Persuasion as Proof

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130786 wrote:

Countless.

It is true that trees exist. It is true that my table is made of glass. It is true that the chemical composition of water is H2O. It is true that the planet Earth exists. It is true that most birds can fly. Etc, etc.

You really don't believe reality exists outside of the mind? Most reasonable scientists agree that the Earth was here billions of years before any minds were. So, I'm curious as to how you would explain truths only exist dependent on the mind.

Can you give me proof that any of this is real? Or can you only Persuade me? I can go ahead and ask a bunch of "What if" questions, persuading that everything's subjective.

I'd like to go out on a limb here and say that most of the people on Planet Earth know what a tree is. If not in English, then in some other language. They know that a tree is real, and they know (if they've been to your house), that your table is made out of glass.

Why do they believe this? Because they were persuaded so. The Matrix didn't persuade them that where we're living isn't reality, I can't persuade them that a tree isn't a tree, and Reconstructo can't persuade people that God is Language, or whatever he believes. Why? Because it sounds absurd. The sane human wants to believe what isn't absurd, which is part of the reason why I believe there is no God. However, I believe that nothing is certain in the minds of everyone.

It may be true to you that your table's made out of glass, but to me, it's made out of wood.

@Quinn phil,

Quinn;130795 wrote:

Can you give me proof that any of this is real? Or can you only Persuade me? I can go ahead and ask a bunch of "What if" questions, persuading that everything's subjective.

I'd like to go out on a limb here and say that most of the people on Planet Earth know what a tree is. If not in English, then in some other language. They know that a tree is real, and they know (if they've been to your house), that your table is made out of glass.

Why do they believe this? Because they were persuaded so. The Matrix didn't persuade them that where we're living isn't reality, I can't persuade them that a tree isn't a tree, and Reconstructo can't persuade people that God is Language, or whatever he believes. Why? Because it sounds absurd. The sane human wants to believe what isn't absurd, which is part of the reason why I believe there is no God. However, I believe that nothing is certain in the minds of everyone.

It may be true to you that your table's made out of glass, but to me, it's made out of wood.

I don't know why you say, "only" persuade you. A proof was presented to you, and you were (I hope) persuaded by it. Persuasion and proof need not be opposed to one another. Rational people are people who are persuaded by proof.

If it is true that I think that the table is made out of glass, and you think it is made out of wood, then clearly one of us is mistaken. But don't fret. There are easy ways of telling which (if either) is true. Usually that can be done by inspection. But if that does not work, the table can be subjected to tests. (Do I have to remind you of that)? So, what's the fuss?

@Quinn phil,

Quinn;130795 wrote:

Can you give me proof that any of this is real? Or can you only Persuade me? I can go ahead and ask a bunch of "What if" questions, persuading that everything's subjective.

I'd like to go out on a limb here and say that most of the people on Planet Earth know what a tree is. If not in English, then in some other language. They know that a tree is real, and they know (if they've been to your house), that your table is made out of glass.

Why do they believe this? Because they were persuaded so. The Matrix didn't persuade them that where we're living isn't reality, I can't persuade them that a tree isn't a tree, and Reconstructo can't persuade people that God is Language, or whatever he believes. Why? Because it sounds absurd. The sane human wants to believe what isn't absurd, which is part of the reason why I believe there is no God. However, I believe that nothing is certain in the minds of everyone.

It may be true to you that your table's made out of glass, but to me, it's made out of wood.

Perhaps you should look into Matrixism.

"Matrixism aims to encourage people to think about the possibility that the reality they live in might be simulated, both literally and metaphorically."

You can sign up for their website and join their cult. You may be required to watch The Matrix a few times a day, so make sure you grab a copy of the DVD or Bluray. Amazon usually has the lowest prices.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130689 wrote:

What invalid argument? In any case all invalid arguments are fallacious arguments, so I still don't see what you are driving at. Capital letters, in logical schemata are stand-ins for propositions. Essentially abbreviations. All you have to do is to replace te letters with the propositions they stand in for. I have given examples of two arguments whose purpose was not to persuade.

