Questions

Of course I do. You couldn't realistically live without doing so. As I have been at pains to stress, I'm not 'against' indirect sensorial information. I just don't believe we can trust it on a philosophic level. After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

How about trusting it on a scientific level?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:20:15 AM

Of course I do. You couldn't realistically live without doing so. As I have been at pains to stress, I'm not 'against' indirect sensorial information. I just don't believe we can trust it on a philosophic level. After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

How about trusting it on a scientific level?

All well and good, but my original point was to prove that there was a sound philosophical basis for the 'look out your window' argument. As I've also been at pains to stress, I don't believe this argument is 'proof' for a flat Earth.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 04:08:21 AM

Your objection seems to be Luddite in nature.

Two things performing the same function. One organic the other non organic. You dislike the non organic one for reasons not quite established.

One is sensorial, the other is not. My original point stressed the philosophical validity of trusting direct sensorial evidence alone.

No, both result in the same sense being used in the same way.

And what makes you assume you can trust your senses?

For all you know you could be a brain in a vat hooked up to wires to make it appear as though you are sensing the world about you.

After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

And that stops you combing the back of your head?

I've seen videos of German 'resettlement' camps from the 1940s, where Jews lived happily in beautiful little settlements, with nice clothes and fresh, country air. These videos were shown to Jews at the time and to the Red Cross. As a matter of fact, the people in these videos were dead by the time anyone actually saw them. So tell me,

Quote from: Its a Sphere on November 17, 2009, 06:11:18 PM

Would it be more mad of them to assume that the evidence, overwhelming evidence, is in fact true, or that the presenters of the information are part of some giant conspiracy there to deceive them?

Since the Nazis had been in the business of murdering Jews for years by that time I would hardly consider it in any way overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Hitler had been spouting his hatred for almost 2 decades by that time.  In fact if the Nazis had shown up with a beautiful train car loaded with all sorts of luxuries, with personal attendants and fresh new clothes to take them to this re-settlement camp, should they have trusted the direct sensoral information of this luxurious transport as evidecne of what lied ahead all the while ignoring all of the non direct information they had heard and seen regarding Hitler's true agenda?

Also, there -apparently-is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the video was even produced by the Nazis nor that it even existed to show the Jews nor the Red Cross, since I am assuming that you were not there to observe it's filming, nor it's display to either group.  You are in no position to trust anything in that video, nor any video to the contrary.

Neither your desert dweller nor your islander is in a position to trust anything other than direct sensorial information.

Would it be more mad of them to assume that the evidence, overwhelming evidence, is in fact true, or that the presenters of the information are part of some giant conspiracy there to deceive them?


So (if you are married, and have kids) if you arrived home and your wife said she was ready to go, that she had already dropped the kids off at her parent's house, you would immediately walk out the door, drive over there and check for yourself?

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 18, 2009, 07:28:31 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:20:15 AM

Of course I do. You couldn't realistically live without doing so. As I have been at pains to stress, I'm not 'against' indirect sensorial information. I just don't believe we can trust it on a philosophic level. After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

How about trusting it on a scientific level?

All well and good, but my original point was to prove that there was a sound philosophical basis for the 'look out your window' argument. As I've also been at pains to stress, I don't believe this argument is 'proof' for a flat Earth.

Then you don't believe that looking out your window has a sound scientific basis for determining the shape of the earth.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Since the Nazis had been in the business of murdering Jews for years by that time I would hardly consider it in any way overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Hitler had been spouting his hatred for almost 2 decades by that time.  In fact if the Nazis had shown up with a beautiful train car loaded with all sorts of luxuries, with personal attendants and fresh new clothes to take them to this re-settlement camp, should they have trusted the direct sensoral information of this luxurious transport as evidecne of what lied ahead all the while ignoring all of the non direct information they had heard and seen regarding Hitler's true agenda?

You need to brush up on your history. The outright extermination program did not commence untl the 1940s, and most people did not know about it, and if they did, certainly didn't speak of it openly. Why do you think the Nazis produced these videos? Because they thought they'd be effective.

Also, there -apparently-is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the video was even produced by the Nazis nor that it even existed to show the Jews nor the Red Cross, since I am assuming that you were not there to observe it's filming, nor it's display to either group.  You are in no position to trust anything in that video, nor any video to the contrary.

Yes, I know. That's my entire point. By the same token, neither your islander nor your desert dweller are in any position to trust any of the evidence presented to them. I'm glad we agree.

