The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

know=physical experience of now

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 66987
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

a blind mans reality is not of colours and light.

by joining this debate you accept to argue with the statement written above this one beginning at the first round, yes, amazing i know, i evolved, so you do not skip the first round for your own lack of arguments sake
Raisor

Con

I understand the Resolution to be:

“know=physical experience of now”

This is the title of the debate and so should be taken as the primary point of contention.

I disprove the Resolution with these arguments:

1. Grammatically Unintelligible

The Resolution is not grammatically intelligible, i.e. it does ot coherently express a proposition. If the Resolution does not express a proposition, it cannot be true. The Resolution fails since it cannot be true.

2. Incommensurability of knowledge and physical experience

The resolution implies logical equivalence, that “know” is the same as “physical experience.” As my 1) points out, this claim is grammatically incoherent. But even generously interpreting the resolution to mean something like “knowledge is logically equivalent to physical experience,” the resolution fails. There are categories of physical experience that are incommensurable with knowledge. Taste, pain, and sexual pleasure are physical experiences which are knowable, but knowledge of these experiences is not identical to the experience itself. The physical experience of tasting a strawberry is not identical to knowing what a strawberry tastes like, so the Resolution fails.

3. Mathematics

Mathematical knowledge or knowledge of other a priori concepts does not come from physical experience. I have no physical experience to support my knowledge that

y=e^x

y’=e^x

y’’=e^x

or to support my knowledge of linear algebra.

4. Memory

We have knowledge of things that we are not currently physically experiencing, so knowledge cannot be identical to “physical experience of now.” Pro specifically includes the word “now” in the resolution, meaning that Pro excludes physical experience of past events from his definition of “know.”

___

Pro states in his opening round that I have to argue with the statement “a blind mans reality is not of colours and light.” I do not know how this relates to the Resolution; my failure to refute this claim is irrelevant to winning this debate unless Pro can explain how it supports the Resolution. I will. however, offer an argument against this statement since Pro listed it as a condition of acceptance.


There is only one reality, therefore a blind mans reality is identical with the reality experienced by all other individuals


Colors and light are part of reality, therefore they are a part of a blind mans reality.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

know=true
knowledge=truth

so it is the best position

without physical experience there is no knowing. I don't know if a position of knowing, as I know I don't know and know is true, know is matter now

know is physical experience, knowledge is truth, and truth can only be in the past, while now is true

what are you most certain of right now, what your neighbor is doing, or that you are reading these words?

certainty=physical experience=objective
belief=be lie=doubt=subjective

knowledge is truth, and math is true or false, not about truth

I am here now, so I must have gotten here somehow, and the future is unknown

a blind man can not see reality
Raisor

Con

First, Pro has not refuted any of my 4 opening argument. I only need to win one of them to win this debate, but Pro has ignored all of them.

Extend my arguments:

1. The Resolution does not present a grammatically intelligible proposition and so cannot be true.

2. Physical experience is not identical to knowledge so the logical equivalence presented by the Resolution is implausible. The physical experience of pain does not represent a form of knowledge nor can knowledge of the rules of logic be directly physically experienced.

3. Mathematical knowledge does not depend on physical experience, so the Resolution fails. Pro says "math is true or false, not about truth." I do not understand Pro's argument here, hopefull he can clarif in future rounds. I would say that if math can be true, then it is about truth.

4. Even if physical experience is the root of all knowledge, knowledge cannot be identical to the physical experience of NOW. We have knowledge of many things we are not currently experiencing, so the Reslution fails.

Pro claims that "without physical experience there is no knowing," offers no support for this claim. I argued that knowledge of mathematics does not depend on physical experience. I have no physical experience of derivatives or n-dimensional vectors, but I have knowledge of and about these things.

The Resolution states "physical experience of now," meaning Pro must prove that temporally current physical experience is the totality of knowledge. The claim "without physical experience there is no knowing" does not establish this, as physical experience of the past could make up all knowledge.

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

I have no idea what you are saying.. matter is true is it not? your eyes are matter, physical experience is true

without my sense im dead, there can be no reality

a blind man can not see reality, as he is blind

knowledge is truth, not true, truth can only be in the past, and only now is true

why does 1+1 equal 2? if I have a pen in my hand, and I put another pen in my hand, I have 2 pens in my hand is true, is what I know, if I imagine 1 more then its 1+1=3 is false, as the answer is imaginary

math is true or false, not about the past.

knowledge is memory, memory is from experience and experience is now

the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now

0 and 1 is defined by nothing and something, information and matter

physical experience only happens now
Raisor

Con

Again Pro has not responded to my 4 main arguments, by this point that concession should win me the debate.

I think Pro needs to do a lot of work to clarify how he is using the words in his argument.

I will do a line-by-line response to Pro's argument, quoted text will be in bold:

I have no idea what you are saying.. matter is true is it not? your eyes are matter, physical experience is true

Truth describes a proposition or some claim. Claims like "matter exists" can be true, "matter" itself cannot. The statement "matter is true" is unintelligible. Matter cannot be true or false- it can exist and we can make claims about matter that are true or false, but it cannot have the property of "true."

