Rick Horton Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 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. Who said the past isn't real? Who said that people aren't real? Who said that memory is accurate? It seems to work for me sometimes, and other times I can't remember. When I can remember something it helps me do stuff.
RestoringGuy Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 Who said the past isn't real? Who said that people aren't real? Who said that memory is accurate? It seems to work for me sometimes, and other times I can't remember. When I can remember something it helps me do stuff. You should read your posts. I have. You said reality is nothing more than the senses. You said if you do not experience something, then it "isn't reality". Do you claim to sense the past and all real people now? You did not say memory was accurate, you said it was not. But how would you know that it's not accurate? For that matter, how do you know what "works sometimes" are things that work in your reality, given that you say memory is inaccurate and you demand certainty for reality to exist? I am thinking now you don't want to learn. My positions are flawed also, but I try.
Rick Horton Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 Who said the past isn't real? Who said that people aren't real? Who said that memory is accurate? It seems to work for me sometimes, and other times I can't remember. When I can remember something it helps me do stuff. You should read your posts. I have. You said reality is nothing more than the senses. You said if you do not experience something, then it "isn't reality". Do you claim to sense the past and all real people now? You did not say memory was accurate, you said it was not. But how would you know that it's not accurate? For that matter, how do you know what "works sometimes" are things that work in your reality, given that you say memory is inaccurate and you demand certainty for reality to exist? I am thinking now you don't want to learn. My positions are flawed also, but I try. You keep saying that I've said things that I haven't. First you have to reread everything I've written before we can go on, because I think you're confusing yourself. How can you teach me something that I'm telling you? I wasn't asking for clarification on my own philosophy so I don't know how you can teach me something if you don't understand what I've written. More than that, you've read your own projections of what you think I'm trying to mean right over my actual words which haven't said one thing you keep saying I've said. I mean that's a big no no in philosophy discussion.
RestoringGuy Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 You keep saying that I've said things that I haven't. First you have to reread everything I've written before we can go on, because I think you're confusing yourself. How can you teach me something that I'm telling you? I wasn't asking for clarification on my own philosophy so I don't know how you can teach me something if you don't understand what I've written. More than that, you've read your own projections of what you think I'm trying to mean right over my actual words which haven't said one thing you keep saying I've said. I mean that's a big no no in philosophy discussion. I can teach you what you're telling me, but that is not my goal. You can teach yourself while you tell me things that are irrefutably linked. My primary goal is to search for improvements and extensions of my own computational-realist thinking and I have spent a lot of time establishing what constitutes reality. I do not cling to the notion that reality is exactly the particles in our material universe, nor do I cling to the notion that the experiential world we build in our minds is the sole source of reality. I claim both of these notions can be debunked without any doubt, and that the senses and our minds lead to a reality of external objects (both tangible and abstract) which can be verified by the senses in principle by examining results of mathematical experimentation. My concern here is that your debate style has turned into some slippery grease, where you say things and later try to omit those assertions. I interpret that as refusal to self-examine. You interpret that as a state where your assertions are still valid but I have mis-read them and that is why I find contradiction. For me to retype/quote everything you have posted and wait for you to deny and/or clarify seems counterproductive. I am sure you know at this point exactly what my error is insofar as misinterpreting you, and you can set me straight.
Recommended Posts