Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

[TimeSeeker]

Certainty is probabilistic. It is measured on a continuum. What is your cut-off threshold at which you deem something to be 'certain enough'?

51:49 for vs against?
66:37 for vs against?
80:20?
90:10?
99:1?
999:1?
9999:1?
99999:1?

You get the point... Signal-to-Noise ratio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

[henry quirk]

I 'know' cuz -- as I say -- I'm too dumb to be imagining all of this, so it must be real, must exist outside of me, must exist independent of me.

[RG1]

Certainty is probabilistic.

Are you certain of this?

[TimeSeeker]

Certainty is probabilistic.

Are you certain of this?

*yawn* do you want to play the infinite regress game?

[RG1]

I 'know' cuz -- as I say -- I'm too dumb to be imagining all of this, so it must be real, must exist outside of me, must exist independent of me.

Looks can be deceiving . "Must exist" is not a very compelling reason.

PS. I doubt you are dumb. The mere fact of knowing that you don't know, is somewhat intelligent.

[henry quirk]

Let's put it this way: unless someone gives me a compelling reason to doubt Reality as real, outside of me, independent of me, then I'm gonna go on acting as though Reality is real, outside of me, independent of me.

Anyone care to burst my bubble?

[TimeSeeker]

Let's put it this way: unless someone gives me a compelling reason to doubt Reality as real, outside of me, independent of me, then I'm gonna go on acting as though Reality is real, outside of me, independent of me.

Anyone care to burst my bubble?

Not so much as a compelling reason, but pointing out a distinction without a difference.

Suppose that reality is not real.
Lets go further and suppose that reality is in fact fake!
It is an illusion and it does not exist.
It is all in your head!

And then what happens?

[RG1]

Certainty is probabilistic.

Are you certain of this?

*yawn* do you want to play the infinite regress game?

Sorry, there's no "infinite regress" here, but only "self-contradiction". Your statement defeats the very legitimacy (certainty) of your own statement.

*yawn yawn*

[TimeSeeker]

Sorry, there's no "infinite regress" here, but only "self-contradiction". Your statement defeats the very legitimacy (certainty) of your own statement.

*yawn yawn*

Yes. It's a contradiction. And? Did somebody lie to you that contradictions don't exist even though the evidence is right in front of you that they do

You contradict yourself, I contradict myself. And nothing happens...

So the 'law' of non-contradiction is.... a lie ?

[RG1]

Suppose that reality is not real.
Lets go further and suppose that reality is in fact fake!
It is an illusion and it does not exist.
It is all in your head!

And then what happens?

...then you don't trust the content of your perceptions as necessarily real.

[TimeSeeker]

...then you don't trust the content of your perceptions as necessarily real.

That's another distinction without a difference.

Suppose that I don't trust the contents of my perception to be "real". It's all a video game! I am in The Matrix!

And then what happens?

[RG1]

Yes. It's a contradiction. And? Did somebody lie to you that contradictions don't exist even though the evidence is right in front of you that they do

You contradict yourself, I contradict myself. And nothing happens...

So the 'law' of non-contradiction is.... a lie ?

Huh? Where did I say contradictions don't exist?? I just pointed out one!

[TimeSeeker]

Huh? Where did I say contradictions don't exist?? I just pointed out one!

Cool. So we are on the same page that contradictions exist.

I acknowledge my (apparent) contradiction and deem it to be irrelevant/inconsequential. Like most contradictions.

Now, I re-state my AXIOM: Certainty is probabilistic. If you disagree with this axiom then please propose another.

[Atla]

.
Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

Next time you board a plane, take a window seat. After you get settled in, peer out the porthole window. Now try to imagine that this porthole is your ONLY connection to reality; in other words, imagine that this porthole is your own private, personal view of reality. Now, as you look out through this porthole, do you see those baggage and food service people loading the plane?, ...are they 'real'?

Side note: 'real' is defined here as that which exists with 'certainty'; independent of one's perceivings.

Almost automatically (and maybe a bit belligerently) most of us would say "Don't be absurd, of course they're real!". ...especially since we just saw them in (so-called) "real life" while boarding the plane! Okay, okay, but now, try to imagine that you have ALWAYS existed behind this porthole, and have NEVER-EVER experienced the world outside this porthole. ...are you still as certain?

Tap on the glass, ...is there something that separates 'you', from those 'objects' out there?

Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

We typically can trust the experience in our head, it's usually a quite accurate representation of our surroundings.

But for people with severe psychosis for example, such trust can quickly be destroyed. The things they experience can be highly inaccurate, sometimes entirely hallucinations.

[RG1]

That's another distinction without a difference.

No, that's another 'experience'.

Suppose that I don't trust the contents of my perception. It's all a video game.

And then what happens?

Then you've gained a bit more knowledge about reality.

Now, I re-state my AXIOM: Certainty is probabilistic. If you disagree with this axiom. Propose another.

How can you be so certain of this (self-contradictory) "axiom"? I propose "Certainty is absolute".

We typically can trust the experience in our head, it's usually a quite accurate representation of our surroundings.

And how can we possibly know that it is a "quite accurate representation"?

If we can only perceive perceptions (and not the real things themselves), then how do we tell which perceptions are real?