Certainty and the Problem of Induction

[WESGATORS]

Well let me try again.

Originally Posted by Burke

How can one "interpret" perceptions to know that they are perceptons of things that are not real?

Without ever perceiving something that is real?

I would say that based on your definition of perception, it basically declares that that which is perceived is real (i.e. embedded in the definition is that your sensors are incapable of lying).

I don't agree with looking at things that way, but given that you are, it eliminates the need to consider whether or not something is perceived to be real. That which is perceived is necessarily real.

Where does that get us?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

So, you know by "interpretation" of perceptions with certainty that what you have perceived is not perceptually certain.

Are your interpretations certain knowledge?

If not, how do you know that your interpretations are true and your perceptions, untrue?

To clarify, the interpretations were not based on perceptions. The region I mentioned may not even exist (which would definitely make it a certainty that I could not know the temperature there...unless you're a physics guy and you may claim that the temperature of something that doesn't exist could be said to be 0 Kelvin because if it doesn't exist it doesn't move, and if it doesn't move there is no entropy, and if there is no entropy...absolute zero).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Well let me try again.



I would say that based on your definition of perception, it basically declares that that which is perceived is real (i.e. embedded in the definition is that your sensors are incapable of lying).

I don't agree with looking at things that way, but given that you are, it eliminates the need to consider whether or not something is perceived to be real. That which is perceived is necessarily real.

Where does that get us?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Perception is perception of reality. There is nothing else to perceive. If you don't perceive reality, it's not perception.

Either you perceive reality or you are not conscious.

An entity that is conscious of being unconscious is a contradiction.

Like a chair that is not a chair.

Isn't it nice to know that you are capable of perceiving the world around you with certainty?

And that anyone attempting to deny that is engaging in a contradiction, denying the law of identity?

[Burke]

The fact that our senses give us truth is self-evident.

And any attempt to deny that is engaging in a contradiction.

Claiming that A is not A.

The law of identity is, like Ayn Rand wrote, an anchor to reality for rational people and a chain that denies irrational people their whims, because it won't let them have their cake and eat it too.

[Burke]

At this point, someone usually starts coming up with specific instances in which our senses have suppsedly deceived us, etc.

And I start asking how they know they were deceived without the use of their deceptive senses.

[Burke]

Wonder where Wes went.

Must be in deep contemplation somewhere.

[WESGATORS]

Why not, another round...

Originally Posted by Burke

Perception is perception of reality. There is nothing else to perceive. If you don't perceive reality, it's not perception.

Either you perceive reality or you are not conscious.

You need not perceive anything to be conscious, you only need to be capable of perceiving. If the brain is aware but the senses are not feeding it information, then you are still technically conscious. Nonetheless; we can establish an agreement that based on your usage of the word "perception" that which is perceived may be considered "real" (whatever "that" is).

Originally Posted by Burke

Like a chair that is not a chair.

Who is claiming this? The problem as I see it, is that your philosophy does not permit the acknowledgement that our ability to learn of the world around us is not flawless. That we are capable of making flaws is what adds uncertainty to not only what we *think* we are accepting from our senses, but also in any conclusions we make about those accepted stimuli.

Nobody is claiming that A is not A or that a chair is not a chair...or at least not in the context of how you are using it. Again, (as this was stated multiple times earlier), the challenge is not being cast on the object as being different depending on who is observing it (although this is certainly a possibility), but rather on the different observations that can be made about that object.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Well, Wes, it looks to me like we have come to the point that we are in general agreement.

We agree that our sensory based perceptions give us the true facts of reality and that we are capable of error at the point that we begin to make judgments based on the data they give us, what you call "interpretations."

So, what do we do next?

As I've noted above, we have an AWFUL lot of perceptual data to handle. Just look out the window at it all and ponder the fact that we are doing this day in and day out for years. And since perceptual data gives us certain knowledge, that means that we have an awful lot of certain knowledge to handle, to grasp mentally.

Like everything we have ever seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted that we can remember.

Would you agree?

[Burke]

I hope Wes hasn't had a stroke or something.

