Pretty straightforward. Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you how I feel about it. After that, you are then allowed to also ask what I believe as well, but this is not a requirement, just an option.
Tell me what you believe.
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I believe that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory.
-->
@secularmerlin
You are experiencing x because some neurones in your brain are registering x. There may or may not be something 'x-like out there' corresponding to (or is the cause of)that neural activity. But the neural activity is faiap guaranteed to be real.
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure so answer me this.
without considering whether it's real or fake for second.
Would you say that your reality is consistent?
If yes, then it's true either way because to be consistently wrong would simply be a translation. Reality would be Spanish and your perception would be English.
If I eat a cracker, but it's really a turtle.
Every time I eat a turtle, it will seem like a cracker
It will sustain my body.
IT won't hurt me.
The experience is practical and works the way I intend it. The true state of reality is not important because my experience will always be congruent and therefore measurable.
If you say no, then I don't know how because without consistent reality, true or false, you wouldn't even know I asked you a question.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Are you asking if I have reasonable expectations about "reality" based on past experience? If so the answer is yes.
-->
@keithprosser
The experience is a real experience. There is no guarantee that neurons are involved, though if reality is real then neurons are responsible for my perceptions of reality.
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure, I'll except that as it seems to be functionally the same. I'll let you know if that stop being the case.
So if your expectations for reality are met consistently, which they are, then it doesn't matter if your senses are wrong, because you'll still get the same consistent results. One more example.
Lets say reality is right, but I view everything two inches further to the left than I'm suppose to.
I could mostly do stuff right, but I would miss sometimes.
Eventually I would realize this and I would compensate for it with my thoughts and actions until I reach the point where I don't make precision errors anymore because I know what it feels like to get it right and achieve my goal.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Lets say reality is right, but I view everything two inches further to the left than I'm suppose to.I could mostly do stuff right, but I would miss sometimes.
I would go so far as to say that the human brain would seem to correct for similar issues as a matter of normal opperation.
-->
@secularmerlin
Interesting thought.
I would probably say that we just live in a world that is 2 inches to the left and we don't know it because we function perfectly by subconsciously adjusting for it. So I guess we more or less end up in the same boat here, lol.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Yes we end up in the same boat even if that boat is actually two inches to the left.
-->
@secularmerlin
Sweet! Now what? I'd still be arguing with a hard theist at this point, lol.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I am not actually a theist at all.
-->
@secularmerlin
lol, well I would hope not, you're name is secularmerlin. I was assuming that you may have been an agnostic who finds god probable. I try to leave as many options open until I have information.
for instance. I knew that mustardness was a form of platonists before I even spoke with him because his name basically spelled it out for me. There was no way go wrong there.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
First and foremost I am a skeptic. My atheism is just a natural consequence of my skepticism.
-->
@secularmerlin
Isn't skepticism an infinte regress?
Do you question your own position of your own self-critique?
So is it reasonable skepticism?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Isn't skepticism an infinte regress?
I'm not sure I follow.
Do you question your own position of your own self-critique?
Yes that is how skepticism works.
So is it reasonable skepticism?
It is reasonable to be skeptical until sufficient evidence is available on a given proposition.
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay then I will be more simple because it is really difficult for me to use context as well.
A skeptic would question everything am I right?
So basically:
A is A.
Why is A is A?
Why are you questioning A is A?
Why are you questioning your questioning of A is A?
Why are you questioning your questioning of your questioning A is A?
Do you see what I see?
Sorry about the hypothetical. Difficult for me to show an infinite regress.
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is a link which is more of a reduction and should tell you my problem with skepticism if you are questioning everything.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A = A is definitionally true. You do understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive language do you not? For example I do not question that there are no married bachelor's because a bachelor is an unmarried man by definition. That being said I may be skeptical that any given man is a bachelor without evidence.
-->
@secularmerlin
So you are a moral skeptic?
Or a prescriptive skeptic?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So you are a moral skeptic?Or a prescriptive skeptic?
What exactly is the difference from your point of view.
-->
@secularmerlin
From a moral skeptic compared to a factual skeptic?
-->
@secularmerlin
If you meant between a moral and prescriptive sketpic, I don't see the difference. I wanted to be more specific. I consider moral statement a type of prescriptive statement.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I believe morality to be subjective if that answers your question.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
.... Tell me what you believe .....
1 }I believe this is 2nd rendition see LINK of this topic in philosphy threads. Wouldnt surprise me if this 3rdm 4th or 5th rendition of the same here at DArt.
2} I believe I'm correct in at least the first part of the above.
I believe this thread will have the following
3} mucho irrelevance to truth, and
4} a repetitive, mind-game chewing, re-chewing and regurgitating of the same-ole same ole with very little, but some relevance to truth if not even some occasional truths,
5} egos that wlll never ever acknoledge//concede to the truth, when its presented to them,
6} people making false claims of others,
7} many more in the same vein as above, tho I cant think of them all at this time.
Been there done that, like 1000 times, over and over and over. M.A.D { Mutually Assured Daze } not to be confused with the 1970s - 1980s Mutually Assured Destruction of humanity via hydrogen bombs
-->
@secularmerlin
I would agree because it is a value statement.I believe morality to be subjective if that answers your question.
Why did you ask a question when you didn't require it to answer the way that you did?
Where you confused by what I said?
-->
@secularmerlin
1} I believe at least one, if not more in this thread, will argue that point with you.A = A
2} I wouldnt cause some truths are too obvious deny, even tho one A is on a differrent longitude the other A as the computer exists in space on Earth at specific longitudes at various times if it is move. More so for a laptop. However, there repective ratio to each other will remain the same even as the laptop flys around the Earth on jet plane at many differrent longitudes.
3} Is ^ = to v .....And this is considering that that I had a keyborard that made them eactly same size { number of bits//pixels }?
...Duhh, no......
I believe there are philosophers here that would try to argue other wise because some philosophers ---more so men in general-- ego will not allow them to find some way putting their mind into the obvious windows-of-truth, to see if the window-of-truth has a crack in it or if they can crack it with their mind.
( * i * )
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why did you ask a question when you didn't require it to answer the way that you did?
Because despite the fact that you said
If you meant between a moral and prescriptive sketpic, I don't see the difference.
You asked if I was a moral or a prescriptive skeptic. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same conversational page.
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay
The reason for the rule a=a is that it can be replaced by ,'true'. Without that rule you couldn't close off a lot of proofs because you'd get as far as showing a=a but have no rule to say 'qed'.
I can't think of anything that one can prove without relying on a=a -> true at some point.