Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

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.

Charles but it is a logical possibility that we could be deceived, and you have offered no reason why that is not a possibility, especially in light of the fact that we are so deceived in dreams. Arguing against Solipsism, a position I do not hold, is not a justification. That does not tell us if what we experience is actually reality. So if you really believe that it is impossible for us to be deceived you have to justify that or agree that you too are only assuming reality.

[Charles]

Charles but it is a logical possibility that we could be deceived, and you have offered no reason why that is not a possibility, especially in light of the fact that we are so deceived in dreams. Arguing against Solipsism, a position I do not hold, is not a justification. That does not tell us if what we experience is actually reality. So if you really believe that it is impossible for us to be deceived you have to justify that or agree that you too are only assuming reality.

I actually have offered reasons. And again, with your premises you do not even know if you assume reality or if the logic that leads you to think that I must do so too is based on false premises induced into your brain in a vat.

[seer]

I actually have offered reasons. And again, with your premises you do not even know if you assume reality or if the logic that leads you to think that I must do so too is based on false premises induced into your brain in a vat.

Again Charles, that makes no sense. You are not justifying the assumption that you must make - that it is impossible for us to be deceived. I'm not making a claim here, you are. I think it is possible to be deceived, but we may not be deceived. It is open ended. For your belief to work you have to demonstrate that deception is not a possibility. Which you have clearly failed to do.

[Charles]

Again Charles, that makes no sense. You are not justifying the assumption that you must make - that it is impossible for us to be deceived. I'm not making a claim here, you are. I think it is possible to be deceived, but we may not be deceived. It is open ended. For your belief to work you have to demonstrate that deception is not a possibility. Which you have clearly failed to do.

You have clearly failed to withhold your assumption statement. I have shown your concerns to be based on self refuting statements. That is some achievement.

[seer]

You have clearly failed to withhold your assumption statement. I have shown your concerns to be based on self refuting statements. That is some achievement.

No it is not Charles, I'm not supporting Solipsism, I'm not arguing for Solipsism. Look, we have two epistemic possibilities: (1 We can be deceived, (2 We can not be deceived. I'm only arguing that both are possible, it really is neutral position. And we know that such a deception is possible through our experience of the dream world. So I assume that we are not being deceive, but you must assume that such deception is not possible because if it is possible the door remains open. Arguing against Solipsism does nothing to answer this objection.

[Charles]

No it is not Charles, I'm not supporting Solipsism, I'm not arguing for Solipsism. Look, we have two epistemic possibilities: (1 We can be deceived, (2 We can not be deceived. I'm only arguing that both are possible, it really is neutral position. And we know that such a deception is possible through our experience of the dream world. So I assume that we are not being deceive, but you must assume that such deception is not possible because if it is possible the door remains open. Arguing against Solipsism does nothing to answer this objection.

And you still don't get the part about the implications or the fact that you cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality based on your own premises?

[seer]

And you still don't get the part about the implications or the fact that you cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality based on your own premises?

What premises Charles? That deception is possible? But you already know that deception is possible - that beautiful blonde that was running through the field with you wasn't real, it was a dream...

[Charles]

What premises Charles? That deception is possible? But you already know that deception is possible - that beautiful blonde that was running through the field with you wasn't real, it was a dream...

How do you establish that without knowing you are out of the dream or not being deceived in other ways?

[seer]

How do you establish that without knowing you are out of the dream or not being deceived in other ways?

I don't know Charles, how do you establish that you are not being deceived?

[Tassman]

I don't know Charles, how do you establish that you are not being deceived?

But you act on the assumption that you're not being deceived. Why?

[seer]

But you act on the assumption that you're not being deceived. Why?

Why not? We all act on that assumption - that is the whole point of this.

[JimL]

Why not? We all act on that assumption - that is the whole point of this.

But you also assume the existence of an immaterial mind, so why not assume reality to be immaterial and mind dependent? The way to know that you are not being deceived is to recognize the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind.

[seer]

But you also assume the existence of an immaterial mind, so why not assume reality to be immaterial and mind dependent? The way to know that you are not being deceived is to recognize the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind.

What exactly would constitute evidence for an immaterial mind James? And take such a mind out of the picture - how would that preclude the possibility of deception?

[JimL]

What exactly would constitute evidence for an immaterial mind James?

Exactly, there is no evidence of the immaterial period.

And take such a mind out of the picture - how would that preclude the possibility of deception?

Well, if you take the immaterial out of the picture, then you can't be deceived as to the mind independentness of reality.

[seer]

Exactly, there is no evidence of the immaterial period.

What? Again, what would that evidence look like?

Well, if you take the immaterial out of the picture, then you can't be deceived as to the mind independentness of reality.

Yet you could still be deceived as to what that reality is.