You know you exist, and you know time exists, I’ll even grant you that space exists (forgot the arguments for and against this). So, you have space-time and the cogito, but what then? How do you know the computer in front of you is real, how do you know your parents are real, how do you know this planet is real, ect, ect?
It’s philosophical skepticism, and it dominates the world of epistemology.
Again, somekind of explanation would be great, especially for this paper I have to write.
That is like saying ‘How do you know a ball is 3D?’
Because religious skepticism is a mental-masturbatory dead-end. Seriously: if there is an external world, why should I doubt things in it without good reason? You have the onus of proof, and “because you could be wrong” is not a valid answer.
No, it’s religious skepticism, i.e. doubting absolutely everything with no valid reason to do so.
You can’t have explanations with faith. Consider that.
I don’t know who Knight is. But I had described “screwed” before, and it seems it might correspond to malevolence. Yes, data is uncertain, but not being screwed means that from the data there is a possibility of finding your way to truth. If the data has some consistency and regularity, then enough of it will make posterior inference possible. You might have to work very very hard to get the truth, so I can’t say how benevolent the outlook is.
I am not stretching with means selection. There is no requirement that the means be technically appropriate in order for a one to select it for one’s end. Man does not act because he knows the truth. He can act only if he believes it is possible for him to know the truth, i.e., only if it is possible that his means are truly appropriate to his end. Hence, acting man cannot deny the possibility of truth.
Nope. My position is that there’s no good reason to believe in the external world or trust my senses. In fact, my senses often deceive me, and there are dreams which feel just as real as so-called ‘reality.’ The burden on proof is entirely on you to demonstrate that A) we can trust our senses B) know there are things in the external world, and C) show a strong foundation for all forms a science (something we all pursue). Unless you want to concede the point…
The point is that his belief is just that, and his actions are entirely futile. The physicist believes in universal physical laws, the laws of mathematics, and it’s not his job to question them. The philosopher, though, does question them and ponders their origin.
What does that even mean?
I’m sorry, but I’m not following you. What exactly don’t you understand?
Esuric, do you believe we can exist without a body?
I have missed a step. “his belief is just that” does not imply, as far as I can see, that “his actions are entirely futile”. In fact, I am not sure what you mean by “his actions are entirely futile”. He could not act if he believed that action was entirely. That’s my point. So since he doesn’t believe that, what relevance does it possibly have that you or a philosopher believe that?
I don’t know what your going on about.
requote:
So you don’t have a good reason to believe in the external world or trust your senses? Is that what you are saying?
Maybe I’m not being clear, or maybe you didn’t read my previous responses. Read my response to Bawa.
You couldn’t have just said “yes” or “no?” lol.
Descartes believed that existing without a body was conceivable. Do you believe this too? I read back on a few of your posts, but I don’t want to make any assumptions.
Again, what he believes is not important; he can believe anything. We’re trying to figure out if his beliefs are meaningful, true, and fruitful, as opposed to delusional and futile. I’m not going to repeat myself. You understand Descartes’ position. Simply saying that man believes in the possibility of truth, and that he believes he’s acting, does not resolve Descartes’ method of doubt. You’re begging the question.
Yeah, as a religious person I believe in ‘the soul.’
I asked you a question. that’s a link to a book. so you are either saying what I asked or not? lol
edit: I mean if you don’t even know what you are talking about then how do you expect me to?
Okay, so you do believe that existing without a body is concievable. So you think that you cannot know for certain that you have a body (but we do know that we could exist as an immaterial mind or spirit perhaps, since we could not be deceived of our own existence). Now since you believe in God, is it safe to assume that you believe in an immaterial mind or soul that interacts with the physical body or brain in some way? Do you believe that external reality exists based on faith, just like you believe that God exists based on faith (matter of degree being the only difference)?
If yes to all of these, I will give what I feel is a pretty good critique of your beliefs. The reason I am asking so many questions is because I don’t want to type a lengthy critique only to discover I am attacking a strawman.
Yes to all of this.
And yet we’re communicating, so you’ve gotten yourself into a performative contradiction.
And your senses cannot deceive you. They have no will of their own. Your interpretation may be in error, but the senses themselves give you what is.
Alright, so here it goes…
There is good reason to doubt that existing without a body is coherently imaginable because you would have no location in space. It is not that you would be some spirit floating around or that you would be everywhere at the same time. You would literally be nowhere. But is it even possible to imagine yourself existing without having a location? I do not think it is. How can I exist without a location? So the concievability argument does not prove that we can exist without a body.
You say that you believe that the immaterial soul interacts with the physical body, yet I also take it that you believe in the law of the law of the conservation of mass-energy. The problem is that these beliefs are not compatible. A nonphysical cause contradicts the law of the conservation of mass-energy. The total amount of mass-energy in a closed system will always remain constant. Since the physical world is a closed system, no non-material thing such as a soul can effect it. If souls effected the physical world, they would have to change its energy level. But that is impossible because the physical world is closed. No mass-energy can enter or leave it. So you cannot believe in an immaterial mind/soul which effects the physical world as long as you believe that the law of the conservation of mass-energy is correct.
That is all for now.