Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

Well of course, isn't that exactly what the being controlling your thoughts would want you to believe? But again, this is still logically possible.

How do you put meaning into words that break with the proper use of concepts? What does "I think therefore I am" mean outside the proper use of concepts? What does "logically possible" mean outside the proper use of concepts? I guess you got the point. And I hope that within proper use of concepts you have got more in favour of the theory than it being "logically possible"? It is logically possible for the world to be flat, but I am nowhere hear thinking it is so... So you have got to come up with something more convincing, seer.

Charles it wouldn't make a difference - if you can't make a deductive case, we are still in the same place.

So it makes no difference whether it is the so called real or the so called percieved or fake brain? Seriously, seer. How can one prove anything if you cannot even tell what you mean by the words you use?

Really, demonstrate, that this is logically impossible. Prove that everything you just wrote wasn't just imposed into your brain. And remember Charles, I'm not denying reality, I accept reality, only that we can not justify that view deductively.

Here we go again. When you cannot prove the theory or show it possible you try to sneak your way out of it by pointing out that you believe or assume reality exists. That does nothing in order to prove the case for the scenarious that you use for the reason for there to be any doubt. You need to be able to present them on their own premises and you have completely failed to do so.

That is simply a dodge. But I am glad you agree that you can not logically prove your point.

Of course I cannot give an answer to a misunderstood question. It has become painfully obvious that you cannot even tell which brain you refer to in the question... And I could go on mentioning weaknesses in the question, but again, I have already done so a couple of times.

More deception, you can not deductively make the case so again you try and turn the argument. Possible consequences does not change your lack of an argument. And how do you even know what is possible or not? We are taking about logical possibilities not mechanics.

How do you logically describe action, reflection, making a decision and so on in passive terms? How is that logically possible?

You who have dodged making a deductive case this whole time dare ask me now?

Yep. I have refused to answer a misunderstood question. You, however, insist I must make a deductive case based on this misunderstood question. If you dare to ask for that all the time how do you dare not making a deductive case yourself? As you have rightly pointed out it would take away all doubt and I suppose you would like to be able to prove yourself right? And I have even promised to prove you wrong. If I can't do so you sure have the right to claim victory. So feel free

[Charles]

Your deductive argument, as has been pointed out numerous times, is based upon a premise that cannot be shown to be true, namely "God is creator of the universe'. Therefore a deductive argument starting with this premise is not a 'sound' deductive argument, i.e. one that has valid form and a true premise.

Exactly. And let's not forget that one of seer's arguments in favour of the idea that we can know that God exists was based on the idea that a rational universe would take a rational creator. But doubt about whether that universe even exists in the first place as anything but a deception surely makes it even harder to follow that line of reasoning to say the least.

[seer]

How do you put meaning into words that break with the proper use of concepts? What does "I think therefore I am" mean outside the proper use of concepts? What does "logically possible" mean outside the proper use of concepts? I guess you got the point. And I hope that within proper use of concepts you have got more in favour of the theory than it being "logically possible"? It is logically possible for the world to be flat, but I am nowhere hear thinking it is so... So you have got to come up with something more convincing, seer.

Charles, I have no idea what you are getting at, if you think it is impossible to be deceived then it is on you to show that.

So it makes no difference whether it is the so called real or the so called percieved or fake brain? Seriously, seer. How can one prove anything if you cannot even tell what you mean by the words you use?

No Charles, deductive logic would work in either case.

Here we go again. When you cannot prove the theory or show it possible you try to sneak your way out of it by pointing out that you believe or assume reality exists. That does nothing in order to prove the case for the scenarious that you use for the reason for there to be any doubt. You need to be able to present them on their own premises and you have completely failed to do so.

You are dishonest Charles, I have been perfectly clear that I do believe in reality, but that neither you or I can demonstrate that deductively. That has been my only point. And without deductive reasoning there is no certainty.

Of course I cannot give an answer to a misunderstood question. It has become painfully obvious that you cannot even tell which brain you refer to in the question... And I could go on mentioning weaknesses in the question, but again, I have already done so a couple of times.

Prove that the question is misunderstood. You keep making this false claim.

How do you logically describe action, reflection, making a decision and so on in passive terms? How is that logically possible?

What do you mean in passive terms? Everything you think you know or experience is only known in the mind - and if the mind is being deceived than that is reality to you. Last night in my dreams I was experiencing all kinds of situations, driving, working in a shop, eating with a group of friends. They all seemed real, until I woke up.

