AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

I have defined knowledge as: "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it."-ROMANSH (under AGNOSTICS INTERNATIONAL): Whether I agree with your definition or not is sort of irrelevant. So long as I understand how you are using the word is more important.
Having said that, the knowledge that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected to sit at God's right hand would be different in the southern states of the USA than in say in taoist parts of China.-Your idea of what constitutes knowledge is clearly different from mine, which is why I need to know what YOU mean by "knowledge". Definitions are essential if we are to avoid going off at tangents. There is no general consensus on whether Jesus died for our sins, and that is why it comes under the category of belief (which I have defined as "information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.") Beliefs can differ as much as you like ... knowledge remains fixed unless or until the general consensus changes (e.g. people once "knew" that the sun went round the Earth).
 
Dhw: We can play philosophical games till kingdom come. What evidence do you have that I am an illusion? (And is it worth your looking for it?!)-ROMANSH: Tonnes. If you look at our capabilities of perception - they are not what they seem. Free will alone is one of the most nonsensical aspects of our perception.-You asked me how I could prove that other people exist so that you could know it (which again makes a definition of "know" essential). I explained that on a common sense level, the evidence came through perception, communication and experience, even allowing for the fact that "my views of them [other people] are subjective". Subjective perception does not mean that what we perceive does not exist! What evidence do you have that your family and friends are an illusion (forget about me)? "Tonnes" is hardly an answer, and it is no answer to say that our capabilities of perception are not what they seem. We are talking only of existence, not of interpretation. Even if free will is an illusion, as you believe, how does that prove that other people are an illusion?-If you would like to continue this discussion, and also respond to David, please do so on this new thread, as the subject has changed!

3858 views

Your idea of what constitutes knowledge is clearly different from mine, which is why I need to know what YOU mean by "knowledge". 
I don't mean anything by knowledge dhw, I was just interpreting my understanding of the definition you agreed upon,
> Definitions are essential if we are to avoid going off at tangents. There is no general consensus on whether Jesus died for our sins, and that is why it comes under the category of belief.-Again in the Bible belt I would argue there is general agreement. This was my point.
> (which I have defined as "information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.") Beliefs can differ as much as you like ... knowledge remains fixed unless or until the general consensus changes (e.g. people once "knew" that the sun went round the Earth).
While I agree the earth spinning is a better model than the sun going around the sun, members of the Flat Earth Society would disagree there is general concensus.-> You asked me how I could prove that other people exist so that you could know it (which again makes a definition of "know" essential). I explained that on a common sense level, the evidence came through perception, communication and experience, even allowing for the fact that "my views of them [other people] are subjective". 
I don't disagree with you here. But ultimately knowledge comes from a common belief. So knowledge is just a belief with some bells and whistles.
> Subjective perception does not mean that what we perceive does not exist! What evidence do you have that your family and friends are an illusion (forget about me)? "Tonnes" is hardly an answer, and it is no answer to say that our capabilities of perception are not what they seem. We are talking only of existence, not of interpretation. Even if free will is an illusion, as you believe, how does that prove that other people are an illusion?
I don't recall saying people don't exist. I'm not even skeptical on the subject. I am just saying they are illusions (not as they seem) as opposed to delusions (they don't exist). -I don't deal in proof dhw. I have none. Just evidence.
The evidence (for me) points to free will being an illusion or a total non sequitur.
rom

3871 views

I don't deal in proof dhw. I have none. Just evidence.
> The evidence (for me) points to free will being an illusion or a total non sequitur.
> rom-I'd like a little expansion: what is the evidence for you that free will is an illusion? Not to disagree with you,but to learn your view. Thanks

3817 views

We will start with the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Is there a part of our body that is not described by these laws? If someone has any evidence that there is a part of our body that is independent of these concepts, they will have my rapt attention. Similarly for souls (should they exist) are these supposed souls not described by our physical processes? And if not how do they interact with the material world.-the whole concept of free will is a nonsense from a deterministic point of view. We can then point to indeterministic processes, again this is strange. Is there a self that guides the indeterminism? We end up in an infinite regress again.-Sure we can agree on definitions and define things into (or out of) existence. but end of the day free will as dyscussed for millenia for the last two millenia is simply a nonsense.-That does not mean I don't experience a sense of free will. Just because I don't sense the chemistry and physics underlying my choices does not mean they are not the cause of the choices.

