The Senses as necessarially valid.

[Zelenn]

Hello all,

 

I thought I would bring to the forum what I remember from a conversation I had not long ago. Do forgive me if this has been thoroughly discussed to the point of being banned like Determinism, but I am "cutting my teeth" philosophically and I wanted to discuss sense perception, since it is a foundational topic. I am eager to discuss philosophy and to practice maing arguments explaining different concepts, mostly to make sure that I, myself, understand the concepts.

 

So, The other day I was having a conversation about the validity of the senses, just some polite, philosophical reparte, and the conversation started to go around in circles. I would say the senses (and the existence they sense and the conciousness that senses) are nesessarially valid because no alternative is possible. Non Existence isn't a real thing. Unconciousness, isn't a real thing. A Non Sensory experience is not a possible experience. The absence of a phenomena is NOT the opposite of that phenomena. Being that there is no possible alternative to these things; I put forward the idea that that these ideas are axiomatic, they're literally Self Evident.

 

The response I got was that I am only "assuming" that no alternative is possible, I can't know for sure. And that all knowledge rests upon assumptions that differ only in "degree of safety." And we discussed daily "assumptions" like "I assume there is gas in my car" and "I assume that my car keys won't fly away," etc. I responded that these assumptions were based on the behavior of matter and energy; behavior observed and validated by sense perception. This led to a discussion of Descarte's "Brain in vat" being fed false sensory impressions and that I am only "assuming" that I'm not a brain in a vat; I am only "assuming" that my prior sense experience is valid; I have no way to know for sure, but its "pragmatic" to "assume" that sense experiences are valid and that I'm NOT a brain in a vat, and my conversation partner wanted me to concede that my knowledge was only based on multiple "assumptions," and that even if they're very useful, pragmatic and valid assumptions, 100% certain knowledge is not possible in the end.

 

Notice that we're bridging that very nice and very important gap between Metaphysics and Epistemology wherein the validity of sense data ties the two together by establishing a method of thinking (Logic) which derives its standards and methods from the behavior of matter and energy which is observed with the senses. If the senses are not valid, then there can be no content to think about and no (rational) method by which to think about it.

 

At this point, I thought we might be using the word "assume" in two different senses. Like in one sense you mean an assumption which can be proven or disproven later, i.e. "gas in my car," I can go and look and find out. And that in another sense we we're using the word "assumption" to mean an idea held about something for which no evidence, for or against, can be found, i.e. "Brain in a vat," can't be any evidence for that., so I have to "assume" that it's not so.

 

I responded that things like Existence and the Senses CAN'T be proven, but that it's not the same as an assumption. (Now we start going in circles.) That concepts such as "Proof," "Evidence," "Logic" etc are built upon the foundation of concepts which really and truly can't be challenged, concepts such as "reality exists, the senses are valid, conciousness is real etc." I responded that there'd be no way to "prove" the principles of Proof! And that this could be "called" an assumption, but its more than a mere assumption. Its not an assumption like "gas in my car," or "brain in a vat." Its a different kind of "assumption," if that's even the appropriate word to use, because I'm COMPELLED, by reality to acknowledge these things.

 

Challenges like "You're only "assuming" that the senses are valid," or "Prove existence; you can only assume, with a degree of safety that existence is real, now provide evidence that existence is 100% for real," presuppose that there is an objective, external, REAL existence from which to gather evidence. Asking for some kind of "proof" while calling into question the very principles upon which the concept rests is commiting what Ayn Rand called "The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept." This is a fallacy whereby one accepts a higher, more advanced concept while denying the earlier concepts upon which it rests.

 

And from here we just kept going in circles.

 

I am wondering if there is an argument that I didn't make to validate the senses? I still feel that the hang up was on this word "assumption," and that the word was used in multiple senses and that this 'slippery' word useage led to confusion.

 

What are you thoughts?

[Carl Green]

I think you're right about using assume in different senses causing the difference in perspectives.

 

Perhaps when similar conversations end up like this you can just switch to talking about how the two different "approaches" would apply to your lives in a practical sense. No 'major truths' will be unveiled but if there isn't an agreement about reality, at least it will keep the convo going.

[SamuelS]

My reaction to the Cartesianist argument is the same as to determinism -- what difference does it make? From the POV of the experiencer its all the same...but, we generally act as though we have free will and that we perceive an objective reality outside our minds...sure, it could all be some elaborate hoax, but that doesn't change the experience. If a Cartesian jumps off a skyscraper I'll believe they believe it, until then they're just trolls.

[Three]

I think you've already said a lot of what I'm about to sayind, but this is my take. 


He's relying on the validity of the senses, (your ability to hear that what he's saying and see that he's standing in front of you) to communicate to you that the senses are invalid. 

Because the proposition that "the senses are invalid" relies on the validity of senses such as sight and hearing, the proposition that "the senses are invalid" self detonates. 

Because is assuming the opposite of what he is arguing and thus, disproving himself. You needn't lift a finger and make any arguments further.

