That is a fallacy. We do not know that it is real, but that does not mean that it is not.

Furthermore, to use a somewhat Cartesian argument (using formal logic signs-- .=and, v= or, ~= not, -> conditional statement, <-> biconditional statement):
Premises:
1. Cogito ergo sum (P)
2. (Because of the Cogito, I know that I exist--Q). (P-> Q)
3. (I do not--~) (know anyone else exists as living and thinking organisms--R). (~ R)
4. (If none other than my own self can be proved to be an existence--S), (and if therefore I were to assume the world was not real as I find because I cannot prove is existence--T), (the only possible conclusion would be that the world is constructed out of my dreams/a falsified mental state--A) ( (S.T) -> A)
5.In my dreams and likewise illusions of the mind, I am able to control what happens. To use Descartes' example, I would be able to banish a storm on the horizon while I am at sea, simply because the illuison being all in my mind, and I being master of my mind, I can control the actions inside it easily. (X)
6. I however can NOT control reality. (Z)
Conclusion: (attempting to prove R)
7. Because I cannot control reality in such ways as in dreams, A cannot be true as reality is therefore not a dream or a mental illusion. (Z -> ~A)
8. If A is not true, there is no logical conclusion to the statement of (S.T). Therefore, there being no logical possible result of (S.T), it can't be true. It being a conjuction, both components must be true for the statement to hold. (~A -> (~S.T))
9. (~ S.T) -> ~(~ R)
10. (~(~R)) -> R

__)_*()_(
my cat was trampled by a packaderm...

Edited by - Wilde on 3/28/2005 7:37:26 AM

Wilde, will you please stop just copying out your cousins philosophy primer? these are old arguments long since put to bed. that youve discovered that nothing can be determined objectively and sensory perception is individualistic and plastic, well good for you. Existence cant be proven now move on. you keep getting stuck on the same point which *real* philosophers built on over a hundred years ago (and in some ways even before that)

and, fyi, I did philosophy as part fo my MA in history of Art 18 years ago. so there aint nothing you write i havent discussed or read or thought about myself. try moving the argument on instead of trying to prove how *educated* you are cos youre really switching those of us who normally find this interesting, right off.

Good point, Taw...maybe that will silence the critics for a brief moment.


Merc for hire...but only if you can afford it.

Howbout this ya'll:

Im sure you who are arguing this have heard the brain in the vat thingy. If not you shouldnt be arguing. This is a brief and sloppy coverage of the brain in the vat (not so far off from the matrix)

As ya'll know, everything we see feel smell and taste could be stimulated by the brain. (good scene in the matrix were the bald dude is talking to the matrix and he takes a bite of steak and says i know this isnt real but the matrix sends signals to my brain telling it that the steak is tasty)

So we could easily all be brains in vats with machinary hooked up telling us what to feel and see and smell and taste. And there is no way to be sure were not!

_______________
i dont suffer fools gladly , in fact i dont suffer them at all

As hard to believe as it is, Taw, some teenagers are not simply showing off to the wider community and actually possess some philosophical integrity.

If you read over the post, it actually logically disproves the theory that we can't prove existence. This being the case, it is clear that you assumed what I was doing and failed to actually read the actual post. Rest assured, there is some trace of respect and integrity in the youth, and not everything we do is geared towards showing off our limited education. That post of mine was an argument responding to the one above it, not an attempt to show off.

>>*real* philosophers...
What is a real philosopher?
It is literally, a lover of wisdom. One with integrity to pursue the truth. The philosopher can be of any age, and still be a philosopher--though it may be your personal opinion that these are not found commonly around the youth. You can't generalize about who is and is not one depending on physical age.

---

And there is no way to be sure were not!

---

"I think, therefore I am." If I am consciously thinking, in control of my mind, then regardless of whether reality is my dream or the "dream" so to speak that I am being fed, I could still change it. The matrix idea (the mutant love child of Buddhist and Christian ideas ) is that humans are trapped in a grand collective dream. But if one is awake inside the dream--if one thinks, and therefore truly does exist--it is not a collective dream of which one takes part, but one's own dream too. And therefore one could, it being a dream, alter it to one's own wishes. Psychoneurosis--the power of the mind affecting the body, including the brain in the vat. The case is, we can't alter reality in that fashion. That is the distinctive sign about what is a dream and what is not a dream--the one is fragile and absurd, the other is truth. And the dream being fragile and absurd, it can be altered by the mind.

