@@galek75 If you dip a pencil into a bowl of water it will look like the pencil breaks, but it doesn't. Thus your eyes are decieving you. So how can you then know that your eyes (and all your other senses) don't decieve you about everything else too, just that you haven't figured it out yet? And if that is a possibility, then why should you assume they don't?
@@sindrestokke79 Except the eyes aren't being fooled. They're seeing what obtains given those specific optical conditions. Your reasoning hardly follows at all.
@@galek75 Yes, but in the example i gave, your eyes doesn't give you the necessary information about the optical conditions. So transferring that analogy to the bigger picture, how can you know anything about the conditions our senses are being exposed to? It is possible that your brain is in a vat recieving electrical impulses wich your brain interprets as being sensations of the world. If you agree to this, then the question arises: what evidence do you have to believe that the world around you actually exists. If your answer is none, then should you believe it?
@@sindrestokke79 What do you mean the eyes don't give you necessary information? You can't a priori assert that when people have in fact discovered the behavior of light passing through different media. But ultimately, it is senseless to convince you, a skeptic, of otherwise.
This Epistemology thing is for me all the questions I thought of and never bothered to say,analyze them, not even at the pub. And some people organized this and scientifically worked on the subject. I find this Amazing!
I haven't read Moore, but I really hope there's more substance to his case than this, because what was presented here was 100% pure-grade fallacy from beginning to end.
The way they presented Moore here isn't very good. I'll try to present his actual argument in a more legible form. There are two broad methods for dealing with knowledge discussed in this video, skeptical approaches, and non-skeptical ones. In modern vernacular, it might be better to call them solipsistic approaches and non-solipsistic ones, but I'll stick with the video's terminology. In both cases, we are making assumptions about the nature of knowledge, and those assumptions have consequences. Moore argues that we need to make a choice on which assumptions we accept. A consequence of the skeptic's assumptions are that he doesn't know that his hands exist. But, he argues, he does know that his hands exist, therefore there must be something wrong with the skeptic's assumptions. You could try counter-arguing that he doesn't really know that his hands exist, he just believes it intuitively. However, that argument is presupposing the assumptions of the skeptics, and so is also sensitive to Moore's argument. His technique is to side-step the usual argument in a clever way by avoiding directly addressing the assumptions of the skeptics, instead arguing against them indirectly. Of course, there are responses to Moore's argument, but I hope what I wrote here convinces you that there's at least something to his reasoning beyond the poor version presented in this video.
oh ok so I think I see what the moor thing is attempting to do and that would certainly catch a "novice" skeptic off guard however so long as the skeptic doesn't claim any absolutes and merely posits possibility the hand argument is not much use. basically if someone says you CAN'T know that your hands exist he says yes I can they're right here and it gets people caught up on the word CAN'T and trying to disprove his seeming stubbornness when really there is an equal possibility that he could know, however if you say that there is a POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT not be able to know that his hands exist any argument of stubbornness he makes from that point on would just be absurd and him pointlessly sticking his head in the mud to prevent his ideas from being questioned am I right?
Cletus Kassady Moore can alter his argument to one where he certainly knows that his hands exist, and therefore the skeptic's claim that he might not know is based on a flawed assumption. The argument he's making is far more generic than one which get's caught up on a specific word. His argument does not intend to disprove skepticism, his goal is to "shift" the skeptics claim into one which is equally plausible, but contradicts skepticism. Here is the most generic form of his argument; The skeptic claims S. S implies that the "common sense" claim CS is wrong. Therefore CS is wrong. Moore points out that the skeptic is making an assumption (whether it's a strong one doesn't matter). As a result, he can shift the skeptics argument to the following; Moore claims CS. CS implies that the skeptic's claim S is wrong. Therefore S is wrong. Both positions have essentially the same form, and we'd have to come up with a more subtle a priori argument to decide between the two. This is where something like the complexity of one hypothesis over the other would come in, but Moore himself was content with picking the common sense position under the assumption that it would definitely have a priori justification over the skeptic's. That particular claim is really the point of debate.
XetXetable ok that makes sense and in a way that's kinda what I was trying to get at but the way around it that I was trying to propose was something more like this I suggest S. S Implies that the claims of both CS and S are uncertain. therefore CS and S may both be flawed or might not be and a conclusion of any sort is impossible I know its not traditional formatting but it is kind of an intellectual suicide bomb but what the hell right? at least my position has a parachute for me to deploy right before impact
(I am happy to see at least one reference to "The Matrix.") Who cares? i.e. Why does knowledge matter? If knowledge matters at all, global skepticism goes away quite quickly: 1) If I am dreaming, it follows that I will wake up. I will worry about it then. I don't NEED to do anything about it right now. 2) If I am a brain in a jar, then I will just have to live with that reality, even if I am not aware of it. There's nothing I can do about it. 3)The evil genius never goes away. My reality, beyond myself, can be put in a box (which might even contain a benevolent god) which might be controlled by an evil genius. The strategy is that the evil genius holds his power in reserve, and can defeat my supposed knowledge at any time. There's nothing I can do about this, either. 4) If there is nothing I can do about it, as in cases 2 and 3, then knowledge doesn't matter. What remains are practical issues of knowledge, generally about forming decisions with respect to taking actions. This could include abstract questions such as "How do I serve God?" (Do I know what good is? Will this action result in good?) When the standard for knowledge is strictly too high, as in global skepticism, it becomes paralyzing. There is the potential for the sin of commission, as well as the sin of omission.
"Descartes thinks that the idea of an infinite and perfect being could not have come from an imperfect being" Does he ever make an effort to prove this assertion? How would he go about doing so?
+TheOfficialAkatsuki Yes he does. He believed in two forms of metaphysical reality known as objective and formal. Objective reality is above formal. A created object cannot have more objective reality than its creator has formal reality. Humans have finite of both, but the idea of God (the idea itself being an object) has perfect objective reality. In fact, only an actual being with perfect formal reality can create the idea of the being with perfect objective reality. Therefore there must be this perfect, formally real being that made the objectively perfect idea. Formal reality is "realness" as we know it physically, while objective reality is reality in the higher plane of the mind. Descartes believed minds were metaphysically not the same as physical objects. All this really does is kick the problem down the line. He doesn't really prove his forms of reality as far as I know. He does fit them into a brilliant idea known as the great chain of being, but even though it is well thought out, no one takes it as serious truth in philosophy nowadays.
He doesn't even prove that he has the infinite idea to begin with. An infinite idea is by definition not something a finite being such as us could comprehend or imagine in its entirety - a variation of his own second point. So what exactly is the "god" he imagines? Just a model, a dumbed-down, finite and therefore comprehensive model of an infinite idea.
+Thomas Jetzer Indeed, when I confronted my teacher with a similar idea, he tried his best to play devil's advocate, but ended up accidentally saying "If a kid came to you with a cardboard box crudely labelled as a supercomputer... oh wait".
Some simple responses to these arguments for all you skeptics out there: *1. Doubt the Cogito:* Descartes' immovable point with which to move the world is not so immovable. It contains an argument, (therefore) which the deceiver can distort, which is why Descartes, in his original formulation did not include the "ergo", does thought imply existence? Maybe not. And how do you know you are thinking? Or, at least, that the sensation that you are claiming is "thought" is actually "thought"? Perhpas instead it is tickle. And what is this "you" you speak of? Personal identity is a shaky concept at best, even if there was no evil deceiver around. *2. Abduction is Bad Reasoning* Russell relies on the flimsiest of types of reasoning, namely abduction, or argument to the best explanation. There is not, nor has there ever been a link demonstrated between either simplicity, or instinct and truth. These are things that humans like, sure, and make us feel good, but that does not make them true! Furthermore, we can't even come up with a consistent system of mathematics or logic (see Godel, sorry Russell), let alone a consistent system of science. Finally, the burden of proof rests on the claimant, we cannot just take some belief at face value because we had it before. We all start without beliefs, (unless you think babies have propositional attitudes) so there should be no privilege given to some that we happen to acquire sooner. *3. Destruction of debate* Moore's argument is the worst of all because of what it could lead us to. This is the kind of reasoning that leads to fights instead of discussion. Steadfastly refusing that you could not be wrong is what leads people of faith to fight instead of talk. Many people consider the fact that God exists, something that is everyday and basic. But it seems that we want a philosophical argument for that claim, even though it might be categorized as a simple intuition. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. Moore pointing at his hands is no more effective than a theist pointing at a cross or waving around a Koran. And even if Moore proves effective against eh academic skeptic that is making the positive claim that you do not know, I see no way he can defeat the Pyrrhonian who does not know if you can know, and therefore has no burden of proof.
I don't know what you are trying to do or say. If you are not accepting proof regarding God, ok, I can understand that. If you don't accept the statement "Reality exists" (regardless of the particulars of that reality,) then you are way off base, and generally not worth talking to. Seriously, why bother discussing knowledge with someone who does not accept the notion that there is some reality, the particulars of which one might or might not have some knowledge? Regarding "burden of proof," consider it conversely that Moore takes it to be axiomatic that an external reality of some sort exists. Your only non-claim (thus having no burden of proof) is to suggest: "It is axiomatic that 'external reality exists' is not axiomatic." With this, the burden of proof rests on me: I punch you in the nose, so as to negate your axiom. Note that this doesn't lead to "fights instead of discussion." If we substitute God in the axiom, my punching you in the nose would only indicate that I exist, not God.
The question of reality is classic philosophical exercise and it doesn't have a simple answer. Some people might prefer a simple explanation as "Here is my hand, punching you in the face" hence we are real. But that only plays in our sensory reactions. All these sensory reactions could easily be programmed in us. Just imagine you are in a game created by advanced superhumans, gods, evil etc and try to justify to yourself that you are not in the game. There is no way out!
platficker "If you don't accept the statement "Reality exists" (regardless of the particulars of that reality,) then you are way off base, and generally not worth talking to." The Matrix, Dark City, Strange Days & The Truman Show. Elon Musk even popularised a thought experiment where we might be doing this in the future.
In response to your third point, Moore's argument does not destroy the debate, or rather, it destroys the debate no more than the skeptic's puzzle does. Moore is trying to provide proof of the *existence* of the external world, not *knowledge* of the external world.
Let's run an experiment with some very strong hallucinogens and some really skilled philosophers and see if any of them can get out of their "bad case."
The Moore argument is actually way more powerful than presented here. All argument rely on propositions. Including skeptical arguments. Those rely on the closure principle, which itself has no justification. Are you more confident in the closure principle or the existence of your hands?
My take on this is it doesn't matter. My point in acquiring knowledge is to better understand my current reality. Regardless weather I am dreaming, I am controlled by a genie or I am just a brain in a vat. As long as that situation will hold for the rest of my existence, that is the knowledge I want to acquire. I want to know the rules of my dream world, the moods of my genie or the programing of the computer controlling my brain in a vat.
