Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Can we know anything?

KhalifV
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 6:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

Even if solipsism is true, the answer is still yes. Since the reality we perceive is still our reality, regardless of whether or not we are a brain in a vat.

And as far as I understand, the logical absolutes will hold regardless of which world you are in, so reasoning is the same.
KhalifV
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 7:06:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even if solipsism is true, the answer is still yes. Since the reality we perceive is still our reality, regardless of whether or not we are a brain in a vat.

And as far as I understand, the logical absolutes will hold regardless of which world you are in, so reasoning is the same.

What about objective reality? Is each of our perceived realities objective? If we each have our own realities, is all of them objective? Or is that we all perceive the same reality, with different interpretations. Kind of like if we both read a book or ride a roller coaster. The objective part is that we are reading the book or riding the roller coaster, and we interpret the objective reality different, and some interpretations resemble reality more closely than others.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 7:32:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

What makes you think there is something to know?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 8:32:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

You can accept solipsism but realize that "knowing" something isn't necessary to at least temporarily accept it as correct when there is good reason and then act on this acceptance. I accepted that a car was not in my blind spot when I changed lanes because I not only checked the angles of my car as best as I could but had also been keeping a watch to see if any cars had driven into but had not exited my blind spot. A car could have suddenly appeared in my blind spot or my collecting of sense data, or my assessment of it, could have been faulty and I could have gotten into an accident, but if I didn't get over, I wouldn't have gotten home. It's why solipsism is pretty dumb; it's useless. Reasonable skepticism is great because it is extremely useful; solipsism not so much.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 8:34:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 7:06:13 PM, KhalifV wrote:
Even if solipsism is true, the answer is still yes. Since the reality we perceive is still our reality, regardless of whether or not we are a brain in a vat.

And as far as I understand, the logical absolutes will hold regardless of which world you are in, so reasoning is the same.

What about objective reality? Is each of our perceived realities objective? If we each have our own realities, is all of them objective? Or is that we all perceive the same reality, with different interpretations. Kind of like if we both read a book or ride a roller coaster. The objective part is that we are reading the book or riding the roller coaster, and we interpret the objective reality different, and some interpretations resemble reality more closely than others.

The phrase you used "perceived realities" gives you the answer to your question. We can't know reality except through our perceptions, which are inherently flawed and subjective. Whether or not an objective reality exists is rather immaterial when we understand that our experience of reality is subjective, bias, incomplete, and ever-changing.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 10:41:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

By "know something," do you mean know if something truly exists, or do you mean understand that thing you are attempting to know?
KhalifV
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 11:00:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 10:41:32 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

By "know something," do you mean know if something truly exists, or do you mean understand that thing you are attempting to know?

I mean can we be absolutely certain of anything?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 11:03:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 11:00:34 PM, KhalifV wrote:
At 6/8/2014 10:41:32 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

By "know something," do you mean know if something truly exists, or do you mean understand that thing you are attempting to know?

I mean can we be absolutely certain of anything?

For example, can I be absolutely certain that my hair is actually brown and is not simply another color that I am perceiving as brown?

I can be certain that, regardless of the situation, I perceive it to be brown. This is true. I don't know if reality is something drastically different, if in reality my hair is purple. But I know that I perceive it to be brown.

But, even if there's nothing we can be certain of, then there's something we can be certain of. That we can be certain of nothing. And if that's something we can be certain of, then it becomes a contradiction, thus opening other possibilities of where we can be certain of things.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 12:29:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 11:03:33 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/8/2014 11:00:34 PM, KhalifV wrote:
At 6/8/2014 10:41:32 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

By "know something," do you mean know if something truly exists, or do you mean understand that thing you are attempting to know?

I mean can we be absolutely certain of anything?

For example, can I be absolutely certain that my hair is actually brown and is not simply another color that I am perceiving as brown?

I can be certain that, regardless of the situation, I perceive it to be brown. This is true. I don't know if reality is something drastically different, if in reality my hair is purple. But I know that I perceive it to be brown.

But, even if there's nothing we can be certain of, then there's something we can be certain of. That we can be certain of nothing. And if that's something we can be certain of, then it becomes a contradiction, thus opening other possibilities of where we can be certain of things.

Keep this up and you're going to get arrested for purposefully causing people's brains to self-destruct.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 4:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 12:29:32 PM, Romanii wrote:

Keep this up and you're going to get arrested for purposefully causing people's brains to self-destruct.

lol, it's my new power.

But it kind of makes sense. It's like the statement, "Everything is possible." If everything is possible, then it is possible for something to be impossible. The statement "everything is possible" thus becomes a contradiction unto itself and there is room for possibilities of impossibilities.

