Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

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.

I would like to see a proof that they have to assume it first. How come it cannot be the case that at first they only evaluate their impressions, ideas, perceptions (or whatever we should call it without passing judgment) and then, without assuming so beforehand simply arrive at the conclusion that only realism can give a satisfactory explanation. This would take very long lines of reasoning, but why would it be impossible?

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.

But your claim could be wrong. And it could also be wrong that you assume reality. Assumption is no guarantee nor is your claim that you don't think you are deveived. So I still think you fail to adress the point that any statement about assumption could be completely false.

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?

I think we have discussed this quite many times but let us look at some of the consequences. I will go for the brain in a vat theory instead of matrix (too long ago since i watched matrix so I don't want to make mistakes with regard to the actual plot):

- We are not actually talking, since our bodies are not in a room. We are given the impression of talking.
- We are not thinking. Somehow a something (what is it?) is given the impression of thinking but the thoughts are induced (can you even call that thinking?).
- Our talking is not based on reflection and are not comming from us, so it could not be the case that we were speakning. It could at most be the case that we were given the impression of doing so.
- All our ideas about reality could or would be fake and there was no way we could ever know
- You seem to hold that this is possible and could be the case right now. In that case your assumption would be part of the fake ideas and thoughts, so by pointing to that you are not even starting to get out of it. Neither are your arguments for the possibility nor your arguments against me real. Then you would say: "But you have got nothing but assumption, Charles". But that would be a fake impression induced into your brain too.

As I said I would be interested in hearing further justification for the claim that the trilemma is self evident.

[seer]

I would like to see a proof that they have to assume it first. How come it cannot be the case that at first they only evaluate their impressions, ideas, perceptions (or whatever we should call it without passing judgment) and then, without assuming so beforehand simply arrive at the conclusion that only realism can give a satisfactory explanation. This would take very long lines of reasoning, but why would it be impossible?

You would still have to make a lot of assumptions along the way. Most of which would be logically unprovable, unless you could show me how they would be logically provable.

But your claim could be wrong. And it could also be wrong that you assume reality. Assumption is no guarantee nor is your claim that you don't think you are deveived. So I still think you fail to adress the point that any statement about assumption could be completely false.

And any assumptions you make to get to Realism could be wrong. I'm sorry Charlie, there is no certainty here - at least not logically.

I think we have discussed this quite many times but let us look at some of the consequences. I will go for the brain in a vat theory instead of matrix (too long ago since i watched matrix so I don't want to make mistakes with regard to the actual plot):

- We are not actually talking, since our bodies are not in a room. We are given the impression of talking.
- We are not thinking. Somehow a something (what is it?) is given the impression of thinking but the thoughts are induced (can you even call that thinking?).
- Our talking is not based on reflection and are not comming from us, so it could not be the case that we were speakning. It could at most be the case that we were given the impression of doing so.
- All our ideas about reality could or would be fake and there was no way we could ever know
- You seem to hold that this is possible and could be the case right now. In that case your assumption would be part of the fake ideas and thoughts, so by pointing to that you are not even starting to get out of it. Neither are your arguments for the possibility nor your arguments against me real. Then you would say: "But you have got nothing but assumption, Charles". But that would be a fake impression induced into your brain too.

But so what? Even if our impressions were false we still could have this debate, speak about trees, cats, ladies in yoga pants, realism, etc... Yes, it would all be an illusion, but being an illusion does not negate the logical possibility.

As I said I would be interested in hearing further justification for the claim that the trilemma is self evident.

It would be like the law of non-contradiction, it can not be otherwise. Like 2+2 equaling 4 - if you can find an internal inconsistency I would be happy to listen.

[Charles]

You would still have to make a lot of assumptions along the way. Most of which would be logically unprovable, unless you could show me how they would be logically provable.





And any assumptions you make to get to Realism could be wrong. I'm sorry Charlie, there is no certainty here - at least not logically.




But so what? Even if our impressions were false we still could have this debate, speak about trees, cats, ladies in yoga pants, realism, etc... Yes, it would all be an illusion, but being an illusion does not negate the logical possibility.



It would be like the law of non-contradiction, it can not be otherwise. Like 2+2 equaling 4 - if you can find an internal inconsistency I would be happy to listen.

1) It is a very long line of reasoning, yes, but I don't see the reason in ruling out beforehand that it is possible. The idea that the realist must assume beforehand seems rather circular.

2) I am not talking about assumptions. You are, but you cannot have them based on your own premises.

3) "We" would not be having this debate. It would not even be a debate because none of us would actually say or think anything by ourselves. So, no, we could not speak, and we would not think. And I asked some questions that remain unanswered. How do you impose a thought from the outside. Does a thought even have a "nature" making this possible? Is there an "objective" side of the thought that guarantees the "inner" experience? Is it even comprehensible that I should just be a passive observer of "thought" (which they would not be) imposed on me?

I don't know if you are familiar with Leibniz's thought on this. One of his famous statements on this was:

If we imagine that there is a machine whose structure makes it think, sense, and have perceptions, we could conceive it enlarged, keeping the same proportions, so that we could enter into it, as one enters into a mill. Assuming that, when inspecting its interior, we will only find parts that push one another, and we will never find anything to explain a perception. And so, we should seek perception in the simple substance and not in the composite or in the machine.

I do not agree with Leibniz completely and certainly not in his alternative ideas, he certainly was not realist. But I think it shows a challenge. Not just a technical one but also a philosophical one. How would you even start to produce thought?

[seer]

1) It is a very long line of reasoning, yes, but I don't see the reason in ruling out beforehand that it is possible. The idea that the realist must assume beforehand seems rather circular.

No matter which way you go Charles, there has to be unprovable assumptions. If the Realist doesn't first assume reality, he must assume that the world must/should make sense then work back to reality.

2) I am not talking about assumptions. You are, but you cannot have them based on your own premises.

What premises of mine are you speaking about - that I assume reality?

3) "We" would not be having this debate. It would not even be a debate because none of us would actually say or think anything by ourselves. So, no, we could not speak, and we would not think. And I asked some questions that remain unanswered. How do you impose a thought from the outside. Does a thought even have a "nature" making this possible? Is there an "objective" side of the thought that guarantees the "inner" experience? Is it even comprehensible that I should just be a passive observer of "thought" (which they would not be) imposed on me?

Some of these questions are mechanical not philosophical or logical. As far the mechanics, as we learn more about the brain it is not inconceivable that in the future that we may be able to electrically stimulate the brain to produce particular thoughts or mental states, or there may be super advanced beings that even now have the technology. And yes, our conscious mind, even in the Matrix, would be experiencing these things. Our minds are not generating the information, but we are experiencing them. But none of this tells us that deception is logically impossible - again, after all we are deceived every night in the dream world.

I don't know if you are familiar with Leibniz's thought on this. One of his famous statements on this was:

So you believe that thoughts are immaterial?

I do not agree with Leibniz completely and certainly not in his alternative ideas, he certainly was not realist. But I think it shows a challenge. Not just a technical one but also a philosophical one. How would you even start to produce thought?

Are we not already moving in that direction? http://www.iflscience.com/brain/scie...n-stimulation/

In any case your argument is based on incredulity.

[Charles]

No matter which way you go Charles, there has to be unprovable assumptions. If the Realist doesn't first assume reality, he must assume that the world must/should make sense then work back to reality.



What premises of mine are you speaking about - that I assume reality?



Some of these questions are mechanical not philosophical or logical. As far the mechanics, as we learn more about the brain it is not inconceivable that in the future that we may be able to electrically stimulate the brain to produce particular thoughts or mental states, or there may be super advanced beings that even now have the technology. And yes, our conscious mind, even in the Matrix, would be experiencing these things. Our minds are not generating the information, but we are experiencing them. But none of this tells us that deception is logically impossible - again, after all we are deceived every night in the dream world.




So you believe that thoughts are immaterial?




Are we not already moving in that direction? http://www.iflscience.com/brain/scie...n-stimulation/

In any case your argument is based on incredulity.

1) That seems rather circular. You leave out the option it could be proven.

2) You (still) do not know whether you assume reality.

3) Though I like the fact that you point to advancements, I find your interpretation a little too willing to go for the materialistic approach.

4) I believe that is possible, yes. Anyway the first person perspective is rather tricky to account for in materialistic terms. Never heard any explanation I found convincing. But you may be able to come up with something. I take big interest in the subject.

[seer]

1) That seems rather circular. You leave out the option it could be proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by proven. Logically/deductively? And I would like to see this argument that does not include assumptions.

2) You (still) do not know whether you assume reality.

And logically you have offered nothing better.

3) Though I like the fact that you point to advancements, I find your interpretation a little too willing to go for the materialistic approach.

Well I am an emergent dualist, so I suspect that there is more to thinking than the material.

4) I believe that is possible, yes. Anyway the first person perspective is rather tricky to account for in materialistic terms. Never heard any explanation I found convincing. But you may be able to come up with something. I take big interest in the subject.

I agree, I don't think science can explain qualia, and people like David Chalmers suggest that materialism, as we understand it, may never be able to.

[Leonhard]

Just my two cents: The moral law, is about becoming the right person, living rightly according to your station and your nature. God's laws are not random edicts of his will to be followed by fiat, they are in fact painting a picture of what a holy person is like, what we really ought to be.

[Charles]

I'm not sure what you mean by proven. Logically/deductively? And I would like to see this argument that does not include assumptions.



And logically you have offered nothing better.



Well I am an emergent dualist, so I suspect that there is more to thinking than the material.



I agree, I don't think science can explain qualia, and people like David Chalmers suggest that materialism, as we understand it, may never be able to.

Well, seer, here is one thing I actually do assume (without a doubt!). I assume we would agree a lot more if we were to discuss dualism.

[seer]

Well, seer, here is one thing I actually do assume (without a doubt!). I assume we would agree a lot more if we were to discuss dualism.

Perhaps, but there are a number of theories concerning dualism - which one do you hold?

[shunyadragon]

Well I am an emergent dualist, so I suspect that there is more to thinking than the material.

Suspecting that there is more is assertion without evidence. Where is the objective evidence?

I agree, I don't think science can explain qualia, and people like David Chalmers suggest that materialism, as we understand it, may never be able to.

Chalmers suggests an 'argument from ignorance,' which I do not agree with. Science only needs to understand the only known source of qualia is the natural human brain. There is no objective evidence for any other 'outside' source for qualia.

Can you provide any objective verifiable evidence that there is any other source for the mind, consciousness, or qualia than the human brain? I know David Chalmers cannot.

[seer]

Suspecting that there is more is assertion without evidence. Where is the objective evidence?

What is the objective evidence that you are rational?

Chalmers suggests an 'argument from ignorance,' which I do not agree with. Science only needs to understand the only known source of qualia is the natural human brain. There is no objective evidence for any other 'outside' source for qualia.

Can you provide any objective verifiable evidence that there is any other source for the mind, consciousness, or qualia than the human brain? I know David Chalmers cannot.

Clueless, emergent dualism would say that mind/thoughts/feeling are emergent from the physical brain. And science can not explain consciousness as Sam Harris makes clear. Get back to me when they do...

[shunyadragon]

What is the objective evidence that you are rational?

Clueless, emergent dualism would say that mind/thoughts/feeling are emergent from the physical brain. And science cannot explain consciousness as Sam Harris makes clear. Get back to me when they do...

'Arguing from ignorance' is not coherent argument.

What 'objective verifiable evidence' can you provide that there is any 'other' possible source for the mind, consciousness, rational thought, or any other attribute of our thoughts than the human brain?

[JimL]

What is the objective evidence that you are rational?




Clueless, emergent dualism would say that mind/thoughts/feeling are emergent from the physical brain. And science can not explain consciousness as Sam Harris makes clear. Get back to me when they do...

Free will, should we possess it, would be an emergent property, but it would not be a thing in itself apart from the physical, it would be a property of its source. If thats what you mean by emergent dualism, then its not really dualism, consciousness would just be an emergent property of its material source, not a spirit or a ghost in the machine, so to speak.

[seer]

What 'objective verifiable evidence' can you provide that there is any 'other' possible source for the mind, consciousness, rational thought, or any other attribute of our thoughts than the human brain?

What are you talking about Shuny your own religion teaches that we have a rational immaterial mind, that is the seat of consciousness and rationality. It teaches substance dualism.

[seer]

Free will, should we possess it, would be an emergent property, but it would not be a thing in itself apart from the physical, it would be a property of its source. If thats what you mean by emergent dualism, then its not really dualism, consciousness would just be an emergent property of its material source, not a spirit or a ghost in the machine, so to speak.

Emergent dualism could be a strictly material effect or result, but not necessarily.