Plato's Cave

[Pizzabeak]

Plato (428-348 BC) was the one who came up with the cave allegory, which says those in a cave with a firelight can only see their shadow and believe that makes up the whole of their reality, wherein they can't comprehend or conceive of the idea of actual reality, and so think that's all there is.

It's a criticism on human life. People just react to stimuli thinking they see what's all there, so there could be more to perception than that. Even if they try to think of that concept they still can't grasp all there is to life. If you were to take one and take them out the cave, that person would see the sun and be dazzled by the light of day and not be able to see. After some time though, they'd be able to look around and see the real world's reality and even possibly the source (the Sun).

However, if you take them back into the cave and were they to explain this to the other cave dwellers, they can't, they'd be laughed at, ridiculed, and killed. You can't forget what he said about this allegory circa 380 BC, which is one of the best metaphors of all time about it.

It isn't hard to understand. The cave dwellers are "ignorant sheep", common masses, the shadows are physical objects instead of eternal universal forms, the escapee is the "philosopher", the Sun is The Good and all truth, and the death at the end is Socrates's execution. He didn't just predict his own death.

Moral of the story is, the rewards of philosophy or scientific discovery are not fame and riches, or reputational acclaim. If you're in a cave, think twice before going outside - you could never return back home again.

Apparently philosophers are the only ones immune to being blinded by any light. Since a young age my parents, family, and peers told me I should switch to philosophy or major in it, be a philosopher and write a book. We are believers in illusions, possibly braindead brain in jars.

Not anyone you point at or accuse is a cave dweller, it's more complex than that. It isn't just people who watch TV all day, transfixed by the glow. Artists, scientists, even philosophers are not attending to the most important things. It's about balance.

Does truth really exist if it lies outside the physical world? Is it even possible to mingle with the Other, and would you even want to? Moore's common sense states common sense beats skepticism every time, in a departure from the pre-Socratic tradition which holds that philosophy somehow reveals the true nature of the world by rejecting ordinary beliefs established about what is. This argues for what everyone probably believes to be true anyway, which is a common sense view of the world. Nothing can be as apparently well known as common sense notions.

Do you think there's any truth to this or should you just live a good life according to simple truths and principles, and base your life off being a nice neighbor?

 

[Cognisant]

The allegory of the cave can be interpreted multiple ways, to subjectivist it's validation their epistemological skepticism, to the objectivist (as in materialist/realist) it's a lament for their self imposed exile. Once someone exits the cave they can go back but they can never unsee what they've seen.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It's really only for specialists, or abstract metaphysical thinkers and thought experiments. Common sense proofs are merely "here is this", "therefore the external world exists". Their argument is that the premises entail the conclusion, and that the premises are different than the conclusion.

Critics just say he can't actually provide an argument. William James's pragmatism (1907) suggests playing around with wordy, philosophical arguments is a waste of time. If an argument serves no purpose, it can never really be true in the first place. To some people, the truth is nothing more than a belief that's practical and helpful, useful in your life to help you get through the day. Radical empiricism is an example of a doctrine that supports more holographic or simulatory aspects of the universe. Philosophy just tries to "unify" all into one. The only differences are practical ones, otherwise if it makes no difference the alternatives are basically the same.

 

[Cognisant]

Plato's Cave is the same premise as The Matrix and as to whether or not we're living in an artificial reality it's a matter of reasonable skepticism.

Without evidence I cannot reasonably assume that I'm in an artificial reality, indeed without any evidence at all I cannot assume anything.

My life experience is evidence that I'm not living in an artificial reality, this is by no means conclusive, my experiences may be false evidence but I cannot reasonably assume without evidence that my experiences have been falsified.

To disregard evidence without contradictory evidence is unreasonable skepticism.

 

[The Grey Man]

Experiences can't be falsified. If some have criticized Moore for failing to provide an argument to support his proposition, "Here is one hand", it only proves that they've misunderstood him. The proposition is just such that it requires no support from any argument—it is self-evident. What are we to make of self-styled "lovers of wisdom" that have not the honesty to acknowledge a hand when it is dangled in front of their face?

 

[Cognisant]

What are a magician's tricks and optical illusions if not falsified experiances?

A vital aspect of the scientific method is to always assume that your beliefs may be incorrect and thus they must be tested and empirically verified.

Much unlike religion where one is asked to believe in spite of contradictory evidence, because unquestioning belief and subservience are virtues for some reason...

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think all Plato was saying was, "dude, there are things called the Forms and I think you guys should all think about them more".

In other words he was trying to nudge people into thinking about his realism more.

Anyway William James is actually one of my favorite philosophers. I loved reading his Varieties of Religious Experience.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

 

[Cognisant]

 

[The Grey Man]

What are a magician's tricks and optical illusions if not falsified experiances?

A vital aspect of the scientific method is to always assume that your beliefs may be incorrect and thus they must be tested and empirically verified.

