Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[AntiTheist]

. But when you have lots of people, who are otherwise quite rational and trustworthy, make a claim that they where abducted by what appeared to be alien, it should not be treated with ridicule and scorn, and it should not be assumed outright that these people are psychotic, even if you choose to withhold belief.

You misunderstand me – I’m not assuming that all of these people are psychotic: I’m concluding (based on evidence) that all of them are mistaken and that a good number of them are experiencing mental phenomena.

My ridicule of them is secondary to that and for rhetorical effect.

To assume as a principle that any experience that takes us beyond the realm of subjective normality is the object of insanity is not a reasonable premise of rationality.

And I do not assume this at all. I merely do not accept claims that do not have sufficient evidence.

you evidently have a prejudiced against certain concepts which you hide behind the principles of scepticism.

No, I don’t have a prejudice against these concepts. I agree, for example, that it is possible – in theory – that aliens are capturing and brutally probing human beings in an attempt to learn things about them (or, about their anal cavities, a part of the body these aliens seem obsessed with). But I’m certainly not going to believe that unless there’s some really convincing evidence of it.

As it stands, it’s been so long now without any convincing evidence whatsoever, that I personally feel it’s appropriate to make fun of these unsupported claims.

But I’ll change my tune as soon as there’s actual evidence that these creatures exist and are doing these bizarre things to people.

We cannot have certainty of physical reality. That’s an empirical fact.

Yes. Luckily, “certainty” is completely and totally unncecessary. We just have to determine what is most likely, based on evidence.

What is a loser?

I think I’d get in trouble for giving an honest answer to that question.

This is purely a subjective value judgement.

Of course it’s purely subjective. Basically, what I’m talking about are people who are powerless and have go-nowhere lives, who are finding out that life can be disappointing and that they may not be able to realize their precious little dreams.

These kinds of people – disappointed as they are in reality – are often eager to ignore reality in favor of their dreams and fantasies, inventing a new “reality” where they can finally be happy, where they’re not such “losers” who can’t live up to their own (usually unrealistic) expectations.

 

[Betterave]

None of your examples constitute “knowledge”. They are very reasonable expectations. (Even your death is not 100% certain. Someone might come up with a cure for aging.) You don’t know any of those. You have a very good, educated guess, which should not be confused with knowledge. That is basic epistemology - and you are very proficient in philosophy, aren’t you? I am aware that in everyday vernacular we do not make such rigorous distinction. I did not do it in many of my posts, since I assumed a common level of understanding. But you criticized me for my sloppiness. So here is your medicine now, fed back to you. Does it taste good?

My own medicine? I’m afraid I have to continue to criticize your sloppiness (i.e., ignorance). I’m quite certain there is no such thing as “basic epistemology” which requires that ‘knowledge’ should imply absolute certitude. Only skeptics define knowledge in that way. (If you believe otherwise, please cite your sources.) The basic, though problematic, notion of ‘knowledge’ in epistemology is ‘true justified belief.’

You are almost right when you say that the concepts about future have an influence on the present. Not quite right (and now I am doing the nitpicking) since concepts are inert, they do not do anything. The acceptance of the concepts does the “work” of influencing.

I’m quite happy for you to try to nitpick, that’s what philosophy is supposed to be about: examining ideas closely and trying to get it right, as opposed to making vague statements that merely seem acceptable because we haven’t thought about the problems they entail. Concepts, however, are not inert. Why would you suggest such a thing? You might as well say sulfuric acid is inert, since it’s only when it comes in contact with another substrate that it has an effect. That’s true, of course, but it doesn’t show that H2SO4 (or, mutatis mutandis, concepts) are inert.

Here is the crux of the problem. The concepts about the future exist now. Their referents, the future does not exist, in reality, only as a concept. Since it does not exist, it cannot influence anything. You are so proud of your cognitive skills, how come that this simple distinction escaped you? Because that is precisely what the quoted text asserted. Cannot make it simpler than that.

I missed it because your premise is false: concepts do exists and they can influence things.

Here is the quote:

The fact that this future exists changes the present…
the present is touched by the future reality…
things of the future spill over into those of the present…

This is what would have made sense:

The fact that we have expectations about the future changes the present…
the present is influenced by our (current) assessments of the future possibilities…
the hope about the future modifies our current actions…

As I noted before (a linguistic point, one of your interests): all present continuous verb forms (e.g., “is coming”) indicate the actual togetherness of present and future. You haven’t presented any good reason for rejecting Benedict’s words.