3808 views


> That does not mean I don't experience a sense of free will. Just because I don't sense the chemistry and physics underlying my choices does not mean they are not the cause of the choices.-My impression of free will is apparently not your impression. Please give me your definition. I just willed myself to write this reply. How do you define my action? I appreciate your discussion.-You see, I know that meditation and prayer can actually physically alter the size and function of the brain. Research has shown this. Therefore I have a feedback to the brain, and I agree, the brain I cannot sense. I seem to control my consciousness. Can you explain why I don't, or you theorize that I don't. If I sound confused about your thoughts, I am. I want to pick your brain.

3853 views

My impression of free will is apparently not your impression. Please give me your definition. I just willed myself to write this reply. How do you define my action? I appreciate your discussion.
my definition remains constant:
>>The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.
I do understand it is pretty all inclusive. -No one is doubting that we make choices or have wills. That it would be somehow independent of inputs and of its own brain substrate seems a little far fetched to me.-Ask yourself when you willed yourself from what were "you" and your will free?
 
> You see, I know that meditation and prayer can actually physically alter the size and function of the brain. Research has shown this. Therefore I have a feedback to the brain, and I agree, the brain I cannot sense. I seem to control my consciousness. Can you explain why I don't, or you theorize that I don't. If I sound confused about your thoughts, I am. I want to pick your brain.-Yes meditation does change brain structure, as does religion and I would guess playing squash, drinking alcohol. Our experiences change our brain structure. So what? Yes there are feedback mechanisms. But then so do the earth weather patterns. -You say you seem to control your brain. Is it not really the other way round?

3796 views


> You say you seem to control your brain. Is it not really the other way round?-Well, that depends upon the source of counsciousness. I know, as well as everyone else, that we need a functional brain to support consciousness. I do not think that I am at the mercy of every astrocyte, glial cell or neuron in the brain. The autonomic system is an area not under discussion. I know how that runs things. The basis of mu questioning is consciousness. I consider it an emergent 'whatever'. I think it functions using the electromagnetic fields and the quantum effects, but I don't know that it tells me what to do. So I tell it what's on my 'mind'. As I write I am telling my fingers what to do. I'm not a great typist,and at my age my fingers are a little stiff at times, so I can't be very automatic about it. But there is not a voice in my head telling me what to do. I am telling myself the next step. I recognize that I am not free of the underlying blood flow, the synapses firing, the electro-chemical reactions. They are finite and fixed in the way they work, but that doesn't allow them to control me. -I don't see my brain bossing me around, telling me what to think. I am conditioned by my education, my background, my family input when I was younger, my present wife's delightful influence, etc. I am molded by all of that, but I am very aware of how my personality was shaped, what shaping I did. -I certainly don't buy all the Darwinistic crap that much of the animal instincts have come through to me as a human descendent and I am controlled by them. You probably didn't see our earlier discussions about M.J. Adler and 'The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes' his seminal book from the 1960's. We are different in kind, not degree. I'm with him. I know Matt isn't.-Thoughts? I do appreciate your responses.

3810 views

Well, that depends upon the source of counsciousness. I know, as well as everyone else, that we need a functional brain to support consciousness. I do not think that I am at the mercy of every astrocyte, glial cell or neuron in the brain. 
Here you have the advantage over me David. I'm sure some of the brain parts are more important (have a greater influence) in our brain decision making and consciousness. Yes I can loose a few "brain cells" and still function quite nicely. Let's thank evolutionary redundancy. -But as a doctor you well recognize our brain function (consciousness if you like) is a product of chemistry and can be affected by whole range of chemicals.-Or do you dispute this?-Just as an aside, fMRIs, how do they work? I presume they detect the magnetic resonance of hydrogen atoms (nuclei) and can distinguish the difference between oxygenated and deoxygenated porphorin rings. For some reason Wiki does not give a clear explanation.-> The autonomic system is an area not under discussion. I know how that runs things. The basis of mu questioning is consciousness. I consider it an emergent 'whatever'.
Fair enough, 'emergence' is a non explanation for me anyway.-> I think it functions using the electromagnetic fields and the quantum effects, but I don't know that it tells me what to do. So I tell it what's on my 'mind'
Are you controlling your quantum fields? Certainly not consciously. Ditto for electromagnetic fields.-> As I write I am telling my fingers what to do. I'm not a great typist,and at my age my fingers are a little stiff at times, so I can't be very automatic about it. But there is not a voice in my head telling me what to do. I am telling myself the next step. I recognize that I am not free of the underlying blood flow, the synapses firing, the electro-chemical reactions. They are finite and fixed in the way they work, but that doesn't allow them to control me. -Yes it does seem that way. As we write we seem to be in charge. So there is a part of you manipulating the chemistry that is described and is encompassed by the second law? As a student I found it hard to understand the second law, and yet we can manipulate it unconsciously (or is it consciously)?
 