It's literally like saying the mailman putting an letter in your mailbox that says, "mail never gets delivered."

You could respond, "Well, if the senses are not valid, I can't be sure that you really aren't talking about a donkey living in your armpit!"

[Donnadogsoth]

My reaction to the Cartesianist argument is the same as to determinism -- what difference does it make? From the POV of the experiencer its all the same...but, we generally act as though we have free will and that we perceive an objective reality outside our minds...sure, it could all be some elaborate hoax, but that doesn't change the experience. If a Cartesian jumps off a skyscraper I'll believe they believe it, until then they're just trolls.

 

I think it's worse than that.  Not only are the senses not absolutely reliable, there is no conceivable way to prove what's outside the hoax, and so no way to prove the hoax exists.  Saying "it might all be a dream" is meaningless, because there is no conceivable discoverable "waking life" to appeal to.  Even if I were to "wake up" into a different reality, there would be no way to prove that that reality wasn't also a dream.  Which means this talk of brains in vats and the like are irrelevant.  Reality, whether it is a dream or not, is as real as real gets.

[Zelenn]

Well, I think my conversation partner's position was that the validity of the senses is a an assumption, albeit a very useful and pragmatic assumption. So, she didn't say that the senses WEREN'T valid, only that their validity remains a funcationally useful assumption.

 

It felt odd to me, because I think that's skirting right on the edge of saying that they're not valid, without actually saying it. Of course, the answers we get in Metaphysics dictates the answers we'll get in Epistemology, so when the conversation inevitably moved on to the theory of knowledge, she said that knowledge fundamentally rests on a series of very useful, very pragmatic "assumptions."

 

But I am bothered by this word assumption. Concepts like "Existence," Reality," Sense Validity, Objectivity, these do not feel like "assumptions to me. They're a fair bit more powerful than that. Like gravity. It is not my assumption that gravity exists. I couldn't defy it even if I wanted to.

 

Sense validity is the same way. My eyes open and sight occurs. Vibration is in the air and hearing simply happens. I have no power to stop it. I do not make an assumption and I do not... not... make an assumption. My thoughts, feelings, and ideas simply have no part of the thing. Existence exists and the senses are valid, and I either nod my head in agreement or Reality crushes me. Assumptions not required.

 

I feel like there's something I should be saying to make my position clearer. Either that, or there's something about her position that I don't understand, which may be possible.

 

I'm not sure. Have any of you debated the validity of the senses and what arguments have you put forward?

[SamuelS]

I'm not sure. Have any of you debated the validity of the senses and what arguments have you put forward?

Not for long...what Joel said above is very similar to the argument I'll toss out before disengaging -- point out the performative contradiction then when they rebut you something like "Well, I'm glad you agree with (opposite of what they said)" to which they'll inevitably reply "That's not what I said" and you can just claim it is what you heard, after all the senses are invalid and there's no objective reality so good luck proving otherwise beyond an "assumption"...in other words, fight fire w fire and see how they like it.

[thebeardslastcall]

Everybody makes assumptions. They are necessary to live. Just because something is an assumption that doesn't mean it's wrong. Many assumptions are correct and if you lived under a "false assumption" that happened to be right for your whole life, but then the "rules" changed afterwards, then you were still right in a way, if all actions under the assumption had the desired and intended effect. Assumptions are just another tool for figuring out how to behave and if you can "shorthand" a rule to get what you need, then that is an effective use of your limited knowledge and understanding.

 

You may not know whether you're in some "vat" or not, but as pointed out, what difference does that make if you have no way to tell the difference? You have no way of judging whether something is right or wrong in this imagined possible "external" 'real' reality and thus no way to modify your behavior one way or another based on the various possibilities that might or could possibly exist. You act in a sensible fashion based on the reality you can know. This is why it's silly to believe in many religions, because they claim they know the rules for external worlds outside of the vat without any real evidence for their point of view. They do this because of the difference their actions and claimed beliefs have in this reality, not outside of the vat. Solipsism is a dangerous idea too, thinking you're the only real person, as if you were in a vat and everyone else was a simulated and irrelevant person, a non-being.

 

You're both making some assumptions to have a conversation. So you acknowledge it and move on. Being based on assumptions doesn't undo your ability to have a conversation, but in fact grants the ability.

Each of you independently knows you exist and the other exists in some form, whether it is deceptive or not, it's something. Even illusions have an objective existence, it's just not objective in the way you think.

[Donnadogsoth]

[tangent]

Which is why the robots will take over:  it will become easier to assume the human-looking, -talking, and -acting robots are human, than to try to sort through the noise of what is really human and what is a fancy toaster.  Eventually, your toaster will be opinionated and charming, and you will come to relate to it as though it were a person.

[/tangent]

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

There are two possibilities. The senses are valid or they are not. If the senses are not valid then the argument that they may not be valid cannot be valid as such an argument relies on the senses. Therefore the senses must be valid.