The same seems to apply here.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 4:46:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 11:03:33 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/8/2014 11:00:34 PM, KhalifV wrote:
At 6/8/2014 10:41:32 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

By "know something," do you mean know if something truly exists, or do you mean understand that thing you are attempting to know?

I mean can we be absolutely certain of anything?

For example, can I be absolutely certain that my hair is actually brown and is not simply another color that I am perceiving as brown?
If you define "brown" as what you perceive to be as brown, then you could know that your hair is brown.
I can be certain that, regardless of the situation, I perceive it to be brown. This is true. I don't know if reality is something drastically different, if in reality my hair is purple. But I know that I perceive it to be brown.

How can "reality" be different than what is perceived by the senses? What do you perceive if it is?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 4:47:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 4:37:37 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/9/2014 12:29:32 PM, Romanii wrote:

Keep this up and you're going to get arrested for purposefully causing people's brains to self-destruct.

lol, it's my new power.

But it kind of makes sense. It's like the statement, "Everything is possible." If everything is possible, then it is possible for something to be impossible. The statement "everything is possible" thus becomes a contradiction unto itself and there is room for possibilities of impossibilities.

The same seems to apply here.

Everything that is possible is possible makes more sense, sure.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 4:46:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

If you define "brown" as what you perceive to be as brown, then you could know that your hair is brown.

Yes, if that's how I define it ...


How can "reality" be different than what is perceived by the senses? What do you perceive if it is?

It is possible that all we observe are simply illusions and not part of what reality is. That is, our subjective views are not what the objective reality is.

If you define reality as what we perceive, then of course what we perceive is reality (by definition).
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 7:34:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:09:46 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/9/2014 4:46:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

If you define "brown" as what you perceive to be as brown, then you could know that your hair is brown.

Yes, if that's how I define it ...
So you're saying that brown might not be brown because you might not define brown as brown? That's just a problem with your wording, not with our knowledge. .

How can "reality" be different than what is perceived by the senses? What do you perceive if it is?

It is possible that all we observe are simply illusions and not part of what reality is. That is, our subjective views are not what the objective reality is.

If you define reality as what we perceive, then of course what we perceive is reality (by definition).

What do you think reality is, then? How can you perceive something that isn't part of reality? Even a mirage in a desert exists - the light rays still hit your eyes, and you still process the sense data. You might have wrong conceptions about that data, but the data itself cannot be from anything other than reality. Anything else is, by definition, illogical.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:54:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:34:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
So you're saying that brown might not be brown because you might not define brown as brown? That's just a problem with your wording, not with our knowledge. .

No.

If I define brown by how it really is in reality and not by my own perception, then that is a problem with our knowledge and not simply with wording.


What do you think reality is, then? How can you perceive something that isn't part of reality? Even a mirage in a desert exists - the light rays still hit your eyes, and you still process the sense data.

It exists, but it isn't reality.

That is, it's an illusion, and what you see isn't really there. You might see a water reservoir, a person, a plane, a car, a horse, a camel. But what you see is simply an illusion. It is not a question of whether the illusion exists, but if what you see in the illusion exists.

For example, Zeno argues that all movement is simply an illusion. He states that there is no such thing as movement, as it is logically impossible, and what we see as movement (such as me walking from point A to point B) is merely an illusion.


You might have wrong conceptions about that data, but the data itself cannot be from anything other than reality. Anything else is, by definition, illogical.

Just like the mirage in the desert, what we see is not necessarily what is. What there is could be drastically different from what we perceive to be. Our perceptions of the thing exist, but it is not a question of whether our perception exists (that is, whether the mirage exists or not), but rather is the perception reflecting reality (that is, is the what you see in the mirage actually there)?

As I stated above, an illusion certainly exists. But what makes it an illusion is that it is something which we perceive that does not actually exist.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 10:55:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:54:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

"how it really is"

You keep using this phrase, but I have no idea what you mean by it. What exactly do you mean by reality? Can something exist that isn't "reality"?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 1:43:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 10:55:18 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:54:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

"how it really is"

You keep using this phrase, but I have no idea what you mean by it. What exactly do you mean by reality? Can something exist that isn't "reality"?

I only used that phrase once ...

Regardless, I explained it quite clearly here, and I provided examples to support it:

"That is, it's an illusion, and what you see isn't really there. You might see a water reservoir, a person, a plane, a car, a horse, a camel. But what you see is simply an illusion. It is not a question of whether the illusion exists, but if what you see in the illusion exists."

We don't care if the illusion exists in reality or not. We know for a fact that the illusion exists, as we are experiencing the illusion.

What we want to know is this:

Is what we see in the illusion something that exists?

You brought up the mirage as an example. Suppose I see a horse in the mirage. We know that the illusion of there being a horse exists, but the horse itself is not actually there. It is only my perception that tells me that it is there, which is being deluded by the desert's heat.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 2:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:43:19 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/9/2014 10:55:18 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:54:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

"how it really is"

You keep using this phrase, but I have no idea what you mean by it. What exactly do you mean by reality? Can something exist that isn't "reality"?

I only used that phrase once ...

Regardless, I explained it quite clearly here, and I provided examples to support it:

"That is, it's an illusion, and what you see isn't really there. You might see a water reservoir, a person, a plane, a car, a horse, a camel. But what you see is simply an illusion. It is not a question of whether the illusion exists, but if what you see in the illusion exists."

We don't care if the illusion exists in reality or not. We know for a fact that the illusion exists, as we are experiencing the illusion.

What we want to know is this:

Is what we see in the illusion something that exists?

You brought up the mirage as an example. Suppose I see a horse in the mirage. We know that the illusion of there being a horse exists, but the horse itself is not actually there. It is only my perception that tells me that it is there, which is being deluded by the desert's heat.

No, your perceptions tell you nothing other than that light of certain wavelengths hit your eyes in a certain pattern. Unless you're arguing that that light isn't part of reality, your perceptions aren't flawed.
If your perceptions aren't flawed, then we obviously can know things. There is nothing "in the illusion". All that is is the illusion. There's no magical dimension where there are no illusions - illusions are just physical phenomena, and are just as real as anything else (and if they are just as real, and we can know illusions exist from your statement, then we can know, for certain, at least some things).
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 4:27:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 2:18:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

No, your perceptions tell you nothing other than that light of certain wavelengths hit your eyes in a certain pattern.

We only know this because we've use empirical evidence, which relies entirely on our own perceptions, and as I've already stated, it is possible that our perceptions are "false."

It is possible that all of our senses - touch, taste, sight, hearing, and so on, are all misleading and are not representative of reality. In other words, they simply give an illusion. It is true that this is a metaphysical possibility.


Unless you're arguing that that light isn't part of reality, your perceptions aren't flawed.

If your perceptions aren't flawed, then we obviously can know things. There is nothing "in the illusion". All that is is the illusion.

Let's take the mirage as an example. There isn't just the mirage, but what you see in the mirage. In other words, you might see a camel in the mirage, but what you perceive is not actually there.

It is possible that the reality we know (the one that we perceive) is but an illusion.


There's no magical dimension where there are no illusions - illusions are just physical phenomena, and are just as real as anything else (and if they are just as real, and we can know illusions exist from your statement, then we can know, for certain, at least some things).

You are basing your arguments off your perceptions and empirical evidence, which cannot be done, as the discussion revolves around whether or not our perceptions are "true."

It would be akin to using the Bible to validate your statements when we are questioning the validity of the Bible.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 4:36:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 4:27:53 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:18:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

No, your perceptions tell you nothing other than that light of certain wavelengths hit your eyes in a certain pattern.

We only know this because we've use empirical evidence, which relies entirely on our own perceptions, and as I've already stated, it is possible that our perceptions are "false."

It is possible that all of our senses - touch, taste, sight, hearing, and so on, are all misleading and are not representative of reality. In other words, they simply give an illusion. It is true that this is a metaphysical possibility.


Unless you're arguing that that light isn't part of reality, your perceptions aren't flawed.

If your perceptions aren't flawed, then we obviously can know things. There is nothing "in the illusion". All that is is the illusion.

Let's take the mirage as an example. There isn't just the mirage, but what you see in the mirage. In other words, you might see a camel in the mirage, but what you perceive is not actually there.

It is possible that the reality we know (the one that we perceive) is but an illusion.
No, you don't "see" a camel in the mirage, like I've said, your eyes are hit by light which is interpreted by your brain to be showing a camel. It's a problem of data interpretation, not with how we get the data (sensory perception). A mirage does exist, and literally everything that makes you see a camel exists - for all intents and purposes, the "camel" exists - it's just not actually a camel but you just call it a camel because it looks like a camel. Just because your definition of "camel" is misapplied doesn't mean that the original thing which you gave the definition to isn't real.

There's no magical dimension where there are no illusions - illusions are just physical phenomena, and are just as real as anything else (and if they are just as real, and we can know illusions exist from your statement, then we can know, for certain, at least some things).

You are basing your arguments off your perceptions and empirical evidence, which cannot be done, as the discussion revolves around whether or not our perceptions are "true."

