Validity and the senses

[Rick Horton]

 

It is absolutely critical to understand the epistemology of the people with whom you converse.  Epistemology forms the foundation of validity.  If two people do not share an epistemology, they will have different standards of evidence.  What is proof to one will be absurd nonsense to another.  Regrettably, some forms of epistemology reject the possibility of statements being objectively true or false.  As such, it is (sadly) impossible to prove or disprove anything for some people.

 

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self") is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind.

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known.

 

 

I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing...

What do you mean, objectively?  Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality....

 

 

It's natural for me to understand that nothing outside of my experience can be proven. I'm pretty sure everybody has their own reality and that they effect each others, but it doesn't matter because reality isn't going to exist without me at all. Not in a way that matters.

[Rick Horton]

By the way I'm not a Solipsist at all. I "believe" things actually do exist outside of my imagination. But that is still a belief, unprovable, so to look at life and truth from first principals is less meaningful when you base every observation on faith. Looking at life starting from what is provable will ALWAYS give you better results.

[Rick Horton]

 

By the way I'm not a Solipsist at all. I "believe" things actually do exist outside of my imagination. But that is still a belief, unprovable, so to look at life and truth from first principals is less meaningful when you base every observation on faith. Looking at life starting from what is provable will ALWAYS give you better results.

 

Also, this is a pretty good video by a guy talking about Solipsism, and although, I'm not one, there are good points in it. 

[Arius]

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic
philosopher can be known. The existence of other minds and the external
world generally is regarded as an unresolvable question, although this
doesn't negate the probability of its existence.

I "believe" things actually do exist outside of my imagination. But that is still a belief, unprovable...

 

Epistemological solipsists claim that realism begs the question...

...when you base every observation on faith...

 

Faith

2. belief that is not based on proof

Proof 

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

True

  1. Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.

Reality

a.  that which exists, independent of human awareness

 

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic
philosopher can be known. The existence of other minds and the external
world generally is regarded as an unresolvable question, although this
doesn't negate the probability of its existence.

I "believe" things actually do exist outside of my imagination. But that is still a belief, unprovable...

 

Epistemological solipsists claim that realism begs the question...

...when you base every observation on faith...

 

Faith

2. belief that is not based on proof

Proof 

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

True

  1. Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.

Reality

a.  that which exists, independent of human awareness

 

 

 

 

I'm having a difficult time figuring out where you're coming from. 

Do you agree that faith is a bad place to observe reality from, or not?

[lyghtningrod]

 

 

I'm having a difficult time figuring out where you're coming from.

 

 

Well, in the vernacular, he's saying "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are, it is a duck. Saying 'no, I'm a rabbit' ain't going to fool no one."

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

I'm having a difficult time figuring out where you're coming from.

 

 

Well, in the vernacular, he's saying "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are, it is a duck. Saying 'no, I'm a rabbit' ain't going to fool no one."

 

 

That didn't help me understand what he's trying to communicate to me. I don't even know what you mean. You made it more complicated, actually.

[Rick Horton]

Let me ask again, just this last time and I wont press for an answer if nobody wants. Do you believe that trying to discern reality based on faith is useful?

 

[lyghtningrod]

 

That didn't help me understand
what he's trying to communicate to me. I don't even know what you mean.
You made it more complicated, actually.

 

I'll rephrase.

When I read your words, then refer to the definitions of the relevant terms, I come to the conclusion that you are a Solipsist. Your denying this fact in no way changes the conclusion. Nothing you've said makes me think otherwise.

or, in the vernaclar again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

That didn't help me understand
what he's trying to communicate to me. I don't even know what you mean.
You made it more complicated, actually.

 

I'll rephrase.

When I read your words, then refer to the definitions of the relevant terms, I come to the conclusion that you are a Solipsist. Your denying this fact in no way changes the conclusion. Nothing you've said makes me think otherwise.

or, in the vernaclar again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

 

I'm not a Solipsist, although there are strong similarities on the surface. I actually have a strong belief that this isn't just all going on in my mind. But "impirically" I realize that their is no way to substantiate it.  You can't. I can't. Science can't. And faith is not a good point to study reality from. We all agree on that. 

[RestoringGuy]

 

I don't understand you. I equate reality with what I experience. Of course. If I don't experience it in any way at all then it isn't reality.

