Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

Okay, but the question you originally asked was "logically prove that what goes on in our minds corresponds with reality. Thats what I am answering to. Whether the world we perceive is an external concrete reality, or whether it exists only in our minds in the form of thought, in either case it is the reality and it corresponds with what goes on in our minds. Whether the tree in my back yard is an existing, concrete, external reality, or if it is just the thought in our minds, it is the same tree to all of us and corresponds with all of our perceptions. In other words, the external reality, whether a concrete perception, or a perception of thought, it still corresponds with our minds.

You are right about the fact that seer's original question did not contain any information as to his definition of reality. His idea of what would qualify as an answer is based on a specific understanding of what reality is. I agree with that one to some extent, but it should have been made clear and it is not one that cannot be challenged.

[seer]

Of course you said that. If not it would not make any sense to claim that suggesting the opposite would be question begging. I never said I know it is not possible. I only said I am reluctant to by into the idea that it is possible. That is quite different. It is fair and often very wise to be a little reluctant before concluding in these cases, seer.

No Charles then you misunderstood me, I was speaking to what you were claiming that the reality that couldn't be reproduced was.

Again: 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 assuming that "our reality" is the actual reality.

[JimL]

Except one tree would be real, the other make believe, and if you want to claim that the tree is real, rather than an illusion, then that is where the logical problem comes in.

Yeah, except it isn't actually a problem, since whichever world it is, we can't say that it doesn't correspond with each of our perceptions of it the same.

[seer]

Yeah, except it isn't actually a problem, since whichever world it is, we can't say that it doesn't correspond with each of our perceptions of it the same.

What?

[Charles]

No Charles then you misunderstood me, I was speaking to what you were claiming that the reality that couldn't be reproduced was.

Again: 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 assuming that "our reality" is the actual reality.

I am leaving that open. If I was not it would be question begging but just going for the opposite conclusion.

[Charles]

Yeah, except it isn't actually a problem, since whichever world it is, we can't say that it doesn't correspond with each of our perceptions of it the same.

I think you have got a point in this case. Seer may hold a realist position but it appears he is of the opinion that in all practical matters it makes no difference whether it exists or not. If it did not we (or he, since that option allows for solipsism) would - it seems - have the exact same experiences. Then one would wonder what explanatory value it has or why one would go for that position. Of course he says he assumes a mind independent reality exists. But if it never makes a difference then why hold on to the idea that it exists?

[Charles]

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.

Seer, we all knew that. But that does not change the fact that in many cases reality is too complex to allow for just two premises and a conclusion in order to prove what reality is. Most cases cannot even be presented in such a short form. And many so called proofs are based on simplifications.

[seer]

I am leaving that open. If I was not it would be question begging but just going for the opposite conclusion.

So our reality may not be the actual reality - then why question whether it could be copied? I must be missing something.

[seer]

Seer, we all knew that. But that does not change the fact that in many cases reality is too complex to allow for just two premises and a conclusion in order to prove what reality is. Most cases cannot even be presented in such a short form. And many so called proofs are based on simplifications.

Charles, I don't care how many premises you use, a deductive end is not sight. It can not be answer deductively, if someone thinks otherwise I would like to see it.

[Charles]

So our reality may not be the actual reality - then why question whether it could be copied? I must be missing something.

You sure are. I think there are facts pointing in the other direction in this regard (as well as others) and I have not come to the conclusion of those thoughts yet (in this regard). That is what is called proces, seer. It makes sure that once you come to a conclusion it is usually rather well founded.

And again, stating without qualification that we must take for granted that all aspects of reality can be copied, is question begging.

[seer]

I think you have got a point in this case. Seer may hold a realist position but it appears he is of the opinion that in all practical matters it makes no difference whether it exists or not.

No Charles, all I'm saying is that we can not demonstrate it deductively. What different that makes or not is not a consideration for my argument.

[Charles]

No Charles, all I'm saying is that we can not demonstrate it deductively. What different that makes or not is not a consideration for my argument.

But does it make a difference? How can it? If not then why go for that idea?

[Charles]

No Charles, all I'm saying is that we can not demonstrate it deductively. What different that makes or not is not a consideration for my argument.

But that is not the case, seer. If I go for the idea that perception is reality, then I can go like this:

I percieve object X as part of reality
What I percieve is reality
Object X is a part of reality

Now, I would by no means go for this, but it goes to show that you did not really make it clear what your idea about reality was and now you refuse ideas that differ from your own realist idea. It seems your realism makes no difference anyway.

[seer]

You sure are. I think there are facts pointing in the other direction in this regard (as well as others) and I have not come to the conclusion of those thoughts yet (in this regard). That is what is called proces, seer. It makes sure that once you come to a conclusion it is usually rather well founded.

And again, stating without qualification that we must take for granted that all aspects of reality can be copied, is question begging.

Don't you have to know what reality is in the first place? And how do you do that without begging the question?

In other words: Reality may or may not be opened to be copied down to the detail. But how do we know what this reality (that may or may not be copied) is with out circular reasoning.

[seer]

But that is not the case, seer. If I go for the idea that perception is reality, then I can go like this:

I percieve object X as part of reality
What I percieve is reality
Object X is a part of reality

Now, I would by no means go for this, but it goes to show that you did not really make it clear what your idea about reality was and now you refuse ideas that differ from your own realist idea. It seems your realism makes no difference anyway.

No Charles, like I said I assume reality, a physical world, that I have access to. I mention this a while back. And when I have mentioned reality throughout this whole debate I again assumed that we were on the same page. And Charles all any of us have is assumption - including you! No one has deductive reasoning on their side. These are faith questions.