Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

But you have given no definition of reality and it is hard to see how you can given my original text on these points. And as I have pointed out, some would define "what goes on in our minds" as "reality". I would not agree, but that is not the point.

But I have given a definition of reality Charles, that which you or I experience everyday. That which we ASSUME exists.

[Charles]

Who decides what qualifies as justification? If a culture for instance decided to put adulterers to death why wouldn't that be justified in their culture?

Because justice is not dependent on culture. But we were actually discussing the killing of homosexuals founded on statements in the Old Testament.

[Charles]

But I have given a definition of reality Charles, that which you or I experience everyday. That which we ASSUME exists.

In what form? Idealistic, realistic or something different? And fair enough that you assume that we assume it exists.

[JimL]

Jim, my main point is that we can not logically or empirically (without begging the question) make the case that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. We assume that is does, which is fine, but it is a logically unprovable assumption. That is all I am saying.

I believe you are wrong about that seer, and I explained why. There are only two possible worlds seer, the one, in which reality is the illusion experienced within a mind, or the other, in which there is an external component to reality which corresponds with all minds existing within it. In the former either you are the mind within the which the illusory world of experience exists, or you yourself are an illusion within that illusory world of an all encompassing mind. In the latter, you, like every other person, would be real, and your mind would need correspond with the external component to reality. So again, it doesn't matter which world is the real world of your experience, in either case, in the case of the mind world, or in the case of the world of minds, in both cases the mind or the minds must needs correspond to the reality within which they exist. The only thing we can't prove is which world it is that we inhabit, but that our mind, or minds, correspond with the reality of the world they inhabit is unquestionable.

[Tassman]

Exactly, there is no universal standard or controlling authority for justice in your world hence ethics are irrational.

Oh, and here's me thinking that you'd adopted the unverifiable notion of a deity as the source of all morality. Imagine!

Nonsense, the animal kingdom retains social cohesion even with wide spread rape. And as you keep telling us, we are no more than animals.

Social species (including humans) exercise a wide range of behaviours in order to maintain cohesion...but the basic instinct for group-living is always present.

[Tassman]

No, not the real world, but another real world. If you live in a matrix world, then whether or not there exists another external world would be irrelevant. If there is another universe, external to the one we inhabit, that wouldn't make the one we inhabit any less real.

I would add, "that wouldn't make the one we inhabit any less real" as far as we were concerned. IMHO: it's about perception rather than reality.

Your points are rather interesting because they make it so obvious that it is rather unclear what is even ment with the word "reality" in the context in which seer uses it. Some would say that sensation or perception is simply all there is to reality (not that I agree at all). Others argue there must be a mind independent reality in order for there to really be a reality.

I agree but are you suggesting that we can actually know what that "mind independent reality" is?

[seer]

In what form? Idealistic, realistic or something different? And fair enough that you assume that we assume it exists.

Charles I'm not an Idealist (though they have some good arguments, and some physicists are moving that way). I'm a realist, I believe that the world is physical and does correspond to how I subjectively view it. But that was never the question or problem. And that is that I can not justify that belief logically nor empirically without begging the question. It is an unprovable assumption. Do you get what I am saying?

[seer]

Because justice is not dependent on culture. But we were actually discussing the killing of homosexuals founded on statements in the Old Testament.

It doesn't matter Charles whether it is homosexuals or adulterers - the question is, if the definition of what is just or not does not depend on a culture what does it depend on?

[seer]

Social species (including humans) exercise a wide range of behaviours in order to maintain cohesion...but the basic instinct for group-living is always present.

And wide spread rape would not necessarily undermine social cohesion, as evidenced by higher primates. And rape may offer a real evolutionary advantage.

[seer]

I believe you are wrong about that seer, and I explained why. There are only two possible worlds seer, the one, in which reality is the illusion experienced within a mind, or the other, in which there is an external component to reality which corresponds with all minds existing within it. In the former either you are the mind within the which the illusory world of experience exists, or you yourself are an illusion within that illusory world of an all encompassing mind. In the latter, you, like every other person, would be real, and your mind would need correspond with the external component to reality. So again, it doesn't matter which world is the real world of your experience, in either case, in the case of the mind world, or in the case of the world of minds, in both cases the mind or the minds must needs correspond to the reality within which they exist. The only thing we can't prove is which world it is that we inhabit, but that our mind, or minds, correspond with the reality of the world they inhabit is unquestionable.

No, Jim the logical problem only comes in when one asserts or makes the claim that there is an external (physical) reality and that our minds corresponds to it. If you say, we do not know, like you did above, then there is no logical problem.

[Charles]

It doesn't matter Charles whether it is homosexuals or adulterers - the question is, if the definition of what is just or not does not depend on a culture what does it depend on?

Moral values.

[Charles]

Charles I'm not an Idealist (though they have some good arguments, and some physicists are moving that way). I'm a realist, I believe that the world is physical and does correspond to how I subjectively view it. But that was never the question or problem. And that is that I can not justify that belief logically nor empirically without begging the question. It is an unprovable assumption. Do you get what I am saying?

I get that. What I have been trying to make clear is that the possible options for you to be wrong on that are not only absurd in their consequnces (which you rightly hold does not prove them wrong) they also require that solopsism is possible. Since that is a view no one is willing to defend, it is hard to see that there is very much to it.