 

That seems fine only if you an eternal being.  If you are not eternal, in your theory you must deny your own existence.  Here's why:  Your experiences 1000 years ago did not exist, so there was no reality back then under your theory.  Once that is accepted, it is clear the reality that generated your conception and birth (which by your own claim are limited to your experience) also did not exist.  So how can you be here on Earth now?  Are your experiences eternal, or are you admitting there is something to reality that is outside your experience?

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I don't understand you. I equate reality with what I experience. Of course. If I don't experience it in any way at all then it isn't reality.

 

That seems fine only if you an eternal being.  If you are not eternal, in your theory you must deny your own existence.  Here's why:  Your experiences 1000 years ago did not exist, so there was no reality back then under your theory.  Once that is accepted, it is clear the reality that generated your conception and birth (which by your own claim are limited to your experience) also did not exist.  So how can you be here on Earth now?  Are your experiences eternal, or are you admitting there is something to reality that is outside your experience?

 

 

I don't have a theory. You are telling me what I experience, now? You're trying to say that you know something about my experience? Let alone what it would be 1000 years ago? And to complicate your analysis even further, your analysis gives some form of meaning to the concept of time, inwhich only can be experienced by me in a way that is consistent to my experience itself which only goes back as far as my memory. Beyond my memory I can only be "told" what was previous to my existence and that is told to me, whos experience is the only provable thing there is "to me" since I will never be able to observe anything beyond my experience. Even what you tell me "is" something I'm experiencing. Nothing is clear "except" what I am experiencing "right now at this moment" and even that isn't exactly clear. Time itself is a concept based on faith. Time cannot be proven to exist because I can only experience the moment. The past and future are both equal abstracts. Every fact is an abstract. 

Based on what seems to consistently work in navigating my actions for the best results I have to refer to my experience, and what seems to be binding in that reality. 

I'll say it for the final time, and ask others to refer back to this statement so it doesn't get weird. I do STRONGLY believe that I'm not the only person alive, or anything. I do STRONGLY believe that everything else exists, and that if I stopped existing, everybody else would still be here, and they would keep having their own experience of reality. BUT, I cannot ever prove that. You cannot ever prove that. NOBODY can EVER prove that. And because of that, there IS always (ALWAYS) during my observation of experience itself, be an uncertainty that is far greater than if I'm rigorous and observe from first principals. First principal being, and ONLY being that I know I exist because I'm experiencing "this", and I know that there are things in my experience that I seem not to be able to control. Whether or not I can control them does not make them less, or more a part of my experience. It makes me focus on how to communicate with those subjects as a part of my experience. I don't deny that all of what I experience is part of the nexxus of whatever this is I'm experiencing (whether or not it's independent of my observation, which frankly doesn't effect me anyway)  To observe with total confidence that there is an independent reality, existence, whatever besides what I am experiencing requires FAITH. I don't think faith is a good place to try and observe reality from. SO, as I said, I  communicate with my reality, through my senses, and interpret whatever seems to work or not in this reality I'm experiencing. It doesn't make me eternal. That doesn't make any sense. I can't know. You can't know. If you claim to know something you cant know, you are ingaging in a faith based set of "facts", just like every other faith based religion. 

    I'm pretty confident that when I die, you all go on as you were, but this CANNOT be known or proven, so pretty confident JUST. DOESN'T. CUT IT, when observing reality.

[RestoringGuy]

 

I don't have a theory. You are telling me what I experience, now? You're trying to say that you know something about my experience? Let alone what it would be 1000 years ago? And to complicate your analysis even further, your analysis gives some form of meaning to the concept of time, inwhich only can be experienced by me in a way that is consistent to my experience itself which only goes back as far as my memory. Beyond my memory I can only be "told" what was previous to my existence and that is told to me, whos experience is the only provable thing there is "to me" since I will never be able to observe anything beyond my experience. Even what you tell me "is" something I'm experiencing. Nothing is clear "except" what I am experiencing "right now at this moment" and even that isn't exactly clear. Time itself is a concept based on faith. Time cannot be proven to exist because I can only experience the moment. The past and future are both equal abstracts. Every fact is an abstract. 

Based on what seems to consistently work in navigating my actions for the best results I have to refer to my experience, and what seems to be binding in that reality. 

