Knowledge, evidence, truth, proof, assumption, axiom, belief, faith and so on

[AppieB]

Yeah, but it is not the same reality in all cases, that we all believe in.

In which cases is it not the same reality? Or there other realities?

And that you claim it is personal, is your understanding. To some it is not really personal as you understand it./

People don't perceive reality in their own personal way?

So yes, it negates that we all believe in the same reality.

I didn't say that, but it doesn't matter. You were asking about my positions and I gave them.
Is there anything unclear thusfar?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In which cases is it not the same reality? Or there other realities?


People don't perceive reality in their own personal way?

I didn't say that, but it doesn't matter. You were asking about my positions and I gave them.
Is there anything unclear thusfar?

The same reality as totally the same is not possible because we in effect have in a limited sense different brains that are not the universally same for all aspects of being a human.

So personal in effect mean limited differences for being a human and thus not the same reality.

 

[AppieB]

Yet you also somehow "know" (presume) that you are not what you experience. That you and your experiences are different.

How is this so?

First of all I hope you understand the difference between "know" and "presume".
I don't presume I have (or am) an experience, but I know. I presume there is an external world.

"I have an experience" is for me the same as "I am my experience" in this context. For me, me and my (conscious) experience are the same in regard to the self.

 

[AppieB]

The same reality as totally the same is not possible because we in effect have in a limited sense different brains that are not the universally same for all aspects of being a human.

So personal in effect mean limited differences for being a human and thus not the same reality.

There is a difference between "our experience of reality" and "reality itself". I already conceded that our experiences (or perception) of reality are different from one another. I don't understand which point you are trying to make that wasn't already made.

 

[RestlessSoul]

By the technology we have today. We would be hunter/gatherers without it

Would we lead less useful lives in that case?

Yeah and the "fun" part is that in makes sense to someone like me even as an atheist and non-religious, but to some of my fellow non-religious ones, it is not meaningful as the universe is material or whatever in that ballpark.

To me the universe is mind, matter, and spirit, but that’s me. I see how easy it is to discount spirit, but mind is surely impossible to miss. Yet many materialists want to write it out of the story. Presumably because they don’t entirely trust it; well, neither do I. But to quote neuroscientist and psychiatrist Guilio Tononi “consciousness is the most real thing I know.”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a difference between "our experience of reality" and "reality itself". I already conceded that our experiences (or perception) of reality are different from one another. I don't understand which point you are trying to make that wasn't already made.

Reality itself in itself is unknowable, because knowledge requires a self. And you admitted you know nothing about reality external to you, so why bring reality itself into it.

How I live is not the exact same reality as you. It is a combination of same, similar and different for relevant aspects. So no, we share some aspects of reality, but it is not just the same one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


To me the universe is mind, matter, and spirit, but that’s me. I see how easy it is to discount spirit, but mind is surely impossible to miss. Yet many materialists want to write it out of the story. Presumably because they don’t entirely trust it; well, neither do I. But to quote neuroscientist and psychiatrist Guilio Tononi “consciousness is the most real thing I know.”

Well, remember I am a skeptic and not a materialist or any other positive metaphysics/ontology.
So yes, I get you, but we still in effect "cope" differently for some aspects of being human.

 

[AppieB]

Reality itself in itself is unknowable, because knowledge requires a self.

What do you mean bij "knowledge" and "to know"?

And you admitted you know nothing about reality external to you, so why bring reality itself into it.

I didn't say I "know nothing about reality external to" myself.

How I live is not the exact same reality as you. It is a combination of same, similar and different for relevant aspects. So no, we share some aspects of reality, but it is not just the same one.

What aspects of reality don't we share?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

What aspects of reality don't we share?

E.g. unless you also have the same motor dysfunction as per movement as me, we are not the same. I bet as I have a mental illness there are more cases where we are not the same.
Remember same, similar and different. Learn to account for all when dealing with humans.

 

[osgart]

Would we lead less useful lives in that case?

Useful is subjective. However it's better to not have to be hunter/gatherers.

To me the universe is mind, matter, and spirit, but that’s me. I see how easy it is to discount spirit, but mind is surely impossible to miss. Yet many materialists want to write it out of the story. Presumably because they don’t entirely trust it; well, neither do I. But to quote neuroscientist and psychiatrist Guilio Tononi “consciousness is the most real thing I know.”

There's the case of people who don't have a functional hippocampus whom are not able to form new memories. It seems all the important functions of consciousness go through the brain. No brain, and what does the spirit world mean?

 

[AppieB]

////////////

E.g. unless you also have the same motor dysfunction as per movement as me, we are not the same. I bet as I have a mental illness there are more cases where we are not the same.
Remember same, similar and different. Learn to account for all when dealing with humans.

So you are talking about about the internal self. What aspects of the external reality don't we share?
And could you please answer what you mean by "knowledge" and "to know"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you are talking about about the internal self. What aspects of the external reality don't we share?
And could you please answer what you mean by "knowledge" and "to know"?

Well, none as per in the strong sense of what external reality is in practice. As long as we agree that is not all of the world as such.

And I retract the part of knowledge and to know.

 

[AppieB]

Well, none as per in the strong sense of what external reality is in practice. As long as we agree that is not all of the world as such.

We are going backwards now.
We already agreed that I, for myself, have (or am) an experience. And that you, for yourself, have (or are) an experience.
We also agreed that we presuppose that the external reality we are experiencing is real.

You were assuming or accusing me of having a double standard in regards to beliefs. How is that so? What is unclear? What's the next step you want to explore about my beliefs and worldview?

And I retract the part of knowledge and to know.

It is still very helpful to define these words. When you talk about knowldege are you talking about knowing to absolute certainty?

 

[PureX]

First of all I hope you understand the difference between "know" and "presume".
I don't presume I have (or am) an experience, but I know. I presume there is an external world.

"I have an experience" is for me the same as "I am my experience" in this context. For me, me and my (conscious) experience are the same in regard to the self.

If this were so, you could not recognize an "experience". As it would be undifferentiated from the recognizer.

"I experience ..." is not a singular cognitive phenomenon. It's innately comparative. "I" (not an other) "experience ..." (this: not "I" and not something else).

There is no "I" without a "not I". There is no experience until there is something other than "I" to be "experienced".

 

[AppieB]

If this were so, you could not recognize an "experience". As it would be undifferentiated from the recognizer.

"I experience ..." is not a singular cognitive phenomenon. It's innately comparative. "I" (not an other) "experience ..." (this: not "I" and not something else).

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly.
Yes, my experience is not a singular cognitive phenomenon. It is a continuous wave of the cognitive phenomenon I call (conscience) experience.

 

[an anarchist]

No, not according to Descartes. So you have to expand on that.

Sir, it is you who has misunderstood Descartes and his saying I think, therefore I am.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are going backwards now.
We already agreed that I, for myself, have (or am) an experience. And that you, for yourself, have (or are) an experience.
We also agreed that we presuppose that the external reality we are experiencing is real.

...

Okay, what belongs to the internal self? If you don't want to answer that, ask and I will do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sir, it is you who has misunderstood Descartes and his saying I think, therefore I am.

Then please reference the answer Descartes gave to the problem of the evil demon. Not "I think, therefore I am". We are talking about the external world as real.

 

[AppieB]

Okay, what belongs to the internal self? If you don't want to answer that, ask and I will do it.

Surprise me!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Surprise me!

All words which are not about external reality. In even broader terms, all experiences which are not about external reality.
Here are some examples of that:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

In other words, all mental and non-external sensory experiences. For example self is a part of the world, but not a part of external reality. But so is how it matters for a human to be a human, if it matters to that human.