Argument by Selective reading
Argument by Selective Observation

@Deckard,

Deckard;130804 wrote:

Argument by Selective reading
Argument by Selective Observation

Better explain. Entirely baffled.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130802 wrote:

Perhaps you should look into Matrixism.

"Matrixism aims to encourage people to think about the possibility that the reality they live in might be simulated, both literally and metaphorically."

You can sign up for their website and join their cult. You may be required to watch The Matrix a few times a day, so make sure you grab a copy of the DVD or Bluray. Amazon usually has the lowest prices.

Lol, I don't want to join their cult. I won't deny that ideas such as those are believed, though.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130786 wrote:

You really don't believe reality exists outside of the mind? Most reasonable scientists agree that the Earth was here billions of years before any minds were. So, I'm curious as to how you would explain truths only exist dependent on the mind.

Yes, there seems to be a non-human reality that grounds our human reality. But even this assumption/inference is part of our human form of life. Noumena as a limiting concept. What seems continually neglected is this sort of discussion is the significance of consciousness. In any usual practical sense, I do agree that the universe was here before us. But in a more strict sense, what is hereness devoid of consciousness? Is the universe here for dead? What is the universe to an alien or a dog? We can only get the non-human reality pre-processed. We can't see beyond the capabilities of this primate-brain. I think we tend to forget this. That's why I quote Kojeve on "vulgar science." Natural science is amazing in its applications but naive philosophically. Common sense is unexamined sense. It's fine for everyday life, no doubt, but it makes for unimpressive philosophy. Consciousness (which is related to Heidegger's Being and Hegel's Pure Subjectivity and Kant's Transcendental Ego) is the riddle at the center, the question mark we often neglect to notice.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

I think we tend to forget this.

I do not forget this at all. All this means is that the world cannot be experienced without some form of conscious life. And that seems to be true. But that does not mean the world does not exist without conscious life; it does.

I think people often confuse the experience of something with that said something. But, what is, is, no matter who/what experiences it.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, it does.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130851 wrote:

But that does not mean the world does not exist without conscious life; it does.

That's a leap of a faith I can relate to. But it's still just an exercise of your own human consciousness --- it's also quote obviously an assumption. A conscious assumption in a historically evolved human language. It's refers to an utterly unknown and presumably unknowable possibility. It's just too glib on the mystery of consciousness.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 07:02 PM ----------

Zetherin;130851 wrote:

I think people often confuse the experience of something with that said something. But, what is, is, no matter who/what experiences it.

I think people often embrace false dichotomies.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

That's a leap of a faith I can relate to

You have to learn how to distinguish between faith, and belief with justification. Faith, by definition, is a belief without justification. I have very good reason to believe the Earth was here way before any minds were.

You're just being irrational and overly skeptical, denying all evidence.

Quote:

I think people often embrace false dichotomies.

Which dichotomy are you referring to?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130851 wrote:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, it does.

I think it does as well, if sound is defined as pressure waves. But sound is also defined as the sensation of sound waves, as qualia.

Qualia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But what do you make of qualia? Do you think qualia are objectively real?
There are many definitions of qualia, which have changed over time. One of the simpler, broader definitions is "The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc.'" [1].
Clarence Irving Lewis, in his book Mind and the World Order (1929), was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed modern sense.[INDENT] There are recognizable qualitative characters of the given, which may be repeated in different experiences, and are thus a sort of universals; I call these "qualia." But although such qualia are universals, in the sense of being recognized from one to another experience, they must be distinguished from the properties of objects. Confusion of these two is characteristic of many historical conceptions, as well as of current essence-theories. The quale is directly intuited, given, and is not the subject of any possible error because it is purely subjective.
[/INDENT]Frank Jackson (1982) later defined qualia as "...certain features of the bodily sensations especially, but also of certain perceptual experiences, which no amount of purely physical information includes" (p. 273).
Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:

ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.
intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 07:08 PM ----------

Zetherin;130857 wrote:

You're just being irrational and overly skeptical, denying all evidence.

