humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 6, 11:20 pm, TC wrote:

> Like I said they are improbable -- but not impossible.

I wonder what you think probability and possibility are.
Existentially, they have no referents except as
epistemological existents. If you take away consciousness,
anything that doesn't exist is "impossible," because
it's contrary to reality. Likewise necessity...anything
that exists necessarily exists.


> > Yes, even as I can't be certain of the entire nature of
> > anything, owing to context.
>
> So you are not certain. Is it that you just like
> to assert certainty?

Not being certain of everything does not imply not
being certain of anything.


> > I may at least be certain
> > that reality is imparting the data and I am sensing it.
>
> I believe that too. I'm just not totally certain about
> the nature of reality.

You say that, but you've never gone long without food
or water. "We are as we do, not as we say we do."


> > That's as self-evident as the fact that I'm thinking.
>
> So tell me what is it that reality certainly is?

Uh...reality? Extant? Existing?


> > Thus
> > I may be certain that my senses are actually sensing
> > reality-imparted sense data.
>
> You go too far. You cannot be absolutely certain
> of this - rather I am not absolutely certain of same
> and I think the same applies to everyone.

I can't speak on that. What I can speak on, is that you
and all those people wouldn't be able to even contrive
things like BIV theories or probability or possibility
without a pre-existing conceptual hierarchy.

Look...you can doubt everything. Isn't that what solipsism
is? Though interestingly (to me) you can only /say/ that
you do so; you can't actually do it. You still put one foot
in front of the other to get across the room and you still
ingest food and drink. If you /truly/ doubted the facts
behind those actions, you'd be able not to do them.

But you can't.


> > "What the hell ELSE would they be sensing?"
>
> The product of some uber industrial light and magic.

Uh huh. And how in the world can you come up with
concepts like the ones behind this assertion, without
concepts that were already derived?

PROVE that you really think this is a possiblity. DON'T
put one foot in front of the other and DON'T ingest
food and drink. Your words support one POV but your
actions belie another.


> > That doesn't get us to omniscience, but it gets us to a
> > certainty that our perceptions are reality-based.
>
> I'm there with a high degree of likelihood.

And "likelihood" means....what, exactly?


> The sensations, the experience exists. But it is
> not certain what they are the result of.

What makes you certain the experience exists?


> > So if you think about it, it's an invalid approach to use
> > such methods for trying to deny that upon which they're
> > built. Concepts like or , if
> > anything, IMPLY that our percepts are integrations of
> > the state of reality.
>
> Sorry. That just does not work. It is highly improbable
> that reality is not closely related to what we experience
> but not certain.

"Improbability" means...what, exactly?


> I also reject the Objectivist integration epistemology,
> it ignores too much biology.

That's a silly reason to reject is, since it's not about
biology at all. IOW, it's /meant/ to ignore biology.


> > It's a
> > conceptual /hierarchy/, with the base as the perception of
> > reality, combined with some sort of axiom like, "Reality is
> > as it is," or something like that. All BIV theories and the like
> > do, is come up with a way to try to defeat the axiom.
>
> They actually succeed in defeating it.

I've already acknowledged that if reality isn't as it is, or if
A isn't A, then all of this goes out the window.

I hardly know what to say to a guy who actually believes
that a bunch of words can somehow "defeat" reality
being as it is.

I'm very strongly inclined to think that you don't really
believe it.


> A is A is quite true for BIV.

I thought that axiom was somehow "defeated." Now
you're saying that it's even true for BIVs. Which is it?


> I agree with this. But I probably mean something
> different by it than you do. Our perceptions are
> what they are but that does not imply that the
> object perceived as red is red. Just that the
> perception is of red.

This has been an enjoyable distraction for me, while
I don't have the time for anything serious. I'd like to
hear your answers to my previous questions, but I'd
especially like to hear the answer to this one...

What do you think red is? I'll take as much detail as
you can stomach to give.


jk