It would be akin to using the Bible to validate your statements when we are questioning the validity of the Bible.
If the bible is defined as "a certain book that is true", and the bible said in it that it is valid, by definition it is valid. That doesn't work with the bible in real life, though, because the bible as we know it isn't defined as above. If you define the sense data to be "what is perceived" and if you define things perceived to mean only things that exist (you can't perceive things that you can't perceive, obviously), then you perceive only things that exist. If you perceive only things that exist, then your perceptions are only of things that exist, ergo they're valid.

It's logically necessary, by definition, that our perceptions are true.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 9:52:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

No, but I feel safe betting on my presumptions with my daily actions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 11:18:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 4:36:03 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

No, you don't "see" a camel in the mirage, like I've said, your eyes are hit by light which is interpreted by your brain to be showing a camel.

That's called seeing.


It's a problem of data interpretation, not with how we get the data (sensory perception). A mirage does exist, and literally everything that makes you see a camel exists - for all intents and purposes, the "camel" exists - it's just not actually a camel but you just call it a camel because it looks like a camel.

You just agreed that the camel is not actually there. There is "something" there, but it's an illusion that we think is a camel (even though it's really not a camel).

The point is that everything we perceive could potentially be the same - an illusion.


Just because your definition of "camel" is misapplied doesn't mean that the original thing which you gave the definition to isn't real.

Okay, I don't recall stating that camels in general don't exist just because it didn't exist in an illusion you saw. That's not the point.

The point is that the camel that you perceived in the illusion is not actually there. You said it for me - it's just your eyes being "hit" by light, forming the illusion that there's a camel there when there's not. It's possible everything we perceive in the world is the same. There's something there, but what we think is there isn't actually there.

We can't know for sure.


If you perceive only things that exist, then your perceptions are only of things that exist, ergo they're valid.

Yes, if I perceive a mirage, then the mirage exists.

But what you think you experience in the mirage doesn't actually exist. The "data" as you call it exists. The light hitting your eyes and your brain forming the illusion. But what you think is there isn't actually there (the camel).

Surprise surprise. That's why it's called an illusion.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:56:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 6:31:22 PM, KhalifV wrote:
No one like Solipsism, but I can't seem to get around. I think the closest to knowing anything is that I exist. This is because I must exist to question my existence. Besides that I don't know how any of us can know anything for sure. We can be justified in thinking things are very likely to be true, given reason and the evidence we encounter, and we can act as if we can know things, but I'm not sure how we can actually know something.

What we can observe and think is what we can think we know. There may be a difference between thinking we know something and actually knowing something, but if there is I don't know it. Unless that difference is other people agreeing or disagreeing with what you think you know.

If an illusion of a camel has all of the things that make a camel a camel and nothing to make it not a camel then the illusion of a camel is the same thing as a camel until we can figure out how it is not.

I think.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 11:18:16 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/10/2014 4:36:03 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

No, you don't "see" a camel in the mirage, like I've said, your eyes are hit by light which is interpreted by your brain to be showing a camel.

That's called seeing.
You see something, but you definitely don't see a camel - you see a mirage that looks like a camel.

It's a problem of data interpretation, not with how we get the data (sensory perception). A mirage does exist, and literally everything that makes you see a camel exists - for all intents and purposes, the "camel" exists - it's just not actually a camel but you just call it a camel because it looks like a camel.

You just agreed that the camel is not actually there. There is "something" there, but it's an illusion that we think is a camel (even though it's really not a camel).

The point is that everything we perceive could potentially be the same - an

Just because your definition of "camel" is misapplied doesn't mean that the original thing which you gave the definition to isn't real.

Okay, I don't recall stating that camels in general don't exist just because it didn't exist in an illusion you saw. That's not the point.

The point is that the camel that you perceived in the illusion is not actually there. You said it for me - it's just your eyes being "hit" by light, forming the illusion that there's a camel there when there's not. It's possible everything we perceive in the world is the same. There's something there, but what we think is there isn't actually there.

We can't know for sure.
"What we think" - right, so it's not a problem with perception, it's a problem with consistently applying language to and conceptualizing our perceptions. We see a mirage, and we may think that it's a camel, but we PERCEIVE the mirage, not a camel, because there's no camel there to be perceived.

If you perceive only things that exist, then your perceptions are only of things that exist, ergo they're valid.

Yes, if I perceive a mirage, then the mirage exists.

But what you think you experience in the mirage doesn't actually exist. The "data" as you call it exists. The light hitting your eyes and your brain forming the illusion. But what you think is there isn't actually there (the camel).

Surprise surprise. That's why it's called an illusion.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:22:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everything we perceive exists, everything that exists is part of reality, everything that is part of reality is real and therefore "true", so, ergo, are perceptions give us valid and true information about reality.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush