Is philosophical Skepticism true?

[Cephus]

Sorry if anyone already covered this, I skipped a few pages, but Descartes took care of this with "I think therefor I am."

You have to exist in order to at the very least pose the question, at least your consciousness does; You can know at least that much.

Actually, you don't. You could be nothing more than a super complex program running on a computer, programmed to think that you are thinking when in reality, you are just reacting to your programming. Descartes didn't have the benefit of knowing about modern technology and the possibilities it raises.

 

[Absentglare]

Actually, you don't. You could be nothing more than a super complex program running on a computer, programmed to think that you are thinking when in reality, you are just reacting to your programming. Descartes didn't have the benefit of knowing about modern technology and the possibilities it raises.

Descartes declared that one must exist in some form in order to be the subject of the deceit.

Your hypothetical does not evade this truth, it only means that the form one takes is not the one which is perceived.

 

[Mr Person]

Sorry if anyone already covered this, I skipped a few pages, but Descartes took care of this with "I think therefor I am."

You have to exist in order to at the very least pose the question, at least your consciousness does; You can know at least that much.

Which is a much shorter version of what I said, which Mach seems to take issue with. Not sure why anyone it would think that it's contradictory that we can be certain that our consciousness exists and that we can be certain that everything else is less certain than that...

 

[Mr Person]

Actually, you don't. You could be nothing more than a super complex program running on a computer, programmed to think that you are thinking when in reality, you are just reacting to your programming. Descartes didn't have the benefit of knowing about modern technology and the possibilities it raises.

But there would still be a you that exists, regardless of its cause.

 

[Cephus]

Descartes declared that one must exist in some form in order to be the subject of the deceit.

Your hypothetical does not evade this truth, it only means that the form one takes is not the one which is perceived.

If you are just the creation of someone else, without any form of independent thought, then you don't really exist in any meaningful way. And you can't rule out the possibility, no matter how remote, that everything that you "think" is just a pre-programmed response.

 

[Cephus]

But there would still be a you that exists, regardless of its cause.

There are lots of things that exist that have no capacity for thought. A rock exists. Does it think?

 

[Frank Apisa]

The goal is to define what we mean when we talk about what we know.

When i claim to have knowledge of some thing, i generally cannot absolutely determine the truth of my claim no matter how justified i may consider my belief to be. That is because the objective truth is independent of my subjective opinion on how justified the belief is.

This is why i say that we do seem to know things, but we cannot be sure that we actually know what we believe we know. In all likelihood, an overwhelming number of our justified beliefs are ultimately false.

You went right over my head with this, A.

I still do not know if we are in agreement or not on the item I mentioned.

This "knowing to a greater or lesser degree" thing seems to me to be someone saying, "No, I do not know it" but I am going to say I do anyway.

FOR ME: I often talk about what I KNOW within the constraints of acknowledging that everything I think is the world and universe...MAY JUST BE AN ILLUSION.

I live within the illusion (if it is an illusion)...and within it, I know things.

If it is an illusion, I KNOW WITHIN THE ILLUSION that my name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa; I know I am typing on the keyboard of my computer here in the den; I ate steak tonight for dinner...and so forth.

If it is an illusion (or something else I cannot even imagine) it appears I am wrong.

 

[Absentglare]

If you are just the creation of someone else, without any form of independent thought, then you don't really exist in any meaningful way. And you can't rule out the possibility, no matter how remote, that everything that you "think" is just a pre-programmed response.

There are lots of things that exist that have no capacity for thought. A rock exists. Does it think?

If someone else is controlling my thoughts, then the controller is the prime mover of my thoughts and therefore an origination of who i am in some form. It doesn't matter if i am processing the idea independently or not.

The rule is cogito ergo sum or i think, therefore i am. A rock does not think, so it cannot have absolute certainty of its own existence.

 

[Absentglare]

You went right over my head with this, A.

I still do not know if we are in agreement or not on the item I mentioned.

This "knowing to a greater or lesser degree" thing seems to me to be someone saying, "No, I do not know it" but I am going to say I do anyway.

FOR ME: I often talk about what I KNOW within the constraints of acknowledging that everything I think is the world and universe...MAY JUST BE AN ILLUSION.

I live within the illusion (if it is an illusion)...and within it, I know things.

If it is an illusion, I KNOW WITHIN THE ILLUSION that my name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa; I know I am typing on the keyboard of my computer here in the den; I ate steak tonight for dinner...and so forth.