I'll say it for the final time, and ask others to refer back to this statement so it doesn't get weird. I do STRONGLY believe that I'm not the only person alive, or anything. I do STRONGLY believe that everything else exists, and that if I stopped existing, everybody else would still be here, and they would keep having their own experience of reality. BUT, I cannot ever prove that. You cannot ever prove that. NOBODY can EVER prove that. And because of that, there IS always (ALWAYS) during my observation of experience itself, be an uncertainty that is far greater than if I'm rigorous and observe from first principals. First principal being, and ONLY being that I know I exist because I'm experiencing "this", and I know that there are things in my experience that I seem not to be able to control. Whether or not I can control them does not make them less, or more a part of my experience. It makes me focus on how to communicate with those subjects as a part of my experience. I don't deny that all of what I experience is part of the nexxus of whatever this is I'm experiencing (whether or not it's independent of my observation, which frankly doesn't effect me anyway)  To observe with total confidence that there is an independent reality, existence, whatever besides what I am experiencing requires FAITH. I don't think faith is a good place to try and observe reality from. SO, as I said, I  communicate with my reality, through my senses, and interpret whatever seems to work or not in this reality I'm experiencing. It doesn't make me eternal. That doesn't make any sense. I can't know. You can't know. If you claim to know something you cant know, you are ingaging in a faith based set of "facts", just like every other faith based religion. 

    I'm pretty confident that when I die, you all go on as you were, but this CANNOT be known or proven, so pretty confident JUST. DOESN'T. CUT IT, when observing reality.

 

It is also possible dragons will fly out of my ass and I will have no awareness of it.  I do not claim time is real (as we measure and name it), but some kinds of ordering of events are real due to cause and effect.  That is all I need to complete the proof of objective reality and I will explain why ordering cannot be denied.  You and I both seem to accept that when you are "told" about what exists previous to your existence, you are being told about a thing outside your experience - something other than that which you can know or prove first-hand.

But this claim you are saying, that your reality is limited to what you experience is similarly unknowable and unprovable.  How is it you can know your reality has this limitation of sensory experience alone?  I am just a guy here typing, these words are part of your experience, yet to you they do not prove I exist you only admit the possibility I exist.  I get that.  But how do you prove your main point (reality being limited to experience)?   If that point is provable, supply the proof or else you are asking us all to accept such a thing on faith.  But if that point is unprovable, then you must admit the possibility that your reality is not constrained by your experience because you think faith is a bad way to go.

In other words, you seem to be taking the unprovability of things outside your experience as proof that your reality lacks such things.  That seems more like faith, because you are accepting it without proof.  By ordering events in your experience, first you have a sensory experience, and then you say "yes, this experience is part of my reality and I know it now".  I am not telling you what you experience.  You are telling me experience "only goes back as far as my memory".  But you have memories of the past and do you have those memories "right now at this moment"?  If not, do you deny your memories exist?  If your memories do exist "now", then please observe that you are admitting to two distinct classes of events:  experiences you remember, and experiences that seem "new".  An ordering of events is assumed here, even if it is only a temporary mental distinction you are feeling right now.  So you must either discard memory as reliable and say it has nothing to do with your reality (memory is an act of faith so you shouldn't remember why you should trust your senses at all), or else admit that events can sometimes be ordered and faith is not required for such an ordering to exist in your reality.    If ordering of events exists in your reality, I believe my argument about the origin of you (hence objective reality) stands because you have a first experience (or memory if you wish) that has an origin which you can't deny is real and proven to be real.

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I don't have a theory. You are telling me what I experience, now? You're trying to say that you know something about my experience? Let alone what it would be 1000 years ago? And to complicate your analysis even further, your analysis gives some form of meaning to the concept of time, inwhich only can be experienced by me in a way that is consistent to my experience itself which only goes back as far as my memory. Beyond my memory I can only be "told" what was previous to my existence and that is told to me, whos experience is the only provable thing there is "to me" since I will never be able to observe anything beyond my experience. Even what you tell me "is" something I'm experiencing. Nothing is clear "except" what I am experiencing "right now at this moment" and even that isn't exactly clear. Time itself is a concept based on faith. Time cannot be proven to exist because I can only experience the moment. The past and future are both equal abstracts. Every fact is an abstract. 

Based on what seems to consistently work in navigating my actions for the best results I have to refer to my experience, and what seems to be binding in that reality. 

