Skeptic Friends Network

Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Interactive SFN Forums
 Polls, Votes and Surveys
 Name your price
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Evil Skeptic

13476 Posts

Posted - 06/06/2008 :  18:00:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck


I stand corrected.

Oh, hell, you don't have to do that! Sit down Kil!

Ah, okay, I was getting tired... Whew!

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

26020 Posts

Posted - 06/06/2008 :  19:17:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

If there is not, then there's no point in doing much of anything because for all I know, "reality" ends within my own neurons and one poorly timed thought could end it all.
No, merely change it all for you!
How do you know that?
Timing is nothing, in this instance.
How do you know that?
As Descartes figured out, the process of ratiocination works, whether existence exists or not.
But did he exist?
One does not need to find a "starting place" for knowledge or learning, that occured long before you had the apparatus to wonder about it, and was well under way by the time you had developed the pretty fair device you are currently using!
How do you know that?
Most folks never give it a thought and yet more or less successfully go about their daily duties, blissfully unaware that they probably don't exist!
Without an objective reality, I can't be sure they do, so whatever "most folks" do or don't do can't be evidence for anything.
It is only when one starts to think deeply about matters like "reality", that the realization comes that all may not be as it appears and the cognitive matrix that defines existence could be merely a paradigm formed by imperfect (better incomplete) perception delivered by the five (actually nine, plus the internal) senses!
Whether an objective reality exists or not doesn't depend upon how deeply one thinks about it.
There either is an objective reality, or there is not, OR we don't know what an objective reality is, so it is senseless to make statements about it - thereby negating your declarative dichotomy.
Nope. Just because we may not know what one is doesn't mean that it may be in some state other than "existence" or "non-existence." Those two cover all possibilities.
...just go ahead and get out of bed without thinking about it! For that is the strongest argument that both of us can put forth for our respective viewpoints! Whether reality is subjectively transient or objectively eternal, it works if you don't think about it. In fact, it works whether you think about it or not...
How do you know that? Does "works" have any substantial meaning if no objective reality exists? Besides, the people who don't think about it are assuming the existence of an objective reality, which is what I've been saying is required all along. If you leave a store and walk straight out into the parking lot directly to your car without thinking about it, then subconsciously you assumed your car was still where you left it. If your brain didn't make the assumption for you, then everytime you wanted to get in your car, you'd be consciously asking "where is my car?!" even if it was right where you left it (like in your garage).
...but that fact doesn't provide a clue as to it's nature...
I wouldn't suggest otherwise, but it does show that people assume the existence of an objective reality, all the time. The functional ones do, at least.
And science doesn't show us that objective reality, but only draws the map for us.
Just omit that one word "objective" and I'm with you 100%
If it's not objective then the map is of something that doesn't actually exist.
That's most of what I'm saying, about all we differ on here is that your (and the Wachowski brothers) use of "outside" either states or implies that there is a reality; I say we cannot know!
Actually, you've been saying all along that reality is our perceptions, so your argument most assuredly includes the existence of a reality. I am the one who is saying that we can only assume its existence, or else dive straight into the deepest solipsism.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.

Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 12.88 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000