/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13048472]

How do I prove my empiricist friend that all knowledge and truth are based on belief?

[Anonymous No.13048478]

Problem of induction

[Anonymous No.13048517]

>>13048472
If he's an intelligent empiricist he should already be aware that it rests on one belief - that the universe we perceive corresponds to a universe that exists. Everything else simply follows from that belief - that one can perform an experiment multiple times and achieve the same result, that explanation of the result is meaningful, et cetera. You're not going to be able to come up with a "gotcha!" by debating inductive/deductive reasoning with him unless he's a brainlet with no concept of the fundamental axiom upon which empiricism rests - which, in fairness, describes most STEMfags.

[Anonymous No.13048518]

>>13048472
try books

[Anonymous No.13048535]

>>13048472
ask him what nibers are

[Anonymous No.13048637]

>>13048472
Well you can't prove it, but Kant talks about it. A posteriori (experience) knowledge is meaningless without a priori knowledge (innate knowledge) providing the framework to base that experience initially on. It is possible that if our a priori knowledge differs in framework in regards to another, then people will interpret the same experience in a different way. That being said, I am a Kant novice. Or just look up any rationalist like Descartes or Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.13048647]

>>13048472
Are you suggesting mathematics is knowledge based on belief?

[Anonymous No.13048665]

>>13048472

[Anonymous No.13048670]

>>13048472
If you can't even figure out how to make that argument you have no business having that opinion to begin with.
Read Peirce and Sellars

[Anonymous No.13048705]

>>13048665
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVOi8cvEl5Y

[Anonymous No.13049041]

>>13048670
Actually, I have come up with almost all of the suggestions here before, but he keeps on stating that belief is a concious decision and that observations are so obvious and prove everything. I need (not really) something to click in him.

[Anonymous No.13049071]

>>13048472
Think, idiot. What are the core axioms behind mathematics and science? That x = x, and that what has happened will continue to happen.

[Anonymous No.13049151]

>>13048665
I am confused when I see this image because they are agreeing with each other. Daffy says intrinsic value doesn't exist, and Mickey says you can't prove knowledge (and by extension, that the knowledge therefore has no intrinsic value). They are both being hypocritical, for Mickey trusts in his knowledge that knowledge doesn't hold intrinsic value, and so does Daffy. The "Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?" is a lazy addition (for if you admit life has no intrinsic meaning, what use is fighting for life?), and the admversion to death, "perish like a dog" is the lazy summarization on why you should live by Mickey, for if you die then you will be "like a dog", even though to live means to die. Any person who compares the mindset of those they disagree with to a dog is an idiot who hasn't thought of a genuine reason to advert to something so uses the "dog" argument to mask their resentment (i.e. the egoist is like an abandoned dog, cynic derives from an ancient greek word meaning "dog-like", the worker is like an obediant dog etc.).

[Anonymous No.13049160]

>>13048705
This image is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.13049193]

>>13048665
>for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals
This sounds profound, but it isn’t. It’s similar to the argument that you can’t trust your predetermined brain to tell you your brain is predetermined. If your brain is made of chemicals, then isn’t it possible that it arrives at the truth, and you know that your brain is made of chemicals. If your brain is made of chemicals, then how could it LIE to you by making you believe it’s made of chemicals? What exactly is the issue here?

[Anonymous No.13049193,1]

He beliefs his observations, but what if his observations are wrong? What if they are illusions? Observations are not so obvious if you know anything about the mind and its limits.

[Anonymous No.13049436]

>>13048472
I smoke, therefore I feel the nicotine hit within.
I think about this, then trust the evidence more than I trust (you)

[Anonymous No.13049502]

>>13048705
An illusion isn't something that doesn't exist, it's something you're perceiving incorrectly. When he says consciousness is an illusion, he doesn't mean it doesn't exist (you will not find him make that claim at any time) but that our common-sense understanding of its nature is incorrect. When you perceive a lake as part of a mirage, our understanding of the visual phenomenon is incorrect, but the light, heat and sand that produced that image all exist none the less.

[Anonymous No.13049618]

>>13049502
Most of the time I see a carefully prepared caricature of Dennett, I know it was done deliberately out of hatred for the indirect potency his work has at debunking all sorts of silly dogmas that are conveniently profitable to clever theocrats. That idiots fall for tricks like that is predictable as the hours of dawn and dusk.

[Anonymous No.13049755]

>>13048472
All it would take is one dose of acid, DMT, or 'shrooms.

[Anonymous No.13049983]

>>13048472
You don't, because it isn't.

Take the most basic knowledge and truth of all -- that of your own existence. Is that merely a 'belief'? If not, why not? Perhaps it will become apparent to you that this and some basic logical truths (law of non-contradiction) must be the case, and that the evidence that is being able to experience at all demonstrates their validity.

Now, if you want to argue that any knowledge beyond these most apodictic truths is belief-based that's fine, but it's no way a given. If our most basic and incontrovertible knowledge is based on evidence, then it is probable that other objective knowledge is possible.

[Anonymous No.13050009]

>>13049502
>he doesn't mean it doesn't exist (you will not find him make that claim at any time)
yes, he does, he considers that what is colloquially understood as consciousness does not exist, hence his famous magician example

[Anonymous No.13050097]

>>13048472
You come off as one of those dumbasses that likes to argue about everything, especially shit nobody cares about. You know your friends probably secretly have disdain for you, right?

[Anonymous No.13050117]

>>13048647
Are you suggesting numbers are real physical things?

[Anonymous No.13050124]

>>13048472
Gettier already demonstrated that knowledge is not justified true belief, brother. You're both retards

[Anonymous No.13050137]

>science is just another religion, mang
There's nothing wrong with belief. The important thing how much is any given belief congruent with reality. For instance, you arguing that beliefs are same thing as religion is wrong as you have no evidence to substantiate your belief.

t. empiricist

[Anonymous No.13050141]

>>13050117
Nope. But the caliber of the bullet and all the science behind blowing your brains of will care. No matter if ilusion or not. It sucks to stop existing, therefore we know we exist

[Anonymous No.13050158]

>>13050117
If your belief is that 5+5 is 11, you claim you have 11 fingers. Math is not realy, but can very accurately describe real things. Arguing that belief 5+5=11 is same as 5+5=10 belief is kindergarten tier intellectual dishonesty.

[Anonymous No.13050208]

>>13050141
>>13050158
this is why you should start with the rationalists

[Anonymous No.13050250]

>>13050009
I defy you to get even a single quotation of him saying consciousness doesn't exist, rather than it's an illusion (which would fit with the idea that we're instead misunderstanding what's occurring).

[Anonymous No.13050260]

>>13048472
Hume.

[Anonymous No.13050297]

>>13050250
"Real" consciousness is an illusion by the very fact it cannot by definition be real. Have you ever read Dennett? He uses this example all the fucking time
>The comparison between consciousness and stage magic is par-ticularly apt, for the romantic and gullible among us have much the same yearning regarding stage magic that they have regarding consciousness. LEE SIEGEL draws our attention to the fundamental twist in his excellent book, Net of Magic:
>Wonders and Deceptions in India(1991): I'm writing a book on magic, I explain, and I'm asked, Real magic? By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. No, I answer: Conjuring tricks, not real magic. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic. (p. 425)
>It cannot be real if it is explicable as a phenomenon achieved by a bag of ordinary tricks cheap tricks, you might say. And that is just what many people claim about consciousness, too. So let us pursue the parallel with stage magic, and see how some of the effects of consciousness might be explained.

[Anonymous No.13050406]

>>13050297
I don't think Dennett's stage magic is particularly good analogy. For starters, it's not the magician playing tricks on himself. The "common sense" of conscious self-understanding (ghost! soul! etc) is mere ignorance, not a blind spot intentionally exploited.