Realizing that his senses give him the actual facts of reality.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

We agree that our sensory based perceptions give us the true facts of reality and that we are capable of error at the point that we begin to make judgments based on the data they give us, what you call "interpretations."

So, what do we do next?

I think the important part is that in bold. Whether or not you want to separate the process into two components (sensory reception + processing of input) or you don't (perception = the complete process from sensory reception to the processing of the input)...the bottom line is that we are indeed capable of error.

Originally Posted by Burke

As I've noted above, we have an AWFUL lot of perceptual data to handle. Just look out the window at it all and ponder the fact that we are doing this day in and day out for years. And since perceptual data gives us certain knowledge, that means that we have an awful lot of certain knowledge to handle, to grasp mentally.

Knowledge doesn't exist without a processing unit. Since you define "perception" to be only the part of collecting the information, then you can't call that knowledge because "knowledge" requires processing; and that processing...we both have agreed is being done in a system that is capable of error. That it is capable of error makes it difficult to attach the "certain" to the "knowledge" that is interpreted.

What does this have to do with A = A? Who has said that the law of identity is invalid?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

I see you've been reading Kant who claimed that we did not perceive reality with our senses because the knowledge we acquire with them is "processed."

In other words, we are blind *because* we have eyes.

A claim that would apply to any means of perception that has an identity.

I guess you missed where I wrote about this above, but that's just another stupid contradiction.

The claim that perception is not perception because we have a means of perception.

When I see a tree in my front yard, it's knowledge.

And, of course, if you were unable to know reality with your senses, you would have no way of knowing what I do or don't know.

As far as you would know, I'm God in Heaven giving you the Gospel.

ANY attempt to claim you know that you can know nothing is a contradiction.

Like claiming that a chair is not a chair.

And saying that we are capable of error at the conceptual level is not saying that our senses are fallible

[Minister_of_Information]

Begging the question.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

ANY attempt to claim you know that you can know nothing is a contradiction.

The problem in your straw man can be isolated as the word in bold. And of course assuming that the latter part can be substituted with "can know nothing with certainty."

It should instead reference:

a claim that you can know nothing with certainty.

That claim is not a contradiction, it is a falsifiable statement. That it may never be shown to be false is not a proof that it is true (i.e. I don't have to continue calculating out the digits of pi to prove that it is an irrational number...in fact doing so, would not constitute "proof")

And the true part of it is indeed the literal translation that "nothing" is all that you can know with certainty. As in, that which you claim to not know is something that you can be certain of.

We use the term "know" to refer to things that we are pretty sure of, maybe even 99.999% certain of. Just as we refer to an object as a "circle" even though we can never know it to be a literal circle. The term is a necessary approximation.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

"a claim that you can know nothing with certainty."

Claims made without any evidence are by definition arbitrary statements and require no refutation.

If you aren't claiming to know you can know nothing, who is?

Based on what?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

If you aren't claiming to know you can know nothing, who is?

Werner Heisenberg

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[scamgtr]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Werner Heisenberg

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I was thinking of Heisenberg and Einstein when I made my earlier arguments on this thread about a chair being observed by two different observers. One of the weaknesses of Objectivity, is that it rejects modern physics. Rand herself denied that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was valid. While the theory does not apply to moral relativism (nor was that my intent to do so), it does introduce versions of reality that contradict Randian Objectivism. For example, imagine a moving train, with someone turning on a light in the center of one of the cars. The light will reach the front and back of the car simultaneously, as seen by an observer on the train. However, an outside observer, because of the constancy of the speed of light, will see the light hit the back wall first. This is an observation of an event by two different observers whom neither, based on their perceptions of the event, can be said to be incorrect.

Yet, to an objectivist only one version of this event can be objectively true. Whose perception of the event is "objectively" correct? The thought experiments posed by Einstein showed remarkable insight by looking at reality in a different way. This theory has been rigorously tested for almost 100 years and there are mountains of scientific data that support Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and the divergent observations of the two different observers in the hypothetical above. However, all these scientists have probably been polluted with Kant's influence.

Objectivity conflicts directly with modern physics, which has gone farther in explaining reality than Objectivity has.