Originally posted by Starrman Actually I think Descartes is wrong too. The presupposition of self-being exists in his argument too. Personally the only escape from the quandry of the real is to just accept a common sense view of existence. The world is, in at least a basic way, just the way I presume it to be. Subjectivity becomes objectivity for day to day perception of things, and ...[text shortened]... on their nature to any further degree should probably be something purely for academic purposes.
But once we accept that some of the basic experiences of life are genuine cant we immediately via the use of the scientific method deduce a vast amount of other things as fact and not faith as kelly claims. Even Phuzudaka accepts as fact (ie he is sure) that gravity (an invisible force) exists at 10000m, a height he has probably never attained.
Kellys claims that all is faith and that all faith is equal rests solely on the belief that nothing, not even basic existence can be confirmed. Once you accept a few axioms then it separates those things which can be proved from the axioms from those that cant. For example the approximate age of the earth can be deduced from the available evidence but the existence of God cannot. One may of course dispute the validity of the available evidence as Phuzudaka does, but that is not what Kellys claims have been.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung The only thing anyone knows for sure is that they exist and their perceptions exist. That's it. Nothing else is certain.
Agree?
Well what if God reveals himself to you in a way that is completely consistant with him being good and fair - would you deny such an experience if you had it? It kind of blows all your prior theories to pieces. We can't reach God but he can us if he choses to, and if he does it's on a fair basis.
Anyhow I'm glad I've had such an experience it saves me from a lot of crazy thinking and gives my life an anchor. If I'm deluded then I can still honestly say I've followed what I found to be true.
Originally posted by hyphan Well what if God reveals himself to you in a way that is completely consistant with him being good and fair - would you deny such an experience if you had it? It kind of blows all your prior theories to pieces. We can't reach God but he can us if he choses to, and if he does it's on a fair basis.
Anyhow I'm glad I've had such an experience it saves me fr 've followed what I found to be true.
Hope this has bearing on the original hypothesis.
ATY's point s that what you presume to be an experience of god could be a trick by Satan, which has yet to be revealed. Or perhaps just completely makebelieve.
Originally posted by Phuzudaka If you jump out of a jetliner at an altitude of 10000m without a parachute you will injure yourself. I know that and a lot of other stuff for sure.
No, you don't know that for sure. You assume that based on what you remember learning over the years. It could be a trick of God.
Originally posted by twhitehead If a computer program experiences something then does the program exist? What if the perception itself is being simulated?
If the program experiences something, then yes it exists. However I can't know that it exists; only it can know it exists. Even if it experiences nothing it can still exist, but not as a perceiver.
A perception is a perception. It cannot be "simulated". However the causes of the perception can be simulated, and thus, the program cannot know what caused the perception; only that the perception or experience exists.
Originally posted by Starrman That's presupposition on the nature of 'I'. Self identity might also be an illusion, we'd have to accept that axiom that the self really exists before we could say whether or not it percieves.
Also, perception is a process which requires the external world, something we have not yet established as existing when dealing with self-being. Descartes uses 't ...[text shortened]... on both an external world and any apparatus/judgements required in the percieving process.
That's a definition of 'I', not a presupposition on the nature of 'I'. You can't assume characterstics of an undefined thing.
Also, perception is a process which requires the external world
You don't know that.
The perceptions exist. This is self evident. This includes Descartes' saying, as you aren't aware of your own thoughts unless you perceive them.
Judging perceptions is not perception. That's something else, though one might perceive oneself judging other perceptions.
Originally posted by twhitehead Yep thats what I was trying to say, I just don't have skill of putting it into words that you do.
I also think that once you establish that you are perceiving and you exist then you must be able to be sure of more than just the single fact that you exist, so the original claim that it is the only thing you can be sure of does not hold.
I also think that once you establish that you are perceiving and you exist then you must be able to be sure of more than just the single fact that you exist, so the original claim that it is the only thing you can be sure of does not hold.
You are committing a strawman fallacy. I acknowledged that the existence of my perceptions is also something I know.
Originally posted by Starrman Actually I think Descartes is wrong too. The presupposition of self-being exists in his argument too. Personally the only escape from the quandry of the real is to just accept a common sense view of existence. The world is, in at least a basic way, just the way I presume it to be. Subjectivity becomes objectivity for day to day perception of things, and ...[text shortened]... on their nature to any further degree should probably be something purely for academic purposes.
