The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: konataizumi on June 11, 2009, 10:20:39 PM
-
ok as you know of the matrix and stuff well i believe we are all sleeping the universe as we know it is not real at any given moment we could wake up and be any where any thing. things so unimaginable. everything you do see touch smell ect. is simply electrical signals to the brain right well theoretically if i could change the signals i na way you would have a altrinit world appear this is the reality im scared off am i a person that has the signals altered right?....
(http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:_4LrCSFxEDgkwM:http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3751/55174084.png)
-
What does "altranit" mean?
-
No seriously whats altranit?
-
No seriously whats altranit?
an alternative intrinet?
-
Should it be REALITIES?
-
Did anyone else have difficulty reading through that?
-
Did anyone else have difficulty reading through that?
I didn't even try for fear of getting a stroke.
-
Did anyone else have difficulty reading through that?
There was meaningful content somewhere in the OP?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
This should be obvious to anybody who gives the slightest consideration to anything but eating and sleeping.
-
Did anyone else have difficulty reading through that?
There was meaningful content somewhere in the OP?
No, but I tried finding some.
-
We are actually all towels.
Towels.
Yes.
Towels.
All of us. Hanging up on a rack, thinking we are living this life.
-
There's nothing obvious about it... it's a philosophical puzzle which has no real answer.
:rolleyes:
No, it's obvious that if the brain is the centre of all consciousness (and there seems no reason to believe otherwise), we could not truly know if anything beyond it is real. More generally, we cannot tell if anything beyond the source of our consciousness is real, regardless of what physically embodies said consciousness.
-
I am posting in this quality thread.
-
Welcome to the matrix.
(http://www.geocities.com/voetskimmel/ef41.jpg)
-
That's the point. How can you be sure that your senses aren't lying to you? If you cannot rely on your senses then how can you justify your actions?
Because our actions are taken within the models of the world our brains have constructed for us. There is no better justification for an alternative.
-
But if there exists any doubt about the world around you, how can you act and feel justified in your action? There is no justifcation for action!
Is there justification for inaction?
-
But if there exists any doubt about the world around you, how can you act and feel justified in your action? There is no justifcation for action!
Is there justification for inaction?
Is the need for justification justified?
-
It is plainly obvious that I am the only real person here, and you are all bits of programming.
Bow at my greatness.
-
That's the point. How can you be sure that your senses aren't lying to you? If you cannot rely on your senses then how can you justify your actions?
Because our actions are taken within the models of the world our brains have constructed for us. There is no better justification for an alternative.
But if there exists any doubt about the world around you, how can you act and feel justified in your action? There is no justifcation for action!
Who needs justification? This is a basic metaphysical question, and the answer is simple: our senses could be lying to us, but it is meaningless to give a shit, because there is now way we could ever prove otherwise- everything we receive from beyond the confines of our mind is mediated through our senses. It's the great big philosophical assumption we all make, but once you get over the 'WOAH MAN, DEEP' aspect of it, it isn't actually very enlightening.
If all we have to go on are our senses and our brain, then we might as well enjoy them and act in a way that gives us the most satisfaction within our perceived reality, without caring whether it is real or not.
-
Is the need for justification justified?
That's exactly my point. If no action is inherently justified, then the best subjective justification for an action is one which makes sense with regard to what we think is real.
-
Who needs justification? This is a basic metaphysical question, and the answer is simple: our senses could be lying to us, but it is meaningless to give a shit, because there is now way we could ever prove otherwise- everything we receive from beyond the confines of our mind is mediated through our senses. It's the great big philosophical assumption we all make, but once you get over the 'WOAH MAN, DEEP' aspect of it, it isn't actually very enlightening.
If all we have to go on are our senses and our brain, then we might as well enjoy them and act in a way that gives us the most satisfaction within our perceived reality, without caring whether it is real or not.
Thank you NEEMAN, you put it better than I ever could.
-
But how can we be sure that our actions are the correct ones if it's possible that our senses are lying to us?
There's such a thing as a "correct" action?
