Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Regress Problem

Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 10:26:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
DDOites, how do you respond to the regress problem in epistemoloy? In short, the regress problem suggests that a belief must always be justified by another belief ad infinitum so that no belief is ever truly justified. You can read more about it on a ton of sites.

I don't find any of the proposed solutions very convincing, but I don't have strong opinions on this and I'm interested in hearing ideas. Right now I think that I must accept that nothing is ever known beyond a doubt, but my uncertain assumptions are necessary in order to coherently process any information so I am willing to make them.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 11:27:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Foundational axioms, which themselves are consistent with themselves and to try and deny them you affirm their existence.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 11:55:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think therefore I am, that is the only thing I know.

I may be a brain in a vat on a space station orbitting alpha centuari. I have no way of knowing whether or not this is true, however it appears to be counterproductive to act in my life if it is true.

We have to make assumptions based on what appears to be true, we can later return to challenge those core assumptions. Essentially the partial solution is the scientific method!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 11:56:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 11:55:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think therefore I am, that is the only thing I know.

I may be a brain in a vat on a space station orbitting alpha centuari. I have no way of knowing whether or not this is true, however it appears to be counterproductive to act in my life if it is true.

We have to make assumptions based on what appears to be true, we can later return to challenge those core assumptions. Essentially the partial solution is the scientific method!

PS: So in conclusion no belief, aside from the existence of self, is fully justified.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of. Except that you can't really be 100% certain of anything. You can always be so sure.. Most everything is a gamble, even if it is a gamble where the odds are 99.999994% in your favor.

Wow, what is this like the third thread where I point out that you have to at least make one big assumption if you aren't a solipsist, and all of your knowledge is pretty much contingent on that one assumption?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:10:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of.

Knowledge is contextual. So yes one can.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:12:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Alright, I'll go with that, sure.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:13:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:10:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of.

Knowledge is contextual. So yes one can.

No, that is the reason why you can't be 100% certain of anything. Every point of knowledge references other points of knowledge, at no point are you able step back and objectively view it. Everything is on a spectrum of apparent credibility, but it is fundementally based on assumptions.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:15:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you put something in the right context...

Like, my mind perceives this apple as being green.

I'd say that you can be pretty 100% sure of that.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:17:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:13:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:10:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of.

Knowledge is contextual. So yes one can.

No, that is the reason why you can't be 100% certain of anything. Every point of knowledge references other points of knowledge, at no point are you able step back and objectively view it. Everything is on a spectrum of apparent credibility, but it is fundementally based on assumptions.

agreed.

certain things definitely seem to be the case.. as they're perfectly in line with how you naturally see the world (in line with your natural assumptions/Fit in the context of how you see things)

but the manner in which you tend to see things is not beyond reproach.. and may be fundamentally flawed... or even (conceivably) subject to fundamental change.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:20:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:15:13 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you put something in the right context...

Like, my mind perceives this apple as being green.

I'd say that you can be pretty 100% sure of that.

You can not be absolutely certain that you perceive the exact same colour as everyone else, you can not even be absolutely certain the apple exists. Experience and perception tells you that it is a an apple, it is green, you can eat it and it won't taste like chicken. However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

You can only be certain that there is a You.

It would however be rather retarded not to act on this apparently reasonable, but not absolute knowledge that you have.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:21:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:13:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:10:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of.

Knowledge is contextual. So yes one can.

No, that is the reason why you can't be 100% certain of anything. Every point of knowledge references other points of knowledge, at no point are you able step back and objectively view it. Everything is on a spectrum of apparent credibility, but it is fundementally based on assumptions.

I suspect we entertain different epistemological definitions to begin with. Let's take an example. I know water boils. I know why water boils. If I have water and attempt to boil it correctly I can be 100% certain that it will.

Now, "but what if ..." you cry. And I reply, yes but what if? Knowledge is contextual. Within the context of my current knowledge, I am certain (there are degrees of uncertainty, not degrees of certainty) that the water will boil. Or, in other words, within the context of my knowledge there is nothing that introduces doubt to the statement "this water will boil".

