appolose said:
donathos said:
appolose said:
Which would do little to alleviate the problem, for now we can't know whether or not our interpretations of our sense data are correct.
|
Well, that's what we have. :)
I mean, our interpretations of sensory data are tested all the time--we see an apple, we go to pick it up and the sensations of touch agree with our sight, which we take as confirmation.
Now, it might all be hallucinatory, sure. We ask others if they see and feel the apple, too, and they say "yes" and we take that for what it's worth.
In real life, there are hallucinations. But we come to know those because they fail our "confirmation" checks (sight versus touch, or others say "what apple?"). In other words, the potential shortcomings of the interpretation of sensory data is remedied by more sensory data. We don't just throw it all out.
Might it all be a house of cards? Perhaps. But if it were, there'd never be any way for us to determine it (because all of the evidence we'd collect to "prove" that it was a house of cards would rely on other sensory data).
So, anyways, it is "reality" because really there is no other possible kind; all of our theories, conjectures, arguments, beliefs, etc., are all based on the validity of sensory data. If we reject the senses, we're left with absolutely nothing, and certainly not this conversation.
|
Yes, all the sensory data would be relying on other sensory data (making it useless).
And we certainly wouldn't be left with nothing (even if we were, that does not at all detract any of the assumption out of it). For instance, you could decide that flipping a coin can determine truth (while operating under the assumption that there is a coin and you can tell which side it lands on). Which, as a method of truth, is no less founded as empiricism.
|
When you say "we certainly wouldn't be left with nothing," I think that your example is undermined by "while operating under the assumption that there is a coin and you can tell which side it lands on."
I mean, if we grant the coin... why not grant the other things that our senses inform us of?
And besides, when I say we'd be left with absolutely nothing, I really mean it. I mean that... our very use of language is predicated on learning that has all taken place within the context of sensory data; we can use the word cat because we've seen a cat. (Or, a blind person has touched a cat, or heard it. Or, we have concepts of imaginary things by making internal comparisons with things that we have experienced.)
Any reality we ascribe to, or can imagine, must be predicated on our experience of sensory data. Without that data, there'd only be void.
