@@marcia8789 Yeah, I found the secret to fitting in when I finally gave up on that logic stuff, doing a lot better now, nearly normal after only 30 years of therapy.
00:20 The problem of skepticism... what do you really know? Are you dreaming? 00:50 Ancient Greece has two great skeptical traditions: Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonian Skepticism. 01:05 Academic Skeptics argued that sensory perceptions don't actually enable you to know anything. Knowledge of the world is impossible for humans. For example, perhaps you are dreaming or perhaps your sensory organs have fooled you. 01:54 Pyrrhonian Skeptics went one step further. They continued inquiring everything without reaching any conclusions at all. Even the question of knowledge itself was left open. 02:25 The dreaming argument. How do you know you're not dreaming? 03:02 Rene Descartes suggested that even if you are dreaming, you should still be able to know a square has 4 sides. But Descartes even questioned that. It simply "feels" right. 03:40 Descartes formulated an "evil demon"/"evil genius" argument where an evil genius is fooling your sense perceptions and even basic things like your mathematical intuitions. 04:40 The "brain in a vat" argument illustrates a brain that is controlled by a supercomputer that generates simulated experiences. 06:03 Typical skeptics don't actually argue that you are a brain in a vat. For them, the possibility of the scenario is problematic enough in itself. 07:08 These 3 arguments: “Dreaming Argument”, “Evil Genius”, and “Brain-in-a-vat” are known as “Global Skeptical Scenarios”. The raise doubts about virtually everything. 07:15 Skepticism doesn’t have to be global. It can be local skepticism as well. 07:27 For example, you can worry about your knowledge of the past. 07:56 Single fact skepticism can be about particular knowledge. For example, a quick glance at the clock may not be enough to determine if the clock was actually working when the time was read. Does this person _really_ know? What is the probability of error?
I don't care if I'm in a dream, a brain in a vat, or a simulation. It doesn't matter. I'm dealing with whatever the situation is, and to me it's a waste of time pondering things in this way when there is so much more to ponder. Right now, I have to go feed my dream-children, or dream-social services will take them away.
All this skepticism and solipsism is not a problem. It just means that all our conclusions are dependent on assumptions, or "known" within a proposed context. If I'm a brain in a vat, then all my interactions and experiences are made with this rich delusional world, within this delusional world and talk about this delusional world. It's the only world I have, the only context I have, and so anything outside the context is irrelevant to even talk about. Luckily, this world has some internal consistency, enough to be functional and allow useful predictions.
Yes! Consistency and reliability, it seems to me, must be the basis of "knowledge." Arguing that we cannot know anything absolutely is to miss the point. Why must knowledge be absolute? It seems then that an appeal to a lack of absolute certainty is a red herring. There is always a degree of doubt to anything we say we know. But that doesn't disqualify it as functional knowledge. What matters is that our model of understanding (knowledge) allows us to make accurate predictions. Since it does, that means our understanding is consistent with our systematic observations of our experiences. If that base assumption is a lie, it doesn't matter. Our understanding is still consistent and reliable WITHIN the lie. Ergo, the question of whether or not our reality is a lie is irrelevant to thoughts and experiences within the lie.
but what if there isn't even a world to gather context from and any perceived context you think you have doesn't actually exist? forget the whole brain in a vat hypothesis we need to prove that existence is possible before we can even conclude that being deceived is possible and honestly there could be some unknown variable that it outside of our comprehension that means none of us even exist right now even though it seems so obvious that we do
Robert Stuckey However, the nature of what I am could be illusory. My memories could be artificially implanted, my senses controlled by some force into experiencing what it wants me to experience. Perhaps the only thing that's *definitely* not illusory is my consciousness and subjectivity. But even if we assume this is all an illusory framework, I'm having a discussion. Those who I am discussing with would also be illusory, but ultimately, who gives a fuck? ;D ... The discussion is about this illusory framework anyway, because it's the only thing worth discussing. We can't talk about universes for we have no knowledge or experience. All we have is this "illusion", so (illusion or not) it is the only reality that counts. So all those who push doubt about existence and reality are just denying the very context of the discussion (of any discussion really). They're committing a verbal murder-suicide: if their point is conceded, the discussion becomes worthless, and they can go away & let the grownups talk.
It does ultimately seem like a moot point, but some critics of Descartes go even further and say that the only thing that can be known for sure is that thoughts are occurring. We cannot even say for sure those thoughts are actually integrated into a self. Again, seems like a moot point, but interesting none the less.
Robert Stuckey however "I think therefore I am" may not actually be as definitive as it appears. for example what if you were a figment of a higher being's imagination? then you would be "thinking" in the sense that you would have thoughts but it would all be because that higher being was imagining that you had those thoughts and you wouldn't actually exist. then the statement "I think therefore I am" could be false and you would not even be able to prove your own existence to yourself.
@@thatgirlray2765Actually there Is no argument against skepticism itself. Allthought we can easly demostrate that skepticism for it's "selfcontained infite" Is as much pointless as much it's bottomless after a certain point. Now to tell where that point could actually be Is something hardly demostrable without some assumptions... And saddly assumptions are not so friendly skepticism. But... On a personal level i find usefull to keep always both path as valuable and so coherently immagine two solution for any given problem up to the limit that the skeptical or the beliver side won't find themselves completly usless. Let take as an example color perception. There Is no way to be sure the mental immages we create of a color is the same of another person, yet we can quite confidently recognize the same shade with the same name and we percive the same spectrum of contrast (complementary colours). Hence there is no need for further skepticism if all what we are aiming for is to agree on a description. Now let's talk about God. If we are talking about a being outside our reality omniscient and omnipotent there is no way to demostrate it's existence or negate it. Obviously from a phylosophycal standing point, set aside for a ma moment the possible sociological, psychological motivations, and anyway that's about how a deity can be used/served by a religious organization. Now from a practical point of view there Is totally no difference if it exist or not even from a "final judgment" standing point. If it's really allknowing acting good just in fear of him won't help nor would hurt acting as a respectable living being even if you don't think about it's judgment (seem even better). Ofc this last part imply a logical diety and not an heavly emotionally driven one. If you live in Warhammer 40k universe i'm sorry that all that reasoning does not apply...😂
Why? The pyrrhonians themselves said that it brought about a total peace of mind. Because why bother worrying endlessly about something that you don't even know? Why not just suspend judgment and go about your day, take life one step at a time?
Is to think without doubt a good thing? I am aware that to lack doubt is to think imperfectly and fallibly. We even have words for this: naivety and gullibility (both of which are relatively good to establish a strong society with minimal in-fighting). So is to think always doubtful and doubtful about doubtfulness a good thing? Neither is likely to be practical. Although lies can be practical, including lies we tell ourselves. Lies can also be detrimental, even if we tell them only to others. A good understanding of a good balance upon correct context is always important.
while I can appreciate this video for what it is, that type of extreme skepticism doesn't do anyone any good. all it will ultimately do is drive you insane. for the sake of sanity, one has to believe that one's own experiences are real and hold meaning and value, at least for the individual. if you can see, touch, smell, hear, taste, or sense something, you can conclude that it exists on some level, simply because if you assumed it didn't, you would be in denial.
Imagine you are suffering a mind problem, maybe schizophrenia. You are hearing voices all the time and they give you some advises. Do you really think it is real and healthy to think that it is real? Consider it as a third way to express the same scenario.
this is a paradox similar to the raven paradox. when you look at it logically, it doesn't actually matter whether you are a jarred brain or not. the experience and stimuli before you is simply as real as you perceive it.
such a calming voice. I wonder how her lectures are, very calming and chill unlike my philosophy professor, who seems to have more energy than a 5 year old, but very entertaining.
6 years late, but i'm a student of hers and her lectures are wonderful 👍 she's funny, engaging, explains things easily, and even learns our names (in a class with hundreds of people)
the thing about memories is a trip, even from a psychological standpoint, memories are extremely unstable, and people can create memories and believe that they really happened, or just completely miss things that actually did happen
@5:50 Even under the most ideal conditions, *you are still a brain in a vat.* Only instead of a "vat," we just call it a "skull." You cannot solve the problem of skepticism because it cannot be solved. Sense data is all there is, and the problem doesn't go away, no matter what you do. Ergo, synthetic knowledge about the external world is impossible to obtain with any kind of perfect certainty. Just embrace it already and move on.
Well said! The problem of skepticism is so perfectly insoluble it's rather like a tautology, curious to examine but ultimately meaningless and now it's time to move on... If I'm in a vat, a computer, a dream or the 'real world', I have to deal with it, whatever it is.
+AntiCitizenX "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" It doesn't matter if you're a brain-in-a-vat or a butterfly's dream, make the most of the world you're experiencing
+AntiCitizenX The sense datum view may seem obvious but it has serious flaws and demands argumentation. In fact, it's almost certainly false. (I'm not saying certainty or knowledge is possible, I don't think there is any sense of "knowledge" that is absolute.)
+AntiCitizenX Judging by the first video I think the series is moving towards the idea of knowledge as justified, true belief. Certainty doesn't have to be a requirement for justification as long as it can provide a sufficient rationale to support a particular belief, and sense data can potentially be justification in this sense. It seems to me that the global skepticism thought experiments hinge more on what's true, since one could potentially have justification (depending on what counts as justification) for believing that there is an external world given the parameters of the thought experiments even if this is not the case. And these thought experiments largely seem to be working off a correspondence theory of truth. So if one doesn't accept correspondence theory in favor of, say, the coherence or pragmatic theories these thought experiments become moot as far as knowledge is concerned. I'm curious what the proposed solutions are going to be in the next video and whether they relate to how one conceives of truth.
hujiko44745278184 Perfect knowledge. A belief that is justified and true. We can also condition it with perfect certainty, in that it is known "for sure," and cannot possibly be wrong.
+AntiCitizenX I would say of course not. That would mean no one would have any knowledge. I believe the solution to the problem of skepticism is to have "properly basic beliefs". This is just based on my limited but growing knowledge of philosophy. There's so much to learn in philosophy and I often feel like I haven't scratched the surface. You must have taken a class knowing your videos.
One thing that permanently changed my mind is that I was so high I couldn’t tell if I was recalling a memory or creating a story. This helped me realize the finite nature of my brain all too well
Thank you so much for this video. I had always asked myself those questions in the video and thought I was being crazy for questioning my existence. This video really helped me.
Helped you in what way? Confirming that you are not crazy or that it's a good thing to question your own existence? If you do that, then yes you are CRAZY.