All the what ifs that one can apply to a situation are irrelevant as they are merely hypothetical postulations. Imagination does not affect causality in this manner. So yes, I can be 100% certain of many things. The problem is when you conflate that incorrectly with infallibility.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:24:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:20:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

You can not be absolutely certain that you perceive the exact same colour as everyone else, you can not even be absolutely certain the apple exists. Experience and perception tells you that it is a an apple, it is green, you can eat it and it won't taste like chicken. However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

That wasn't what I said. I said "My mind perceives this apple to be green"

I'm 100% certain that my mind perceives this apple to be green. I'm 100% that it doesn't perceive this apple as being purple.

Your point is irrelevant to knowledge being contextual. We are talking about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. You can not be certain of any objective truth, but you can be subjectively certain of certain things. This does not mean that your conclusions are objectively true.

This is just a misunderstanding.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:25:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:21:02 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:13:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:10:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of.

Knowledge is contextual. So yes one can.

No, that is the reason why you can't be 100% certain of anything. Every point of knowledge references other points of knowledge, at no point are you able step back and objectively view it. Everything is on a spectrum of apparent credibility, but it is fundementally based on assumptions.

I suspect we entertain different epistemological definitions to begin with. Let's take an example. I know water boils. I know why water boils. If I have water and attempt to boil it correctly I can be 100% certain that it will.

You don't any of that with absolute certainty. Though I'd bet any amount of money you are right, in true absolute terms we don't actually know. We have to go with the nigh-certainty created by logic, education, experience etc. For all you know you are a brain in a vat plugged into a virtual reality world, in the objective real world that you can't perceive water may not even exist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:25:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:20:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:15:13 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you put something in the right context...

Like, my mind perceives this apple as being green.

I'd say that you can be pretty 100% sure of that.

You can not be absolutely certain that you perceive the exact same colour as everyone else,

And? Learn your theories of perception. ;) Are you saying that an object has the intrinsic property "colour"?

you can not even be absolutely certain the apple exists.

Going to use perception to deny perception?

However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

There is no need to consider that one is. If you are claiming that this is possible then let's see the proof. Otherwise it's once again just a lonely hypothetical poking away at nothing in particular.

You can only be certain that there is a You.

Oh? Your epistemological nihilism doesn't even save you from that.

It would however be rather retarded not to act on this apparently reasonable, but not absolute knowledge that you have.

What is absolute knowledge?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:27:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:24:05 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:20:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

You can not be absolutely certain that you perceive the exact same colour as everyone else, you can not even be absolutely certain the apple exists. Experience and perception tells you that it is a an apple, it is green, you can eat it and it won't taste like chicken. However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

That wasn't what I said. I said "My mind perceives this apple to be green"

I'm 100% certain that my mind perceives this apple to be green. I'm 100% that it doesn't perceive this apple as being purple.

I get what you mean now.


Your point is irrelevant to knowledge being contextual. We are talking about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. You can not be certain of any objective truth, but you can be subjectively certain of certain things. This does not mean that your conclusions are objectively true.

That is what I am saying as well. Thats a very good way to put it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:33:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:25:42 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:20:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:15:13 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you put something in the right context...

Like, my mind perceives this apple as being green.

I'd say that you can be pretty 100% sure of that.

You can not be absolutely certain that you perceive the exact same colour as everyone else,

And? Learn your theories of perception. ;)

Maybe I should as I don't know what they are...

Are you saying that an object has the intrinsic property "colour"?

No, colour is contextual!


you can not even be absolutely certain the apple exists.

Going to use perception to deny perception?

No, thats not what I am doing!


However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

There is no need to consider that one is. If you are claiming that this is possible then let's see the proof. Otherwise it's once again just a lonely hypothetical poking away at nothing in particular.

Surely the burden of proof can go both ways, anyway there is the simulation argument.


You can only be certain that there is a You.

Oh? Your epistemological nihilism doesn't even save you from that.


Am I an epistemological nihilist? Awesome!

It would however be rather retarded not to act on this apparently reasonable, but not absolute knowledge that you have.

What is absolute knowledge?

Isn't absolute knowledge something is known with absolute and complete objective certainty?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:33:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:25:31 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:21:02 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:13:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:10:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of.

Knowledge is contextual. So yes one can.

No, that is the reason why you can't be 100% certain of anything. Every point of knowledge references other points of knowledge, at no point are you able step back and objectively view it. Everything is on a spectrum of apparent credibility, but it is fundementally based on assumptions.

I suspect we entertain different epistemological definitions to begin with. Let's take an example. I know water boils. I know why water boils. If I have water and attempt to boil it correctly I can be 100% certain that it will.