> I don't see my brain bossing me around, telling me what to think. I am conditioned by my education, my background, my family input when I was younger, my present wife's delightful influence, etc. I am molded by all of that, but I am very aware of how my personality was shaped, what shaping I did. -So what do you mean by you? It is ultimately a very serious question for both the panentheist and those of us who have pantheistic urges. I agree with the molding. But it's not just our wives and what we perceive as past environments. It is also our genetics and the very nature of chemistry and physics.-> I certainly don't buy all the Darwinistic crap that much of the animal instincts have come through to me as a human descendent and I am controlled by them. You probably didn't see our earlier discussions about M.J. Adler and 'The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes' his seminal book from the 1960's. We are different in kind, not degree. I'm with him. I know Matt isn't.-I don't think Darwin actually thought that. I'm a quarter of the way through Origin ... I let you know.-> Thoughts? I do appreciate your responses.-I don't know if you have read much on the free will debate. Traditionally there have been three pugilists. Libertarians, who deny determinism (cause and effect?), compatibilists who are at home with both determinism and free will. (Hard)Determinists who can't see how we have cause and effect, and free will. And more recently (hard) indeterminists who think a lack of cause and effect (ie quantum phenomena) also deny the possibility of free will.

3821 views


> But as a doctor you well recognize our brain function (consciousness if you like) is a product of chemistry and can be affected by whole range of chemicals.
> 
> Or do you dispute this?-No dispute, but the chemicals that enter my brain that will change its functin are at my choice: Surgical anesthesia, cocaine, alcohol. My regular body chemistry is not programmed to control me.
> 
> Just as an aside, fMRIs, how do they work? I presume they detect the magnetic resonance of hydrogen atoms (nuclei) and can distinguish the difference between oxygenated and deoxygenated porphorin rings. For some reason Wiki does not give a clear explanation.-As you describe, but the metabolic light-up is based on increased blood flow to the area to handle increased metabolism in the area, not neuron activity. 100 billion neurons with several trillion connections (synapses)and we really can't follow the raging electricity. For eexample, it appears that memory is partially holographic and covers large areas of the brain.
> 
> > The autonomic system is an area not under discussion. I know how that runs things. The basis of mu questioning is consciousness. I consider it an emergent 'whatever'.
> Fair enough, 'emergence' is a non explanation for me anyway.-Of course emergence is a non-answer. It is the best term we have.
> 
>> Are you controlling your quantum fields? Certainly not consciously. Ditto for electromagnetic fields.-At the particle level or at the gauss lines they are on their own. But per quantum math, their average is steady and doesn't affect 'me'. Don't let uncertainty upset you. Our reality runs pretty well without surprises. It is when we delve into the quantum level to see what's going on that we discover all the counter-intuitive stuff. My God hides behind all that barrier, and probably giggles a little at our current confusion.
> 
> Yes it does seem that way. As we write we seem to be in charge. So there is a part of you manipulating the chemistry that is described and is encompassed by the second law? As a student I found it hard to understand the second law, and yet we can manipulate it unconsciously (or is it consciously)?-Don't let the second law confuse you. Life overcomes entropy. We have an input of energy from the sun which is following the Second Law. We don't have to. we can organize and stay organized because of that energy input, which e put to good use.
> 
> So what do you mean by you? It is ultimately a very serious question for both the panentheist and those of us who have pantheistic urges. I agree with the molding. But it's not just our wives and what we perceive as past environments. It is also our genetics and the very nature of chemistry and physics.-My genetics come to me fixed in place. I asssume I do a little epigenetic molding, especially my very plastic brain in younger years, but that molding is putting 'me' in place for the rest of my life. The chemistry and physics of my brain gets to a fixed place and I am 'me'. Example: I grew up in a standard liberal Jewish New York family. Loved New York and FDR. I learned better. I am now a Reagan Republican, a conservatve Texan thru and thru, and there is an S&W by my bed. I'm not paranoid. I am free of those original constraints. New York is good to visit for theater. 
> 
> > I certainly don't buy all the Darwinistic crap that much of the animal instincts have come through to me as a human descendent and I am controlled by them. -> I don't think Darwin actually thought that. I'm a quarter of the way through Origin ... I let you know.-Darwin thought white folks were superior to all the others. We will leave the eugenics movement out of our discussion.-> 
> I don't know if you have read much on the free will debate. Traditionally there have been three pugilists. Libertarians, who deny determinism (cause and effect?), compatibilists who are at home with both determinism and free will. (Hard)Determinists who can't see how we have cause and effect, and free will. And more recently (hard) indeterminists who think a lack of cause and effect (ie quantum phenomena) also deny the possibility of free will.-I haven't, but probably need to. I'm a Liberarian from your definitions.

