Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
B Theory Of Time...
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut that is all premised, again, on the assumption that your perceptions accurately correspond to an objective reality.
You cannot step outside of your perceptual/empirical experience to confirm or disconfirm its validity.
Such an assumption of an objective reality corresponding to your perceptual experience is an assumption that results from a very long, complex causal/inferential chain. It can never be nearly as certain of a datum as that I am conscious or that I am a certain kind of conscious being.
You're confusing the certainty or reliability of some given conscious experience or other with the fact that there are conscious experiences at all. I am talking about the latter. The former are always uncertain. The latter are not.
And that's the confusion I just referred to above. If I were a brain in a vat or in a sim world, I'd have to live AS IF it were real, in a way corresponding to a methodological, not a metaphysical, commitment to its 'reality.'
You're confusing the two meanings. It is an 'objective' fact, ie it is a fact that doesn't depend for its truth on the stance, attitude or opinion of any observer, that the world contains 'subjective' points of view.Who or what is being deceived and how is that illusion being created? That would be like saying that the illusion of another kind of dimension were possible, that the people of "Flatland" could be 'deceived' that there was a 3-D world.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostEmpirical testing can confirm objective reality to a very large degree. There is no other way to confirm objective reality than by empirical testing.
But we CAN recognize in others that they are delusional when their perceptual experiences do NOT conform to objective reality.
The datum that you are "conscious" or "a certain kind of conscious being" is purely subjective and not necessarily accurate according to the accumulated evidence of objective reality.
A man who is convinced that he was Jesus or Napoleon may well always be certain but hed be wrong. Whereas "the theory of special relativity, as well as all scientific theories" can be multiply tested and form the basis of technological advances.
And how, exactly, would you live corresponding to a metaphysical commitment to reality in ANY world including one subject to the B-Theory of time?
We are well aware that the world contains 'subjective' points of view and we are equally aware that very often they can be wrong.
If the people of Flatland erroneously believed that their 2-dimensional universe was actually a 3-dimensional universe then they too would be subject an illusion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostOnce again, there is no way to assess the objective reality of empirical data, if by objective is meant the correspondence of that data to a reality independent of the sense data.We cannot step outside of our sense data to check its 'objectivity.' We can only check its internal coherence and then assume, based on inference to the best explanation, a sense-independent world causing the data.
the fact that I am conscious does not depend on any attitude, feeling, etc of any subject. It is the most certain possible datum that I can have. If "I" were to be wrong about it, then there would be no "I" there to be wrong. How can I possibly be mistaken about it when the conditions of 'wrongness' assume it? It's not something I infer causally, as with empirical inferences, but a datum given directly.I'm not sure what you mean by "live corresponding to a metaphysical commitment." We "live corresponding to a methodological commitment," although some of us also profess a metaphysical commitment, vis a vis metaphysical naturalism.
The contents of my subjective states can be wrong, but the fact that I am conscious cannot be.My point is that there has to be a subject of an illusion, a mechanism, and an underlying reality, all three of which satisfactorily explain the existence and generation of the 'illusion.' Just restricting ourselves to the first term, if "I" am the subject of the illusion, then the question becomes "What am I"? How can I be defined in such a way as to still retain my identity as "me"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThere is no way to assess the reality of subjective independent sense data. Whereas empirical data can be successfully acted upon as if it was objectively real - as indicated by ever growing body of scientific knowledge and technology.
Practical judgement in perceiving and understanding others is shared by most people. Those that do not conform to what the majority perceive can reasonably be assumed to be delusional.
A mans belief that he is Napoleon is based upon subjective datum given directly to him. He cant believe he can possibly be mistaken about it. Similarly, those refuting the well attested B-Theory of time et al.
You raised the term, not I. So, what corresponding methodological commitment do YOU live by if not metaphysical naturalism?
The contents of your subjective states are merely who and what you believe yourself to be.
So, how will you answer the question What am I", if the underlying reality is the B-Theory of time - as seems more likely than not according to physicists and many philosophers?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe judgement that "I am conscious" cannot possibly be disproven under any scenario, unlike any empirical judgement. I don't act on it "as if" it was objectively real. It's objective reality CONSTITUTES my knowledge that I am conscious.The "growing body of scientific knowledge and technology" begs the question,of course, because that body is still part of the assumed reality under discussion.
This begs the question again for the same reason as just mentioned.
I'm talking about objective criteria for belief. The delusional man may subjectively believe that the datum is given directly to him, just as he may believe that there are 9 days in a week. What I'm referring to are objective criteria for believing in subjectivity itself, not in the particular contents of some subjective state or other.Right. I'm talking about the fact that you are conscious at all, which is an objectively real fact about you, even if it can only be accessed directly by you.If "I" am the kind of being who is temporally constituted in a certain way, then I'm not sure that I could know that fact.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIf the B Theory of time is correct, why would we have access (by memory) to past events but not to future events? And if our experience of the passing of time is an illusion how or why does that illusion arise in the first place?
B-theorists explain the illusion of passage the same way science has dispelled past illusions: rotation of sun around the earth, the insubstantiality of material substance as implied by quantum physics, etc. They just think the weight of the theory explains the illusion.
Don't get me wrong. I disagree with all of this. But that's typically what they say.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostWe have memorial access because of the asymmetry of causation, and we don't have access to future events because of the properties our temporal parts have statically to subsequent parts, the parts that are tenselessly after any other part of your space-time worm. My 'present' temporal part wouldn't have the property of being able to access future events. I wouldn't have that property because that property's truth-maker statically grounds the accessibility property in later temporal parts relative to past temporal parts due to the asymmetry of causality.
B-theorists explain the illusion of passage the same way science has dispelled past illusions: rotation of sun around the earth, the insubstantiality of material substance as implied by quantum physics, etc. They just think the weight of the theory explains the illusion.
Don't get me wrong. I disagree with all of this. But that's typically what they say.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment