Craig, The logical proof that we have accurate knowledge of the world is our very existence. If our belief was completely wrong we could not function or even exist. Therefore all extant species have sufficient true knowledge (beliefs) of the world to function and exist within it.
Edgar On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:35:43 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> How do you know that you are really reading these words? >> >> >> The question is ambiguous. If "really reading these words" refer to the >> quale of reading those words, then I agree I can know that. But if it means >> that there is a some 3p "real reality" in which I read those "real 3p >> words", then I cannot know that, as I might be dreaming. >> >> >> >> People misread things all the time. Maybe it just feels like you are >> reading them? You could be having a brain aneurism. Logically, there is no >> way to prove that you are reading these words right now. >> >> >> OK. >> >> >> >> The fact that you might not really be reading these words correctly (if >> at all) might be offensive to the real words. To avoid passing judgment on >> those other words, we must assume that it is no more likely that we are >> reading these words as it is that we are not. >> >> >> This I do not understand. We don't need to be sure to act. Our belief can >> be true, even when we can't be sure. We can develop some trust in reality >> and our means to evaluate plausibilities. >> >> I cannot know that I am awake, and that I will send you this mail, but I >> can be pretty sure. >> > > What is the logical proof that our belief can be true though? > > >> >> >> >> >> What is the logical way out of this? >> >> >> We can hope, pray, bet, that reality is kind enough to make us wrong when >> we are wrong, and hope to progress toward a big picture we can also hope >> for. >> >> If you start to have public certainties, you are doomed. We can start by >> agreeing on assumptions, only. That is science or good philosophy. I think. >> > > Aren't all agreements and assumptions in science or good philosophy > expectations of public certainties (even the prohibition of public > certainty)? > > That's why I like sense. It doesn't have to be a final truth, but neither > does it have to be an arbitrary fiction that only seems to coincide with > the truth. Sense can appreciate itself directly, without having to define > and encode. > > Craig > > > >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
