Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[JimL]

Exactly Jim, like I said earlier, I will take reality as self evident until there is a defeater. It is just not something we can prove.

Well it may be that we can not prove it decisively, but I think we can be pretty certain that reality is mind independent. Otherwise everything is an illusion including you and me, and the only real thing is an all encompasing immaterial mind within the which the illusion manifests itself. And there is no evidence of the existence of that which some like to define as a mind. Like the idea of god, we can't disprove a negative, but we also have no reason to believe in its existence.

[Charles]

But Charles, you have not offered a view - why why do you believe that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. Why don't you give a straight answer?



Actually, assuming reality is not self-refuting. How is that assumption self-refuting? But if it is, what do you offer that is more than assumption? Stop being dishonest Charles - if I killed certainty show me certainty lies? Where is this certainty Charles? You are in essence saying that certainty must exist because we can't live with uncertainty. That assumption is not acceptable, but you offer nothing more logically valid.

And so you go on ignoring the consequences of your own statements and the fact that though you claim I have provided nothing you still cannot make sense of the assumption claim you promoted but I showed you could not withold it. It could be implied on you.

You call me dishonest though I have proven your question misunderstood and your statements to lack meaning. Ad hominem as not used when you have got a good case, seer. But then, you have to withdraw even your assumption claim.

[seer]

And so you go on ignoring the consequences of your own statements and the fact that though you claim I have provided nothing you still cannot make sense of the assumption claim you promoted but I showed you could not withold it. It could be implied on you.

Again, exactly how is assuming reality self-refuting?

You call me dishonest though I have proven your question misunderstood and your statements to lack meaning. Ad hominem as not used when you have got a good case, seer. But then, you have to withdraw even your assumption claim.

Of course you are dishonest Charles, you knew from the beginning that you could not logically defend the position that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality so you went on this inane attack. You attack me because there is LOGICALLY uncertainty yet you offer no certainty. You claim that we would end up in this self-refuting world, but you make no logical case as to why that is not so.

[Charles]

Again, exactly how is assuming reality self-refuting?



Of course you are dishonest Charles, you knew from the beginning that you could not logically defend the position that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality so you went on this inane attack. You attack me because there is LOGICALLY uncertainty yet you offer no certainty. You claim that we would end up in this self-refuting world, but you make no logical case as to why that is not so.

I have been honest all along while you keep talking about us, facts and other people though you claim we cannot know if any of it is really true. You are stuck in a solipsistic world in which you do not even know if you make assumption or believe anything or if it is imposed on you. You try to escape that consequence by being inconsistent in statements and using ad hominem.

[seer]

I have been honest all along while you keep talking about us, facts and other people though you claim we cannot know if any of it is really true.

OK, then make the case - how do you KNOW that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality? Don't just hand wave Charles make an actual argument.

You are stuck in a solipsistic world in which you do not even know if you make assumption or believe anything or if it is imposed on you. You try to escape that consequence by being inconsistent in statements and using ad hominem.

So if we don't have certainty we have solipsism? And again, if you don't assume reality - what exactly do you do?

[Charles]

OK, then make the case - how do you KNOW that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality? Don't just hand wave Charles make an actual argument.



So if we don't have certainty we have solipsism? And again, if you don't assume reality - what exactly do you do?

Do I need to repeat that the question is misunderstood, seer?

If we have brain in a vat or only sensation we have solpisism. My view is, once again, that in a consistent logic and language you cannot make sense of the skeptic scenarious. You cannot even make a consistent explanation of them in the logic they imply. That is my view. You can call it nothing if you like or if that makes it easier for you. But it actually makes quite a lot of sense and also shows why you cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality.

So do I need to repeat it again and again and again? It is quite simple. But of course facts disappear in your world....

[seer]

Do I need to repeat that the question is misunderstood, seer?

If we have brain in a vat or only sensation we have solpisism. My view is, once again, that in a consistent logic and language you cannot make sense of the skeptic scenarious. You cannot even make a consistent explanation of them in the logic they imply. That is my view. You can call it nothing if you like or if that makes it easier for you. But it actually makes quite a lot of sense and also shows why you cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality.

That is not exactly true because if you were a brain in vat you could know the thoughts, visions, and ideas that we being induced into your brain. Just as you can know the thoughts, visions, and ideas that you have in dreams. You would just be mistaken about the source of those thoughts, visions, and ideas. And no Charles your position is not logical since you have offered no logical argument justifying that what goes on in your head actually corresponds to reality.

So I will ask again, and try answering directly. How do you reach certainty on this question? You would say that Solipsism is incoherent, OK, I will agree for the sake of argument - how does that prove or demonstrate that we are not being deceived? How does that remove the possibility of deception?

[Charles]

That is not exactly true because if you were a brain in vat you could know the thoughts, visions, and ideas that we being induced into your brain. Just as you can know the thoughts, visions, and ideas that you have in dreams. You would just be mistaken about the source of those thoughts, visions, and ideas. And no Charles your position is not logical since you have offered no logical argument justifying that what goes on in your head actually corresponds to reality.

So I will ask again, and try answering directly. How do you reach certainty on this question? You would say that Solipsism is incoherent, OK, I will agree for the sake of argument - how does that prove or demonstrate that we are not being deceived? How does that remove the possibility of deception?

If someone induces an assumption into your brain, seer, then it is not your assumption. You do not assume it. Someone induces it. And if you claim we cannot know the difference between thinking and having thought induced (which seems impossible if you actually reflect about it) you do not know if you assume reality or if it is induced.

