| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tyrgannus
Trick Member
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Location: Not about to tell |
20.  Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Ok, I don't really care if I'm flamed or called an idiot for this, but didn't we already argue about basically the same topic 3000 years ago in Greece? This isn't about ITG, this has nothing to do with ITG, this is all about perception and reality. Check it, I think therefore I am. It makes sense.
If you exist, then what keeps other things from existing? Do you always have to doubt your senses by acting all intellectual by guessing if they work? If nothing truly existed then nothing matters at all and that's not true and that's also really depressing.
My vote: This thread should be sent back in time when it was a new idea.
_________________
| AA Bob wrote: | | Summer is as much of a 12 as PSMO is a 9. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 21. Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyrgannus wrote: | | Ok, I don't really care if I'm flamed or called an idiot for this, but didn't we already argue about basically the same topic 3000 years ago in Greece? |
And we haven't reached a conclusion yet, so why are you objecting?
| Tyrgannus wrote: | | If you exist, then what keeps other things from existing? |
Nobody is saying they CAN'T exist, they are saying there is no sufficient justification that they exist.
| Tyrgannus wrote: | | Do you always have to doubt your senses by acting all intellectual by guessing if they work? |
First of all, this sentence doesn't make sense. Second of all, yes, you should always wonder about the nature of perception and of reality - the unexamined life is not worth living.
| Tyrgannus wrote: | | If nothing truly existed |
At least one thing, myself, truly does - so this objection holds no water either.
| Tyrgannus wrote: | | My vote: This thread should be sent back in time when it was a new idea. |
It is still a new idea, new insights are discovered in this topic all the time.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 22. Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | Tyrgannus wrote: | | If you exist, then what keeps other things from existing? |
Nobody is saying they CAN'T exist, they are saying there is no sufficient justification that they exist. |
Let's look at this the other way around. There is evidence, perhaps insufficient, that we do exist. There is no evidence to say otherwise. It is merely conjecture that states that our perceptions may not exist. It is logical to draw a conclusion based on the most evidence, and thus I conclude that it is more likely than not that our perceptions do exist.
Discuss.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 23. Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | There is evidence, perhaps insufficient, [b]that we do exist. |
What are you trying to say? From your perspective, there is sufficient evidence that you exist (it is the only thing of which you are certain). From my perspective, there is no sufficient evidence.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | There is no evidence to say otherwise. |
Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | It is merely conjecture that states that our perceptions may not exist. |
Wrong. To say that what we percieve may not really exist is not to take a position; therefore it requires no evidence whatsoever. To take a position, either that what we percieve does not really exist or that it does, both require evidence. You have not demonstrated sufficient evidence for either of these two positions. Remember always that skepticism requires no evidence.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 24. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | There is evidence, perhaps insufficient, that we do exist. |
What are you trying to say? From your perspective, there is sufficient evidence that you exist (it is the only thing of which you are certain). From my perspective, there is no sufficient evidence. |
I actually meant "our perceptions" when I said "we". When you say there is no sufficient evidence, you do not mention whether or not there is any evidence at all. I'll mention this in my last clarification.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | There is no evidence to say otherwise. |
Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. |
True enough, but that was not my point. I was using contrast.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | It is merely conjecture that states that our perceptions may not exist. |
Wrong. To say that what we percieve may not really exist is not to take a position; therefore it requires no evidence whatsoever. To take a position, either that what we percieve does not really exist or that it does, both require evidence. You have not demonstrated sufficient evidence for either of these two positions. Remember always that skepticism requires no evidence. |
Let me clarify. In this particular case, conjecture would end up stating that the ITG machine does not exist, effectively taking a position contrary to the senses, which provide evidence, sufficient or not. I thought that my point was sufficiently implied by context.
My thoughts: skepticism sucks, since, in this case, if nothing exists outside of the self, then there is no point to anything. However, skepticism implies possibility, which means that there might be a point. This means that assuming that nothing exists outside the self would be unwise on the offchance that something external does exist.
Thank you in advance for this intelligent discussion. 
EDIT: Finally fixed that font disruption...how I missed the unclosed bold command in the first quote is beyond me...