So basically if it fits the "reality" of my world, it doesn't matter if the theory is entirely correct or not, if it has no observable inconsistencies. But if there are multiple possible hypothesis that can explain evidence, should we not accept the simplest one? Why to over complicate it unnecessarily? In someone's mind, the simplest theory may be to think of an all powerful god that still abides by the laws of the universe. In someone's else's mind, it might be that the fundamental laws are all there is with no need of God. Both theories can be consistent and considered "simple" or intuitive by different people.
About Descartes point of how an idea of an infinite perfect being must equal an infinite and perfect god. I want to preface this w/ the fact that I do think some truths/certain knowledges are possible and attainable. This would be done by narrowing the scope of the claim/truth. However, Correlation does not equal Causation. Is Descartes point at 1:55 not correlation? What if there are other factors involved that we as humans don't know? Moreover, how does Descartes or anyone know that their own idea of an infinite and perfect being is in fact what is truly infinite and perfect? There is so much we don't know, let alone the things we don't even know, we don't know.
My first response to skepticism would be if this was all a dream how would the ideas of the dream would come in the first place. Before you were born you had absolutely anything to dream about and looking back at memories before you would be completely empty. That is why a whole life of dreaming would not be true. At least you need to have some level of experience to generate the ideas for your dream
But wouldn't the hand be in some way also real if it would just be simulated or something similar since it's just an idea of that reoccurring object? We'd also say a computer game is real even if it doesn't have any physical properties or software in general
The only meaningful counter to philosophical skepticism is a pragmatic one, IMO. As I see it, whether what any of us experience is true reality, a matrix, a dream brought on by an evil demon, what have you, is largely irrelevant to the fact that the only reality we have access to is the one we experience through our senses. As such, my main concern is achieving the most desirable(to me) outcomes as possible in the reality I experience, which means acting as if this experience is reality and finding the most successful strategy to predict my future experiences. IMO, this best strategy is an epistemology built on methodological skepticism, methodological naturalism and methodological empiricism. Basically, science.
If I am real, then I exist, if I am a figment of someone else's imagination, then someone exists to imagine me. Whatever the circumstance ( brain in a jar, pawn of an evil genius) ...... there is still a 'me' within it no? And if I exist, even as a construct of someone else's imagination - so does the possibility, no matter how infinitesimal - for me to incite change in that reality (and thus, so does the possibility of discerning whether or not that infinitesimal change is real or imagined).
Absolute skepticism is self refuting: Absolute skeptics must also be skeptical of their own absolute skepticism. They must now either 1: Stumble into an infinate circular regress (aka madness) or 2: Reconise absolute skepticism is circular and reject it as a principle.
They are all wrong. Even if I'm a brain in a vat it doesn't matter so long as I'm stuck in that dreamworld/simulation without a chance at leaving then I have to play by that worlds rules.
Funny. Conan the Barbarian said a similar thing once. _Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content._ Although a fictional character, he seems more down to earth than Descartes. In any case, one can ask whether 'Descartes' himself was also nothing more than a fictional character.
The philosophical idea is that maybe if you spent time away from "apparent" reality (like being a meditative monk or a sports anomaly or something), you'd be able to figure-out/escape into the "actual" reality. So living your life in "apparent" reality would actually be "wasting" your life. Conan the Barbarian does answer this perfectly though. If all my memories were from a virtual reality video game, surely I would call that MY LIFE and that "virtual person" would be ME, rather than some brain in the vat being used to create me and my life in the virtual reality. The virtual reality would still thus be real, and the "dream" would still be a real dream that provided a real identity and real changes. What a very Diogenes of Sinope thing for Conan the Barbarian to highlight.
Jay Bingham Well, seeing as all language is an abstract invention, I'd say *every* definition can be specific to philosophy. But as a tool for evaluating real-world claims, I find it particularly useful.
Because people presuppose you have to believe *in order to act*. Hence, you care about belief, and since knowledge is defined as 'justified belief', you get the relationship. The truth is that you don't need it. You are breathing since you were born, and just seldomly thought about that. That goes to show that you can do things without belief. It was clear to Taoists before Descartes, but, well... not everybody
+pifie when born, babies aren't breathing. they are however emitting odors immediately upon being born. there's no question no belief was required to emit an odor. why is that interesting and what do Taoists say about odor?
Well, as the saying goes, one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. It's something which has come to be known as the "Moorean shift", and is a perfectly normal bit of trivial logic. He performs this shift and asks you which of the two arguments (the original skeptical one and his new 'common sense' one) has the more plausible premises. That issue is where the battle gets fought and he thinks his wins.
+At Swim-Two-Bricks But that isn't really the issue at hand. It's the possibility of one's understanding of reality being inconsistent with it's actual state. It doesn't matter which is more plausible is this sort of argument but what isn't possible or is certainly the case. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that you have the ability to perceive and analyse in some fashion. Everything else has a level of uncertainty -which is the problem of skepticism. All that skepticism is saying is that absolute knowledge is not possible in most cases. Pointing to your hands can saying that solves the problem because they exist (even though that isn't certain) is a pretty sloppy argument and a bit surprising to hear after the Russellian way of thinking in the video even though Moore's work was published first. To clarify, the proof as given (7:00) that certainty of external objects is essentially self obvious and can be shown simply by "looking at you hands" which was already shown to be part of the problem of skepticism (uncertainty of our perceptions) and therefore fails at step 1.
+burstofsanity I don't agree with your assessment of what the issue at hand is. Skepticism, both as traditionally understood and how this video series described it, is the problem of the possibility of knowledge. It's not the problem of a special, certain, absolute knowledge subclass. No, do we have any propositional knowledge of any kind whatever. Certainty became an issue only when the last video tried to prime our intuitions with the idea that certainty and knowledge rise or fall together. Once this intuition is in place, certainty gets used as a proxy for what's actually at stake (knowledge). It's best if we remember that certainty is not itself the issue. Your use of the term "absolute knowledge" suggests there may be other kinds. It's a hint that you might be agreeing with Moore's general thrust without realizing it. What his argument amounts to is pointing out that non-absolute knowledge is a thing.
+At Swim-Two-Bricks thanks for your modus ponens/modus tollens hint, i got a better hold of moores argument now. just three remarks: 1) one could even be sceptical about (classical) laws of logic as descartes thought experiments "genius malignus" suggests. the kripkensteinian attack given by the private language argument gives another sceptic argument and roughly says that it is not possible to apply private rules (such as modus ponens) in an absolute manner. Moreover note that in order to prove modus ponens semantically you would need to apply modus ponens on the metalanguage level. inductively you will run into the agrippean trope of infinite regress whilst proving the meta-modus ponens on the meta²language-level. 2) forgetting 1: my favourite rejection of scepticism (maybe it will be covered in later videos) goes as follows. suppose that h is a sceptical hypothesis then if h is true, it is true apriori because it cannot be verified empirically. also h is contingent since one could think of world without brain-in-vats etc. but since h is true apriori, it is true necessary. this inference is somewhat controversial if we think of kripkes example "the prototype-meter in paris has length 1m". However i think the inference is true if h (the proposition or its meaning) does not depend on the world chosen which i further think one could assume in the case of h. but now h is necessary true and it is possible that not-h which is a contradiction. 3) forgetting 2: the 'right' account to scepticism is in my opinion not to take h or not-h for granted but rather apply some logical form of pyrrhonian scepticism towards h. in classical terminology we would say that the principle of isostheneia holds i.e. that there are good arguments for both sides. on the model-theoretic level this would mean that there are axiomatic systems (probably first-order) A, A' proving h and not-h. In a sufficient, consistent axiomatization B of the principes in A and A' our assumption h is then logically undecidable. This is a crucial metalanguage assertion about the semantics of scepticism. On the object level (where we are now) it doesn't matter if you assume either h or not-h as you could adjoin (exactly) one of them to your proto-axiomatic system B.
+Shaggee Joke Do you think causation, as a concept, is enough to refute skepticism? I know that I might be making an inductive leap here. Even if my brain is in a vat, something is causing my sensations I experience and something could be causing that, too. Is it possible to talk about a theoretical plane of existence without causality?
@Hersh Q I believe that knowledge is the sum of truths that an entity possesses. I define truth to be a belief that survives all challenges to it. I realize that this makes truth subjective. I also realize that what we hold to be the truth today can change over time and as new evidence is brought to light. Some truths have been established for a long time and are rarely challenged. This is why I am such a big supporter of the scientific method. I also believe that wanting something to be true does not make it true(like believing that there is a God).
@Hersh Q Great dialog...thanks. I had to look up 'Solipsism'. Yes, I would not be absolutely certain of it either. I still hold many truths or many things to be true. I've just given up on the absolute certainty of it all. I make decisions often. In making decisions, I consider what I believe to be true. I just assign an ambiguous percentage to what I hold as true. For things like 1+1=2, that percentage is very high but not %100.000000000000000 percent. It's more like 99.999??? percent.
At roughly 5:30, there is a typo "SCEPTICAL" should be "SKEPTICAL". Well, not a typo, but a consistency issue - you use the k-spelling in most (or all, are there any I didn't catch?) of the video. I know my comment detracts from the content of the video, just wanted to point it out in case you do a revision in the future.
Ok someone please explain why i'm stupid. 2:22, this logical progression Generalized counterargument: A finite set Y(human) cannot produce an infinite set X(idea), nor can a finite set Y contain an infinite set X. He claims to be a finite set Y that contains an infinite set X in premise 1, which is invalid. God could not place an infinite set in a finite set at this point because he has used these invalid premises to conclude god must exist before he assumes the god is all powerful.
There's no way I can prove the hunger in my gut is real, but it wouldn't be very practical to just ignore it, based on my current knowledge of existence. Is knowledge of reality the only thing that counts as knowledge? What about knowledge of experience? I like Russel's argument. Independently of how logical something is, there are good and bad reasons of accepting views.
Neither simplicity nor instinct are good reason for accepting views. Sometimes the real answers are going to be complicated, and there's no reason to think that instinct is a guide to truth. We would have to know that our instincts come from some authoritative source that was honestly trying to help us understand the world, but there's no way to know that. On the contrary, all sorts of illusions seem to demonstrate that our instincts are sometimes wrong.
+Ansatz66 The idea is that the simplest explanation may be the best, not that it is the one and best. Instinct would not always be a good guide to some truth: reason and logic are usually better ways. An 'authoritative source' guiding our instincts to truths would bring about too many complexities, convoluted explanations, irrational arguments, and absurd explanations.
+Agimaso Schandir Occam's razor exists for a reason. If the only "truth" we can know is our own existance, then that word is pretty useless. So maybe the definition of truth is the real conondrum here. Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about whats "true" and more about what's usefull.