3817 views

My regular body chemistry is not programmed to control me.
What about your irregular body chemistry. It would appear you believe in a ghost in the machine?-> As you describe, but the metabolic light-up is based on increased blood flow to the area to handle increased metabolism in the area, not neuron activity. 100 billion neurons with several trillion connections (synapses)and we really can't follow the raging electricity.-Again an aside - is the oxygenated porphorin response a proxy for blood flow? Or is there some sort of doppler effect that is being measured.-> Of course emergence is a non-answer. It is the best term we have.
To me emergence is sort of synomynous with I don't know, it's too complicated, I don't care I have to give an explanation.-> At the particle level or at the gauss lines they are on their own. But per quantum math, their average is steady and doesn't affect 'me'. Don't let uncertainty upset you. 
It does not upset me at all. So you are saying this kind of indeterminism is irrelevant to your argument. Fair enough.-> Our reality runs pretty well without surprises. It is when we delve into the quantum level to see what's going on that we discover all the counter-intuitive stuff. My God hides behind all that barrier, and probably giggles a little at our current confusion.
I doubt it, but that is OK
 
> Don't let the second law confuse you. Life overcomes entropy. We have an input of energy from the sun which is following the Second Law. We don't have to. we can organize and stay organized because of that energy input, which e put to good use.
Actually there is nothing to overcome. Without entropy there would be no life no death.-But within the second law delta G in particular we law of mass action, the rate laws all nicely built in. So it is nice to know that you control the underlying chemistry, you can manipulate where equilibrium is and the rates that you approach that equilibrium. Interesting.-
> My genetics come to me fixed in place. I asssume I do a little epigenetic molding, especially my very plastic brain in younger years, but that molding is putting 'me' in place for the rest of my life. The chemistry and physics of my brain gets to a fixed place and I am 'me'. Example: I grew up in a standard liberal Jewish New York family. Loved New York and FDR. I learned better. I am now a Reagan Republican, a conservatve Texan thru and thru, and there is an S&W by my bed. I'm not paranoid. I am free of those original constraints. New York is good to visit for theater.-Well, if I lived in Texas I too might want a S&W next my bed to protect me from all the idoiots like me who also own guns.-But seriously, I sincerely hope your S&W is locked away in a secure gun cabinet next to your bed, and not in your bedside draw.
 
> Darwin thought white folks were superior to all the others. We will leave the eugenics movement out of our discussion.
Is this all of the Darwinian crap? I agree Darwin too was a product of his time. Much as I am a product of mine. Growing up in England I do find the need for a gun at my bedside similar thinking one race is better than another.-> I haven't, but probably need to. I'm a Liberarian from your definitions.-Have fun

