Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

I am pointing to logical contradictions. But you want to ignore them. I have pointed to the fact that you cannot even tell what your view is without contradicting yourself and without taking reality for granted though you claim it could be doubted.

Charles look, can you make a deductive case demonstrating that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. Yes or no?

Look at your last two sentences. You are so certain when stating that certainty does not exist. What do you build that certainty on if everything is as shaky as you claim? Starting to get the point?

Then actually prove me wrong - make a deductive case demonstrating that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You have asked me question after question, it is time for you to put up Charles or admit that we are all in the same boat.

[seer]

Take the whole part: "You cannot both claim it is a possibility that everything that goes on in your brain might be an illusion and at the same time claim certain things to be facts about human reality when you just claimed that all you know about it could be an illusion. I am not quite sure you understand the implications of what you are saying. It seems you want to open the "sceptical" door a little in order to let faith in. I am just not too sure you understand what follows in terms of contradictory logic."

Nonsense Charles, if you understood Descartes' argument, which I referenced early, you would know that he was not speaking about everything. But what can be known through sense experience. Logic, math, our own existence (Cogito ergo sum) can be known. I thought you understood the distinction.

Even if you allow for logic to be universal your statements about what goes for "all" of us still implies we exist. And so does all your statements about facts.

No. You can not logically know that I exist, you can know that you exist.

[Tassman]

No Charles, God is either omniscient, or He is not. If He is then he can not be deceived, if He isn't deception is logically possible.

But you keep saying "my logic" or my "line of reasoning." But it is not my logic, it is where actual logic will naturally lead. And you have only confirmed this by not offering a deductive justification for your position. I suspect you knew that there was no defense early on, that is why you keep focusing on consequences - which is not an actual argument, just reflecting your personal distaste.

do know that the material world, with its natural laws and constants, does exist. And this is the obvious basis for advancing and exploring hypotheses re our origins.

BTW: your post was amened by mistake. It was intended for Charles.

[Charles]

Nonsense Charles, if you understood Descartes' argument, which I referenced early, you would know that he was not speaking about everything. But what can be known through sense experience. Logic, math, our own existence (Cogito ergo sum) can be known. I thought you understood the distinction.



No. You can not logically know that I exist, you can know that you exist.

I have no problem understanding Descartes whom by the way you did not refer to in the statement i commented on . You did so at a later point. You, however, seem to have a problem understanding the implications of what you are saying. You are holding on to an idea that logically implies the possibility of solipsism. Yet you keep arguing as if that is not the case without giving any reason as to why it is not the case. You keep talking about that you believe reality exists. Why do you believe it? For a philosophical reason? Can it be justified or is it just your personal preference?

I have tried to make it very clear to you that you cannot make statements about facts that goes for all of us without assuming that we exist and without holding that the reality exists. I mean if you are in a solipsist reality, you cannot even start to claim that certain facts are facts for me. Because you do not know wheter I exist. It should be quite easy to get that. I have made you aware of this many times now. Descartes got that point long ago.

[Charles]

Then actually prove me wrong - make a deductive case demonstrating that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You have asked me question after question, it is time for you to put up Charles or admit that we are all in the same boat.

I don't need to do that in order to show how weak the foundation of those two sentences was. Even if I could not "make a deductive statement" (asking for "a" statement in this context is to miss the complexity by the way) you would still have made a statement that was not well founded at all. It is not as if that problem goes away dependent on whatever statement I can make or not. That is to miss out on the logical implications.

[Tassman]

Charles look, can you make a deductive case demonstrating that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. Yes or no?

are

Then actually prove me wrong - make a deductive case demonstrating that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You have asked me question after question, it is time for you to put up Charles or admit that we are all in the same boat.

See above.

[seer]

I have no problem understanding Descartes whom by the way you did not refer to in the statement i commented on . You did so at a later point. You, however, seem to have a problem understanding the implications of what you are saying. You are holding on to an idea that logically implies the possibility of solipsism. Yet you keep arguing as if that is not the case without giving any reason as to why it is not the case. You keep talking about that you believe reality exists. Why do you believe it? For a philosophical reason? Can it be justified or is it just your personal preference?

I have tried to make it very clear to you that you cannot make statements about facts that goes for all of us without assuming that we exist and without holding that the reality exists. I mean if you are in a solipsist reality, you cannot even start to claim that certain facts are facts for me. Because you do not know wheter I exist. It should be quite easy to get that. I have made you aware of this many times now. Descartes got that point long ago.

Charles I have answered your questions time and time again, I think it is about time that you make your argument.

1. Can you make a deductive case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality? Yes or no?.

2. Can you make an empirical case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality, without begging the question. Yes or no?

And if you can't do you admit that you have no logical justification for your belief in reality? BTW - I agree that we all assume that reality exists, but that is not logical proof.

[seer]

Nobody can make a deductive case that proves our minds correspond to reality.

You finally said something correct...

[Charles]

Charles I have answered your questions time and time again, I think it is about time that you make your argument.

1. Can you make a deductive case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality? Yes or no?.

2. Can you make an empirical case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality, without begging the question. Yes or no?

And if you can't do you admit that you have no logical justification for your belief in reality? BTW - I agree that we all assume that reality exists, but that is not logical proof.

I asked a number of questions you left unanswered. You could start by admitting you have got no answer. Or you could answer.

[Charles]

Charles I have answered your questions time and time again, I think it is about time that you make your argument.

1. Can you make a deductive case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality? Yes or no?.

2. Can you make an empirical case that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality, without begging the question. Yes or no?

And if you can't do you admit that you have no logical justification for your belief in reality? BTW - I agree that we all assume that reality exists, but that is not logical proof.

I will present my own view in another thread at a later point.

[seer]

I asked a number of questions you left unanswered. You could start by admitting you have got no answer. Or you could answer.

No Charles, you only keep bringing up objection after objection - that could go on forever. It is not about possible consequences it is about the fact that no logical case can be made to refute the problem. I have been asking for positive argument from you for a while now - nothing. I think you know by now you can't answer the two questioned I posed. That is why you finally said we have to ASSUME reality, I agree completely, and that is what I have been saying. But assumption is not proof, it certainly is not logical justification. Like I said we all start with unprovable assumptions. I'm glad we agree.

[seer]

I asked a number of questions you left unanswered. You could start by admitting you have got no answer. Or you could answer.

No Charles, I have answered a number of your questions - you have not answered this ONE of mine. That as far as I'm concerned is dishonest.

I will present my own view in another thread at a later point.

I don't want your view - I want yo to answer the question. Can you make a deductive argument that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without begging the question.

[Charles]

No Charles, I have answered a number of your questions - you have not answered this ONE of mine. That as far as I'm concerned is dishonest.



I don't want your view - I want yo to answer the question. Can you make a deductive argument that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without begging the question.

I think that question is based partly at least on a misunderstanding. I will make clear why when I get the time.

[seer]

I think that question is based partly at least on a misunderstanding. I will make clear why when I get the time.

And try to keep it under 5,000 words...

[Tassman]

You finally said something correct...

So you agree that you