Truth.. and what you know
June 9, 2014 at 5:26 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2014 at 5:26 am by Rampant.A.I..)
(June 9, 2014 at 5:07 am)bennyboy Wrote:(June 9, 2014 at 12:33 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I think you're confused here. We all make certain assumptions on any number of topics. Outside of properly basic beliefs (stuff like reasoning's validity, generally our senses, existence of other minds, etc.), we take the pragmatic, coherent and evidenced beliefs which corroborate with our assumptions as supporting them. And that's because they do support them, and they are not circular. I believe the mind is basically an emergent property of the brain. The destruction or damaging of certain areas of the brain removing the agent's capacity to do some previously hekd ability is consistent and supportive of this type of view alone.Why call "basic" those philosophical positions on which all other ideas rest, and from which many of our other beliefs unfold? Here you are doing exactly what I said people should not do. You've called and important philosophical belief, like that about the nature of sensation, "basic," and then unfolded a system of ideas that not only depend on, but follow from, that assumption.
Because the entire "properly basic" foundational system is a bullshit charade to backdoor complex irrational beliefs such as "God" in as fundamental, when they aren't.
(June 9, 2014 at 5:07 am)bennyboy Wrote:(June 9, 2014 at 12:33 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Substance dualists have to contrive an entirely separate ontology to try and get in. Idealists' response basically devolves into solipsism.You keep saying this about idealism, but you need to explain why you say this. Believing that all experiences are intrinsically mental has nothing to do with whether there are other minds, also experiencing, or with whether or not they are related to each other in a larger framework.
Quote:So in other words, aside from a few beliefs, the basic ones, one's assumptions can generally be validated, and calling that circular is confusing.There are no basic assumptions, except for those you want taken as true without having to provide evidence for them. When one of those assumptions is in fact about the NATURE of evidence, that is most certainly a circle.
What both of you are describing is really a non issue in coherentism and reliablism.