Before I awoke I was dreaming. A dream that was beautiful. A dream that was frightful. Before I was dreaming... I do not know. But I never dreamed that I was dreaming.
Hi, I don't trust you. Because my being SKEPTICAL about things is a learned response, a survival mechanism, I've acquired in life to keep the wolves of society from my door, my brain, and my wallet. Nothing personal. But I have NO DOUBT that I'm going to enjoy this place and all its wonders now that I'm here. I'll clean my feet on the welcome mat as I enter the closed door behind me.
Once, maybe 20 years ago, I had taken a substantial amount of LSD and had been riding my bike around the city for some time. This was before the day of cell phones and I didn't have a watch so I decided to find out what time it was by going to a building that had been known to me to have a clock. When I arrived there, I saw the markings for the clock but I couldn't see the hands. I spent a good bit of time looking at the clock and trying to figure out whether the hands really weren't there or whether I wasn't seeing them because of the LSD I had taken. I had a total existential crisis but, essentially, that is what LSD is for.
All I know, is that if you are having ANY difficulty determining whether or not you're dreaming while actually awake - NO amount of epistemological musing is ever likely to provide you with a useful answer.
Cletus Kassady Yes, I fully understand and appreciate the " problem" of hard solipsism (thank you very much) - but, I was just poking a bit of fun at the particular way that they initially framed that little philosophical chestnut. All I was getting at was that there is (or at least: should be) a rather large difference in the anwer you arrive at when you ask yourself the question: "Am I dreaming?" while actually awake as opposed to asking the same while in the midst of a dream. If you doubt me, get in the habit of asking that question on a regular basis - the likelihood that you will ask it of yourself while dreaming will increase appreciably, and you just might find yourself rather impressed at how easy it is to determine which state you happen to be in.
***** oh yeah well of course hard solipsism is one thing I mean even there at least one universal truth is accepted and that is "cogito ergo sum" "I think therefore I am" however I'm a hard skeptic I believe that no knowledge is certain even the fact that no knowledge is certain. essentially I just make it my goal to doubt everything even things that appear undoubtable to us such as our own existence we cant actually prove that we even exist much less are dreaming. now that I've finished my little side rant about the differences between radical skepticism and radical solipsism I completely understand what you're saying and given that context it makes sense
Descartes also said "I think, therefore I am" which I believe was the only thing he ever took for knowledge. Thus, reality must, in whatever shape, color or form, exist.butterfly or not.
He actually never said that. He said in two difference sentences the statements "I am", which he then concluded in the bodily sense (in the next sentence) "I exist". The later coming discussion used s the famous phrase we know it now days "Cogito ergo sum" which is a short version of Descartes' argument.
How is this made? Drawn and written with computer and then added a hand that seemingly writes and draws it? Is there some specific software that makes this stuff easy? White board with post coloring and clipart?
have you ever woken up and walked around your room and then woken up again and starting to walk around your room only to wake up again and start walking around in your room only to wake up again...
Great video ! All the logic is right to me, taking into account that in all this there is an underlaying assumption of that knowledge comes ONLY comes from an objective experience. This logic does not take into account that knowledge (perfect or not) could also come to each one of us from subjective experience. Thanks for sharing !
I love scepticism, but it should be thought of as ridiculous as a general consensus... I think it should be used as a tool to keep one humble in there day to day life, to keep one listening and learning everything they can, because everything we have learnt previously, could turn out to be false to some degree
Without skepticism the entire world would be mislead by the selfish wants, hallucinations, and fallacious beliefs of other men. A life without critique is not one worth living.
Further, if your existence is in question, does it make sense to use the word “I”? Otherwise, “I think therefore I am” just an example of begging the question?
Well, yes, but raising those questions generally require more assumptions. In the evil genius scenario, I must come to accept that such a powerful machine could be controlled by an abstract sentience just to manipulate me, and in the super-computer scenario I must assume that the entirety of the universe is a simulation and that my brain is in a vat experiencing a rendered universe. In nearly all of these cases, it requires more belief to come to the conclusion that my brain is indeed in a vat, whereas it requires not nearly as many assumptions and beliefs to believe that I am a human brain residing in a human body in a seemingly physical world. Also, why is the brain in a vat the "bad case". The brain in the vat's existence could be safer than in the good case. And even if one were to go further, and suggest that you and I and everybody else is also simulated, and that all of our experiences and consciousness and physical reality are virtual, then what makes that experience any less valid than the current reality we experience. Why is the "Matrix" scenario so bad? Even if we were to somehow "wake up" in the reality which houses the supercomputer which simulates all of human experience, who is to say that this other reality is any more real? Couldn't it, too, be housed in a supercomputer? What if our universe is a hologram on a black hole that exists in some other universe? Does that make this cosmos any less real? Why is a natural virtual universe so different from an artificial virtual universe? At some point, we all must stowaway these questions because we do not have enough information to prove or disprove any of it, but instead, we must simply choose the most likely realities and use those as a standard model. I won't believe that the universe came into existence at the time this video claims to have been uploaded because that would require the assumptions that all of the universe, fossils, all of my memories, and so on, all randomly came into existence several hours ago. These assumptions are more elaborate and unlikely explanations for the universe, and simply require more assumptions than for me to just accept the standard model as a most likely reality. A true skeptic would scoff, and dismiss this under the pretenses that we still can't know that the standard model isn't somehow a fabrication, and although this is true, I still think it is a likelihood that I would rather not concern myself with.
+Zachary Katko We can't prove that we're not in a vat, and they can't prove that we are in a vat, so the whole discussion feels pointless. It's the same story with religion, what if there is a god? - None has enough evidence on either side to prove the other wrong. To battle this we should ask ourselves the question: what is most probable? The most likely theories are the ones that you can scientifically prove and don't require a lot of assumptions. Also, as you pointed out, does it even matter if we're a brain in a vat? Do we truly get smarter by bringing this topic up? I think not. At the end of the day we will still live our lives and experience life in the same manner regardless if we're in a vat or not. Even if we know for certain that we're in a vat, would we really change the way we live our lives?
+algot34 "We can't prove that we're not in a vat, and they can't prove that we are in a vat, so the whole discussion feels pointless." Who is trying to prove that we are in a vat? Some people may dogmatically insist that we're not in vats, but I've never heard of anyone trying to prove that we are actually in vats. Skeptics are saying exactly what you are: there's no way to know whether we're in vats or not, so the whole question is pointless. It's a recognition that we can always be wrong about almost anything.
+Ansatz66 I do see that the scepteists are trying to prove that we can never truly be sure about our knowledge. But as I stated in my first comment I don't think that conclusion will do us any good. Even if we can never be sure about anything, we have to stick with what we got, because that's all we have. The discussion is pointless in the sense that we won't get anywhere if we question everything. At some point we just have to let go.
algot34 "The discussion is pointless in the sense that we won't get anywhere if we question everything." On the contrary, questioning everything is the best way to get places. People are far too trusting by nature in a world where we've been given intuitions that are so often wrong. The whole reason that science has been so productive is it's based on a principle of testing ideas while everyone else is busy trusting whatever they're told. When we examine almost any idea we quickly discover that it could be wrong. The only alternative is to not examine our ideas, and that is the road of credulity and ignorance. Credulity and ignorance won't get us anywhere.
+Ansatz66 You're right in the regard that we can only grow by challenging ourselves and our reality. However, questioning that of which can't be answered is not efficient for our development. Relying on our experiences and scientific methods is something that I'd much rather be doing than scientifically unsupported skeptic thought experiments.
This doesn't sound like scepticism, so much as solipsism. Also, with regard to the butterfly part, I couldn't help remembering this from Thief of Time: ‘The poet Hoha once dreamed he was a butterfly, and then he awoke and said, “Am I a man who dreamed he was a butterfly or am I a butterfly dreaming he is a man?”’ said Lobsang, trying to join in. ‘Really?’ said Susan briskly. ‘And which was he?’ ‘What? Well…who knows?’ ‘How did he write his poems?’ said Susan. ‘With a brush, of course.’ ‘He didn’t flap around making information-rich patterns in the air or laying eggs on cabbage leaves?’ ‘No one ever mentioned it.’ ‘Then he was probably a man,’ said Susan.
Melinda Green no, no they are not the same things. the difference is that in solipsism you believe that you can't know anything outside oneself but extreme skepticism is the belief that you can't know anything period. the brain in the vat hypothesis is a solipsistic viewpoint because even if your entire world is a simulation it still seems apparent that you exist because you are able to experience the world real or fake so to sum up the atmosphere of solipsism just think of the quote "I think therefore I am" however extreme skeptics such as myself believe that even this cannot be known for sure because there could be some unknown or incomprehensible variable that we don't know that would turn everything and I mean EVERYTHING we think we know on it's head. this means that all knowledge is uncertain including our own existence. so to sum up the mood of extreme skepticism think of the phrase "nothing can be known for certain, even the fact that nothing can be known for certain"
Cletus Kassady That sounds like it's bordering on a distinction without a difference. I mean if that difference is meaningful to you, I'll give it to you but I don't see how it matters.
The math-based part of this is total BS, because math is definitional, not observational. 2+3=5 not because of any intuition or observation, but because of how we define '2', '3', '+', '=', and '5'.
+Chris Warren yet the same is also true of language... whether or not 'blind men can see' is true and or sensible (or 'blind men can see' = 'true' for instance) hinges entirely on how you define the given concepts: 'blind', 'men', 'can', 'see', ('is',) 'true'.
Certainly true of language as a purely symbolic system, but doesn't really hold when one starts mapping language elements to aspects of the world outside language. Math is self-contained - it doesn't have any existence beyond its axioms.
Chris Warren you want to elaborate on what you mean by "[it] doesn't really hold when one starts mapping language elements to aspects of the world outside language"? there is very little difference--so little difference that the difference is insignificant--between mathematics and written/spoken languages.
Language is inherently external to an entity - it references and/or communicates with things other than the entity. Math is purely internal - it has no connection to anything outside the entity.
Chris Warren "language is external to an entity", what does that mean?!?!!! i'm going to assume i understand what that statement means, and even so it's still false. people communicate with themselves, in their head, with the use of language. there in fact aren't things such as unicorns and dragons that are "external to an entity" in the physical world.
Rhino ZR If you’re existence is in question does it make sense to you the noun “I”? Does thinking imply a thinking? How can we be more certain of that proposition than 2+2?