So (if you are married, and have kids) if you arrived home and your wife said she was ready to go, that she had already dropped the kids off at her parent's house, you would immediately walk out the door, drive over there and check for yourself?

I've covered this:

Of course I do. You couldn't realistically live without doing so. As I have been at pains to stress, I'm not 'against' indirect sensorial information. I just don't believe we can trust it on a philosophic level. After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

No, both result in the same sense being used in the same way.

And what makes you assume you can trust your senses?

For all you know you could be a brain in a vat hooked up to wires to make it appear as though you are sensing the world about you.

Did you read my original post? You're talking about solipsism, and I explicitly talked about solipsism. In fact, that was the main thrust of my original post.


www.rif.org

And that stops you combing the back of your head?

Incidently, I don't use a comb, but for arguments sake, we'll assume I have a head of wild, untamed locks. Why would anything I've said stop me from combing the back of my head?

Then you don't believe that looking out your window has a sound scientific basis for determining the shape of the earth.  Thanks for clearing that up.

You're more than welcome. Next time you should read my posts more carefully, to prevent another misunderstanding like this.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 08:09:02 AM

And what makes you assume you can trust your senses?

that was the main thrust of my original post.

Yes. It might surprise you to learn that the senses are beyond the mind. You might prick your finger on a pin, but that might be your mind pretending that you did. (It's a part of the simulation!)

So we can trust our senses? Or no we can't trust them at all? But they're telling us the earth is flat. Don't trust them. Have a telescope. Don't trust that either. What is the point you're trying to make?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 08:09:02 AM

And that stops you combing the back of your head?

Why would anything I've said stop me from combing the back of my head?

Because you only trust your senses directly. Why would you assume that a mirror would accurately reflect the state of the back of your head?

You need to brush up on your history. The outright extermination program did not commence untl the 1940s, and most people did not know about it, and if they did, certainly didn't speak of it openly. Why do you think the Nazis produced these videos? Because they thought they'd be effective.

They were spouting their propaganda to the people in line waitng to die and Hitler published a book repeatedly professing his hatred, he made it no secret and he referenced (debatable or not) a willingness to murder them.  And yes, that is the purpose of propoganda.  Not that I would have been given the choice, but I would not have trusted my direct sensoral information if it indicated the trip would be rosy.
 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 02:23:47 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 08:09:02 AM

And what makes you assume you can trust your senses?

that was the main thrust of my original post.

Yes. It might surprise you to learn that the senses are beyond the mind. You might prick your finger on a pin, but that might be your mind pretending that you did. (It's a part of the simulation!)

So we can trust our senses? Or no we can't trust them at all? But they're telling us the earth is flat. Don't trust them. Have a telescope. Don't trust that either. What is the point you're trying to make?

The same point I made earlier:

Here's the essence of what I think. Solipsism essentially tells us that belief in anything beyond the confines of the mind is unjustified. For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to leave aside large aspects of solipsism, and discuss only how it relates to our senses, assuming our senses and our brain work the way we think they do (which is in itself a big assumption, but anyway). We interpret the world through our senses, and so everything we see, hear, feel etc is simply a series of electro-chemical signals interpreted by our brain, and as a consequence we can never truly know if what we experience via our senses has any relation to reality (see The Matrix and Brain in a vat). So far, so basic.


Now, in the topic I linked above, Benocrates gave us the following quote from Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation:

Quote from: Schopenhauer, the World as Will and Representation Pg 104

Theoretical egoism, of course, can never be refuted by proofs, yet in philosophy it has never been positively used otherwise than a skeptical sophism, i.e. for the sake of appearance. As a serious conviction, on the other hand, it could be found only in a madhouse; as such it would then need not so much a refutation as a cure. Therefore we shall regard this skeptical argument of theoretical egoism, which here confronts us, as a small frontier fortress. Admittedly the fortress is impregnable, but the garrison can never sally forth from it, and therefore we can pass by it and leave it in our rear without danger.

Where Schopenhauer says 'theoretical egoism', you can read solipsism. Now, what Schopenhauer is saying is this: solipsism is a powerful and irrefutable argument, but it is of essentially no consequence. Yes, we can never theoretically trust our senses, but to deny them would be madness. In essence, the only sensible option is to assume that what our senses tell us is correct.


Now, here is the consequence for FET. If we must assume that what our senses tell us is true to trust them in the first place, then in order to be consistent we must do this always. Until we directly observe that the earth is round with our senses, we cannot assume that it is round based on theories alone. Otherwise there is a contradiction, because we are assuming senses are true and that what we observe really exists, but at the same time deciding that the earth is round and that our senses deceive us.