So it is all “hope”, “expectations” and sometimes, “wishful thinking” - and mind you, this is a trivial observation.

What makes it trivial??

Of course this is how the Pope defined “faith”.

The reference of your “this” here is unclear, but it appears to suggest what would amount to a dishonest simplification of the truth.

And I do not accept it. To put a “reasonable expectation” and totally unfounded “wishful thinking” into the same “basket” (“faith”) is not just unreasonable, but seriously confusing and misleading. About the future we can all have expectations, and the probability of those expectations to come true varies from the almost certain to the next to impossible. To call all of those expectations “faith” is unacceptable. Now there are two possibilities: 1) the Pope genuinely does not see the difference (highly unlikely) and 2) the Pope prefers the confusion for some reason or another.

Where does the Pope create/fall prey to the confusion you suggest? Please cite the text. (I suspect you are not reading very carefully again.)

 

[Betterave]

My feelings – like yours – are utterly irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of my ideas.

So you don’t want to answer my question?

What you write here is quite … peculiar:

Plenty of true statements don’t “feel” right and are counter-intuitive. For example, it feels wrong to say that the earth orbits the sun. [DOES IT?? - NOT TO ME!] It feels wrong to say that all living creatures are related to one another. - AGAIN, CERTAINLY NOT TO ME] But we can actually discover – once we set aside our precious little feelings and actually investigate reality – that the earth does orbit the sun and that all living creatures are related to each other. [RIGHT - AND YOU WANT TO CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO *FEELING - “THIS IS IT, THIS IS THE ANSWER, HERE’S THE TRUTH, THIS IS RIGHT!” - ASSOCIATED WITH DISCOVERY??? ]

In a similar way, a guy who has just proofread his own work may feel that it’s correct to say that there are no typos there – but actually looking at the page may reveal this feeling to be irrelevant. [BUT THAT REVELATION WILL COME WITH A NEW FEELING (OF REVELATION!, OF HAVING DISCOVERED AN ERROR!) AND THIS NEW FEELING WILL OBVIOUSLY REPLACE THE FORMER FEELING THAT IT *WAS CORRECT, WITH A NEW FEELING: “NO, THIS IS CORRECT”!]

Ok. Then how do you suggest we go about determining whether or not a claim is true? Should we just consult our special little feelings some more?

As I said to Prodigal: “I’m not interested in hearing opinions about the faith [or anything] when they are ignorantly, arrogantly, and closed-mindedly expressed. … I’m interested in hearing serious arguments from people who are genuinely interested in growing in their understanding.”

We have to subject our claims to criticism and open-mindedly listen to that criticism and see if we can respond to it intelligently so as to defend our claims. If we cannot respond intelligently, then our “special little feelings” ought not to remain static, and they should especially not become belligerently dogmatic as yours have apparently done. They ought to turn away from a self-satisfied feeling of having “real knowledge” and living in “the real world” and scornfully dismissing those who disagree with you as “infantile” and as “losers.” That’s how feelings are supposed(!) to work, epistemologically. But obviously this implies that we cannot simply “consult our special little feelings some more,” as you for some strange reason suggest.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Big talk from someone who seriously thinks we can define beings into existence.

I consider it a vast step in “growing your understanding” to outgrow puerile fantasy-based “philosophy” and open your eyes.

Some kids naturally outgrow the belief in Santa Claus. Others will continue to believe in Santa Claus until the bigger kids make fun of them. There are times when it’s appropriate to point out how laughable this whole Matrix-mongering is.

If I’m upsetting your delicate sensibilities, just ignore me and go do something else. After all, you could always define a bright, sunny day into existence and waltz off into a bright, new fantasy – or even better, define yourself into being a billionaire.

Yo, dude. We’re out of high school, and bullying doesn’t work anymore. If you’d like to make an argument for your position, by all means, do so. But don’t try and scare little Timmy out of his lunch money. That’s just not the way we roll around here.

Stoned out of his mind,

Prodigal

 

[Betterave]

Big talk from someone who seriously thinks we can define beings into existence.

I consider it a vast step in “growing your understanding” to outgrow puerile fantasy-based “philosophy” and open your eyes.

Some kids naturally outgrow the belief in Santa Claus. Others will continue to believe in Santa Claus until the bigger kids make fun of them. There are times when it’s appropriate to point out how laughable this whole Matrix-mongering is.