"What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." -Abraham Lincoln
I've heard that to check if you're awake or lucid dreaming, you actually have to look at your hands. If you're dreaming, they would most likely be strange, like they would have six fingers or something. I don't know if that's true but it's funny to me how similar to all these theories it sounds.
The thing is, that's a schema issue. It's up to your expectations. If you believe you're in waking life while dreaming, your hands won't be strange. If you're lucid dreaming, and look at your hand, it may or may not be strange depending on your expectations and desires.
I love working the "machinery of mind!" But I also understand that we subsist on condition and consequence, regardless of our powers of reason, and that this will always be so...
If you want to solve the Problem of Skepticisim and find a way to obtain knowledge, it is helpful to ask, what purpose knowledge actually serves: Knowledge informs your decisions by allowing you to predict the outcome of your actions. The better your knowledge the easier it is for you to deal with the world around you. As far as this purpose of knowledge is concerned, it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether you are being decieved by an evil genious or dreaming or whether any other one of the infinite possible explanations for the world around you is true. If knocking your glass of water over has the consequence of spilling your drink, both based on the 'real world' explanation and the 'dreaming' explanation, then there is no need to know or care, which one is true. Because both explanations make the same predictions, they are equivalent in that sense.
From my point of view, one problem here is that there is an underlaying assumption that knowledge only comes from something real and that real = objective, materialistic experience, is it possible that real also equals subjective experience ? Another assumption in this video is that objective/materialistic = commonality of subjectivity, is that always the case ? ; )
Imagine if we taught extreme forms of skepticism in childhood, it was a normal part of the cultural zeitgeist, and we normalized it. Would it be as disturbing as it seems to be to many people? How much of this discomfort is due to the evaporation of our indoctrinated values in the face of skepticism?
I like this video I'm finely over solipsism because of it man that was a bad time I realize it is a big if this idea is true type of thing now but I'll talk again if I have any panic attacks about it the idea is so scary
When he says GOD he actually means evolution Refining favorable genes is they key to improve life Survival of the fittest has done an amazing job at this so far
Summary of the responses. Descartes: I think, therefore I exist as a thinking substance. And God, by the way, must exist in order that we, as thinking substances, can think of others thinking substances, math, logic and, sometimes, when God is possibly distracted, about sometimes false things and sometimes true things. Russell: Everything could be deceived but it´s unlikely according to some common sense interpretation of statistics and simplicity. Moore: I have hands, therefore I exist.
Nothing new for me in this video. Knew these answers and know that they simply don't do much for me. Common sense doesn't do much for me. Common sense comes from our own state of mind and could be induced, so it can be influenced by the 'evil genius'.
+Shangori Even the thought "I am controlled by an evil genius ." could come from this genius. We could never proof it. But the common sense wins for me because it just makes me ways happier.
Toshihiro Kun Maybe, but in that same breath you could accept any and all gods, homeopathy, etc, including clashing ideas. I don't mind being a bit more unsure about the world. I like surprises
@@gomez3357 There are people who were convinced into believing death cults, literally putting their lives on the line for an idea that common sense would reject outright. And you have people who genuinely have said in the public domain that 1+1=2 is racist assertion coming from colonialism. Tell me again how common sense prevails
My response to Skepticism. Just because you can't know something is true, it doesn't mean that it isn't. Just because there could be an alternative explanation to what we know, it doesn't mean that our explanation is wrong. There is no ultimate reason why what it means to know something should be universal or explainable to other people. Just because someone can't explain to you how they know something, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. And how someone knows something is under no obligation to make sense to you. My ultimate response to the skeptic is that they can't understand how I know. The Truth does not obligate an explanation of itself.
Just because something isn't explainable it doesn't mean it isnt effective. Just because something can't be proven it doesn't mean that it can't be true. Just because something doesn't know or can't explain to you how they know something it doesn't mean that they don't know. Spiders refute the skeptic
If there is an evil genius controlling my reality, 1. They are very boring 2. Why are they bothering and 3. whos to say that someone isn't controlling their reality?
yoyoyo2463 It's the same with the Brain in a vat Why someone could do that? What if they are too in a simulaction and Doesn't know It? all looks like a bad joke
would be good to include distinctions/definitions for terms that are used both in technical ways in philosophy AND more loosely in common language! skepticism in our everyday world is actually very reasonable -it is the stance that we should not just accept claims without evidence or sound reasoning, and is related to a scientific worldview, that is specifically skeptical about religious, supernatural and magical claims. this is contrasted with what i think of as extreme or even freshman skepticism of the kind that (for example) many proponents of the paranormal utilize by saying that they are the true skeptics, because their skepticism about science and the supposed conspiracy of scientific materialism to cover up paranormal research, the plausibility of god etc is actually more "open minded" and "skeptical" about what can be known and whether or not evidence trumps anecdote and experiential convictions.
@@gomez3357 When? under what circumstances does it matter? The premise is that you will never be able to know the difference. Therefore under no circumstances will you ever be able to tell the difference. If you are unable to ever, in any way tell the difference between A and B, how can things being of A or B matter. Its even fair to argue that if there is no conceivable way to tell the difference between A and B, then they are effectively the same thing.
It's ridiculous to doubt the existence of your own hand... therefore just believe in anything you want without evidence? Yeah, I guess that *would* be an answer to skepticism...
Just because something is an answer to skepticism doesn't mean such is a proper answer. For example, I present you a fourth answer to skepticism: *-Would you like fries with that?*
Descartes said that an imperfect being couldn't create the idea of a perfect being as he might imprint his own imperfect thoughts into the nature of a perfect being and then says that god must have made this perfect being because it apparently was perfect but did he ever try to validate his claim that it was perfect and not his own imperfect idea? For such a smart guy that seems like a really stupid thing to miss. It looks like we have these options: -god is real and made imperfect beings capable of understanding perfection -Descartes is the perfect being - both him and his idea are imperfect - imperfect beings are capable of creating perfect things Both the first and last options look unlikely to me
If a system can build a comprehensive and believable reality the only way to determine from within that it isn't real is to find and prove paradoxes (ie flaws in the system).
reality is bigger than provable proposition. In order to prove anything you need axioms, Somethings you believe to be true without being able to prove. Mathematics is a fine example to that.
I am amazed on how so called Russel`s and Moore`s arguments are attributed to these two persons at all. Any normal person would have responded to skeptic`s claim in these ways. So what makes these two special?
I always loosely liked Moore's general idea, but I never really liked the way he reasoned it. I prefer the following: "Literally ALL evidence EVER leads to the conclusion that there is an external world, so that is the only reasonable conclusion. It could be wrong, but if it is, then you would be unreasonable if you came to the correct conclusion." I know that isn't the same conclusion Moore reached, but I think it is a stronger argument from a similar stating point. That said, there's something rather entertaining about his paper "Proof of an External World" by G.E. Moore and I highly recommend everyone read at least the first couple of pages.
I should point out, though, Moore and Russel are both vulnerable to the Fermi Paradox. My argument is less vulnerable because it doesn't rely on the idea that a simulation is unlikely as a premise for the conclusion being reasonable. Rather, in my version, even if a simulation is likely, all the evidence you see still points in the other direction. I find this response to Fermi less than satisfactory, but I have yet to see a better one. (Not that I've done an exhaustive search, mind you.)
I think at least some of the problem of skepticism comes from the problem of language. Do I know my hand is in front of me? Yes! But the very next question this observation raises is, What is my hand? See, how we answer the first question depends upon how we define our terms. If I define the term, "my hand" as the object within my visual perception which, to my perception, has five digits and a palm, connected to an arm, connected to my torso (or those things within my perception that I call arm and torso), then the belief that my hand is in front of my face is a true belief within the parameters of that definition. Extending the question of knowledge to the absolute is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether or not there actually is an absolute reality in which an absolute "my hand" exists. What matters is that my experience of what I call "my hand" is consistent with my definitions of the objects of my perception.
Pragmatism works for me. What matters to me is being able to navigate my experiences in such a way that I can mitigate or avoid unwanted outcomes. I think knowledge SHOULD have some doubt in it as subjectivity itself leaves all manner of conceivable, if not demonstrable or falsifiable, ways in which any knowledge claim MIGHT be wrong. Its like the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", it doesn't matter. I think this all hinges on definitions of " reality" and "knowledge". Absolutist definitions serve man little, if any, purpose, because we are finite subjects who cannot ever fully isolate and identify " pure reality" or "absolute knowledge". I mean, a single conceivable way a knowledge claim might be wrong, defeats even the concept of absolute knowledge. I prefer to define knowledge as familiarity gained through experience, and not as justified true belief, which is still far better than the presupposition a list approach too knowledge, which is some proposition of which one cannot be wrong about, even conceivably, else one knows nothing. By a presup definition, I would agree, NOi ONE knows ANYTHING in such an absolute way, except, perhaps, that one is having SOME kind of experience.
+munstrumridcully {..."how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", it doesn't matter.} See 'packing problems' for a more mathematical version of this argument, or in physics the Pauli exclusion principle, and for a quantum gravitational treatment, www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm
For me, I figured that if we can't measure it, sense it, reason it, or otherwise confirm that something exists in our current sphere of reality, why worry about it? If I am hallucinating and I am actually about to walk off a cliff, unless there is some way for me to detect that exact problem, there is literally nothing else I can do about it. Therefore, I feel we should try to find out what we can, try to figure out what is real and fake, what is true and what is not, but not worry about the things we can not prove even exist. I can not prove hell exists, I am not going to worry about it. I can not prove I am not inside a computer simulation (although there has been some interesting study in that area) so why fret about it? If you want to try to logically prove an idea, go for it, but when it is outside the realm of science and understand and probability, take it with a grain of salt. Din't let existensial quandries stop you from enjoying and living your life.
Great content! If I may give some constructive criticism, I found the echo distracting and the fake drawing animation is a but repetitive. I subscribed and am looking forward to the next one.
I think that the best answer to the skeptical problem is Husserl's answer, witch turn upside down the problem: if you are speaking about something that is "real" as something that is real by itself, you are not making anithing about proving that that's real. You are just trying to force a metaphisical object (the fact that something's made real by something, like there is something that gives reality by itself) into reality. An answer to skepticism could just be: if the world as you see is not the real world, so what is the real world? Because, with real, i mean "as I see the way I see". If you are saying that there is another criteria for real, you are implying that there is something that give reality reality. You are practically using god for a demonstration, and that's not fair in modern Philosophy
+Umberto Mazzotti The real world is what we model our perceptions of the world on. In some ways, yes, that is a preconceived notion, that there is a real world to model on, but it is reasonable. Playing a god card is not fair in philosophy? Why, it is the answer to anything?
So the non-Cartesian solutions are to say that common sense is equivalent to knowledge or that intuition is equivalent to knowledge. So basically both of them rely on the idea that there is no such thing as true or higher knowledge/truth/meaning.