3771 views

Again an aside - is the oxygenated porphorin response a proxy for blood flow? Or is there some sort of doppler effect that is being measured.-The area that lights up is measuring blood flow as a proxy for that area's metabolism. Doppler is for untrasound measurementds of blood flow.-> Actually there is nothing to overcome. Without entropy there would be no life no death.-Not true. The body is programmed to have entropy, to die, as are individual cells (aproptosis).Theoretically if we could screw up programmed death we could live forever, as some scientists are researching.
> 
> But within the second law delta G in particular we law of mass action, the rate laws all nicely built in. So it is nice to know that you control the underlying chemistry, you can manipulate where equilibrium is and the rates that you approach that equilibrium. Interesting.-Yes. As long as we get energy input and not programmed to die, we won't.
> 
> But seriously, I sincerely hope your S&W is locked away in a secure gun cabinet next to your bed, and not in your bedside draw.-Mine is in the drawer. The dog won't use it, and my wife knows how. We live in a gated subdivision.->> Is this all of the Darwinian crap? -no, I was refering to all the crap produced by Darwinists about evolutionary psychology. I think Robert Wright has produced some reasonable stuff about societal rules developed by the hunter-gatherers. Read Alfred Russel Wallace because he lived with the natives, and he watched the animals. He had a much clearer view than Darwin who observed from a distance.

3757 views

David,
> Don't let the second law confuse you. Life overcomes entropy. We have an input of energy from the sun which is following the Second Law. We don't have to. we can organize and stay organized because of that energy input, which e put to good use.
> > -Call it nitpicking (I don't mean it as such) but the second law... no... I'm very sorry, Life is entirely subject to the second law as everything else is. Minimally we need to consume more energy than we use: End of story. We lose energy as heat. This is no different for the living than the nonliving. That book I'm reading from Giorbran is presenting a different look at order than I've ever seen: There is NO "chaos" as in "disorder" in our universe. There is only the transformation from grouping order to symmetric order. (Alpha and Omega states.) The second law describes *how* grouping order transforms into symmetric order. He still hasn't gotten to timelessness yet, but I've had alot on my plate...-> > So what do you mean by you? It is ultimately a very serious question for both the panentheist and those of us who have pantheistic urges. I agree with the molding. But it's not just our wives and what we perceive as past environments. It is also our genetics and the very nature of chemistry and physics.
> 
> My genetics come to me fixed in place. I asssume I do a little epigenetic molding, especially my very plastic brain in younger years, but that molding is putting 'me' in place for the rest of my life. The chemistry and physics of my brain gets to a fixed place and I am 'me'. Example: I grew up in a standard liberal Jewish New York family. Loved New York and FDR. I learned better. I am now a Reagan Republican, a conservatve Texan thru and thru, and there is an S&W by my bed. I'm not paranoid. I am free of those original constraints. New York is good to visit for theater. 
> > 
> > > I certainly don't buy all the Darwinistic crap that much of the animal instincts have come through to me as a human descendent and I am controlled by them. 
> 
> > I don't think Darwin actually thought that. I'm a quarter of the way through Origin ... I let you know.
> 
> Darwin thought white folks were superior to all the others. We will leave the eugenics movement out of our discussion.
> -Well, to be truthful, this wasn't really all that different than how most Britons who grew up during the empire. But Eugenics? That was an American innovation. -> > 
> > I don't know if you have read much on the free will debate. Traditionally there have been three pugilists. Libertarians, who deny determinism (cause and effect?), compatibilists who are at home with both determinism and free will. (Hard)Determinists who can't see how we have cause and effect, and free will. And more recently (hard) indeterminists who think a lack of cause and effect (ie quantum phenomena) also deny the possibility of free will.
> 
> I haven't, but probably need to. I'm a Liberarian from your definitions.-I'm a compatibilist: if you check out my recent response to dhw & Romansh, you'll see why.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3816 views

David,
> > Don't let the second law confuse you. Life overcomes entropy. We have an input of energy from the sun which is following the Second Law. We don't have to. we can organize and stay organized because of that energy input, which e put to good use.
> > > 
> 
> Call it nitpicking (I don't mean it as such) but the second law... no... I'm very sorry, Life is entirely subject to the second law as everything else is. -Beg to disagree. Yes, the second law works with us, but as long as we absorb enough energy we will not disorganize. The body has an aging program purposely to get rid of us so others can move in.