Much unlike religion where one is asked to believe in spite of contradictory evidence, because unquestioning belief and subservience are virtues for some reason...

There's a difference between being led to adopt false beliefs by experiences and the experiences themselves being false. The surface of the Earth appears to end at the horizon, yet we know that it doesn't: this doesn't mean that the horizon is false, only that if we attempt to fabricate a theory of the geography of the planet based only on our immediate experience, it will be erroneous. More information is needed.

Similarly, if a woman appears to have been sawn in half by a stage magician using the well-known box procedure, it doesn't mean that our experience of her head being one on side of the room and a pair of feet on the other was wrong, just that we were wrong to assume that those feet were hers.

There may be reason to doubt that my hand means this or that, but there is no reason to doubt my hand. Illusions deceive the intellect; the senses are no more deceived than the bearer of a deceitful message.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Experiences can't be falsified. If some have criticized Moore for failing to provide an argument to support his proposition, "Here is one hand", it only proves that they've misunderstood him. The proposition is just such that it requires no support from any argument—it is self-evident. What are we to make of self-styled "lovers of wisdom" that have not the honesty to acknowledge a hand when it is dangled in front of their face?

Yes they can. That has nothing to do with anything. If you're a proponent of Moore, you wouldn't be skeptical about what he said in the first place. Just because a philosopher says something doesn't make it true, there's no real science behind what they write.

There could be something deeper going on behind common sense (then you have to prove whether there is or not). Moore more or less just distinguished the difference between "philosophically" proving a statement true and having an established basis for common sense knowledge. Waving a hand in someone's face just means you're being shallow, only concerned about the surface image of things, objects. George Berkeley's idealism came out before Moore's common sense. According to him, it's all in your head, or mind. Your hand just doesn't blink out of existence when you aren't looking at it. There would be no external world in the first place, then - so no skepticism about it. There's no real matter under experience, just sensory stimulation for our mind. The color "red" or taste flavor "sour" don't exist independently of them being perceived or tasted. If they do, there's a material substratum in the universe, i.e. atoms.

 

[The Grey Man]

Waving a hand in someone's face just means you're being shallow, only concerned about the surface image of things, objects.

No, it means that I'm showing that person an object to begin. Before you can penetrate the "surface layer" of exoteric physical phenomena to get at "deeper", esoteric, transcendental truths, you need to be acquainted with those phenomena, else there's nothing to penetrate.

 

[Pizzabeak]

That's basically what I already said:

"distinguished the difference between "philosophically" proving a statement true and having an established basis for common sense knowledge"

 

[The Grey Man]

You also said that experience can be falsified, but if experience may be true or false, by what standard are we to evaluate its veracity? There is no greater assurance that a thing is so than that one intuitively knows it to be so. Experience must be to philosophy what to any deductive system are its axioms: the wellspring form which it flows.

 

[QuickTwist]

It's not about the sun itself; it's about what the sun illuminates. The sun is symbolic to (in)sight.

Plato is claiming to know the truth, which isn't saying much because we all think we know the truth. Insofar as the thought experiment is brought about, considering the cultural underpinnings of what was going on in the world at the time, it still isn't saying much, it is just illuminating what is.

No one is in perpetual darkness and some go back to the cave because they are curious. Some go back to the cave because they want to help the people in the cave. Regardless, you can think of humans as frequently walking in and out of the cave on a regular basis because it is home.


Home is the womb. The cave is the womb. Knowledge is pain.

 

[The Grey Man]

There are two classes of thinkers which correspond to the escapee from Plato's cave and its willing inhabitants: those who think about thought and those who do not.

The first class of thinkers is not satisfied with the advantages conferred by knowing particular objects, but seeks to know the general through the particular. Such a thinker conceived the allegory of the cave because he conceived of the greater part of mankind as fools who willingly blind themselves to eternal truths.

The second class of thinkers has its own disparaging fable: that of the astrologer who falls in the well while gazing at the stars. In this case the folly is not self-deception, but self-mortification; the philosopher makes a sacrifice of his temporal wellbeing on the altar of knowledge.

The second class has this advantage over the first class: that they use the intellect according to its teleological function. Humanity developed its manifold faculties of perception not because it was wise, but because it was prudent to do so; the knowledge of an individual is not an end for the species, but a means to its survival. Therefore, while the mutual contempt between the two classes of thinkers is responsible for the perennial rhetorical conflict between philosophical idealists and realists, the true realist is not a philosopher at all, but man of action.

The first-class thinkers use the intellect in a manner contrary to its teleological function. Instead of the survival of the species, they aim for the salvation of the individual; instead of particular objects of want, they want an end to want in general, and some do actually seem to get it—even if only temporarily—through the sublime contemplation of nature and works of art. Whether eternal salvation is possible is a matter of faith, I suppose.

There was a time when I would have asked whether one should stay in the cave or risk falling in the well, but I've recently come to believe that it's meaningless to ask whether one "should" do anything. The will wants what it wants.

"Ought to will!"—wooden iron!