Seriously, if you'd read my original post properly, you wouldn't be raising this stuff like I'd never considered it.

Because you only trust your senses directly. Why would you assume that a mirror would accurately reflect the state of the back of your head?

Uh, how could I see the back of my head in a mirror? Are you suggesting I use two? Anyway, sight is not the only sense.

They were spouting their propaganda to the people in line waitng to die and Hitler published a book repeatedly professing his hatred, he made it no secret and he referenced (debatable or not) a willingness to murder them.  And yes, that is the purpose of propoganda.  Not that I would have been given the choice, but I would not have trusted my direct sensoral information if it indicated the trip would be rosy.

You're missing the point: the video was not direct sensorial evidence. Hence by my argument, you shouldn't trust it.

So we can trust our senses? Phew. But, according to you, not if what those senses receives has been tampered with in anyway. OMG But how would we know?!?! LOL I NOE?!

Uh, how could I see the back of my head in a mirror? Are you suggesting I use two? Anyway, sight is not the only sense.

That doesn't answer the question.

So we can trust our senses? Phew. But, according to you, not if what those senses receives has been tampered with in anyway. OMG But how would we know?!?! LOL I NOE?!

By trusting our sense, which tell us they have not been tampered with. By asking that question, you are doubting your senses, which is exactly what we cannot do. Fairly straight forward.

Uh, how could I see the back of my head in a mirror? Are you suggesting I use two? Anyway, sight is not the only sense.

That doesn't answer the question.
[/quote]


What question? If it's this, then frankly I have no idea what you're asking:

Because you only trust your senses directly. Why would you assume that a mirror would accurately reflect the state of the back of your head?

I mean, seriously, where did that come from?

By trusting our sense, which tell us they have not been tampered with.

Whaa?! How can a sense tell you it's not been tampered with?

What question?

You're happy for your eye's lens to focus light onto your retina, but you're not happy for a telescope's lens to do the same thing?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 03:00:09 PM

Because you only trust your senses directly. Why would you assume that a mirror would accurately reflect the state of the back of your head?

I mean, seriously, where did that come from?

It's a simple question. You won't trust a telescope, for some kind of purist Luddite reason. So why trust a mirror to reflect the back of your head? The information is not direct sensory information... somehow... according to you... so not to be trusted...

You're missing the point: the video was not direct sensorial evidence. Hence by my argument, you shouldn't trust it.

I was referring to:

In fact if the Nazis had shown up with a beautiful train car loaded with all sorts of luxuries, with personal attendants and fresh new clothes to take them to this re-settlement camp, should they have trusted the direct sensoral information of this luxurious transport as evidecne of what lied ahead all the while ignoring all of the non direct information they had heard and seen regarding Hitler's true agenda?

I would have not trusted my direct sensoral evidence in favor of the non-direct sensoral evidence to the contrary.

If this thread were an answer on Jeopardy, my question would be: "What are the reasons I despised philosophy?"

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 03:52:07 PM

By trusting our sense, which tell us they have not been tampered with.

Whaa?! How can a sense tell you it's not been tampered with?

That's the whole point. You can't possibly know, so you assume that your sense haven't been tampered with, as it is the only viable course.

It's a simple question. You won't trust a telescope, for some kind of purist Luddite reason. So why trust a mirror to reflect the back of your head? The information is not direct sensory information... somehow... according to you... so not to be trusted...

It really isn't. You're asking me why I'd trust something that I've already explicitly said I don't trust. It's a simple fact that mirrors distort 'reality'. For that reason, I don't believe my left hand is actually my right just because it looks that way in a mirror.


Anyway, how can I see a reflection of the back of my head? 

That's the whole point. You can't possibly know, so you assume that your sense haven't been tampered with, as it is the only viable course.

So because you are aware that something is interferring with your vision you choose to ignore it.

But if you were unaware that something was interferring with your vision you would choose to believe it.

How precarious!

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 04:10:52 PM

It's a simple question. You won't trust a telescope, for some kind of purist Luddite reason. So why trust a mirror to reflect the back of your head? The information is not direct sensory information... somehow... according to you... so not to be trusted...

It really isn't. You're asking me why I'd trust something that I've already explicitly said I don't trust. It's a simple fact that mirrors distort 'reality'. For that reason, I don't believe my left hand is actually my right just because it looks that way in a mirror.