If I’m upsetting your delicate sensibilities, just ignore me and go do something else. After all, you could always define a bright, sunny day into existence and waltz off into a bright, new fantasy – or even better, define yourself into being a billionaire.

If I’m NOT upsetting your wooden intellectual sensibilities, please STOP ignoring my arguments and constructing transparently stupid straw men to attack with your foolishly arrogant ad hominem arguments.

 

[Betterave]

None of your examples constitute “knowledge”. They are very reasonable expectations. (Even your death is not 100% certain. Someone might come up with a cure for aging.) You don’t know any of those. You have a very good, educated guess, which should not be confused with knowledge. That is basic epistemology - and you are very proficient in philosophy, aren’t you? I am aware that in everyday vernacular we do not make such rigorous distinction. I did not do it in many of my posts, since I assumed a common level of understanding. But you criticized me for my sloppiness. So here is your medicine now, fed back to you. Does it taste good?

I forgot to mention: my philosophical point clearly doesn’t hinge on whether or not my examples constitute ‘knowledge,’ so, though your point was mistaken, even if it had not been, it would have been irrelevant to the point at hand.

 

[AntiTheist]

So, after reading Betterave’s capitalized temper-tantrum above, I think I’ve finally puzzled out what he/she has probably been trying to say (contrary to what the non-native English speakers are telling you, Betterave, your ability to communicate in a written format has some serious flaws).

Betterave is saying that when a person uses evidence to correctly determine that something is likely to be true, there is a feeling that goes along with it, a feeling that “I’m right!”, something that I would describe more properly with the metaphor of “a lightbulb going on.” We don’t usually articulate this feeling to ourselves, but we might describe it as a positive feeling or a feeling of satisfaction that accompanies the use of evidence to determine that something is likely true.

The question he/she was clumsily trying to ask – I think, anyway – is, “How do you know that you can trust this feeling?”

And the answer is simple: I don’t trust that feeling or any other feelings at all. My feelings are entirely irrelevant when it comes to analyzing claims. I don’t accept a claim because my feelings tell me, “Oh, goodie! Now I’m right!!!” I accept a claim and then I experience good feelings as a result.

I accept a claim because I can rationally see that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. That this observation is followed by a corresponding feeling of satisfaction shouldn’t be surprising – there are obvious evolutionary reasons for developing a “good” feeling when correctly puzzling out things about the world – but this particular “feeling,” along with any other feelings, is utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is sufficient evidence to justify the claim.

Join us next week for another lesson in “Making Yourself Clear”

 

[mcteague]

lol! Okay then! I have no idea what you’re talking about, but here’s a statement: Everything could appear exactly as it does, whether or not I am in fact in ‘the Matrix.’ Now why can’t this statement be accepted? Please demonstrate!

Here’s another one: If you hold an apple in the air and drop it, it will fall to the ground.

And another: Put your bare hand on that hot pan and it will hurt you.

One more: It is apparently easy to misunderstand the Matrix argument.

You’re simply reasserting that discourse becomes impossible in light of the Matrix argument. This is not self-evident in the least. Why should you be unable to discourse just because you are in the Matrix??

Alright, I will admit that impossible is to strong a word. Specifically because the first half of your first example “Everything could appear exactly as it does” would be impossible to disagree with. It would be possible to discourse if that discourse consisted of entirely conditional, probabilistic, or tautological statements.

Your other examples are just bad. They are bad because they simply ignore the matrix argument. I said earlier that I thought our problem may be one of communication. It is not one of misunderstanding. Your use of that term is consistent with some of your earlier posts. It is important to conceive that others may use terms, or interpret data, in ways different than your own. That does not necessarily make them wrong. But it can be an impediment to communication.

One of the problems with this thread is that we have not taken the time to properly define “The Matrix Argument”. It is entirely possible that the various factions within the discussion are all correct depending upon what definition one is using. The definition I am using is this:

Matrix Argument: A belief that nothing can be ontologically or epistemologically certain because we can conceive that anything and everything we claim to know may in someway be false. And that we have no empirical or cognitive means to prove to a certainty that it is or is not.
or Nothing can be known

If you don’t like that definition, (or anyone else doesn’t) please suggest another. This really may be the root of the problem.
For me the the matrix argument is not interesting because although I can conceive of the possibility that nothing I apprehend is real, I act as if it is. The infinitesimal possibility that I am really a bug lying in vat of cheese on a planet in a distant universe is to small for me to make significant changes to the way I think or communicate.