By the way, I think you may have a misreading of the butterfly dreaming it is a person. The butterfly represents the spirit, and the human represents to body. The image is that the butterfly person should wake up and realize the essential spirituality, as opposed to the gritty animal nature of being a human. Or something like that. Who wants pie?
It seems to me that Russell has the only reasonable defense of the three. Descartes's assertion that only infinite beings can think of something that is infinitely prefect is unfounded. Moore's assertion is that we should automatically assume that common sense is true by default without considering that we could be deceived.
if the skeptical argument was true, then how do you explain the difference between lucid dreaming where you control the environment by thinking about it, and the real world where unexpected things happen all the time.
The idealist can argue that waking life is intersubjective while dreaming is not. You can control your imagination by thinking about it, and if dreaming is a private experience in your imagination then it makes sense you can control it by thinking about it while not having this control in waking life.
I have a different solution. I simply accept that what we reference as the external world IS what we denote as reality regardless of whether such we are in the good or bad case. Thus all points of knowledge that we claim about reality is about whatever construct we actually reside. I am like Moore in that I agree that various hypothetical possibilities are unsound (ridiculous).. However, such point of skepticism are irrelevant, since, regardless of whether what we denote is reality or not, it is all that we can claim. There is also the added dimension of cognitive issues that seem to be ignored in philosophical presentations that is a real issue. This is also dismisses Rene Decartes notions, since, it is clear based on our theological literature that humanity has made up many different God concepts with no reference beyond assertion (at least that I have found thus far) and some would seem to be related to cognitive issues that we have discovered in humanity.
This is like me saying that I am sure about something, but then again, I might be wrong about this. So I am not sure can I be so sure, but then I know for sure that I am a sure about about the fact that I am sure, but then again, ....
I think skeptical theories are fun to ponder, and I do understand that the point of skepticism is to argue about individual experiences. But all of these theories still imply the existence of SOMETHING… and that something can therefore be known or atleast believed … maybe this is all a dream or I am just a brain in a vat… those scenarios imply that others are real and controlling my reality. But my reality is what I’ll be stuck with, either it’s a dream or not… so I’d like to figure out how what I’m experiencing works …. Don’t know if any of that makes sense lol
@@zyxwfish It's pretty clear, no because there's no existence. If I have no more thoughts, then I am no longer in existence. If there are no thoughts, then I am also collected in that group of not having thought, so again I am not in existence.
@@zyxwfish Irrespective of what I am or am not doing there are still thoughts or the possibility of thoughts. In seconds there are milliseconds and even those can be subdivided, so imagine a Perception which to it a second is expanded, even a lifetime. Its complete life would have me as inanimate, the background scenery. If it is possible for it to have thoughts, even discontinuous or fleeting, for its whole life... then I, between the halves of seconds, may have micro-thoughts of which are unknown to me. Perception is only the frame rate we experience at. Have you ever tried to examine the time between thoughts or picture yourself as inanimate as a stone between the derivative of time...?
Moore : My hands are real Skeptics: prove it Moore gave a painful slap in the skeptics face . Skeptics: why did you slap me? Moore: l didn't because my hands are not REAL or are they? Skeptics: I am not sure but whatever that is it is REALLY painful though. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ILLUSION OF PAIN. IF THE ILLUSION OF PAIN EXIST, IT MUST BE PAINFUL IN ORDER TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS SUCH. BUT WHAT IS PAINFUL IS ALWAYS PAIN AND PAIN IS ALWAYS PAINFUL. SO PAIN IS ALWAYS REAL. NOW IF PAIN IS REAL SO IS ITS CAUSE AND EFFECT: IF THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF PAIN WERE UNREAL THAT WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING PAIN HAS NO CAUSE AND EFFECT WHICH IS UNTRUE. THEREFORE IF X IS THE CAUSE OF PAIN AND Y IS THE EFFECT OF PAIN THEN X AND Y ARE BOTH REAL. IF MY HANDS CAN CAUSE PAIN AND I CAN FEEL PAIN THEN I AM REAL AND MY HANDS ARE ALSO REAL. LET'S CALL THIS THOUGH DOULOREALISM.
Evil genius or not, you still physically exist in some capacity, be that as a brain in a vat dreaming or a conscious humanoid. In either case, your thoughts stem from some source that could be defined as physical.
Not for any meaningful definition of physical. If it actually turns out that 'you' are the only thing that exists, then there is no difference between physical or non-physical. The fact that 'you' exist doesn't mean that physical objects or physical space exists, just that some phenomenon exists and that phenomenon defines itself as you.
I agree, if I'm understanding correctly. But in the example they give, you're not the only thing that exists. There is also the evil genius, and maybe some other things if said evil genius needs equipment and basic necessities. A lot of assumptions, I know. But just considering these two, regardless of whether you are awake, or if the evil genius is feeding false Intel, the example given doesn't seem to negate the fact that you do have a physical component separate from the supposed illusions you're being fed, if that's the case. I think...
We do not have infinite idea, we have endless ideas, there's a huge difference and that throws out his backing up for why god is real and pretty much throws his argument as hogwash. Russell makes a very, very good argument. And I can't believe Moore's actually sounded dumber than the first guy.
+Ashley ASHLEYM Yeah I agree with Descartes in 'I think, therefore I am'. But when he started talking about infinite ideas and god, he totally lost me.
+Ashley ASHLEYM Absolutely. Moore simply refused to even acknowledge the argument. How he even made it into the video escapes me. "I just know" could be used to justify anything. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" would mean that Sense data actually exists. Wich makes sense, it might even be considered part of "I".
How to beat a skeptic. Step 1: Ask them how to believe anything. Step 2: Ask him how to forget something. Step 3: Ask them, "with such authority on the legitimacy of reality, why are your questions considered more of an answer than the answers in consideration to lessoning your questions?" Step 4: repeat steps 1-3 Eventually they may try to change the subject or feel that the conversation is disengenuous, or a mockery. at which point you have 2 choices. Tell them that you are their GOD because you have successfully figured out the total extent as to how they are capable of figuring stuff out and with this information alone you are effectively as capable of deceiving them. If they seem remain insistently skeptical, just tell them "that is exactly what all of us wanted to deceive you into thinking". Now this may seem cruel and dishonesty to the individual but this is entirely their fault.
+anthony johnson {Step 1: Ask them how to believe anything. Step 2: Ask him how to forget something. Step 3: Ask them, "with such authority on the legitimacy of reality, why are your questions considered more of an answer than the answers in consideration to lessoning your questions?" Step 4: repeat steps 1-3} 1. Through shared experience. 2. Focus on other things; grow old; procrastinate; diddle-daddle. 3. They aren't. 4. No need to.
Re "skeptic accuses you that your hands aren't real": nah, just (lightly) smack 'em in the face. It's science-y. It's very likely that you will successfully make contact (or that the target dodges out of the way). I feel either result is sufficient to show your hands are real. OTOH, if your hand goes right through them, well I guess maybe they were on to something after all...
In my view, we can't really prove that the external world is existent, but that doesn't invalidate the knowledge that we have about this possible external world. To me, knowledge is only true if we can confirm it and we can only confirm it if we can make a prediction based on this knowledge and we can verify it. Since, the only way we can verify anything is through our senses, then it doesn't matter if they are real or not. Once the prediction is verified through our senses, that's all that matters. On the other hand, even if there was another real world that our senses could never access and we tried to make predictions based on certain estimates that could never be verified, then it would not be considered knowledge anyway even if that could be real to another conscience outside the world accessed by our senses.
descartes believes in plato's forms, but for perfect forms to exist, they couldn't possibly come from an imperfect being, but would have to come from a perfect god. therefore, god is real;
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: New Responses to Skepticism [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4cKyPeDYh8w/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: New Responses to Skepticism [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Problem of Skepticism [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PqjdRAERWLc/mqdefault.jpg)
Moore: I have hands therefore I exist.
Where's the problem then?
@@galek75 If you dip a pencil into a bowl of water it will look like the pencil breaks, but it doesn't. Thus your eyes are decieving you. So how can you then know that your eyes (and all your other senses) don't decieve you about everything else too, just that you haven't figured it out yet? And if that is a possibility, then why should you assume they don't?
@@sindrestokke79 Except the eyes aren't being fooled. They're seeing what obtains given those specific optical conditions. Your reasoning hardly follows at all.
@@galek75 Yes, but in the example i gave, your eyes doesn't give you the necessary information about the optical conditions. So transferring that analogy to the bigger picture, how can you know anything about the conditions our senses are being exposed to? It is possible that your brain is in a vat recieving electrical impulses wich your brain interprets as being sensations of the world. If you agree to this, then the question arises: what evidence do you have to believe that the world around you actually exists. If your answer is none, then should you believe it?
@@sindrestokke79 What do you mean the eyes don't give you necessary information? You can't a priori assert that when people have in fact discovered the behavior of light passing through different media.
But ultimately, it is senseless to convince you, a skeptic, of otherwise.
This Epistemology thing is for me all the questions I thought of and never bothered to say,analyze them, not even at the pub. And some people organized this and scientifically worked on the subject.
I find this Amazing!
+vule92994
They worked Dialectically at the problem, not scientifically. Science is depends on the assumption of the reality of the external world.
Moore was that one kid who put up his hand in class to answer only to show he didn’t understand the question
Lmfao seriously
If someone says your hands don't exist punch them in the nose.
It'll be okay since they don't exist.
it would be okay on lots of levels
What about voldemort?
pifie punch him too but in the neck
But how do you really know that your hands really exist??
I haven't read Moore, but I really hope there's more substance to his case than this, because what was presented here was 100% pure-grade fallacy from beginning to end.
The way they presented Moore here isn't very good. I'll try to present his actual argument in a more legible form.
There are two broad methods for dealing with knowledge discussed in this video, skeptical approaches, and non-skeptical ones. In modern vernacular, it might be better to call them solipsistic approaches and non-solipsistic ones, but I'll stick with the video's terminology.
In both cases, we are making assumptions about the nature of knowledge, and those assumptions have consequences.
Moore argues that we need to make a choice on which assumptions we accept. A consequence of the skeptic's assumptions are that he doesn't know that his hands exist. But, he argues, he does know that his hands exist, therefore there must be something wrong with the skeptic's assumptions.
You could try counter-arguing that he doesn't really know that his hands exist, he just believes it intuitively. However, that argument is presupposing the assumptions of the skeptics, and so is also sensitive to Moore's argument.
His technique is to side-step the usual argument in a clever way by avoiding directly addressing the assumptions of the skeptics, instead arguing against them indirectly.
Of course, there are responses to Moore's argument, but I hope what I wrote here convinces you that there's at least something to his reasoning beyond the poor version presented in this video.