_________________
Last edited by Zeta Aspect on Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:08 pm, edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 25. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Let me clarify. In this particular case, conjecture would end up stating that the ITG machine does not exist, effectively taking a position contrary to the senses, which provide evidence, sufficient or not. I thought that my point was sufficiently implied by context. |
This is not the claim a skeptic would make. All a skeptic would say is that the ITG machine MIGHT NOT exist. That's different from saying it doesn't exist.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | My thoughts: skepticism sucks, since, in this case, if nothing exists outside of the self, then there is no point to anything. |
Just because a truth might be depressing doesn't mean it's any less true.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | However, skepticism implies possibility, which means that there might be a point. This means that assuming that nothing exists outside the self would be unwise on the offchance that something external does exist. |
Actually, it would be very wise, because you would not commit yourself to a belief that is not justified.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 26. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | Let me clarify. In this particular case, conjecture would end up stating that the ITG machine does not exist, effectively taking a position contrary to the senses, which provide evidence, sufficient or not. I thought that my point was sufficiently implied by context. |
This is not the claim a skeptic would make. All a skeptic would say is that the ITG machine MIGHT NOT exist. That's different from saying it doesn't exist. |
Understood. However, perhaps you would like to explain exactly what the skeptic would argue, just to make sure we are on an equal field.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | My thoughts: skepticism sucks, since, in this case, if nothing exists outside of the self, then there is no point to anything. |
Just because a truth might be depressing doesn't mean it's any less true. |
I didn't say it was depressing. That was Tyrgannus. Pointlessness is not necessarily depressing. However, humans usually take it that way. If you were drawing your response from my initial "skepticism sucks," then I apologize for not using more precise punctuation. My thought on the suckiness of skepticism is based on that entire paragraph.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | However, skepticism implies possibility, which means that there might be a point. This means that assuming that nothing exists outside the self would be unwise on the offchance that something external does exist. |
Actually, it would be very wise, because you would not commit yourself to a belief that is not justified. |
In my opinion, commiting yourself to a belief that is not justified is better than assuming that nothing can be done. If nothing can be done, then there is not anything to lose by playing the odds, is there?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 27. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Understood. However, perhaps you would like to explain exactly what the skeptic would argue, just to make sure we are on an equal field. |
The skeptic would say that you have not yet demonstrated a justification for why the machine exists in reality. That's all he would say. Please give me such a demonstration.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | I didn't say it was depressing. That was Tyrgannus. Pointlessness is not necessarily depressing. However, humans usually take it that way. |
On the contrary, acceptance of the superiority and rationality of Pyrhonnian Skepticism is central to many modern philosophical systems (specifically, all forms of Existentialism). Within these systems it has great point.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | If nothing can be done, then there is not anything to lose by playing the odds, is there? |
Yes, the principle of Occam's Razor tells us that it is more likely for the Pyrhonnian Skeptic to be correct.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 28. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | Understood. However, perhaps you would like to explain exactly what the skeptic would argue, just to make sure we are on an equal field. |
The skeptic would say that you have not yet demonstrated a justification for why the machine exists in reality. That's all he would say. Please give me such a demonstration. |
For my argument, I would say that I can perceive the presence of the machine. Then I would ask the skeptic to give any evidence of the lack of existence of the machine. The response would be that it still might not exist, despite that there is no evidence that it does not exist. I would agree. Note, however, that there is evidence that it exists and there isn't evidence that it does not exist. By comparison, it is more likely that it does exist. Regardless, both the skeptic and myself should play a few songs on it. I'll pay, so there's nothing to lose.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | I didn't say it was depressing. That was Tyrgannus. Pointlessness is not necessarily depressing. However, humans usually take it that way. |
On the contrary, acceptance of the superiority and rationality of Pyrhonnian Skepticism is central to many modern philosophical systems (specifically, all forms of Existentialism). Within these systems it has great point. |
I think we are talking about two different things. I was not taking about skepticism being pointless. I was talking about how nothing matters if only the self exists, in that there are no necessary consequences for anything.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | If nothing can be done, then there is not anything to lose by playing the odds, is there? |
Yes, the principle of Occam's Razor tells us that it is more likely for the Pyrhonnian Skeptic to be correct. |
Wouldn't Occam's Razor tell us that we should trust the immediate sensory input instead of complicating things through a second guess (reevaluating the situation with skepticism)?