It is simply easier to think and communicate like a normal person and in the back of your mind concede that we might be wrong than to jump through the semantic hoops required to attain absolute certainty and clarity. And I find attempts to address these kinds of problems more trouble than they are worth. I have already been through my E-Prime days. Not worth the trouble.

Well thinking about this for a moment I should correct myself. It is not that acceptance of statements is impossible. It is really that it sets a condition where agreement on terms can avoided endlessly without any rational basis. And therefore acceptance of statements can be avoided. But the matrix argument does not preclude rational discussion. It just can be used to avoid it. And that is often its purpose

 

[JohnDamian]

Matrix Argument: A belief that nothing can be ontologically or epistemologically certain because we can conceive that anything and everything we claim to know may in someway be false. And that we have no empirical or cognitive means to prove to a certainty that it is or is not.
or Nothing can be known

If that is the definition the law of noncontradiction demonstrates the epistemological claims of the argument to be false. The ontological claims of the argument are an arbitrary dismissal of phantasms as not ontologically significant. It follows from the ontological significance of phantasms that at least per se they should be interacted with in a congruent manner for the pursuance of satisfaction which constitutes an incentivisation of behaviour; which in turn rationalises it.

Thus; even conceding the hypothesis of the “matrix” argument we can see that no epistimological claims are refuted; and ontological claims are not irrational - and thus desirable.

 

[mcteague]

If that is the definition the law of noncontradiction demonstrates the epistemological claims of the argument to be false. The ontological claims of the argument are an arbitrary dismissal of phantasms as not ontologically significant. It follows from the ontological significance of phantasms that at least per se they should be interacted with in a congruent manner for the pursuance of satisfaction which constitutes an incentivisation of behaviour; which in turn rationalises it.

Thus; even conceding the hypothesis of the “matrix” argument we can see that no epistimological claims are refuted; and ontological claims are not irrational - and thus desirable.

I think if we change “Anything and everything” to simply anything we may avoid the problem of contradiction. Which is what I believe you objected to. Please note that I have no ego invested in tbe proposed definition. Which I just whipped up on the moment. It is just a suggested starting point

 

[JohnDamian]

I think if we change “Anything and everything” to simply anything we may avoid the problem of contradiction. Which is what I believe you objected to. Please note that I have no ego invested in tbe proposed definition. Which I just whipped up on the moment. It is just a suggested starting point

Changing it to “anything” has no difference than changing it to everything; for the potential of anything is within the genus of everything universally – thus; no practical change.

 

[mcteague]

Changing it to “anything” has no difference than changing it to everything; for the potential of anything is within the genus of everything universally – thus; no practical change.

Well I just want to make sure that your objection is to what the matrix argument is and not specifically to my proposed definition. Writing definitions is not easy, and it has actually been while since studied this sort of thing. The matrix argument seems to say that for example because I can conceive of a world without apples; I can not absolutely accept their existence. And that because of this any knowledge derived from the idea of apple can not be considered certain. I believe the definition describes that view. But I could be wrong. It would not be the first time

 

[Betterave]

So, after reading Betterave’s capitalized temper-tantrum above, I think I’ve finally puzzled out what he/she has probably been trying to say (contrary to what the non-native English speakers are telling you, Betterave, your ability to communicate in a written format has some serious flaws).

Temper tantrum? The capitalization was simply to facilitate the differentiation of my comments from yours. Apparently it also helped you to partially understand what I was writing for the first time! MAYBE I SHOULD WRITE IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME?

Betterave is saying that when a person uses evidence to correctly determine that something is likely to be true, there is a feeling that goes along with it, a feeling that “I’m right!”, something that I would describe more properly with the metaphor of “a lightbulb going on.” We don’t usually articulate this feeling to ourselves, but we might describe it as a positive feeling or a feeling of satisfaction that accompanies the use of evidence to determine that something is likely true.

Close, but not quite. We have this feeling when we think that something is likely true, whether or not it is based on the use of evidence. For example, even though most of your comments here have been based on no evidence whatsoever, it is still likely that you had that “special little feeling” when you thought of them.

The question he/she was clumsily trying to ask – I think, anyway – is, “How do you know that you can trust this feeling?”

I actually asked a question with a good deal more precision - too much for you to comprehend, perhaps? (That’s your cue to resort to more groundless ad hominem abuse. )

And the answer is simple: I don’t trust that feeling or any other feelings at all. My feelings are entirely irrelevant when it comes to analyzing claims. I don’t accept a claim because my feelings tell me, “Oh, goodie! Now I’m right!!!” I accept a claim and then I experience good feelings as a result.

Let’s consider a case study:
You’ve been extremely ingracious about it, but you have effectively admitted that your previous comments were in fact straw man arguments. Now did you notice that your arguments were fallacious before or after having an “oops, I was wrong” feeling? You seem to want to insist that you noticed your error, then had the oops-feeling. Now that’s very nice, but really doesn’t affect my point, does it? My point is that at all times your assent to a claim as being true is accompanied by some kind of feeling of confidence in it. The fact is that your recognition of an error is preceded by non-recognition of your error, and as long as you maintain that error, your objectively (and obviously so, I might add) misplaced confidence is subjectively, that is, from your point of view, simply confidence, and confidence in what? - in the truth of what is in fact false.

So now let’s try to understand what is wrong with your sequel here:

I accept a claim because I can rationally see that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. That this observation is followed by a corresponding feeling of satisfaction shouldn’t be surprising – there are obvious evolutionary reasons for developing a “good” feeling when correctly puzzling out things about the world – but this particular “feeling,” along with any other feelings, is utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is sufficient evidence to justify the claim.

You claim to accept claims because you can rationally see that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. But as our case study has just demonstrated, this claim is sometimes false, and since you frame the claim as a universal one about your general practice of accepting claims, it follows that your claim is simply false. Your asserting it with feelings of great confidence is just another case of objectively misplaced confidence. (I think this is your cue to launch into some more inane straw man arguments. )

 

[Betterave]

Alright, I will admit that impossible is to strong a word. Specifically because the first half of your first example “Everything could appear exactly as it does” would be impossible to disagree with. It would be possible to discourse if that discourse consisted of entirely conditional, probabilistic, or tautological statements.

uh, yeah!

Your other examples are just bad. They are bad because they simply ignore the matrix argument. I said earlier that I thought our problem may be one of communication. It is not one of misunderstanding. Your use of that term is consistent with some of your earlier posts. It is important to conceive that others may use terms, or interpret data, in ways different than your own. That does not necessarily make them wrong. But it can be an impediment to communication.

…okay; so do you think my other examples just bad; or are they possibly based on miscommunication?? These aren’t compatible alternatives, are they??

One of the problems with this thread is that we have not taken the time to properly define “The Matrix Argument”. It is entirely possible that the various factions within the discussion are all correct depending upon what definition one is using. The definition I am using is this:

Matrix Argument: A belief that nothing can be ontologically or epistemologically certain because we can conceive that anything and everything we claim to know may in someway be false. And that we have no empirical or cognitive means to prove to a certainty that it is or is not.
or Nothing can be known

By what right can this legitimately be called “the Matrix Argument”? Can you please explain? (What you have written sounds like ‘the groundless-assertion-of-global-skepticism argument’ - and again, it’s not really an argument, just a groundless assertion.)

The Matrix argument is based on the notion underlying the Matrix movie, is it not? I had just assumed that we could all take that for granted.

Well thinking about this for a moment I should correct myself. It is not that acceptance of statements is impossible. It is really that it sets a condition where agreement on terms can avoided endlessly without any rational basis. And therefore acceptance of statements can be avoided. But the matrix argument does not preclude rational discussion. It just can be used to avoid it. And that is often its purpose

This after-thought seems to just make a bunch of groundless assertions again.

 

[mcteague]

uh, yeah!

…okay; so do you think my other examples just bad; or are they possibly based on miscommunication?? These aren’t compatible alternatives, are they??

By what right can this legitimately be called “the Matrix Argument”? Can you please explain? (What you have written sounds like ‘the groundless-assertion-of-global-skepticism argument’ - and again, it’s not really an argument, just a groundless assertion.)

The Matrix argument is based on the notion underlying the Matrix movie, is it not? I had just assumed that we could all take that for granted.

This after-thought seems to just make a bunch of groundless assertions again.

If you do not think that definition is reasonable please suggest an alternative one. I will be glad to consider it. I mean really try making a direct statement about this subject instead of simply criticizing others. You might have something to contribute. To me this is exactly what the underlying idea of the matrix is. You are absolutely free to disagree. Do you actually think when referring to the Matrix Argument we are exclusively referring to events in the movie?

