Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Rob
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 21

Posted 06/20/09 - 01:08 AM:	#21
What I'm asking is, is the sentence, "either x is true or x is not true" a true sentence without any doubt. If one or the other was true they would of course be used within the context of the sentence.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/22/09 - 01:10 PM:	#22
oag wrote: It is observed and believed to be one or the other, with varying degrees of compelling evidence. I don't agree with the "degrees of compelling evidence" portion of this if you're a solipsist. It's hard work being a solipsist, so you're going to have be consistent. There's no speaking of "probably" true (as in "more likely than not" or > 50% certain) to the solipsist. You cannot say that it's likely there is a monitor in front of you unless you have had an opportunity to (1) observe and (2) tap into Absolute Reality and compare your observations with what actually Truly Exists. If you can't make that comparison, you have no basis to suggest that observations are probably reliable. By way of comparison, if I KNOW that there are six sides to a die, then knowing nothing else, I KNOW there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 4. If after 1000 rolls I find that my odds of getting a 4 are 1 in 4, then I can alter my odds for getting the 4 (and every other number). That is, liklihood (probabilities) are determined by what we know. In my example, I tapped into knowledge by an empirical study of rolling the die 1000 times. If, as you say, you know nothing (other than your existence), then you can hardly say that it is more likely than not that there is a monitor in front of you. All you can say is that is it possible there is, meaning the chances are anywhere from 1 to 100%.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/22/09 - 01:51 PM:	#23
Hanover wrote: It's hard work being a solipsist, so you're going to have be consistent. By this I take you to mean that I would have to be all or nothing about it. I think it takes more work to be an objectivist because you have to firmly commit to things you cannot ever confirm. There's no speaking of "probably" true (as in "more likely than not" or > 50% certain) to the solipsist. Says who? That statement would mean that a solipsist is incapable of functioning in any normal manner in life where judgments and decisions have to be made, choices have to be prioritized, etc. Solipsism isn't a paralyzing perspective on the way things appear to be and how one should react to them. It is merely a refusal to commit to the absolute truth of the existence of anything but my own mind. It is not a denial of reality but an embracing of the fact that I can only address my own reality and all others are fictitious, hypothetical. You cannot say that it's likely there is a monitor in front of you unless you have had an opportunity to (1) observe and (2) tap into Absolute Reality and compare your observations with what actually Truly Exists. Wrong. You are giving the parameters for an objectivist saying that the monitor in front of them absolutely exists. Al I, the solipsist, need to do is observe that there is a monitor in front of me and react accordingly. I don't have to care about anything absolute that I cannot confirm anyway. As a solipsist I am stating unequivocally that there is no way in hell for a person to compare their observations with what "actually Truly exists". All we ever have are observations. If you can't make that comparison, you have no basis to suggest that observations are probably reliable. I never do. Objectivists do that and, like you, I am arguing that it can't be done. By way of comparison, if I KNOW that there are six sides to a die, then knowing nothing else, I KNOW there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 4. If after 1000 rolls I find that my odds of getting a 4 are 1 in 4, then I can alter my odds for getting the 4 (and every other number). That is, liklihood (probabilities) are determined by what we know. In my example, I tapped into knowledge by an empirical study of rolling the die 1000 times. You did not tap into any sort of objective knowledge though. All you did was observe something over and over again and it compelled you to a certain belief which you hold firm enough to declare that you know it. If, as you say, you know nothing (other than your existence), then you can hardly say that it is more likely than not that there is a monitor in front of you. I'm not. All appearance of that is there. What I don't know is that it is objectively there. I don't care about the likelihood that there is or is not an objectively existing monitor in front of me and I see no reason to commit to the belief that there is. What I can say for certain is that there appears to be a monitor in front of me and then I can act accordingly. All you can say is that is it possible there is, meaning the chances are anywhere from 1 to 100%. That is all any of us can say about the objective existence of something no matter what we call ourself. An objectivist will prefer to say that their observation is reasonably reliable with regard to the objective existence of something and they will assign an arbitrary degree of likelihood to that being true but can never confirm that it is absolutely true. What do they have then? They do not have anything objective since it is something they assign arbitrarily. It is a belief. Period. I believe that what I see and experience is true to varying degrees. I'm compelled to those beliefs in much the same way you are. What I don't believe is that any of it is objectively true...other than the single statement that I exist.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/22/09 - 04:45 PM:	#24
