(July 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Skepsis Wrote: This is what I suspected. I had to ask if there were ways to show the truth of foundational beliefs without using the belief because I really didn't know.

My response to that is showing that since the very idea of "truth" depends on those foundational beliefs, any proposition questioning them is self-defeating. Its not so much that those beliefs are true, but that they simply cannot be false.

(July 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Skepsis Wrote: I understand, but this still presumes the truth of the beliefs. I think this is a fair justification, however, because these beliefs have no base justification and cannot have a base justification.

Rather than justification, I prefer calling it validation. You are not trying to find out if you are correct, but constantly trying to figure out if you could be wrong.

(July 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Skepsis Wrote: This sounds a lot like solipsism. You know you exist and reason that reality does too by its non-contradiction, but you can't know if anyone else shares your reality.

Solipsism is a tough cookie to beat, but the position outlined here is tougher. In solipsism, the rest of the reality is the construct of your own mind and thus can be reasonably refuted with a few mental exercises. A common argument for solipsism is given as your dreams - where you exist in a world that in not real. However, I find that that reality can be altered or manipulated and your knowledge and imagination in that corresponds to what you can know or imagine in the actual reality.

The proposition here is more like that of matrix - that another intelligence is constructing this reality, therefore, there is atleast one other that shares it. However, in such a scenario, I find that foundational beliefs or axioms are meaningless. These axioms are required for you to understand the reality you live in, but in this reality, even they are constructs of the other intelligence and thus can be altered by that it willy-nilly. Continuously questioning your beliefs in your axioms and senses would be the only way to live in that reality.

(July 27, 2012 at 5:13 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Skepsis Wrote: This is what I suspected. I had to ask if there were ways to show the truth of foundational beliefs without using the belief because I really didn't know.

My response to that is showing that since the very idea of "truth" depends on those foundational beliefs, any proposition questioning them is self-defeating. Its not so much that those beliefs are true, but that they simply cannot be false.

(July 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Skepsis Wrote: I understand, but this still presumes the truth of the beliefs. I think this is a fair justification, however, because these beliefs have no base justification and cannot have a base justification.

Rather than justification, I prefer calling it validation. You are not trying to find out if you are correct, but constantly trying to figure out if you could be wrong.

(July 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Skepsis Wrote: This sounds a lot like solipsism. You know you exist and reason that reality does too by its non-contradiction, but you can't know if anyone else shares your reality.

Solipsism is a tough cookie to beat, but the position outlined here is tougher. In solipsism, the rest of the reality is the construct of your own mind and thus can be reasonably refuted with a few mental exercises. A common argument for solipsism is given as your dreams - where you exist in a world that in not real. However, I find that that reality can be altered or manipulated and your knowledge and imagination in that corresponds to what you can know or imagine in the actual reality.

The proposition here is more like that of matrix - that another intelligence is constructing this reality, therefore, there is atleast one other that shares it. However, in such a scenario, I find that foundational beliefs or axioms are meaningless. These axioms are required for you to understand the reality you live in, but in this reality, even they are constructs of the other intelligence and thus can be altered by that it willy-nilly. Continuously questioning your beliefs in your axioms and senses would be the only way to live in that reality.

You made it much easier for me to digest. The bit with on validation was absolutely groundbreaking and helped me understand, even more so when in conjunction with the explanation that truth is null in any form without foundational belief.

However, solipsism doesn't need two minds to operate in its assumptions. It is very much like in the matrix, but in this case the solipsist generally argues that reality is self-generated and needs no creator other than themselves. I agree with the crux of this analysis, however. The only way for the solipsist to live in that reality is to constantly question foundational principals, because a self-generated reality is subject to change just like a reality generated by another in your example.

We should constantly question those principles regardless of what reality we may find ourselves in -don't you think? Why, btw, are we assuming that a self generated reality would be so easily subject to change? How adept are you at exploiting and controlling your dreams (since that example was used)? Do you find that your dreamscape diverges from the waking world in fundamental ways more often than it conforms to it?

(also, since we're invoking solipsism, and of all thing, the matrix..hehehehe..-which of your two worlds is the dreamscape, and which the waking reality? How would you determine this?)

(July 27, 2012 at 10:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: We should constantly question those principles regardless of what reality we may find ourselves in -don't you think? Why, btw, are we assuming that a self generated reality would be so easily subject to change? How adept are you at exploiting and controlling your dreams (since that example was used)?

I assumed it would be subject to change, but perhaps not easily.
If reality is subject to the individual and time alters everything, I though it was safe to assume reality wouldn't be set in stone.
To be honest, I have been awake for a long time now and it seemed reasonable when I said it, but it's one of those things...

And yes, I agree and have always held that we ought to question foundational principals regardless of reality. A proposed idea questioning foundational beliefs is silly, because to evaluate the idea is to accept the truth of said beliefs. That isn't to say that they are set in stone, however. If a discrepancy is found between observed reality and foundational beliefs, it would seem that they are false or teetering on false.