Or would Occam's Razor would favor skepticism because of the simplicity of a system with only one object?
I figure you would go with the latter...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 29. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Note, however, that there is evidence that it exists and there isn't evidence that it does not exist. |
There is only evidence for the machine's existence if you accept the following principle:
(A) "Sense perception of X provides evidence that X exists in reality"
I deny this principle. What argument can you give me that would convince me?
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | I think we are talking about two different things. I was not taking about skepticism being pointless. I was talking about how nothing matters if only the self exists, in that there are no necessary consequences for anything. |
It is critical in Existentialism that nothing (no meaning) can be demonstrated (for precisely the reason you have enumerated). Therefore, people must choose their meaning (the justification for the dictum Existence Precedes Essence).
| ZetaAspect wrote: | Wouldn't Occam's Razor tell us that we should trust the immediate sensory input instead of complicating things through a second guess (reevaluating the situation with skepticism)?
Or would Occam's Razor would favor skepticism because of the simplicity of a system with only one object?
I figure you would go with the latter... |
It's not just what I would go with, it's that the latter is what Occam's Razor actually says.
Occam's Razor says the ontologically simpler theory is more likely to be correct. A Phyrronian Skeptic does not assert any objects at all, and therefore his system is ontologically simpler then any other.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 30. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | Note, however, that there is evidence that it exists and there isn't evidence that it does not exist. |
There is only evidence for the machine's existence if you accept the following principle:
(A) "Sense perception of X provides evidence that X exists in reality"
I deny this principle. What argument can you give me that would convince me? |
I cannot give you definite evidence that the sense perceptions are correct. However, consider this: what logic would explain why the human mind would generate false information? That would impose a needlessly complex system that could otherwise not waste energy on creating a false perception.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | Occam's Razor says the ontologically simpler theory is more likely to be correct. A Phyrronian Skeptic does not assert any objects at all, and therefore his system is ontologically simpler then any other. |
I should mention that Occam's Razor is hardly used nowadays, since modern science reveals increasingly complex systems that have greater accuracy. For instance, the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einsteinian physics would be at odds with Occam's Razor, yet Einsteinian physics is more accurate. The simplest solution is not always correct.
However, if I am correct, that point simply cancels into uncertainty, which would still support skepticism, simply restating that the ITG machine might exist because Occam's Razor might be wrong, or it might not exist because Occam's Razor might be right.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 31. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | what logic would explain why the human mind would generate false information? |
Without false information the world would seem pointless and bleak, leading a being to be less likely to procreate. Therefore, propensity to believe in religion and to believe the senses is an evolutionary advantage.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | I should mention that Occam's Razor is hardly used nowadays |
In what field? Certainly not in philosophy, or philosophy of science.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | For instance, the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einsteinian physics would be at odds with Occam's Razor, yet Einsteinian physics is more accurate. |
Are you sure you understand the word ontological? Relativistic Physics is ontologically simpler (it denies absolute locations in time). This example affirms the strength of Occam's Razor, not harms it.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 32. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | what logic would explain why the human mind would generate false information? |
Without false information the world would seem pointless and bleak, leading a being to be less likely to procreate. Therefore, propensity to believe in religion and to believe the senses is an evolutionary advantage. |
Hmmm...I was not aware that evolution was so important. What purpose would an evolutionary advantage serve, especially when the mind may be the only existing object? What makes survival such a driving force?
While your statement may be logical for a small perceptual change, could it explain the possibility of an entirely self-generated environment?
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | I should mention that Occam's Razor is hardly used nowadays |
In what field? Certainly not in philosophy, or philosophy of science. |
Oops. That is not quite what I meant. I meant to say that Occam's Razor has been shown to be wrong on several occasions, and that it is no longer used often with metaphysics. I think I accidentally spliced some unrelated information.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | For instance, the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einsteinian physics would be at odds with Occam's Razor, yet Einsteinian physics is more accurate. |
Are you sure you understand the word ontological? Relativistic Physics is ontologically simpler (it denies absolute locations in time). This example affirms the strength of Occam's Razor, not harms it. |
Yes, I understand the word "ontological". Apparently, though, I didn't quite understand how to apply it to that example. I need to look into that, since I want to get that example right.
This is beyond the level of my studies. I think I can no longer (if I ever did) contribute anything meaningful.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 33. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | I meant to say that Occam's Razor has been shown to be wrong on several occasions, and that it is no longer used often with metaphysics. |
It's used constantly in metaphysics. I can think of at least ten books on it published in the last few years. Are you writing from France?
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Yes, I understand the word "ontological". Apparently, though, I didn't quite understand how to apply it to that example. I need to look into that, since I want to get that example right. |
The difference between Newtonian and Relativistic physics, the key difference, is that Relativistic physics does not hold time constant (as an ontological entity), but rather it is relative to each observer (and not an ontological entity). Therefore, it postulates an ontologically simpler thesis.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | This is beyond the level of my studies. I think I can no longer (if I ever did) contribute anything meaningful. |
What is the level of your studies?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 34. Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | I meant to say that Occam's Razor has been shown to be wrong on several occasions, and that it is no longer used often with metaphysics. |
It's used constantly in metaphysics. I can think of at least ten books on it published in the last few years. Are you writing from France? |
That was a cheap shot at the French. Sheesh, just because they haven't won a war that hasn't been against themselves, just because they have bad body odor, just because they are opposed to America's Jiha...I mean War on Terror, doesn't mean that they suck. Oh, wait...
No, I am not writing from France, as you say. My sources might not be up to date or entirely accurate, though. I do remember that my material said that Occam's Razor is now mostly used in science methodology, and that it is no longer justified metaphysically. It also clearly stated that Occam's Razor fell out of use as scientists revealed a more complex world.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | The difference between Newtonian and Relativistic physics, the key difference, is that Relativistic physics does not hold time constant (as an ontological entity), but rather it is relative to each observer (and not an ontological entity). Therefore, it postulates an ontologically simpler thesis. |
Absolute time is no longer a unique entity, but the speed of light becomes one. Newtonian physics lacked the Maxwell equations.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | This is beyond the level of my studies. I think I can no longer (if I ever did) contribute anything meaningful. |
What is the level of your studies? |
Pretty much zero.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 35. Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | That was a cheap shot at the French. |
It was an accurate categorization of the merits of French Postmodernism.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Absolute time is no longer a unique entity, but the speed of light becomes one. |
No, the speed of light is not an absolute ontological entity; it is held absolute in virtue of observation. That's different. Relativity is simply less ontologically complex.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 36. Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | That was a cheap shot at the French. |
It was an accurate categorization of the merits of French Postmodernism. |
That was a joke. Hence the sentence that followed.
| Søren Kierkegaard wrote: | | ZetaAspect wrote: | | Absolute time is no longer a unique entity, but the speed of light becomes one. |
No, the speed of light is not an absolute ontological entity; it is held absolute in virtue of observation. That's different. Relativity is simply less ontologically complex. |
Are you sure that that doesn't apply to time as well, since relativity also defines time relatively (go figure...)?
I love your wordplay. Simply less complex = simply simpler. Heheh.
Shouldn't we be discussing philosophy and not physics? Wait, didn't I start that tangent?...crap.
I have a question for you. Are you actually a skeptic, or are you taking that position to enhance the discussion in a Socratic sort of way?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 37. Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | I have a question for you. Are you actually a skeptic, or are you taking that position to enhance the discussion in a Socratic sort of way? |
I'm an existentialist (hence the username). Part of existentialism is accepting the absolute rationality of Pyrrhonian Skepticism. Part of it is moving beyond that. Was that an answer to your question?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeta Aspect
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington |
| 38. Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, that answers my question.
Søren Kierkegaard preceded the existentialist movement, but you know that, and I understand. However, he probably would have disagreed with many of Sartre's fundamental principles. Thus, I find it ironic that you brought up Sartre's "existence precedes essence" dictum, which I will later discuss.
