Yeah, I got that from your posts. Prior to attaining knowledge, you claim to be in a strange limbo state of doubt, “openness to options” and non-knowledge which you say is not belief.
I don’t think that state exists nor is it possible for it to exist. I don’t think that humans think that way. I think that action would be impossible in such a state.
So why is that strange to you?
So Why do you not think that state exists nor is it possible for it to exist?
Let me ask you another question:
Do you think synesthesia is possible? If so, would you have thought it was possible without a report coming online without its depiction and assertion that it happens - or that it is already recognized and has its own term?
“Synesthesia is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway. People who report a lifelong history of such experiences are known as synesthetes. In one common form of synesthesia, known as grapheme-color synesthesia or color-graphemic synesthesia, letters or numbers are perceived as inherently colored.In spatial-sequence, or number form synesthesia, numbers, months of the year, and/or days of the week elicit precise locations in space (for example, 1980 may be “farther away” than 1990), or may appear as a three-dimensional map (clockwise or counterclockwise).” - wiki article on synesthesia
Difficulties have been recognized in adequately defining synesthesia:[5][6] Many different phenomena have been included in the term synesthesia (“union of the senses”), and in many cases the terminology seems to be inaccurate. A more accurate term may be ideasthesia."
abcnews.go.com/2020/autistic-sav … d=10759598
Now I wouldn’t have thought this was possible. It wouldn’t have made any sense to me. I would’ve argued it, without seeing evidence of it. I hope I showed some evidence of why I don’t believe things. But maybe not to you at least. Maybe to some? Hopefully to some. I already am aware that there is a person who I think highly of, that is more in tuned with academic philosophy than I am, who is not a member of this board, who described that to me that this has the possibility of becoming a valid theory. I’m not saying this is a product of autism, or anything else, but I do think it might be possible that you aren’t wired to think that way. Of course, that I don’t know. If so, that’s fine. Not everyone is wired to think the same way. Not everyone can think the same way.
I told you. One will not act in a state where one cannot evaluate one action as better than another.
For example, you respond to a post with a specific interpretation of the poster’s meaning. If you had no reasonable interpretation, then you would not respond. If you had multiple interpretations then you would have multiple responses in the form of “If you mean this, then my response is this. If you mean that, then my response is that.”.
But you don’t do that because in spite of your claims, you don’t actually think that way. The evidence is in your own behavior.
True.
One cannot be agnostic about ALL things, else one can have no mind at all. Belief in the senses is required to merely get started.
So that’s interesting - is it a starting point? Why can’t we be agnostic about our senses, to get started? Then agnostic precepts become justified empirically…
To me, questioning whether or not a state is possible isn’t the important thing. The important thing is that ANGRY is demonstrably not in that state, based on the way he uses language, makes assumptions about what other people believe, and resists being correct on obvious errors. He’s believing in the exact same way as everybody, he merely doesn’t like the word, because he wants to reserve it for people he doesn’t like.
That’s what it comes down to. He’s got the exact same basic epistemology as any other dabbler in philosophy. He’s merely scrambled his words all around such that he talks about the same experiences everybody else has without using the word ‘belief’ to describe them. When absolutely forced, he’ll stick ‘interpretation’ or ‘understanding’ in as a synonym.
Did you not see my response to why this isn’t a belief?
Nothing can empirically justify anything if even all the senses are in doubt. Any belief or “knowledge” must stem from a priori.
Nothing comes from nothing and certainly not certainty.
Interesting how atheists keep getting into that “something from nothing” problem in their attempt to deny precepts.
You claim to believe things because you associate belief with irrational religious nuts and you don’t want to think of yourself in those terms.
Everyone is telling you that “irrational belief without evidence” is a tiny fragment of the meaning of the word ‘belief’ but you won’t listen. You have a phobia of the word. You’re not the only one. It’s common among atheists.
You are on a pointless quest to alter epistemology. You are wasting your time over nothing.
How do you know what I think? You don’t really, your entire argument is based on belief, as opposed to mine. I know why I don’t believe and provided reasons why whatever instance of belief you thought you caught me at wasn’t. You assume you know how I think. Only I can know how I think, unless some crazy scientific advances occur that I’m not aware of currently.
I did not claim “I believe things because I associate belief with irrational religious nuts”
Sorry. If you want to be unreasonable, go ahead, but that doesn’t help you at all for your argument.
Justifying our senses with empiricism is like justifying mathematics with an equation.
Yeah, I lost a ‘NOT’ while editing my post.
It should have been : "You claim NOT to believe things because you associate belief with irrational religious nuts and you don’t want to think of yourself in those terms. "
He’s come to the same conclusion about you that I and Moreno did. In fact I think phyllo came to it first. Seems reasonable enough to me- it’s the most justified conclusion based on reading what you write.
Empiricism utilizes logic and reason - through testing and experimentation. I’m not referring to scientific empiricism - in that a 3 year old utilizes empiricism. 3 year olds test and produce logical reasons of why things are the way they sense them.
That is all we can have knowledge from, our senses, essentially. If we had no senses, how could we have logic? Reason? Math? I don’t know the answer to that question. Maybe we would understand logic and reason and math tabula rasa.
So you can claim knowledge is not justified and that we really don’t know anything because its all based on senses, ultimately. Maybe you belong to the questionable “quote” of Socrates in that you think along the lines of “I only know I know nothing.”? I don’t know what you think on the matter. Empiricism allows us to recognize consistency, patterns, for justification, logically and reasonably.
How could you test or verify anything if your senses don’t work? Even Helen Keller needed the sense of touch.
That fallacy plays against your argument. Logic does not depend upon senses. But logic requires axioms. Until a high degree of mental understanding is reached, those axioms come from the probability that the senses are reasonably accurate (a belief in the senses).
Ok I didn’t claim "not to believe things because I associate belief with irrational religious nuts.
I claimed not to believe things because I have developed a discipline of weeding out belief in my life, becoming agnostic about more things than would be considered normal and by obtaining knowledge.
That was my claim. You misinterpreted the claim because you and Uccisore seem to have a preconceived notion that you cannot shake from your mentality no matter what is stated. I suspect it may be due to your mental faculties operating from belief based frameworks.
Empiricism is knowledge dervied from sense experience. Justifying the general reliability of sense experience through knowledge derived from sense experience is circular.
If by ‘empiricism’ you meant ‘rationalism’, that isn’t my problem. Maybe don’t use words you don’t know the meanings of.
Who the fuck knows? If somebody tries to answer that, you’ll just say “By logic I didn’t mean philosophical logic, I meant musical logic. By Math I didn’t mean mathematical math, I meant counting on my fingers. By reason I didn’t mean rational reason, I meant dried grapes”. You give the exact same response every time somebody corrects you on anything.
James, How would a human who is tabula rasa, with no senses, understand what logic is?
Hellen Keller had the sense of touch, so I don’t know why you are bringing her up.
Jesus Christ. If a person can’t understand logic without their senses, then justifying the reliability of your senses in terms of logic is back to being a circular argument again. You’re arguing with me that you justify the senses through logic, and arguing with James that logic is justified through the senses.
Again, it’s like justifying math with a math equation.