Why is this illegal?

#178
#178
PKT_VOL said:
Your walking a tight line with that one. If you mean an inference about some absolute truth or ultimate uniform reality (external world), then I agree. If not, you can't possibly believe your perceptions and simultaneously believe they do not give you some sort of truth about the external world.
Click to expand...

Can I not believe that my perceptions are simply a simulation set up as a test in the further creation of my Soul by a Godhead?

Descartes was able to work his way out of his diabolical doubt by asserting that God, being good, would not deceive him in such a manner; in refutation to Descartes, I do not think a test is inherently evil and therefore the external world could simply be smoke and mirrors.

There is also a distinction between belief and knowledge, and there is a question as to whether or not beliefs are choices.

PKT_VOL said:
I think the former is due to a lack by the person to think about it critically or to think of the whole topic as abstract and ultimately pointless. I've met a couple people who feel this way. Very similar to the topic of causation versus constant conjunction. The subtle difference is not enough to grasp their interest. They end up taking the who gives a damn approach. "Move one with your life." Can't say they aren't justified in their beliefs.

I will say, those who get consumed in the perception dilemma sometimes end up going insane. Trying to figure out what is our ultimate reality gets very interesting. The more you dive into the subject the more disturbing the conclusions and questions get.
Click to expand...
 
#179
#179
Good lord. I'm out of here before this turns into a full fledged "my intellectual ego is bigger than yours" philoso-showdown.

I hate self-proclaimed philosophers.
 
#181
#181
PKT_VOL said:
Not unfounded assumptions. He made an unfounded assumption. All philosophical arguments are based on sound logical premises which are quite different than unfounded assumptions.
Click to expand...

According to the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia:

In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts. An assumption that is considered to be self-evident or otherwise fundamental is called an axiom.
 
#183
#183
I think Keanu Reeves summed it up the best (like he does in most all of his amazing films!) in the movie Parenthood....

"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming ******* be a father."

Amen, Keanu. Amen.
 
#188
#188
hndog609 said:
We're going to do away with BC's and go to title's like we do with cars. Maybe even have them registered yearly too.
Click to expand...

If one is arguing that the welfare of the child always takes precedence, then this is something they should be arguing for.
 
#189
#189
therealUT said:
If one is arguing that the welfare of the child always takes precedence, then this is something they should be arguing for.
Click to expand...

I think that's too much club for the green I think you're trying to hit. The registering of my vehicles yearly has nothing to do with what condition the cars are in or how well (or badly) I'm treating them.
 
#191
#191
nbakerld said:
?
Click to expand...

I can only guess as to what was confusing to you but I'll take my best shot; I took TRUT's observation to draw some kind of comparison to showing concern for children's welfare to vehicle registration. My original post on the matter was only to track ownership. (since we're free to sell kids on Craigslist at this point) My other post in reply to TRUT's was to point out that vehicle registration really isn't something that's concerned about the "welfare" of the vehicle. It could be running low on dirty oil and rusting and it wouldn't matter to the County Clerk's office.

Hope this cleared up any ambiguity.
 
#192
#192
hndog609 said:
I think that's too much club for the green I think you're trying to hit. The registering of my vehicles yearly has nothing to do with what condition the cars are in or how well (or badly) I'm treating them.
Click to expand...

I suck at golf.
 
#195
#195
Thrasher865 said:
I can't stand philosophy until I'm inebriated in some form or fashion. As an engineer, my brain works in the practical world 99.9% of the time.
Click to expand...

I respect that. My father and most of my friends are engineers of some sort. Personally, I have both a science and philosophy background (major/minor). I like and can do both.
 
#197
#197
PKT_VOL said:
I respect that. My father and most of my friends are engineers of some sort. Personally, I have both a science and philosophy background (major/minor). I like and can do both.
Click to expand...

I am the opposite. Began my undergrad as an ME major, graduated with a BS in Accounting. Now, in phil.
 
#198
#198
therealUT said:
Can I not believe that my perceptions are simply a simulation set up as a test in the further creation of my Soul by a Godhead?
Click to expand...

Oh, you can. However, if you are to believe your sensations, then must accept that they are giving you some sort of knowledge or truth about the external world (external to your mind). If not, you are actively believing your sensations even though you believe they are fundamentally false. This is intellectually dishonest and not possible.

This is not to say that you cannot actively believe your sensations while simultaneously doubting your true knowledge of the ultimate reality. To use your simulation example, your personal perception of reality could indeed be a project simulation by a "Godhead" as a moral/soul experiment. The "Godhead" would surely have the ability to project an infinite number of simulations upon your sensory organs as a moral experiment. However, you only perceive a specific simulation or personal reality. The fact that you have some notion of a specific reality different than you playing with mermaids under the sea is a testament to the fact that your sensations are actively giving you some sort of truth about your external world. This is not to be confused with an ultimate truth such as the fact that your personal perception of reality is nothing more than a simulation.

*I actually had a much better thought out response that I somehow managed to delete. This will suffice for now.

therealUT said:
Descartes was able to work his way out of his diabolical doubt by asserting that God, being good, would not deceive him in such a manner; in refutation to Descartes, I do not think a test is inherently evil and therefore the external world could simply be smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

Yes, the "Great Deceiver." Descartes First Meditation.

therealUT said:
There is also a distinction between belief and knowledge, and there is a question as to whether or not beliefs are choices.
Click to expand...

Both of which could have their own threads.
 
#199
#199
PKT_VOL said:
Oh, you can. However, if you are to believe your sensations, then must accept that they are giving you some sort of knowledge or truth about the external world (external to your mind). If not, you are actively believing your sensations even though you believe they are fundamentally false. This is intellectually dishonest and not possible.

This is not to say that you cannot actively believe your sensations while simultaneously doubting your true knowledge of the ultimate reality. To use your simulation example, your personal perception of reality could indeed be a project simulation by a "Godhead" as a moral/soul experiment. The "Godhead" would surely have the ability to project an infinite number of simulations upon your sensory organs as a moral experiment. However, you only perceive a specific simulation or personal reality. The fact that you have some notion of a specific reality different than you playing with mermaids under the sea is a testament to the fact that your sensations are actively giving you some sort of truth about your external world. This is not to be confused with an ultimate truth such as the fact that your personal perception of reality is nothing more than a simulation.

*I actually had a much better thought out response that I somehow managed to delete. This will suffice for now.



Yes, the "Great Deceiver." Descartes First Meditation.



Both of which could have their own threads.
Click to expand...


Your first two paragraphs are intriguing; I will digest over time
 
#200
#200
RespectTradition said:
According to the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia:

In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts. An assumption that is considered to be self-evident or otherwise fundamental is called an axiom.
Click to expand...

Correct. When I said "unfounded assumption" I was referring to the former. The latter, axioms, are few and far in-between in philosophy (relatively speaking). As a rule of thumb, philosophy intends on limiting the number of true axioms.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top