But you are able to mentally make the swap from right to left I hope?

This is something children learn sometime round the age of 3. Once they make the adjustment they are able to "trust" the mirror.

Anyway, how can I see a reflection of the back of my head? 

Oh dear. Consider it homework.

Poor Willy. Stuck in mysticism. 

Back at the destert dweller and island guy, you're saying that anything they see that shows anything but desert should be dismissed, regardless that it's true?

If the desert dweller can get online (satellite internet ) and gets google earth and sees all the world around him, he shouldn't trust it. All the people he talks to online who talk about how much rain they get are robots? Videos of snow are "photoshopped"? But certainly the world is just a desert right?

I mean, you guys all live in a desert too?

Desert Dweller's house.

Zooming out a bit, apparently he can't see the whole city, but there it is. Proof there are things beyond what he can see, since he can visit these places.

Mountains he can probably see from his house.

Keep zooming out and OMG the world isn't a desert! I NEVER KNEW!

And with a properly curved mirror, your reflection would be proper and raise it's right hand when you did. You'd have to stand in a specific spot though.

Anyway, how can I see a reflection of the back of my head? 

Try using 2 mirrors.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 02:18:14 AM

That's the whole point. You can't possibly know, so you assume that your sense haven't been tampered with, as it is the only viable course.

So because you are aware that something is interferring with your vision you choose to ignore it.

But if you were unaware that something was interferring with your vision you would choose to believe it.

How precarious!

I prefer the term 'philosophically consistent'.

But you are able to mentally make the swap from right to left I hope?

This is something children learn sometime round the age of 3. Once they make the adjustment they are able to "trust" the mirror.

Of course, but it's beside the point. Are you able to make the mental swap between relevant and irrelevant? Honestly, it's very simple: such reasoning is based on indirect sensorial information, and hence cannot be trusted.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 02:18:14 AM

Anyway, how can I see a reflection of the back of my head?  

Oh dear. Consider it homework.

I really can't be bothered playing word games; your meaning is ambiguous and you refuse to clarify, and is pointless to boot. You might mean angling my head to see the back side-on, or using two mirrors... in any event, whatever you mean is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 02:18:14 AM

Anyway, how can I see a reflection of the back of my head? 

Try using 2 mirrors.

Uh, how could I see the back of my head in a mirror? Are you suggesting I use two?

Back at the destert dweller and island guy, you're saying that anything they see that shows anything but desert should be dismissed, regardless that it's true?

No, I'm saying anything they experience indirectly via the sense is not to be trusted. If the desert dweller reaches the sea, sees the tropical island in the distance and swims there, he can obviously conclude that said island does indeed exist.

There's also the point that there is a certain amount of predictability, which Wilmore doesn't take into account. Based on past experiences and knowledge, one can predict that what you're seeing or experiencing fits or doesn't fit with previous known data. This is the basis with which inventors come up with new machines, scientists predict outcomes of combinations of chemistry and engineers create mechanics, by trusting that the rules that applied before will apply in a new situation. This method is totally without reliance on new sensory information, or sometimes without any personally gained sensory information at all but merely data gathered by others, or machines, or electronic sensors of some kind. Yet it works. This effectively kills the "only sensory information is reliable" argument. As anyone who has ever been drunk or eaten a magic mushroom knows, sensory information is only as reliable as the brain which is interpreting it (and yes, the brain does interpret it - senses are not absolute.)

No, I'm saying anything they experience indirectly via the sense is not to be trusted. If the desert dweller reaches the sea, sees the tropical island in the distance and swims there, he can obviously conclude that said island does indeed exist.

He could also view the island through a pair of binoculars and conclude that it exists just as accurately.

There's also the point that there is a certain amount of predictability, which Wilmore doesn't take into account. Based on past experiences and knowledge, one can predict that what you're seeing or experiencing fits or doesn't fit with previous known data. This is the basis with which inventors come up with new machines, scientists predict outcomes of combinations of chemistry and engineers create mechanics, by trusting that the rules that applied before will apply in a new situation. This method is totally without reliance on new sensory information, or sometimes without any personally gained sensory information at all but merely data gathered by others, or machines, or electronic sensors of some kind. Yet it works. This effectively kills the "only sensory information is reliable" argument. As anyone who has ever been drunk or eaten a magic mushroom knows, sensory information is only as reliable as the brain which is interpreting it (and yes, the brain does interpret it - senses are not absolute.)

