A colossal accident?

[warpspeedpetey]

I think it’s clear now that no such ‘rational object’ as dubito exists.

You already admitted to experiencing it several hundred posts ago. Too late. Further, it’s even better known than the fact that empiricism died decades ago.

Doubting everything is just a paradoxical project that ensnares its practitioners

No paradox involved.

, and not a provider of any knowledge

So you knew that Dubito was the only object we can be certain exists, prior to the exercise? I find that very hard to believe.

other than that which can be empirically gained by asking: “What are you thinking of?”,

Since you cannot prove empirical reality exists at all, you have no idea if you are gaining empirical knowledge. Further, that question isn’t the same as doubting everything.

I have not disavowed my position that pure reason gives us no knowledge, and you have said nothing persuasive against it.

Yes, you certainly did as I posted. Further, we have demonstrated that the previous position is false a great many times. It is so obviously true that you do not have to acknowledge it. It disproves a cherished belief you have and we understand your refusal to acknowledge it, much the same way we do your refusal to acknowledge that empiricism is long dead as cognitive dissonance.

 

[James1215]

This is an irrelevant conclusion. I asked a simple quesition. Which senses are employed for thought experience?

Ok, well let’s see. We call the function of our eyes ‘sight’, so call the function of these hypothetical interacting brain circuits whatever you like. I’ve suggested a biological basis (as sight has) for the apprehension of thought, and you can decide its name. The main question was not how, but whether we experience our own thoughts. I’ve seen evidence that this does not always happen!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

No it is not to say that the ability to gain knowledge from experience precludes alternatives. The fact that there are no alternatives suggests that going from experience is the only way to reach knowledge.

Now prove it!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Ok, well let’s see. We call the function of our eyes ‘sight’, so call the function of these hypothetical interacting brain circuits whatever you like. I’ve suggested a biological basis (as sight has) for the apprehension of thought, and you can decide its name. The main question was not how, but whether we experience our own thoughts. I’ve seen evidence that this does not always happen!

We don’t experience thoughts with our senses. Empiricism suggests knowledge comes only through sensory experience. Now, please demonstrate the sensory nature of thought.

 

[James1215]

You already admitted to experiencing it several hundred posts ago. Too late. Further, it’s even better known than the fact that empiricism died decades ago.
No paradox involved.
So you knew that Dubito was the only object we can be certain exists, prior to the exercise? I find that very hard to believe.
Since you cannot prove empirical reality exists at all, you have no idea if you are gaining empirical knowledge. Further, that question isn’t the same as doubting everything.
Yes, you certainly did as I posted. Further, we have demonstrated that the previous position is false a great many times. It is so obviously true that you do not have to acknowledge it. It disproves a cherished belief you have and we understand your refusal to acknowledge it, much the same way we do your refusal to acknowledge that empiricism is long dead as cognitive dissonance.

No, doubt is either an experience or a paradox, not a ‘rational object’. I can be aware that I am not sure of something. About this state of affairs anyone can have knowledge by asking me what’s on my mind. However, to embark on a project of universal doubt, I’d have to undermine the project by doubting whether I was doing it. I would be left doing it and not doing it; I would have nothing to have knowledge of. I get the feeling this predicament was why Descartes proceeded to say that thinking must establish something, hence cogito ergo sum.

You have again missed the point with ‘empirical reality’. How many times have I said that there is no need to make a distinction between perception and reality? Perception is the only way we experience experience.

Seeing as you have opted to hide behind patently false rhetoric and obvious misrepresentations, which I have already patiently covered, we can accept the last seriously uncontroverted position, which was mine. There is evidence for empiricism, and none against.

 

[James1215]

We don’t experience thoughts with our senses. Empiricism suggests knowledge comes only through sensory experience. Now, please demonstrate the sensory nature of thought.

It does not have to be the 5 well-known senses. We don’t see, hear, feel (with skin), taste or smell that we are hungry, but we still perceive it. Same with varieties of fatigue, or perception of thought. Are you thinking right now? Can you answer that without knowing what exact sense it is which gives you this information?

 

[James1215]

Now prove it!

I have proved it, as much as any proposition needs to be proved: I have given reason to believe. Remember inductive reasoning…? With evidence for, and no evidence against, empiricism has potentially the same pedigree as the best scientific theories.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, you haven’t actually. You have reiterated what you already had. 1 is 1, + is +, 2 is 1+1. It’s tautological and merely the elaboration of the given principles.

1…no 2…1…no 2…Where is this 2? Don’t we have to perform an operation on the disparate quantities to reach 1+1=2. That’s right we have now gained the knowledge that when a quantity of one, and another quantity of one are added together they are equal to a quantity of 2. Knowledge gained.

Doubt doesn’t exist unless it is thought…

How do you know?

Yes it is irrational to doubt one’s senses.

No it’s not.

How can we be sure they are wrong?

How can you be sure you are experiencing empirical reality at all.

What tells us perceptions are illusory?

How do you know that you are experiencing empirical reality?

One perception cannot be used to undermine all perception,

Sure looks like it did, as is pretty much accepted by everyone else, not that such a thing matters to you.

because it is self-contradictory.

What part is a self contradiction?

Perception is neither possible to be certain about nor possible to reject as illusory.

No you cannot be certain of physical perception but you can and many people do reject it as illusory.

Empiricism is still standing…

Not for decades as the historical facts, the experts and the demonstrations all prove. Refusal to acknowledge a widely accepted fact with overwhelming evidence that disproves a cherished belief is generally considered to be the result of cognitive dissonance.

 

[James1215]

2 is a concept which includes 1. Twice. It is not a proposition to say that 1 plus 1 equals 2; it was already given in 1 and 2. Tautologies!

 

[James1215]

Refusal to acknowledge a widely accepted fact with overwhelming evidence that disproves a cherished belief is generally considered to be the result of cognitive dissonance.

Here I would agree

 

[James1215]

No you cannot be certain of physical perception but you can and many people do reject it as illusory.

How do they? Can you demonstrate so much as one point?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s entirely relevant. Given that at least Warpspeedpetey thinks its wrong to credit empiricism,

It’s a logical contradiction that I and the rest of the world agrees is false.

I’m pushing the boundaries of rationalism

This conversation is barely scratching the surface. Until you stop ignoring posts and make the point by point back and forth necessary to find the truth, we aren’t going to move any farther past the first few posts than we are now. Repeating refuted assertions doesn’t change anythiing.

to see if it can provide us with reason to believe things we really do take for granted, on a day-to-day basis.

Most of the day to day world cannot function without it. As SoG points out the angles of a triangle adds up to 180 degrees regardless of the existence of a universe. Funny that physics tends to confirm that empirical reality maps quite closely to platonic reality.

It is experience which tells us other people can be understood and can understand us: they react as we imagine they would based on what we say to them, and we think we can see their implicit appreciation of the same in us. How could you possibly get to this knowledge from pure disengaged reason? It’s ludicrous.

How do you know any of this? The fact of the matter is that you are accepting rational information “thoughts” as sensory information and then making a rational decision to accept it as a true representation of empirical reality. For all you know you could be a Fleezlebop from Gluferginit and you bumped your 4th head on lurble, having this fever dream as a result.

If anyone uses pure reason for knowledge, apart from in curious and dubious paradoxes (paradi?), then speak up!

Sure, Math, logics, and Dubito are all methods of gaining knowledge using pure reason. Your only response seems to be an assertion that we cannot gain knowledge from them. While our refutation is to demonstrate knowledge gained from them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We don’t experience thoughts with our senses. Empiricism suggests knowledge comes only through sensory experience. Now, please demonstrate the sensory nature of thought.

 

[James1215]

If you follow carefully, it does not matter where our ideas come from. If we are to have reason to believe in them, they must be evidenced by experience.

If you want me to argue that thoughts are perceived, I can do. I wouldn’t make you try to argue that we don’t perceive them, or that they come from the realm of Reason, I wouldn’t be that mean.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, doubt is either an experience or a paradox, not a ‘rational object’

It is a it is a rational object, much like a triangle or a hypercube, and merely calling it a paradox does not make it so, you have to demonstrate the contradiction

… I can be aware that I am not su

However, to embark on a project of universal doubt, I’d have to undermine the project by doubting whether I was doing it. I would be left doing it and not doing it; I would have nothing to have knowledge of. I get the feeling this predicament was why Descartes proceeded to say that thinking must establish something

, hence cogito ergo sum.When you doubt that you doubt, you are proving the existence of Dubito.

You have again missed the point with ‘empirical reality’. How many times have I said that there is no need to make a distinction between perception and reality? Perception is the only way we experience experience.

Your continual and intentional misuse of terms renders statements like that rather meaningless. Perception is not the same thing as reality. That’s a contradiction.

Seeing as you have opted to hide behind patently false rhetoric and obvious misrepresentations, which I have already patiently covered,

You have ignored 500 plus posts of refutations, that is hardly “covering them”

we can accept the last seriously uncontroverted position, which was mine

Forget about the last 500 posts of refutations you have conveniently ignored?

. There is evidence for empiricism, and none against.

Where is this evidence that is going to change the world? How did all the experts miss it? When did the rules of logic change to validate logical contradictions? The fact is that you have zero evidence and when you realized that scientific results are not evidence for theories of knowledge you stopped trying. So, like all the experts found out decades ago, as we have demonstrated, your author admits and bare historical fact reinforces, empiricism died as a theory of knowledge a long time ago.

 

[James1215]

It’s a logical contradiction that I and the rest of the world agrees is false.

I have already shown how it is non-contradictory to hypothesise empiricism.

As SoG points out the angles of a triangle adds up to 180 degrees regardless of the existence of a universe. Funny that physics tends to confirm that empirical reality maps quite closely to platonic reality.

Why not come up with a hypothesis of your own? It would be just as empirical as mine. As you both admit, the logic of maths has nothing to do with reality, we just happen to find things which we can readily describe with maths here. Can you use pi for the earth? Maybe, but only after you ascertain empirically the shape. Can you use Euclidean geometry for another hypothetical project? Maths will not tell you, you have to work that out by empirical comparison.

How do you know any of this? The fact of the matter is that you are accepting rational information “thoughts” as sensory information and then making a rational decision to accept it as a true representation of empirical reality. For all you know you could be a Fleezlebop from Gluferginit and you bumped your 4th head on lurble, having this fever dream as a result.

As could we all. Do you have reason to believe that though? It still does not affect empiricism! We are finding out that in this dream, certain testable predictions come true based on hypotheses backed up with evidence.

Sure, Math, logics, and Dubito are all methods of gaining knowledge using pure reason. Your only response seems to be an assertion that we cannot gain knowledge from them. While our refutation is to demonstrate knowledge gained from them.

That is so. You have shown that dubito is a paradox and maths is a tautological system with no necessary relationship to reality. Neither of these produces knowledge! Only experience as yet does…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have proved it, as much as any proposition needs to be proved: I have given reason to believe. Remember inductive reasoning…? With evidence for, and no evidence against, empiricism has potentially the same pedigree as the best scientific theories.

Can you tell us again how the leap is made from “I observe that iron is oxidized by water” to “therefore experience is required for knowledge”? See? You don’t actually have any evidence for the proposition that you asserted.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

2 is a concept which includes 1. Twice. It is not a proposition to say that 1 plus 1 equals 2; it was already given in 1 and 2. Tautologies!

…1…Where is the 2?..1…still no 2. A quantity of 1 and another quantity of 1 do not imply 2 until you add them. Knowledge gained.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have already shown how it is non-contradictory to hypothesise empiricism.

Where? You still haven’t asserted anything but the dogmatic “experience is required for knowledge”. Switching synonyms still doesn’t change anything, it is still a proposition which is a logical contradiction as BR pointed out. You still don’t have any evidence for it, and so on.

Why not come up with a hypothesis of your own? It would be just as empirical as mine

Of what?

. As you both admit, the logic of maths has nothing to do with reality, we just happen to find things which we can readily describe with maths here.

I am not sure what SoG said, but it is clear to me that the universe bends itself to the mathematical forms which transcend it. A triangle does not need the universe to exist, the universe needs the triangle to exist. G-d is a mathematician.

Can you use pi for the earth? Maybe, but only after you ascertain empirically the shape.

What does that have to do with anything? Pi was the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter long before the earth was formed and will be long after.

Can you use Euclidean geometry for another hypothetical project?

Sure, why not?

Maths will not tell you, you have to work that out by empirical comparison.

Mathematics can tell you about hypothetical geometry all day without empirical comparison.

As could we all. Do you have reason to believe that though?

Now you are back to the long refuted verificationism. We need no empirical reality to verify mathematical truths.

It still does not affect empiricism!

Only in so far as you are still making the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence claim” You say there is no alternative to empiricism and then we demonstrate there is.

We are finding out that in this dream, certain testable predictions come true based on hypotheses backed up with evidence.

Which could all be a dream as well.

That is so. You have shown that dubito is a paradox

Where and how?

and maths is a tautological system with no necessary relationship to reality.

Reality obviously conforms to math as I demonstrated. The universe depends on them, not the other way around.

Neither of these produces knowledge!

Both of them does as we haqve contiually demonstrated. You repeat, I repeat.

Only experience as yet does…

How do you know you are experiencing reality again? That’s right, you don’t.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It does not have to be the 5 well-known senses. We don’t see, hear, feel (with skin), taste or smell that we are hungry, but we still perceive it.

Empiricism is about sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and we are talking about a theory of epistemology, not if I get ambiguous feeling about something. In case you forgot, here is what Empiricism is…

**There is no source of knowledge in other than sense experience. **

Do you get it yet? If appears to impact one or more senses, then it’s empirical. Feeling hungry is probably justifiable. Rational thought is not, however, about sense experience. You cannot perceive a mind or a thought. You don’t experience ideas, you conceive them. You don’t perceive logic, you mentally construct it.