 

[Pizzabeak]

You also said that experience can be falsified, but if experience may be true or false, by what standard are we to evaluate its veracity? There is no greater assurance that a thing is so than that one intuitively knows it to be so. Experience must be to philosophy what to any deductive system are its axioms: the wellspring form which it flows.

At what frequency will experience be falsified? Either all the time, some of the time, or none of the time? There should be a standard. Intuitive assurance is not as great as direct, sensational proof. Science is to philosophy what philosophy is to science. They feed off each other, interpretating, describing, commentating, criticizing, allowing room for new and more science or philosophy. They aren’t mutually exclusive and you don’t need both to live a successful, happy life.

The universe is an uroboros - the alchemical double twin snake symbol eating itself from the tail.

 

[The Grey Man]

Intuitive knowledge of a thing and sensory proof of it are one in the same; both refer to knowledge of an object that does not depend upon any argument.

The observation which is the beginning and end of the scientific method and the premises of philosophy are one in the same; both refer to perception.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It doesn't so much matter how many class of thinker it refers to or which ones. You can make up your own category or example to apply to something in real life experience. You don't really have to take it literal as an example, as the situation could have no practical use in reality nor ever even really occur in it. But it still could, to some degree. And if so, its applicability could vary in usefulness to different people, so whatever logical law or reason you use it under, would ultimately strive towards what goal you're trying for.

It's like flatland or 3-D, 4-D spaces, irrespective of how many dimensions there really are in spacetime. As an example or concept it could make sense but it doesn't even really occur in real life. There are no real 2 or 1-D creatures that we can see but they can't perceive us. It's hypothetical. Besides bacteria and small insects it doesn't so much exist in that way. Doesn't mean the example wouldn't exist otherwise in some cases and couldn't be entertained as an idea, or it just plain wouldn't exist. It's all the same hypotheses from previous generations, it's still synonymous with new science waiting to be discovered at the helm. Even so, further supposed truths from philosophy could shed further light on reality for understanding, and make pseudoscience sound faker. Whether you want astrology, new age woo pop pseudoscience, crystal vibrations, or voodoo to be laid invalid by the powers of science, is your own undertaking to try, just to sound smarter for any credentials.

Belief is the death of intelligence. All people do is have principles and choose actions in accordance with them in what situation they're in. They don't always act in agreement with their own beliefs in their circumstances, so it might sound hypocritical, but that's where understanding comes in. People already feel guilty or regret some stuff they did or what happened in the past. It's not just logical arguments so you could have an extra tool for dominance in scenarios.

It's whatever the man will do on his path to success - we each have our own individual journeys and paths in life. There's no "karma" or reincarnation, even if there's a multiverse we still may only perceive this one life, or consciousness is only for this. That's what the matrix is. Knowing any fact should just help you live a sensibly defined life. There are all sorts of factors involved, sabotage being not the least in addition at that. So what you "should do" is just look out for yourself and do what's good for your own interest, only sometimes other people come into the equation then you have to make them happy by basically telling them what they want to hear. So again we come to principles and self respect. Sometimes self respect involves interacting with other people.

 

[computerhxr]

When a cave dweller sees the outside world for the first time, they view it through virgin eyes. The outsider already has an established view of the world, as does the cave dweller. They both have their own form of knowledge bias—a sort of blindness to overlook things because they subscribe to the doctrines passed down as education.

In a sense, the cave dweller has an advantage over the native outsider, because they have an opportunity for form their own ideas, and notice details in contrast to their previous understanding of reality. The outsider thinks that they are enlightened, however, they have lost their virgin view of the world, which can never be undone. The outsider not knowing that they too are in a cave, unable to see past the illusions of their own reality.

Does truth really exist if it lies outside the physical world? Is it even possible to mingle with the Other, and would you even want to?

The question of truth depends on how you define it. We typically define truth relative to the context our own subjective view of reality. There are many truths, which depend on the perspective of which it is viewed.

I believe that it is possible to mingle with the Other as you call it. I also believe that the Other has an effect on our physical world.

 

[Pizzabeak]

When a cave dweller sees the outside world for the first time, they view it through virgin eyes. The outsider already has an established view of the world, as does the cave dweller. They both have their own form of knowledge bias—a sort of blindness to overlook things because they subscribe to the doctrines passed down as education.

In a sense, the cave dweller has an advantage over the native outsider, because they have an opportunity for form their own ideas, and notice details in contrast to their previous understanding of reality. The outsider thinks that they are enlightened, however, they have lost their virgin view of the world, which can never be undone. The outsider not knowing that they too are in a cave, unable to see past the illusions of their own reality.

Does truth really exist if it lies outside the physical world? Is it even possible to mingle with the Other, and would you even want to?

The question of truth depends on how you define it. We typically define truth relative to the context our own subjective view of reality. There are many truths, which depend on the perspective of which it is viewed.

I believe that it is possible to mingle with the Other as you call it. I also believe that the Other has an effect on our physical world.