The point of this exercise is to examine certainty. This thread is intended as a complement to the "Does anyone know for sure how old the Earth is" thread, if that helps you understand my point. The idea behind that thread requires an extreme skepticism. I am showing what the consequences of such skepticism are. No one's even sure what gender they were yesterday, much less how old the Earth is, but so what? Nobody works on the basis of absolute certainty. That would paralyze you and lead quickly to your death - though I'm not 100% certain about that of course!
Originally posted by twhitehead But once we accept that some of the basic experiences of life are genuine cant we immediately via the use of the scientific method deduce a vast amount of other things as fact and not faith as kelly claims. Even Phuzudaka accepts as fact (ie he is sure) that gravity (an invisible force) exists at 10000m, a height he has probably never attained.
Kellys cl ...[text shortened]... idity of the available evidence as Phuzudaka does, but that is not what Kellys claims have been.
The common use of the word 'fact' does not imply certainty. If it did, no one would ever be able to use that word correctly unless referring to his own perceptions, e.g. "It is a fact that I am hearing myself talk at this time".
Note that this would not be certain one second after this sentence had been spoken. One might say we have "faith" that we existed a second ago and heard such a sentence being said.
But once we accept that some of the basic experiences of life are genuine cant we immediately via the use of the scientific method deduce...
We can deduce such things, but can't know that our deductions are correct for certain.
You refer to "Kelly's claim". Where did Kelly make such a claim? Not in this thread certainly.
"Once you accept"... but are you certain that those axioms are correct? How do you know?
Originally posted by hyphan Well what if God reveals himself to you in a way that is completely consistant with him being good and fair - would you deny such an experience if you had it? It kind of blows all your prior theories to pieces. We can't reach God but he can us if he choses to, and if he does it's on a fair basis.
Anyhow I'm glad I've had such an experience it saves me fr 've followed what I found to be true.
Hope this has bearing on the original hypothesis.
No, I wouldn't deny the experience (I assume I wouldn't anyway), but that doesn't mean I can know with certainty that there's actually a God who communicated with me. It could be a trick of my own subconcious or even that of an outside agency like the CIA.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung That's a definition of 'I', not a presupposition on the nature of 'I'. You can't assume characterstics of an undefined thing.
[b]Also, perception is a process which requires the external world
You don't know that.
The perceptions exist. This is self evident. This includes Descartes' saying, as you aren't aware of your own thought ...[text shortened]... . That's something else, though one might perceive oneself judging other perceptions.[/b]
By nature I meant merely to objectify self-being, not to give it any characteristics. Saying I exists as a starting point from whence to hold a claim to perception (or in Descartes' way; thought) is jumping the gun on the question of what one can know with certainty. You're using a characteristic of an undefined thing to assume its existence.
I don't believe perceptions existing is a self evident thing if we're really working on the topic of certainty. If we're going to play the Cartesian, we should quite easily say that what I perceive are just memories of perception placed in my mind by some higher power and that they never existed as perceptions. Not only that, but a perception requires a perceived, it requires either a substrate sensory apparatus and an object of attention.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung The point of this exercise is to examine certainty. This thread is intended as a complement to the "Does anyone know for sure how old the Earth is" thread, if that helps you understand my point. The idea behind that thread requires an extreme skepticism. I am showing what the consequences of such skepticism are. No one's even sure what gender they ...[text shortened]... alyze you and lead quickly to your death - though I'm not 100% certain about that of course!
I agree totally, which is what I'm suggesting. Severe scepticism is fine for playing thought games, but useless for drinking whiskey and playing billiards.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung The only thing anyone knows for sure is that they exist and their perceptions exist. That's it. Nothing else is certain.
Agree?
Not even that is certain. It is a possibility that unbeknownst to you, you are irremediably conceptually confused, and that your apparently rational faculties are actually systematically unreliable. Hence, there is no way you can infer with certainty from your direct acquaintance with your perceptions to the proposition that those perceptions exist.
Does anyone know anything at all for sure?
18 May '07 11:17
Back to Top