You don't any of that with absolute certainty.

Yes I do. You unwillingness to accept it isn't a precursor thankfully. :) I've explained why. I've explained why contextually I can be certain.

Though I'd bet any amount of money you are right, in true absolute terms we don't actually know.

Absolute? Know? I don't share your nihilism, I doubt there's any common ground to even debate it, there rarely is with epistemological nihilists. That's a whole other minefield though. :)

We have to go with the nigh-certainty

Already told you I reject terms like that anyway. If I am uncertain it's because I have knowledge that warrants that uncertainty. Your scepticism isn't mine, nor do I treat it as valid.

created by logic, education, experience etc. For all you know you are a brain in a vat plugged into a virtual reality world

You may wish to entertain such, I don't need to. yYs that does simply end in regress. But it's not a game I need to play. There are arguments against BIV/matrix etc., if you care to look, but from the standpoint of nihilism, argument as term itself is largely moot.

in the objective real world that you can't perceive water may not even exist.

Perception is of reality by definition, or, if you want to steal terms, don't bother and make up your own and logically validate them. Of course that recourse isn't available to the position you've taken, sooooo...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:35:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are you guys going to argue over a misunderstanding that has been dealt with, or are you going to philosophize on this rather interesting subject?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:38:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:33:54 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:25:31 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:21:02 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:13:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:10:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:03:54 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There isn't anything you can really be 100% certain of.

Knowledge is contextual. So yes one can.

No, that is the reason why you can't be 100% certain of anything. Every point of knowledge references other points of knowledge, at no point are you able step back and objectively view it. Everything is on a spectrum of apparent credibility, but it is fundementally based on assumptions.

I suspect we entertain different epistemological definitions to begin with. Let's take an example. I know water boils. I know why water boils. If I have water and attempt to boil it correctly I can be 100% certain that it will.

You don't any of that with absolute certainty.

Yes I do. You unwillingness to accept it isn't a precursor thankfully. :) I've explained why. I've explained why contextually I can be certain.

Certain in practical terms, not certain in absolute terms.

Though I'd bet any amount of money you are right, in true absolute terms we don't actually know.

Absolute? Know? I don't share your nihilism, I doubt there's any common ground to even debate it, there rarely is with epistemological nihilists. That's a whole other minefield though. :)

We have to go with the nigh-certainty

Already told you I reject terms like that anyway. If I am uncertain it's because I have knowledge that warrants that uncertainty. Your scepticism isn't mine, nor do I treat it as valid.

My position is logical, yours isn't. So I don't mind.


created by logic, education, experience etc. For all you know you are a brain in a vat plugged into a virtual reality world

You may wish to entertain such, I don't need to. yYs that does simply end in regress. But it's not a game I need to play. There are arguments against BIV/matrix etc., if you care to look, but from the standpoint of nihilism, argument as term itself is largely moot.

in the objective real world that you can't perceive water may not even exist.

Perception is of reality by definition, or, if you want to steal terms, don't bother and make up your own and logically validate them. Of course that recourse isn't available to the position you've taken, sooooo...

What terms have I stolen?
I am an amateur philosopher at best, I don't know enough to go round stealing terms.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:40:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:35:23 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Are you guys going to argue over a misunderstanding that has been dealt with, or are you going to philosophize on this rather interesting subject?

It may be that you are following this argument better than I am, I may need a recap.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:40:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:33:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No, colour is contextual!

In context of what?

No, thats not what I am doing!

But you are. :) Every time you use a term, a phrase, a meaning, a locution etc.



However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

There is no need to consider that one is. If you are claiming that this is possible then let's see the proof. Otherwise it's once again just a lonely hypothetical poking away at nothing in particular.

Surely the burden of proof can go both ways, anyway there is the simulation argument.

Not in logic no. If you are claiming it is possible, then present such proofs, otherwise it goes into the waste bin of ideas. Likewise I don't have to disprove the notion of an an invisible monkey tap dancing just above my head were one to suggest it. I can discard such things as well. That's not to say that all arbitrary claims are unprovable, not at all, simply there is no need to consider them unless there is means and method to. The claim "you have a giant brown bear in your closet" is likewise arbitrarily stated as BIV and matrix - you can walk open your closet and see though.

