Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Reality- not all it seems

pennywise121 · 04-18-2005, 04:13 PM

interesting comments, all.

to address the primary issue: as in all manner of philosophic endeavor, we must be sure we are operating under the same principles. asaris, you are operating under the JTB principle of knowledge (justified true belief), and under this definition, you are absolutely correct if certainty is not entailed in the epistemic claim, then my premises are flawed. i chose to direct the inquiry under the more modern ideal of certainty as a requirement for knowledge. JTB epistemology leads to a plethora of other issues concerning what is or isnt "true" or "correct" and what can be truly justified. JTB follows the doxastic foundationalist realm of "i have a white sense perception," because if you have that perception, you have a justified true belief, and no one can ever question it.

as far as the perception issue goes, i would refer you to the spider on the wall. have you ever thought that something was somewhere it wasnt, or that you saw somehting moving out of the corner of your eye, and there was nothing there? it is these inconsistencies i wish to discuss. if we "see" somethign that is not in fact there, our perceptions do not relate to what was in the real world. if you see a pink elephant in the room, and no other individual can see it, there is a discrepancy between perception and "reality." if this discrepancy exists (and i think it is safe to say it does), we are back at square one. there is not real proof that there is an objective reality if one cannot have a justified true belief in that reality as a whole (perhaps i am taking the universality of the issue a bit farther than is wise, but it serves my purpose at the moment).

the likelyhood of the coffee cup being there is a matter of judgement. if you believe there is a coffee cup there, you will be convinced there is one. if i think there is a screwdriver in the junk drawer in my kitchen, i will be convinced there is one, but what if i look and there isnt one? my belief, though justified, was not true, and i knew nothing to begin with.

i would have to agree with you, master shake insofar as you are talking about what a useful line of inquiry this could be. but, in the spirit of mental masturbation, i would have to say that there is no way we could act differently, regardless of our situation (brain in vat, or actual person per se).

i would say, however, taht topic is for another thread (perhaps i will start that one when i get home from work).
interesting stuff though.

04-18-2005, 04:13 PM	#13 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	interesting comments, all. to address the primary issue: as in all manner of philosophic endeavor, we must be sure we are operating under the same principles. asaris, you are operating under the JTB principle of knowledge (justified true belief), and under this definition, you are absolutely correct if certainty is not entailed in the epistemic claim, then my premises are flawed. i chose to direct the inquiry under the more modern ideal of certainty as a requirement for knowledge. JTB epistemology leads to a plethora of other issues concerning what is or isnt "true" or "correct" and what can be truly justified. JTB follows the doxastic foundationalist realm of "i have a white sense perception," because if you have that perception, you have a justified true belief, and no one can ever question it. as far as the perception issue goes, i would refer you to the spider on the wall. have you ever thought that something was somewhere it wasnt, or that you saw somehting moving out of the corner of your eye, and there was nothing there? it is these inconsistencies i wish to discuss. if we "see" somethign that is not in fact there, our perceptions do not relate to what was in the real world. if you see a pink elephant in the room, and no other individual can see it, there is a discrepancy between perception and "reality." if this discrepancy exists (and i think it is safe to say it does), we are back at square one. there is not real proof that there is an objective reality if one cannot have a justified true belief in that reality as a whole (perhaps i am taking the universality of the issue a bit farther than is wise, but it serves my purpose at the moment). the likelyhood of the coffee cup being there is a matter of judgement. if you believe there is a coffee cup there, you will be convinced there is one. if i think there is a screwdriver in the junk drawer in my kitchen, i will be convinced there is one, but what if i look and there isnt one? my belief, though justified, was not true, and i knew nothing to begin with. i would have to agree with you, master shake insofar as you are talking about what a useful line of inquiry this could be. but, in the spirit of mental masturbation, i would have to say that there is no way we could act differently, regardless of our situation (brain in vat, or actual person per se). i would say, however, taht topic is for another thread (perhaps i will start that one when i get home from work). interesting stuff though. __________________ Food for thought.