I'll say it for the final time, and ask others to refer back to this statement so it doesn't get weird. I do STRONGLY believe that I'm not the only person alive, or anything. I do STRONGLY believe that everything else exists, and that if I stopped existing, everybody else would still be here, and they would keep having their own experience of reality. BUT, I cannot ever prove that. You cannot ever prove that. NOBODY can EVER prove that. And because of that, there IS always (ALWAYS) during my observation of experience itself, be an uncertainty that is far greater than if I'm rigorous and observe from first principals. First principal being, and ONLY being that I know I exist because I'm experiencing "this", and I know that there are things in my experience that I seem not to be able to control. Whether or not I can control them does not make them less, or more a part of my experience. It makes me focus on how to communicate with those subjects as a part of my experience. I don't deny that all of what I experience is part of the nexxus of whatever this is I'm experiencing (whether or not it's independent of my observation, which frankly doesn't effect me anyway)  To observe with total confidence that there is an independent reality, existence, whatever besides what I am experiencing requires FAITH. I don't think faith is a good place to try and observe reality from. SO, as I said, I  communicate with my reality, through my senses, and interpret whatever seems to work or not in this reality I'm experiencing. It doesn't make me eternal. That doesn't make any sense. I can't know. You can't know. If you claim to know something you cant know, you are ingaging in a faith based set of "facts", just like every other faith based religion. 

    I'm pretty confident that when I die, you all go on as you were, but this CANNOT be known or proven, so pretty confident JUST. DOESN'T. CUT IT, when observing reality.

 

It is also possible dragons will fly out of my ass and I will have no awareness of it.  I do not claim time is real (as we measure and name it), but some kinds of ordering of events are real due to cause and effect.  That is all I need to complete the proof of objective reality and I will explain why ordering cannot be denied.  You and I both seem to accept that when you are "told" about what exists previous to your existence, you are being told about a thing outside your experience - something other than that which you can know or prove first-hand.

But this claim you are saying, that your reality is limited to what you experience is similarly unknowable and unprovable.  How is it you can know your reality has this limitation of sensory experience alone?  I am just a guy here typing, these words are part of your experience, yet to you they do not prove I exist you only admit the possibility I exist.  I get that.  But how do you prove your main point (reality being limited to experience)?   If that point is provable, supply the proof or else you are asking us all to accept such a thing on faith.  But if that point is unprovable, then you must admit the possibility that your reality is not constrained by your experience because you think faith is a bad way to go.

In other words, you seem to be taking the unprovability of things outside your experience as proof that your reality lacks such things.  That seems more like faith, because you are accepting it without proof.  By ordering events in your experience, first you have a sensory experience, and then you say "yes, this experience is part of my reality and I know it now".  I am not telling you what you experience.  You are telling me experience "only goes back as far as my memory".  But you have memories of the past and do you have those memories "right now at this moment"?  If not, do you deny your memories exist?  If your memories do exist "now", then please observe that you are admitting to two distinct classes of events:  experiences you remember, and experiences that seem "new".  An ordering of events is assumed here, even if it is only a temporary mental distinction you are feeling right now.  So you must either discard memory as reliable and say it has nothing to do with your reality (memory is an act of faith so you shouldn't remember why you should trust your senses at all), or else admit that events can sometimes be ordered and faith is not required for such an ordering to exist in your reality.    If ordering of events exists in your reality, I believe my argument about the origin of you (hence objective reality) stands because you have a first experience (or memory if you wish) that has an origin which you can't deny is real and proven to be real.

 

 

 

LOL. I haven't tried to prove anything beyond my experience of reality.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

I don't have a theory. You are telling me what I experience, now? You're trying to say that you know something about my experience? Let alone what it would be 1000 years ago? And to complicate your analysis even further, your analysis gives some form of meaning to the concept of time, inwhich only can be experienced by me in a way that is consistent to my experience itself which only goes back as far as my memory. Beyond my memory I can only be "told" what was previous to my existence and that is told to me, whos experience is the only provable thing there is "to me" since I will never be able to observe anything beyond my experience. Even what you tell me "is" something I'm experiencing. Nothing is clear "except" what I am experiencing "right now at this moment" and even that isn't exactly clear. Time itself is a concept based on faith. Time cannot be proven to exist because I can only experience the moment. The past and future are both equal abstracts. Every fact is an abstract. 

