There is a severe form of skepticism that has floated around philosophical issues for hundreds of years. These skeptics want to show that we have very little (if any) knowledge of the external world. Here's how the argument goes:
1) If I know some ordinary proposition O (e.g., I have hands) then I know that propositions inconsistent with O are false ~P (I know that I'm not just in the Matrix and being deceived that I have hands). 2) I don't know that I'm not in the Matrix. 3) So, I don't know O (e.g., that I have hands).
This argument is valid (3 follows from 1 and 2 by modus tollens) but it may need more explaining. For anything that I say that I know (we're calling this O) I have to know that ~P (not P), where P is some proposition that, if true, would make O false. So, if I know that I'm looking at a Ford Tempo, I know that I'm not looking at a Mercury Sable. If I know that I'm looking at a zebra, then I know I'm not looking at a cleverly disguised mule.
To put the argument in more understandable terms, let's say I ask you if you know where your car is (or pick anything that you own that you can't see right now. This statement is like O, from above). You say "Yes, of course. My car is parked right outside." I respond by asking if you know that your car hasn't been stolen in the past 5 minutes (here, we have P. You must know P is false because, if it were true, O would be false. If your car has been stolen, then you don't know where it is). Here, most people will concede they don't really know where their car is, but they're pretty sure. Of course, you could walk outside and go check to make sure your car is there. Then, presumably, you would know where your car is. Taking this back to the Matrix case, it seems like any knowledge of the external world would be false if we're plugged into the Matrix, or dreaming, or being deceived by an evil demon. Of course, we can't just walk outside and check to make sure we're not in the Matrix. The key point here is: we can NEVER know that we're in a skeptical scenario, like the Matrix But since we don't know P is false, we don't know O is true. And thus, the skeptic argues, we don't know very much at all.
There are some fairly standard philosophical moves to try to handle the argument, and they get far too complicated to go into here. But I believe the answer to the skeptic is more intuitive than philosophers have thought. So I'd like to get the AG community's thoughts on the problem. Which premise or premises from the above argument would you reject? Or do you think we really don't know ordinary propositions, like having hands?
I don't reject any of the skeptical premises. I myself subscribe to the belief that it is more likely that we are in a Matrix esque machine than in fact simply existing in a real world.
That said I refer to one of my hero's Bertrand Russell who expounded a common sense view of philosophy. Yes, it's possible that everyhting we perceive is in fact an illusion. But how does that help anyone? Skepticism is fun for awhile, but you have to move on. We lose nothing by acting as if the world is real. If this is the case we find ourselves in a better position than those who don't hold any real knowledge.
Back to my original point though. I find it a very interesting area of discussion. But that's where its functionality as an idea ends. It is simply not a pragmatic position to put into practice. Trying to do anything about it won't do you any favours (besides making a very profitable film), unless you are willing to kill yourself, since you would not be able to be truly killed by unreal objects.
That said I refer to one of my hero's Bertrand Russell who expounded a common sense view of philosophy.
Russell also tried to logically construct the material world from what he called raw sense data. Particular patches of color in our visual field come together in an extremely complex construction of the world as we think it is. But this was supposed to be a construction of logical entailment, not one of common sense (although I think early Russell may have been more common sense oriented). Of course, Russell's theory didn't work out for a variety of reasons, but it's important to note here that Russell probably would have accepted all these premises. He firmly believed in the power of deduction.
But your point, I think, is one that we all intuitively agree with. But what separates the skeptical scenario from your car being stolen? The latter, I think we all agree, would interfere with your knowledge that you know where your car is. But the former, for some reason, doesn't. So what's the difference?
When my brain's under attack, I know from the get-go that it was Moe striking back, aka O :P
The only problem I see with this is that this philosophy of yours deals with personal observations in which one person has experienced by him/herself. Yet, with the power of technological advancements in communication and relay, we can have people explore the depths of the unknown in wherever and tell us who,what,when,where,why of something we haven't already known, conveying these observations to be true, O -- but how would we know that they are telling the truth? (P)
The key point here is: we can NEVER know that we're in a skeptical scenario, like the Matrix
Of course. After all, something like a brain vaat or the Matrix, a sensineural manipulator designed to create a virtual world to 'fool' the experiences of the individual, can never really be found to be false or true. We can however contemplate this and think "Wow...we could be under experimentation from intelligent species millions of years ahead of us in technological/biological advancements right now!".
It is exactly like a lucid dream (something I talked about on a thread in the Tavern. Go look for it. No, I don't remember the name, now shoo!). It is so vivid and genuine that these experiences seem real. But until you wake up and experience real reality, you have the sense of this particular event being real.
Finally-- Something from Moe I can actually UNDERSTAND! *huff*
Eh sometimes actions speak louder then words in that these philosophers who do not believe in anything must interact with a world that they think doesn't exist...that is all these theories being told by those who say one thing but do another is kinda lame. I we cannot know anything then why the hell mention it in the first place, if you surly believe in nothing can be communicated then why not shut up? IN the simplest Ideas that I have skeptically thought of is that the natural instincts we must follow in order to live deprive any value to not knowing anything, and If you change the scale of things everything gets distorted for example we may think we are remembering something but in the end it is a electrochemical reaction that has been running around in our heads...In essence its a reflex of organic sensors, once you pull the plug no more current flows and therefore not more knowledge.
The only problem I see with this is that this philosophy of yours deals with personal observations in which one person has experienced by him/herself.
That's a really good point. But on any account we can't really have access to other people's mental states. With that in mind, our experiences are completely compatible with either other minds existing or my mind (or yours) being the only one that exists. I'm sure you realize all this, but the problem you mention seems to be a problem of the human condition. It is not a problem that is restricted to the skeptic.
