RJG wrote:Perceptions cannot logically vouch for themselves, and therefore cannot be trusted to tell us what's real.
What specifically gives you "reason to say" that they were based on something real? Can't one dream/hallucinate sequential experiences, including the experience of predicting? What makes one more real than the other?JamesOfSeattle wrote:But perceptions can vouch for prior perceptions, and they can vouch for prior predictions. If I perceive a table in front of me, I can predict a number of perceptions to come when I kick said table. Those predictions may or may not come true in the event, but to the extent they do come true, I have reason to say those predictions were based on reality.
RJG wrote:But aren't these "knowings" (i.e. the perceivings of our perceptions) still again just perceptions themselves?
Good point. I can't necessarily disagree with you right now (...let me think more on this!)LuckyR wrote:No. Perceptions are data coming into the computational center. The use of this data, or perhaps the decision to not believe a particular perception is an intellectual process, not more perception (raw data from sense organs).
Nicely said. Agreed.ThomasHobbes wrote:Knowing that there is a discrepancies between what we perceive and what is out there makes it more possible to understand what is out there. Those that take the simple 'if i can kick it - it is real' approach are missing the subtlety.
RJG wrote:So then, do you deny a 'real' reality exists out there? I think we can prove at least 'something' out there exists with certainty, ...right? I don't think we can deny that the perceiving (experiencing) itself exists (with absolute certainty!)? If so, then we'd have to also deny our experience of denying.
It is the 'content' of one's experience/perception that is suspect and in question, ...not the experiencing/perceiving itself.
Not quite, but close.chewybrian wrote:You answered your own question, a la Descartes. Step one is that you can not deny yourself. Step two and on are up to the individual. You must assent to something, in effect, to move along, even if you are pretending to assent, or pretending not to assent.
Step 1 = "absolute certainty". ["Experiencing exists" with absolute certainty].
Step 2 = "logical/mathematical certainty" ["Experiencer exists" is logically derived] ...which is NOT reliant on the individual.
Step 3 = "subjective certainty" ...which IS reliant on the individual.
Unfortunately, "free-will" is NOT logically possible on many fronts. But this is a topic for another discussion (does not necessary fit into this discussion).chewybrian wrote:My own step two is that I am conscious, self-aware and rational, and believe and experience that I have free will, and this is enough to prove to my satisfaction that I have it.