There is a case that has always kept me thinking. It relates to the hypotheses presented in this video about the uncertainty in knowledge. If you have a yellow ball, and you ask your friend what color the ball is, of course, your friend's answer will be yellow. But what makes you certain that your friend observes yellow the same way you do? In other words, what proof dismisses the fact that every brain there is observes yellow differently and just calls it yellow? In general, I think philosophy naturally tries to dodge the existence of reality through basing the concepts of all it's theories and paradoxes on the brain, which is only an obseving machine, it by no means qualifies to give definitive proof for anything. The brain is limited, and here's how this can affect misconception of reality. If you imagine a universe big enough to be considered limitless, your brain must create boundaries to determine right and wrong, the brain can't perceive or understand limitlessness. Here's the catch, if one brain decides to draw a square that positions earth at the top left corner, and another brain positions earth at the lower right corner, then where is earth really? The answer is earth is where earth is, until we decide to put squares around, until awareness and consciousness observes it. And this is why the brain is not reliable to tell actual right from actual wrong, I believe only God is.
To all those who refuse to see this as a problem, or believe skepticism is irrelevant, just know I'd rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
"Men educated in [the critical habit of thoughts] are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens.” ― William Graham Sumner
Nice Videos! I was very happy to see, that you're an actual philosopher. To educate is your duty, isn't it? :) There should be more scientist, who use a yt-channel to spread their message. Especially when it's done so well.
Haven't gotten through the full video yet, but it seems like what this is getting at is that a skeptic requires absolute certainty for knowledge. But none of the famous skeptics i'm a fan of reading and listening to ever required absolute certainty for knowledge.
How would one go about proving that we are not a brain in a vat? Can it even be done? If not, then whether we are in a vat or not is completely irrelevant, since a Universe in which I am in a vat and a Universe in which I am not are functionally identical. At some point, the line between illusion and reality just disappears.
Reasoning ? But you can doubt reasoning as how do u know the rules of logic is true maybe there is an evil genius decieving you to believe that ur logic rules are true
actually no... you dont get it bush. The video argues that there is "true knowledge" as in knowledge that is universal and part of actual reality. For example, in reality, you are a brain in a vat. However i argue that this definition of "knowledge" is, is incorrect to begin with. I define knowledge as whatever you make it, and is thus rather more flexible. This is simply due to the logical reasoning that its the only form of "knowledge" that matters. Because its the only form of knowledge that you "know". Therefore knowledge should rather be defined as whatever you "know", whether it is part of universal knowledge or not. Therefore even if a brain is in a vat and has simulated hands, the brains "knowledge" is that it has hands.
+darthjefory actually I think you're confusing the definition of knowledge with belief because by your definition of knowledge someone can know that a God exists without any evidence
Cletus Kassady All things "known" are beliefs but they vary in certainty. Knowledge is information organized, and some knowledge is simply wrong. IE information poorly organized.
I love this kind of discussion...epistemological queries. I have studied closely many philosophical works,and continue to enjoy some of them.However,from Kant to Whitehead to Wittgenstein I note that the feelings of desire and fear of loss - as reality/ identity markers - are conveniently ignored,as are discussions of the role of consequence in general. Just try convincing a loanshark that the money you owe is a figment of his imagination...My point is that what we perceive in the world around us is best understood as a ubiquitous matrix of consequence - a landscape full of potholes and sudden steep cliffs.The intellectualized skepticism of philosophy,though an entertaining brain tease,will never DIRECTLY help humankind in its day to day struggle.
Okay, i humbly submit: all skepticism breaks down at the very moment you crack you toe against a hard object in the dead of night on the way to the bathroom...
I'm skeptical that the clock was displaying the correct time when you cracked your toe. Wait... that didn't break down..... OK. Your toe does not exist, but your subconscious mind remembered there was an object in the place you believe your toe to be, and generates a signal of pain to your conscious mind. The darkness means you do not consciously remember the hard object being there, but your subconscious mind does. Wait... that didn't break down either.....hmmmmmm.... You do not exist, and neither do I. we and our comments on this video are just figments of the imagination of some other being, who DOES exist and is currently reading the comments section of this video. ..........I'm sorry I can not find a single piece of Skepticism your cracked toe breaks......Better luck next time!
Just assume you are in the "good case"! Even if we are the" bad case", the ´knowledge´ (or the illusion of knowledge) we have is useful to us in the world we are experiencing. Thinking otherwise seem pointless to me.
the thing about the dream, vate, and evil scenario is that you still know truths about the world you've been fooled into being a part of. so i can say that without a doubt that where i'm at, whether i'm in bed or hooked up to a computer, i am typing this paragraph.
actually you cannot claim know with 100% certainty that you are typing that paragraph and there might not be such a thing as universal truths. for example lets say you believe you typed that paragraph when really you just found it already typed out and had false memories of typing it?
This definition of knowledge is silly. What if my whole life is just a dream? What if we're all plugged into the Matrix? What if monkeys fly out of my butt? What if God is real? What if any number of alternate realities are the case and I am not only blind to them, but am experiencing a false reality, as well? (None of these follow Occam's razor, btw) If your definition of knowledge is one requires absolute certainty, then fine, I concede that it's impossible to know anything. But that approach is not helpful when applied to real life, and thus is totally useless. This definition of knowledge has no meaning. Another definition of knowledge, one that requires demonstrable evidence rather than 100% absolute certainty and allows for improvement (such as the scientific method), has shown to be much more useful to us. Following the evidence will always be more likely to lead us to the correct answer, even if we can't know with 100% absolute certainty that we've actually arrived there.
ok so even though you cant know that evidence exists you still believe that it is a reliable source of information and are willing to follow it down the rabbit hole? that makes perfect sense have fun with being potentially wrong ;)
+Cletus Kassady Interesting. So can you truthfully say that you actually believe in your own position? I highly doubt it, and I'll prove it. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you regularly participate in most or all of the following things; You go to work. You pay taxes and bills. You maintain hygiene. You obey rules and laws. You adhere to social norms. You believe your parents are your parents (and not imposters/robots/aliens/etc). You maintain relationships with friends/family. You mourn the death of loved ones. You care about certain political issues and current events. You assumed I exist by responding to my comment with your own opinion...using a device that was developed using science, which outwardly rejects the notion that absolute certainty is necessary to advance our knowledge and understanding of the world and universe. (continued in next comment...)
+Cletus Kassady (...continued) You do all the things that inherently and necessarily requires the assumption that your perceived reality really is as it seems, and that your actions have predictable consequences. If, as you suggested, you truly cannot trust your own experience of reality with any degree of certainty, then why conform to the inconvenience of work and responsibilities? Why not just do only the things you want? If every conceivable scenario of reality is as equally likely to be the one true reality as the reality you experience (remember, you can't know anything and any evidence means nothing), then you can't trust friends or family. They could just as likely be robots or aliens or the matrix or figments of your imagination. They could just as likely be plotting to kill you as plotting how to celebrate your next birthday. Who can say? It's 50/50, right? Why take that chance of even continuing to associate with them? Your life is in danger! Run!
+Cletus Kassady Cletus, the only rabbit hole around here is the one labeled 'Solipsism," and you're standing right in it. When you argue that a scenario supported by zero evidence carries just as much weight as one that's strongly backed by demonstrable evidence, you're on the wrong side of that argument.
Thomas Catlin haha oh this Is going to be fun I can tell you believe your position very stubbornly. First of all I'm not a solipsist I'm a radical skeptic so I am as far beyond solipsism as it is beyond you and clinging on to evidence as a lifeline even though it's sinking with you isn't going to help you any because my entire position is not built around something as unreliable and flaky as evidence my entire position is built around doubt. I am not confined to the realm of "this is this because it is that way" as you are so I don't need to prove anything nor is it my objective to prove anything it is my objective to doubt everything and therefore put the burden of proof upon you to show that evidence and by extension knowledge and everything else even exist.
This is fine as a brief overview of Cartesian skepticism, how the questions it raises about certainty can be leveraged into questions about knowledge generally. But even then I think it needs an additional clear reminder at the end for those (no doubt very numerous) people who would just ask "Wait, why do I care about certainty? Give that up. Problem solved." There are other ancient _direct_ arguments for skepticism that don't rely on any intermediate failure to achieve certainty. The 'Problem of the Criterion', for example, purports to show that any attempt to ground knowledge must either beg the question or argue in a circle. It's a more fundamental problem (other skeptical worries in epistemology and other fields can be argued are just special cases) and isn't subject to the easy "Don't worry about certainty" reply.
This doesn't account for things that are known a priori, or by definition. I am CERTAIN that a square has four sides because that is the DEFINITION of a square.
+Ficehdulah It also fails to account for knowledge of a perception. If I perceive something, I know what I perceived, even if that's different from what is or isn't there in 'reality'.
The video fails to include the potential for the dream/scientist/computer to alter thoughts, which, as far as we know, could happen. For example, the computer could potentially force you to miscount the number of sides on a square. It could also trick you by replacing the thought of the thing that you perceive with that of something else (eg. I perceive my computer, but how do I know that the thing I'm perceiving is actually a computer).
"scepticism to me is just doing your best to get as much information and making your own conclusion and accepting of new info." That's not what skepticism means -.-
Silly question: where is the problem? Really, cause I don't see it. Absolute knowledge ain't possible. I don't think for a moment that we can be sure about anything. But that doesn't mean that we have no possibility of acting upon our experiences. The hand in front of me might not exist, it might be a dream construct, a construct inserted by a computer, or anything else, but I am more sure that I will experience something not pleasant if I put my hand into a meat grinder, then I am that it will give me an orgasm. Even if I would not *actually* lose my hand, I would still experience it as such. And seeing those experiences seem to come forth from the patterns we have concluded from past experiences, we can still be more sure about an outcome than not. That is still the case if those experiences are influenced by a mad genius, are inserted by a computer or from me being inside a dream.
Chip Kempston _"Are you absolutely certain of that?"_ I see what you did there ;-) (and I completely failed to see it myself, sheesh) No, I am not absolutely certain about that. I am reasonably certain based on the collective experience of myself and humanity as a whole (altho I'm definitely not arrogant enough to say I know all experiences of humanity :-P)
***** To be honest, it still doesn't sound like an actual problem. I don't see doubt as a problem, even if it would mean doubting literally everything (excluding axiomatic assertions) But I'll keep these in mind. Was planning on buying some of these books anyway.