Based on what seems to consistently work in navigating my actions for the best results I have to refer to my experience, and what seems to be binding in that reality. 

I'll say it for the final time, and ask others to refer back to this statement so it doesn't get weird. I do STRONGLY believe that I'm not the only person alive, or anything. I do STRONGLY believe that everything else exists, and that if I stopped existing, everybody else would still be here, and they would keep having their own experience of reality. BUT, I cannot ever prove that. You cannot ever prove that. NOBODY can EVER prove that. And because of that, there IS always (ALWAYS) during my observation of experience itself, be an uncertainty that is far greater than if I'm rigorous and observe from first principals. First principal being, and ONLY being that I know I exist because I'm experiencing "this", and I know that there are things in my experience that I seem not to be able to control. Whether or not I can control them does not make them less, or more a part of my experience. It makes me focus on how to communicate with those subjects as a part of my experience. I don't deny that all of what I experience is part of the nexxus of whatever this is I'm experiencing (whether or not it's independent of my observation, which frankly doesn't effect me anyway)  To observe with total confidence that there is an independent reality, existence, whatever besides what I am experiencing requires FAITH. I don't think faith is a good place to try and observe reality from. SO, as I said, I  communicate with my reality, through my senses, and interpret whatever seems to work or not in this reality I'm experiencing. It doesn't make me eternal. That doesn't make any sense. I can't know. You can't know. If you claim to know something you cant know, you are ingaging in a faith based set of "facts", just like every other faith based religion. 

    I'm pretty confident that when I die, you all go on as you were, but this CANNOT be known or proven, so pretty confident JUST. DOESN'T. CUT IT, when observing reality.

 

It is also possible dragons will fly out of my ass and I will have no awareness of it.  I do not claim time is real (as we measure and name it), but some kinds of ordering of events are real due to cause and effect.  That is all I need to complete the proof of objective reality and I will explain why ordering cannot be denied.  You and I both seem to accept that when you are "told" about what exists previous to your existence, you are being told about a thing outside your experience - something other than that which you can know or prove first-hand.

But this claim you are saying, that your reality is limited to what you experience is similarly unknowable and unprovable.  How is it you can know your reality has this limitation of sensory experience alone?  I am just a guy here typing, these words are part of your experience, yet to you they do not prove I exist you only admit the possibility I exist.  I get that.  But how do you prove your main point (reality being limited to experience)?   If that point is provable, supply the proof or else you are asking us all to accept such a thing on faith.  But if that point is unprovable, then you must admit the possibility that your reality is not constrained by your experience because you think faith is a bad way to go.

In other words, you seem to be taking the unprovability of things outside your experience as proof that your reality lacks such things.  That seems more like faith, because you are accepting it without proof.  By ordering events in your experience, first you have a sensory experience, and then you say "yes, this experience is part of my reality and I know it now".  I am not telling you what you experience.  You are telling me experience "only goes back as far as my memory".  But you have memories of the past and do you have those memories "right now at this moment"?  If not, do you deny your memories exist?  If your memories do exist "now", then please observe that you are admitting to two distinct classes of events:  experiences you remember, and experiences that seem "new".  An ordering of events is assumed here, even if it is only a temporary mental distinction you are feeling right now.  So you must either discard memory as reliable and say it has nothing to do with your reality (memory is an act of faith so you shouldn't remember why you should trust your senses at all), or else admit that events can sometimes be ordered and faith is not required for such an ordering to exist in your reality.    If ordering of events exists in your reality, I believe my argument about the origin of you (hence objective reality) stands because you have a first experience (or memory if you wish) that has an origin which you can't deny is real and proven to be real.

 

 

 

LOL. I haven't tried to prove anything beyond my experience of reality.

 

 

And you're stepping away from what I said. My memory is part of my experience of reality. Of course my memory is real. How does that make a difference? It doesn't do anything to prove something beyond my experience. And accessing my memory happens in the present, not the past or future, so memory is right now too. It's probably a good indication that there is a past and future, and another indication that there is an external reality independent of my skull, but an indication is not law, nor is it fact. There is far too much uncertainty, and I don't study reality based on uncertainty or faith.

[Arius]

...It doesn't do anything to prove something beyond my experience...

 

Prove

1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

True

  1. Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.

