Originally posted by dottewellIt would make sense to say that there is a possibility that you are undergoing a sensory illusion. (This would be a good reason to become a subjectivist.) Once you aknowledge that you can try to gain abolute knowledge about your (possible) sensory illusion.
"Our senses can be misguiding." Of course. There are criteria for saying that someone is undergoing an optical illusion (independent verification, etc.)
But to say that everyone is undergoing a total sensory illusion every second of every day?
That would make no sense.
(How come everyone reads Descartes but no one reads Wittgenstein?)
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardIt would not make sense to say there was a possibility everyone was always undergoing a sensory illusion.
It would make sense to say that there is a possibility that you are undergoing a sensory illusion. (This would be a good reason to become a subjectivist.) Once you aknowledge that you can try to gain abolute knowledge about your (possible) sensory illusion.
As to the possibility my life has been a total sensory illusion, that makes no sense either. At some point I learned to use the expression "sensory illusion" and differentiate a sensory illusion from a waking/normal experience; the whole concept of a "sensory illusion" only makes sense when set against the idea of a waking/normal experience.
Originally posted by dottewellIt would not make sense to say there was a possibility everyone was always undergoing a sensory illusion.
It would not make sense to say there was a possibility everyone was always undergoing a sensory illusion.
As to the possibility my life has been a total sensory illusion, that makes no sense either. At some point I learned to use the expression "sensory illusion" and differentiate a sensory illusion from a waking/normal experience; the whole concept of ...[text shortened]... "sensory illusion" only makes sense when set against the idea of a waking/normal experience.
You forget that you can not know for sure if anyone exists besides yourself.(they could be sensory illusions)
As to the possibility my life has been a total sensory illusion, that makes no sense either. At some point I learned to use the expression "sensory illusion" and differentiate a sensory illusion from a waking/normal experience; the whole concept of a "sensory illusion" only makes sense when set against the idea of a waking/normal experience.
This does not make a difference, you still dont know what a waking normal experience is and what is not. The eastern philosopher Zhuangzi had a nice way of showing this:
"one night, Zhuang Zi dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly flying happily. After he woke up, he wondered how he could determine whether he was Zhuangzi who had just finished dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly who had just started dreaming he was Zhuangzi."
Because of this I think I can never know if I am undergoing a sensory illusion or not. I can only know that there is a possiblity that I am undergoing one.
2 edits
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard[/b]Then I assume you never use the words "dream", or "illusion".
[b]It would not make sense to say there was a possibility everyone was always undergoing a sensory illusion.
You forget that you can not know for sure if anyone exists besides yourself.(they could be sensory illusions)
As to the possibility my life has been a total sensory illusion, that makes no sense either. At some point I learned t sory illusion or not. I can only know that there is a possiblity that I am undergoing one.
One would not be able to use the sentence "one night, Zhuang Zi dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly flying happily" were there no criteria for distinguishing a dream from a waking experience.
There are some things one can meaningfully doubt, and others one cannot.
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellOne would not be able to use the sentence "one night, Zhuang Zi dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly flying happily" were there no criteria for distinguishing a dream from a waking experience.
Then I assume you never use the words "dream", or "illusion".
One would not be able to use the sentence "one night, Zhuang Zi dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly flying happily" were there no criteria for distinguishing a dream from a waking experience.
There are some things one can meaningfully doubt, and others one cannot.[/b]
He could never have said it without using the words dream and awake...
There are some things one can meaningfully doubt, and others one cannot
If you're after the truth you should never assume anything which means you should doubt everything until you know the truth about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardHe could never have said it without using the words dream and awake...
One would not be able to use the sentence "one night, Zhuang Zi dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly flying happily" were there no criteria for distinguishing a dream from a waking experience.
He could never have said it without using the words dream and awake...
There are some things one can meaningfully doubt, and others one er assume anything which means you should doubt everything until you know the truth about it.
Quite. We can distinguish these things.
If you're after the truth you should never assume anything which means you should doubt everything until you know the truth about it.
I agree. But as I said, there are things you cannot meaningfully doubt. "Life is not all a dream" is one of them. You can move the furniture, but you can't move the walls.
Originally posted by dottewellDo you think that the term illusion is superfluous?
[b]He could never have said it without using the words dream and awake...
Quite. We can distinguish these things.
