Was Bertrand Russell right about doubt?

[CTD]

If reality weren't distinct from dream, we could never have invented the term 'dream'. Furthermore, even if someone else had invented it, we couldn't learn it.

 

[CTD]

If reality weren't distinct from illusion, no illusion could ever be exposed.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well, you're right, my statement doesn't solve the problem, and it does rather add additional complexity, which is what I was actually attempting to demonstrate.

Well that's good then

I know you disagree, Para, but again, if you accept your own testimony to yourself during the evaluation of a mental concept, and your own thoughts appear to you as rational, how do YOU still 'know' that you are being rational and not actually suffering from schizophrenia in your deliberations toward a conclusion? John Forbes Nash, Jr., a brilliant man and sufferer of schizophrenia, thought he was rational, even when he wasn't on his medication. Could it be that for each of us to identify ourselves as rational, some kind of confirmation beyond the sense of our own rationality is required? If it does not, how do we avoid solipsism in our self affirmed sense of rationality?

(Of course, I am not implying that you have schizophrenia, or that you are being solipsistic in your argument. I'm just being philosophical here...)

To be honest I know my last argument wasn't very good. I just stuck it in there just to say that we shouldn't assume that only we exist.

If reality weren't distinct from dream, we could never have invented the term 'dream'. Furthermore, even if someone else had invented it, we couldn't learn it.

What if you dream, and then you dream inside that dream. So then, when you wake up from your second dream, you have the concept of dreaming and then can apply that to all existence.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If we are absolutely certain of something we know it infallibly.
It is rarely, if ever, that we are infallible.
Therfore we ought to have a non-A-certain attitude most of the time.
Therefore there is room, in theory, for philosophical doubt most of the time.

 

[Resha Caner]

I seek to minimize it. Relying on consistency, predictability, reason and attempted objectivity to be my guide posts.

I think we're going to get along. I like your qualifier word: "attempted" objectivity. Those are all admirable things to try, but ... I guess my conclusion about doubt is that we have to rely on more than ourselves.

 

[variant]

I think we're going to get along. I like your qualifier word: "attempted" objectivity.

What your sensing there is someone who has experience.

The take home point of doubt is that everyone who has ever attempted to describe reality is going to be less than entirely correct.

I suggest that people who are not in the business of predicting or modeling reality to attempt to do so and see what a humiliating experience it is a good percentage of the time.

Those are all admirable things to try, but ... I guess my conclusion about doubt is that we have to rely on more than ourselves.

Knowledge is not a solitary process. Otherwise I am not sure what you are getting at here.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If reality weren't distinct from dream, we could never have invented the term 'dream'. Furthermore, even if someone else had invented it, we couldn't learn it.

I agree. But des the same that goes for "dream" go for "intelligently designed"? I mean if a watch were not a different callss (as in the watchmaker analogy) then why ought one point it out as an example of design, when one may as well have chosen a grain of sand on the beach?

 

[CTD]

I agree. But des the same that goes for "dream" go for "intelligently designed"? I mean if a watch were not a different callss (as in the watchmaker analogy) then why ought one point it out as an example of design, when one may as well have chosen a grain of sand on the beach?

A bit of a change of topic there, but yes. 'Intelligent' is redundant - but needed when dealing with those opposed in principle to intelligence.

Anyhow, if there were no such thing as design, we would have no term, no capacity to recognize it, no capacity to learn such a term. Design exists and is recognized by all, whether or not they're honest enough to admit it.

Note how omnipresent design is: those who deny it both employ it continually, and recognize it continually.

Same deal here. Those who deny reality betray their denials. Those who try to make it sound less silly by watering it down to denial of certainty betray their own belief in certainty. Until someone can at least manage to live according to their own bunk, the bunk need not even be considered.

So far, the only ones I see consistently living according to what they say are those who claim there is no right or wrong. Such people can be trusted to consistently do wrong any time they think they can get away with it. ...Shoot - in a way that betrays that they know. Randomly we shouldn't expect them to always hit on wrong, but to occasionally do right. Oh well, at least they make an attempt.

 

[CTD]

What if you dream, and then you dream inside that dream. So then, when you wake up from your second dream, you have the concept of dreaming and then can apply that to all existence.

You presuppose it possible to dream of waking up without ever having experienced it. I would maintain that nobody has ever experienced a dream of waking up prior to having awakened.

I further maintain that anyone who believed me to be non-existent would not bother communicating with me. It is not possible to either inform or misinform that which does not exist.

 

[CTD]

If we are absolutely certain of something we know it infallibly.
It is rarely, if ever, that we are infallible.

That's an attempt to leverage honesty against the honest. There is more than one way to be fallible, however. It has never been demonstrated that a man who is honest with himself is fallible in all ways.

None, one, some, all. Demonstrating fallibility in one aspect does not demonstrate fallibility in all. Thus we may indeed be susceptible to certainty.

 

[CTD]

If we are absolutely certain of something we know it infallibly.
It is rarely, if ever, that we are infallible.
Therfore we ought to have a non-A-certain attitude most of the time.
Therefore there is room, in theory, for philosophical doubt most of the time.

* Before the paint starts flying, I'll explain that when I pointed out

That's an attempt to leverage honesty against the honest. There is more than one way to be fallible, however. It has never been demonstrated that a man who is honest with himself is fallible in all ways.

I was not referring to GrowingSmaller, but to the argument. I don't consider GrowingSmaller to be the origin of the argument, but we may rather consider that GrowingSmaller's own honesty resulted in vulnerability to a bogus claim from another source.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That's an attempt to leverage honesty against the honest. There is more than one way to be fallible, however. It has never been demonstrated that a man who is honest with himself is fallible in all ways.

None, one, some, all. Demonstrating fallibility in one aspect does not demonstrate fallibility in all. Thus we may indeed be susceptible to certainty.

I agree. But I think in most cases we are fallible, like when we think - to quote a Buddhist lama - "I will not die today".

 

[CTD]

I agree. But I think in most cases we are fallible, like when we think - to quote a Buddhist lama - "I will not die today".

Careful. Things may sound clever, yet be folly.

Most days we expect to live, we are correct.

Even if we expected to die, what's to change? Maybe a last minute attempt to repent? Most are too stubborn.

But it's straw. We do not believe "I cannot die today" but rather "I probably won't die today". If people actually believed "I will not die today" you couldn't even present the argument!

 

[Resha Caner]

I suggest that people who are not in the business of predicting or modeling reality to attempt to do so and see what a humiliating experience it is a good percentage of the time.

Again, agreed. It's a nice change. I usually seem to be in the minority with such opinions.

Knowledge is not a solitary process. Otherwise I am not sure what you are getting at here.

It's a thought that could be extrapolated quite far, but I suspect we will find some differences of opinion before we get there. So, I'll keep it simple for now.

Americans seem to idolize individualism - there's an expectation that you can bootstrap yourself toward finding any truth. I really enjoyed reading Tocqueville. He did an excellent study comparing and contrasting American individualism against the European hierarchy.

 

[Paradoxum]

You presuppose it possible to dream of waking up without ever having experienced it. I would maintain that nobody has ever experienced a dream of waking up prior to having awakened.

When one uses the idea of a dream it can just be a simple way of saying "imagine if the whole world were a product of ones subconscious". It doesn't have to work the exact same way as dreaming.

I further maintain that anyone who believed me to be non-existent would not bother communicating with me. It is not possible to either inform or misinform that which does not exist.

I'm not saying that I think you don't exist, but that it is possible.

 

[CTD]

When one uses the idea of a dream it can just be a simple way of saying "imagine if the whole world were a product of ones subconscious". It doesn't have to work the exact same way as dreaming.

It wouldn't help. We still have a distinction between dream and reality; one we should not be able to make.

I'm not saying that I think you don't exist, but that it is possible.

...And it is impossible to convince you to quit saying such silly things. This I do not deny.

You think watering down the absurdity makes it stronger, but I believe that's a mistake. Why get someone's hopes up for nothing? If someone hopes reality is false, as so many do, why encourage them to be wrong?

It is not for the benefit of the promoter of such ideas, nor for the benefit of those with sense enough to reject them that they are advocated. Their target is the fool who is already wishing for some excuse to delude himself.

Now this very instant, any such fool watching is terrified I'll say something that'll break the whole thing to bits. Well fools of the world, why are you afraid I'll stop you? ...If I don't exist?

 

[Paradoxum]

It wouldn't help. We still have a distinction between dream and reality; one we should not be able to make.

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I don't mean that the physical world would be a dream in the same way that a dream in the physical world is a dream. I guess a better example might be complete hallucination. You are awake, but see and feel things that aren't really there. They are purely the product of ones mind. One could seem and wake up, know that one had been dreaming, but still be having a hallucination and not know it.