Reality

a.  that which exists, independent of human awareness

 

Prove: To establish consistency with that which exists independent of human awareness by presentation of argument or evidence.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

...It doesn't do anything to prove something beyond my experience...

 

Prove

1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

True

  1. Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.

Reality

a.  that which exists, independent of human awareness

 

Prove: To establish consistency with that which exists independent of human awareness by presentation of argument or evidence.

 

 

Yes. I agree with that definition. And it cannot be proven that anything exists except for my experience, which is my only provable reality.

[Arius]

Yes. I agree with that definition. And it cannot be proven that anything exists except for my experience, which is my only provable reality.

 

 

Reality

a.  that which exists, independent of human awareness

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Yes. I agree with that definition. And it cannot be proven that anything exists except for my experience, which is my only provable reality.

 

 

Reality

a.  that which exists, independent of human awareness

 

 

 

and?

 

[Rick Horton]

 

re·al·i·ty

  [ree-al-i-tee]  Show IPA

noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5–7.

1.

the state or quality of being real.

2.

resemblance to what is real.

3.

a real thing or fact.

4.

real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs:the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.

5.

Philosophy .

a.

something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

b.

something that exists independently of all other things andfrom which all other things derive.

__________________________________________

There are numerous definitions, and my observations are totally valid as far as the dictionary is concerned. 

 

[RestoringGuy]

 

And you're stepping away from what I said. My memory is part of my experience of reality. Of course my memory is real. How does that make a difference? It doesn't do anything to prove something beyond my experience. And accessing my memory happens in the present, not the past or future, so memory is right now too. It's probably a good indication that there is a past and future, and another indication that there is an external reality independent of my skull, but an indication is not law, nor is it fact. There is far too much uncertainty, and I don't study reality based on uncertainty or faith.

 

Yes that is true.  Accessing memory happens in the present.  But do you distinguish between memory and current (here-and-now) sensory input?  If you do distinguish, isn't that admitting to an ordering of events?  If you do not distinguish, how do you currently sense (or remember) that your memory is reliable or true?

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

And you're stepping away from what I said. My memory is part of my experience of reality. Of course my memory is real. How does that make a difference? It doesn't do anything to prove something beyond my experience. And accessing my memory happens in the present, not the past or future, so memory is right now too. It's probably a good indication that there is a past and future, and another indication that there is an external reality independent of my skull, but an indication is not law, nor is it fact. There is far too much uncertainty, and I don't study reality based on uncertainty or faith.

 

Yes that is true.  Accessing memory happens in the present.  But do you distinguish between memory and current (here-and-now) sensory input?  If you do distinguish, isn't that admitting to an ordering of events?  If you do not distinguish, how do you currently sense (or remember) that your memory is reliable or true?

 

 

I don't know. I'm not saying there is an ordering of events. I don't know for sure if my memory is totally accurate, but it seems to work for me.

[Arius]

 

There are numerous definitions, and my observations are totally valid as far as the dictionary is concerned.

 

 

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

 

 

[Rick Horton]

I'm not equivicating. At all.

You don't seem to be able to advance an argument, with me. Other members have, but I don't think you've advanced a single argument when discussing with me, so it's a little bit boring. I'll wait until, and if, you advance an argument of your own and back it up before I discuss this topic further with you, Arius. I'm not feeling it.

[lyghtningrod]

 

I'm not equivicating. At all.

You don't seem to be able to advance an argument, with me. Other members have, but I don't think you've advanced a single argument when discussing with me, so it's a little bit boring. I'll wait until, and if, you advance an argument of your own and back it up before I discuss this topic further with you, Arius. I'm not feeling it.

 

Actually, I find Arius' arguments are the most succinct and to the point of the responses you've gotten. 

 

He said it, I said it. You are equivocating.

 

Oh, but you say you are not equivocating?

Houston, we have a problem...

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I'm not equivicating. At all.

You don't seem to be able to advance an argument, with me. Other members have, but I don't think you've advanced a single argument when discussing with me, so it's a little bit boring. I'll wait until, and if, you advance an argument of your own and back it up before I discuss this topic further with you, Arius. I'm not feeling it.

 

Actually, I find Arius' arguments are the most succinct and to the point of the responses you've gotten. 

 

He said it, I said it. You are equivocating.

 

Oh, but you say you are not equivocating?

Houston, we have a problem...