Again my view is rather simple. If you want to put any meaning into the concepts you use and if you want to claim your arguments and statements actually have any contact with reality you need to use it in a consistent matter. You cannot talk about we, reality and logic and then present statements that imply we do not exist. The language you use presupposes a reality you claim to doubt. So it is really a question of applying be certain rules unless you want to be trapped, like you are.

Apart from that I have already pointed to Searle's point about the bad argument. The fact that we are sometimes deceived does not lead to the consequences that all perceptions should be viewed in the same way. And again, like you cannot contradict yourself and expect to be taken seriously, then you cannot claim others to acceot we could possibly be deceived and therefore we must follow in their footsteps and assume reality when they do not even know if they assume it. Or if their premises are just faked. There is simply nothing to talk about, because language looses all meaning.

[seer]

If someone induces an assumption into your brain, seer, then it is not your assumption. You do not assume it. Someone induces it. And if you claim we cannot know the difference between thinking and having thought induced (which seems impossible if you actually reflect about it) you do not know if you assume reality or if it is induced.

OK, but what precludes me from being deceived in such a manner, after all I am so deceived when dreaming.

Again my view is rather simple. If you want to put any meaning into the concepts you use and if you want to claim your arguments and statements actually have any contact with reality you need to use it in a consistent matter. You cannot talk about we, reality and logic and then present statements that imply we do not exist. The language you use presupposes a reality you claim to doubt. So it is really a question of applying be certain rules unless you want to be trapped, like you are.

Again Charles, this does nothing to tell us that such a deception is impossible. And where did I say that we do not exist? I exist when I dream, I'm just mistaken - I am not experiencing reality as I thought.

Apart from that I have already pointed to Searle's point about the bad argument. The fact that we are sometimes deceived does not lead to the consequences that all perceptions should be viewed in the same way. And again, like you cannot contradict yourself and expect to be taken seriously, then you cannot claim others to acceot we could possibly be deceived and therefore we must follow in their footsteps and assume reality when they do not even know if they assume it. Or if their premises are just faked. There is simply nothing to talk about, because language looses all meaning.

OK, so you must then have a good argument for certainty - what is it?

[Charles]

OK, but what precludes me from being deceived in such a manner, after all I am so deceived when dreaming.



Again Charles, this does nothing to tell us that such a deception is impossible. And where did I say that we do not exist? I exist when I dream, I'm just mistaken - I am not experiencing reality as I thought.



OK, so you must then have a good argument for certainty - what is it?

1 I meant "we" as is in those of us who would just be sense data if this was your dream or if it you were a brain in a vat.

2 The ones I allready gave. If I can point to something being a contradiction do I then need to also prove it wrong or are contradictions not just wrong? If someone claims "no truth exists" do I then need to prove what the entire truth is in order to refuse the statement or is it enough to prove that it is contradictory? My arguments against you and your contradictions will stand independently of any other view I may hold on reality.

Question: what about your assumption statement? Will we see it in a new version or will you maintain it even though I have shown that you cannot even claim you assume reality based on your own premises? You do not even know that.

[seer]

1 I meant "we" as is in those of us who would just be sense data if this was your dream or if it you were a brain in a vat.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

2 The ones I allready gave. If I can point to something being a contradiction do I then need to also prove it wrong or are contradictions not just wrong? If someone claims "no truth exists" do I then need to prove what the entire truth is in order to refuse the statement or is it enough to prove that it is contradictory? My arguments against you and your contradictions will stand independently of any other view I may hold on reality.

But there is no contradiction. How is being deceived in a dream a contradiction? But if you claim that we must have something more than assumption (assuming reality) then yes it is on you to show what that something more is.

Question: what about your assumption statement? Will we see it in a new version or will you maintain it even though I have shown that you cannot even claim you assume reality based on your own premises? You do not even know that.

OK, school me - what do you have more than assumption?

[seer]

Question: what about your assumption statement? Will we see it in a new version or will you maintain it even though I have shown that you cannot even claim you assume reality based on your own premises? You do not even know that.

Charles, let me try it this way. Right now I assume that I'm experiencing reality while typing to you, that I'm not typing to you in a dream. Is that assumption enough, or is there something more than assumption that I need - and what is the something else?

[Tassman]

Well it may be that we can not prove it decisively, but I think we can be pretty certain that reality is mind independent. Otherwise everything is an illusion including you and me, and the only real thing is an all encompasing immaterial mind within the which the illusion manifests itself. And there is no evidence of the existence of that which some like to define as a mind. Like the idea of god, we can't disprove a negative, but we also have no reason to believe in its existence.

I agree with you, but I would go a bit further. Whilst we can be pretty certain that reality is mind independent, even if it wasn't we would have to act as though it were. We have no choice.

[Charles]

I agree with you, but I would go a bit further. Whilst we can be pretty certain that reality is mind independent, even if it wasn't we would have to act as though it were. We have no choice.

I like those thoughts as well as those of JimL. I think we can go even further but I guess I made that clear.

[Charles]

Charles, let me try it this way. Right now I assume that I'm experiencing reality while typing to you, that I'm not typing to you in a dream. Is that assumption enough, or is there something more than assumption that I need - and what is the something else?

You hold the assumption could be imposed on you. So you do not know if you assume it or if the assumption is imposed on you. You seem to think you know you really assume it, but according to what you have said about possible deceivment there is no way you can know.