Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

1) I feel certain but the reasons for doing so come from very different areas so they do not amount into just one deductive argument. I have no problem living with uncertainty, I just don't find that there is uncertainty in this case while there is in quite many others. But you could not point to the error in what I wrote so thus you wanted to change the subject? Or what, seer?

No Charles, I did not change the subject, I have been making the same point all the way through. The only way we can find certainty is through deductive reasoning. And without that any line of reasoning will remain inductive which always leaves the question open.

2) If that is a something you take for granted to always be the case that is, of course, circular. It could be the case that you actually saw the world directly. That is all I am saying in that part. That leaving the possibility completely out is circular.

I'm not sure what you mean - I certainly do believe that we have access to the world. But that deception is still logically possible.

3) seer, you know better than that. I have made it very clear and I do not want to start all over just because you ignore, forget or don't read.

4) Then it should be easy to prove the points wrong. I think I have made myself very clear on how it is self refuting, and you have completely failed to show why that is wrong.

What points? You have not in any way shown the dream world, though deceptive, to be self-refuting. You just asserted so.

And just remember, seer. You do not have assumption based on your own premises.

The pot calling the kettle black. You have not offered one deductive argument that leads us out of assumption. And there is nothing self-refuting about the possibility of personal deception.

[Charles]

No Charles, I did not change the subject, I have been making the same point all the way through. The only way we can find certainty is through deductive reasoning. And without that any line of reasoning will remain inductive which always leaves the question open.

So far we can be certain that dream theories and brain in a vat theories are self refuting. We can also be certain that there is no way you can know you have got assumption since even that could be imposed on you according to your own premises. You keep wanting to make the assumption statement dependent on my claims but it is not. Even if I never write another line in here it still makes no difference. You are holding on to a claim that has been proven completely void of all meaning by your own statements. So, you need to be able to understand the consequences along the way and take it step by step.

[seer]

So far we can be certain that dream theories and brain in a vat theories are self refuting. We can also be certain that there is no way you can know you have got assumption since even that could be imposed on you according to your own premises. You keep wanting to make the assumption statement dependent on my claims but it is not. Even if I never write another line in here it still makes no difference. You are holding on to a claim that has been proven completely void of all meaning by your own statements. So, you need to be able to understand the consequences along the way and take it step by step.

prove that we are not being deceived.

[Charles]

prove that we are not being deceived.

[seer]

It is not nonsense. But the lines you wrote clearly indicate you misunderstood the point. I have not said that being deceived is self refuting. I have said that claiming reality is dream is self refuting. That is something quite different. And you have been able to come up with nothing of value against the arguments provided for that case.

What? OK, so we agree that being deceived is not self-refuting. But the point is you can not prove that what you experience as reality is not a dream or a deception.

No it doesn't, the claim that deception is a logical possibility (which it is) does not mean that I believe we are deceived. Again, I am not a skeptic, but that does not change the fact that deception is possible - and you Charlie have offered nothing even approaching certainty to say that such deception is not possible.

I never claimed all skeptical theories are self refuting. But being skeptical towards the basis for knowing anything at all is self refuting. Holding that all your thoughts could be false and every impression you have got could be fake is a statement that completely undermines the idea that anything could be said for or against it. It is not only self refuting, it is a try to rip any word in language of any meaning. And as soon as this is done, you go on to use the words as if they have got their good old realist meaning. And I exist and so on.

I am actually the only one of us who has given a longer description of my position including reasons to hold the realistic view.

Asking for one simple deductive proof in such complicated cases is asking for simplification. Would you also ask for one deductive proof of quantum mechanics? Do you really think it all boils down to something that simple?

Yet the argument for realism could just as easily be made in your dream world or the Matrix to justify them as reality, so that tells us nothing.

But, since you like deductive arguments so much, here you can have one for a case that is simple enough to justify it:

Seer claims he assumes reality
In order to know anything for certain, you must know that you are not deceived
Seer does not have certain knowledge that he is not deceived
Seer does not know for certain whether he assumes reality or not

That is the point - without deduction neither you or I can say for sure.

[Charles]

What? OK, so we agree that being deceived is not self-refuting. But the point is you can not prove that what you experience as reality is not a dream or a deception.