An actually intelligent person would respond to my post in two ways. First they would ask “If I were to accept the definition offered would the other statements of the poster follow logically”. Second they might consider the definition to determine if they agree with it. If they do not they would offer specific criticisms of it and offer an alternative.

All you do is claim that something is a groundless assertion because you do not understand it. After interacting with you these last few days, I am sure the list of things you consider groundless assertions is enormous.

The after-thought was simply a recognition that a philosophical system can not preclude agreement, or acceptance of a statement, if such agreement is sought by both parties.
The way I originally stated it implied that it would. Thomas Aquinas and Nietzsche could agree that the moon made of cheese. Their philosophical perspectives do not preclude agreement. I am simply being intellectually honest.

The issue of the matrix is not whether we are in it our not. It is that the possibility of the matrix implies that statements about the world may not be reliable. Because if what we perceive as reality is not then we can not presume things we take for granted; like physics for example. When you say drop an apple and it will fall. A person using the matrix argument can simply deny everything you say. They can question whether apples, gravity, you, or the act of dropping can or do exist. Maybe the idea of gravity has been put in your head, and could just as easily be removed. You can’t possibly predict gravity. And you will say “that’s just a groundless assertion”. And they will say “no you are”. There is no rational basis for any statement. One could say anything And that is why I assert that it can be an impediment to rational discourse. But as I admitted it does not have to be. However, would still call it an interesting and fun conception.

Do you understand now.

 

[Betterave]

If you do not think that definition is reasonable please suggest an alternative one. I will be glad to consider it. I mean really try making a direct statement about this subject instead of simply criticizing others.

Not another person with badly deficient reading skills (not to mention writing skills)! Perhaps you should think twice before suggesting that others are not “actually intelligent,” when *you *make such silly claims yourself. I have made many direct statements, some of which have been criticisms of others (those aren’t disjunct categories, criticisms are a class of statements).

You might have something to contribute. To me this is exactly what the underlying idea of the matrix is. You are absolutely free to disagree. Do you actually think when referring to the Matrix Argument we are exclusively referring to events in the movie?

Oh, I see: TO YOU that is exactly that the underlying idea of the Matrix is. But that’s just a repetition of your groundless assertion that doesn’t answer my question. If you tried answering questions instead of simply reasserting your opinions, you might have something to contribute.

An actually intelligent person would respond to my post in two ways. First they would ask “If I were to accept the definition offered would the other statements of the poster follow logically”. Second they might consider the definition to determine if they agree with it. If they do not they would offer specific criticisms of it and offer an alternative.

An actually intelligent person (good one, mcteague) would have noticed that I took option two.

All you do is claim that something is a groundless assertion because you do not understand it. After interacting with you these last few days, I am sure the list of things you consider groundless assertions is enormous.

LOL! So what do you think a “groundless assertion” is, mcteague? In the context where someone says, “that seems like a groundless assertion,” a groundless assertion is just an assertion for which no grounds have been supplied, and *obviously *the list of such assertions is enormous! Do you think it is not?

The after-thought was simply a recognition that a philosophical system can not preclude agreement, or acceptance of a statement, if such agreement is sought by both parties.
The way I originally stated it implied that it would. Thomas Aquinas and Nietzsche could agree that the moon made of cheese. Their philosophical perspectives do not preclude agreement. I am simply being intellectually honest.

Okay, that sounds like a pretty banal point. Why do you bring it up?

Anyway, here is where you get to finally actually discussing the Matrix. I will comment in all-caps, again for ease of differentiating my comments from yours (not because I’m raging ):
The issue of the matrix is not whether we are in it or not. It is that the possibility of the matrix implies that statements about the world may not be reliable [RIGHT - BUT THIS STATEMENT IS TOO GENERAL; IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THEY MIGHT BE *IN ALL SENSES UNRELIABLE]. Because if what we perceive as reality is not [BUT IF WE PERCEIVE IT, IT IS *IPSO FACTO A KIND OF REALITY, IS IT NOT?] then we can not presume things we take for granted; like physics for example. When you say drop an apple and it will fall. A person using the matrix argument can simply deny everything you say. They can question whether apples, gravity, you, or the act of dropping can or do exist. Maybe the idea of gravity has been put in your head, and could just as easily be removed. [ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HUME ON INDUCTION? - THIS IS A GENERAL PROBLEM FACING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD - IT IS *NOT A SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTIC OF THE MATRIX - AND IN ANY CASE, THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENTS HERE IS OBVIOUSLY: SO WHAT?] You can’t possibly predict gravity. And you will say “that’s just a groundless assertion”. And they will say “no you are”. [LOL! - WHETHER OR NOT ONE IS IN THE MATRIX, ONE CAN RECOGNIZE THAT THAT APPEARS TO BE A NONSENSICAL AND GROUNDLESS REPLY - I WOULD SAY TO THEM: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT I AM A GROUNDLESS ASSERTION?” - THEN WHAT WOULD THEY SAY??] There is no rational basis for any statement. ] One could say anything [ONE *CAN SAY ANYTHING! BUT THAT’S IRRELEVANT.] And that is why I assert that it can be an impediment to rational discourse. But as I admitted it does not have to be. [WHAT YOU NEED TO ADMIT NOW IS THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT *SHOULD BE.] However, would still call it an interesting and fun conception.

Now do you understand?

 

[AntiTheist]

You’ve been extremely ingracious about it, but you have effectively admitted that your previous comments were in fact straw man arguments.

To be clear: I’ve admitted that I misread what the heck you were talking about because of the problems you have in communicating your ideas in a written fashion. This isn’t the first time your writing has been misunderstood by me and by others, and I’m not the only person to complain about your inability to clearly express yourself.

Now did you notice that your arguments were fallacious before or after having an “oops, I was wrong” feeling?

I noticed I was misreading you before I felt that I was wrong – how in the heck could I possibly feel that I was wrong before I noticed that I was wrong?

Or do you have special little idiosyncratic definitions of these words? I don’t want you to go defining a whole new language into existence when I’m not looking.

You seem to want to insist that you noticed your error, then had the oops-feeling. Now that’s very nice, but really doesn’t affect my point, does it? My point is that at all times your assent to a claim as being true is accompanied by some kind of feeling of confidence in it. The fact is that your recognition of an error is preceded by non-recognition of your error, and as long as you maintain that error, your objectively (and obviously so, I might add) misplaced confidence is subjectively, that is, from your point of view, simply confidence, and confidence in what? - in the truth of what is in fact false.

You have such a problem with written communication that I can barely decipher your gibberings here.

My paraphrase of the above paragraph is as follows: “Before you realized that you were wrong, you thought you were right, and since there’s a feeling of confidence that goes with thinking that you’re right, you had a great deal of misplaced confidence in a false claim.”

If I have misinterpreted your point, please correct me.

Thus far, I’m in agreement that someone can mistakenly think that he’s right and be very confident about it. Let’s use the example of our proofreader again. He’s proofread his essay, and he’s confident that he’s right about there being no typos in the whole document.

So let’s see where you’re going with this:

You claim to accept claims because you can rationally see that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. But as our case study has just demonstrated, this claim is sometimes false

Let’s stop there. In my claim that I accept claims because I can rationally see that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim, there is the implicit idea that I will always do so to the best of my ability based on the evidence available

Obviously, no one’s perfect, and people are sometimes operating from faulty evidence or making bad deductions. Countless scientific ideas have been overturned – those ideas were accepted on the basis of evidence that was available at the time, and they are overturned only when new evidence becomes available.

Similarly, our confident proofreader bases his claim (“There are no typos here!”) on the evidence of his hasty read-through. When presented with new evidence (like, for example, a slow read-through of his own essay or someone slowly reading it and then pointing out to him where the typos are), his claim will change.

My claim – that people accept claims because they rationally see that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim, to the best of their ability with the best evidence that is available at the time – is true, then.

I am correctly describing the process that people use to evaluate claims. And I am also correct in my observation that evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable – which, to be clear, does not mean “always correct” – method of discerning truth.

If you disagree, then present another method of discerning truth, and explain how you know that it is consistently reliable.

Your asserting it with feelings of great confidence is

…is totally irrelevant. Stick to the subject and learn how to write clearly.

 

[Windfish]

So… the “Matrix argument” has not been refuted. The title of this thread is misleading.

 

[AntiTheist]

So… the “Matrix argument” has not been refuted. The title of this thread is misleading.

Quoth Keanu Reeves: “Whoa!”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Quoth Keanu Reeves: “Whoa!”