Oh yea cause Descarte wasn't?
oh ok so I think I see what the moor thing is attempting to do and that would certainly catch a "novice" skeptic off guard however so long as the skeptic doesn't claim any absolutes and merely posits possibility the hand argument is not much use. basically if someone says you CAN'T know that your hands exist he says yes I can they're right here and it gets people caught up on the word CAN'T and trying to disprove his seeming stubbornness when really there is an equal possibility that he could know, however if you say that there is a POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT not be able to know that his hands exist any argument of stubbornness he makes from that point on would just be absurd and him pointlessly sticking his head in the mud to prevent his ideas from being questioned am I right?
Cletus Kassady Moore can alter his argument to one where he certainly knows that his hands exist, and therefore the skeptic's claim that he might not know is based on a flawed assumption. The argument he's making is far more generic than one which get's caught up on a specific word.
His argument does not intend to disprove skepticism, his goal is to "shift" the skeptics claim into one which is equally plausible, but contradicts skepticism.
Here is the most generic form of his argument;
The skeptic claims S. S implies that the "common sense" claim CS is wrong. Therefore CS is wrong.
Moore points out that the skeptic is making an assumption (whether it's a strong one doesn't matter). As a result, he can shift the skeptics argument to the following;
Moore claims CS. CS implies that the skeptic's claim S is wrong. Therefore S is wrong.
Both positions have essentially the same form, and we'd have to come up with a more subtle a priori argument to decide between the two.
This is where something like the complexity of one hypothesis over the other would come in, but Moore himself was content with picking the common sense position under the assumption that it would definitely have a priori justification over the skeptic's. That particular claim is really the point of debate.
XetXetable ok that makes sense and in a way that's kinda what I was trying to get at but the way around it that I was trying to propose was something more like this
I suggest S. S Implies that the claims of both CS and S are uncertain. therefore CS and S may both be flawed or might not be and a conclusion of any sort is impossible
I know its not traditional formatting but it is kind of an intellectual suicide bomb but what the hell right? at least my position has a parachute for me to deploy right before impact
(I am happy to see at least one reference to "The Matrix.")
Who cares? i.e. Why does knowledge matter? If knowledge matters at all, global skepticism goes away quite quickly:
1) If I am dreaming, it follows that I will wake up. I will worry about it then. I don't NEED to do anything about it right now.
2) If I am a brain in a jar, then I will just have to live with that reality, even if I am not aware of it. There's nothing I can do about it.
3)The evil genius never goes away. My reality, beyond myself, can be put in a box (which might even contain a benevolent god) which might be controlled by an evil genius. The strategy is that the evil genius holds his power in reserve, and can defeat my supposed knowledge at any time. There's nothing I can do about this, either.
4) If there is nothing I can do about it, as in cases 2 and 3, then knowledge doesn't matter.
What remains are practical issues of knowledge, generally about forming decisions with respect to taking actions. This could include abstract questions such as "How do I serve God?" (Do I know what good is? Will this action result in good?)
When the standard for knowledge is strictly too high, as in global skepticism, it becomes paralyzing. There is the potential for the sin of commission, as well as the sin of omission.
"Descartes thinks that the idea of an infinite and perfect being could not have come from an imperfect being"
Does he ever make an effort to prove this assertion? How would he go about doing so?
+TheOfficialAkatsuki THANK YOU! haha
+TheOfficialAkatsuki Yes he does. He believed in two forms of metaphysical reality known as objective and formal. Objective reality is above formal. A created object cannot have more objective reality than its creator has formal reality. Humans have finite of both, but the idea of God (the idea itself being an object) has perfect objective reality. In fact, only an actual being with perfect formal reality can create the idea of the being with perfect objective reality. Therefore there must be this perfect, formally real being that made the objectively perfect idea.
Formal reality is "realness" as we know it physically, while objective reality is reality in the higher plane of the mind. Descartes believed minds were metaphysically not the same as physical objects.
All this really does is kick the problem down the line. He doesn't really prove his forms of reality as far as I know. He does fit them into a brilliant idea known as the great chain of being, but even though it is well thought out, no one takes it as serious truth in philosophy nowadays.
because in that time you couldnt even question it
He doesn't even prove that he has the infinite idea to begin with. An infinite idea is by definition not something a finite being such as us could comprehend or imagine in its entirety - a variation of his own second point. So what exactly is the "god" he imagines?
Just a model, a dumbed-down, finite and therefore comprehensive model of an infinite idea.
+Thomas Jetzer Indeed, when I confronted my teacher with a similar idea, he tried his best to play devil's advocate, but ended up accidentally saying "If a kid came to you with a cardboard box crudely labelled as a supercomputer... oh wait".
Some simple responses to these arguments for all you skeptics out there:
*1. Doubt the Cogito:* Descartes' immovable point with which to move the world is not so immovable. It contains an argument, (therefore) which the deceiver can distort, which is why Descartes, in his original formulation did not include the "ergo", does thought imply existence? Maybe not. And how do you know you are thinking? Or, at least, that the sensation that you are claiming is "thought" is actually "thought"? Perhpas instead it is tickle. And what is this "you" you speak of? Personal identity is a shaky concept at best, even if there was no evil deceiver around.
*2. Abduction is Bad Reasoning* Russell relies on the flimsiest of types of reasoning, namely abduction, or argument to the best explanation. There is not, nor has there ever been a link demonstrated between either simplicity, or instinct and truth. These are things that humans like, sure, and make us feel good, but that does not make them true! Furthermore, we can't even come up with a consistent system of mathematics or logic (see Godel, sorry Russell), let alone a consistent system of science. Finally, the burden of proof rests on the claimant, we cannot just take some belief at face value because we had it before. We all start without beliefs, (unless you think babies have propositional attitudes) so there should be no privilege given to some that we happen to acquire sooner.
*3. Destruction of debate* Moore's argument is the worst of all because of what it could lead us to. This is the kind of reasoning that leads to fights instead of discussion. Steadfastly refusing that you could not be wrong is what leads people of faith to fight instead of talk. Many people consider the fact that God exists, something that is everyday and basic. But it seems that we want a philosophical argument for that claim, even though it might be categorized as a simple intuition. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. Moore pointing at his hands is no more effective than a theist pointing at a cross or waving around a Koran. And even if Moore proves effective against eh academic skeptic that is making the positive claim that you do not know, I see no way he can defeat the Pyrrhonian who does not know if you can know, and therefore has no burden of proof.
I don't know what you are trying to do or say. If you are not accepting proof regarding God, ok, I can understand that. If you don't accept the statement "Reality exists" (regardless of the particulars of that reality,) then you are way off base, and generally not worth talking to. Seriously, why bother discussing knowledge with someone who does not accept the notion that there is some reality, the particulars of which one might or might not have some knowledge?
Regarding "burden of proof," consider it conversely that Moore takes it to be axiomatic that an external reality of some sort exists. Your only non-claim (thus having no burden of proof) is to suggest: "It is axiomatic that 'external reality exists' is not axiomatic." With this, the burden of proof rests on me: I punch you in the nose, so as to negate your axiom.
Note that this doesn't lead to "fights instead of discussion." If we substitute God in the axiom, my punching you in the nose would only indicate that I exist, not God.
The question of reality is classic philosophical exercise and it doesn't have a simple answer. Some people might prefer a simple explanation as "Here is my hand, punching you in the face" hence we are real. But that only plays in our sensory reactions. All these sensory reactions could easily be programmed in us. Just imagine you are in a game created by advanced superhumans, gods, evil etc and try to justify to yourself that you are not in the game. There is no way out!
platficker
"If you don't accept the statement "Reality exists" (regardless of the particulars of that reality,) then you are way off base, and generally not worth talking to."
The Matrix, Dark City, Strange Days & The Truman Show. Elon Musk even popularised a thought experiment where we might be doing this in the future.
In response to your third point, Moore's argument does not destroy the debate, or rather, it destroys the debate no more than the skeptic's puzzle does. Moore is trying to provide proof of the *existence* of the external world, not *knowledge* of the external world.
@ambidextrousfapper What are you talking about? It was never established that we *don't* know that the external world exists.
Let's run an experiment with some very strong hallucinogens and some really skilled philosophers and see if any of them can get out of their "bad case."
Love to see these videos. I am a bit to pragmatic to be a skeptic, but find it whimsical. That is its draw to me at least. Thank you
Moore's answer is literal hand waving.
The Moore argument is actually way more powerful than presented here. All argument rely on propositions. Including skeptical arguments. Those rely on the closure principle, which itself has no justification. Are you more confident in the closure principle or the existence of your hands?
My only complain is the volume of speech versus volume of the intro.
This is hands down the best series on RUclips!
Offer the argument "What IS money,anyway? to a loanshark to whom you owe money,and you will quickly face "relevant consequentialism..."
Three years late , but that comment made my day .
My take on this is it doesn't matter. My point in acquiring knowledge is to better understand my current reality. Regardless weather I am dreaming, I am controlled by a genie or I am just a brain in a vat. As long as that situation will hold for the rest of my existence, that is the knowledge I want to acquire. I want to know the rules of my dream world, the moods of my genie or the programing of the computer controlling my brain in a vat.
So basically if it fits the "reality" of my world, it doesn't matter if the theory is entirely correct or not, if it has no observable inconsistencies.
But if there are multiple possible hypothesis that can explain evidence, should we not accept the simplest one? Why to over complicate it unnecessarily? In someone's mind, the simplest theory may be to think of an all powerful god that still abides by the laws of the universe. In someone's else's mind, it might be that the fundamental laws are all there is with no need of God. Both theories can be consistent and considered "simple" or intuitive by different people.
You’re a pragmatist. Me too.
I really enjoy how clearly you present your discussions. Thank you ☺
If I don't exist, tell that to my creditors.
Moore's argument reminds of Samuel Johnson reportedly countering Berkeley's notion of Idealism by kicking a rock and proclaiming "I refute it thus".
About Descartes point of how an idea of an infinite perfect being must equal an infinite and perfect god.
I want to preface this w/ the fact that I do think some truths/certain knowledges are possible and attainable. This would be done by narrowing the scope of the claim/truth.
However,
Correlation does not equal Causation. Is Descartes point at 1:55 not correlation? What if there are other factors involved that we as humans don't know? Moreover, how does Descartes or anyone know that their own idea of an infinite and perfect being is in fact what is truly infinite and perfect? There is so much we don't know, let alone the things we don't even know, we don't know.
Can someone tell me why she spelled "skeptical" as "sceptical" at 5:33? made me skeptical of this video
what if I'm being forced to watch this with my hands tied behind my back, What do I use for trustworthy sense perception then?
My gigantic schlong.
