The Real World, an objective view of existance, is impossible from within it. So what you're really talking about is delusion and insanity. It's okay to not know, but it's insanity to pretend you do.
Which is, of course, the irony in all this. Lots of comments here by not really bright people who are proud of not being blind believers, as if that would make them smart in the least; they have no impatience for the unsolvable uncertainties of our existance, and would like to replace them with webs of words which ultimately all fall down when inspected.
Well said. It does interest me that a simple question provokes so much emotion, though.
Or perhaps I should be glad - sometimes people grow up, look back and realise that, when they've become emotional, it's because they had't really understood something but didn't want to accept it.
And yet here I am receiving about three dozen responses which insist there is an answer.
Plus yours, which dismisses a problem as childish simply because it's intracable. Or, more likely, because it requires every logical man to accept faith ("I agree" would have been sufficient, chump - no need for the insults).
Tell me, "Neutron Cowboy", when you studied this problem in "middle school", which texts did you find to approach it best?
You know... I love philosophy most of all because it really angers shallow westerners. It makes them all hot under the collar like no other subject. Even the most basic 101 questions get them all in a tiz. No! stop thinking about existence! we need to play/write iPhone apps!
Quite. I should perhaps have said "sufficiently reliable".
But I'm just toying with these clowns, angered by the idea that science can't prove itself, who seem to think there is an answer to this old and routine philosophical problem.
Prove to me that your faith is reliable using facts from memory; asshat.
That would be begging the question. I can only decide to have faith in my memory and work from there. And so do you, even if you don't like to accept it.
Science can at least be proven and as we learn more we can prove more.
Of course. But all science is based on faith in memory. (Or, more generally, a certain inductive faith.)
Then we get to Laws; these we know are true and you can go shove them up your God's ass.
Oh, but now you're equating faith and God. I'm just talking about faith.
How do you know that all this technology is around you? More specifically, how do you know that everything you are looking at does what you think it does?
Also, if philosophy is bullshit then we might as well crawl back to ~C4 BC and start again. This is why there are rarely any bright individuals in computer engineering classes: they simply don't see the value of any learning beyond how electricity works.
Yeah, I know - but thank you for the good response. I was just poking fun at the submitter for having seemingly completely forgotten what the article he was summarising was actually about.
No it isn't. There is no assumption or conclusion that some aspect of the world may not exist. One can say "I think therefore everything is" without concluding that "I think therefore everything was".
But the motivation was the fact that the submitter has obviously completely forgotten what the article said in writing the summary, erecting another Dwakins-like strawman/windmill to fence with.
Good comeback, but it's kinda sad the way people assume that capitalism = hard work while socialism = lazy.
A socialist spirit is initially far more difficult for the smart man: you have to look after yourself and everyone around you. But you end up with a far more enjoyable community.
Capitalism is by definition the application of laziness to economics: instead of working, you accumulate capital and get wealthy by investing it rather than doing your own labour. It actually works fairly well sometimes, but it's certainly not the product of a hard work ethos.
A punch in the 'nads is perceived by every victim in the same way,
Really? Thanks for telling everyone how they perceive a punch in the 'nads.
and there is a clear intention on behalf of the puncher to cause pain and injury.
Well, sometimes. That's why most criminal offences require either intent or negligence.
This is not so clear-cut with trolling and griefing 'offences'. An insult or a taunt is perceived differently by different people, and the 'perpetrator' has no means of knowing in advance how their comment will be received.
Which is why, again and more clearly this time, throughout criminal law, it is necessary to identify intent or subjective recklessness on the part of the perpetrator. Intent is wanting to achieve the result. Subjective recklessness is the decision to take action despite your knowledge of a risk, even if you don't intend the full outcome (e.g. throwing stones near a greenhouse when you know perfectly well that you could break the glass).
Taking too much offence is as much of a problem as giving too much offence, especially when we as a society universally blame the giver not the taker.
The giver always has a choice.
This gives over-sensitive people immediate 'victim' status,
The giver always has a choice.
which some people enjoy and therefore court offence so that they can be victims.
They force people to treat them a particular way? Or is this a "he/she was asking for it" defence?