+Shangori But, surely, the "I"'s that you are using (especially in your original comment) must hint at something undubitable, like a _subject_ that actually exists in order to experience all those illusions and dreams you mentioned. It is hard solip... err... hard to believe that one can still doubt even his own existence. Well, after Descartes at least.
That's why skepticism is best if applied to a certain scope and not to everything. Even then, the results are still worth to be questioned and tested again, since life itself is a big test.
8:30/9:03 Black and White fallacy Just because she has too look at the clock more longer than looking at it for some seconds. Doesn't mean that she needs to share at the clock all day. Because It only means that she needs to look at the clock long than a few seconds to know that the clock is ticking.
If the fact that I exist as a brain in a vat does not change the reality which I observe, there is no point in worrying about it because it doesn't affect me... If it did, it would simply be a matter of scientific observation.
The brain-in-a-jar type hypotheses are untestable and unfalsifiable. Thus they are a pointless waste of time other than a bit of pondering when you first encounter them.
Welcome to philosophy. This isn't science we're talking about here. The unfalsifiable part of it is actually the key to the skeptic's argument. You CAN'T prove otherwise, so how can you really know?
Adam X It's an interesting idea when you first come across it, but after a bit of thought it becomes obvious that there's no way of knowing, so it's completely pointless to consider in any serious context.
"...but after a bit of thought it becomes obvious that there's no way of knowing..." This is exactly why the skeptics bring up the argument though. Since you cannot know that you're not in a jar, can you really know anything for sure? They argue that you can reasonably doubt any belief you hold, therefore you don't really "know" anything. Now, if you don't care about epistemology at all, then you're free to run along and call it all a pointless waste of time. I was assuming you cared about philosophy though, at least a little bit, due to the fact that you clicked on the video.
That's the difference between science and philosophy; science studies the world while philosophy studies ideas. Even if you may not think it; the brain-in-a-jar hypotheses is an important one because it can create basis how a person thinks about the world. This may seem to stupid to somebody whom completely trusts in empirical information (like you if I'm not entirely mistaken) but it's just how it is because every person has their own way of looking at the world. For example I believe that a human can never know anything simply because a human cannot gain objective information about the world. While it may not be important for my everyday life it does shape how I think about the world as a whole in very fundamental level and forms basis to my every assumption about the world.
Adam X I care deeply about truth. The universe is a fascinating place, full of wonder and mystery, and we are on a journey of discovery. Knowledge, such as it is, has increased exponentially over the last few centuries. Never have we known so much as we do now; and in all likelihood, what we know now will appear infantile to our descendants. No, we can never "know" anything with absolute certainty. Absolute knowledge only exists in mythology and has no relevance to reality; but in our imperfect world, knowing sufficiently to advance human experience is good enough, and is the basis of all progress. Epistemology is not about the mental onanism of "thought for thought's sake" it is about how we use logic and reason to increase our knowledge of the universe in which we find ourselves. If you want to waste your life pondering the unfalsifiable, that's your prerogative; but you will achieve nothing in so doing, and advance human knowledge not a jot.
Well, yes and no. You do always wake up from dreams (at least we assume this), allowing yourself to compare it to the awake-state (thus, coming up with many differences I guess). But this is only possible if you wake up, which is the skeptical question you should not have an answer for.
Not the type of skepticism that I expected, this kind doubts of absolutely everything, and there's no point on doing that, on the other hand, skepticism has led to the most amazing scientific discoveries, that's the kind of skepticism I expected to be analyzed
I understand the arguments for skepticism.. But I honestly think it's a bit dishonest to maintain that position.. I --know-- that I'm not dreaming while writing this comment. No amount of arguments against this knowledge can persuade me against my conviction. And behold! I am right, and I know I am right. There you sit, reading my comment -- conforming the reality of my waking life. Reality is coherent and shared. Skepticism is healthy in small doses... It is important to question your beliefs. But "sapere aude!" my brothers and sisters! We do know a thing or two - some of us many things. Even controversial matters, have pretty clear cut answers, which it is possible to arrive at with honestly and reasoning. There is no god, no after life and you are not a brain in a vat! You are real! But only for a while.. So have the courage to KNOW, while you can!
I mean I don't mean to challenge your lovely inspirational speech and all so if you don't want to debate it I will be cool with that. like there are seriously enough people on here to talk to about this and I don't want to ruin a beautiful sentiment like this by debating it but I am just like really debate hungry right now and am looking for anyone and everyone with a differing opinion from mine for me to converse with
oh and just fyi I promise my last comment was completely sincere and not at all sarcastic in the least and neither is this one I seriously mean that I don't want to step on your beliefs if you don't want to debate them :)
Cletus Kassady are you a solipsist? Strange... You're a rare breed :P I know our reality is shared because there are other people here who can confirm that for me. you just confirmed it by replying to my comment.
Cletus Kassady you're welcome to disagree with me, or try to persuade me to think otherwise. But I can tell you right now, I am too sure to not use the word "knowledge" and I am right too often to be doubtful.
Is not that ambiguous. Scientific method serves to avoid misjudgments. Of course, not everything can be tested methodologically, though. So we can survive by only testing the most important believes…
Sooooo let me try and summarize this. If I am subject to conditions I am unable to determine, how would I go about determining them and what kind of conclusions could I draw from that and how would that affect my life.? Isn't that a exercise in futility???
Now imagine that the computer supplying your body and brain with sensory input is actually your brain... Which it is, and that it can be imperfect, which it is. Other than that I always wonder at the energy some philosophers put into this question which, by definition, cannot be answered and yet is not really contested by anyone. I would love to see philosophical videos on the actual real world applications of the debate, such as the implications for jury trials in much less extreme instances than the ones given.
The point of the video is that you should ( when you are able to ) be aware of how the world is presented to you and that in fact, everything you know; or think to know; can be generated by an external source. Telling us how important it is to always ALWAYS try and find different points of view.
In human experience knowledge is like multifaceted jigsaw puzzle piece that fits the experience (conscious and unconscious). Dreams lack that strong empirical consistency. For example, gravity in my dreams is a murky concept, loosely based on my "real" world experience. Also dreams like chronological consistency: if my "real" world is a dream and my dreaming is the real one, then there should be a chronological consistency in what I dream today in relation to what I dreamed yesterday. In the real world there is a strong consistency: what I did yesterday has strong implication for events that I experience today.
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Three Responses to Skepticism [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xehTcQeqDWs/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Three Responses to Skepticism [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Emo Philips: “I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.”
@Yokai369 The brain
What brain?
The hormones that are released from physical sensations cause your brain to make up stories.
BUT... Who was it telling?
Where's my soul located? Next to my clavicle?
In philosophy class I learned just enough to screw me up for the rest of my life.
-Steve Martin
Your logic mind can't handle it.
@@marcia8789 Yeah, I found the secret to fitting in when I finally gave up on that logic stuff, doing a lot better now, nearly normal after only 30 years of therapy.
@@marcia8789 How are you doing now?? And could you explain more of what u mean by your comment?
🤣
I'm not sure if doubt really exists.
I assume that being skeptical means I'll never make an ass of myself.
so your starting to doubt if doubt really exists
Doubt is merely belief in the negative.
Horatio Trismegistus I doubt it.
@@Gdude899 that is rejection
00:20 The problem of skepticism... what do you really know? Are you dreaming?
00:50 Ancient Greece has two great skeptical traditions: Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonian Skepticism.
01:05 Academic Skeptics argued that sensory perceptions don't actually enable you to know anything. Knowledge of the world is impossible for humans. For example, perhaps you are dreaming or perhaps your sensory organs have fooled you.
01:54 Pyrrhonian Skeptics went one step further. They continued inquiring everything without reaching any conclusions at all. Even the question of knowledge itself was left open.
02:25 The dreaming argument. How do you know you're not dreaming?
03:02 Rene Descartes suggested that even if you are dreaming, you should still be able to know a square has 4 sides. But Descartes even questioned that. It simply "feels" right.
03:40 Descartes formulated an "evil demon"/"evil genius" argument where an evil genius is fooling your sense perceptions and even basic things like your mathematical intuitions.
04:40 The "brain in a vat" argument illustrates a brain that is controlled by a supercomputer that generates simulated experiences.
06:03 Typical skeptics don't actually argue that you are a brain in a vat. For them, the possibility of the scenario is problematic enough in itself.
07:08 These 3 arguments: “Dreaming Argument”, “Evil Genius”, and “Brain-in-a-vat” are known as “Global Skeptical Scenarios”. The raise doubts about virtually everything.
07:15 Skepticism doesn’t have to be global. It can be local skepticism as well.
07:27 For example, you can worry about your knowledge of the past.
07:56 Single fact skepticism can be about particular knowledge. For example, a quick glance at the clock may not be enough to determine if the clock was actually working when the time was read. Does this person _really_ know? What is the probability of error?
😍😍 thanks for making a written notes on it with actual timing of it.😍😍
I don't care if I'm in a dream, a brain in a vat, or a simulation. It doesn't matter. I'm dealing with whatever the situation is, and to me it's a waste of time pondering things in this way when there is so much more to ponder. Right now, I have to go feed my dream-children, or dream-social services will take them away.
You should have been a dream antinatalist.
U r right.....👍
What if you just let them be taken :3
Incredible rare to think like that. Perfectly right.
A reality stabilizer
All this skepticism and solipsism is not a problem.
It just means that all our conclusions are dependent on assumptions, or "known" within a proposed context.
If I'm a brain in a vat, then all my interactions and experiences are made with this rich delusional world, within this delusional world and talk about this delusional world. It's the only world I have, the only context I have, and so anything outside the context is irrelevant to even talk about. Luckily, this world has some internal consistency, enough to be functional and allow useful predictions.
Yes! Consistency and reliability, it seems to me, must be the basis of "knowledge." Arguing that we cannot know anything absolutely is to miss the point. Why must knowledge be absolute? It seems then that an appeal to a lack of absolute certainty is a red herring. There is always a degree of doubt to anything we say we know. But that doesn't disqualify it as functional knowledge. What matters is that our model of understanding (knowledge) allows us to make accurate predictions. Since it does, that means our understanding is consistent with our systematic observations of our experiences. If that base assumption is a lie, it doesn't matter. Our understanding is still consistent and reliable WITHIN the lie. Ergo, the question of whether or not our reality is a lie is irrelevant to thoughts and experiences within the lie.
but what if there isn't even a world to gather context from and any perceived context you think you have doesn't actually exist? forget the whole brain in a vat hypothesis we need to prove that existence is possible before we can even conclude that being deceived is possible and honestly there could be some unknown variable that it outside of our comprehension that means none of us even exist right now even though it seems so obvious that we do
Robert Stuckey
However, the nature of what I am could be illusory. My memories could be artificially implanted, my senses controlled by some force into experiencing what it wants me to experience.