You can only be certain that there is a You.

Oh? Your epistemological nihilism doesn't even save you from that.

Am I an epistemological nihilist? Awesome!

Yeah but you now have a thing in common with Freedo, so I dunno ... :P

It would however be rather retarded not to act on this apparently reasonable, but not absolute knowledge that you have.

What is absolute knowledge?

Isn't absolute knowledge something is known with absolute and complete objective certainty?

Is it? It's your term. :P I just know what knowledge is. Sounds suspiciously like omnipotence.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:50:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:38:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Certain in practical terms, not certain in absolute terms.

See here's the issue. You are making claims about knowledge, but denying using knowledge to validate it. It's like saying I'm not able to see because I can't see Peru from my bedroom window. But I can see! But you can't see Peru!

Knowledge is awareness of reality - and as such contextual, I am not omniscient nor do I need to be to have certainty about the knowledge that I have when applied. Where is my doubt in the case of boiling water? What basis validates doubt to give rise to uncertainty in the case of boiling water? What knowledge do I have that validates a doubt? None. Hypotheticals are simply that, they are not knowledge, and thus not adequate reasons to doubt a proposition.

My position is logical, yours isn't. So I don't mind.

Ad homs are silly, so let's dispense with them yes? :) The issue I was telling you that from the standpoint of e nihilism nothing makes sense in this regards is true in this case too. I told you that at the beginning that exchanges as such are largely pointless. Not that I mind, I recognise them as such - perhaps you should too - the frameworks are simply too opposing to make any headway.

Talk of perception in BIVs is stealing the concept of perception when used. Philosophy is largely about nitpicking. :P
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:53:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:40:54 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:33:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No, colour is contextual!

In context of what?

No, thats not what I am doing!

But you are. :) Every time you use a term, a phrase, a meaning, a locution etc.



However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

There is no need to consider that one is. If you are claiming that this is possible then let's see the proof. Otherwise it's once again just a lonely hypothetical poking away at nothing in particular.

Surely the burden of proof can go both ways, anyway there is the simulation argument.

Not in logic no. If you are claiming it is possible, then present such proofs, otherwise it goes into the waste bin of ideas.

sure.. there's no reason to think you're a brain in a vat... and so ought not be acted upon..

but it's not shown impossible... and Remains a possibility.

Additionally there's no reason to assume your natural perspectives (such as time/space) necessarily capture "Truth of Reality"... rather they are seemingly the way you naturally interpret/understand reality (and perhaps how you're limited to interpreting it)

I say Seemingly because.. again.. you may conceivably at some point come to an awakening of some sort (like if you awaken from a BITVat scenario) where you realize that that understanding was imposed upon you.. and that you have different ones available.

Granted, as I said in the beginning, there's no particular reason to assume these things... OR act upon them..

but just b/c you rightfully Disgard the idea of BINTVat... Doesn't mean that it can't at some point prove plausible... for though it's disgarded.. it's not refuted... and, Given experience to support it, can still possibly end up being apparent reality.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:57:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:53:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:40:54 AM, Puck wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:33:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No, colour is contextual!

In context of what?

No, thats not what I am doing!

But you are. :) Every time you use a term, a phrase, a meaning, a locution etc.



However you can not be absolutely certain that you are simply a computer program entered into the matrix five seconds ago.

There is no need to consider that one is. If you are claiming that this is possible then let's see the proof. Otherwise it's once again just a lonely hypothetical poking away at nothing in particular.

Surely the burden of proof can go both ways, anyway there is the simulation argument.

Not in logic no. If you are claiming it is possible, then present such proofs, otherwise it goes into the waste bin of ideas.

sure.. there's no reason to think you're a brain in a vat... and so ought not be acted upon..

but it's not shown impossible... and Remains a possibility.

Additionally there's no reason to assume your natural perspectives (such as time/space) necessarily capture "Truth of Reality"... rather they are seemingly the way you naturally interpret/understand reality (and perhaps how you're limited to interpreting it)

I say Seemingly because.. again.. you may conceivably at some point come to an awakening of some sort (like if you awaken from a BITVat scenario) where you realize that that understanding was imposed upon you.. and that you have different ones available.

