Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

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 asking what can be copied, the real world or the Matrix we may be living in?

Yep. And that is exactly why your reasoning is question begging.

I agree that the first aproach cannot be to take for granted that what I see is a reality that cannot be copied. That is rather obvious. But I can evaluate my not only my perception but all the other aspects of taking action, interacting, making decisions and so on and then I can evaluate whether these are of a sort that could be copied. That is, I am not ruling out beforehad that they could, I am just considering whether based on further evalution that perhaps they could not. If that is not allowed, then you are in circular logic.

[seer]

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.

I have no idea what this means Charles, I'm looking for deductive justification, apart from which there is no certainty. No certainty for me, or you or anyone else.

[seer]

Yep. And that is exactly why your reasoning is question begging.

I agree that the first aproach cannot be to take for granted that what I see is a reality that cannot be copied. That is rather obvious. But I can evaluate my not only my perception but all the other aspects of taking action, interacting, making decisions and so on and then I can evaluate whether these are of a sort that could be copied. That is, I am not ruling out beforehad that they could, I am just considering whether based on further evalution that perhaps they could not. If that is not allowed, then you are in circular logic.

Charles, I think you are missing the point:

But I can evaluate my not only my perception but all the other aspects of taking action, interacting, making decisions and so on and then I can evaluate whether these are of a sort that could be copied.


How do you know that you are not presently experiencing these things in a Matrix?

[Charles]

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.

Seer, I have never said I could, but that is partly because the question is misunderstood. That is what I have been saying all along in this discussion. Your memory does not serve you well. Perhaps sometimes you ought to go back and check before making wrong statements. Your question is unexact and unqualified as well as your understanding of the consequences of the doubt you claim to allow for but forget just as quick as you mention it only to run on "assumptions" without giving any reason as to why those assumptions are better than any other assumptions. Perhaps if you followed that question, your understanding would evolve a bit.

[Charles]

Charles, I think you are missing the point:

But I can evaluate my not only my perception but all the other aspects of taking action, interacting, making decisions and so on and then I can evaluate whether these are of a sort that could be copied.


How do you know that you are not presently experiencing these things in a Matrix?

I am not claiming I know that. I am claiming that I consider that. Based on logic which would be the same in any made up world. Based on language and the proper use of concepts and so on. Again if this is not allowed, you are simply in circular logic.

[Charles]

I have no idea what this means Charles, I'm looking for deductive justification, apart from which there is no certainty. No certainty for me, or you or anyone else.

Ok. You get the point that sometimes a question asked in the wrong way cannot be given a correct answer? You get the point that sometimes the sum of arguments pointing in one direction or giving a more detail insight into a matter cannot be formulated into just one proof?

[seer]

Seer, I have never said I could, but that is partly because the question is misunderstood. That is what I have been saying all along in this discussion. Your memory does not serve you well. Perhaps sometimes you ought to go back and check before making wrong statements. Your question is unexact and unqualified as well as your understanding of the consequences of the doubt you claim to allow for but forget just as quick as you mention it only to run on "assumptions" without giving any reason as to why those assumptions are better than any other assumptions. Perhaps if you followed that question, your understanding would evolve a bit.

The question about justifying our view of reality, logically, is not misunderstood. The great thinkers that you quoted knew that. And no matter what argument you bring Charles, without deductive reasoning there can be no certainty. You may offer arguments for your position, but they will not be deductive, therefore open to error. Always open to uncertainty.

[seer]

I am not claiming I know that. I am claiming that I consider that. Based on logic which would be the same in any made up world. Based on language and the proper use of concepts and so on. Again if this is not allowed, you are simply in circular logic.

Again Charles, I don't understand your point. If you can't know which world you live in (real or Matrix) how can you know whether the real would could be copied or not? OK, I'm off to the woods!

[Charles]

The question about justifying our view of reality, logically, is not misunderstood. The great thinkers that you quoted knew that. And no matter what argument you bring Charles, without deductive reasoning there can be no certainty. You may offer arguments for your position, but they will not be deductive, therefore open to error. Always open to uncertainty.

You are right that the great thinkers I quoted followed that line of reasoning to some point though of course giving more detailed accounts of the question. However I am of the opinion that their lines of reasoning had absurd consequences and led to claims about reality that connot be justified philosophically. If you can allow me to go for a simplification (which it surely is) they ended up either skipping the idea of realism because they saw no use for a mind independent reality. Or they claimed it exists but we just never knew if we saw it, or some would even say we never saw it. So it really made no difference which was the idea for skipping it.

I think this is all based on the idea that "experience" is some kind of strange entity existing between the observer and what is observed and not a thing existing due to a direct relation between the observer and what is observed.

By the way are you familiar with John Searle and his claim that ever since Descartes the famous philosophers have gone for "the bad argument"? I found this presentation rather interesting in that regard and perhaps you will too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf_4t0_HUx8

I am quite certain you will not find he can offer the certainty you ask for but I think part of dealing with this question is to understand the weak parts of the thinking already done on this area. I find his criticism stronger than the case he makes for his own ideas, but anyway, very interesting.