Perhaps the only thing that's *definitely* not illusory is my consciousness and subjectivity.
But even if we assume this is all an illusory framework, I'm having a discussion. Those who I am discussing with would also be illusory, but ultimately, who gives a fuck? ;D ... The discussion is about this illusory framework anyway, because it's the only thing worth discussing. We can't talk about universes for we have no knowledge or experience. All we have is this "illusion", so (illusion or not) it is the only reality that counts.
So all those who push doubt about existence and reality are just denying the very context of the discussion (of any discussion really). They're committing a verbal murder-suicide: if their point is conceded, the discussion becomes worthless, and they can go away & let the grownups talk.
It does ultimately seem like a moot point, but some critics of Descartes go even further and say that the only thing that can be known for sure is that thoughts are occurring. We cannot even say for sure those thoughts are actually integrated into a self. Again, seems like a moot point, but interesting none the less.
Robert Stuckey however "I think therefore I am" may not actually be as definitive as it appears. for example what if you were a figment of a higher being's imagination? then you would be "thinking" in the sense that you would have thoughts but it would all be because that higher being was imagining that you had those thoughts and you wouldn't actually exist. then the statement "I think therefore I am" could be false and you would not even be able to prove your own existence to yourself.
Absolute skepticism eventually leads to insanity. It's a path you definitely don't want to tred.
I'm trying but damn is it fucking hard. I don't want to go insane tho 😔😔I wish I could just stop thinking of this shit...
agreed, i didnt choose to come here, i came to this video while searching for arguments against skepticism so i dont go insane but it isnt helping
@@thatgirlray2765Actually there Is no argument against skepticism itself. Allthought we can easly demostrate that skepticism for it's "selfcontained infite" Is as much pointless as much it's bottomless after a certain point.
Now to tell where that point could actually be Is something hardly demostrable without some assumptions... And saddly assumptions are not so friendly skepticism.
But... On a personal level i find usefull to keep always both path as valuable and so coherently immagine two solution for any given problem up to the limit that the skeptical or the beliver side won't find themselves completly usless.
Let take as an example color perception. There Is no way to be sure the mental immages we create of a color is the same of another person, yet we can quite confidently recognize the same shade with the same name and we percive the same spectrum of contrast (complementary colours). Hence there is no need for further skepticism if all what we are aiming for is to agree on a description.
Now let's talk about God. If we are talking about a being outside our reality omniscient and omnipotent there is no way to demostrate it's existence or negate it. Obviously from a phylosophycal standing point, set aside for a ma moment the possible sociological, psychological motivations, and anyway that's about how a deity can be used/served by a religious organization.
Now from a practical point of view there Is totally no difference if it exist or not even from a "final judgment" standing point. If it's really allknowing acting good just in fear of him won't help nor would hurt acting as a respectable living being even if you don't think about it's judgment (seem even better). Ofc this last part imply a logical diety and not an heavly emotionally driven one. If you live in Warhammer 40k universe i'm sorry that all that reasoning does not apply...😂
@@thatgirlray2765did you get over it and how ?
Why? The pyrrhonians themselves said that it brought about a total peace of mind. Because why bother worrying endlessly about something that you don't even know? Why not just suspend judgment and go about your day, take life one step at a time?
"To doubt doubt is to doubt"- Rene Decartes
Is to think without doubt a good thing? I am aware that to lack doubt is to think imperfectly and fallibly. We even have words for this: naivety and gullibility (both of which are relatively good to establish a strong society with minimal in-fighting). So is to think always doubtful and doubtful about doubtfulness a good thing? Neither is likely to be practical. Although lies can be practical, including lies we tell ourselves. Lies can also be detrimental, even if we tell them only to others. A good understanding of a good balance upon correct context is always important.
tru
Or you reject doubt
while I can appreciate this video for what it is, that type of extreme skepticism doesn't do anyone any good. all it will ultimately do is drive you insane. for the sake of sanity, one has to believe that one's own experiences are real and hold meaning and value, at least for the individual. if you can see, touch, smell, hear, taste, or sense something, you can conclude that it exists on some level, simply because if you assumed it didn't, you would be in denial.
I always find it interesting people hold this position. Are you afraid of it?
Imagine you are suffering a mind problem, maybe schizophrenia. You are hearing voices all the time and they give you some advises. Do you really think it is real and healthy to think that it is real? Consider it as a third way to express the same scenario.
@@Thighweaver afraid of what?
@@husamwadi2635 not ever knowing anything is certain, the old adage "afraid of the unknown".
@@Thighweaver if anything was certain, you wouldn't have any sort of autonomy over your decision.
Freedom of choice is to have uncertainty.
What if the evil genius is also questioning his existence
Lol that's is a good one.
aw poor guy
😂
He's a genius, so obviously he's blinded to his epistemic tendencies.
Gibberish
this is a paradox similar to the raven paradox.
when you look at it logically, it doesn't actually matter whether you are a jarred brain or not. the experience and stimuli before you is simply as real as you perceive it.
This is exactly the kind of video a brain in a vat would dream up.
Finally found out what I love in life it's philosophy
such a calming voice. I wonder how her lectures are, very calming and chill unlike my philosophy professor, who seems to have more energy than a 5 year old, but very entertaining.
6 years late, but i'm a student of hers and her lectures are wonderful 👍 she's funny, engaging, explains things easily, and even learns our names (in a class with hundreds of people)
the thing about memories is a trip, even from a psychological standpoint, memories are extremely unstable, and people can create memories and believe that they really happened, or just completely miss things that actually did happen
@5:40 "or being home alone watching videos about philosophical topics." I'm not alone, I have you guys! Right? RIGHT?
Everyone online is a bot except you
@5:50
Even under the most ideal conditions, *you are still a brain in a vat.* Only instead of a "vat," we just call it a "skull." You cannot solve the problem of skepticism because it cannot be solved. Sense data is all there is, and the problem doesn't go away, no matter what you do. Ergo, synthetic knowledge about the external world is impossible to obtain with any kind of perfect certainty. Just embrace it already and move on.
Well said! The problem of skepticism is so perfectly insoluble it's rather like a tautology, curious to examine but ultimately meaningless and now it's time to move on... If I'm in a vat, a computer, a dream or the 'real world', I have to deal with it, whatever it is.
+AntiCitizenX "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us"
It doesn't matter if you're a brain-in-a-vat or a butterfly's dream, make the most of the world you're experiencing
+AntiCitizenX Yes, now what does that say about our ability to grasp truth?
+AntiCitizenX Why move on when we can practice our mental gymnastics?
+AntiCitizenX The sense datum view may seem obvious but it has serious flaws and demands argumentation. In fact, it's almost certainly false.
(I'm not saying certainty or knowledge is possible, I don't think there is any sense of "knowledge" that is absolute.)
Does knowledge have to be absolutely perfect and certain in order to qualify as "knowledge?"
+AntiCitizenX Judging by the first video I think the series is moving towards the idea of knowledge as justified, true belief. Certainty doesn't have to be a requirement for justification as long as it can provide a sufficient rationale to support a particular belief, and sense data can potentially be justification in this sense.
It seems to me that the global skepticism thought experiments hinge more on what's true, since one could potentially have justification (depending on what counts as justification) for believing that there is an external world given the parameters of the thought experiments even if this is not the case. And these thought experiments largely seem to be working off a correspondence theory of truth. So if one doesn't accept correspondence theory in favor of, say, the coherence or pragmatic theories these thought experiments become moot as far as knowledge is concerned. I'm curious what the proposed solutions are going to be in the next video and whether they relate to how one conceives of truth.
Dalton Tonga
I'm actually heavily biased towards pragmatism. Correspondence theory has a lot of problems.
+AntiCitizenX Whats perfect knowledge? Asking whats perfect knowledge is like asking whats the perfect thing?, Think about what knowledge is and does.
hujiko44745278184
Perfect knowledge. A belief that is justified and true. We can also condition it with perfect certainty, in that it is known "for sure," and cannot possibly be wrong.
+AntiCitizenX I would say of course not. That would mean no one would have any knowledge. I believe the solution to the problem of skepticism is to have "properly basic beliefs". This is just based on my limited but growing knowledge of philosophy. There's so much to learn in philosophy and I often feel like I haven't scratched the surface. You must have taken a class knowing your videos.
To say knowledge is impossible is incoherent since you are claiming to KNOW that knowledge is impossible. Get it?
You thought that was really clever, didn't you. You're confusing two notions of knowledge.
+Stefan Travis it applies equally to every type of knowledge.
+Gavlick Apthesycerski prove it
+Gavlick Apthesycerski the problem of skepticism in this video is that it is counterintuitive and ignorant
The7thm-age Try learning what words mean before using them.
One thing that permanently changed my mind is that I was so high I couldn’t tell if I was recalling a memory or creating a story. This helped me realize the finite nature of my brain all too well
Thank you so much for this video. I had always asked myself those questions in the video and thought I was being crazy for questioning my existence. This video really helped me.
Oh, your still crazy.
@@ericmadeoftin8206 xd
Helped you in what way? Confirming that you are not crazy or that it's a good thing to question your own existence? If you do that, then yes you are CRAZY.
Before I awoke
I was dreaming.
A dream that was beautiful.
A dream that was frightful.
Before I was dreaming...
I do not know.
But I never dreamed that I was dreaming.
we are a brain in vat. we call the vat a skull.
Clifford Wolfenstein shut up islam
But the MIND is very different- completely about frequencies.
Don't let them control your mind!!
Thank god I met someone with my same idea. Hello brother ahah
Lol
Thank you so much for making this channel and PARTICULARALY, the epistemology playlist. We need it in our world now more than ever
batman, you don't need epistemology, you need to do your job and not let people die, get to work
Hi, I don't trust you. Because my being SKEPTICAL about things is a learned response, a survival mechanism, I've acquired in life to keep the wolves of society from my door, my brain, and my wallet. Nothing personal. But I have NO DOUBT that I'm going to enjoy this place and all its wonders now that I'm here. I'll clean my feet on the welcome mat as I enter the closed door behind me.
It's hard to do anything with this without a definition of the word knowledge.
+bg6b7bft Cf. Plato's Meno.
that is what I said in Philosophy class. this being why I have an Anthropology degree...