If we limit the ability to give offence without making some sensible rules about taking offence too, then we end up in a situation where no-one can say anything meaningful, just bland platitudes.
No, because intent or subjective recklessness must exist beyond reasonable doubt. "The jury is convinced that things he said drove her to suicide" would never be sufficient for a criminal conviction in any Anglo-Saxon criminal justice system. But add "...and the jury is convinced that he intended to drive her to suicide" - now why is the guy still roaming free?
But criminalise too many things (like alcohol for example) and suddenly a majority of our community are criminals,
Yes ok but no-one is asking to criminalise alcohol.
Then the rapists will have a field day because they're suddenly the criminal majority and aren't being rejected by society.
That seems an unsubstantiated argument and I'm not sure how you came up with it.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you remember which observations you have made? Don't you need your memory for that?
If I put any stock in what ideas?
So sanity is to accept faith in one's memory?
You are babbling, and ought to pick up even the most basic text on the history of mathematics.
"We are born. We live. We die." Well... okay. Now what?
So we equate simplicity with truth?
I guess that's why the Platonic model of the universe had so much staying power.
Why aren't we all outside playing football?
The Real World, an objective view of existance, is impossible from within it. So what you're really talking about is delusion and insanity. It's okay to not know, but it's insanity to pretend you do.
Which is, of course, the irony in all this. Lots of comments here by not really bright people who are proud of not being blind believers, as if that would make them smart in the least; they have no impatience for the unsolvable uncertainties of our existance, and would like to replace them with webs of words which ultimately all fall down when inspected.
Well said. It does interest me that a simple question provokes so much emotion, though.
Or perhaps I should be glad - sometimes people grow up, look back and realise that, when they've become emotional, it's because they had't really understood something but didn't want to accept it.
No, it isn't, but it's great the way the everyone on the Internet has a medical qualification.
Anyway, do you remember the evidence you used to uncover a contradiction?
Rewrite that post omitting all sentences which have required you to remember one or more experimental results.
Can you remember what I'm actually arguing, AC? Surely your memory isn't that bad.
And yet here I am receiving about three dozen responses which insist there is an answer.
Plus yours, which dismisses a problem as childish simply because it's intracable. Or, more likely, because it requires every logical man to accept faith ("I agree" would have been sufficient, chump - no need for the insults).
Tell me, "Neutron Cowboy", when you studied this problem in "middle school", which texts did you find to approach it best?
You know... I love philosophy most of all because it really angers shallow westerners. It makes them all hot under the collar like no other subject. Even the most basic 101 questions get them all in a tiz. No! stop thinking about existence! we need to play/write iPhone apps!
Quite. I should perhaps have said "sufficiently reliable".
But I'm just toying with these clowns, angered by the idea that science can't prove itself, who seem to think there is an answer to this old and routine philosophical problem.
Science depends on processing observations.
Processing observations requires trust in memory.
You thus cannot do science without memory.
You thus cannot use science to prove reliability of memory.
Your trust in your memory is thus an act of faith. As is your trust in science.
That's OK, though. Once you've accepted it, all science is good and proper.
I accept my memory as reliable. My acceptance is an act of faith.
The same applies to you, whether you want to admit it or not.
I think therefore I am - that one is easy.
And I don't care whether what I am seeing right now exists - all that matters is that I perceive its existence.
But I can't be so sure about one second ago. This is why I have to have faith in my memory, i.e. trust it without proof.
You do as well, of course. Embrace your faith.
Engineers can play the reduction to the absurd game too.
Engineers never reduce enough. Otherwise they would be mathematicians, and not be so laughably angered by philosophy.
Well, for starters, you're conversing with others over the internet.
You remember this.
Given many, many people posting here all possess knowledge which I myself do not have,
And this.
they therefore must be separate entities, and not just figments of my imagination. Therefore, the internet exists,
And you used what you remembered to conclude this.
since I am seeing information which I have not previously been aware of.
As far as you can remember.
This problem is old and familiar. The only thing you can really do is acknowledge that it is exists. Carry on fighting, though...
Prove to me that your faith is reliable using facts from memory; asshat.
