John Page

Yes, no disgreement here, it seems we must participate in "externality" since we can percieve that we exist. (...and if what we perceive is the external world etc. etc.)

I think I know what you mean by a non-rational belief but in my epistomology, all belief is non-rational until it can be elevated to the status of some kind of proven fact or rule.

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

Skepticos, I disagree with your use of the senses as a yardstick for rational belief.

The senses are divided in 3 categories.
Sound & smell occupy 1 category.
Touch & taste occupy 2nd category.
Sight occupies the 3rd category.

Taste and touch have a pecularity to it which requires volition on our part in order to activate these senses in its most natural manner.

Smell and sound tell us of things of which we can be the cause : scratch your ass and smell it, or bang your head and hear it BUT smell and sound also can indicate (within reason IFF we can accept reason as valid) events of which we were not the cause. (Think of the implication of a fart).

AH HA, the 3 grand categories are further subdivided into a overall 2 category sensing which is directly related to experience, NOWtime, and action. What we MUST note here is that sound, smell, touch and taste are senses of activity, and this sensing ability is only available IFF these is some action played out in the real-time of the universe.

Seeing does not need active reality except the activity of the light phenomena. Light shows us things both active and inactive, like the dead dog lying unmoving on the road AND the winged gull swooping down to pick on its entrails.

* * *

What does this all mean. This means if we do not accept actions, and reasoning implicated in the actions we perform then we cannot even believe the sound and smells due to our own volition. Thus the solipsists may fail to accord validity to themselves if they ignore the sounds of thunderous applause their own hands did not create on their own volition.

* * *

Thanking you all so very mush for such a great opportunity to share my ideas of reality with all of you. Can you deny me this bit of reasoning?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Skepticos

Sammi,

In general, I have no clue what you are talking about or how it relates to my posts. Sorry.

But, I can respond to your assertion that I am using the senses as the yardstick for rational belief. I do not completely adhere to this view, for one can derive rational beliefs without recourse to the senses. For instance, if I experience the emotion of anger, and I form a correspondent belief concerning the occurence of this emotion, then such a belief would be rational. For me, a rational belief is one in which a belief corresponds to experience. In some contexts, the senses are involved, in others they are not.

- Skepticos

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Skepticos, does having mental experiences lead you to beliefs? What role does reason play in forming beliefs based on mental experiences?

Is a pure mental experience not something a priori since all mental information is biased by sensory experience OR lack of sensory experience?

* * *

My post on the senses started out as a guideline on the usage of the senses in a reasonable debate. It may or may not have been of interest to you.

We should note here that things become known because of the information gathered about them. If things cannot be known then there can be no information gathering process. Another important point to note is things can be qualified by independent information gathering processes.

The doubting of any information gathering process in a singular way of ignoring our ability to corellate experience and our ability to qualify experience.

If we doubt every single information gathering process in an independent manner then nothing can be proved. We are only whatever we are whatever that is.

Do you doubt all information gathering processes?


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Skepticos

Mr. Sammi writes:

"Skepticos, does having mental experiences lead you to beliefs?"

Yes. I perceive my ten fingers and a correspondent belief is formed or reinforced.

"What role does reason play in forming beliefs based on mental experiences?"

By establishing a correspondence between the two.

"Is a pure mental experience not something a priori since all mental information is biased by sensory experience OR lack of sensory experience?"

I am not sure in what sense you are using *a priori* in this context. Certain propositions can be known to be true or false *a priori* (i.e., prior to experience), such as "six times five is equal to thirty". But I am not sure how something can simply be *a priori*. What do you mean here?

- Skepticos

Skepticos

Mr. Sammi writes:

"If we doubt every single information gathering process in an independent manner then nothing can be proved...Do you doubt all information gathering processes?"

No, I do not. For instance, I am currently perceiving an action figure of Obi-Wan Kenobi here on my desk at work. I do not doubt that I am perceiving this object, and that this is an instance of an information gathering process. My claim is that reason cannot answer the question of whether or not our perceptions are caused by, and resemble, an external world. Is there an Obi-Wan Kenobi figure external to, and independent of, my perception of it? Reason cannot assist me in answering this question.

- Skepticos

Keith Russell

Skepticos:

But, unless you have at least some evidence that existence is not external to your consciousness, it is irrational to even suspect reality.

Beliefs which are not supported by evidence are arbitrary, and thus irrational.

Keith.

Skepticos

Keith Russell writes:

"Beliefs which are not supported by evidence are arbitrary, and thus irrational."

I think your statement can be expanded. True, beliefs that are not supported by evidence are irrational, assuming that they are *contrary* to that evidence. For example, it would be irrational for me to believe that my desk lamp is not turned on at this moment, since I am clearly perceiving that it is.

But, there are also beliefs which are not supported by the evidence of experience, yet they are not contrary to that evidence, either. And these beliefs are not irrational, but non-rational. For example, I may believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe. But such a belief is not supported by the evidence of experience, therefore it is a non-rational belief.

I believe, as I have stated in other posts, that the belief in an external and independent universe is a non-rational belief.

- Skepticos

picklepuss

Hi Skepticos;

Here is how I would reason to an external and independent universe. Prima facie, there is such a universe, according to what appears to be sensory input to my consciousness. Therefore it is incumbent upon me to prove that what I take to be an external universe is, in fact, no more than my own 'consciousness at work', conjuring up what is really just the product of my own solipsism.

Why would I think such a thing to begin with, given the prima facie evidence to the contrary? Well, because my prima facie, empirical evidence of an external world might be completely illusory or delusional. But illusion and delusion entail falseness and deception, and you cannot have them unless you also have truth and reality.

In a solipsistic universe, there is no such thing as true or false, real or unreal. There is only 'what is', with every experience as 'real' and 'true', or vice versa, as any other. In a solipsistic reality we could not even conceive of illusions and delusions. Since that is not the case with the evidence of our senses, and since we are capable of knowing that real is not unreal, the universe is not solipsistic. We do not create it, we merely perceive it, albeit imperfectly.

That's my reasoning, anyway.

Mr. Sammi

Skepticos, I mean "a priori" using the connotation of it being sourced OR derived outside of experience which is "a posteriori". Using this meaning, the mental experience I alluded to was one which is made possible without the aid of the traditional 5 senses. This was not crystal clear. I am sure it is difficult to seperate pure mental experiences from mental experiences which are biased by somatic data.

* * *

Skepticos, in my mind reason is a mechanism of concluding. Reason must have "information about" in order to "conclude about". Information gathered from reality is information about reality and not information about the information gathering process of reality.

Without having information about the information gathering process it is clear that no concluding remarks can be made concerning the lack of information EXCEPT that reason cannot "drive the validity of the senses". Reason can only drive the validity of the conclusions arrived due to the information recieved from reality. SO you are correct in your claim about the utility of reason.

It then remains to be seen how can we gather information about our information gathering processes. The Solipsist has the greatest advantage due to the availability of the reflective process within the mind which can act as an information gathering process for them.


Sammi Na Boodie ()