Of course. After all, something like a brain vaat or the Matrix, a sensineural manipulator designed to create a virtual world to 'fool' the experiences of the individual, can never really be found to be false or true.
Absolutely. But it seems like with this point in mind that the only way to get out of the skeptical argument is through verificationism. The idea behind this philosophical notion is that a statement is meaningful only insofar as it can be verified - either empirically or through deduction (although many verificationists say that only empirical proof counts). The problem with this line of thought is that verificationism is just false. There are statements that are clearly meaningful and yet cannot be verified. A looser form of verificationism is pragmatism. And while pragmatism avoids some problems of verificationism, it is still not a very attractive view for many philosophers. But maybe that's just because a good theory for it has not yet been developed.
Finally-- Something from Moe I can actually UNDERSTAND! *huff*
I'm sorry. I'm really trying to work on that. I did my best to explain as best I could the nature of the skeptical problem. And then I realized that I had a wall of text for everyone to wade through. I don't know what else to do. I think I may be a certified thread killer
Eh sometimes actions speak louder then words in that these philosophers who do not believe in anything must interact with a world that they think doesn't exist
A great point. In fact, no one actually behaves like a skeptic. And if our actions reflect our beliefs, then it could be argued that no one actually believes that skepticism obtains. Just like if I say that I believe it's raining and yet refuse to wear a raincoat. You begin to wonder if I really do believe what I'm saying.
If you change the scale of things everything gets distorted
I like this point. It sounds like you're saying that when we raise the bar of knowledge too high, we are talking about something different from what we call knowledge. But then we have to wonder - what is knowledge? Most philosophers hold that it is justified true belief (plus some Gettier condition - not important here). But it's the true part that makes it knowledge. So if we're a brain in a vat (BIV) then it looks like all our beliefs are false. So do we aim for something other than truth? Do we redefine what it means for something to be true? If so, it looks like we're headed down the verificationist path, and we don't want to go there.
we may think we are remembering something but in the end it is a electrochemical reaction that has been running around in our heads
Very true. In fact, our memory as it stands is completely compatible with the notion that we just popped into existence 5 minutes ago with all these memories implanted.
Actually, it was Russell (I think) who first postulated this 5 minute argument. But that's later Russell in his book Human Knowledge (1948).
All these responses seem absolutely right. But how do we argue for them? How do we motivate them without accepting some other ridiculous theory?
I try to construct my own theories based upon what I have been told and what I have experienced. I forgot the two main forms of evidence for philosophies but rationalism and empiricism something like that. When many of these philosophers argue with only one form of evidence and disregard the other then that is like those skeptics of knowledge, they just become ignorant for it.
I'm sorry. I'm really trying to work on that. I did my best to explain as best I could the nature of the skeptical problem. And then I realized that I had a wall of text for everyone to wade through. I don't know what else to do. I think I may be a certified thread killer
Try Simple English, aka Layman's terms.
I had to pull out dictionary.com for about 4 words you took, and then another 4 minutes to take in that sentence to understand it XD
That's a really good point. But on any account we can't really have access to other people's mental states. With that in mind, our experiences are completely compatible with either other minds existing or my mind (or yours) being the only one that exists. I'm sure you realize all this, but the problem you mention seems to be a problem of the human condition. It is not a problem that is restricted to the skeptic.
That is true; we are not so advanced in technology to do something so complex like that. This is why we instead have them relay to us what they are thinking. Hypotheses and theories have sprung from this.What I'd like to say is, the only things we have proven to be true beyond a shadow of doubt are laws. Something (within the bounds of the Matrix) to be irrefutably true. What comes up must come down-- I think everyone within the Matrix can attest to this. When something is struck, it sends an equal, opposite reaction-- we can attest to this as well (I have even tested this by myself since I was bored at one point).
These are the things we know for a fact are real. It is the information that we think we know that can be controversial, contradicting, and challenged.
I try to construct my own theories based upon what I have been told and what I have experienced.
I can understand 'experienced', but why 'told'? How are you certain enough what you have been told is plausible?
(gonna try to post in bits and pieces, as if I answer so much at once, it's going to be wall o' text vs. wall o' text.)
I can understand 'experienced', but why 'told'? How are you certain enough what you have been told is plausible?
Well for anyway to think outside ones own perspective you must be told someone else's ideas. There might be something you do not know, just the thought of millions of peoples efforts being depicted by a single fragment of knowledge can be told, but to experience such things would take more then a million lifetimes.
Hm.. Okay... Using that, let's use religion as an example. Shintoism is the belief that every living thing and every object has a spirit and each has its own place in the world. Using the knowledge that many people have told you this, would you have to use their perspectives to know something, or would you have to physically and mentally experience it for yourself to be true? There are millions of animals that do various mating rituals before mating. Using the methods that Moe has given us, we couldn't possibly know for ourselves unless we ourselves have experienced this:
Animals do mating rituals before they mate -- O
Using this, saying that animals that mate before doing the rituals would have to be P.
But if you don't know that they do either, it would be contradictory to say so without knowing yourself.
I always believed that there's pretty much an equal chance either way. Just because we don't know we don't live in a Matrix-type world doesn't mean we do, it means we don't know. Likelihood is unaffected by our lack of knowledge.
Well there are the things anyone can experience in one life time but do you regret learning the things that have been given to you for example the technology in ones house is far more advance then a simple shelter, this was the result of many ideas becoming a part of your single existence. Some things could not be experienced without the knowledge that has been passed on but in a way the experiences are the same since we are the same as our ancestors, physically that is we experience light sound and other sensory things but the sources are different, thus the knowledge of the source is simply a multitude of ideas that were driven by experiences. I can understand not experiencing something for oneself but like I said before you may not have the same perspective once you experience something else.