-
There's such a thing as a "correct" action?
It appears so...
Correct as in the best subjective justification
You do understand the meaning of the word "subjective", don't you?
-
That's the point. How can you be sure that your senses aren't lying to you? If you cannot rely on your senses then how can you justify your actions?
Because our actions are taken within the models of the world our brains have constructed for us. There is no better justification for an alternative.
But if there exists any doubt about the world around you, how can you act and feel justified in your action? There is no justifcation for action!
Who needs justification? This is a basic metaphysical question, and the answer is simple: our senses could be lying to us, but it is meaningless to give a shit, because there is now way we could ever prove otherwise- everything we receive from beyond the confines of our mind is mediated through our senses. It's the great big philosophical assumption we all make, but once you get over the 'WOAH MAN, DEEP' aspect of it, it isn't actually very enlightening.
If all we have to go on are our senses and our brain, then we might as well enjoy them and act in a way that gives us the most satisfaction within our perceived reality, without caring whether it is real or not.
This is why I do drugs.
-
That's the point. How can you be sure that your senses aren't lying to you? If you cannot rely on your senses then how can you justify your actions?
Because our actions are taken within the models of the world our brains have constructed for us. There is no better justification for an alternative.
But if there exists any doubt about the world around you, how can you act and feel justified in your action? There is no justifcation for action!
Who needs justification? This is a basic metaphysical question, and the answer is simple: our senses could be lying to us, but it is meaningless to give a shit, because there is now way we could ever prove otherwise- everything we receive from beyond the confines of our mind is mediated through our senses. It's the great big philosophical assumption we all make, but once you get over the 'WOAH MAN, DEEP' aspect of it, it isn't actually very enlightening.
If all we have to go on are our senses and our brain, then we might as well enjoy them and act in a way that gives us the most satisfaction within our perceived reality, without caring whether it is real or not.
This is why I do drugs.
Shut her down, Snackpack wins the thread.
-
Exactly. You willfully make a choice as to which of these actions is the "best" whilst admitting that you are probably not in full posession of the facts.
Seems a little precarious to me.
That is because you are a fucking twit. If it's not possible to justify your actions, then stop making the wilful decision to post.
-
ok as you know of the matrix and stuff well i believe we are all sleeping the universe as we know it is not real at any given moment we could wake up and be any where any thing. things so unimaginable. everything you do see touch smell ect. is simply electrical signals to the brain right well theoretically if i could change the signals i na way you would have a altrinit world appear this is the reality im scared off am i a person that has the signals altered right?....
"Cogito ergo sum"
-
Exactly. You willfully make a choice as to which of these actions is the "best" whilst admitting that you are probably not in full posession of the facts.
Seems a little precarious to me.
There is a difference between thinking and knowing.If one thinks something, he is in effect setting his thoughts and beliefs up in prediction that they might be disproved or corrected in some way. If one knows something, he believes with precise judgment that his thoughts and beliefs are correct and cannot be disproved or corrected. Knowing something does not require the use of the senses, it requires logic, thinking, assembling the known facts that have either been obtained or formulated by the mind, and putting them together in the right position to complete the big picture.
Facts are what we make them to be, one can believe anything, he is not shackled to a predefined logic engine like an animal, running about making decisions based on one particular input of information. If one knows that the world he sees and feels is real, then it is, in all actuality, because he knows this and does not simply think it. If one thinks it, he can only be proven right or wrong, but only proven by the one who knows.
To answer the main question, whether or not one can justify their actions and/or decisions if they cannot be sure the factors are actual, if one makes a decision based on an assumption and not a belief, if one thinks and does not know, then he cannot justify his actions because he is either one of three things: a child, an animal, or an idiot. If one knows, however, bases his decision on his own known facts that he is sure of, that is all the justification he needs, as his decision, no matter how poor or extreme, was correct, because it was based on facts, known facts, not thought facts.