Edited by - Wilde on 3/28/2005 8:26:30 AM

you're making my eyes bleed now and the pain im getting from banging my head on the table is getting serious.

---

5.In my dreams and likewise illusions of the mind, I am able to control what happens. To use Descartes' example, I would be able to banish a storm on the horizon while I am at sea, simply because the illuison being all in my mind, and I being master of my mind, I can control the actions inside it easily. (X)

---

This isn't a sound argument. Whatever control you may think you have in your dreams could be an illusion. You can't prove that you actually have any control over anything. In reality, the only reason you think that you are in control over your mind is that you perceive yourself to be in control. If we take the idea that perceptions may not be trusted seriously (and to its logical conclusion, as you have) then we cannot be sure that we are in control of our own minds either.

And Taw, go easy on the kid. He does have to start somewhere.

No, actually--I've talked to people, cognitive scientists, who say there is substantial evidence to prove that if one becomes aware that one is dreaming, one can augment it to one's own will--waking up from the dream, or changing the result inside it. I've done it myself, in dreams. All one has to do is be aware that one is dreaming.

Edit: Whoa. I was innadvertently spouting Buddhist philosophy. Weird.

Taw--please. Keep it to yourself, stop flaming me.

Edited by - Wilde on 3/28/2005 2:32:48 PM

But again, there's no way of proving that you aren't really a brain-in-a-vat and that you're not just being fed the sensations which make you feel that you are in control.

You also run the risk of falling afoul of Determinism insofar as it may be that people don't control anything and we are simply the byproduct of past actions. It is possible that the causal processes of the universe prevent us from choosing anything so we are not actually in control of even our minds.

The perception of control may be an illusion in the same way that any other perception might be an illusion.

Edited by - Codename on 3/28/2005 2:36:06 PM

But control isn't just an illusion. Something one must understand is that other than reason and perception, there is a third main form of knowledge (not faith)--knowledge by being. One knows because one is. I know awareness because I am aware; I know the Absolute because I am a reflection of the absolute. Nihil humanum me alienum puto --nothing human is alien to me--the statement only works if one is human. I know what it is to be human because I am human.

By extension, I know control because I am in control. True control is not percieved--if you have a perception of control, it is not true. A perception is always falsified and shallow. The reality is tangible and deep.

*sigh* i went to a big philosphy confrence, actualy Cog-ci philosphy confrence in scotland were i got to talk to the worlds formost (so big pluses to have academic parents, thanks pa) among many things that were discussed was this and the evidence is against you wilde...

If someone is in control of what you think they can make you think your in control
_______________
i dont suffer fools gladly , in fact i dont suffer them at all

Edited by - DSQrn on 3/28/2005 2:49:05 PM

But how can you know that you aren't simply an automaton, subject to the whims of your designer/programmer? All you have is a seeming causal connection between certain perceptions. You percieve a desire to do something and then you percieve your actually doing it. But they're still just perceptions. Potentially "falsified and shallow" perceptions.

Yeah. DSQ's got the right idea on this one.

We keep coming back to the cogito on this one. One can't explain it through reason or through empirical evidence, and almost not even put it into words because it transcends those--in fact, one cannot know it until . One only finds the knowledge, the true vision of existence, within one's own psyche, in the place beyond "conscious" thought which has not been touched by the frame of fragile order we structure our lives inside. It can be reached in the deepest form of meditation, or an act like it, that clears the conscious mind of its scurrying thought and expands the conscious mind to the very edges of the psyche. And one is engulfed by the incredible knowledge of one's own awareness , the spark of consciousness, that which is --beyond all logic or perception.

Dont give me this enlightenment BS. if it even exists i bet you with percise tools and the knowledge you could make it happen.

All thoughts are chemicals and electricity in the brain, as are mental states and moods. find a enlightened dude copy it to another brain.....

Besides the scientiests running the brain in the vat could make you think that. make you feel that.

Edited by - DSQrn on 3/28/2005 6:22:06 PM