 

Yeah. He said it. You said it. You are both wrong, lol. And neither of you have made a rebuttal, OR your own argument. Is it too "hard" to do?

[Arius]

Opinion:

1. judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof

 

You are both wrong.

[RestoringGuy]

 

I don't know. I'm not saying there is an ordering of events. I don't know for sure if my memory is totally accurate, but it seems to work for me.

 

Why is it, when there is some small chance of uncertainty with regard to real existence outside your experience, you discard our common reality in favor of your own sensory reality, while at the same time the inaccuracy of your memory is a thing you accept and tolerate?  When you look at the moon, it exists in your experience, and you retain memory of it, but you will say it might not exist right now.  If there is possibly no ordering of events, then it might be the case that you have made some conclusions and the feeling you have that they are based on prior experience is only imaginary.   So why accept such a conclusion?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I don't know. I'm not saying there is an ordering of events. I don't know for sure if my memory is totally accurate, but it seems to work for me.

 

Why is it, when there is some small chance of uncertainty with regard to real existence outside your experience, you discard our common reality in favor of your own sensory reality, while at the same time the inaccuracy of your memory is a thing you accept and tolerate?  When you look at the moon, it exists in your experience, and you retain memory of it, but you will say it might not exist right now.  If there is possibly no ordering of events, then it might be the case that you have made some conclusions and the feeling you have that they are based on prior experience is only imaginary.   So why accept such a conclusion?

 

I mean, I don't really understand the problem. I'm much more certain of my senses than I am that I am about reality beyond my experience. Because there's no way to prove it. But there's no need to disprove or prove anything in my experience because I do experience it. Whether it's true or false, it's still there. But beyond that, who can "really" say. I never said anything about imaginary. I don't know why you said that, because it makes a huge difference in how you perceive what I'm saying. I can see why you have problems with what I'm saying if you keep projecting what you think I mean into what I'm actually saying. There is no need to prove you as real because you are having a real impact on my reality. Therefore you are a real subject of reality. At least the one I'm experiencing. Beyond that, nothing is provable, and there is uncertainty since there is no evidence that can prove anything beyond what I experience. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

[RestoringGuy]

 

I mean, I don't really understand the problem. I'm much more certain of my senses than I am that I am about reality beyond my experience. Because there's no way to prove it. But there's no need to disprove or prove anything in my experience because I do experience it. Whether it's true or false, it's still there. But beyond that, who can "really" say. I never said anything about imaginary. I don't know why you said that, because it makes a huge difference in how you perceive what I'm saying. I can see why you have problems with what I'm saying if you keep projecting what you think I mean into what I'm actually saying. There is no need to prove you as real because you are having a real impact on my reality. Therefore you are a real subject of reality. At least the one I'm experiencing. Beyond that, nothing is provable, and there is uncertainty since there is no evidence that can prove anything beyond what I experience. 

 

You say "certain of" your senses.  But what is certainty?  Is it not reduction of error?  That two things being equal, when compared, become more and more indistinguishable to your senses?  To say your sense is certain, what are you comparing them to?   I can only assume you mean you sense something, and later on you sense it again (and compare it to your memory of the first time, if there is such a thing as "first" time) and say "gee this is repeatable sensation" and it is now more "certain" that your senses match (What do they match? Your memory of your senses.).

But if the repeatability gives certainty, then wait by your window and look for a bluebird.  Mathematics is repeatable.  A dream might be repeatable.  And when I do a physics experiment and send my results to you, and you compare to your experiment, somewhere there is repeatability going on.  But if you suppose the results of my experiment are relayed to you and match your results but the reality of them matching is "uncertain", but the sensation of a bluebird is certain, what are you using to distinguish between these two kinds of belief?  I say imaginary because it could be the case that your memory is slightly less reliable (a dream can sometimes be remembered) than an exchange of repeatable experiments combined with the off chance that everyone is a real sensation of unreal beings who probably exist in some unreal nexus but you can't say for certain.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I mean, I don't really understand the problem. I'm much more certain of my senses than I am that I am about reality beyond my experience. Because there's no way to prove it. But there's no need to disprove or prove anything in my experience because I do experience it. Whether it's true or false, it's still there. But beyond that, who can "really" say. I never said anything about imaginary. I don't know why you said that, because it makes a huge difference in how you perceive what I'm saying. I can see why you have problems with what I'm saying if you keep projecting what you think I mean into what I'm actually saying. There is no need to prove you as real because you are having a real impact on my reality. Therefore you are a real subject of reality. At least the one I'm experiencing. Beyond that, nothing is provable, and there is uncertainty since there is no evidence that can prove anything beyond what I experience. 