I'm skeptical as to whether I am being overly-skeptical. Denying all evidence? Exploring various possibilities. Suspending assumptions.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 07:09 PM ----------

Zetherin;130851 wrote:

I think people often confuse the experience of something with that said something. But, what is, is, no matter who/what experiences it.
.

This is that dichotomy I was referring to. I cannot agree here. This is the taking of a useful mental model for dogma.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 07:13 PM ----------

Zetherin;130857 wrote:

You have to learn how to distinguish between faith, and belief with justification. Faith, by definition, is a belief without justification. I have very good reason to believe the Earth was here way before any minds were.

Of course I know what you mean, but a Christian might tell you of a personal experience that grounds their faith. We all have our reasons for what we believe. We all have our justifications. But how do we justify our justifications socially except by persuasion?

The belief in a universal reason is as arguably superstitious as the belief in a universal God. I suspect that universal reason is all of God that was left when the Enlightenment was through with him. Our modern "God Light" is the transcendental pretense. "Reason" is a reification.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 07:16 PM ----------

Quinn;130795 wrote:

The sane human wants to believe what isn't absurd, which is part of the reason why I believe there is no God.

An absurd belief would be a belief that did not fit in with our other beliefs. God doesn't fit in very well with space shuttles. However, if Quinn and Reconstructo were born in 500 A.D., they might be arguing the finer points of trinity with all their might.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130857 wrote:

You're just being irrational and overly skeptical, denying all evidence.

How can you say such a thing? Must be a leap of faith.

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 01:33 AM ----------

Reconstructo;130858 wrote:

An absurd belief would be a belief that did not fit in with our other beliefs. God doesn't fit in very well with space shuttles. However, if Quinn and Reconstructo were born in 500 A.D., they might be arguing the finer points of trinity with all their might.

A scientific belief like, water freezes at 0 centigrade might not fit into a fairy tale about giants, and lovely maidens, and geese that laid golden eggs, But would that make the scientific belief absurd?

@Reconstructo,

If we say that the world is not made of qualia, but something else, what are we saying? We theorize a something, that causes qualia. And it's perhaps a necessary theory, persuasive in its necessity. Of course we don't absorb it as a theory but as common sense.
I'm not in the least interested in denying the something that causes qualia. I'm just pointing out that this unconsidered embrace of reality as singular and definite tends to bleed into our understanding of more abstract forms of truth.
Just as the ethical-self-concept only gets interesting when a complex mind is being considered, so does persuasion-as-proof only become interesting when we look at more complicated assertions than A = A.

Much of our experience of reality is conceptual, as "reality" itself is a concept. If a person experiences an idea as reality, who can speak from a neutral dominant standpoint and exclude this from reality? This is where the relationship between truth and power should be considered. Whether a man is locked up as mad or not depends on how reality is socially conceived, especially perhaps by those in power.
As one of my many conceptions of philosophy is the "consciousness" of freedom, I find it pleasurable to reject the daily teaspoon, when that teaspoon's medicine seems like poison. It's also just a laugh.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130919 wrote:

If we say that the world is not made of qualia, but something else, what are we saying? We theorize a something, that causes qualia. And it's perhaps a necessary theory, persuasive in its necessity. Of course we don't absorb it as a theory but as common sense.
I'm not in the least interested in denying the something that causes qualia. I'm just pointing out that this unconsidered embrace of reality as singular and definite tends to bleed into our understanding of more abstract forms of truth.
Just as the ethical-self-concept only gets interesting when a complex mind is being considered, so does persuasion-as-proof only become interesting when we look at more complicated assertions than A = A.