No it doesn't, the claim that deception is a logical possibility (which it is) does not mean that I believe we are deceived. Again, I am not a skeptic, but that does not change the fact that deception is possible - and you Charlie have offered nothing even approaching certainty to say that such deception is not possible.



Yet the argument for realism could just as easily be made in your dream world or the Matrix to justify them as reality, so that tells us nothing.



That is the point - without deduction neither you or I can say for sure.

1) Being deceived is not impossible in dreams and other dream like states that can be explained in reality with no problem at all. Claiming reality could be a dream is self refuting. Every argument you can use in favour of it could be false so we have no reason to trust your line of reasoning.

2) I have offered a lot in order to approach certainty. I have clearly shown that you cannot even start to make sense of what you are saying if you go for the "reality could be a dream statement". See above.

3) That amounts to saying: "everything I, seer, say could just as well be completely false. You have no reason to trust what I say against Charles because there is no way I can know if what I am saying is actually true. It actually does not make sense to speak but I cannot even conclude that because I cannot trust any premises in my possibly completely wrong world."

4) I can know for sure that it follows from your own premises that you have no idea whether you even assume reality or not.

[seer]

1) Being deceived is not impossible in dreams and other dream like states that can be explained in reality with no problem at all. Claiming reality could be a dream is self refuting. Every argument you can use in favour of it could be false so we have no reason to trust your line of reasoning.

Charles are you just dense? I'm not claiming that all of reality is a dream - only YOUR reality. Can you prove that everything you are experiencing right now is not part of a dream? When Descartes speaks of these things he is not speaking of global skepticism but of the possibility of personal deception, and I quote:

Every sensory experience I have ever thought I was having while awake I can also think of myself as sometimes having while asleep; and since I do not believe that what I seem to perceive in sleep comes from things located outside me, I did not see why I should be any more inclined to believe this of what I think I perceive while awake. There may be some other faculty [of my mind] not yet fully known to me, which produces these ideas without any assistance from external things; this is, after all, just how I have always thought ideas are produced in me when I am dreaming. (Med. 3, AT 7:39, 6, AT 7:77)

3) That amounts to saying: "everything I, seer, say could just as well be completely false. You have no reason to trust what I say against Charles because there is no way I can know if what I am saying is actually true. It actually does not make sense to speak but I cannot even conclude that because I cannot trust any premises in my possibly completely wrong world."

Yet you just agreed that we could be deceived, and have offered no deductive reasoning to demonstrate otherwise.

4) I can know for sure that it follows from your own premises that you have no idea whether you even assume reality or not.

And neither do you! Own it, or show us CERTAINTY, instead of just assuming certainty as an expedient against skepticism.

[Charles]

Charles are you just dense? I'm not claiming that all of reality is a dream - only YOUR reality. Can you prove that everything you are experiencing right now is not part of a dream? When Descartes speaks of these things he is not speaking of global skepticism but of the possibility of personal deception, and I quote:

Yet you just agreed that we could be deceived, and have offered no deductive reasoning to demonstrate otherwise.

And neither do you! Own it, or show us CERTAINTY, instead of just assuming certainty as an expedient against skepticism.

[seer]

1) If only my reality could be a dream, then why do you need assumption? Are you now starting to claim that you know you are on the other side of the dream? How do you know? You gave no deductive argument, so you cannot start to pretend you know a lot about reality based on your own premises. You have asked how I know I am not in a dream and claimed we could not prove we were not. Stand by those claims, seer, or admit that finally you got the point that this type of skepticism (which it is whether you want to call it so or not) was self refuting.

I have no idea what you are on about, either you can prove that you are not in a dream (deductively) or you can't. Either you can prove that you are not being deceived or you can't.

For me to go for the option that my reality was a dream would be something I could make no sense of. Clearly self refuting and not even something you can communicate with any meaning at all. Whatever Descartes said or not would be something I read in a dream so perhaps he never even lived. Perhaps it is not true though it may seem right, in dreams it all illusions anyway...

It does matter if it makes sense to you or not, the question is can you prove otherwise? Can I? And it is not self-refuting, deception is not self-refuting, it would just mean that you could mistake a dream for reality - like you do most every night.. And I think you would have to be conscious (alive) to be aware of dreams, or anything.