Yep. I have refused to answer a misunderstood question. You, however, insist I must make a deductive case based on this misunderstood question. If you dare to ask for that all the time how do you dare not making a deductive case yourself? As you have rightly pointed out it would take away all doubt and I suppose you would like to be able to prove yourself right? And I have even promised to prove you wrong. If I can't do so you sure have the right to claim victory. So feel free

There is no misunderstood question, that is just something you made up to dodge the problem.

And you forgot this:

And logically why couldn't a highly advanced alien race bring this kind of deception off? How would you know what they are capable of?

And like I said, there are scientists suggesting that we live in a virtual universe, that a virtual universe actually makes more sense.

[Charles]

Charles, I have no idea what you are getting at, if you think it is impossible to be deceived then it is on you to show that.

That's the easy trick... "I have no idea what you are getting at" I believe you are able to get the point that if there is no proper use of concepts this discussion makes no sense. If you cannot claim that some use of language is wrong and other right, then why do you keep pretending like we can. We do you mean to imply that your questions and arguments against me or the claim that it is on me to prove anything makes sense? All of this is part of the reasoning against the scenarious you hold possible. The proper use of concepts do not seem to apply. But you would rather allow for the concepts not to apply in order to question my statement and then proced making your own statement assuming that of course they apply. Good try, seer.

No Charles, deductive logic would work in either case.

In order to prove something I must know what I am supposed to prove...

You are dishonest Charles, I have been perfectly clear that I do believe in reality, but that neither you or I can demonstrate that deductively. That has been my only point. And without deductive reasoning there is no certainty.

There is no dishonesty in what I am saying. I have just said that you cannot prove the scenarious that you hold to be possible to even be possible. And that is true. And you seem to use your assumption as an exit plan everytime you are asked to prove them possible. If you are to hold the brain in a vat theory possible you need to be able to make the case on its own implications. You have not been able to do so. Just admit that.

Prove that the question is misunderstood. You keep making this false claim.

I have done so repeatedly. Many points are found here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post458981 Other have been given on the run. Do I really need to repeat myself seer?

What do you mean in passive terms? Everything you think you know or experience is only known in the mind - and if the mind is being deceived than that is reality to you. Last night in my dreams I was experiencing all kinds of situations, driving, working in a shop, eating with a group of friends. They all seemed real, until I woke up.

You get that the "Everything you think you know or experience is only known in the mind" statement is leading to circular logic, right? It seems to completely leave out the possibility that I could actually see things directly and not as an experience in the mind. How would you even define "reality" in that "locked in" idea? It seems to me you are using language and concepts to introduce possible theories that would make this language and those concepts completely invalid if they were true. They appear rather self refuting - and that is why I ask you to follow the logic they imply not the "outside of the scenario" logic which does not apply to those scenarious. And you have come nowhere doing so.

There is no misunderstood question, that is just something you made up to dodge the problem.

Sorry, but it is misunderstood in many ways. Follow the link above.

And you forgot this:

And logically why couldn't a highly advanced alien race bring this kind of deception off? How would you know what they are capable of?

And like I said, there are scientists suggesting that we live in a virtual universe, that a virtual universe actually makes more sense.

Because logically even a highly advanced alien cannot break the laws of logic or the proper use of concepts. Or, if you want to claim they can, you are in a position in which the words you use simply have no meaning and then you cannot make any statement in favour of the theory.

Those scientists should give you good stuff for a deductive proof. Looking forward.

[Charles]

Last night in my dreams I was experiencing all kinds of situations, driving, working in a shop, eating with a group of friends. They all seemed real, until I woke up.

So let's assume that the seer experiencing all kinds of situations, driving, working in a shop, eating with a group of friends is the real seer and your experience of going to tweb and writing "No Charles this is not...." is just a dream that this first mentioned seer has. Would you claim nothing speaks against this idea and only your assumption makes the difference? If not then what makes the difference in seer reality?

[seer]

So let's assume that the seer experiencing all kinds of situations, driving, working in a shop, eating with a group of friends is the real seer and your experience of going to tweb and writing "No Charles this is not...." is just a dream that this first mentioned seer has. Would you claim nothing speaks against this idea and only your assumption makes the difference? If not then what makes the difference in seer reality?

No Charles, I was giving you an example of being deceived. None of those things in my dream really happened, yet at the time they seemed real. You suggested that such deception was logically impossible, a claim you never back up... Yes, assumption does make a difference - after all that is all you have too. I agree with Jim.B and said basically the same thing a few post before his. And as I said, I believe there is an honest and trustworthy Creator behind it all.