Much of our experience of reality is conceptual, as "reality" itself is a concept. If a person experiences an idea as reality, who can speak from a neutral dominant standpoint and exclude this from reality? This is where the relationship between truth and power should be considered. Whether a man is locked up as mad or not depends on how reality is socially conceived, especially perhaps by those in power.
As one of my many conceptions of philosophy is the "consciousness" of freedom, I find it pleasurable to reject the daily teaspoon, when that teaspoon's medicine seems like poison. It's also just a laugh.

Trying to figure out whether you are saying anything at all has become even harder than trying to figure out what you are saying. I guess that is what is called the point of diminishing return.

@Reconstructo,

Jane sees a ghost. Nine other girls do not.
"That ghost isn't real, Jane."
"Why not?"
"Because only you can see it."
"Oh."

Turns out the ghost was an alien (with selective cloaking device) doing experiments on the theme of truth-as-consensus among species p-58. (That's the best I can translate the way they describe us humans.)

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130925 wrote:

Jane sees a ghost. Nine other girls do not.
"That ghost isn't real, Jane."
"Why not?"
"Because only you can see it."
"Oh."

Turns out the ghost was an alien (with selective cloaking device) doing experiments on the theme of truth-as-consensus among species p-58. (That's the best I can translate the way they describe us humans.)

And, the point is?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130925 wrote:

Jane sees a ghost. Nine other girls do not.
"That ghost isn't real, Jane."
"Why not?"
"Because only you can see it."
"Oh."

Turns out the ghost was an alien (with selective cloaking device) doing experiments on the theme of truth-as-consensus among species p-58. (That's the best I can translate the way they describe us humans.)

First, who do you think is arguing from ad populum here?

There is no evidence for ghosts existing, and this is why the other nine girls shouldn't believe Jane. And Jane shouldn't believe there is no ghost there simply because the other nine don't believe in ghosts. Who ever said that she should?

And, finally, the other nine girls were right - it wasn't a ghost. Jane was wrong. It was an alien who stole the predator's cloaking device.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;131009 wrote:

First, who do you think is arguing from ad populum here?

There is no evidence for ghosts existing, and this is why the other nine girls shouldn't believe Jane. And Jane shouldn't believe there is no ghost there simply because the other nine don't believe in ghosts. Who ever said that she should?

And, finally, the other nine girls were right - it wasn't a ghost. Jane was wrong. It was an alien who stole the predator's cloaking device.

So you're saying Jane should've believed there was a ghost? After all she saw it, because if you say she shouldn't have would you not have to appeal to an ad populum argument that there is no evidence for ghosts?

@Reconstructo,

Scottydamion wrote:

So you're saying Jane should've believed there was a ghost?

What? That is not what I said at all. I said, and I quote, "And Jane shouldn't believe there is no ghost there simply because the other nine don't believe in ghosts". In other words, Jane should have a better reason for believing it is not a ghost that she's seeing.

Quote:

After all she saw it, because if you say she shouldn't have would you not have to appeal to an ad populum argument that there is no evidence for ghosts?

No, you do not have to appeal to an ad populum argument to confirm there is no evidence for ghosts. Was that a serious question? And she didn't see a ghost, she saw an alien which she mistook for a ghost.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;131077 wrote:

What? That is not what I said at all. I said, and I quote, "And Jane shouldn't believe there is no ghost there simply because the other nine don't believe in ghosts". In other words, Jane should have a better reason for believing it is not a ghost that she's seeing.

No, you do not have to appeal to an ad populum argument to confirm there is no evidence for ghosts. Was that a serious question? And she didn't see a ghost, she saw an alien which she mistook for a ghost.

Define what you would consider a "better reason", because there are those who would think Jane had the best reason, she saw a ghost. Try to go beyond the example, or at least fill in the gaps, because Jane still doesn't know it was really an alien.

Philosophy Forum

Persuasion as Proof

Quick Links

My Account

able2know