3768 views

David,
> > > Don't let the second law confuse you. Life overcomes entropy. We have an input of energy from the sun which is following the Second Law. We don't have to. we can organize and stay organized because of that energy input, which e put to good use.
> > > > 
> > 
> > Call it nitpicking (I don't mean it as such) but the second law... no... I'm very sorry, Life is entirely subject to the second law as everything else is. 
> 
> Beg to disagree. Yes, the second law works with us, but as long as we absorb enough energy we will not disorganize. The body has an aging program purposely to get rid of us so others can move in.-That is entirely my point. -Without a constant influx of energy, it isn't possible for us to maintain our state. (Depending how you define state.) -The second law is *why* we need to always consume more energy. We sort of had this discussion a few months ago when I talked directly about the 2nd law. -If the second law didn't work to erode some of our energy off as heat, we could survive by only eating exactly what we need. But we need to eat more to offset the amount of energy we burn as heat: Our order can only be maintained by decreasing order someplace else, at a rate higher than what we actually use. Remember trophic levels: Trophic levels are determined by the 2nd law. The second law puts hard limits on what is and isn't possible in terms of food webs. It also describes why apex predators are less populous (in a precise mathematical relationship) than prey animals. -This isn't "working with" the 2nd law, it's working "within" the 2nd law.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3766 views

That is entirely my point. 
> 
> Without a constant influx of energy, it isn't possible for us to maintain our state. (Depending how you define state.) 
> 
> The second law is *why* we need to always consume more energy. We sort of had this discussion a few months ago when I talked directly about the 2nd law. 
 
> 
> This isn't "working with" the 2nd law, it's working "within" the 2nd law.-We are talking past each other. We are both saying the same things.

3767 views

ROMANSH (21 Feb at 18.25): I have no trouble believing other people exist. [..] Just tell me how I can prove it and therefore know it.
ROMANSH (25 Feb. at 03.54): I don't recall saying people don't exist. [...] I am just saying they are illusions (not as they seem) as opposed to delusions (they don't exist).-You are right that you didn't say they don't exist. You asked me how to prove and therefore know that they do exist, and I am trying to rise to your challenge! The fact that they are not as they seem is a different problem altogether.-Recap: I pointed out that 1) if by "know" you mean cast-iron certainty, it's not possible, so we need to define "know". 2) On a common sense level (as opposed to what you called "solipsism gone mad"), perception, communication and experience provide the evidence we have that other people exist. I asked you for evidence that they don't. You haven't come up with any. Next I offered you definitions distinguishing between knowledge and belief, with knowledge = "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it", and I pointed out that there is no general consensus on your example (Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected etc."), which therefore = belief.-ROMANSH: Again in the Bible belt I would argue there is general agreement. This was my point. [...] While I agree the earth spinning is a better model than the sun going around the sun [you meant Earth], members of the Flat Earth Society would disagree there is general concensus.-The above definition was thrashed out precisely to deal with such objections. 1) As regards Jesus, there is no general consensus AMONG THOSE WHO ARE AWARE of the claims made for him. The Bible belt is a small section of those who are aware, and billions of people would disagree that he was resurrected etc. There is therefore no general consensus. 2) As regards the Flat Earth Society (I thought they believed the Earth was flat!) there will never be unanimity on any subject, which is why we included the word "general", which allows for the odd (in both senses) exception.
 
ROMANSH: But ultimately knowledge comes from a common belief. So knowledge is just a belief with some bells and whistles.-This discussion alone confirms the need to distinguish between absolute (objective) truth, knowledge and belief. I would hope that you can see a difference between statements like "God is good" or "Natural selection explains the whole of life" (pure belief ... no general consensus) and "The Earth goes round the sun", or "2 + 2 = 4", or "There is Life on Earth". "Belief with some bells and whistles" doesn't seem to me to make the difference very clear, but on what I like to call the "philosophical" level as opposed to the "common sense" level, you are right. That's why we have to establish an epistemological hierarchy if we are to have any meaningful discussions on anything, which is where the common sense level comes into play.
 
ROMANSH: I don't deal in proof dhw. I have none. Just evidence. The evidence (for me) points to free will being an illusion or a total non sequitur.-You asked me how to prove that other people exist, so that you could "know" it. Free will is not the subject here***, any more than the fact that people are "not as they seem". I would argue, then, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, our perceptions, communications and experiences shared with other people prove the following: the information that your family and friends and acquaintances exist is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of the existence of your family and friends and acquaintances. Ergo, I have proved and therefore know that other people exist. QED, LOL, dhw.-*** The discussion with David on free will is an interesting one, but please let's have it on a different thread.

3792 views

This world is a illusion and only knowledge can save us from this illusion.

3736 views

tofayel: The world is an illusion and only knowledge can save us from this illusion.-Knowledge of what? Surely if the world is an illusion, knowledge is also an illusion.

3716 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum