Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for. Look at it this way; In some cases, a lack of evidence IS evidence. The idea that my car is a transformer, I will not wake up on the moon and die from lack of oxygen, my brain is not in a Vat, or what ever absurdity the imagination can dream up; the fact that I see no evidence to support these ideas is evidence enough for me to become 100% convinced it is untrue.
Actually, that´s not my hypothetical. It´s yours ("How do you know you´re not..." requires to employ it.)
I completely agree that our consensus reality is the most sensible one to believe in, as there's no evident reason to add complication. But most sensible does not = total certainty.
It's not an easy question to answer beyond that some people just are interested in questions of epistemology and metaphysics...
Taking an idea seriously doesn't imply believing it; it's the implications of such ideas that are interesting.
It's a classic question about what we can know of reality and what reality means; as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, "The brain-in-a-vat hypotheses are crucial for the formulation of skeptical arguments concerning the possibility of knowledge of the external world that are modeled on the Cartesian Evil Genius argument". The Cartesian Evil Genius was considered by Descartes in his first Meditation (On Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt), when, after asserting his existence as a thinking entity ('cogito ergo sum') as a minimum, he reasons that he can't even be certain all his perceptions aren't generated by an omnipotent creator God (prefiguring Bishop Berkeley's 'immaterialism'), but decides that such deception wouldn't be appropriate for a supremely benevolent deity - although he would be unable to tell if, rather than God, a 'malignant demon' was deceiving him and generating his perceptual world...
Yeah, but philosophers obviously take pride in discussing those questions that aren´t easy to answer. Unless....
Sure. It´s those very implications that immediately cause me to declare the idea pointless.
Your posts say different:
OK, that's quite reasonable; but you can see why we thought you were claiming a proof.
I'd replace 'take pride' with 'find a challenge'...Yeah, but philosophers obviously take pride in discussing those questions that aren´t easy to answer. Unless....
Perhaps the philosopher's calling is not for you, young quatona, for the pointless path is the one true way...It´s those very implications that immediately cause me to declare the idea pointless.
For me, concerning this particular subject, it does.
I think using the term "faith" this way takes away from it's meaning. For me it doesn't take a leap of faith to believe my experiences are not real because my brain is in a vat, controlled by some outside source.
When I said "I never said I could prove anything" I was talking about proof to everybody's satisfaction.
No.
Well, then feel free to go ahead and prove to the OP that he´s not a brain in a vat (i.e that reality as it appears to present itself to him is physical and not a virtual simulation).
If you promise not to point out logical fallacies when scrutinizing the proof, I can do it.
