altranit realitys

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 13, 2009, 06:56:15 AM

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:

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?

Quote from: Emporer DAT on June 14, 2009, 02:09:34 AM

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.

Quote from: Emporer DAT on June 14, 2009, 08:48:17 PM

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.

Quote from: Emporer DAT on June 15, 2009, 02:24:19 AM

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.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 16, 2009, 01:18:51 AM

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.