-
There is a difference between thinking and knowing.If one thinks something, he is in effect setting his thoughts and beliefs up in prediction that they might be disproved or corrected in some way. If one knows something, he believes with precise judgment that his thoughts and beliefs are correct and cannot be disproved or corrected. Knowing something does not require the use of the senses, it requires logic, thinking, assembling the known facts that have either been obtained or formulated by the mind, and putting them together in the right position to complete the big picture.
Facts are what we make them to be, one can believe anything, he is not shackled to a predefined logic engine like an animal, running about making decisions based on one particular input of information. If one knows that the world he sees and feels is real, then it is, in all actuality, because he knows this and does not simply think it. If one thinks it, he can only be proven right or wrong, but only proven by the one who knows.
To answer the main question, whether or not one can justify their actions and/or decisions if they cannot be sure the factors are actual, if one makes a decision based on an assumption and not a belief, if one thinks and does not know, then he cannot justify his actions because he is either one of three things: a child, an animal, or an idiot. If one knows, however, bases his decision on his own known facts that he is sure of, that is all the justification he needs, as his decision, no matter how poor or extreme, was correct, because it was based on facts, known facts, not thought facts.
Attention FES: Do not read the quoted post, it will be a waste of thirty seconds of your life.
-
Knowing something does not require the use of the senses
Really? Is it raining outside?
David Hume would gladly disagree with you.
-
If all we have to go on are our senses and our brain, then we might as well enjoy them and act in a way that gives us the most satisfaction within our perceived reality, without caring whether it is real or not.
But how can we be sure that our actions are the correct ones if it's possible that our senses are lying to us?
Correct in what way? We act in a certain way because that action accords best with what our senses tell us and how we interpret the world as a result.
There is no 'knowing'- we can never know if what our senses tell us is 'true' or 'false', because our sense are all we have to rely on. Once you realise that, you realise that whilst it is an interesting revelation in terms of perspective, there is no point worrying about it.
The upshot is that 'true' and 'false' are subjective and mediated terms, because any higher metaphysical 'reality' that may or may not exist is ultimately something we can never experience directly- our senses will always stand between us and any pure 'truth' there is. You ask me "how can we be sure?", and my answer is we cannot, so get on with it.
-
Attention FES: Do not read the quoted post, it will be a waste of thirty seconds of your life.
I know it would waste more than just thirty seconds of your life, a more realistic assumption would be about 90 seconds.
To Jack: As matter of fact, it is raining outside. I believe the storm will blow over in an hour or so.
To NEEMAN:
(http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s246/LeArkel/thumbsuplowres.jpg)
Congrats for making an interesting point, however I cannot say you are correct, since it would be rather subjective and not very correct to think you are correct, but I can say I know your point has been well made.
-
To Jack: As matter of fact, it is raining outside. I believe the storm will blow over in an hour or so.
And how do you know it's raining outside?
-
Knowing something does not require the use of the senses
Really? Is it raining outside?
David Hume would gladly disagree with you.
What is this "outside"? What is this "raining"? What is this "really"?
w00t, we've managed to include anti-realism, relative positivism, materialism and idealism all in one fell swoop! Now, if only we could get in something like egoism or solipsism.
-
And how do you know it's raining outside?
To put it in layman's terms, because I said so. It can be assumed by inward knowledge alone, that somewhere on Earth, it is raining outside, because it would be ludicrous to assume that it would be raining inside.
-
To put it in layman's terms, because I said so. It can be assumed by inward knowledge alone, that somewhere on Earth, it is raining outside, because it would be ludicrous to assume that it would be raining inside.
Why does it have to be raining at all?
-
Its raining inside here.
Its also getting very hot at the same time...
-
It's raining in my heart.
-
Why does it have to be raining at all?
To put it in layman's terms, because I said so.
Damn I'm good. 8)
-
To Jack: As matter of fact, it is raining outside. I believe the storm will blow over in an hour or so.
And how do you know it's raining outside?
I don't. I never can.
-
I don't. I never can.
