about the world, but these are impressions in our mind formed by sensation, not the thing-in-itself. So our basic working model is the impression we get. A simple example would be optics. If something appears red, it's because it's reflecting electromagnetic energy in (at least) the visible red range of the spectrum. If it's illuminated by sunlight, it's absorbing all other visible colours. So that actual colour of the thing, from the perspective of thing itself, is more like cyan: a mix of all colours except red. And once again, "red" is just a human-invented English word for electromagnetic waves with a wavelength around the 650nm mark. But what we've observed is that red has a special meaning to millions of distinct species in the animal world: it means "I am dangerous, don't try to attack me or eat me". This is independent of our human sensation. We've decomposed the eyes of many animal species and found similar biochemical mechanisms for colour detection. They too can see "red". They too are scared of it. So despite us picking a human name for it, the experience of red is shared by more than just humans. There's an advantage to appearing "red" in the natural world, and if this requires you reflect red light because that's how your predators will perceive your redness, then you do it.
The reason we accept repeated observation as the basis of knowledge is not just because it appears to be a fundamental mechanism for our brain's learning, but also because it's useful. Imagine a singularity happens; that's interesting, but not much use, as nobody else is going to perceive it. Meanwhile, there's an entire world full of reliable, repeating events. They will affect more than one person. That makes them important in our minds. If we did live in a world where nothing happened more than once, we'd have to adapt, but as we live in a world where the most important things to us appear to run like clockwork, we're going to follow that.
I'll say more later.
kur0shin.org -- it certainly is
Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]