My first response to skepticism would be if this was all a dream how would the ideas of the dream would come in the first place. Before you were born you had absolutely anything to dream about and looking back at memories before you would be completely empty. That is why a whole life of dreaming would not be true. At least you need to have some level of experience to generate the ideas for your dream
This does not exclude the possibility that maybe all those experiences are deceiving ones
But wouldn't the hand be in some way also real if it would just be simulated or something similar since it's just an idea of that reoccurring object? We'd also say a computer game is real even if it doesn't have any physical properties or software in general
The only meaningful counter to philosophical skepticism is a pragmatic one, IMO. As I see it, whether what any of us experience is true reality, a matrix, a dream brought on by an evil demon, what have you, is largely irrelevant to the fact that the only reality we have access to is the one we experience through our senses. As such, my main concern is achieving the most desirable(to me) outcomes as possible in the reality I experience, which means acting as if this experience is reality and finding the most successful strategy to predict my future experiences. IMO, this best strategy is an epistemology built on methodological skepticism, methodological naturalism and methodological empiricism. Basically, science.
The skeptics already said that operating on habit may be the best option.
If I am real, then I exist, if I am a figment of someone else's imagination, then someone exists to imagine me. Whatever the circumstance ( brain in a jar, pawn of an evil genius) ...... there is still a 'me' within it no? And if I exist, even as a construct of someone else's imagination - so does the possibility, no matter how infinitesimal - for me to incite change in that reality (and thus, so does the possibility of discerning whether or not that infinitesimal change is real or imagined).
Absolute skepticism is self refuting: Absolute skeptics must also be skeptical of their own absolute skepticism. They must now either 1: Stumble into an infinate circular regress (aka madness) or 2: Reconise absolute skepticism is circular and reject it as a principle.
They are all wrong. Even if I'm a brain in a vat it doesn't matter so long as I'm stuck in that dreamworld/simulation without a chance at leaving then I have to play by that worlds rules.
Funny. Conan the Barbarian said a similar thing once. _Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content._
Although a fictional character, he seems more down to earth than Descartes. In any case, one can ask whether 'Descartes' himself was also nothing more than a fictional character.
The philosophical idea is that maybe if you spent time away from "apparent" reality (like being a meditative monk or a sports anomaly or something), you'd be able to figure-out/escape into the "actual" reality. So living your life in "apparent" reality would actually be "wasting" your life. Conan the Barbarian does answer this perfectly though. If all my memories were from a virtual reality video game, surely I would call that MY LIFE and that "virtual person" would be ME, rather than some brain in the vat being used to create me and my life in the virtual reality. The virtual reality would still thus be real, and the "dream" would still be a real dream that provided a real identity and real changes. What a very Diogenes of Sinope thing for Conan the Barbarian to highlight.
Why is skepticism a problem?
+Pebkio Nomare It isn't necessarily. The Greek Skeptics believed that a life of skepticism could lead one to manifest tranquility in life.
it is a narrow definition specific to philosophy.
Jay Bingham
Well, seeing as all language is an abstract invention, I'd say *every* definition can be specific to philosophy.
But as a tool for evaluating real-world claims, I find it particularly useful.
Because people presuppose you have to believe *in order to act*. Hence, you care about belief, and since knowledge is defined as 'justified belief', you get the relationship.
The truth is that you don't need it. You are breathing since you were born, and just seldomly thought about that. That goes to show that you can do things without belief. It was clear to Taoists before Descartes, but, well... not everybody
+pifie when born, babies aren't breathing. they are however emitting odors immediately upon being born. there's no question no belief was required to emit an odor. why is that interesting and what do Taoists say about odor?
Thanks Professor Nagel. See you tomorrow :)
How do I really know Jennifer Nagel made this video?
rejection of scepticism: look at your hands! i don't have to prove that they exist hahaaaar.... the logic is strong with this one
Well, as the saying goes, one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. It's something which has come to be known as the "Moorean shift", and is a perfectly normal bit of trivial logic.
He performs this shift and asks you which of the two arguments (the original skeptical one and his new 'common sense' one) has the more plausible premises. That issue is where the battle gets fought and he thinks his wins.
+At Swim-Two-Bricks But that isn't really the issue at hand. It's the possibility of one's understanding of reality being inconsistent with it's actual state. It doesn't matter which is more plausible is this sort of argument but what isn't possible or is certainly the case. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that you have the ability to perceive and analyse in some fashion. Everything else has a level of uncertainty -which is the problem of skepticism.
All that skepticism is saying is that absolute knowledge is not possible in most cases. Pointing to your hands can saying that solves the problem because they exist (even though that isn't certain) is a pretty sloppy argument and a bit surprising to hear after the Russellian way of thinking in the video even though Moore's work was published first.
To clarify, the proof as given (7:00) that certainty of external objects is essentially self obvious and can be shown simply by "looking at you hands" which was already shown to be part of the problem of skepticism (uncertainty of our perceptions) and therefore fails at step 1.
+burstofsanity I don't agree with your assessment of what the issue at hand is. Skepticism, both as traditionally understood and how this video series described it, is the problem of the possibility of knowledge. It's not the problem of a special, certain, absolute knowledge subclass. No, do we have any propositional knowledge of any kind whatever.
Certainty became an issue only when the last video tried to prime our intuitions with the idea that certainty and knowledge rise or fall together. Once this intuition is in place, certainty gets used as a proxy for what's actually at stake (knowledge). It's best if we remember that certainty is not itself the issue.
Your use of the term "absolute knowledge" suggests there may be other kinds. It's a hint that you might be agreeing with Moore's general thrust without realizing it. What his argument amounts to is pointing out that non-absolute knowledge is a thing.
+At Swim-Two-Bricks
thanks for your modus ponens/modus tollens hint, i got a better hold of moores argument now.
just three remarks:
1) one could even be sceptical about (classical) laws of logic as descartes thought experiments "genius malignus" suggests. the kripkensteinian attack given by the private language argument gives another sceptic argument and roughly says that it is not possible to apply private rules (such as modus ponens) in an absolute manner. Moreover note that in order to prove modus ponens semantically you would need to apply modus ponens on the metalanguage level. inductively you will run into the agrippean trope of infinite regress whilst proving the meta-modus ponens on the meta²language-level.
2) forgetting 1: my favourite rejection of scepticism (maybe it will be covered in later videos) goes as follows. suppose that h is a sceptical hypothesis then if h is true, it is true apriori because it cannot be verified empirically. also h is contingent since one could think of world without brain-in-vats etc. but since h is true apriori, it is true necessary. this inference is somewhat controversial if we think of kripkes example "the prototype-meter in paris has length 1m". However i think the inference is true if h (the proposition or its meaning) does not depend on the world chosen which i further think one could assume in the case of h. but now h is necessary true and it is possible that not-h which is a contradiction.
3) forgetting 2: the 'right' account to scepticism is in my opinion not to take h or not-h for granted but rather apply some logical form of pyrrhonian scepticism towards h. in classical terminology we would say that the principle of isostheneia holds i.e. that there are good arguments for both sides. on the model-theoretic level this would mean that there are axiomatic systems (probably first-order) A, A' proving h and not-h. In a sufficient, consistent axiomatization B of the principes in A and A' our assumption h is then logically undecidable. This is a crucial metalanguage assertion about the semantics of scepticism. On the object level (where we are now) it doesn't matter if you assume either h or not-h as you could adjoin (exactly) one of them to your proto-axiomatic system B.
+Shaggee Joke Do you think causation, as a concept, is enough to refute skepticism? I know that I might be making an inductive leap here. Even if my brain is in a vat, something is causing my sensations I experience and something could be causing that, too. Is it possible to talk about a theoretical plane of existence without causality?
Good video. I cannot ascribe to any of these "Three Responses to Skepticism". They all seem so flawed for various reasons.
@Hersh Q I believe that knowledge is the sum of truths that an entity possesses. I define truth to be a belief that survives all challenges to it. I realize that this makes truth subjective. I also realize that what we hold to be the truth today can change over time and as new evidence is brought to light. Some truths have been established for a long time and are rarely challenged. This is why I am such a big supporter of the scientific method. I also believe that wanting something to be true does not make it true(like believing that there is a God).
@Hersh Q I don't know about "the law of non-contradiction". I've given up on absolute certainty.
@Hersh Q Great dialog...thanks. I had to look up 'Solipsism'. Yes, I would not be absolutely certain of it either. I still hold many truths or many things to be true. I've just given up on the absolute certainty of it all. I make decisions often. In making decisions, I consider what I believe to be true. I just assign an ambiguous percentage to what I hold as true. For things like 1+1=2, that percentage is very high but not %100.000000000000000 percent. It's more like 99.999??? percent.
I have an infinite idea.
I got it from Descartes.
Does that mean that Descartes is God?
wats ur infinite idea?
I think, therefore I am.
why does thinking make you exist?
Because Descartes said so.
TheFinalChapters why did he say so?
Are you related to Thomas Nagel?
+Michael Day She is not. She responded to this question in video 2 I think.
How do we know she's telling the truth?
I lol'd thank you.
clever bastard. XD
how would we know what it felt like to her to BAT her eyelids as she told a lie? ;)
At roughly 5:30, there is a typo "SCEPTICAL" should be "SKEPTICAL". Well, not a typo, but a consistency issue - you use the k-spelling in most (or all, are there any I didn't catch?) of the video. I know my comment detracts from the content of the video, just wanted to point it out in case you do a revision in the future.
Ok someone please explain why i'm stupid.
2:22, this logical progression
Generalized counterargument: A finite set Y(human) cannot produce an infinite set X(idea), nor can a finite set Y contain an infinite set X. He claims to be a finite set Y that contains an infinite set X in premise 1, which is invalid. God could not place an infinite set in a finite set at this point because he has used these invalid premises to conclude god must exist before he assumes the god is all powerful.
There's no way I can prove the hunger in my gut is real, but it wouldn't be very practical to just ignore it, based on my current knowledge of existence.
Is knowledge of reality the only thing that counts as knowledge? What about knowledge of experience?
I like Russel's argument. Independently of how logical something is, there are good and bad reasons of accepting views.
Neither simplicity nor instinct are good reason for accepting views. Sometimes the real answers are going to be complicated, and there's no reason to think that instinct is a guide to truth. We would have to know that our instincts come from some authoritative source that was honestly trying to help us understand the world, but there's no way to know that. On the contrary, all sorts of illusions seem to demonstrate that our instincts are sometimes wrong.
+Ansatz66
The idea is that the simplest explanation may be the best, not that it is the one and best. Instinct would not always be a good guide to some truth: reason and logic are usually better ways.
An 'authoritative source' guiding our instincts to truths would bring about too many complexities, convoluted explanations, irrational arguments, and absurd explanations.
+Agimaso Schandir Occam's razor exists for a reason. If the only "truth" we can know is our own existance, then that word is pretty useless. So maybe the definition of truth is the real conondrum here.
Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about whats "true" and more about what's usefull.