[Charles]

Again Charles, I don't understand your point. If you can't know which world you live in (real or Matrix) how can you know whether the real would could be copied or not? OK, I'm off to the woods!

Not completely I claim that you cannot know initially. But perhaps logic, the proper use of language and other factors independent of whether you are in one or the other world could help you make the case that certain parts of experience has such a nature that it must be the original form. Again, if you cannot even allow for that to be possible after some sort of "epoche" evaluation of experience, then you are in circular logic. I mean, the foundation of your questioning is the idea that we can never know and all aspects would be the same. Can you justify that asssumtion? If not it is just a statement leading to circular statements.

[Charles]

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

I asked for your view. Will you present it or not?

[seer]

Not completely I claim that you cannot know initially. But perhaps logic, the proper use of language and other factors independent of whether you are in one or the other world could help you make the case that certain parts of experience has such a nature that it must be the original form. Again, if you cannot even allow for that to be possible after some sort of "epoche" evaluation of experience, then you are in circular logic. I mean, the foundation of your questioning is the idea that we can never know and all aspects would be the same. Can you justify that asssumtion? If not it is just a statement leading to circular statements.

Charles, this is the bottom line. First, we have nothing to compare to the world as we know it. Is it a "real" world or a virtual world? What evidence could you bring to bear to demonstrate a "real" world that could not also serve as evidence for the Matrix? What factors can you point to, or use, that would distinguish between these two options. Especially in light of the fact that objectively we don't know what "real" world should or does look like.

[seer]

I asked for your view. Will you present it or not?

It is an assumption Charles, a presupposition, those are not proven but accepted. I take reality as self-evident, and will until, there is a defeater. Like I said Charles, it is a faith position. So, what do you have apart from assumption?

[JimL]

It is an assumption Charles, a presupposition, those are not proven but accepted. I take reality as self-evident, and will until, there is a defeater. Like I said Charles, it is a faith position. So, what do you have apart from assumption?

Which reality do you take as self evident, the mind dependent, or the mind independent?

[Charles]

Charles, this is the bottom line. First, we have nothing to compare to the world as we know it. Is it a "real" world or a virtual world? What evidence could you bring to bear to demonstrate a "real" world that could not also serve as evidence for the Matrix? What factors can you point to, or use, that would distinguish between these two options. Especially in light of the fact that objectively we don't know what "real" world should or does look like.

My point is rather simple but let me try to put it in other terms: Descartes made a very substantial claim about the limits of our knowledge of the external world. And if he is right, then you are also right, there is no way we can distinguish between a real world or a matrix like reality. But it seems everyone, even the seer, turns their blind eye to the fact that the substantial claim Descartes made also needs justification. I have already pointed to the fact that he cannot even make his cogito claim without knowing far more than he claims he knows. So how come everyone so easily buys into the completely internal aproach?

You claimed and asked: "First, we have nothing to compare to the world as we know it. Is it a "real" world or a virtual world? What evidence could you bring to bear to demonstrate a "real" world that could not also serve as evidence for the Matrix?"

My response is: If you are to assume that the above statement has got anything real to it and is not just an idea a machine has feed into your brain in a vat as a given truth, then it would seem you need to imply it was well founded not only on logic but also on language that relates to reality in a world in which facts can be stated and in which other people exist. Going into the theory that everything execpt the very basic logical truths are given to you as an impression, sensation, idea or whatever seems to undermine the foundation of any claim you can make in favour of the theory. Or what?

I think there are certain aspects that surely need consideration, and I think it is absolutely fair to consider whether it would be possible to claim that all aspects can be copied and that we can never know which world we exist in. I think consideration of the following questions and formulating the "brain in a vat" answer to what would be the truth about these questions would lead to some consideration:

Can a brain in a vat think? Or is it given the impression of thinking? Can all acts be described as a bunch of sensation and can all material objects be meaningfully described as just bunches of possible sensation? Can doing something on purpuse be meaningfully described as a bunch of sensation? Is deciding, reflecting, evaluating own actiongs, having a bad conscience only sensation? Can everything that applies to being an active human being be applied to a passive being as mere bunches of sensation? It seems to follow that such a being has no will, no real thought and never actually acts and does not really reflect. Would you be able to make proper sense of these concepts in a brain in a vat scenario? Would a fair definition of a decision be "a sensation"? I would hold not.

And again (which you always forget) if you are to talk about these matters, you can only do so on your own behalf. You cannot say: "First, we have nothing to compare to the world as we know it. Is it a "real" world or a virtual world? What evidence could you bring to bear to demonstrate a "real" world that could not also serve as evidence for the Matrix?" You always forget that if there is to be anyting to the case, then I am only a sensation you have, so the word "we" refers to nothing. That is, you are still just paying lip service to the idea, you never really confront it as anywhere near serious but still hold it to be possible no matter the implications of solipsism undermining own statements and so on.

Unless, of course, you have now changed your mind.