I'm not defining anything, it's other people who do it. I only look through the lens of science and its philosophy, plus that and the art of everything else as necessary. There's no real indication extra information clouds the mind's capacity and distracts thinking so you should only specialize. There's still only one truth using all the tools to get to that conclusion. Anything that happens has an effect on the physical world's reality, i.e. chaos theory and the butterfly flapping its wings to change the wind.

You can still encompass all the knowledge and wisdom in the universe and fail. Real intelligence is living in the now, and applying what you know combined with skills+discipline, for mindfulness and complete being. It still takes balance to attain precision. Hallucinations not necessarily have to have a real connection to reality. So your dreams are merely fantasy, and people don't care about them unless you have been shown to put them to work, applying it, and integrating what you have into your life. It's not mutually exclusive, at least from my experience and perspective's understanding, it isn't. One thing may not necessarily be "better" in that regard or improve upon anything, or it still wouldn't mean a title be given. It isn't really a competition, or tournament of champions. No one put anything on the stake. Either way, if your destiny has been shown to you in a vision, doesn't mean you can bully or abuse and force any so called gifts or talent. Most people have no talent. Any merit gotten out of work you've done still doesn't amount to desired change, because it's nothing that's deserved. There are powers and forces way beyond your or any man's control. As for women, it's a similar voyage. It's no coincidence this is happening at this time, during change with implications on evolution and life on Earth as we know it. Dozens of species go extinct each year. In fact, in all time, over 90% of all species that have existed went extinct. It's no joke, a sense of humor only gets you so far. You still have the ego, id, superego, and the sub/unconsciouses to look at it in considering what you "should" do.

 

[sushi]

sounds like your comfort zone vs shit happening outside.

or an enlightened man vs the masses who are blind to truth.

 

[QuickTwist]

They don't always act in agreement with their own beliefs in their circumstances, so it might sound hypocritical, but that's where understanding comes in.

Completely disagree. People act in ways that contradict everyone else's ideas about their interpretation of the individuals beliefs. Sometimes the individual doesn't know what they believe at their core, but they still act on what they believe. You act like belief is a question of knowledge; it most certainly is not.

science and its philosophy

Science has no philosophy - it doesn't care about values, only what it can do.

There's still only one truth

You're structure of truth is pretty ridged. IMO there are many truths and they all overlap to create a single truth where all those truths have something in common. It's the reason if you have y=|X| that there is a correlation between y and x but x can be negative or positive and the value of y will be the same. If y=|X| then y equals a single number. That number is an average of all positive and negative real numbers which is -1/12.

 

[computerhxr]

They don't always act in agreement with their own beliefs in their circumstances, so it might sound hypocritical, but that's where understanding comes in.

Completely disagree. People act in ways that contradict everyone else's ideas about their interpretation of the individuals beliefs. Sometimes the individual doesn't know what they believe at their core, but they still act on what they believe. You act like belief is a question of knowledge; it most certainly is not.

I agree with @Pizzabeak in that understanding comes from conflict. Beliefs are sometimes contradictory, where an action may be in alignment with one beliefs but out of alignment with another. You might call this an unconscious core belief that guides their actions. However, there are times when one's actions are altered due to drugs, mental illness, or whimsy, that would suggest a temporary shift in a core belief.

science and its philosophy

Science has no philosophy - it doesn't care about values, only what it can do.

Science IS philosophy. I don't think @Pizzabeak was claiming science HAS philosophy.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

There may be reason to doubt that my hand means this or that, but there is no reason to doubt my hand. Illusions deceive the intellect; the senses are no more deceived than the bearer of a deceitful message.

As far as I remember, Moore did fabricate a story. He didn't simply say that he has a hand in his experience, but that he has a veridical perception (by veridical he meant it's not a hallucination or a dream or even one from the phenomenal world of idealism) - i.e for him his hand is something to be met in space.

Otherwise no one really denies the experinece of 'hand' except may be Dan Dennett and co. But even they would probably accept the existing of 'hand' as objects that dispose them to believe in the existence of hands in the fashion in which they believe it to be.

 

[Siouxsie]

science and its philosophy

Science has no philosophy - it doesn't care about values, only what it can do.

Science IS philosophy. I don't think @Pizzabeak was claiming science HAS philosophy.[/QUOTE]

The science we know now IS NOT philosophy, it has nothing to do with phylosophy. Science in our time is a epistemic far cry from its origins, back to empirism and rationalism, modern science was born as a method to produce knowledge intimately related to a school of thought, now you may choose from a variety of epistemes and combine them with any thecnique. The orientation is other

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

The allegory of the cave can be interpreted multiple ways, to subjectivist it's validation their epistemological skepticism, to the objectivist (as in materialist/realist) it's a lament for their self imposed exile. Once someone exits the cave they can go back but they can never unsee what they've seen.