At least with regards to whatever reality one is observing-as far as that can really go...hehe. For my part, along the lines of realities, it seems to matter very little whether I am living in a generated reality (by myself or another) or if this reality is something completely objective to me. In either case it seems to operate according to laws which I am incapable of altering -even if it is an illusion- and so there is no practical difference between the two. I find no reason to act differently in either of these realities, and it becomes more effective to communicate my thoughts on the matter if I assume the language of this reality as being objective to me, and not generated by another -even if this is not the case. Perhaps this reality is subject to change at a whim, but it doesn't seem to be so yet, or if it has been, I am incapable of determining where this occurred. Though, if pressed, I can admit that I do not "believe" in these foundational beliefs, but I find it impossible to act differently (at least in any consistent manner). I cannot honestly put my confidence in them in principle, even if they are useful in practice. Obviously I value practice over principle in a great many places.

-late edit- as an amusing semi-sideline, it's very easy for me to compare our perceptions of reality as a principle to our perceptions of reality as expressed in tools like theories. Adept at describing the relationships between objects at a certain level, but at some point, in some other circumstance, completely unworkable.

(July 27, 2012 at 10:32 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 27, 2012 at 10:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: We should constantly question those principles regardless of what reality we may find ourselves in -don't you think? Why, btw, are we assuming that a self generated reality would be so easily subject to change? How adept are you at exploiting and controlling your dreams (since that example was used)?

...yes, I agree and have always held that we ought to question foundational principals regardless of reality. A proposed idea questioning foundational beliefs is silly, because to evaluate the idea is to accept the truth of said beliefs. That isn't to say that they are set in stone, however. If a discrepancy is found between observed reality and foundational beliefs, it would seem that they are false or teetering on false.

To determine falsity requires an understanding of truth. If you were to question the fact of your existence, something self-evidently true, you've just stated that it would be "silly" because you are already accepting the truth value of the original belief. This is perhaps the most accurate definition of self-evident truth - something which must be true to even begin to analyze its falsity (thus, not allowing it to be false.)

The interesting turn comes in when observing your italicized sentence. I would be more careful when determining truth based on observed reality. The objective of fundamental beliefs is to capture truth, which is why we base the rest of our beliefs on the fundamental ones. If we observe something which contradicts a fundamental belief then it may be evidence that the fundamental belief was originally wrongly categorized as being fundamental. This is why we have so few fundamental beliefs - namely the self-evident ones. The problem with the axioms of existence (number 3 specifically) are that they may reach past self-evident truths to useful assumptions.

Descartes ran into this problem when beginning his journey on absolute doubt, eventually only being able to rationally assert cogito ergo sum. It is sometimes referred to as Descartes' lonely island because his extreme doubt could only get him this far. We must make basic assumptions on which the utility value surpasses their possible falsity. When we analyze these assumptions our only method though which to find fault is rationalism or empiricism, both of which are equally dependent on assumption - namely of what is true and how we know its true.

We strive to understand truth, but it is something which evades us. Perhaps there is none, then the nihilist is correct, or perhaps there is one, then the rationalists are correct, or perhaps there are many, then the empiricists are correct. Like I said earlier, foundationalism is a nice compromise of the three, allowing for correction over time and accountability, but in order to actually attain truth one must pursue it farther than the basic assumptions of fundamental beliefs.

In short, perhaps a deeper question would bring light to your search for justification: what is truth? From there you can base all other claims on a strong foundation.

(July 27, 2012 at 10:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: We should constantly question those principles regardless of what reality we may find ourselves in -don't you think?

It is questioning for the sake of questioning that I object to. You have to realize that whatever questions, doubts or objections you raise - they too rely on certain foundational principles. And if those rely on the same foundational principles they address, then they are undercutting their own validity. So, before questioning the foundational beliefs, we must ask ourselves 1) do the questions make sense without those beliefs and 2) can they be derived form any other set of foundational beliefs.

(July 27, 2012 at 10:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why, btw, are we assuming that a self generated reality would be so easily subject to change? How adept are you at exploiting and controlling your dreams (since that example was used)? Do you find that your dreamscape diverges from the waking world in fundamental ways more often than it conforms to it?

Most of my views on the subject are based on my own experiences and a cursory research.

1. There is a concept called lucid dreaming in which the dreamer is aware of the fact that he is in a dream and therefore able to exert some control over the reality of that dream. If solipsism was true, i.e. reality was self-generated, then by the very acceptance of that philosophy one would become aware of it and thus be able to exert some control over the waking reality. So, unless anyone believes the claims of "min-over-matter" hermits or psychics - that does not happen.