"What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
-Abraham Lincoln
I've heard that to check if you're awake or lucid dreaming, you actually have to look at your hands. If you're dreaming, they would most likely be strange, like they would have six fingers or something. I don't know if that's true but it's funny to me how similar to all these theories it sounds.
The thing is, that's a schema issue. It's up to your expectations. If you believe you're in waking life while dreaming, your hands won't be strange. If you're lucid dreaming, and look at your hand, it may or may not be strange depending on your expectations and desires.
"I have an infinite idea" really means "I _think_ I have an infinite idea" or "I'm deluding myself that I have an infinite idea"
Does it really mean that or you just think it means that?
I love working the "machinery of mind!" But I also understand that we subsist on condition and consequence, regardless of our powers of reason, and that this will always be so...
If you want to solve the Problem of Skepticisim and find a way to obtain knowledge, it is helpful to ask, what purpose knowledge actually serves:
Knowledge informs your decisions by allowing you to predict the outcome of your actions. The better your knowledge the easier it is for you to deal with the world around you.
As far as this purpose of knowledge is concerned, it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether you are being decieved by an evil genious or dreaming or whether any other one of the infinite possible explanations for the world around you is true.
If knocking your glass of water over has the consequence of spilling your drink, both based on the 'real world' explanation and the 'dreaming' explanation, then there is no need to know or care, which one is true. Because both explanations make the same predictions, they are equivalent in that sense.
very impressive introductions to philosophy.. i wonder if u bring up munchaussen trilemma and the problem of the criterion later on.
From my point of view, one problem here is that there is an underlaying assumption that knowledge only comes from something real and that real = objective, materialistic experience, is it possible that real also equals subjective experience ? Another assumption in this video is that objective/materialistic = commonality of subjectivity, is that always the case ? ; )
this is such a nice argument but do you want to elaborate what could be those unreal things/situations from which we could acquire knowledge.
Doctor: The Evil Genius does not exist he can't hurt you.
The Evil Genius in the video :
Imagine if we taught extreme forms of skepticism in childhood, it was a normal part of the cultural zeitgeist, and we normalized it. Would it be as disturbing as it seems to be to many people? How much of this discomfort is due to the evaporation of our indoctrinated values in the face of skepticism?
I like this video I'm finely over solipsism because of it man that was a bad time I realize it is a big if this idea is true type of thing now but I'll talk again if I have any panic attacks about it the idea is so scary
Even though Moore's case might seem flawed and basic, I wouldn't dismiss it too soon. It's worth thinking about.
When he says GOD he actually means evolution
Refining favorable genes is they key to improve life
Survival of the fittest has done an amazing job at this so far
Summary of the responses.
Descartes: I think, therefore I exist as a thinking substance. And God, by the way, must exist in order that we, as thinking substances, can think of others thinking substances, math, logic and, sometimes, when God is possibly distracted, about sometimes false things and sometimes true things.
Russell: Everything could be deceived but it´s unlikely according to some common sense interpretation of statistics and simplicity.
Moore: I have hands, therefore I exist.
Nothing new for me in this video. Knew these answers and know that they simply don't do much for me. Common sense doesn't do much for me. Common sense comes from our own state of mind and could be induced, so it can be influenced by the 'evil genius'.
+Shangori Even the thought "I am controlled by an evil genius ." could come from this genius. We could never proof it. But the common sense wins for me because it just makes me ways happier.
Toshihiro Kun
Maybe, but in that same breath you could accept any and all gods, homeopathy, etc, including clashing ideas.
I don't mind being a bit more unsure about the world. I like surprises
+Toshihiro Kun It's actually very improbable that we would be controlled by an evil genius in fact it's probably as improbable as the god scenario.
Even if we were induced by the evil genius we still have common sense like 1+1=2 even the the deceived evil genius world
@@gomez3357 There are people who were convinced into believing death cults, literally putting their lives on the line for an idea that common sense would reject outright.
And you have people who genuinely have said in the public domain that 1+1=2 is racist assertion coming from colonialism.
Tell me again how common sense prevails
Love it❤ thanks so much!!
My response to Skepticism. Just because you can't know something is true, it doesn't mean that it isn't. Just because there could be an alternative explanation to what we know, it doesn't mean that our explanation is wrong. There is no ultimate reason why what it means to know something should be universal or explainable to other people. Just because someone can't explain to you how they know something, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. And how someone knows something is under no obligation to make sense to you. My ultimate response to the skeptic is that they can't understand how I know. The Truth does not obligate an explanation of itself.
Just because something isn't explainable it doesn't mean it isnt effective. Just because something can't be proven it doesn't mean that it can't be true. Just because something doesn't know or can't explain to you how they know something it doesn't mean that they don't know. Spiders refute the skeptic
If there is an evil genius controlling my reality, 1. They are very boring 2. Why are they bothering and 3. whos to say that someone isn't controlling their reality?
yoyoyo2463 It's the same with the Brain in a vat
Why someone could do that?
What if they are too in a simulaction and Doesn't know It?
all looks like a bad joke
would be good to include distinctions/definitions for terms that are used both in technical ways in philosophy AND more loosely in common language! skepticism in our everyday world is actually very reasonable -it is the stance that we should not just accept claims without evidence or sound reasoning, and is related to a scientific worldview, that is specifically skeptical about religious, supernatural and magical claims. this is contrasted with what i think of as extreme or even freshman skepticism of the kind that (for example) many proponents of the paranormal utilize by saying that they are the true skeptics, because their skepticism about science and the supposed conspiracy of scientific materialism to cover up paranormal research, the plausibility of god etc is actually more "open minded" and "skeptical" about what can be known and whether or not evidence trumps anecdote and experiential convictions.
What makes it a good or bad case? I say that what you refer to as a bad case is actually better than the "good case"
I am completely new to the Philosophical world... Do you have anything that might help?
Why not make it simpler and accept it might all be a dream but acknowledge that it never matters if it is or not.
It does matter
@@gomez3357 When? under what circumstances does it matter? The premise is that you will never be able to know the difference. Therefore under no circumstances will you ever be able to tell the difference. If you are unable to ever, in any way tell the difference between A and B, how can things being of A or B matter.
Its even fair to argue that if there is no conceivable way to tell the difference between A and B, then they are effectively the same thing.
It's ridiculous to doubt the existence of your own hand... therefore just believe in anything you want without evidence?
Yeah, I guess that *would* be an answer to skepticism...
Just because something is an answer to skepticism doesn't mean such is a proper answer. For example, I present you a fourth answer to skepticism:
*-Would you like fries with that?*
pifie Well, that makes just as much sense, and is as much of a sequitur, as anything in the video...
Exactly my point. Just because it is an answer, doesn't make it a proper answer
, nor a proper question, nor to be valid
Thank you so much for posting these videos Proffersor Nagel!
Descartes' use of the flawed ontological argument for the existence of god completely undermines his argument beyond 'Cogito ergo sum'.
Descartes said that an imperfect being couldn't create the idea of a perfect being as he might imprint his own imperfect thoughts into the nature of a perfect being and then says that god must have made this perfect being because it apparently was perfect but did he ever try to validate his claim that it was perfect and not his own imperfect idea? For such a smart guy that seems like a really stupid thing to miss.
It looks like we have these options:
-god is real and made imperfect beings capable of understanding perfection
-Descartes is the perfect being
- both him and his idea are imperfect
- imperfect beings are capable of creating perfect things
Both the first and last options look unlikely to me
If a system can build a comprehensive and believable reality the only way to determine from within that it isn't real is to find and prove paradoxes (ie flaws in the system).
If there is a system, it is bh definition real.
reality is bigger than provable proposition. In order to prove anything you need axioms, Somethings you believe to be true without being able to prove. Mathematics is a fine example to that.
we can't know so we must assume that we exist and can observe and learn about the world.
You don't really have an infinite idea. You have an idea of infinity that can come out of a finite being.
I am amazed on how so called Russel`s and Moore`s arguments are attributed to these two persons at all. Any normal person would have responded to skeptic`s claim in these ways. So what makes these two special?
The more I learn about Descartes, the more I wonder why anyone ever listened to him.
you're the best jennifer, thanks!
I always loosely liked Moore's general idea, but I never really liked the way he reasoned it. I prefer the following: "Literally ALL evidence EVER leads to the conclusion that there is an external world, so that is the only reasonable conclusion. It could be wrong, but if it is, then you would be unreasonable if you came to the correct conclusion."
I know that isn't the same conclusion Moore reached, but I think it is a stronger argument from a similar stating point.
That said, there's something rather entertaining about his paper "Proof of an External World" by G.E. Moore and I highly recommend everyone read at least the first couple of pages.
I should point out, though, Moore and Russel are both vulnerable to the Fermi Paradox. My argument is less vulnerable because it doesn't rely on the idea that a simulation is unlikely as a premise for the conclusion being reasonable. Rather, in my version, even if a simulation is likely, all the evidence you see still points in the other direction. I find this response to Fermi less than satisfactory, but I have yet to see a better one. (Not that I've done an exhaustive search, mind you.)
I think at least some of the problem of skepticism comes from the problem of language. Do I know my hand is in front of me? Yes! But the very next question this observation raises is, What is my hand? See, how we answer the first question depends upon how we define our terms. If I define the term, "my hand" as the object within my visual perception which, to my perception, has five digits and a palm, connected to an arm, connected to my torso (or those things within my perception that I call arm and torso), then the belief that my hand is in front of my face is a true belief within the parameters of that definition. Extending the question of knowledge to the absolute is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether or not there actually is an absolute reality in which an absolute "my hand" exists. What matters is that my experience of what I call "my hand" is consistent with my definitions of the objects of my perception.
You exist because you know you exist as consciousness. You can be without thinking.
great video
Pragmatism works for me. What matters to me is being able to navigate my experiences in such a way that I can mitigate or avoid unwanted outcomes. I think knowledge SHOULD have some doubt in it as subjectivity itself leaves all manner of conceivable, if not demonstrable or falsifiable, ways in which any knowledge claim MIGHT be wrong. Its like the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", it doesn't matter. I think this all hinges on definitions of " reality" and "knowledge". Absolutist definitions serve man little, if any, purpose, because we are finite subjects who cannot ever fully isolate and identify " pure reality" or "absolute knowledge". I mean, a single conceivable way a knowledge claim might be wrong, defeats even the concept of absolute knowledge. I prefer to define knowledge as familiarity gained through experience, and not as justified true belief, which is still far better than the presupposition a list approach too knowledge, which is some proposition of which one cannot be wrong about, even conceivably, else one knows nothing. By a presup definition, I would agree, NOi ONE knows ANYTHING in such an absolute way, except, perhaps, that one is having SOME kind of experience.