If it is an illusion (or something else I cannot even imagine) it appears I am wrong.

We are generally in agreement but i am being picky about the language i am using because i do have a fondness for philosophy, in spite of how much of an amateur i most certainly am in the field.

We probably know a lot of things. However, we don't know which things we truly know. We believe that we have a lot of knowledge, but we cannot be absolutely certain how true every single little bit of knowledge is.

If it is an illusion, then it could be argued that you do not know some things, depending on the content of that knowledge. For example, one can say that we know the universe started with the big bang. However, if my reality is an illusion, maybe it was spontaneously brought into being at the moment of my birth. In that case, it certainly wouldn't be true that the universe started with the big bang.

So the truth of the illusion could change whether types of justified beliefs we might have are true or not.

Consider the claim: i know that reality exists. I cannot know this with absolute certainty. I cannot say that i know that i know this. I have a great deal of justification for this, as a lifetime of observation is consistent with that belief, however, it could be false. I am justified in believing it (there is evidence that it is more likely to be true than false), i do believe it, but i do not know whether it is true or false. I can still claim it as knowledge, i would simply be incorrect if reality turned out to be an illusion.

That's what i mean when i say that we cannot differentiate "justified true beliefs" from "justified beliefs", or we don't know what justified beliefs are true, or we don't know which things we know among the group of our justified beliefs.

 

[Cephus]

If someone else is controlling my thoughts, then the controller is the prime mover of my thoughts and therefore an origination of who i am in some form. It doesn't matter if i am processing the idea independently or not.

The rule is cogito ergo sum or i think, therefore i am. A rock does not think, so it cannot have absolute certainty of its own existence.

Great, so characters in computer games are now sentient. Someone controls their thoughts and scripts their actions. Glad to know that. :roll:

 

[Absentglare]

Great, so characters in computer games are now sentient. Someone controls their thoughts and scripts their actions. Glad to know that. :roll:

No, the sentience is in the controller, the sentience still exists in some form.

 

[Cephus]

No, the sentience is in the controller, the sentience still exists in some form.

But the sentience isn't you. "I think, therefore I exist" only matters if you're the one doing the thinking. But if your "thinking" is an illusion, do you still exist as a sentient being?

 

[Absentglare]

But the sentience isn't you. "I think, therefore I exist" only matters if you're the one doing the thinking. But if your "thinking" is an illusion, do you still exist as a sentient being?

I'm not making claims about how i exist, only that what i think of as "me" exists in some form.

 

[LowDown]

"Justified belief" is subjective. "True" is objective.

As i said (in other words), we are limited by our subjectivity- we cannot distinguish "justified belief" from "justified true belief" because we do not have direct access to objective reality. We only have access to what we perceive to be reality through the subjectivity of the lens of our own minds.

There are many propositions that are true that can be verified objectively. For example, the proposition that John has 10 coins in his pocket can be verified by counting the coins in his pocket.

 

[Absentglare]

There are many propositions that are true that can be verified objectively. For example, the proposition that John has 10 coins in his pocket can be verified by counting the coins in his pocket.

And one person might think a plastic coin or a foil wrapped coin is a coin and another might disagree.

Another person might consider some coins counterfeit.

Another person might not find all the coins.

Another person might make an arithmetic error.

You can do things to increase the justification for a belief, like double counting, but you cannot test for the truth of the matter.

 

[Cephus]

I'm not making claims about how i exist, only that what i think of as "me" exists in some form.

How do you know that you think of you at all?

 

[Absentglare]

How do you know that you think of you at all?

The one thing that i do know with absolute certainty is that i think. Even if reality is an illusion, even if my thoughts are pre-determined in a type of computer simulation, i still must exist in some form so as to be able to sequence through my pre-determined thoughts.

 

[Cephus]

The one thing that i do know with absolute certainty is that i think. Even if reality is an illusion, even if my thoughts are pre-determined in a type of computer simulation, i still must exist in some form so as to be able to sequence through my pre-determined thoughts.

How do you know that? You keep repeating it, I'm asking how you came by that knowledge when I've given you at least one possibility that you are not, in fact, thinking. This isn't just about existing, it's about existing as a sentient being, capable of y our own independent thoughts. How do you know that you can do that?