 

You say "certain of" your senses.  But what is certainty?  Is it not reduction of error?  That two things being equal, when compared, become more and more indistinguishable to your senses?  To say your sense is certain, what are you comparing them to?   I can only assume you mean you sense something, and later on you sense it again (and compare it to your memory of the first time, if there is such a thing as "first" time) and say "gee this is repeatable sensation" and it is now more "certain" that your senses match (What do they match? Your memory of your senses.).

But if the repeatability gives certainty, then wait by your window and look for a bluebird.  Mathematics is repeatable.  A dream might be repeatable.  And when I do a physics experiment and send my results to you, and you compare to your experiment, somewhere there is repeatability going on.  But if you suppose the results of my experiment are relayed to you and match your results but the reality of them matching is "uncertain", but the sensation of a bluebird is certain, what are you using to distinguish between these two kinds of belief?  I say imaginary because it could be the case that your memory is slightly less reliable (a dream can sometimes be remembered) than an exchange of repeatable experiments combined with the off chance that everyone is a real sensation of unreal beings who probably exist in some unreal nexus but you can't say for certain.

 

Maybe I'm just off today, but I don't see a disagreement, or am I reading this right?  I agree with what you said, but maybe I'll read this again later. Long day at work, and I need a little nap.

[RestoringGuy]

 

Maybe I'm just off today, but I don't see a disagreement, or am I reading this right?  I agree with what you said, but maybe I'll read this again later. Long day at work, and I need a little nap.

 

It is not my aim to be disagreeable.  I congratulate you for being skeptical of things you cannot sense.  I think "sense" means more than you believe it means (memory and all the deductions of the senses).  I feel there is something wrong when you say your memory is real and you accept it as sometimes faulty (how would you know that), but an objective outside reality that can be shown with arbitrarily high chance of existence is not accepted by you as real.  I cannot say it is faith, but it seems like a similar unprovable choice.  Your memory is sometimes faulty or it's not.  The same goes for our deductive powers that indicate external reality.  How can you say memory is real and external reality is a fictional?  I say "fictional" not because you deny such existence, but because you are clearly denying that it deserves the word "reality".

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Maybe I'm just off today, but I don't see a disagreement, or am I reading this right?  I agree with what you said, but maybe I'll read this again later. Long day at work, and I need a little nap.

 

It is not my aim to be disagreeable.  I congratulate you for being skeptical of things you cannot sense.  I think "sense" means more than you believe it means (memory and all the deductions of the senses).  I feel there is something wrong when you say your memory is real and you accept it as sometimes faulty (how would you know that), but an objective outside reality that can be shown with arbitrarily high chance of existence is not accepted by you as real.  I cannot say it is faith, but it seems like a similar unprovable choice.  Your memory is sometimes faulty or it's not.  The same goes for our deductive powers that indicate external reality.  How can you say memory is real and external reality is a fictional?  I say "fictional" not because you deny such existence, but because you are clearly denying that it deserves the word "reality".

 

 

Who said that memory is correct? It's real, but not accurate. Who said that external reality is fictional? 

[RestoringGuy]

 

Who said that memory is correct? It's real, but not accurate. Who said that external reality is fictional? 

 

In this case I don't care whether or not memory is accurate, just that you believe there is such an idea of "accuracy" of memory.  If you accept that your memory has some measure of accuracy (zero or otherwise) suggests to me that you can in principle compare your "real" memory to something else that is also considered by you to be real.  You seem to deny that the past is essential to this discussion, or that existence of the past is in some doubt.  Large enough doubt anyway to consider the past unreal to you.  In that case, is not the very idea of "accuracy" of memory in equal doubt, just as the senses are insufficiently real indicators of this unreal nexus where everyone you do not currently sense might live?  It makes no sense for you to say the past, and people you do not currently see, are all unreal, but somehow your memory of such things is somewhat inaccurate.  Those things are unreal (being in the past which is unreal) so accuracy of memory should be a meaningless idea.  Perhaps if you admit accuracy of memory has no meaning to you we can go from there.