Based on the reading of chapter 6, my sensory experience has valid reasons for believing in the external world. Biology and science have proven on a cellular level that we have incredible sensory abilities and biological responses to the world around us. Our sensory of the world around us is essentially our reality. I think that if we were to argue that our sensory experience is a computer-generated experience, then a computer would have to be real and exist. If a computer exists and creates our perceived reality, then where does the computer derive its content? On another note, computers were built by humans in this world by using things in the external world. I think we have to accept our sensory experiences “as they seem” because there is really no way to prove otherwise. If a demon is deceiving us with our perceptions, a demon must exist. In order for a philosopher to come up with ideas such as “deception by a demon”, they are the ones that came up with the idea. How do they know about such a concept of deception or demons if not learned from the external world. I think the explanationism, the idea of believing a hypothesis because they sufficiently explain the current data, is interesting and plausible explanation for believing our sensory experience. It takes more explaining and complications to disprove our sensory experience. It is, what it is, couldn’t be more accurate for this skeptical argument on the reality of the external world.
The validity of our sensory experiences and their connection to the external world
Your perspective on the validity of our sensory experiences and their connection to the external world is well-argued. You highlight the biological and scientific evidence that supports our sensory abilities and how they shape our perception of reality. The fact that our senses are deeply rooted in our biology and have evolved to respond to the external world lends credibility to the idea that our sensory experiences reflect an external reality.
Your point about the existence of a computer-generated reality is thought-provoking. If we were to entertain the notion that our sensory experiences are artificially created, then we would need to consider the existence of a computer that generates this reality. However, as you rightly point out, computers are products of the external world and are built by humans using materials and knowledge acquired from the external world. This suggests that our sensory experiences are not solely generated by a computer but are intertwined with the physical world around us.
Additionally, you raise an important argument regarding the concept of deception by a demon or other external entities. The fact that philosophers have come up with such ideas implies that they have acquired knowledge about deception, demons, or alternate realities from the external world. This further supports the notion that our sensory experiences are connected to an external reality that shapes our understanding and concepts.
You also introduce the concept of explanationism as a plausible explanation for believing in our sensory experiences. The idea that our current data and experiences can be sufficiently explained by accepting our sensory perceptions aligns with Occam’s Razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation tends to be the most accurate. In this case, accepting our sensory experiences “as they seem” requires fewer assumptions and complexities compared to alternative skeptical arguments.
Overall, your argument highlights the strong connection between our sensory experiences and the external world. While skepticism exists regarding the nature of reality, your reasoning convincingly supports the notion that our sensory experiences have valid reasons for believing in the external world.