And you still fail to realize that you end up on one horn of the trilemma no matter which way you turn, and each horn is rationally unjustified. And you are free to doubt me, but that does not make YOUR CASE.

3) So when I show you that you do not even know if you have assumption then you go on to assume that I must have assumption too? Since you do not even know if you have the first assumption what does the second one help you? You need patience and a true aim, seer. It is long road.

Of course you have assumption too Charles, logically there is nothing else. You just can't bring yourself to admit it.

[Charles]

I have no idea what you are on about, either you can prove that you are not in a dream (deductively) or you can't. Either you can prove that you are not being deceived or you can't.



It does matter if it makes sense to you or not, the question is can you prove otherwise? Can I? And it is not self-refuting, deception is not self-refuting, it would just mean that you could mistake a dream for reality - like you do most every night.. And I think you would have to be conscious (alive) to be aware of dreams, or anything.



And you still fail to realize that you end up on one horn of the trilemma no matter which way you turn, and each horn is rationally unjustified. And you are free to doubt me, but that does not make YOUR CASE.



Of course you have assumption too Charles, logically there is nothing else. You just can't bring yourself to admit it.

1) Too easy to avoid the points that way

2) It is of course self refuting to claim that the situation I find myself in is a dream. Anyone going for the idea or for the possibility will of course undermine the credibility of their further arguments

3) Can you prove the trilemma is a true description of reality. If you can, you refuse the point in the trilemma. If you cannot, then we have got reason to doubt it according to the logic that we must have doubt if no deductive argument can be given (you say that all the time). Does that go in this case or not. Why do you try to avoid answering?

4) Make a statement about why you have got assumption and I will show you why it does not apply. Very simple.

[seer]

1) Too easy to avoid the points that way

2) It is of course self refuting to claim that the situation I find myself in is a dream. Anyone going for the idea or for the possibility will of course undermine the credibility of their further arguments

Charles, is this all going past you? I'm not claiming that I am in a dream right now while talking to you, only that logically it is a possibility. That I may be deceived, not that I necessarily am.

3) Can you prove the trilemma is a true description of reality. If you can, you refuse the point in the trilemma. If you cannot, then we have got reason to doubt it according to the logic that we must have doubt if no deductive argument can be given (you say that all the time). Does that go in this case or not. Why do you try to avoid answering?

Charles, again I assume reality as I experience it. I assume that the laws of logic would be valid whether I was in a dream or not. But what you are asking for is certainty, and logically the only way to get to certainty is through deductive reasoning. The very thing you can not offer is the only way to dispel all doubt.

4) Make a statement about why you have got assumption and I will show you why it does not apply. Very simple.

Then Charlie present a deductive argument that will end all doubt...

[Charles]

Charles, is this all going past you? I'm not claiming that I am in a dream right now while talking to you, only that logically it is a possibility. That I may be deceived, not that I necessarily am.



Charles, again I assume reality as I experience it. I assume that the laws of logic would be valid whether I was in a dream or not. But what you are asking for is certainty, and logically the only way to get to certainty is through deductive reasoning. The very thing you can not offer is the only way to dispel all doubt.



Then Charlie present a deductive argument that will end all doubt...

Seer, once again you ignore the question about the trilemma. You refer to it as having significant inpact on what I can say. But you do not even answer whether you can prove it or not. I have asked many times.

You are being completely inconsistent with what follows from your claims and "assumption" is a word you can put no serious meaning into since the meaning might as well be induced into your brain. I see that you are trying to soften up a bit about what you claim could be possible. But since you have claimed I must prove I am not in a dream and that everything including thoughts, reflections and so on could be imposed, I think you need to stand by that or admit you took it too far.

Second, there is still no way that you can know whether you assume reality or not. You do not know if you actually make that assumption. The reason I keep bringing this up is because there is a philosophical point to it. You are speaking a langauge that your own premises do not allow you to speak. If you actually did realise that you would be far closer to the solution.

There are certain conditions that have to apply before you can even make sense of what you are saying. That is why some have pointed to realism as a transcendent condition for making statements that actually make sense. No matter if one agrees or not it is quite easy to see that if there is something to that then asking for "proof" or "deductive proof" is mistaken.

