Quote:If you go by that logic theres no reason for me to think any of this is real. For all I know I'm drugged to the eyeballs in a padded cell.
However if I was to act as if that were true then I would be making a huge assumption.
Normal human beings act on what they can see, hear, taste and touch and their ability to make sense of what knowledge is gained through these faculties. Until I am given reason to doubt these faculties then these are what I shall depend on to discern reality. If I do not use these faculties then I am left without any tools to discern reality, that is not acceptable.
Someone who decides he doesn't need these faculties to discern what is real is a fool who has left themselves deaf, dumb and blind to the world around them.
(P.S. Giving kudos to someone brave enough to actually continue the debate doesn't count as continuing the debate yourself fr0d0. ;-) )
No, you're missing my point.
I'm not arguing about whether you should think that there are external objects that accurately correspond to your sensory perceptions. I'm saying that you never directly experience another object; all you ever have are subjective experiences (sensory phenomena, etc.).
Suppose there's an apple on the table. You don't get to access the apple. All you get is some kind of visual experience that you interpret as being an apple. But that isn't the apple; it's merely an image of it. All we ever get are images of things.
If I were making an argument motivated by the Matrix, I'd say that you should then choose to doubt the existence of the apple. But I'm not arguing that--at least, not yet. I'm asking how you distinguish "imagination" from "senses"; they're both constructs of your mind, so far as I can tell.
What's the difference between seeing the image of an apple, and dreaming a dream so realistic that you think you're seeing the image of an apple?
(My guess: you're going to say something like, "Seeing is what happens when certain physiological phenomena occur; a photon strikes the back of your eye," etc.)
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