With reason alone, of course you can't: my claim is synthetic a posteriori. I can, by going out and see. If you are standing in the middle of the rain with no senses (you can't feel, you can't touch, you can't see, you can't smell, etc), you would never even know the sky is raining above you.
It can be assumed by inward knowledge alone, that somewhere on Earth, it is raining outside, because it would be ludicrous to assume that it would be raining inside.
Don't change my wording. I never asked a synthetic a priori like "how do you know it's raining outside somewhere on Earth?" The answer will always be true with reason as there will always be raining outside somewhere on Earth, mainly by defining "somewhere on Earth." I asked "how do you know it's raining outside?": this implies that, in your room, how do you know it's raining outside in your frame of reference. To know if it's raining outside, I have to go out and see what's happening with my senses.
-
It can be assumed by inward knowledge alone, that somewhere on Earth, it is raining outside, because it would be ludicrous to assume that it would be raining inside.
Don't change my wording. I never asked a synthetic a priori like "how do you know it's raining outside somewhere on Earth?" The answer will always be true with reason as there will always be raining outside somewhere on Earth, mainly by defining "somewhere on Earth." I asked "how do you know it's raining outside?": this implies that, in your room, how do you know it's raining outside in your frame of reference. To know if it's raining outside, I have to go out and see what's happening with my senses.
No you don't, If you are sitting in a room with no windows, hence no way of using your senses to determine whether or not it is raining outside of said room, You must turn your logic inward and not so much as assume that it is raining, but rather know that it is raining. As far as you know from within the confines of the room, the outside is doing whatever you want it to, be it raining, hailing, or raising hell on Earth. If your mind possesses any doubt of its assumptions whatsoever, you will end up being incorrect whether you are let out of the room or not. By knowing without a doubt that something is happening or may happen, you will be correct in every sense.
Lrn 2 409.
-
I don't. I never can.
With reason alone, of course you can't: my claim is synthetic a posteriori. I can, by going out and see. If you are standing in the middle of the rain with no senses (you can't feel, you can't touch, you can't see, you can't smell, etc), you would never even know the sky is raining above you.
It's refreshing to see you took the initiative to go from a nature-given pointless existence to a self-appointed one.
-
No you don't, If you are sitting in a room with no windows, hence no way of using your senses to determine whether or not it is raining outside of said room, You must turn your logic inward and not so much as assume that it is raining, but rather know that it is raining.
If I had to seriously sit inside a confined room without going out, then it is true by logic that it can either be raining or not raining. This is why reason can never tell us what the actual world is: by definition, it can be either. However, as all empiricists would say, I can always go out and see it for myself.
As far as you know from within the confines of the room, the outside is doing whatever you want it to, be it raining, hailing, or raising hell on Earth. If your mind possesses any doubt of its assumptions whatsoever, you will end up being incorrect whether you are let out of the room or not. By knowing without a doubt that something is happening or may happen, you will be correct in every sense.
I can imagine it to be logically possible, but that doesn't tell me anything about the actual world.
-
I can imagine it to be logically possible, but that doesn't tell me anything about the actual world.
Nothing but the senses can tell you about the actual world. If you were to try and perceive the actual world without the use of your sense, you would in fact create your own world and it will be just as real to you as the actual world. The entirety of the universe is simply an extension of the mind, for the mind is its own world and the senses merely help shape it. The mind is capable of bending and changing the universe just as the universe is capable of bending and changing the mind. The only true world is the one within the confines of your skull bone, everything else may as well just be an illusion whether it is really there or not, for it is up to you and your mind to judge.
-
However, according to Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, that is illusionary: it's true only to you, but not to anyone else. It's also subjective. He made an argument similar to yours, except he argued that we only know the world by interpreting our experiences or senses through categories (we can never know the world in itself), which is done by reason. This is true, as experience alone is meaningless without interpretation. For example, you see a cat, but when you approach it, it turns out to be a ball; however, you would never know that what you perceive is not a cat until you interpret that a ball is not a cat (you define that a ball is in shape A and a cat is in shape B, and A != B). Here, it requires both reason and experience, which is what I'm arguing for.