+munstrumridcully
{..."how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", it doesn't matter.}
See 'packing problems' for a more mathematical version of this argument, or in physics the Pauli exclusion principle, and for a quantum gravitational treatment, www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm
For me, I figured that if we can't measure it, sense it, reason it, or otherwise confirm that something exists in our current sphere of reality, why worry about it? If I am hallucinating and I am actually about to walk off a cliff, unless there is some way for me to detect that exact problem, there is literally nothing else I can do about it. Therefore, I feel we should try to find out what we can, try to figure out what is real and fake, what is true and what is not, but not worry about the things we can not prove even exist. I can not prove hell exists, I am not going to worry about it. I can not prove I am not inside a computer simulation (although there has been some interesting study in that area) so why fret about it? If you want to try to logically prove an idea, go for it, but when it is outside the realm of science and understand and probability, take it with a grain of salt. Din't let existensial quandries stop you from enjoying and living your life.
What exactly is skepticism challenging?
+punk1attitude It is a challenge to what we can know is true with certainty.
Great content! If I may give some constructive criticism, I found the echo distracting and the fake drawing animation is a but repetitive. I subscribed and am looking forward to the next one.
I think that the best answer to the skeptical problem is Husserl's answer, witch turn upside down the problem: if you are speaking about something that is "real" as something that is real by itself, you are not making anithing about proving that that's real. You are just trying to force a metaphisical object (the fact that something's made real by something, like there is something that gives reality by itself) into reality. An answer to skepticism could just be: if the world as you see is not the real world, so what is the real world? Because, with real, i mean "as I see the way I see". If you are saying that there is another criteria for real, you are implying that there is something that give reality reality. You are practically using god for a demonstration, and that's not fair in modern Philosophy
+Umberto Mazzotti The real world is what we model our perceptions of the world on. In some ways, yes, that is a preconceived notion, that there is a real world to model on, but it is reasonable.
Playing a god card is not fair in philosophy? Why, it is the answer to anything?
So the non-Cartesian solutions are to say that common sense is equivalent to knowledge or that intuition is equivalent to knowledge. So basically both of them rely on the idea that there is no such thing as true or higher knowledge/truth/meaning.
By the way, I think you may have a misreading of the butterfly dreaming it is a person. The butterfly represents the spirit, and the human represents to body. The image is that the butterfly person should wake up and realize the essential spirituality, as opposed to the gritty animal nature of being a human.
Or something like that. Who wants pie?
Three responses to skepticism:
Option 1: Prove what you are saying.
Option 2: The wrong reaction.
Option 3: Another wrong reaction.
What if there is an all powerful God who wants to be thought of as all good
It seems to me that Russell has the only reasonable defense of the three.
Descartes's assertion that only infinite beings can think of something that is infinitely prefect is unfounded.
Moore's assertion is that we should automatically assume that common sense is true by default without considering that we could be deceived.
if the skeptical argument was true, then how do you explain the difference between lucid dreaming where you control the environment by thinking about it, and the real world where unexpected things happen all the time.
Probably because someone else is controlling your world.
The idealist can argue that waking life is intersubjective while dreaming is not. You can control your imagination by thinking about it, and if dreaming is a private experience in your imagination then it makes sense you can control it by thinking about it while not having this control in waking life.
I have a different solution. I simply accept that what we reference as the external world IS what we denote as reality regardless of whether such we are in the good or bad case. Thus all points of knowledge that we claim about reality is about whatever construct we actually reside. I am like Moore in that I agree that various hypothetical possibilities are unsound (ridiculous).. However, such point of skepticism are irrelevant, since, regardless of whether what we denote is reality or not, it is all that we can claim.
There is also the added dimension of cognitive issues that seem to be ignored in philosophical presentations that is a real issue. This is also dismisses Rene Decartes notions, since, it is clear based on our theological literature that humanity has made up many different God concepts with no reference beyond assertion (at least that I have found thus far) and some would seem to be related to cognitive issues that we have discovered in humanity.
This is like me saying that I am sure about something, but then again, I might be wrong about this. So I am not sure can I be so sure, but then I know for sure that I am a sure about about the fact that I am sure, but then again, ....
I think skeptical theories are fun to ponder, and I do understand that the point of skepticism is to argue about individual experiences. But all of these theories still imply the existence of SOMETHING… and that something can therefore be known or atleast believed … maybe this is all a dream or I am just a brain in a vat… those scenarios imply that others are real and controlling my reality. But my reality is what I’ll be stuck with, either it’s a dream or not… so I’d like to figure out how what I’m experiencing works …. Don’t know if any of that makes sense lol
I love that there is korean sub!
Wherever there is thought, there is existence...
I have thoughts...
existence
Are you still there when there are no thoughts?
@@zyxwfish It's pretty clear, no because there's no existence. If I have no more thoughts, then I am no longer in existence. If there are no thoughts, then I am also collected in that group of not having thought, so again I am not in existence.
@@rymichael7203 Can you watch a clock and stop thinking for 5 seconds?
@@zyxwfish Irrespective of what I am or am not doing there are still thoughts or the possibility of thoughts. In seconds there are milliseconds and even those can be subdivided, so imagine a Perception which to it a second is expanded, even a lifetime. Its complete life would have me as inanimate, the background scenery. If it is possible for it to have thoughts, even discontinuous or fleeting, for its whole life... then I, between the halves of seconds, may have micro-thoughts of which are unknown to me. Perception is only the frame rate we experience at.
Have you ever tried to examine the time between thoughts or picture yourself as inanimate as a stone between the derivative of time...?
Moore : My hands are real
Skeptics: prove it
Moore gave a painful slap in the skeptics face .
Skeptics: why did you slap me?
Moore: l didn't because my hands are not REAL or are they?
Skeptics: I am not sure but whatever that is it is REALLY painful though.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ILLUSION OF PAIN. IF THE ILLUSION OF PAIN EXIST, IT MUST BE PAINFUL IN ORDER TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS SUCH. BUT WHAT IS PAINFUL IS ALWAYS PAIN AND PAIN IS ALWAYS PAINFUL. SO PAIN IS ALWAYS REAL.
NOW IF PAIN IS REAL SO IS ITS CAUSE AND EFFECT: IF THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF PAIN WERE UNREAL THAT WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING PAIN HAS NO CAUSE AND EFFECT WHICH IS UNTRUE.
THEREFORE IF X IS THE CAUSE OF PAIN AND Y IS THE EFFECT OF PAIN THEN X AND Y ARE BOTH REAL.
IF MY HANDS CAN CAUSE PAIN AND I CAN FEEL PAIN THEN I AM REAL AND MY HANDS ARE ALSO REAL.
LET'S CALL THIS THOUGH DOULOREALISM.
What about pain in dreams?
Evil genius or not, you still physically exist in some capacity, be that as a brain in a vat dreaming or a conscious humanoid. In either case, your thoughts stem from some source that could be defined as physical.
Not for any meaningful definition of physical. If it actually turns out that 'you' are the only thing that exists, then there is no difference between physical or non-physical. The fact that 'you' exist doesn't mean that physical objects or physical space exists, just that some phenomenon exists and that phenomenon defines itself as you.
I agree, if I'm understanding correctly. But in the example they give, you're not the only thing that exists. There is also the evil genius, and maybe some other things if said evil genius needs equipment and basic necessities. A lot of assumptions, I know. But just considering these two, regardless of whether you are awake, or if the evil genius is feeding false Intel, the example given doesn't seem to negate the fact that you do have a physical component separate from the supposed illusions you're being fed, if that's the case. I think...
Are you sure?
Does Moore’s challenge to skepticism resemble the theist argument for the existence of God?
It feels like you should've mentionned a probabilistic approach to epistemology. Something like Bayesian Epistemology...
Unfortunately, it seems there is little evidence for Moore's second premise.
Are you more confident in the skeptic's premises?
@@gdn5001 The negation of Moore's second premise seems more plausible to me.
@@Luciferofom It's more plausible to you that you don't have hands then that you do have hands?
Is Jennifer Nagel related to Thomas Nagel?
We do not have infinite idea, we have endless ideas, there's a huge difference and that throws out his backing up for why god is real and pretty much throws his argument as hogwash.
Russell makes a very, very good argument.
And I can't believe Moore's actually sounded dumber than the first guy.
+Ashley ASHLEYM
Yeah I agree with Descartes in 'I think, therefore I am'. But when he started talking about infinite ideas and god, he totally lost me.
+Ashley ASHLEYM Absolutely. Moore simply refused to even acknowledge the argument. How he even made it into the video escapes me. "I just know" could be used to justify anything.
Descartes' "I think therefore I am" would mean that Sense data actually exists. Wich makes sense, it might even be considered part of "I".
Are you more confident in the premises of the skeptical argument or the existence of your hands? That's Moore's argument.
How to beat a skeptic.
Step 1: Ask them how to believe anything.
Step 2: Ask him how to forget something.
Step 3: Ask them, "with such authority on the legitimacy of reality, why are your questions considered more of an answer than the answers in consideration to lessoning your questions?"
Step 4: repeat steps 1-3
Eventually they may try to change the subject or feel that the conversation is disengenuous, or a mockery.
at which point you have 2 choices.
Tell them that you are their GOD because you have successfully figured out the total extent as to how they are capable of figuring stuff out and with this information alone you are effectively as capable of deceiving them.
If they seem remain insistently skeptical, just tell them "that is exactly what all of us wanted to deceive you into thinking".
Now this may seem cruel and dishonesty to the individual but this is entirely their fault.
+anthony johnson
{Step 1: Ask them how to believe anything.
Step 2: Ask him how to forget something.
Step 3: Ask them, "with such authority on the legitimacy of reality, why
are your questions considered more of an answer than the answers in
consideration to lessoning your questions?"
Step 4: repeat steps 1-3}
1. Through shared experience.
2. Focus on other things; grow old; procrastinate; diddle-daddle.
3. They aren't.
4. No need to.
Re "skeptic accuses you that your hands aren't real": nah, just (lightly) smack 'em in the face.
It's science-y. It's very likely that you will successfully make contact (or that the target dodges out of the way). I feel either result is sufficient to show your hands are real.
OTOH, if your hand goes right through them, well I guess maybe they were on to something after all...
In my view, we can't really prove that the external world is existent, but that doesn't invalidate the knowledge that we have about this possible external world. To me, knowledge is only true if we can confirm it and we can only confirm it if we can make a prediction based on this knowledge and we can verify it. Since, the only way we can verify anything is through our senses, then it doesn't matter if they are real or not. Once the prediction is verified through our senses, that's all that matters.
On the other hand, even if there was another real world that our senses could never access and we tried to make predictions based on certain estimates that could never be verified, then it would not be considered knowledge anyway even if that could be real to another conscience outside the world accessed by our senses.
descartes believes in plato's forms, but for perfect forms to exist, they couldn't possibly come from an imperfect being, but would have to come from a perfect god. therefore, god is real;