They cannot define knowledge because they presupposed being a nothing.
Simulation theory isn’t as profound as I first thought.
This area is always fun to think about. I am happy to know that no one knows more than I do about anything.
Knowledge =/= certainty.
There are catastrophic consequences for non-certain foundations for knowledge. The new evil demon problem has demonstrated this thoroughly.
This is best video on skepticism, dissonance and psychology
Once, maybe 20 years ago, I had taken a substantial amount of LSD and had been riding my bike around the city for some time. This was before the day of cell phones and I didn't have a watch so I decided to find out what time it was by going to a building that had been known to me to have a clock. When I arrived there, I saw the markings for the clock but I couldn't see the hands. I spent a good bit of time looking at the clock and trying to figure out whether the hands really weren't there or whether I wasn't seeing them because of the LSD I had taken. I had a total existential crisis but, essentially, that is what LSD is for.
Did you recover from your existential crisis?
All I know, is that if you are having ANY difficulty determining whether or not you're dreaming while actually awake - NO amount of epistemological musing is ever likely to provide you with a useful answer.
no amount of anything will provide an answer because knowledge is uncertain
Cletus Kassady Yes, I fully understand and appreciate the " problem" of hard solipsism (thank you very much) - but, I was just poking a bit of fun at the particular way that they initially framed that little philosophical chestnut. All I was getting at was that there is (or at least: should be) a rather large difference in the anwer you arrive at when you ask yourself the question: "Am I dreaming?" while actually awake as opposed to asking the same while in the midst of a dream. If you doubt me, get in the habit of asking that question on a regular basis - the likelihood that you will ask it of yourself while dreaming will increase appreciably, and you just might find yourself rather impressed at how easy it is to determine which state you happen to be in.
***** oh yeah well of course hard solipsism is one thing I mean even there at least one universal truth is accepted and that is "cogito ergo sum" "I think therefore I am" however I'm a hard skeptic I believe that no knowledge is certain even the fact that no knowledge is certain. essentially I just make it my goal to doubt everything even things that appear undoubtable to us such as our own existence we cant actually prove that we even exist much less are dreaming. now that I've finished my little side rant about the differences between radical skepticism and radical solipsism I completely understand what you're saying and given that context it makes sense
Gullibility, faith, blind trust is the antithesis of skepticism.
Descartes also said "I think, therefore I am" which I believe was the only thing he ever took for knowledge. Thus, reality must, in whatever shape, color or form, exist.butterfly or not.
He actually never said that. He said in two difference sentences the statements "I am", which he then concluded in the bodily sense (in the next sentence) "I exist". The later coming discussion used s the famous phrase we know it now days "Cogito ergo sum" which is a short version of Descartes' argument.
How is this made? Drawn and written with computer and then added a hand that seemingly writes and draws it? Is there some specific software that makes this stuff easy? White board with post coloring and clipart?
have you ever woken up and walked around your room and then woken up again and starting to walk around your room only to wake up again and start walking around in your room only to wake up again...
Great video ! All the logic is right to me, taking into account that in all this there is an underlaying assumption of that knowledge comes ONLY comes from an objective experience. This logic does not take into account that knowledge (perfect or not) could also come to each one of us from subjective experience. Thanks for sharing !
Love this subject. Very well done video. The Problem of Skepticism ties directly into my definition of truth.
Imma watch this tonight before bed. Ill fall asleep in record time
I love scepticism, but it should be thought of as ridiculous as a general consensus... I think it should be used as a tool to keep one humble in there day to day life, to keep one listening and learning everything they can, because everything we have learnt previously, could turn out to be false to some degree
Without skepticism the entire world would be mislead by the selfish wants, hallucinations, and fallacious beliefs of other men. A life without critique is not one worth living.
Another way that Alice can be wrong about the time is that if the clock is working fine but its setting is one hour late or one hour advanced.
As in a different time zone, for example. Everything is relative, isn't it ?
"I think therefore I am," Keeps me grounded.
It does not logically follow from the fact that you think that you exist.
Further, if your existence is in question, does it make sense to use the word “I”? Otherwise, “I think therefore I am” just an example of begging the question?
Well, yes, but raising those questions generally require more assumptions.
In the evil genius scenario, I must come to accept that such a powerful machine could be controlled by an abstract sentience just to manipulate me, and in the super-computer scenario I must assume that the entirety of the universe is a simulation and that my brain is in a vat experiencing a rendered universe. In nearly all of these cases, it requires more belief to come to the conclusion that my brain is indeed in a vat, whereas it requires not nearly as many assumptions and beliefs to believe that I am a human brain residing in a human body in a seemingly physical world.
Also, why is the brain in a vat the "bad case". The brain in the vat's existence could be safer than in the good case. And even if one were to go further, and suggest that you and I and everybody else is also simulated, and that all of our experiences and consciousness and physical reality are virtual, then what makes that experience any less valid than the current reality we experience. Why is the "Matrix" scenario so bad? Even if we were to somehow "wake up" in the reality which houses the supercomputer which simulates all of human experience, who is to say that this other reality is any more real? Couldn't it, too, be housed in a supercomputer? What if our universe is a hologram on a black hole that exists in some other universe? Does that make this cosmos any less real? Why is a natural virtual universe so different from an artificial virtual universe?
At some point, we all must stowaway these questions because we do not have enough information to prove or disprove any of it, but instead, we must simply choose the most likely realities and use those as a standard model. I won't believe that the universe came into existence at the time this video claims to have been uploaded because that would require the assumptions that all of the universe, fossils, all of my memories, and so on, all randomly came into existence several hours ago. These assumptions are more elaborate and unlikely explanations for the universe, and simply require more assumptions than for me to just accept the standard model as a most likely reality. A true skeptic would scoff, and dismiss this under the pretenses that we still can't know that the standard model isn't somehow a fabrication, and although this is true, I still think it is a likelihood that I would rather not concern myself with.
+Zachary Katko We can't prove that we're not in a vat, and they can't prove that we are in a vat, so the whole discussion feels pointless. It's the same story with religion, what if there is a god? - None has enough evidence on either side to prove the other wrong. To battle this we should ask ourselves the question: what is most probable? The most likely theories are the ones that you can scientifically prove and don't require a lot of assumptions.
Also, as you pointed out, does it even matter if we're a brain in a vat? Do we truly get smarter by bringing this topic up? I think not. At the end of the day we will still live our lives and experience life in the same manner regardless if we're in a vat or not. Even if we know for certain that we're in a vat, would we really change the way we live our lives?
+algot34 "We can't prove that we're not in a vat, and they can't prove that we are in a vat, so the whole discussion feels pointless."
Who is trying to prove that we are in a vat? Some people may dogmatically insist that we're not in vats, but I've never heard of anyone trying to prove that we are actually in vats.
Skeptics are saying exactly what you are: there's no way to know whether we're in vats or not, so the whole question is pointless. It's a recognition that we can always be wrong about almost anything.
+Ansatz66 I do see that the scepteists are trying to prove that we can never truly be sure about our knowledge. But as I stated in my first comment I don't think that conclusion will do us any good. Even if we can never be sure about anything, we have to stick with what we got, because that's all we have. The discussion is pointless in the sense that we won't get anywhere if we question everything. At some point we just have to let go.
algot34 "The discussion is pointless in the sense that we won't get anywhere if we question everything."
On the contrary, questioning everything is the best way to get places. People are far too trusting by nature in a world where we've been given intuitions that are so often wrong. The whole reason that science has been so productive is it's based on a principle of testing ideas while everyone else is busy trusting whatever they're told.
When we examine almost any idea we quickly discover that it could be wrong. The only alternative is to not examine our ideas, and that is the road of credulity and ignorance. Credulity and ignorance won't get us anywhere.
+Ansatz66 You're right in the regard that we can only grow by challenging ourselves and our reality. However, questioning that of which can't be answered is not efficient for our development. Relying on our experiences and scientific methods is something that I'd much rather be doing than scientifically unsupported skeptic thought experiments.
This doesn't sound like scepticism, so much as solipsism.
Also, with regard to the butterfly part, I couldn't help remembering this from Thief of Time:
‘The poet Hoha once dreamed he was a butterfly, and then he awoke and said, “Am I a man who dreamed he was a butterfly or am I a butterfly dreaming he is a man?”’ said Lobsang, trying to join in.
‘Really?’ said Susan briskly. ‘And which was he?’
‘What? Well…who knows?’
‘How did he write his poems?’ said Susan.
‘With a brush, of course.’
‘He didn’t flap around making information-rich patterns in the air or laying eggs on cabbage leaves?’
‘No one ever mentioned it.’
‘Then he was probably a man,’ said Susan.
thank you someone who understands the difference ;)
Perhaps solipsism is simply extreme skepticism, but point well taken.
Melinda Green no, no they are not the same things. the difference is that in solipsism you believe that you can't know anything outside oneself but extreme skepticism is the belief that you can't know anything period.
the brain in the vat hypothesis is a solipsistic viewpoint because even if your entire world is a simulation it still seems apparent that you exist because you are able to experience the world real or fake so to sum up the atmosphere of solipsism just think of the quote "I think therefore I am"
however extreme skeptics such as myself believe that even this cannot be known for sure because there could be some unknown or incomprehensible variable that we don't know that would turn everything and I mean EVERYTHING we think we know on it's head. this means that all knowledge is uncertain including our own existence. so to sum up the mood of extreme skepticism think of the phrase "nothing can be known for certain, even the fact that nothing can be known for certain"
Cletus Kassady
That sounds like it's bordering on a distinction without a difference. I mean if that difference is meaningful to you, I'll give it to you but I don't see how it matters.
Melinda Green the difference is one claims only the self can be known the other says nothing can be known.
The math-based part of this is total BS, because math is definitional, not observational. 2+3=5 not because of any intuition or observation, but because of how we define '2', '3', '+', '=', and '5'.
+Chris Warren yet the same is also true of language... whether or not 'blind men can see' is true and or sensible (or 'blind men can see' = 'true' for instance) hinges entirely on how you define the given concepts: 'blind', 'men', 'can', 'see', ('is',) 'true'.
Certainly true of language as a purely symbolic system, but doesn't really hold when one starts mapping language elements to aspects of the world outside language. Math is self-contained - it doesn't have any existence beyond its axioms.
Chris Warren you want to elaborate on what you mean by "[it] doesn't really hold when one starts mapping language elements to aspects of the world outside language"?
there is very little difference--so little difference that the difference is insignificant--between mathematics and written/spoken languages.
Language is inherently external to an entity - it references and/or communicates with things other than the entity. Math is purely internal - it has no connection to anything outside the entity.
Chris Warren "language is external to an entity", what does that mean?!?!!!
i'm going to assume i understand what that statement means, and even so it's still false. people communicate with themselves, in their head, with the use of language. there in fact aren't things such as unicorns and dragons that are "external to an entity" in the physical world.
This video really helped me understand about the issue of skepticism in philosophy. Thanks for sharing!
@1:50
If academic skepticism is taken to be true, wouldn't the statement 'Knowledge is impossible' be knowledge?
Yes, these are knowledges
"knowledge about the universe is humanly impossible"
"i think therefore I am is the only piece of knowledge we have"
These are all knowledges
Rhino ZR If you’re existence is in question does it make sense to you the noun “I”? Does thinking imply a thinking? How can we be more certain of that proposition than 2+2?
Rhino ZR Cartesian/academic skepticism, doesn’t go nearly as far as Pyrrhonian skepticism. Descartes was too scared to question logic itself.
Pov : your here from " typing skepticism is like playing ping pong with your keyboard "
Literally just clicked this video because of that Lmao
There is a case that has always kept me thinking. It relates to the hypotheses presented in this video about the uncertainty in knowledge.
If you have a yellow ball, and you ask your friend what color the ball is, of course, your friend's answer will be yellow. But what makes you certain that your friend observes yellow the same way you do? In other words, what proof dismisses the fact that every brain there is observes yellow differently and just calls it yellow?
In general, I think philosophy naturally tries to dodge the existence of reality through basing the concepts of all it's theories and paradoxes on the brain, which is only an obseving machine, it by no means qualifies to give definitive proof for anything. The brain is limited, and here's how this can affect misconception of reality.
If you imagine a universe big enough to be considered limitless, your brain must create boundaries to determine right and wrong, the brain can't perceive or understand limitlessness. Here's the catch, if one brain decides to draw a square that positions earth at the top left corner, and another brain positions earth at the lower right corner, then where is earth really? The answer is earth is where earth is, until we decide to put squares around, until awareness and consciousness observes it. And this is why the brain is not reliable to tell actual right from actual wrong, I believe only God is.
This video is comprised of questions that I raised for myself when I was 10 and discounted as pointless...
Dreams can almost always be distinguished from reality, even if you are lucid.
Scepticism is not the negation of knowledge. It is simply the statement that absolute truth is not achievable.
To all those who refuse to see this as a problem, or believe skepticism is irrelevant, just know I'd rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
"Men educated in [the critical habit of thoughts] are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens.”
― William Graham Sumner
Nice Videos! I was very happy to see, that you're an actual philosopher. To educate is your duty, isn't it? :) There should be more scientist, who use a yt-channel to spread their message. Especially when it's done so well.
Haven't gotten through the full video yet, but it seems like what this is getting at is that a skeptic requires absolute certainty for knowledge.
But none of the famous skeptics i'm a fan of reading and listening to ever required absolute certainty for knowledge.
i just wanna say , im so lucky that i watch your video, i learn so much within 8 minutes, !!
How would one go about proving that we are not a brain in a vat? Can it even be done? If not, then whether we are in a vat or not is completely irrelevant, since a Universe in which I am in a vat and a Universe in which I am not are functionally identical. At some point, the line between illusion and reality just disappears.
I would like to argue that axiomatic conclusions such as 2 + 3 = 5 cannot be doubted, as they are reached by reasoning and reasoning alone.
Reasoning ? But you can doubt reasoning as how do u know the rules of logic is true maybe there is an evil genius decieving you to believe that ur logic rules are true
Even if I'm a brain in a vat with simulated hands, I still have hands. They may be virtual but they're still a part of "me".
actually no... you dont get it bush. The video argues that there is "true knowledge" as in knowledge that is universal and part of actual reality. For example, in reality, you are a brain in a vat. However i argue that this definition of "knowledge" is, is incorrect to begin with. I define knowledge as whatever you make it, and is thus rather more flexible. This is simply due to the logical reasoning that its the only form of "knowledge" that matters. Because its the only form of knowledge that you "know".
Therefore knowledge should rather be defined as whatever you "know", whether it is part of universal knowledge or not.
Therefore even if a brain is in a vat and has simulated hands, the brains "knowledge" is that it has hands.
+darthjefory actually I think you're confusing the definition of knowledge with belief because by your definition of knowledge someone can know that a God exists without any evidence
Cletus Kassady
All things "known" are beliefs but they vary in certainty. Knowledge is information organized, and some knowledge is simply wrong. IE information poorly organized.
I mean I believe that a god exists but I cannot KNOW that a god exists just like we all can believe everything is real we can never KNOW that
Cletus Kassady
Absolute and correct certainty is not the definition of knowledge. Look it up.
I love this kind of discussion...epistemological queries. I have studied closely many philosophical works,and continue to enjoy
some of them.However,from Kant to Whitehead to Wittgenstein I note that the feelings of desire and fear of loss - as reality/
identity markers - are conveniently ignored,as are discussions of the role of consequence in general.
Just try convincing a loanshark that the money you owe is a figment of his imagination...My point is that what we perceive
in the world around us is best understood as a ubiquitous matrix of consequence - a landscape full of potholes and sudden steep cliffs.The intellectualized skepticism
of philosophy,though an entertaining brain tease,will never DIRECTLY help humankind in its day to day struggle.
Knowledge is not more important than having a valid reason to believe in something.
So it's belief afterall. Not absolute certainty
When will this scribbling hand slide thing end? Is there a way to turn it off?
Okay, i humbly submit: all skepticism breaks down at the very moment you crack you toe against a hard object in the dead of night on the way to the bathroom...
"I refute the Bishop Berkeley thus!"
I'm skeptical that the clock was displaying the correct time when you cracked your toe.
Wait... that didn't break down.....
OK.
Your toe does not exist, but your subconscious mind remembered there was an object in the place you believe your toe to be, and generates a signal of pain to your conscious mind. The darkness means you do not consciously remember the hard object being there, but your subconscious mind does.
Wait... that didn't break down either.....hmmmmmm....
You do not exist, and neither do I. we and our comments on this video are just figments of the imagination of some other being, who DOES exist and is currently reading the comments section of this video.
..........I'm sorry I can not find a single piece of Skepticism your cracked toe breaks......Better luck next time!
LMAO! Well rebutted, to be sure! Thank you for brightening my day.
For everyday life, it is more important to know if something is consistent within context: to spot anomalies. Than it is to know if something is real.
Everything around me is real to me
Just assume you are in the "good case"! Even if we are the" bad case", the ´knowledge´ (or the illusion of knowledge) we have is useful to us in the world we are experiencing. Thinking otherwise seem pointless to me.
+Andrés Felipe Higuera Skeptics don't disagree with that.
the thing about the dream, vate, and evil scenario is that you still know truths about the world you've been fooled into being a part of. so i can say that without a doubt that where i'm at, whether i'm in bed or hooked up to a computer, i am typing this paragraph.
No you're not.
Ed Smelly well don't you like disagreeing. it's almost as if you learned something from this video.
There is no spoon.
actually you cannot claim know with 100% certainty that you are typing that paragraph and there might not be such a thing as universal truths. for example lets say you believe you typed that paragraph when really you just found it already typed out and had false memories of typing it?
Cletus Kassady then i would know that i have that memory (fake or not)
Like a moron I was gonna say: "Brilliant. We also studied your father's works at college..." but I held my tongue back.
This definition of knowledge is silly. What if my whole life is just a dream? What if we're all plugged into the Matrix? What if monkeys fly out of my butt? What if God is real? What if any number of alternate realities are the case and I am not only blind to them, but am experiencing a false reality, as well? (None of these follow Occam's razor, btw)
If your definition of knowledge is one requires absolute certainty, then fine, I concede that it's impossible to know anything. But that approach is not helpful when applied to real life, and thus is totally useless. This definition of knowledge has no meaning.
Another definition of knowledge, one that requires demonstrable evidence rather than 100% absolute certainty and allows for improvement (such as the scientific method), has shown to be much more useful to us. Following the evidence will always be more likely to lead us to the correct answer, even if we can't know with 100% absolute certainty that we've actually arrived there.
ok so even though you cant know that evidence exists you still believe that it is a reliable source of information and are willing to follow it down the rabbit hole? that makes perfect sense have fun with being potentially wrong ;)
+Cletus Kassady
Interesting. So can you truthfully say that you actually believe in your own position? I highly doubt it, and I'll prove it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you regularly participate in most or all of the following things;
You go to work.
You pay taxes and bills.
You maintain hygiene.
You obey rules and laws.
You adhere to social norms.
You believe your parents are your parents (and not imposters/robots/aliens/etc).
You maintain relationships with friends/family.
You mourn the death of loved ones.
You care about certain political issues and current events.
You assumed I exist by responding to my comment with your own opinion...using a device that was developed using science, which outwardly rejects the notion that absolute certainty is necessary to advance our knowledge and understanding of the world and universe.
(continued in next comment...)
+Cletus Kassady
(...continued)
You do all the things that inherently and necessarily requires the assumption that your perceived reality really is as it seems, and that your actions have predictable consequences. If, as you suggested, you truly cannot trust your own experience of reality with any degree of certainty, then why conform to the inconvenience of work and responsibilities? Why not just do only the things you want? If every conceivable scenario of reality is as equally likely to be the one true reality as the reality you experience (remember, you can't know anything and any evidence means nothing), then you can't trust friends or family. They could just as likely be robots or aliens or the matrix or figments of your imagination. They could just as likely be plotting to kill you as plotting how to celebrate your next birthday. Who can say? It's 50/50, right? Why take that chance of even continuing to associate with them? Your life is in danger! Run!
+Cletus Kassady
Cletus, the only rabbit hole around here is the one labeled 'Solipsism," and you're standing right in it. When you argue that a scenario supported by zero evidence carries just as much weight as one that's strongly backed by demonstrable evidence, you're on the wrong side of that argument.
Thomas Catlin haha oh this Is going to be fun I can tell you believe your position very stubbornly. First of all I'm not a solipsist I'm a radical skeptic so I am as far beyond solipsism as it is beyond you and clinging on to evidence as a lifeline even though it's sinking with you isn't going to help you any because my entire position is not built around something as unreliable and flaky as evidence my entire position is built around doubt. I am not confined to the realm of "this is this because it is that way" as you are so I don't need to prove anything nor is it my objective to prove anything it is my objective to doubt everything and therefore put the burden of proof upon you to show that evidence and by extension knowledge and everything else even exist.