Granted, as I said in the beginning, there's no particular reason to assume these things... OR act upon them..

but just b/c you rightfully Disgard the idea of BINTVat... Doesn't mean that it can't at some point prove plausible... for though it's disgarded.. it's not refuted... and, Given experience to support it, can still possibly end up being apparent reality.

disgard = discard :/ lol

it is rather late for how much sleep I've had.. and "Disregarding ideas" is Sneakily similar in both spelling and meaning to "discarding ideas"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:07:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:53:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

but it's not shown impossible... and Remains a possibility.

And? I never denied that arbitrary claims can be true just that there is no reason to treat them as such. Until proof is supplied it belongs into the meaningless category of ideas. Meaningless precisely because there is not tie to reality in the claim. I don't need to consider it, or ponder about it, or most importantly attempt to disprove it. I can consider it once a proof is supplied, but none are in these hypotheticals, they rely purely on the opposing party to play the game.


Additionally there's no reason to assume your natural perspectives (such as time/space) necessarily capture "Truth of Reality"... rather they are seemingly the way you naturally interpret/understand reality (and perhaps how you're limited to interpreting it).

There is, but it's disgustingly lengthy and technical forays into epistemology. Best suited for dissertations and the like if you want to cover it completely since there are many schools of perception. :P


I say Seemingly because.. again.. you may conceivably at some point come to an awakening of some sort (like if you awaken from a BITVat scenario) where you realize that that understanding was imposed upon you.. and that you have different ones available.

Conceivably? Oh? So you have some proof that this is the case then? If yes provide proof. If not, drop conceivable and replace with imagine (granted synonymous in normal use but conceivable in epistemology denotes a knowledge base).

Granted, as I said in the beginning, there's no particular reason to assume these things.

Then I don't think we disagree too much, just probably the weight of hypotheticals to begin with.


but just b/c you rightfully Disgard the idea of BINTVat... Doesn't mean that it can't at some point prove plausible

Let's be careful here. I don't discard arbitrary claims as false. I discard them as meaningless because there is no claim made with regards to reality about them. As for plausible, meh, that's again an iffy term. Plausible implies some notion again of evidence/proof/a weighing of data - i.e., to be plausible you need to have a basis better than 'I can imagine it so'.

... for though it's disgarded.. it's not refuted...

Nor does it need to be refuted. >.< Refute the tap dancing monkey above my head. It's a silly demand.

and, Given experience to support it,

Not only and, more importantly, when.

can still possibly end up being apparent reality.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 6:28:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
external foundationalist, with reference to causal theories.

And Puck, what do you mean when you say certain counterexamples (including BiV and other wild, but logically possible situations) are meaningless? Do I have to pragmatically entertain the possibility of a monkey tap dancing on my head? Of course not, but the reason I have such disregard for the idea is because the epistemological task of choosing between empirical hypothesis seems to be of a different kind when evaluating metaphysical/epistemological claims (e.g. BiV, evil demon, etc.)
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 6:53:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 6:28:51 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
external foundationalist, with reference to causal theories.

And Puck, what do you mean when you say certain counterexamples (including BiV and other wild, but logically possible situations) are meaningless?

Meaningless in the sense they cannot entertain any standard of verifiability or disproof. They exist purely as a thought experiment. While they may be true they hold the distinction of both being without proof and without means to disprove and as such without anything meaningful to import. Fun and engaging as hypotheticals go, sure. That's all they are though. The issue is with those that equate hypothetical as synonymous with knowledge in some manner, that by the fact that one can consider it, it must be counted as valid somehow (especially since it's counted as a counter example in most cases).

Do I have to pragmatically entertain the possibility of a monkey tap dancing on my head? Of course not, but the reason I have such disregard for the idea is because the epistemological task of choosing between empirical hypothesis seems to be of a different kind when evaluating metaphysical/epistemological claims (e.g. BiV, evil demon, etc.).

Possibly only because I deliberately chose an absurd example. It retains the same qualities as BIV etc., that I mention above though. I don't expect anyone to treat my monkey claim seriously - that's partly the point. :) Meaningless refers to the epistemology of verification and what that means, not so much any metaphysical claim made by it - it may after all indeed be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 6:59:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:38:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:33:54 AM, Puck wrote:
Already told you I reject terms like that anyway. If I am uncertain it's because I have knowledge that warrants that uncertainty. Your scepticism isn't mine, nor do I treat it as valid.

My position is logical, yours isn't. So I don't mind.


SIGGED
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat