Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

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

Why do you assume reality? Based on what deductive reasoning?

[JimL]

Why do you assume reality? Based on what deductive reasoning?

seer, I thought about your question and it was difficult to figure at first, until I realized that it was the question itself that didn't make sense. Our minds obviously correspond with reality no matter what that reality is. I believe the question that you were actually pondering is not "do our minds correspond with reality," but rather "is there a mind independent reality." The latter we can't logically deduce, but with respect to your question, that's a different matter.

[seer]

I believe the question that you were actually pondering is not "do our minds correspond with reality," but rather "is there a mind independent reality."

Exactly, when I was asking to logically demonstrated that what goes in our mind corresponds to reality I meant a reality that is independent (outside) of the mind. I kind of thought we were all on the same page there, that was Descartes' whole point.

[JimL]

Exactly, when I was asking to logically demonstrated that what goes in our mind corresponds to reality I meant a reality that is independent (outside) of the mind. I kind of thought we were all on the same page there, that was Descartes' whole point.

Okay, so now we no longer have to worry about whether or not our minds correspond to reality. I was beginning to worry that I could possibly be insane.

[seer]

I was beginning to worry that I could possibly be insane.

Well except for your liberal tendencies...

[JimL]

Well except for your liberal tendencies...

What do you mean seer, I thank the god that I don't believe in every day that I'm not a crazy conservative.

[Tassman]

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

But wide-spread rape would harm the fabric of OUR society as we instinctively know and as you yourself are indicating by your own negative attitude towards it.

[Tassman]

Charles, can you show me these universal moral truths?

The values contained in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. And the basis for these rights is grounded in our evolved need to live in community as a social species to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

[Tassman]

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.

is true so again, we cannot make a sound deductive argument from this premise. But, re the latter, scientific methodology gives us more tools to establish the nature of reality than we have via a purely metaphysical argument based upon reason alone.

[Charles]

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.

If your claim is that we can never know what reality is and that we must suppose without further qualififation that all aspects could be copied then you are right. But that is question begging unless . I am not claiming it cannot be copied. I am reluctant to think it can and is going through a proces in that regard. If that type of reclection is not allowed, then of course the conclusion is given beforehand and circular.

[Charles]

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.

Yes you mentioned that when asked for it quite a long time after asking the rather open question that is partly unqualified.

[Charles]

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.

Who are you trying to fool, seer? I never made the statement that one could answer your question deductively. There are many reasons why this is so. When talking about reality it is a very complicated matter containing all sort of arguments some with more certainty than others. So it cannot be given in a simple form. Neither can it be given in a complex form based on your question which is rather unexact and open.

[seer]

If your claim is that we can never know what reality is and that we must suppose without further qualififation that all aspects could be copied then you are right.But that is question begging unless . I am not claiming it cannot be copied. I am reluctant to think it can and is going through a proces in that regard. If that type of reclection is not allowed, then of course the conclusion is given beforehand and circular.

Charles, I'm not sure I follow you. But yes, I'm saying that we don't know with certainty what reality is. So when you question if it can be copied - I'm asking what can be copied, the real world or the Matrix we may be living in?

[Charles]

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.

It's just that if you cannot prove that understanding of reality yourself, then you cannot really questions others looking for proof in other directions or insist that their answer must apply to your assumptions. Once it does, you will point to the claim that it cannot be proven, once it does not apply to your assumption, you will insist it must or else it is "fake".

And by the way I am perfectly aware what I have and don't have and what degree of certainty I can reach in the different areas of this topic which is far more complex than your question suggests.

[seer]

Who are you trying to fool, seer? I never made the statement that one could answer your question deductively. There are many reasons why this is so. When talking about reality it is a very complicated matter containing all sort of arguments some with more certainty than others. So it cannot be given in a simple form. Neither can it be given in a complex form based on your question which is rather unexact and open.

Charles in this long painful discussion that what I have been asking for - deductive reasoning. Now you say you can't? And since you can't, no argument can bring certainty, and logic (which is deductive reasoning) is out the window when justifying our view of reality. And we are left with assumption, faith, belief.