I had a brief chat with a work colleague today about the nature of reality and our perception of it. Essentially, his contention was that because we all basically agree on our external physical reality (e.g. when I hand him a cup of tea we both agree that I've just passed him a cup of hot tea), there must be an external reality because we both seem to agree on what it's like. If there wasn't such an external reality and we didn't essentially agree on it, he pointed out, we wouldn't be able to even ask for a cup of tea because my idea of what a cup of tea actually is would be totally different (or at least different enough to make meaningful communication difficult). Therefore, he concluded, it's common sense that we must be talking about and looking at the same "real" things and that we both experience them in the same -- or very similar -- way. Age-old philosophical problem solved! But it can't be that simple. So my question is what are the main problems with this "consensus" view of reality? Or, to put...

It sounds to me like the arguments about the existence of God are displaced from what the essence of the argument is "really" about. It seems pretty clear from the equations of quantum mechanics that there is a Deity. However, whether She takes any interest in human beings, let alone the quotidian details of our everyday lives, is another matter. That is where the argument "really" seems to be: if we posit that there is a Deity, what reasons do we have to believe that She cares about our everyday lives or intercedes in response to a prayer? It may well be that She is like a parent with grown children: "I took care of you and raised you to adulthood and gave you all the skills and abilities you need to take care of yourself on your own. Good luck!" Isn't that the basis of the argument in favor of free will? If we do have free will, then why would God respond to our prayers?

Is a Ph.D. in Philosophy from a Russian University essential when applying to U.S. Ph.D. full funding programs in Philosophy? Is the world rank of that Russian University important for the purpose ?

The Milgram experiment. We often listen to authoritative figures and do things we're uncomfortable doing, for what we hope will be result in a better good. For example, I don't think there's one parent who didn't feel terrible having to see their child go through the pain of chemotherapy, but they did/do go ahead with it regardless. They put their trust in doctors in that the pain is necessary to help get rid of the child's cancer. Can't that argument be made for the teachers in the Milgram experiment, where the teachers didn't blindly choose to hurt the subjects, but rather, they assumed that the study they were part of was done in the hopes of positive results which would be for the public's benefit (including that of the person getting zapped)?

Is perfume an art

What's an ancestral?

So for the past month I've been having a great deal of anxiety over something kind of strange. I've always overthought everything in my life, which led me to wondering whether we as human beings are able to control our thinking. Sometime it seems as if random thoughts pop into my head for no reason at all. For example I could just be at work and randomly think of the upcoming superbowl. However, why did I do that? Did I choose to think about that? Or did the subconcious part of my brain send me that thought? Wondering about this kind of frightens me. I know it's irrational to be scared of it, but it makes me think that we don't really have free will. Do we really control our thoughts? Please answer.

Is it morally justified to steal a thing from someone who also stole it?

Is information same thing as knowledge?

One classification of evil is natural evil, those evils that are explained by laws of nature, without need for a personal agent. But is it appropriate to call natural disasters evil? The usual connotation of evil is something that pertains to personal agents so that it seems to me that to classify natural disasters evil would seem misleading. If my argument is valid, why does "natural evil" become a common term in the discussion of the problem of evil?