That would be begging the question. I can only decide to have faith in my memory and work from there. And so do you, even if you don't like to accept it.
Science can at least be proven and as we learn more we can prove more.
Of course. But all science is based on faith in memory. (Or, more generally, a certain inductive faith.)
Then we get to Laws; these we know are true and you can go shove them up your God's ass.
Oh, but now you're equating faith and God. I'm just talking about faith.
Well, my qualifications are all in mathematics.
And mathematics is a product of philosophy.
So, yep.
If you want to get into some deeper philosophical crap about who's to say *that* memory was not simply created [...] then it really does not matter.
Why is it "crap"? Why does it not matter?
Is it because you don't like to accept that you have started by accepting something without proof, i.e. had faith?
Science continues to be about understanding reality.
Indeed. But we cannot begin understanding reality unless we begin with faith - in our memories.
And acceptance without proof is faith.
How do you know that all this technology is around you? More specifically, how do you know that everything you are looking at does what you think it does?
Also, if philosophy is bullshit then we might as well crawl back to ~C4 BC and start again. This is why there are rarely any bright individuals in computer engineering classes: they simply don't see the value of any learning beyond how electricity works.
Yeah, I know - but thank you for the good response. I was just poking fun at the submitter for having seemingly completely forgotten what the article he was summarising was actually about.
You trust your memory to remember that it has earned trust.
Try again.
No it isn't. There is no assumption or conclusion that some aspect of the world may not exist. One can say "I think therefore everything is" without concluding that "I think therefore everything was".
But the motivation was the fact that the submitter has obviously completely forgotten what the article said in writing the summary, erecting another Dwakins-like strawman/windmill to fence with.
Prove to me that your memory is reliable, i.e. show me how I can rely on my memory other than through faith.
Do not use your memory to form your argument, or ask me to rely on my memory.
Go!
Good comeback, but it's kinda sad the way people assume that capitalism = hard work while socialism = lazy.
A socialist spirit is initially far more difficult for the smart man: you have to look after yourself and everyone around you. But you end up with a far more enjoyable community.
Capitalism is by definition the application of laziness to economics: instead of working, you accumulate capital and get wealthy by investing it rather than doing your own labour. It actually works fairly well sometimes, but it's certainly not the product of a hard work ethos.
A punch in the 'nads is perceived by every victim in the same way,
Really? Thanks for telling everyone how they perceive a punch in the 'nads.
and there is a clear intention on behalf of the puncher to cause pain and injury.
Well, sometimes. That's why most criminal offences require either intent or negligence.
This is not so clear-cut with trolling and griefing 'offences'. An insult or a taunt is perceived differently by different people, and the 'perpetrator' has no means of knowing in advance how their comment will be received.
Which is why, again and more clearly this time, throughout criminal law, it is necessary to identify intent or subjective recklessness on the part of the perpetrator. Intent is wanting to achieve the result. Subjective recklessness is the decision to take action despite your knowledge of a risk, even if you don't intend the full outcome (e.g. throwing stones near a greenhouse when you know perfectly well that you could break the glass).
Taking too much offence is as much of a problem as giving too much offence, especially when we as a society universally blame the giver not the taker.
The giver always has a choice.
This gives over-sensitive people immediate 'victim' status,
The giver always has a choice.
which some people enjoy and therefore court offence so that they can be victims.
They force people to treat them a particular way? Or is this a "he/she was asking for it" defence?
If we limit the ability to give offence without making some sensible rules about taking offence too, then we end up in a situation where no-one can say anything meaningful, just bland platitudes.
No, because intent or subjective recklessness must exist beyond reasonable doubt. "The jury is convinced that things he said drove her to suicide" would never be sufficient for a criminal conviction in any Anglo-Saxon criminal justice system. But add "...and the jury is convinced that he intended to drive her to suicide" - now why is the guy still roaming free?
But criminalise too many things (like alcohol for example) and suddenly a majority of our community are criminals,
Yes ok but no-one is asking to criminalise alcohol.
Then the rapists will have a field day because they're suddenly the criminal majority and aren't being rejected by society.
That seems an unsubstantiated argument and I'm not sure how you came up with it.