|
Post by henry on May 11, 2007 13:17:51 GMT -5
I saw it. Or rather I didn't see it.
Could you clarify what you mean by all knowledge being subjective, please?
...
On the subject of brains in tanks: Before we can think or do anything, we must assume that we are either not brains in tanks, that is, that our senses operate in the obvious way and give us information (however limited) on our actual environment, or we must accept that we are/may be brains in tanks and everything we refer to as real is merely a subset of the brains in tanks world.
One of these assumptions is always made, and all knowledge is based on this assumption, no matter what we are discussing, and thus I feel it is not relevant to this discussion.
The tree falling in the woods is within the brains in tanks assumption. To claim to know that the tree does or does not make a sound requires us to make another assumption: that this tree is like other trees. That we exist is obvious, as if we did not exist, we would not think or feel. The nature of our existence is unknowable, but whether we are brains in tanks or dreaming or living as it seems to us, whatever is within our world remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 11, 2007 15:35:33 GMT -5
But that is such an arbitrary line! You say that we must assume that a) we are not brains and tanks, and b) that our senses are not lying to us in order to know something. I claim that we must also assume c) that reality is consistent, thereby including the falling tree into our knowledge. Much of what we know is based on this claim. You claim that you know your dick was in your pants because you saw it. You based your knowledge on your belief that you were not hallucinating; that your eyes were not deceiving you; and a number of other factors. Now -- what exactly differentiates these assumptions from the assumption that reality is consistent? How do you know that at THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT you were not hallucinating? (I am referring more to the "purple elephants" example than to the tree not making a sound, which is somewhat more plausible, as I'm sure you would agree. ) "That we exist" is far from obvious, depending upon how far into philosophy you wish to delve. I've heard some interesting arguments, though they failed to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 11, 2007 15:56:54 GMT -5
Oh, by "knowledge is subjective", I meant that we have to make certain assumptions in order to know something. Nothing we "know" is necessarily true (though it probably is).
I see now that I misinterpreted the falling tree question. I concede that I do not know if the falling tree makes a sound, for it's plausible, under a very specific set of conditions, that it does not. (You could, of course, argue that anything in motion makes a sound due to air friction, but I don't think that was your intent.)
However, the "purple elephants" question remains.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 11, 2007 16:00:53 GMT -5
(written before the last post)
you missed something: "...or we must accept that we are/may be brains in tanks and everything we refer to as real is merely a subset of the brains in tanks world."
By this I meant that, either way, it works out. Now on to my dick:
Hallucinations in the sense that I hallucinate something complex that looks perfectly real but is not true to the world never/almost never occur, with the exception of optical illusions. Hallucinogens and psychotic breaks do not induce this type of illusion, contrary to popular belief, rather, they produce sensory distortions that are recognizable as such. The exception is voices heard by the mentally ill. This is how I know that I was not hallucinating, because I have experience, both first-hand and not, with reality and altered reality, and I know the difference.
If there is thought, a mind exists. I have thought. It follows that I exist, though my body may be an illusion.
Whether everything is an illusion or not, my mind still exists, and things still exist. When we say something exists, we mean that it exists inside reality. If reality is a dream or illusion, those things continue to exist within it. If we are brains in a tank, and reality is our dream, things still exist within it just the same as if reality is "real." No assumptions must be made to reach this conclusion. Even if the world outside the illusion is an illusion, nothing is changed.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 11, 2007 16:03:57 GMT -5
However:
This still requires a certain amount of consistency in reality. It is possible that hallucinations changed since I last read about them/had them. At this level, I do not know where my dick is, ever. Indeed, nobody knows anything about anything. In a way, this goes along with what I think the tree question is meant to lead the user to:
I do not know.
From what I understand, this is a big thing in zen. One buddhist meditation involves repeating constantly through meditation the words "I do not have, I do not know, I do not understand."
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 11, 2007 16:09:45 GMT -5
Side-discussion:
Your proof...
"If there is thought, a mind exists. I have thought. It follows that I exist, though my body may be an illusion."
...is valid only if we assume that conventional logic is valid in all contexts. Although impossible to imagine, it's plausible that you could think without existing.
Also, I'm not sure that "if there is thought, a mind exists" is necessarily true.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 11, 2007 16:23:52 GMT -5
That is true. I assume that logic is a valid system in this context. I wouldn't say that it's plausible, though. Possible, yes. HOWEVER, Is it not so that our statements and thoughts are of this reality, the one that is apparent to us? I would not argue any point in a reality which I have never experienced. In this reality, that is the only way in which things have ever been to us, thought exists. If you talk of a situation where things that exist do not exist, that is outside our reality, as for something to BE in this reality, it must exist. very well, if there is thought, then there is thought.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on May 11, 2007 17:09:47 GMT -5
Man, if you guys are all in my imagination, then my imagination sucks.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 11, 2007 19:03:43 GMT -5
Your mom was in my imagination last night. My imagination sucks more.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 14, 2007 13:37:35 GMT -5
Whether everything is an illusion or not, my mind still exists, and things still exist. When we say something exists, we mean that it exists inside reality. If reality is a dream or illusion, those things continue to exist within it. If we are brains in a tank, and reality is our dream, things still exist within it just the same as if reality is "real." No assumptions must be made to reach this conclusion. Even if the world outside the illusion is an illusion, nothing is changed. What are we still debating -- that the tree might not make a sound, or that the tree might turn into a purple elephant when you turn around? Given that there's so much of the universe that's still unexplored, I find this a dubious claim. Who's to say that there isn't a sector of the universe in which things that don't exist exist?
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 14, 2007 14:26:52 GMT -5
"What are we still debating"
I forget, but it may do both things.
"Who's to say that there isn't a sector of the universe in which things that don't exist exist?" The definition of exist says that.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 14, 2007 14:55:04 GMT -5
That's not really a valid response.
I'm saying that conventional logic may not apply evenly to all reality, and you're attempting to counter this logically. That's like attempting to disprove God using mathematical formulas.
(I don't really believe this is true, of course. I'm just using this as an argument against absolutist statements.)
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 14, 2007 16:28:39 GMT -5
Ok, I suppose that it is possible that conventional logic does not apply in some other...thing. I don't think it's much like attempting to disprove God with mathematical formulas, but I think I get your point.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 14, 2007 16:30:01 GMT -5
Now, what were we talking about?
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on May 14, 2007 23:10:49 GMT -5
We were talking about Henry imagining my mom sucking.
|
|