I think it can be used in multiple contexts, but there may not be as many room for interpreting it - as in interpreting what it meant to be in its original context. AFAIK, it was pretty clearly used to promote the idea of forms - how those who can grasp the forms that underlie sensory phenomenon are like those who have escaped the cave where people are blinded by sensory phenomena and stuff.

 

[computerhxr]

The science we know now IS NOT philosophy, it has nothing to do with phylosophy. Science in our time is a epistemic far cry from its origins, back to empirism and rationalism, modern science was born as a method to produce knowledge intimately related to a school of thought, now you may choose from a variety of epistemes and combine them with any thecnique. The orientation is other

Science is a philosophical view that knowledge of physical and natural phenomena is acquired through observation and experimentation.

Science is the philosophy that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world is discovered through systematic methodology based on evidence.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Philosophy_of_science

The philosophy of science, a sub-branch of epistemology, is the branch of philosophy that studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology, the social sciences such as psychology, history, and sociology, and sometimes—especially beginning about the second decade of the twentieth century—the formal sciences, such as logic, mathematics, set theory, and proof theory. In this last respect, the philosophy of science is often closely related to philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and to formal systems of logic and formal languages. The twentieth century witnessed a proliferation of research and literature on the philosophy of science. Debate is robust amongst philosophers of science and within the discipline much remains inconclusive. For nearly every assertion advanced in the discipline, a philosopher can be found who will disagree with it in some fashion.

 

[Siouxsie]

Science is a philosophical view that knowledge of physical and natural phenomena is acquired through observation and experimentation.

Science is the philosophy that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world is discovered through systematic methodology based on evidence.

Where do you get this from? In the paragraph you cite, it clearly says that PHYLOSOPHY OF SCIENCE is a sub-branch of PHYLOSOPHY. There is no such thing as one science today, you may gather various sciences according to a episteme, a method, etc. But one science under one unique phylosophy simply doesn´t exist now

 

[QuickTwist]

Science IS philosophy.

Science most certainly is not philosophy. Empirically, you want a science degree, you go into a science field; you want a philosophy degree, you go into a philosophy field.

 

[sushi]

science in its most abstract form is philosophy, but you test your hypothesis.

it describes the nature of reality based on certain laws. Philosophy struggles with the question of reality and what it is made of, which a person used scientific method to answer.

 

[QuickTwist]

science in its most abstract form is philosophy, but you test your hypothesis.

it describes the nature of reality based on certain laws. Philosophy struggles with the question of reality and what it is made of, which a person used scientific method to answer.

No. Philosophy and science tackle radically different things.

 

[computerhxr]

Science is a philosophical view that knowledge of physical and natural phenomena is acquired through observation and experimentation.

Science is the philosophy that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world is discovered through systematic methodology based on evidence.

Where do you get this from? In the paragraph you cite, it clearly says that PHYLOSOPHY OF SCIENCE is a sub-branch of PHYLOSOPHY. There is no such thing as one science today, you may gather various sciences according to a episteme, a method, etc. But one science under one unique phylosophy simply doesn´t exist now

I wasn't making the claim that there is one science, under one unique philosophy. I am making the claim that science are philosophies. We use philosophy to decide whether we accept or reject methodologies as science or as pseudoscience.

"the exchange of ideas led to the establishment of a thought collective, which, when developed sufficiently, served to separate the field into esoteric (professional) and exoteric (laymen) circles." - Kuhn on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Strauss–Howe generational theory states that after every Saeculum, a crisis recurs in American history, which is followed by a recovery (high). These are forces of nature.

The cave allegory describes thought collectives. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.

 

[QuickTwist]

However, there are times when one's actions are altered due to drugs, mental illness, or whimsy, that would suggest a temporary shift in a core belief.

Their beliefs allow them to do such things. What is within those experiences is still apart of their meta belief system.

 

[computerhxr]

However, there are times when one's actions are altered due to drugs, mental illness, or whimsy, that would suggest a temporary shift in a core belief.

Their beliefs allow them to do such things. What is within those experiences is still apart of their meta belief system.

Do plants, cells, atoms, planets, electrons, etc... have beliefs? Is everything just a meta belief system? If so, then where do you draw the lines between one's own beliefs and the beliefs of the organisms that act as a conduit for the overall belief system? What if there's a conflict in beliefs, does it create a new meta belief? Are thoughts beliefs?

 

[QuickTwist]

However, there are times when one's actions are altered due to drugs, mental illness, or whimsy, that would suggest a temporary shift in a core belief.

Their beliefs allow them to do such things. What is within those experiences is still apart of their meta belief system.

Do plants, cells, atoms, planets, electrons, etc... have beliefs? Is everything just a meta belief system? If so, then where do you draw the lines between one's own beliefs and the beliefs of the organisms that act as a conduit for the overall belief system? What if there's a conflict in beliefs, does it create a new meta belief? Are thoughts beliefs?

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from. What do plants have anything to do with what I am talking about? It's a human question, it's not reliant on anything else except humans.

You need to give an example of a conflict of belief because I don't understand that.