But you sort of speak with two tounges. You allow for fundamental doubt (even if you claim it is only "logically possible") and then go on to speak, make claims and ask questions as if it was already given that the realist position is right. You cannot do so logically, not even by assumption. You can only do so by avoiding the consequences of the doubt that you allow for. And that is inconsistent.

And you were not prepared to make the statement about why you have got assumption that i promised to prove wrong...

[seer]

Seer, once again you ignore the question about the trilemma. You refer to it as having significant inpact on what I can say. But you do not even answer whether you can prove it or not. I have asked many times.

Prove what Charles? The logic of the trilemma is self-evident, just as the law of non-contradiction is self-evident.

You are being completely inconsistent with what follows from your claims and "assumption" is a word you can put no serious meaning into since the meaning might as well be induced into your brain. I see that you are trying to soften up a bit about what you claim could be possible. But since you have claimed I must prove I am not in a dream and that everything including thoughts, reflections and so on could be imposed, I think you need to stand by that or admit you took it too far.

Nonsense Charles, from the beginning I have been saying that I assumed reality, that it was self-evident. That I did believe that I experienced reality - but that I can not prove it, logically. And neither can you. That was the whole point.

Second, there is still no way that you can know whether you assume reality or not. You do not know if you actually make that assumption. The reason I keep bringing this up is because there is a philosophical point to it. You are speaking a langauge that your own premises do not allow you to speak. If you actually did realise that you would be far closer to the solution.

Yet you have offered nothing, logically, that is more than assumption.

There are certain conditions that have to apply before you can even make sense of what you are saying. That is why some have pointed to realism as a transcendent condition for making statements that actually make sense. No matter if one agrees or not it is quite easy to see that if there is something to that then asking for "proof" or "deductive proof" is mistaken.

Certain conditions Charles - you mean certain assumptions! Transcendent condition - you mean the assumption of a transcendent condition! Really? Can you prove either?

[Charles]

Prove what Charles? The logic of the trilemma is self-evident, just as the law of non-contradiction is self-evident.



Nonsense Charles, from the beginning I have been saying that I assumed reality, that it was self-evident. That I did believe that I experienced reality - but that I can not prove it, logically. And neither can you. That was the whole point.



Yet you have offered nothing, logically, that is more than assumption.



Certain conditions Charles - you mean certain assumptions! Transcendent condition - you mean the assumption of a transcendent condition! Really? Can you prove either?

1) Aint that a little too easy, seer? I mean, I can accept certain things being self evident, but usually the claim is supported by some kind of explanation or justification of the statement. I could just say that I find mind independet realism to be self evident but who would learn anything from that.

2) Since you need assumption (which you actually cannot have on your own premises) there must be some uncertainty in your mind. Or else you would claim you know.

3) Of course I have. I have both pointed to different thoughts that logically point in the direction of realism and I have proven your assumption statement to be pure nonsense.

4) No, I mean certain conditions. I have already pointed to it time and time again that you cannot even talk consistently about these matters without refering to a mind independent reality. That is why I continue to point to your inconsistencies. You may want to read my text again: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post461759

[seer]

1) Aint that a little too easy, seer? I mean, I can accept certain things being self evident, but usually the claim is supported by some kind of explanation or justification of the statement. I could just say that I find mind independet realism to be self evident but who would learn anything from that.

2) Since you need assumption (which you actually cannot have on your own premises) there must be some uncertainty in your mind. Or else you would claim you know.

3) Of course I have. I have both pointed to different thoughts that logically point in the direction of realism and I have proven your assumption statement to be pure nonsense.

4) No, I mean certain conditions. I have already pointed to it time and time again that you cannot even talk consistently about these matters without refering to a mind independent reality. That is why I continue to point to your inconsistencies.

Charles I have not been inconsistent, what I have been claiming is very modest. Even the Realist needs first to assume a mind independent reality, and that our minds have access to that reality. These are assumptions, and not logically provable. And two assumptions I might add that I agree with as I have made clear. Yet these assumptions are not certainty, nor can they be - logically, and you have not demonstrated otherwise. It is still logically possible that we can be deceived, I'm not claiming that we are as I also made clear. And if we were both living in a Matrix, connected to each other, in a virtual world, why couldn't we speak of these things consistently?