Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[MindForgedManacle]

No. Remember what I said: You make an assumption. I assume that reality probably does somewhat match up to my perception of it. But it's still an assumption that I can neither prove to be nor not be the case.

I myself am not a rationalist per se. Most philosophers don't tend to strictly be either a rationalist or an empiricist, but somewhere on a spectrum of them.

[The Reality Salesman01]

One last attempt to illustrate my point.

I don't know if you're football fans or not, but it just so happens that's what I'm watching right now.


Say a pass is thrown, and ruled as an incomplete catch.


There is criteria that such a play must meet in order to be ruled as a complete catch.

For this example, let's pretend that the only criteria required to be ruled as a catch, is that both of the receivers feet must be within the field of play while maintaining possession of the ball.

We watch the replay, and it's clear that only one foot is touching green while the other foot is entirely over the line. Not even close.

At this point, I begin to argue that it should be ruled complete!

I'm clearly wrong, as the criteria has not been met.

You explain to me the rules, and what qualifies as a catch, and how my argument is invalid.

Instead of addressing anything about the paradigm that governs American football, I argue that the rule doesn't matter.

I argue that the ruling doesn't matter, because we can't even be sure that the game we're watching is actually a game being played. It could be a recording. Or perhaps it's a bunch of frauds parading in NFL uniforms pretending to play football.


Truthfully, I don't have any doubt that we're watching the game we think we're watching, but because what I say cannot be falsified without using an assumption, we've just ended the conversation.

Nevertheless, the game is happening. Within that game, there are governing principles that define the events that we are watching.

So what do we do? Talk about the game that we both see? Or do we ignore and discard the conversation because there's a way to disregard its relevance to reality?


Do we ignore ones potential for for being delusional about one aspect of reality because reality, as a whole, can be in itself, a delusion?

I say we recognize the laws and rules that can mutually agree upon, and just talk about whether or not it's a complete catch.

[MindForgedManacle]

Because even my perception that you exist and that the game is actually happening is an assumption. I've had dreams where they seemed real and people seemed real within it, but weren't.

In your analogy, you both DO assume that you're actually watching an actual game that is both objectively happening and is not a fraudelent video (which given the technology we perceive to exist is possible).


I won't lie, it is sort of dumbfounding, but inescapable nonetheless. People don't tend to brim
ng up these assumptions in everday talk, which is why that scenario would probably never happen.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Whether or not that exact scenario would happen is irrelevant to the fact that we're having a very similar conversation right now.

Neither you, Stat, nor I are concerned about whether or not we're actually having a conversation, otherwise, why have we been responding?


Is there a cute conjecture that can be posed to raise doubt to the validity of it actually taking place? Sure. But that's not what we're talking about.

We've all conceded that our experience of reality exists.

We conceded that this experience is governed upon a set of principles.

We've conceded that these principles are nothing without our faculties for perception that make us aware of them.


All that has been established upon entering this conversation. Just like it would be upon us watching a football game.

Having established those things, we can now discuss any number of things and their validity within the paradigm that rests upon our mutual assumptions.

---

No. Remember what I said: You make an assumption. I assume that reality probably does somewhat match up to my perception of it. But it's still an assumption that I can neither prove to be nor not be the case.

But if I were to be convinced that I could fly, would I be delusional? If so, by measure of what other standard than the mutual assumption that is shared by all of us within the paradigm of human experience?


Do you see what I'm saying here yet?

He's trying to throw the whole game out of the window because the catch was ruled incomplete. We all mutually subscribe to the same rules, but you can't throw them all out when something you really want to be true is ruled out by them. On what grounds does one make this special plea? On what grounds after do you make a case for any other?

[Foxaèr]

No one is immune to deception, but some things are just common sense.

If one must rely merely upon faith to believe something is real, then that is just plain ignorant.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Deception, yes. But how does one avoid being deluded with regards to what we mutually define as an accurate representation of reality?

We may all be brains in a vat, but within this shared experience of being brains in a vat, people are people, pumpkins are pumpkins , and a claim made by a person to BE A PUMPKIN does not accurately reflect reality, as agreed upon within our human construct of what constitutes reality. Vat or not.

[Foxaèr]

But how does one avoid being deluded with regards to what we mutually define as an accurate representation of reality?

By being smart enough to recognize cognitive dissonance for what it is, that maintaining faith in something merely for the sake of the good feelings it provides in a cruel world is no better than being a veritable brain in a vat. I would rather know the truth and be told the truth than to continue living a lie just because I am afraid of being too weak to face reality.

[MindForgedManacle]

Whether or not that exact scenario would happen is irrelevant to the fact that we're having a very similar conversation right now.

I was explaining why the question is so bizarre to most people. Context man.

Neither you, Stat, nor I are concerned about whether or not we're actually having a conversation, otherwise, why have we been responding?

Because 1) I make the assumption that reality is probably like what I perceive and 2) Even if it isn't, I find doing something better than doing nothing at all.

Is there a cute conjecture that can be posed to raise doubt to the validity of it actually taking place? Sure. But that's not what we're talking about.

Except it is.

[quote
We've all conceded that our experience of reality exists.[/quote]

Well, at least mine does, because it's an incorrigible proposition. I only assume everyone else does too.

We conceded that this experience is governed upon a set of principles.

Where did we agree to that?

We've conceded that these principles are nothing without our faculties for perception that make us aware of them.

And where did we agree to that?

All that has been established upon entering this conversation. Just like it would be upon us watching a football game.

No, we assume that. The reason no one would bring that up in the football game scenario is because everyone tacitly assumes all sorts of things about reality, even if we can't actually prove it (uniformity of nature, realism, etc.)

Having established those things, we can now discuss any number of things and their validity within the paradigm that rests upon our mutual assumptions.

Well, you're right that they're assumptions. If we could prove them, we wouldn't need the assumptions.

But if I were to be convinced that I could fly, would I be delusional? If so, by measure of what other standard than the mutual assumption that is shared by all of us within the paradigm of human experience?

Nothing. It's just the *necessary* assumption that you aren't delusional.

If you are delusional, do you have to know it in order for it to be true? If yes, then how can you trust the reasoning that led you to conclude you're delusional? If no, then you cannot rule it out other than by assumption.

Do you see what I'm saying here yet?

Nope.

He's trying to throw the whole game out of the window because the catch was ruled incomplete. We all mutually subscribe to the same rules, but you can't throw them all out when something you really want to be true is ruled out by them. On what grounds does one make this special plea? On what grounds after do you make a case for any other?

I'm not sure what's being said here. If something can't be proved or disproved by the very nature of what's in question, an assumption is really the only way to go.

[The Reality Salesman01]

By what standard are delusions measured?

[Whateverist]

No one is immune to deception, but some things are just common sense.

If one must rely merely upon faith to believe something is real, then that is just plain ignorant.

Like you, I'm pretty much a true believer in common sense but sometimes I forget that I take that on faith.