 

[The Grey Man]

As far as I remember, Moore did fabricate a story. He didn't simply say that he has a hand in his experience, but that he has a veridical perception (by veridical he meant it's not a hallucination or a dream or even one from the phenomenal world of idealism) - i.e for him his hand is something to be met in space.

Otherwise no one really denies the experinece of 'hand' except may be Dan Dennett and co. But even they would probably accept the existing of 'hand' as objects that dispose them to believe in the existence of hands in the fashion in which they believe it to be.

I would like to ask those skeptics, What is the difference between a "real" object of perception and one that is "only a hallucination" or "merely ideal"? And, as a follow-up, if a dreamer's "false" experience of a thing is indistinguishable from a "true" experience of the same thing, why do you speak of a distinction between them at all?

 

[computerhxr]

However, there are times when one's actions are altered due to drugs, mental illness, or whimsy, that would suggest a temporary shift in a core belief.

Their beliefs allow them to do such things. What is within those experiences is still apart of their meta belief system.

Do plants, cells, atoms, planets, electrons, etc... have beliefs? Is everything just a meta belief system? If so, then where do you draw the lines between one's own beliefs and the beliefs of the organisms that act as a conduit for the overall belief system? What if there's a conflict in beliefs, does it create a new meta belief? Are thoughts beliefs?

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from. What do plants have anything to do with what I am talking about? It's a human question, it's not reliant on anything else except humans.

You need to give an example of a conflict of belief because I don't understand that.

I'm trying to figure out what you think a belief is. Can you explain what beliefs are?

From what I understand, you think that beliefs are a human context, and people can only act on what they believe. If they do something that is not in alignment of what they think they believe, it is because of some subconscious belief that they are acting in accordance with.

Conflicting beliefs are an inconsistency between beliefs that cause cognitive dissonance, which people strive to avoid. The cave allegory is an example of conflicting beliefs about the nature of reality.

 

[QuickTwist]

However, there are times when one's actions are altered due to drugs, mental illness, or whimsy, that would suggest a temporary shift in a core belief.

Their beliefs allow them to do such things. What is within those experiences is still apart of their meta belief system.

Do plants, cells, atoms, planets, electrons, etc... have beliefs? Is everything just a meta belief system? If so, then where do you draw the lines between one's own beliefs and the beliefs of the organisms that act as a conduit for the overall belief system? What if there's a conflict in beliefs, does it create a new meta belief? Are thoughts beliefs?

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from. What do plants have anything to do with what I am talking about? It's a human question, it's not reliant on anything else except humans.

You need to give an example of a conflict of belief because I don't understand that.

I'm trying to figure out what you think a belief is. Can you explain what beliefs are?

From what I understand, you think that beliefs are a human context, and people can only act on what they believe. If they do something that is not in alignment of what they think they believe, it is because of some subconscious belief that they are acting in accordance with.

Conflicting beliefs are an inconsistency between beliefs that cause cognitive dissonance, which people strive to avoid. The cave allegory is an example of conflicting beliefs about the nature of reality.

Beliefs are not simple. They are the underpinnings of the ideals we hold that are one part developed as we age and one part what we are born as. To explain what a belief actually is, it's the thing that motivates us. It's the will that dictates our behavior. For example, learning at a young age that people can't be trusted because of a number of bad experiences you have had with authority figures as a child is likely a belief someone will hold, generally speaking, throughout the rest of their life. People have a lot of different axioms that they operate under and most of them the individual isn't even aware of.

"The cave allegory is an example of conflicting beliefs about the nature of reality."

It doesn't matter that different people believe different things, that is par for the course because different people have different DNA and different experiences. What's is interesting is how an individuals beliefs manifest themselves in articulated speech whether written or verbal. I think belief is often something you can't really put solid words on because it's an axiom and not knowledge.

 

[computerhxr]

@QuickTwist Well then, we have a difference of opinion. I don't see beliefs as contained to the human unit, and people are capable of actions that are out of alignment with their models of belief. Infections and viruses can penetrate your nervous system, affecting how one acts.

I do believe in the power of belief and its effect on behavior, e.g. The Secret.

It is interesting how thoughts and beliefs manifest in their communications. It's not always true, sometimes it's a projection, or a reflection, or something else.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

As far as I remember, Moore did fabricate a story. He didn't simply say that he has a hand in his experience, but that he has a veridical perception (by veridical he meant it's not a hallucination or a dream or even one from the phenomenal world of idealism) - i.e for him his hand is something to be met in space.

Otherwise no one really denies the experinece of 'hand' except may be Dan Dennett and co. But even they would probably accept the existing of 'hand' as objects that dispose them to believe in the existence of hands in the fashion in which they believe it to be.

I would like to ask those skeptics, What is the difference between a "real" object of perception and one that is "only a hallucination" or "merely ideal"? And, as a follow-up, if a dreamer's "false" experience of a thing is indistinguishable from a "true" experience of the same thing, why do you speak of a distinction between them at all?