Doesn't the Pyrrhonian, in a way, assent to what appears to be? There have been many caricatures in which the Pyrrhonian skeptic character ventures into obvious dangers because they doubt their existence. An actual skeptic does not doubt the existence of such hazards.
The Pyrrhonian skeptic, as opposed to the dogmatic skeptic, makes no ontological commitment but still admits to the probability of existences, as I asserted earlier when I spoke of how the evidence provided by perception increases the probability of the existence of the ITG machine.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Note, however, that there is evidence that it exists and there isn't evidence that it does not exist. By comparison, it is more likely that it does exist. |
The Pyrrhonian skeptic acts accordingly, taking what Kierkegaard might refer to as a leap of faith.
The Pyrrhonian skeptic doubts the properties of objects as they appear. Existence is not a property, since existence precedes essence. If existence were a property (i.e. an aspect of essence), it would have to precede itself.
Conversely, nonexistence is not a property, since there would have to be existing objects with the property of nonexistence: a nonexistent existence.
I assume that your statement that existentialism goes beyond Pyrrhonian skepticism is meant to address the points I just brought up. However, I am currently unaware of the counterpoint.
I have some other comments:
1) Personally, I loathe skepticism, existentialism, and relativism because my friends always end up dead-ending discussions by taking up those viewpoints.
2) Would you stop playing ITG just because the machine might not exist? Didn't think so...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 39. Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Søren Kierkegaard preceded the existentialist movement, but you know that, and I understand. However, he probably would have disagreed with many of Sartre's fundamental principles. Thus, I find it ironic that you brought up Sartre's "existence precedes essence" dictum, which I will later discuss. |
I'm an atheist, and I'm closer to Sartre then to Kierkegaard. I also think Kierkegaard was the better philosopher.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Doesn't the Pyrrhonian, in a way, assent to what appears to be? |
No, he witholds assent to everything.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | There have been many caricatures in which the Pyrrhonian skeptic character ventures into obvious dangers because they doubt their existence. |
Yes, Aristotle made such caricatures in one of his weakest moments. He (and others) conflated denying universality with universal denial. Pyrrhonian Skepticism has been known to be irrefutable since the early 19th Century, when Schopenhauer made that point.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | The Pyrrhonian skeptic, as opposed to the dogmatic skeptic, makes no ontological commitment but still admits to the probability of existences, as I asserted earlier when I spoke of how the evidence provided by perception increases the probability of the existence of the ITG machine. |
What do you mean he admits to the probabilities of existences? The machine existing is only more probable if you hold the principle that sense experience makes something more likely. Pyrrhonian Skeptics deny this principle, so the machine existing is no more likely then it not existing.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | The Pyrrhonian skeptic acts accordingly, taking what Kierkegaard might refer to as a leap of faith. |
No, Kierkegaard leap of faith allows him to believe in something he knows to be logically contradictory. Pyrrhonian Skeptics make no leaps whatsoever; they are perfectly rational.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Existence is not a property |
Thanks Kant, but almost nobody holds this view anymore.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | since existence precedes essence. If existence were a property (i.e. an aspect of essence), it would have to precede itself. |
Nice argument, but not quite. Existence is a property of objects, but not all properties are essential. Existence is a non-essential property, hence it can easily precede essence (and does). All existentialists treat existence as a property, especially Sartre.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | Conversely, nonexistence is not a property |
Nope, it is the lack of a property.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | I assume that your statement that existentialism goes beyond Pyrrhonian skepticism is meant to address the points I just brought up. |
What points are those, exactly?
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | 1) Personally, I loathe skepticism, existentialism, and relativism because my friends always end up dead-ending discussions by taking up those viewpoints. |
Skepticism, Existentialism and Relativism are all unrelated views with completely different content. As a side note, you must have very skilled friends such that they will adopt Existential positions, which few understand.
| ZetaAspect wrote: | | 2) Would you stop playing ITG just because the machine might not exist? Didn't think so... |
That's either an ad-hominem fallacy, or it's not even an argument at all. My actions are not in question; and I haven't assented to the fact that I even have ever played ITG.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