 

[Absentglare]

How do you know that? You keep repeating it, I'm asking how you came by that knowledge when I've given you at least one possibility that you are not, in fact, thinking. This isn't just about existing, it's about existing as a sentient being, capable of y our own independent thoughts. How do you know that you can do that?

I cannot prove to you, with absolute certainty, that i think.

And it is about just existing somehow, the definition if existing is very general.

 

[Cephus]

I cannot prove to you, with absolute certainty, that i think.

And it is about just existing somehow, the definition if existing is very general.

You can't even prove to yourself with absolute certainty that you think. That's kind of the point. How would an advanced video game character with advanced AI know that the thoughts in their head are not coming from themselves? How could they objectively test that to be certain? They can't. Neither can you.

 

[Absentglare]

You can't even prove to yourself with absolute certainty that you think. That's kind of the point. How would an advanced video game character with advanced AI know that the thoughts in their head are not coming from themselves? How could they objectively test that to be certain? They can't. Neither can you.

It doesn't matter. I'm not claiming that my thoughts are coming from the brain that inhabits my physical body as i've come to understand it. I'm only claiming that there must be something, somewhere, that creates my thoughts. That's it. And i know that is true with absolute certainty.

 

[Mach]

Actually, you don't.

Actually, he does, and so do you. It's self-evident in every statement you write, every conscious thought you have. That you don't accept it is irrelevant.
Using those concepts implicit in you writing, while simultaneously denying them, is just another contradiction.

Logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
logic:
Law of identity: whatever is, is
non-contradiction: A thing cannot both be and not be
excluded middle* : everything must either be, or not be

reason:
Existence exists: There is something as opposed to nothing
Consciousness perceives existence: to be aware of reality requires consciousness
Reality is what it is

This does not change when being fooled by mind control, etc. To claim mind control is to accept all of those. The fact that the images you sense don't correspond to a real thing, does NOT change those facts (that you are conscious of the existence of something. That the something you believe you see, is not what you think (illusion, matrix, etc.) is irrelevant.

You can't even prove to yourself with absolute certainty that you think.

A number of issues with your claim:
#1 proof is for abstract systems like mathematics, incorrect application here.
#2 all of science is falsifiable, why are you (incorrectly) setting the bar as "absolute certainty"? Doesn't that require omniscience? So truth to you = gods?
#3 The justification for knowing we think, is clearly above. To deny it, is to accept it, such are axioms.
#4 It's still a contradiction:

Implicit in that statement is thinking:
I think you cannot even prove to yourself that you think

You accept it even as you claim to reject it...that's still a contradiction, your statement is false

You can deny yourself, it's just that it's false.

 

[Mach]

It doesn't matter. I'm not claiming that my thoughts are coming from the brain that inhabits my physical body as i've come to understand it. I'm only claiming that there must be something, somewhere, that creates my thoughts. That's it. And i know that is true with absolute certainty.

Yep.
You could call at axiomatic or self-evident...true may imply it can be falsified or can be verified as true like everything else...and it cannot since its presupposed regardless.

 

[Mach]

This "knowing to a greater or lesser degree" thing seems to me to be someone saying, "No, I do not know it" but I am going to say I do anyway.

Yeah, these concepts mess with everyone's head.
In the above, you/we are presupposing we can know, while debating that we "cannot really know". When that contradiction pops up, reject it.
Notice the last line "No, I do not know it", presupposes knowing! Rewrite it like this:
I know that I do not know it <- you can see it more clearly in this form

Approach it from the other way. Describe how in reality, hypothetically (just off the cuff) we could reach this "absolute certainty"? We can't, we'd have to use that same absolute certainty to do it!

Look at this one (this is off the cuff)

Tom says: Bob has a car.
Tom says: I know bob has a car.

How are these different? Isn't knowing what we do with our brain as related to identifying reality? And all you need to accept instead is that we can be wrong (as with everything). AND that we can be right.
We can misidentify knowing, with not knowing.
I know bob has a car
(bob doesn't have a car)
I was wrong, I didn't know.

I know bob has a car
(bob has a car)
I was correct, I knew it

Isn't that more natural, no contradiction, etc.? I think it is.

 

[Mach]

I feel like these guys nailed it:

Did you see the end? Basically ducked out on knowledge. I don't blame him
JTB...Gettier...maybe next time? I checked #8 it seems about consciousness. I'd like to see it if they really did follow up on that.