You can ask Moore ( a non-skeptic) the same thing. Moore seems to think they are different. And he also dedicated the first portions of his paper "proof of external world" dedicated to differentiating objects in space and objects that can be met in space or something like that.

 

[The Grey Man]

I think it's a very strange distinction. To my mind, Kant's doctrine of space—that it is an a priori form of intuition whereby the matter of sensibility is structured, thus furnishing external objects individuated by mutual spatial relations—is perfectly compatible with the common sense belief in external objects. I don't know what Moore finds unsatisfying about it. I also don't think the conclusion of Moore's "proof of an external world" ("There exist two hands") is distinct from its premises ("Here is one hand; here is another") in any meaningful way. In fact, I also think the term 'existence' is superfluous for, again, Kantian reasons...

 

[Pizzabeak]

They don't always act in agreement with their own beliefs in their circumstances, so it might sound hypocritical, but that's where understanding comes in.

Completely disagree. People act in ways that contradict everyone else's ideas about their interpretation of the individuals beliefs. Sometimes the individual doesn't know what they believe at their core, but they still act on what they believe. You act like belief is a question of knowledge; it most certainly is not.

It's more or less the same. That's just expectations then and people being oblivious to the now core moment. Tell people what they want to hear, and people want what they can't have. You could be being influenced by all sorts of unconscious stimuli, and not just that, but make decisions based off reasons or feelings you don't understand or process properly through logical gates in the brain leading to any sort of thing like misunderstanding or premature decision making.

science and its philosophy

Science has no philosophy - it doesn't care about values, only what it can do.

It started off as "natural philosophy" implying philosophy came first. So that's beginning around 500 BC. Everything has a philosophy to it, even if it's just for colloquial sake. It's like saying there's a science to art or creation, such as baking or cooking, or a philosophy/ethics.

There's still only one truth

You're structure of truth is pretty ridged. IMO there are many truths and they all overlap to create a single truth where all those truths have something in common. It's the reason if you have y=|X| that there is a correlation between y and x but x can be negative or positive and the value of y will be the same. If y=|X| then y equals a single number. That number is an average of all positive and negative real numbers which is -1/12.

If you are familiar with my work, you'd know those sorts of principles would fit in with that philosophy. In reality, the universe is a mathematical fractal existence, so everything can be one. So while there may be many truths in that regard on a local scale, it all points to one central "truth" or ultimate reality, perhaps a kind of brahman or atman awakening. In algebra you can usually substitute any digit or number as a variable for whichever application. The art of math has certain proofs or logical reasonings. I think what you mean to say is in quantum physics pq≠ qp. So pq-qp≠ 0, it's h/2π i.

They don't always act in agreement with their own beliefs in their circumstances, so it might sound hypocritical, but that's where understanding comes in.

Completely disagree. People act in ways that contradict everyone else's ideas about their interpretation of the individuals beliefs. Sometimes the individual doesn't know what they believe at their core, but they still act on what they believe. You act like belief is a question of knowledge; it most certainly is not.

I agree with @Pizzabeak in that understanding comes from conflict. Beliefs are sometimes contradictory, where an action may be in alignment with one beliefs but out of alignment with another. You might call this an unconscious core belief that guides their actions. However, there are times when one's actions are altered due to drugs, mental illness, or whimsy, that would suggest a temporary shift in a core belief.

science and its philosophy

Science has no philosophy - it doesn't care about values, only what it can do.

Science IS philosophy. I don't think @Pizzabeak was claiming science HAS philosophy.

I think you're ENTP, if your standards for people's actions are more demanding of consciousness or respectable behavior. You might want to see people exercise more responsibility or self, act like an adult. Even any inebriation or mind altering experiences would still be all in line with who that person is or could be.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I think it's a very strange distinction. To my mind, Kant's doctrine of space—that it is an a priori form of intuition whereby the matter of sensibility is structured, thus furnishing external objects individuated by mutual spatial relations—is perfectly compatible with the common sense belief in external objects. I don't know what Moore finds unsatisfying about it. I also don't think the conclusion of Moore's "proof of an external world" ("There exist two hands") is distinct from its premises ("Here is one hand; here is another") in any meaningful way. In fact, I also think the term 'existence' is superfluous for, again, Kantian reasons...

Kant is basically a Newton vs Leibniz proposition, so advocating for him makes one look smarter or more logical for defending Newton. But, relativity "replaced" or updated our understanding of Newtonian space and time. It's because Newton said there was absolute space while Leibniz disagreed, saying space consisted of relations of distance between objects. So to Newton space was a place in and of itself, and Leibniz's view says objects rely on each other to exist. Under Newton the same exact universe would be a different one if things were moved a little in a different direction, irrespective of a multiverse. Under Leibniz everything is more one, things exist because of space time. Distance wouldn't affect things much, if you consider the implications of each theory. There's no reason to believe relativity supports Leibniz's ideas more, just because time is relative.

