you said that because this entails believing contradictory things, the objection fails. — Michael
You're ignoring my conditional. I said that IF the mere conceivability or possibility of a claim is sufficient for believing that claim, then it would require believing contradictories for the vast majority if claims. — Terrapin Station
Then as I said, it doesn't address the objection, which is that realism isn't justified because there are grounds to doubt it — Michael
Do you really remember a lot of detail about the last couple of hours? I know people vary when it comes to that.I would say that it is because I can remember so much detail about the last couple hours — John
Right. My application of Leibniz Law was partly as a lark. The conclusion of the argument is not that there is no distinction (anymore than the one about the Evil Demon is concluding that there is an evil demon.)We must be able to make at least some meaningful distinction between waking and dreams, even to be able to ask the question — John
Since I perceive the world directly there is no reason for me to doubt whether my experiences right now when I'm awake might be real or dreams.I asked how you know you aren't dreaming right now. — Mongrel
No, after your clarification your question turned out to be easy to dismiss (despite your misuse of "logic").What does it suggest.. that you don't simply answer the question? — Mongrel
3. Mind and world are ontologically dichotomous, with experience being entirely "internal" to the mind (e.g. qualia, ideas, representations, etc.) and the world being entirely "external" to it. — Aaron R
One problem with the argument is that dreams are epistemically distinguishable from waking experience, in that they do differ quite a bit from waking experience. It's just that usually our ability to judge is suspended while dreaming, although not always. In lucid dreaming, we do realize we're having a dream, and can take control of it to some extent. It's not like we go to sleep and experience another life just like the one we're having, such that we can't tell which is the real life upon waking. Dreams often don't make sense, they're jumbled up and weird. They don't follow the rules of waking perception. — Marchesk
Following the appropriation, only if a person were unable to distinguish between dreaming and non-dreaming would they have grounds to doubt. But, not being able to know when they were in a dream state, they would not have reason to believe that they were ever in a dream! In fact, they would not even know what a dream was - even if you tried to explain it to them (like trying to explain blue to a blind man).
EDIT : After re-reading this, I realized that it might not be clear as to what I was trying to say.
Conclusion : The act of dreaming can never be used as grounds for doubting existence-sans-minds. Either we know the difference between dreaming and non-dreaming and could not logically use dreaming to disprove something about non-dreaming or, we do not know what a dream is and cannot hold it up as evidence for doubt. — Real Gone Cat
Klein, in his SEP article on skepticism, contends that the Dream argument conforms to the following schema:
1. If I know that p, then there are no genuine grounds for doubting that p.
2. U is a genuine ground for doubting that p.
3. Therefore, I do not know that p. — Aaron R
1. If I know that the object I am holding in my hand exists independently of my mind, then there are no genuine grounds for doubting it.
2. If I were now dreaming, then there would be ground for doubting that the object in my hand exists independently of my mind.
3. Therefore, I don't know that the ball in my hand exists independently of my mind. — Aaron R
But just because I do not know this that does not then imply, because of the character of "U", that I am a solipsist. If I am a skeptic, I would not be a solipsist in the sense that I would not claim to know that I am the only existing entity. — Moliere
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.