[Charles]

No Charles, I was giving you an example of being deceived. None of those things in my dream really happened, yet at the time they seemed real. You suggested that such deception was logically impossible, a claim you never back up... Yes, assumption does make a difference - after all that is all you have too. I agree with Jim.B and said basically the same thing a few post before his. And as I said, I believe there is an honest and trustworthy Creator behind it all.

So there is no reason for you to assume it? You just do so without any reason at all?

[seer]

So there is no reason for you to assume it? You just do so without any reason at all?

What are your reasons Charles? What could you experience, logically, that could not also be experienced in a dream? Or be cause by a deception?

http://izquotes.com/quote/263528

Just a different take on the question. He does not believe that he is dreaming, but he can not prove otherwise. I do not believe that I am being deceived, but I can not prove otherwise.

[Charles]

What are your reasons Charles? What could you experience, logically, that could not also be experienced in a dream? Or be cause by a deception?



Just a different take on the question. He does not believe that he is dreaming, but he can not prove otherwise. I do not believe that I am being deceived, but I can not prove otherwise.

That contains no answer at all, seer.

[seer]

That contains no answer at all, seer.

What is your answer Charles? What do you have apart from belief or assumption? What could you experience, logically, that could not also be experienced in a dream? Or be cause by a deception? I agree with Bertrand Russell, one of the more notable atheist philosophers of the last century. I don't believe that I'm dreaming or being deceive, but I can not prove it. Neither can you Charles.

[Charles]

What is your answer Charles? What do you have apart from belief or assumption? What could you experience, logically, that could not also be experienced in a dream? Or be cause by a deception? I agree with Bertrand Russell, one of the more notable atheist philosophers of the last century. I don't believe that I'm dreaming or being deceive, but I can not prove it. Neither can you Charles.

But the truth is that you can make no philosophical statement in favour of the view. And you cannot communicate the idea to me. Your arguments are dreamed and Russel never existed if it is a dream. Thus you can hold it as a personal belief that life us a dream. But you cannot speak to anyone or refer to anyone without the solipsistic idea turning self refuting. Think about it, seer.

[Charles]

What is your answer Charles? What do you have apart from belief or assumption? What could you experience, logically, that could not also be experienced in a dream? Or be cause by a deception? I agree with Bertrand Russell, one of the more notable atheist philosophers of the last century. I don't believe that I'm dreaming or being deceive, but I can not prove it. Neither can you Charles.

And since it appears you have not yet seen it part of what I have got is the fact that you cannot even start to make the case for those scenarious based on the conditions they imply. Why worry about a case that cannot be made? Like I said make a deductive statement in favour of the brain in a vat scenario and I will show you why it does not apply. You favour deductive arguments and always ask for them yourself. And it appears you are very certain. So let's see you make the case, seer. Or admit that you cannot.

[Charles]

What is your answer Charles? What do you have apart from belief or assumption? What could you experience, logically, that could not also be experienced in a dream? Or be cause by a deception? I agree with Bertrand Russell, one of the more notable atheist philosophers of the last century. I don't believe that I'm dreaming or being deceive, but I can not prove it. Neither can you Charles.

And don't forget. You still haven't given an answer as to why you assume reality exists. You talk about what you experienced in dreams. Why not assume that is reality. Any reason at all seer? You can ignore the question but that does not make it any more convincing.

[seer]

But the truth is that you can make no philosophical statement in favour of the view. And you cannot communicate the idea to me. Your arguments are dreamed and Russel never existed if it is a dream. Thus you can hold it as a personal belief that life us a dream. But you cannot speak to anyone or refer to anyone without the solipsistic idea turning self refuting. Think about it, seer.

Charles, what you fail to realize is that you are in the same boat. We both assume reality without being able to prove it.

[seer]

And since it appears you have not yet seen it part of what I have got is the fact that you cannot even start to make the case for those scenarious based on the conditions they imply. Why worry about a case that cannot be made? Like I said make a deductive statement in favour of the brain in a vat scenario and I will show you why it does not apply. You favour deductive arguments and always ask for them yourself. And it appears you are very certain. So let's see you make the case, seer. Or admit that you cannot.

Charles, I'm not claiming that I can make a deductive argument proving that we are brains in vats. But I have made the case that experience; taste, touch, smell, interacting with people, nature etc... can exist in the life of the mind via the dream world. These are not real experiences, they are in essence deceptions. So it is self-evident that deception on this detailed level is possible. So to demonstrate that such deception is not possible one would need to make a deductive argument precluding the possibility. Without deductive reasoning Charles there is no certainty, the door is always open.