For which you run into Agrippa's Trilemma, because now you have to make a reasoned argument as how you know that. Or you simply declare dogmatically that it is so. hit infinite regress or beg the question.You can know many things non-inferentially
What you said was this: "I know, that you can know many things non-inferentially."
For which I answer: "How do you know that?" — Mikkel
My point is that your argument doesn't prove that we don't know things non-inferentially, and since most people believe that they do know things on the basis of their sense experience (and not arguments), your argument simply doesn't engage the most plausible view out there regarding knowledge. I'm not trying to assert that I'm right that we do know things non-inferentially, I'm just saying that your argument doesn't show that we don't (and so I don't have to prove that we do, in order to show that your argument doesn't succeed). — Fafner
I don't know ;) how to get this across. It is pointless to point out that my argument about knowledge fails, if all arguments about knowledge fail. — Mikkel
That you believe you have knowledge, means you have knowledge? Is that your point? — Mikkel
Further you claimed that there are things, which are know non-inferentially, so would you please explain, how you know that? — Mikkel
I already told you - by perceiving them. This is what 'non-inferential' means - the reason for your belief is not in the form of an argument which you can give to someone, it just suffices to have the right sort of experience without needing any additional reasons. — Fafner
What do you mean? You know that you perceive something by perceiving it, how else? — Fafner
How do you know that is something and not an illusion? — Mikkel
Now you are just using the Cartesian argument which I discussed in my other post. I thought that your 'trilemma argument' was a different argument from the classical argument from illusion (and by the way, you said previously you agreed with me that the argument is incoherent). — Fafner
You have made a naive realistic claim - "You know that you perceive something by perceiving it, how else?", but you have given no evidence. — Mikkel
Now if you claim that hallucinations are not real, then I have to ask - How do you know that? — Mikkel
Now I see a tree. That is non-inferential, I will accept that for now. But what that have to do with the objective reality? What do you mean by objective reality and how do you know that there is such a thing as an objective reality? — Mikkel
-when you assign the odds.Suppose that scenario (a) is the actual one)
Now Fafner, the objective reality does not conform to what you believe, not matter what you believe. That you can't understand, that you have just admitted that it is a belief and not knowledge, tells me, that you don't understand the skeptic position - You don't know what reality is and you only believe.So I believe...
You turn it being about God, if reality is not as it appears. You don't understand the examples in this thread, do you? None of them has to do with God. Both examples are naturalistic....by virtue of some miracle...
The simulation argument:
1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero, or
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero, or
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one — Michael
This whole set of logic presupposes that what we are is the instantiation, or execution, of whatever physics makes us up. But a simulation of thing X is not an instance of X. X already exists (is defined, and the definition is enough), and the simulation simply imparts some truth about X to whatever is executing the simulation.If there are more Sims than there are non-Sims then we're more likely to be Sims. — Michael
Granted. I must reword then.I think the simulation argument is less about us and more about the world we live in. — Alec
You completely misunderstood my post, that's all that I can say. — Fafner
The idea that there is an objective reality independently of the mind, which you none the less, have access to is a contradiction, because reality can't be independent of you and yet you have access to it. — Mikkel
Reality is your experiences and your beliefs about how to make sense of it. There is no "The objective reality", because then subjectivity is not a part of reality. — Mikkel
That facts, evidence, truth, knowledge and so on matter to you is because, that it matters to you, is what makes it subjective. — Mikkel
I use the word knowledge as an idea that some people believe in, but I don't believe in knowledge.
You don't seem to understand doubt. — Mikkel
My reasoning assumes no BIV, a separate thing that experiences a sensory stream that is not the same sort of thing that is the experiencer. It assumes (and does not assert) that consciousness is just a physical process, no more. If this is not true, then all rules are off concerning whether a simulation of anything can exist at all.The problem is, once we start applying your reasoning to things in general, then it seems to amount to us saying that the experiences that we have of an external world cannot be replicated by a simulation or otherwise. That'd be extraordinary indeed, if we can somehow prove definitively that we cannot be brains in vats or living in a vivid dream world. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that that isn't the case, hence the persistence of skepticism. — Alec
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.