...And it is impossible to convince you to quit saying such silly things. This I do not deny.

Hummmmmm

You think watering down the absurdity makes it stronger, but I believe that's a mistake. Why get someone's hopes up for nothing? If someone hopes reality is false, as so many do, why encourage them to be wrong?

Well I attempt not to to speak my real thoughts to weak minded people in real life. If I am in the philosophy section I would hope to be able to think seriously without taking the conclusions totally seriously.

It is not for the benefit of the promoter of such ideas, nor for the benefit of those with sense enough to reject them that they are advocated. Their target is the fool who is already wishing for some excuse to delude himself.

I don't wish to target anyone. In fact I would suggest that it makes much more sense to think the physical world exists. Just that we can't know this 100%.

Now this very instant, any such fool watching is terrified I'll say something that'll break the whole thing to bits. Well fools of the world, why are you afraid I'll stop you? ...If I don't exist?

Any such fool will be able to read about such things on the internet without me.

I would say that we would believe that the physical world exists (very simply) because it is rather absurd to think that oneself is effectively God because it would lead to a very weird fundamental foundation of existence.

 

[CTD]

It wouldn't help. We still have a distinction between dream and reality; one we should not be able to make.

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I don't mean that the physical world would be a dream in the same way that a dream in the physical world is a dream. I guess a better example might be complete hallucination. You are awake, but see and feel things that aren't really there. They are purely the product of ones mind. One could seem and wake up, know that one had been dreaming, but still be having a hallucination and not know it.

How then do we have the term 'hallucination'?

I would say that we would believe that the physical world exists (very simply) because it is rather absurd to think that oneself is effectively God because it would lead to a very weird fundamental foundation of existence.

There are dozens of problems with any reality-dodging delusion. The trick to becoming a fool is to be extremely superficial and not really consider any of the issues.

You raise another funny issue: imagining oneself some sort of out-of-control god. It won't reconcile.

We're barely scratching the surface.

Waking up should be impossible
Being surprised should be impossible
Discovery should be impossible
Learning should be impossible
Being mistaken should be impossible
Even the concepts of spoken and written language don't fit

...And finally, I, as one who rejects them, have no place in such delusions, just as I have no place in any world that is subject to revision by means of enchantment.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I don't mean that the physical world would be a dream in the same way that a dream in the physical world is a dream. I guess a better example might be complete hallucination. You are awake, but see and feel things that aren't really there. They are purely the product of ones mind. One could seem and wake up, know that one had been dreaming, but still be having a hallucination and not know it.

I think that one who believes such stuff should declare himself a solipsist, since it hardly makes sense to accept the reality of everyone else's (as well as his own) mind, which he cannot emprically verify, as the manufacturer of those things which can be empirically verified.

The speculated origin of X becomes more philosophically troubling than X itself. It's as though we debunk UFO sightings, explaining that they might well be angels.

 

[Paradoxum]

How then do we have the term 'hallucination'?

One can quite imagine permanently hallucinating, but only thinking that you are hallucinating when your experience something particularly illogical. On the other hand.

There are dozens of problems with any reality-dodging delusion. The trick to becoming a fool is to be extremely superficial and not really consider any of the issues.

Probably true.

You raise another funny issue: imagining oneself some sort of out-of-control god. It won't reconcile.

It may not reconcile, but not for the reasons you state.

We're barely scratching the surface.

Waking up should be impossible
Being surprised should be impossible
Discovery should be impossible
Learning should be impossible
Being mistaken should be impossible
Even the concepts of spoken and written language don't fit

It could be ones sub-conscious that is God.

...And finally, I, as one who rejects them, have no place in such delusions, just as I have no place in any world that is subject to revision by means of enchantment.

Care to expand?

I think that one who believes such stuff should declare himself a solipsist, since it hardly makes sense to accept the reality of everyone else's (as well as his own) mind, which he cannot emprically verify, as the manufacturer of those things which can be empirically verified.

The speculated origin of X becomes more philosophically troubling than X itself. It's as though we debunk UFO sightings, explaining that they might well be angels.

I don't actually believe the things I'm saying. I'm just entertaining the ideas.

Of course the mind can't be empirically verified, but we are assuming that my mind is the course of what I experience, it makes empirical verification pointless.