The fact that my eyes are matter does not yield the conclusion that physical experience is true or yields true beliefs. My eyes decieve me all the time, the eyes of someone on LSD yield wildly untrue information.

without my sense im dead, there can be no reality

Braindead people can be alive, sleeping people are alive, unconscious people are alive. You conclusion does not follow from your premise. Reality exists even if I am dead.

a blind man can not see reality, as he is blind

A blind man can't see anything, but he is a part of the same reality as everyone else. Thus his reality contains colors.

knowledge is truth, not true, truth can only be in the past, and only now is true

You will need to clarify this, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

why does 1+1 equal 2? if I have a pen in my hand, and I put another pen in my hand, I have 2 pens in my hand is true, is what I know, if I imagine 1 more then its 1+1=3 is false, as the answer is imaginary

This is an exmaple of how mathematics may be applied to reality, but there are many many example of mathematics going beyond what is physically observable. Example:

math is true or false, not about the past.

I agree math statements can be true or fase and math does not concern the past. This is irrelevant to the resolution. Math can be true and is not a physical experience of now, so the Resolution is negated.

knowledge is memory, memory is from experience and experience is now

This is the fallacy of quivocation- all experience occurs "now" as it is happening, but that experience ceases to be of "now" once it is over. To say my memory of my fifth birthday is experience of "now" is absurd. Memory is experience of the past, not of now.

If you are arguin that the phenomena of physical experience can only happen now, fine. Then knowledge is (partly) constituted by memory, but memory is not the same as physical experience, it is FROM experience. Memory is not a physical experience of now, it is recollection of past experience (and some of that experience is likely non-physical)

the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now

0 and 1 is defined by nothing and something, information and matter

Please elaborate, I am not following your argument.

physical experience only happens now

This is incorrect, almost all of my physical experience happened in the past. The act of experiencing may only happen now, but the experience itself can happen in the past. When would you say my experience of my fifth birthday happened?
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

your physical body is matter.

the blind man dosnt know colour and light, thus he has to imagine it, and imagination is false

I don't know=I have to imagine it

future=false=imaginary
now=true=physical experience
past=truth=memory of physical experience

I am here now, so I must have gotten here somehow, and the future is unknown, pyramid capstone reflection

I know infinity can never be destruction, as infinity has no end, but I can only imagine it, as I cant reach infinity with my physical body, at least the non ending part.

math is absolute, so I know math even thou I can only imagine it, know is true, but is defined as physical experience as it is the balancing point between knowledge and belief

I know you can never drink 0 sodas, you can drink 1 is possible

past=knowledge=truth=destruction(turn my back)

experience only happens now, everyday is today, like tomorrow is in my imagination, today now, and its the same when I wake up in the morning after I go to sleep tonight

if you are lost in the desert and hungry, and you imagine an apple, do you have 1 apple?

physical experience only happens now, there is no, going into the future, I am born now today, as only now is physical

to say reality is 5 seconds ahead of my personal physical experience of now is to say reality is 5 seconds ahead of reality

I have to remember what happened 5 seconds again
Raisor

Con

Pro makes a number of unwarranted assertions and seems to prefer poetry to actual argumentation.

At this point I will rest my case on my original 4 arguments:

1. The Resolution is grammatically incoherent and so cannot be true. The Resolution is thus negated.

2. know and physical experience cannoth be logically equivalent because they are incommensurate. I know things which have no corresponding physical experience and physically experiencing a thing is not the same as knowing it. The physical experience of a burn is not the same as knowing what a burn feels like.

3. There are mathematical facts that are knowledge derived from physical experience. my oppnent has conceded that mathematics are true and know=true, so he has conceded that knowledge is not physical experience.

4. Knowledge is based on memory and memor concerns past experiences. Thus knowledge is not limited to physical experience of now, it also extends to past physical experience.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

you can not know a burn without physical experience

I have no idea what you are saying
Raisor

Con

To clarify, I am not claiming that you can know what a burn is without physical experience.

The Resolution claims that know=physical experience of now.

The "=" implies logical equivalence.

Physical experience may be causally connected to knowledge of a burn, but the phsical experience of a burn is not logically identical to knowledge of a burn. Thus the Resolution is false.

Pro has failed to even address the bulk of my arguments. My first argument alone wins me the debate. The Resolution is grammatically unintelligible, thus it cannot be true. Pro has failed to uphold the Resolution and so has lost this debate.

Thank you for reading, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
to vote against this is to agree that you are not reading these words on your screen, hilarious..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
vi_spexRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Con. Pro had several spelling and grammatical errors in nearly every round, Con had no such errors. Arguments - Con presented four counter-arguments negating the illogical resolution and opening arguments presented by Pro. Pro continuously failed to rebut Con's arguments reasonably, and instead continued presenting nonsensical claims. The irony of Pro saying "I have no idea what you are saying" was not lost upon me, and this was a highly entertaining debate overall. Ultimately, Con had presented several challenges which remained standing throughout the debate. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. This is a clear win for Con, and a good laugh for myself :)
Vote Placed by Eli01 2 years ago
Eli01
vi_spexRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had BoP and did not fulfill it. However CON made good arguments and succeeded.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
vi_spexRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just dominates, he presents great arguments and Pro barely even refutes them. Great job, Con.