If only I could submit this thread to the university as justification for the refund of the Philosophy classes I had to take.

There's also the point that there is a certain amount of predictability, which Wilmore doesn't take into account. Based on past experiences and knowledge, one can predict that what you're seeing or experiencing fits or doesn't fit with previous known data. This is the basis with which inventors come up with new machines, scientists predict outcomes of combinations of chemistry and engineers create mechanics, by trusting that the rules that applied before will apply in a new situation. This method is totally without reliance on new sensory information, or sometimes without any personally gained sensory information at all but merely data gathered by others, or machines, or electronic sensors of some kind. Yet it works. This effectively kills the "only sensory information is reliable" argument. As anyone who has ever been drunk or eaten a magic mushroom knows, sensory information is only as reliable as the brain which is interpreting it (and yes, the brain does interpret it - senses are not absolute.)

First of all, if there are two differing pieces of direct sensorial data, then they must both be trusted, and you must use reason to reconcile them. Secondly, that method does not always work. If it did, nothing would ever go wrong.

I prefer the term 'philosophically consistent'.

A consistent philosphy that breaks down on examination. That's cool.

Are you able to make the mental swap between relevant and irrelevant?

Whhaa?! Non sequitur? But, yes I am able to make the mental swap between relevant and irrelevant.

Honestly, it's very simple: such reasoning is based on indirect sensorial information, and hence cannot be trusted.

So you're not progressing beyond the 3 year old level of self conciousness. Cool, I can live with that.

You might mean angling my head to see the back side-on, or using two mirrors... in any event, whatever you mean is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Seriously if you can't figure out how to see the back of your head with reflective material then you're not ready for the philosophical debate that might follow.

It doesn't matter how many mirrors you use. Experiment to find a mechanism that works for you. Dear lord.

in the post after you said it he asked if you meant two mirrors.

lrn2read, crusty.

First of all, if there are two differing pieces of direct sensorial data, then they must both be trusted, and you must use reason to reconcile them. Secondly, that method does not always work. If it did, nothing would ever go wrong.

I didn't say it always works. I agree that it doesn't sometimes. But often it does. Just as often, sensorial info gets things wrong too. I can save you a rebuttal of this by telling you now that I can back that statement up.

As to using reason to reconcile sensorial data that doesn't match up... hmmm, sensorial data that shows me wherever I am I see the same face of the Moon, looking circular, regardless of how far it travels across the sky, let's see how that reconciles with the earth appearing to be flat...

As to using reason to reconcile sensorial data that doesn't match up... hmmm, sensorial data that shows me wherever I am I see the same face of the Moon, looking circular, regardless of how far it travels across the sky, let's see how that reconciles with the earth appearing to be flat...

For all you know, the moon may simply be following you around. Could you find direct sensorial information indicating it doesn't?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:33:57 PM

I prefer the term 'philosophically consistent'.

A consistent philosphy that breaks down on examination. That's cool.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:33:57 PM

Are you able to make the mental swap between relevant and irrelevant?

Whhaa?! Non sequitur? But, yes I am able to make the mental swap between relevant and irrelevant.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:33:57 PM

Honestly, it's very simple: such reasoning is based on indirect sensorial information, and hence cannot be trusted.

So you're not progressing beyond the 3 year old level of self conciousness. Cool, I can live with that.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:33:57 PM

You might mean angling my head to see the back side-on, or using two mirrors... in any event, whatever you mean is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Seriously if you can't figure out how to see the back of your head with reflective material then you're not ready for the philosophical debate that might follow.

It doesn't matter how many mirrors you use. Experiment to find a mechanism that works for you. Dear lord.

I see you've given up on the actual debate. So be it. Another victory for FE!

I see you've given up on the actual debate. So be it. Another victory for FE!

Not at all.

Let me try...

I see you have given up Wilmore! Another win for RE!

(wow this is easy)

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 21, 2009, 10:18:49 AM

I see you've given up on the actual debate. So be it. Another victory for FE!

Not at all.

Let me try...

I see you have given up Wilmore! Another win for RE!

(wow this is easy)

Stay on topic and with content.

Back to what i intially said/made a notion of, asked. If there are no satellites, then to send signals caple of carrying a wireless internet transmission, the radio towers would have to be remarkabley tall to avoid interference from the mountains and what not, if these towers are so tall, how come we cant see them from wherever we are on this supossedly Flat Earth? please be as direct as oyu can when answering this question, i would like no leeway for anyone to take this back off topipc.