If you're after the truth you should never assume anything which means you should doubt everything until you know the truth about it.
I agree. But as I said, there are things you cannot meaningfully doubt. "Life is not all a dream" is one of them. You can move the furniture, but you can't move the walls.[/b]
Originally posted by dottewellDo you mean to say that the term illusionis relative? That it only exists when compared to something else? Like emptiness does not exist without matter, long does not exist without short, etc.
No; there are illusions. But to say everything is an illusion would render the term meaningless.
And it would put David Copperfield out of a job (so not all bad news, then).
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardNot exactly. You could put it like this - the word "illusion" has a role in our language such that it makes sense to ask: "When he sawed that woman in half, was it just an illusion?" It does not make sense to ask: "Is everything I have ever experienced an illusion?"
Do you mean to say that the term illusionis relative? That it only exists when compared to something else? Like emptiness does not exist without matter, long does not exist without short, etc.
Similarly with dreams; we can easily distinguish them from waking experiences. If we couldn't we wouldn't be able to speak of dreams. The word would have no meaning.
It is built into the very language we use to chat, or to debate, and just to live, that there is a "shared" world in which we all live.
2 edits
Any word is invented by man; the likes of us. We recognize the words alive and awake - dead and asleep. The illusion we hold true; that we are the first, would paradoxically mean we are the latter.
--But death is final; void of life. I am alive! Feelings, thoughts and desires permeating my very flesh?--
Any illusion has been conceived by man; the likes of us. We have created the illusion of life. We have turned our minds away from our rottening souls, our vomiting existence entoxicating space. We seek beauty and perfection instead. We seek it where death is not; in life.
--But death is final; void of life. How can it be, I feel alive?--
The illusion is an evil and sinister shape. It hides the truth. It wrecks the bearer of its opponents' flag. Fight the illusion and you will soon die, in the eyes of those who cannot fight. Then, and only then, will you truly be alive
--But I am alive!--
No, you are not. And you do not want life. You seek death. The illusion of life. But have no doubts. Life will grab you, eventually. And your dissolved existence will torture your mind and bring madness to your thought. A madness like you cannot imagine.
--You think I can choose to die? To be alive?--
At any time can you choose to live. Though you should not. Your absolved existence is in rage, yellous in nature and now full of hate. It will bring you nothing but pain. And you will seek desperately, the illusion of life. But, nowhere is it to be seen, for your eyes have opened and the truth is your fiend.
---
Stocken
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardOnce again, you are confusing between different types of thinking. Put more crudely, you are saying that one has to have a high IQ to have a high EQ.
Do you think that you would use much of your brain capacity if you never had an education or an intelligent debate? Before Thales people explained the world using only their imagination but after him people have become more and more rational. Just because someone has the capacity for rational thinking does not mean that they will use it, they nee ...[text shortened]... d their altruistic instincts they would have helped him without thinking about the consequences.
Yes, people used only their imagination to explain the world before Thales (there is an objection here - while Thales did not appeal to gods etc. for his explanation of the Universe, his answer was no less imaginative than his predecessors. For instance, none of the Greek philosophers thought about experimentation as a mode of understanding reality). That doesn't mean they were any less "intelligent" - the complex nature of the myths themselves reveal that.
Did early man need to know about the principles of combustion to make fire? Or engineering to build houses, castles and palaces? Did Shakespeare need Freud's work to display the deep understanding of human psychology he does in his plays? Of course not.
Look at the implements and art of the cavemen - they clearly demonstrate a use of rational thinking that is not too disimilar to modern man. Did they not think before creating the sharp tools they needed to hunt and cut up their food? Did they not think before leaving the paintings on their caves? Why then do you say that they did not think before saving their comrade?
Another example - primitive tribes and aborigines probably do not have anything like the education and debate we do in "civilised" cultures. Does that mean their social understanding is any less?
Even a four-year old human child can figure out that if he shares toy Y with Timmy today, tomorrow Timmy will share toy Z with him. Why is it so hard to believe that cavemen could reason the same?
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am not dismissing the existence of aliens per se - they might very well exist in other galaxies.
Just an innocent question - are you dismissing the existance of aliens or merely people meeting them??
However, I do not believe the human race has encountered, or will ever encounter, a sapient physical alien being. This is especially true of encounters reported since the 1960s, when the possibility of alien "spacecraft" moving through the atmosphere completely undetected seems rather remote.