Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
1. It does not contradict the evidence in that sense data can be interpreted any way you decide, so it can be supported by "evidence" (evidence being whatever you decide the sense data represents). And we are picking what we think sense data represents arbitrarily (I thought that that word looked wrong), as there is no reason to think that what we've picked is correct (other than consistency. See 2). For your second paragraph in your other post, A, B, and C are all interpretations of sense data already, so it doesn't make any sense to ask how we're going to go about in everyday life without making sense judgements when everyday life is a sense judgement in itself. By auxiliary, I just meant the opposite of fundamental.
2. My point was that there are a number (if not infinite) of beliefs that could be consistent, and that only inconsistency can demonstrate anything, like the falseness of a method of truth (e.g., "Flipping a coin ALWAYS yields truth" *Flips coin twice*, "Heads and tails. Huh".) Managing not to contradict yourself is not evidence, it merely shows a coherent method.
Avoiding a judgement on senses is fine, because your ABCD paragraph, as I noted above, was dependent on assuming empiricism anyways. In other words make up a truth statemnt in your head that doesn't entail a "Because I saw this" or "I felt that", and that's how it can be done.
|
1. If you're now saying that the passage of time could also be an illusion, I think we're just about done with this. It means you don't trust even your own mind, let alone the senses. Even if all your memories are false, you still have memory. More than that, if you deny (A) you deny that you exist at all, which takes contrarianism past the point of silliness. I don't see how one's own existence (the bare fact, devoid of any particulars) can possibly be said to derive from sense data. Even Descartes agrees.
2. So your alternative to accepting the sensed world is to make up your own fantasy world, or have no world at all, correct?
|
1. Time is a physical concept, so it's resultant of sense data judgement. So, in that context, it too could be "wrong". And I do not see how that would mean I cannot trust my own reasoning, then. When I was denying (A), I was denying the "living" part (as in, bodily). Although, I might be pressed to think that "I" don't necessarily exist, either, although that may depend on what I mean by "I". Also, Bertrand Russel disagreed with Descartes on that point ;)
2. Yes, that's correct. Although, sense data could be used nontheless to support any view anyways, so it doesn't really matter, as I maintain that sense judgement is arbitrary.
