Freedom of speech

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Sure there are different perceptions, but as for the actual truth there is only one. Perceptions are not truth, not even in the slightest degree.

And what is "the truth"; how do we know it? And does the world exist outside of our perceptions ("if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?" ? If there are different perceptions about an event how is one know what the "one truth" is to the matter? Is it ever possible to know? If it is never possible to know the "one truth", how can we be sure of its existance?

It's interesting that you would bring up that particular argument, since it rests on a view of subjectivity that is in part responsible for creating the social and political atmosphere of modern societies. It's also the view that people are essentially rational beings. The problem is that no educated person should believe that any more.

For example, there are no such things as "perceptions". No one has ever seen one, and no scientist could ever measure one. Sure, there are brain events, but that is just part of science, and not some metaphysical truth that is a foundation for human knowledge.

As in previous eras, we have a patently unreal view of ourselves. We can see it plainly when we look at societies different from ourselves, but can't see it in our own case. Frankly, it's an article of faith, and no better than the kookiest religion. Our individualist political philosophies rest on it, and are no less a load of kookery.

If we are going to have a society it ought at least to be based on something that isn't patent nonsense.

[Kuciwalker]

No one has ever seen one, and no scientist could ever measure one.

But everyone has experienced one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

No one has ever seen one, and no scientist could ever measure one.

But everyone has experienced one.

I haven't.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Agathon
If we are going to have a society it ought at least to be based on something that isn't patent nonsense.

like marxism

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Saras

like marxism

At least they did the right thing in stomping all over your imitation country.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Agathon


At least they did the right thing in stomping all over your imitation country.

Payback's a *****. We burned moscow four times way back.

[Saras]

And has anyone seen a "country", huh?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Saras

Payback's a *****. We burned moscow four times way back.

Isn't your country the Baltic republic that has a culture based on the sexual abuse of farm animals, or is that the Latvians?

[Saras]

Own goal, Kiwi perv

[Agathon]

Nah. You have us confused with the neanderthals across the Tasman.

I discovered the truth anyway. It is you guys. Shame on you!!

[Saras]

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Saras

Saras

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon

For example, there are no such things as "perceptions". No one has ever seen one, and no scientist could ever measure one. Sure, there are brain events, but that is just part of science, and not some metaphysical truth that is a foundation for human knowledge.

Why does it make sense to get rid of "perceptions" and speak of brain events only (btw, I wonder if everyone gets them ). And when using "perceptions" why would it refer to "some metaphysical truth" (if I understood Imran correctly his point was rather against such a "truth")

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder if everyone gets them

Agathon doesn't

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BeBro

Why does it make sense to get rid of "perceptions" and speak of brain events only (btw, I wonder if everyone gets them ). And when using "perceptions" why would it refer to "some metaphysical truth" (if I understood Imran correctly his point was rather against such a "truth")

Because if we really want to understand how human beings perceive the world around them, we need to do science. We need to look at things like the functioning of the optic nerve, and the parts of the brain that are involved in vision. Perceiving is this in the sense that water is H2O.

Classical Empiricism in the modern era held that "sense data" or "impressions" are the fundamental data on which our scientific view of the world is based. Hence, they are metaphysically prior to science, since they are foundational for it rather than the other way around.

You can see that this is fundamentally misguided once you realize that the sense impression theory is simply a very crude mechanical theory of cognition from a time when we didn't understand our physiology very well. The sense impression theory is really part of a crude science rather than the result of some investigation that is prior to and different from science.

There's also another obvious problem. Sense impressions were supposed to be the justification for our beliefs about the world, but it is very hard to see how they can be. Beliefs are propositional (they have truth values), whereas sense impressions are either things or events (both of which lack truth values). Justification is largely a function of inference, but you can't make an inference from something that doesn't have a truth value.

For example: take my belief that I am sensing a red round thing. I might have a red sense content, but then the relationship between the two is opaque. Of course we want to say that the relation is a causal relation, but a causal relation is not a justificatory relation, since I could be caused to believe I was sensing a red round thing by a whack on the head, or the effects of a drug or any number of different causes.

How could I be sure that my belief that I am sensing a red round thing is caused by having a red round sense content? The only thing I could appeal to as a justification is another belief: the belief that my belief is caused by a red round sense content, and so on. When you justify beliefs, you cannot escape from the "circle of belief".

There's a fundamental distinction between having a red sense content and thinking that a sense content is is red. The latter occurs in the space of reasons (of propositions and truth values); the former occurs in the space of causes. The causal connection between the two is obvious and undeniable. A justifcatory connection between the two can never be established.

We need to stop thinking of empiricism as a foundation for science and start thinking of it as a part of science. In other words, we need to naturalize it.

PS. This isn't my own stuff. It's a fairly brutal summary of work done by Wilfrid Sellars, W.V. Quine and Donald Davidson, most of it about 50 years ago.