2. While I myself have never had a lucid dream, focusing my thoughts on a certain narrative often has a desired effect on my dreams. For example, I often go to sleep imagining myself as a character in my favorite movies or tv-shows and I often find that my dreams continue form there on with a marginally consistent narrative. Another example would be when I wake up from a nightmare, I go back to sleep focusing on the last few details I can remember and imagining all the ways it can play out to my benefit. That usually allows me to actually bring the dream to a satisfactory conclusion.

3. Yes, my dreamscape can diverge from waking reality in many fundamental ways. Once I dreamed that I was a math equation trying to solve itself. (Why yes, that was the night before my math finals. ow did you know?)

4. The clincher for me is the fact that I never seem to even think about all the existential questions we are asking here in a dream. Right here and now, I am capable of asking these question - "am I dreaming?", "am I really here?", "does what is happening make any sense?" and so on. In a dream, I seem to accept everything at face-value without critically examining it. It is my belief that the moment I start asking the same questions in my dreams, I would become capable of lucid dreaming.

On a side not, have you ever tried to determine how many of your senses are active during your dreams? Sight and hearing are a given. Touch seems pretty obvious as well. I have been able to verify that I can taste in my dreams as well. Smell I have never been able to establish. There is also thermoception and acceleroception which - combined - give a pretty believable sensation of flying. For me atleast, nociception is out - the moment I feel pain is the moment I wake up.

(July 27, 2012 at 10:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: (also, since we're invoking solipsism, and of all thing, the matrix..hehehehe..-which of your two worlds is the dreamscape, and which the waking reality? How would you determine this?)

Like I said, the primary argument in support of solipsism is the dream argument, which can reasonably discounted - though not completely refuted - based on the arguments above. The matrix argument is much harder to beat. The only foolproof test for it would be to wait for Neo.

Of course, there's always something down the rabbit hole, I simply find it difficult to put too much stock into anything that lies there when I give it enough thought. I'm not one to question for the sake of questioning (often-at least these sorts of things) myself, but when the opportunity arises, it's interesting to see how little I can say for sure about anything around me/within me/me if we get very very specific.

I've had lucid dreams where I could manipulate my dream, and dreams where I realized that I was dreaming and yet could not, simply being aware that I am dreaming has not -in my experience- automatically led to my being able to control the dream. Obviously, experience may vary. I actually have a regularly recurring dream (have for the past few years) that I immediately recognize as a dream every time I can remember having it, but I've never been able to do anything other than watch it play out.

(now that you mention it I can't recall having every smelled anything in a dream myself -wonder why?)

(July 27, 2012 at 10:45 am)Rhythm Wrote: At least with regards to whatever reality one is observing-as far as that can really go...hehe. For my part, along the lines of realities, it seems to matter very little whether I am living in a generated reality (by myself or another) or if this reality is something completely objective to me. In either case it seems to operate according to laws which I am incapable of altering -even if it is an illusion- and so there is no practical difference between the two. I find no reason to act differently in either of these realities, and it becomes more effective to communicate my thoughts on the matter if I assume the language of this reality as being objective to me, and not generated by another -even if this is not the case. Perhaps this reality is subject to change at a whim, but it doesn't seem to be so yet, or if it has been, I am incapable of determining where this occurred. Though, if pressed, I can admit that I do not "believe" in these foundational beliefs, but I find it impossible to act differently (at least in any consistent manner). I cannot honestly put my confidence in them in principle, even if they are useful in practice. Obviously I value practice over principle in a great many places.

-late edit- as an amusing semi-sideline, it's very easy for me to compare our perceptions of reality as a principle to our perceptions of reality as expressed in tools like theories. Adept at describing the relationships between objects at a certain level, but at some point, in some other circumstance, completely unworkable.

This is where I disagree with you. I agree that it is impossible to act as if you do not believe in the given foundational principles, but to continue to act according to them while steadfastly refusing to "believe" in them reveals a basic discrepancy between one's beliefs and actions. For a completely rational person, his actions would be in accordance to his beliefs. Any contradiction would lead to irrationality.

For example, here you say that you do not see any practical difference in treating the three realities differently - the self-generated, other-generated and the objective one. However, there is a very good reason for treating them differently. If you believe the reality to be self-generated, then you are capable of altering it - even if it doesn't seem possible now. The action most beneficial in that case would practicing all the mind-over-matter exercises you can find. If it is other-generated, then it is that other intelligence that is capable of altering reality to your benefit. The most beneficial course of action would be to discover this other, figure out what makes it happy and do as it says (yes, theists). If it is objective and unalterable by your or anyone else's wishes, then your best course is to discover the principles governing this reality and act according to them.

I could never lay claim to being completely rational Genk. -I have flirted with just about every form of magic you might care to invoke, curiosity killed the cat and all.- If someone claims they can summon a demon..I can't help myself, I draw the circle and start chanting. Also, it isn't so much a refusal as an inability to feel confident enough to call something "true" the way I so often see it employed. As I said, what works in my life, what works in my thoughts, may not be accurate, I'm well aware of this. That's not entirely too difficult to understand is it?