Philosophy Now Forum

RG1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:46 pm No, that's another 'experience'.

Experience/impression/perception/interpretation. No matter how many different words you label it by - unless you propose some testable/falsifiable consequences that one expects to observe from the distinction that you've drawn then it's just equivocation.

RG1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:46 pm Then you've gained a bit more knowledge about reality.

I have? What have I learned about reality by conceptualising it as a video game? How is that conception different than calling it 'real' or 'illusionary'.
It's just more equivocation, not knowledge.

RG1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:46 pm How can you be so certain of this (self-contradictory) "axiom"? I propose "Certainty is absolute".

OK. lets go with that assumption. It's testable. Go ahead and make an absolute claim. By giving you counter-examples to your "absolute" claim - I will demonstrate it to be probabilistic.

RG1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:46 pm 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?

That's a vague question, and here's a vague answer: by trying to verify them. If everything adds up, the representation is probably quite accurate.

When dealing with hallucinations for example, something will eventually not add up. Maybe we try to touch it but it's not there. Or maybe we also hallucinate touching it, but then it disappaers, and so on. (Now of course there are some people who never get out of hallucinations, and even lose the ability to tell a difference, but that's an extreme case.)

Probably nuthin'

I'm meat. I'm finite. My senses (as accurate as I think they are) are limited. My brain (the apparent locus of 'me') is limited.

So: even if it all in my head there's not much I can do about it (nor am I inclined to do much about it).

Here's the thing, though: if it is all in my head, if all of 'you' are in my head, then you all best hope I live a loooong time.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:05 pm Here's the thing, though: if it is all in my head, if all of 'you' are in my head, then you all best hope I live a loooong time.

And if you are in my head - ditto!

TimeSeeker wrote:OK. lets go with that assumption. It's testable. Go ahead and make an absolute claim. By giving you counter-examples to your "absolute" claim - I will demonstrate it to be probabilistic.

Okay, it's a deal, here goes --- I claim (with absolute certainty!) that you will respond to this post.

Atla wrote:That's a vague question, and here's a vague answer: by trying to verify them. If everything adds up, the representation is probably quite accurate.

When dealing with hallucinations for example, something will eventually not add up. Maybe we try to touch it but it's not there. Or maybe we also hallucinate touching it, but then it disappaers, and so on. (Now of course there are some people who never get out of hallucinations, and even lose the ability to tell a difference, but that's an extreme case.)

Atla, you're missing the gist of the question. How does one know that they aren't delusional/dreaming/hallucinating? Does one ask a person in their dream if the dream is real or not?

Who (which perception) can one trust to give them a straight answer?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:08 pm And if you are in my head - ditto!

And so I reply to my own post instead to make a point. And will continue ignoring RG1 from now onwards until defeat is conceded.

Henry Quirk wrote:if it is all in my head, if all of 'you' are in my head, then you all best hope I live a loooong time.

good one

RG1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:17 pm Atla, you're missing the gist of the question. How does one know that they aren't delusional/dreaming/hallucinating? Does one ask a person in their dream if the dream is real or not?

Who (which perception) can one trust to give them a straight answer?

That's too vague, what are you actually asking?

TimeSeeker wrote:And so I reply to my own post instead to make a point. And will continue ignoring RG1 from now onwards until defeat is conceded

Sorry TimeSeeker, that was a dirty trick on my part. Feel free to send me a slap icon.

Atla wrote:That's too vague, what are you actually asking?

Are you hallucinating our conversation now?, ...or is this conversation really/actually happening? ...how do you know?

...if you are hallucinating, then would you know you are hallucinating?

...do delusional people believe they are seeing real things? ...how do you know you are not deluding this entire conversation?

RG1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:36 pm Are you hallucinating our conversation now?, ...or is this conversation really/actually happening? ...how do you know?

...if you are hallucinating, then would you know you are hallucinating?

...do delusional people believe they are seeing real things? ...how do you know you are not deluding this entire conversation?

Everything I know about the world verifies that it's a real conversation; everything adds up so far.

So it's probably a quite accurate perception. But of course we can never be absolutely certain about anything.

Here is an experiment to test your perception's reliability:

1. True or false? B is the same as В
2. True or false? B is the same as B

Once you've answered the above check your answers here: https://repl.it/repls/BouncyOlivedrabMass

There's no trickery. Your eyes deceived you.

The Latin letter B is visually indistinguishable from the Cyrillic letter В. Yet you can run a simple experiment to determine that they are in fact different

What experiment would you run to determine if reality is real?

Alta wrote:Everything I know about the world verifies that it's a real conversation; everything adds up so far.

But everything that you know about the world comes from your perceptions. How do you know which perceptions are true/real? Which perceptions are telling you the truth? Which can you trust?

The problem is that everything we perceive is just a perception (a mental impression). These mental impressions may be the result of delusions, misfiring brain activity, hallucinations, or maybe of sensory experiences reflecting off 'real' things. We are only privy to the mental impressions (perceptions), and not to the 'real' stuff, which means we have no way of knowing the source of our mental impressions..

RG1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:01 pm But everything that you know about the world comes from your perceptions. How do you know which perceptions are true/real? Which perceptions are telling you the truth? Which can you trust?

The problem is that everything we perceive is just a perception (a mental impression). These mental impressions may be the result of delusions, misfiring brain activity, hallucinations, or maybe of sensory experiences reflecting off 'real' things. We are only privy to the mental impressions (perceptions), and not to the 'real' stuff, which means we have no way of knowing the source of our mental impressions..

Those perceptions are probably true/real, which all add up, together. They create a consistent, verifiable worldview. And my worldview also explains the "source" of mental impressions.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:08 pm Those perceptions are probably true/real, which all add up, together. They create a consistent, verifiable worldview. And my worldview also explains the "source" of mental impressions.

Explanation is not good enough. Can your worldview predict/control?