Nice! I came up with all this myself, and it is interesting to see her trains of though directly follow mine.
So this is the dark side of reality and the mind
I have trained my brain to surprise me every now and then and so far, it's working out.
this video is gaslighting me
This is fine as a brief overview of Cartesian skepticism, how the questions it raises about certainty can be leveraged into questions about knowledge generally. But even then I think it needs an additional clear reminder at the end for those (no doubt very numerous) people who would just ask "Wait, why do I care about certainty? Give that up. Problem solved."
There are other ancient _direct_ arguments for skepticism that don't rely on any intermediate failure to achieve certainty. The 'Problem of the Criterion', for example, purports to show that any attempt to ground knowledge must either beg the question or argue in a circle. It's a more fundamental problem (other skeptical worries in epistemology and other fields can be argued are just special cases) and isn't subject to the easy "Don't worry about certainty" reply.
This doesn't account for things that are known a priori, or by definition.
I am CERTAIN that a square has four sides because that is the DEFINITION of a square.
+Ficehdulah It also fails to account for knowledge of a perception. If I perceive something, I know what I perceived, even if that's different from what is or isn't there in 'reality'.
The video fails to include the potential for the dream/scientist/computer to alter thoughts, which, as far as we know, could happen. For example, the computer could potentially force you to miscount the number of sides on a square. It could also trick you by replacing the thought of the thing that you perceive with that of something else (eg. I perceive my computer, but how do I know that the thing I'm perceiving is actually a computer).
scepticism to me is just doing your best to get as much information and making your own conclusion and accepting of new info.
Thomas Headley could you elaborate on your point
"scepticism to me is just doing your best to get as much information and making your own conclusion and accepting of new info."
That's not what skepticism means -.-
Silly question: where is the problem? Really, cause I don't see it.
Absolute knowledge ain't possible. I don't think for a moment that we can be sure about anything. But that doesn't mean that we have no possibility of acting upon our experiences.
The hand in front of me might not exist, it might be a dream construct, a construct inserted by a computer, or anything else, but I am more sure that I will experience something not pleasant if I put my hand into a meat grinder, then I am that it will give me an orgasm. Even if I would not *actually* lose my hand, I would still experience it as such. And seeing those experiences seem to come forth from the patterns we have concluded from past experiences, we can still be more sure about an outcome than not.
That is still the case if those experiences are influenced by a mad genius, are inserted by a computer or from me being inside a dream.
Chip Kempston
_"Are you absolutely certain of that?"_
I see what you did there ;-) (and I completely failed to see it myself, sheesh)
No, I am not absolutely certain about that. I am reasonably certain based on the collective experience of myself and humanity as a whole (altho I'm definitely not arrogant enough to say I know all experiences of humanity :-P)
Chip Kempston I agree
***** Either way, I don't understand why what is stated here is an actual problem.
***** To be honest, it still doesn't sound like an actual problem. I don't see doubt as a problem, even if it would mean doubting literally everything (excluding axiomatic assertions)
But I'll keep these in mind. Was planning on buying some of these books anyway.
+Shangori But, surely, the "I"'s that you are using (especially in your original comment) must hint at something undubitable, like a _subject_ that actually exists in order to experience all those illusions and dreams you mentioned. It is hard solip... err... hard to believe that one can still doubt even his own existence. Well, after Descartes at least.
Definition of Knowledge:
A mental grasp of reality acquired by a consciousness and retained in memory.
OK so there is no point in these very specific and highly contrived "problems"
There's no point in anything unless you make one
The only point is to become aware of other possibilities beyond what seems obvious. It's a good lesson in looking below the surface.
That's why skepticism is best if applied to a certain scope and not to everything. Even then, the results are still worth to be questioned and tested again, since life itself is a big test.
I don't see why this is a problem.
8:30/9:03 Black and White fallacy
Just because she has too look at the clock more longer than looking at it for some seconds. Doesn't mean that she needs to share at the clock all day. Because
It only means that she needs to look at the clock long than a few seconds to know that the clock is ticking.
50 seconds in and I know I'm not watching any more of this neurotic crap..
If the fact that I exist as a brain in a vat does not change the reality which I observe, there is no point in worrying about it because it doesn't affect me...
If it did, it would simply be a matter of scientific observation.
The brain-in-a-jar type hypotheses are untestable and unfalsifiable. Thus they are a pointless waste of time other than a bit of pondering when you first encounter them.
Welcome to philosophy. This isn't science we're talking about here. The unfalsifiable part of it is actually the key to the skeptic's argument. You CAN'T prove otherwise, so how can you really know?
Adam X It's an interesting idea when you first come across it, but after a bit of thought it becomes obvious that there's no way of knowing, so it's completely pointless to consider in any serious context.
"...but after a bit of thought it becomes obvious that there's no way of knowing..."
This is exactly why the skeptics bring up the argument though. Since you cannot know that you're not in a jar, can you really know anything for sure? They argue that you can reasonably doubt any belief you hold, therefore you don't really "know" anything.
Now, if you don't care about epistemology at all, then you're free to run along and call it all a pointless waste of time. I was assuming you cared about philosophy though, at least a little bit, due to the fact that you clicked on the video.
That's the difference between science and philosophy; science studies the world while philosophy studies ideas. Even if you may not think it; the brain-in-a-jar hypotheses is an important one because it can create basis how a person thinks about the world. This may seem to stupid to somebody whom completely trusts in empirical information (like you if I'm not entirely mistaken) but it's just how it is because every person has their own way of looking at the world.
For example I believe that a human can never know anything simply because a human cannot gain objective information about the world. While it may not be important for my everyday life it does shape how I think about the world as a whole in very fundamental level and forms basis to my every assumption about the world.
Adam X I care deeply about truth. The universe is a fascinating place, full of wonder and mystery, and we are on a journey of discovery. Knowledge, such as it is, has increased exponentially over the last few centuries. Never have we known so much as we do now; and in all likelihood, what we know now will appear infantile to our descendants.
No, we can never "know" anything with absolute certainty. Absolute knowledge only exists in mythology and has no relevance to reality; but in our imperfect world, knowing sufficiently to advance human experience is good enough, and is the basis of all progress.
Epistemology is not about the mental onanism of "thought for thought's sake" it is about how we use logic and reason to increase our knowledge of the universe in which we find ourselves.
If you want to waste your life pondering the unfalsifiable, that's your prerogative; but you will achieve nothing in so doing, and advance human knowledge not a jot.
I’m still waiting to hear what the asserted “problem” is.
Btw do you have a better way of analyzing data?
Wtf. Dreaming and being awake are two completely different t experiences
Well, yes and no. You do always wake up from dreams (at least we assume this), allowing yourself to compare it to the awake-state (thus, coming up with many differences I guess). But this is only possible if you wake up, which is the skeptical question you should not have an answer for.
Not the type of skepticism that I expected, this kind doubts of absolutely everything, and there's no point on doing that, on the other hand, skepticism has led to the most amazing scientific discoveries, that's the kind of skepticism I expected to be analyzed
I understand the arguments for skepticism.. But I honestly think it's a bit dishonest to maintain that position..
I --know-- that I'm not dreaming while writing this comment. No amount of arguments against this knowledge can persuade me against my conviction. And behold! I am right, and I know I am right. There you sit, reading my comment -- conforming the reality of my waking life. Reality is coherent and shared.
Skepticism is healthy in small doses... It is important to question your beliefs. But "sapere aude!" my brothers and sisters! We do know a thing or two - some of us many things. Even controversial matters, have pretty clear cut answers, which it is possible to arrive at with honestly and reasoning. There is no god, no after life and you are not a brain in a vat! You are real! But only for a while.. So have the courage to KNOW, while you can!
Ok let me just start this off with one simple question...
HOW do you know our reality is shared?
I mean I don't mean to challenge your lovely inspirational speech and all so if you don't want to debate it I will be cool with that. like there are seriously enough people on here to talk to about this and I don't want to ruin a beautiful sentiment like this by debating it but I am just like really debate hungry right now and am looking for anyone and everyone with a differing opinion from mine for me to converse with
oh and just fyi I promise my last comment was completely sincere and not at all sarcastic in the least and neither is this one I seriously mean that I don't want to step on your beliefs if you don't want to debate them :)
Cletus Kassady are you a solipsist? Strange... You're a rare breed :P I know our reality is shared because there are other people here who can confirm that for me.
you just confirmed it by replying to my comment.
Cletus Kassady you're welcome to disagree with me, or try to persuade me to think otherwise. But I can tell you right now, I am too sure to not use the word "knowledge" and I am right too often to be doubtful.
Is not that ambiguous. Scientific method serves to avoid misjudgments. Of course, not everything can be tested methodologically, though. So we can survive by only testing the most important believes…
If I'm just dreaming I'm watching this video instead of really watching it I need to get some better dreams.
Sooooo let me try and summarize this. If I am subject to conditions I am unable to determine, how would I go about determining them and what kind of conclusions could I draw from that and how would that affect my life.? Isn't that a exercise in futility???
The problem is the lack of scepticism in the world.
I would say lack of philosophy.
@@juh0e Which one?
Now imagine that the computer supplying your body and brain with sensory input is actually your brain... Which it is, and that it can be imperfect, which it is. Other than that I always wonder at the energy some philosophers put into this question which, by definition, cannot be answered and yet is not really contested by anyone. I would love to see philosophical videos on the actual real world applications of the debate, such as the implications for jury trials in much less extreme instances than the ones given.
The point of the video is that you should ( when you are able to ) be aware of how the world is presented to you and that in fact, everything you know; or think to know; can be generated by an external source. Telling us how important it is to always ALWAYS try and find different points of view.
Put links to the follow up, topic relate videos in the description. Please? 😊
do you know minutephysics? they have chilly background music
In human experience knowledge is like multifaceted jigsaw puzzle piece that fits the experience (conscious and unconscious). Dreams lack that strong empirical consistency. For example, gravity in my dreams is a murky concept, loosely based on my "real" world experience. Also dreams like chronological consistency: if my "real" world is a dream and my dreaming is the real one, then there should be a chronological consistency in what I dream today in relation to what I dreamed yesterday. In the real world there is a strong consistency: what I did yesterday has strong implication for events that I experience today.