Final-Fan said:
"Confusion"
I believe this is commentary/introduction that does not require a reply.
"My Fundamental Issue"
"I only now began using the term “legitimate’ in place of “arriving at absolute knowledge through a method of truth”."
I interpret this to mean that a "legitimate belief" by your definition is "a belief whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge." I do not see what else could be meant here.
Now, unless "method of truth" means something TRULY bizarre, this implies to me that you have the position that no legitimate beliefs exist that interpret sense data. Since that would mean getting absolute knowledge out of sense data.
So when you said "any belief set is supported by sense data" (and you now say that you meant "legitimate belief" instead of "ANY belief"), it makes no sense to me that you meant "any set of beliefs whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge is supported by sense data", this makes no sense because you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all. Therefore sense data can neither support nor discredit a legitimate belief, since it by necessity does not rely on sense data. ...wait.
Okay, forgot that you just meant "is consistent with" instead of actually "supports". But ... wait again.
IMO either your explanation or your previous posts are complete nonsense. Behold:
"I thought it was understood but what I was referring to was AT ANY POINT in your sense data it could support any* worldview/belief. If a guy changes his mind over a period of time from a different interpretation of sense data… well then, ya, he’s contradicted his original interpretation. He’s changed his belief on the matter.
"*What I mean by ‘any’ and ‘anything’ in context here is anything that you can find to fit with sense data, which I figure is infinite. Now, I’m not necessarily saying every belief would fit with sense data (e.g. regarding knowledge of sense data itself: we sense what we call the color blue and believe it’s actually red)."
Here you appear to be claiming that your statement is accurate because even though his worldview (now "belief set" or supposedly "legitimate belief set") has contradicted what it used to be, its changed state is still supported by the sense data so it's all good. You appear IMO to mean "interpretation of sense data" when you say "belief".* I do not understand how your previous explanation is compatible with your current explanation. Notably, how is it possible for a legitimate belief to be contradicted, if it is a method of absolute truth?
*Further evidence: "He lands on the moon and could now believe either 1. The ‘cheese moon’ apparently turned to rock by a scientific phenomenon well beyond his explanation. 2. God, again, changed the moon to rock while in flight 3. He’s hallucinating. 4. The cheese got very hard and changed color. Etc. (Need I say again, the Matrix murders all hope in interpreting correctly or looking for consistency or probability.)"
"I've said our judgements on sense data are totally arbitrary (apart from consistency), so any judgement you make could be made to fit any theory. Like the Matrix: "Everything is a simulated computer experience, and everything I sense is made to perfectly fit what would be sensed otherwise. I sense this and detect nothing unusual" would make perfect use of sense data judgement." (This is the ancestral post that started this.)
I DEMAND YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHERE I WENT OFF THE RAILS (ALL THE PLACES) FROM YOUR REASONING OR DEFINITIONS OR POSITIONS OR ANYTHING IN THE ABOVE SECTION!
The Rest ("Side Note", "B.", and "Conclusion")
So, THIS ENTIRE TIME, for pages and pages, you have been thinking that I was trying to derive a way to arrive at absolute knowledge. This despite pages and pages of me saying that I am doing no such thing. Urge to kill...rising.
If you thought I was trying to do something I said IN THE SAME BREATH that I wasn't trying to do, you should have fucking spoken up. I realize that you said, "I don't understand", but you should have said "I don't understand: it looks to me like you are contradicting yourself and here's why."
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "would that embody your issue with empiricism – to arrive at ‘practicality’?" My goal is to show that empiricism is practical, not that it is a WAY to "arrive" at practicality, whatever that means, although I have my suspicions.
As for BWIB, KWIB, input/output etc. being introduced separately, I did put them all together in a post recently for your convenience.
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2005591
(I also put together a montage of me saying this part of the discussion isn't about absolute knowledge.)
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2009969
So I am certainly not trying to establish absolute knowledge via empiricism, and I am frankly astonished that you have managed to hold on to that misconception with such incredible tenacity.
As for practicality, I am trying to show that empiricism is the practical belief set type (vs. non-empiricism-based ones). See the second link just above for a partial definition of practicality I gave. Also, usefulness or utility might be synonyms for this purpose.
|
I don’t think it’s possible for me to respond to so much of what was said. We must truly be speaking a different language now. The use of our terms here is beyond me. Like when you said “this implies to me that you have the position that no legitimate beliefs exist that interpret sense data” I literally had an argument with my brother on what this meant for about half an hour.
I kept up the issue of absolute knowledge because I felt that what you were saying continuously addressed something in relation to truth, whether you believe that or not (and that will be our new issue to decide that). And whatever you were saying seemed to continuously deny the point I was making on the empirical method, which had me thinking you understood that I was indeed making a point in regards to absolute truth (method of truth).
I would love to start anew and explain my position, regarding absolute knowledge in relation to empiricism, from the ground up, taking extra precaution to over-explain with the former misunderstandings in mind, but it may not matter since one thing seems clear: that you believe “empiricism is practical” is different from gaining absolute knowledge.
So… I’ll just respond to that (as I do believe it will actually relate to my absolute knowledge bit in the end). My attempt here now is to blur the distinction between “practical whatever” (via empiricism) and ‘absolute knowledge’.
I’ll take the Socratic approach as I’m still a little curious as to what you mean. What do you mean when you say empiricism is practical? What do you mean by saying sense data is all we have? (If we were talking about a method of truth for absolute knowledge I’d say that empiricism was not the only proposed method of truth).
Does this mean you believe something about what is being presented to you through sense data? If not, what are you saying is occurring with sense data on this ‘practical level’.
I promise I’m trying to present this as neutral as possible. Any apparent sarcasm is just a result of me being at a loss of explaining your position myself.
