This process of change took place within some form of reality, whether I am capable of seeing that reality or not. If there were no base reality in which my consciousness could move from non-existence to existence then could it have happened at all? — vanzhandz
How can Jenny or anyone else know Jenny's psychological state of mind? Why can't knowledge be scientific knowledge learned from a book? — magritte
This reminds me of Theseus paradox, more specifically, an example given by the philosopher Daniel Gilbert (I think).
If Dan shows Jenny his blue Mazda, and then Jenny is asked if she knows what car Dan owns, and she says "Yes, I know, a blue Mazda". That's one thing.
But consider that 2 weeks goes by, Dan get's in an accident and total's his Mazda.
He then goes out and buys another blue Mazda.
Jenny knows nothing of this, but later, she is asked if she knows what car Dan owns. She says "Yes, I know, he owns a blue Mazda".
The statement "He owns a blue Mazda" is true, but is the statement "Yes, I know" true
With that being the case, in what reality does this infinite process of subjective realities creating subjective realities take place? And if the process of infinite creation is what makes up reality as a whole, then can’t that infinite process be called the “base reality.” — vanzhandz
I disagree. In the first instance Jenny was told by Dan that he owned the blue Mazda he showed her. She believed what he told her (likely for good reason), and as luck would have it, her belief happened to be true. But she didn't have enough information to know that he owned the car. — LuckyR
That's the starting point, but by extension, as you pointed out, the overall point is that we cannot know anything definitively ever. Thus she doesn't know he owns the car in the first place, even though she thinks she does and she is correct.
It just starts with a flagpole for demonstration purposes.
Given all of that, it's then relevant to ask what we mean by "true" when we say that "Jenny knows something" is true. Or if we can say it at all
Scientific realism seems more the default position than his anti-metaphysical stance. — Count Timothy von Icarus
While I don't understand calling it the "Base Reality" if it were the case, I think it's being casual with language. — Dale de Silva
Consider that we might live in a simulation. The reality that created the simulation could itself be a simulation of a 3rd reality, and so on and so forth. They're all still objective realities (in which we all have our own subjective experiences), but they're still infinite as you describe above. — Dale de Silva
I feel like you'd probably agree with that aspect, as it's not what you originally intended.
Thoughts? — Dale de Silva
So back to plain ordinary reality, socks and hands and cups and kettles. — Banno
But that wouldn’t stop the fly from remaining trapped in the grammatical fly-bottle of propositional truth statements (this IS a fly, this IS a bottle , the fly is IN the bottle).Consider though that, if you could teach a fly that it is a fly, that it is in a fly bottle, and what a fly bottle is, you might be able to help the fly stop flying back into the same fly bottle over and over.
In any event, it seems to me like Wittgenstein's influence on metaphysics has really waned. Scientific realism seems more the default position than his anti-metaphysical stance — Count Timothy von Icarus
But I always took Wittgenstein to be saying that philosophers (and scientists doing philosophy) shouldn't be getting into "what really exists," and what doesn't, in metaphysical terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus
, I don't think he believed we can't know whether, e.g., socks are real or that there's something real we can't know, but rather that our use of language can "trick" us into striving to know what's "really real. — Ciceronianus
Scientific realism seems able to say things like: "fundamental particles don't really exist, they are just mathematical descriptions of standing waves, and it's the mathematical structure that is most real," — Count Timothy von Icarus
:smile: I think the point is not about liking Descartes or not. The point is that Descartes carried on in this human desire of finding something strong, definitive, finding power. We know that this point of Descartes, like any philosophical point aimed at gaining power, grasping existence, is exposed to criticism. Still, it seems that after centuries this human desire is irresistible to our psichology and our mind carries on devising stratagems to comfort ourselves and think that there is still hope to get some kind of ultimate power, ultimate control, able to finally withstand every possible present and future criticism. — Angelo Cannata
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.