I agree with you on the realist position. I am very reluctant to by into the idea that we only know the world through "experiences" and that there is no direct contact at any point. However, of course, the more sophisticated version of this is to say that we simply don't know when we see the world directly. I am reluctant to by into the idea that all aspects of our reality can even be copied in a matrix like reality. Sensation could. Logic would be the same no matter what fake or real world we would live in. It simply cannot be different. But our life is more than logic and sensation. We need language and a clear understanding of language in order to state the logical truth and in order to even be able to doubt the existence of the real world. Descartes' statement which roughly is "I think therefore I am" takes far more understanding than most readers realise. He must know what an "I" is. He must know what "thinking" is. He must know what being is. He must know the proper use of these concepts in order to be able to make his statements. And by doing so you know quite a lot more than what the cogito contains.

While sensation may be copied we are not just passive recievers of sense data. We are taking action, making decisions and interacting. I fail to see how all of this can be accounted for in the world of fake sensation.

I get your point about direct realism (in different forms) begging the question (but I do not think it need to do so in every possible version). If you don't just take it for granted but can actually speak in favour of it, it makes the case a lot better. I actually think that if you look at into all the details and collect the ideas it is going to be very hard to see how it can be different. But it takes reasoning from logic, language, actions, proper use of concepts and so on. That is one of the reasons why your asking for "a" deductive proof seems one big simplification to me. You could not deductively prove quantum mechanics in just a deductive proof. Collecting all the different pieces of evidence will probably convince you.

And if it simply is the case that we see the world directly it seems equally circular to go for the idea that we never see the world directly but that there is and must be a layer of "sensation" in between the individual and the object percieved. I am not saying you hold that. But many big philosophers did. And I can't help wondering why they were so certain of that and keep being so. And by using the word "direct" I of course allow for the using of "critical" in this context. I do not see the world simply as it is. I see it as I see it through my sensory organs. Animals will see it or otherwise sense it their way. A colour blind will see it his way. But we are all interacting in a world containing primary and secondary qualities.

[JimL]

No, Jim the logical problem only comes in when one asserts or makes the claim that there is an external (physical) reality and that our minds corresponds to it. If you say, we do not know, like you did above, then there is no logical problem.

Okay, so we can't claim that our perceived existence of an external reality to be a concrete fact, but we can claim that our minds correspond to the reality of the world which they inhabit whether concrete or or not. So whats the difference?

[seer]

I get that. What I have been trying to make clear is that the possible options for you to be wrong on that are not only absurd in their consequnces (which you rightly hold does not prove them wrong) they also require that solipsism is possible. Since that is a view no one is willing to defend, it is hard to see that there is very much to it.

Correct Charles, like I mentioned earlier I do not hold to solipsism, but logically it is consistent. And this is about applying deductive reasoning to the question. Those possible consequences may be absurd (though logically they are not absurd) that still does not get us to a positive argument. We still must rely on an unprovable assumption.

I agree with you on the realist position. I am very reluctant to by into the idea that we only know the world through "experiences" and that there is no direct contact at any point. However, of course, the more sophisticated version of this is to say that we simply don't know when we see the world directly. Iam reluctant to by into the idea that all aspects of our reality can even be copied in a matrix like reality. Sensation could. Logic would be the same no matter what fake or real world we would live in. It simply cannot be different. But our life is more than logic and sensation. We need language and a clear understanding of language in order to state the logical truth and in order to even be able to doubt the existence of the real world. Descartes' statement which roughly is "I think therefore I am" takes far more understanding than most readers realise. He must know what an "I" is. He must know what "thinking" is. He must know what being is. He must know the proper use of these concepts in order to be able to make his statements. And by doing so you know quite a lot more than what the cogito contains.

While sensation may be copied we are not just passive receivers of sense data. We are taking action, making decisions and interacting. I fail to see how all of this can be accounted for in the world of fake sensation.

Yes we are taking action, making decisions, etc... But that would be equally true in the Matrix, or if you were a brain in a vat - all these experiences and sensations would seem real to us in the life of the mind. But even when you said this: I am reluctant to by into the idea that all aspects of our reality can even be copied in a matrix like reality. You are begging the question.

I get your point about direct realism (in different forms) begging the question (but I do not think it need to do so in every possible version). If you don't just take it for granted but can actually speak in favour of it, it makes the case a lot better. I actually think that if you look at into all the details and collect the ideas it is going to be very hard to see how it can be different. But it takes reasoning from logic, language, actions, proper use of concepts and so on. That is one of the reasons why your asking for "a" deductive proof seems one big simplification to me. You could not deductively prove quantum mechanics in just a deductive proof. Collecting all the different pieces of evidence will probably convince you.

Charles the reason why deductive arguments are so effective is that if the premises are true the conclusion must follow, if we don't have that there is always the real logical possibility that we are mistaken.

And if it simply is the case that we see the world directly it seems equally circular to go for the idea that we never see the world directly but that there is and must be a layer of "sensation" in between the individual and the object percieved. I am not saying you hold that. But many big philosophers did. And I can't help wondering why they were so certain of that and keep being so. And by using the word "direct" I of course allow for the using of "critical" in this context. I do not see the world simply as it is. I see it as I see it through my sensory organs. Animals will see it or otherwise sense it their way. A colour blind will see it his way. But we are all interacting in a world containing primary and secondary qualities.

OK

[seer]

Okay, so we can't claim that our perceived existence of an external reality to be a concrete fact, but we can claim that our minds correspond to the reality of the world which they inhabit whether concrete or or not. So whats the difference?

Jim, let me try again - you only get into logical trouble if you claim that what goes on in your mind corresponds to an external reality.