Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: Rigorous Mortis Message-ID: <1780@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 00:39:14 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1780 Posted: Wed Sep 25 00:39:14 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 26-Sep-85 07:08:33 EDT References: <136@l5.uucp> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 108 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2693 net.religion:7756 > Rich is trying to find an objective way of measuring whether or not I am > hungry. [LAURA] >>If I was really seeking serious proof that you were hungry, I could certainly >>find an objective way of verifying it. Of course, it would take a lot of >>data. >>It would take an analysis of the current state of your digestive system, >>knowledge of how long it's been since you last ate (sometimes the brain simply >>wants food as a sensation experience without actually being hungry), and >>data on the break points at which your body sends messages that your require >>food. > This is a good try, Better than a good try, it provides the answer. > but remember that I promised to be as unfuriating as > possible. So I say that I am hungry. You get out your measuring aparatus and > say ``how can you be hungry? you just ate a huge dinner two hours ago!''. I > say ``no, your equipment is malfunctioning.'' You go off an test your > equpiment and report that it is working fine. I say ``well, it can't be: you > see there is this evil plot to starve me to death -- all equipment will fail > to measure whether or not I am hungry because that is the way that this plot > works.'' ``But you *just* ate dinner!'' ``Pure illusion and deception > implanted in your mind. You can't underestimate the damager-god (oops, wrong > article!) after all''. And, given the evidence against you, I'd be right in concluding that you were deluded, that perhaps there was other chemical imbalance in your body that made it appear to you that you were hungry, or that you WERE simply being your typical infuriating self. :-) > And so it goes. At some point you will be forced to choose to believe me or > to believe your equipment. If all the objective evidence that you can > garner points to the fact that I am not hungry then it will be most > reasonable for you to assume that I am lying. But in making that assumption > you are implicitly professing a belief in objective reality. But how can > you defend that belief without saying either that it is self-evident or > that it is possible to construct a consistent set of beliefs while using this > belief which is also consistent with the evidence of your senses? Precisely because it is verifiable, the testing has been rigorous, and it falls in line with other evidence and data we have about the universe. Either it's ALL as we see it, or it's ALL an "illusion" or a "simulation". But what does such a statement mean? What is the difference between a simulation and the "real thing" inside the system (as we are)? >>By definition, you are saying, it is only to be called knowledge if it is >>certain to be true. > No. By definition knowledge is true. no claims are made on whether or not > this is certain, though! The verification is your problem, and there are > true statements which are impossible to verify. (try verifying ``Alexander > the Great had 12 illegitimate children'' and ``there is an objective reality'' > now. You run into snags). The only reason the first is "unverifiable" is lack of access to the facts. Who's to say we cannot ever obtain such access? >>At bottom level, true knowledge IS self-evident, >>representing a consistently accurate model of the world. Subjective beliefs, >>very often, do not stand up to that scrutiny, and are not "self-evident" >>at bottom level, but rather self-contradictory. > That is immaterial to the discussion at hand -- if there are any subjective > beliefs that stand up to that scrutiny then those are the ones that I want > to deal with. What is it mean for them to "stand up to the scrutiny"? It simply means to be verified. Only those which are verified are true. The rest may or may not be true, but given the lack of evidence for them they can be dismissed. By saying "those are the ones that I want to deal with", you have made my point for me: only that which does stand up can be called knowledge or fact. On the contrary, it is FUNDAMENTAL to the discussion at hand. > If you say that bottom-level true knowledge is self-evident, > then you are making a statement of belief. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT IS TRUE? > Ihave long believed that consistency *is* truth -- that is when you say that > X is true you could just as well have said that X is consistent with all > available evidence. But this is belief -- and definitely not shared by > everyone. Consistency represents truth because it simply means that the words and ideas we use to describe things consistently match up to reality. >>> But those things that are self-evident are true in a way that is verified >>> differently than those things which are objectively true. >>Not at all. If you get to the bottom level, they are verified in exactly >>the same way. Often, we choose not to go to the root level, and assume >>the veracity of certain things, owing to the tediousness of a redundancy >>we feel is not worthwhile in every case. That of course leaves us very >>open to being out and out wrong. > I don't think that this is the case. I don't think that I verify ``there > is an objective reality and it is not all an illusion produced by the > damager-god'' at all -- I either believe it or I do not because I think > that it is self-evident or it is not. I actually think that I determine > whether or not I am hungry the same way, but I could be wrong about that > one. And I think I've proven that indeed you are. In any case, can you describe the different way in which these different things are "verified", and can you show the reliability of that verification procedure. If you can't, then beliefs "verified" in that way haven't got a leg to stand on. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com