Laplace could connect it to determinism. He said if there was a demon that knew the positions and motions of all particles in the universe, you'd be able to predict everything at any time, past or future. However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle breaks determinism down by stating we can't measure the velocity and location of a particle at the same time. Just because quantum mechanics are probabilistic doesn't mean it confirms free will, for things could still be determined. Or, if it's a mixture of both, being able to move your left hand by will should be enough control an organism could have to still have some determinism involved. Sounds like the antithesis to positivist beliefs. If Kant thinks the fact that we can say weird stuff is a weird thing itself, it makes it sound like the actual truth of actions are way stranger than just being able to say or describe it. From Hamlet:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

 

[The Grey Man]

I don't think that Kant was advocating Newton's views of space and time any more than he was those of Leibniz. Kant did not think space was absolute, but a form of intuition, a condition of perception. In other words, it is conceivable that some beings' experience of things is free from space, that space is not absolute, but relative. This seems to be closer to Leibniz's conception of space as relations of distance between objects than to Newton's as a boundless, self-subsistent thing.

 

[QuickTwist]

They don't always act in agreement with their own beliefs in their circumstances, so it might sound hypocritical, but that's where understanding comes in.

Completely disagree. People act in ways that contradict everyone else's ideas about their interpretation of the individuals beliefs. Sometimes the individual doesn't know what they believe at their core, but they still act on what they believe. You act like belief is a question of knowledge; it most certainly is not.

It's more or less the same. That's just expectations then and people being oblivious to the now core moment. Tell people what they want to hear, and people want what they can't have. You could be being influenced by all sorts of unconscious stimuli, and not just that, but make decisions based off reasons or feelings you don't understand or process properly through logical gates in the brain leading to any sort of thing like misunderstanding or premature decision making.

Quote fail?

 

[Pizzabeak]

More like facepalm, smh and a headache

 

[QuickTwist]

More like facepalm, smh and a headache

Well, I'm not sure what your point is because your quote of me is something someone else said and the second thing is what I said so not really sure what POV you are viewing things from.

 

[Pizzabeak]

More like facepalm, smh and a headache

Well, I'm not sure what your point is because your quote of me is something someone else said and the second thing is what I said so not really sure what POV you are viewing things from.

It's the new forum software and how it quotes it, different from the previous version. If you look at it, it's still right, just in a different format. It's mostly what I said.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I don't think that Kant was advocating Newton's views of space and time any more than he was those of Leibniz. Kant did not think space was absolute, but a form of intuition, a condition of perception. In other words, it is conceivable that some beings' experience of things is free from space, that space is not absolute, but relative. This seems to be closer to Leibniz's conception of space as relations of distance between objects than to Newton's as a boundless, self-subsistent thing.

No, you're only saying that for a specific, certain reason based off something I said earlier. Kant acknowledged Newton and Leibniz's rivalry and set out to prove Newton right.

Newton said space was absolute hence classical physics. Leibniz just said space consisted solely of "spatial relations" between objects. Then Kant said Newton was right because if there was a left hand in space it'd be more absolute than anything, and of course, he has his critics so it may not even be true in the first place. Relativity "replaced" or updated our understanding of Newtonian space, changing it to relative, although there's no reason to believe Leibniz's spatial relations were relative. Kant still went with Newton. Although, "some beings' experience" wouldn't be free from spacetime, more so from an absolute frame of reference. It isn't like relativistic principles are observable on every scale and example of motion. That doesn't mean Leibniz would have been right or Newton was wrong, or that spatial relations means general and special relativity. It isn't from that. Newtonian space and time breaks down around black holes, so space needed to be relative to explain the distortion. And that alone predicts black holes in and of itself. He didn't really say one thing or the other, just that space is "more" than distance relations. E=mc^2 equates mass with energy, so you'd hypothetically be able to predict everything if you had enough data on properties of objects.

In fact, I'm not sure Kant's point or what he was trying to prove between the two, what business he had trying to settle the affair. Einstein might not even be right, or his theory breaks more down regarding quantum physics. Quantum mechanics wasn't always compatible with it at first so everything was just regarded as incomplete. New science is supposed to put a capstone on it by ushering in a new era, like heralding the standard model or proving the GUT right. All Kant's metaphysical approach did was suggest philosophy needs a whole new approach to advance.

Laplace's Demon would mean if there's an intelligent demon who knew the motions and location of all particles in the universe, it'd know everything and be able to predict anything. Quantum theory says it's impossible though, so it might mean it's incomplete or that's just how the universe works. It can't be updated. Quantum Electrodynamics merges it with relativity. Schrodinger's Cat tried to point out the absurdity of wave-particle duality and only further advanced it, which is a thing that commonly happened in science or discovery. It doesn't mean Leibniz was actually correct.

Pascal said a Christian God, at least, wouldn't really be inclined to reward someone who finds Him hard to believe in, or a person who just started to believe in him based on a bet. So the gamble of believing in God is worth more than the gamble of remaining agnostic or atheistic.