<p> oag wrote: Says who? That statement would mean that a solipsist is incapable of functioning in any normal manner in life where judgments and decisions have to be made, choices have to be prioritized, etc</p> <p> </p> <p>For you to declare that something probably is true is an abandonment of solipsism. All that you know is your own existence; so if you say that you know there is likely a book in front of you, then you are not a solipsist. If you are simply saying that you are experiencing the phenomena of a book, and you claim absolute agnosticism about the reality of the book being there, then you could be a solipsist, but it seemed you were saying more than that.</p> <p> </p> <p>Solipsism isn't a paralyzing perspective on the way things appear to be and how one should react to them.</p> <p> </p> <p>It isn't paralyzing simply because it has no practical significance whether you walk around saying no one else exists if you are committed to behaving as they are.</p> <p> </p> <p>Al I, the solipsist, need to do is observe that there is a monitor in front of me and react accordingly. I don't have to care about anything absolute that I cannot confirm anyway. As a solipsist I am stating unequivocally that there is no way in hell for a person to compare their observations with what "actually Truly exists". All we ever have are observations.</p> <p> </p> <p>This is the argument from irrelevance, positing that it matters not whether you are solipsist or objectivist. I suppose that can be said of much of philosophy.</p> <p> <br /> <br /> I'm not. All appearance of that is there. What I don't know is that it is objectively there. I don't care about the likelihood that there is or is not an objectively existing monitor in front of me and I see no reason to commit to the belief that there is. What I can say for certain is that there appears to be a monitor in front of me and then I can act accordingly.</p> <p> </p> <p>You <em>pretend</em> that it is actually there, where I say that it is actually there. You need to explain why it is that you consistently see a book before you, and why you feel a compulsion to consistently pretend the same thing each time. You also need to explain why you are unable to pretend that the book is not there, but why your mind forces you to believe in the book. If you (subject) are forced by your mind (object) to perceive a book, don't we have a seperate object acting upon you?</p> <p> <br /> <br /> I believe that what I see and experience is true to varying degrees. I'm compelled to those beliefs in much the same way you are. What I don't believe is that any of it is objectively true...other than the single statement that I exist.<br /> <br /> This can be taken in two ways: (1) there is one thing and that is you, or (2) there may be many things, but I am the only one I know with certainty. Assuming you mean #2, I can't see how you can believe that some things are true to varying degrees because you are making assertions about reality that go beyond just the fact that you exist.</p>
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Rob
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 21

Posted 06/23/09 - 01:26 PM:	#25
Hanover wrote: All that you know is your own existence; so if you say that you know there is likely a book in front of you, then you are not a solipsist. The only thing that this would imply he would know outside of his existence is the likelihood of an external object existing, not the value of that object as existing or not. Outside of their existence, a solipsist is free to think and observe and still be a solipsist unless his conclusion is to accept the world around him. A solipsist can even conclude that the world around him does not exist. Some more important points are that. 1)our universe (or my universe I should say) is only composed of our thoughts, and anything outside of our thoughts does not matter, which is not to say that we cannot strategize on how to expand our universe. 2)You should base everything on what you absolutely know to be true. I view myself as a solipsist, although i do not use existence or the cogito as a starting point.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/23/09 - 10:57 PM:	#26
Hanover wrote: <p></p> For you to declare that something probably is true is an abandonment of solipsism. I disagree. As a solipsist I use the word true only to indicate what I see as true. I do not and cannot use it in the sense of something being objectively true and neither can you. You can try...and probably will as that seems to be the thing to do these days. Something is true only in so much and only for as long as I believe it to be true. You are free to disagree on the grounds that you don't see it that way but you are never free to disagree on the grounds that it is objectively untrue because you don't know that. All that you know is your own existence You are playing fast and loose with the word know here. All I will confirm to know, as an objective fact, beyond my ability to doubt it, is that I exist. Any knowledge I have beyond that is nothing more than a belief based on observation and experience. I do not know and cannot confirm if anything else objectively exists. Neither can you. so if you say that you know there is likely a book in front of you, then you are not a solipsist. That is why I don't say that. I either observe that there is a book in front of me or I do not. If I do observe it I make no inference or assumption or statement as to the objective existence of it. If I don't observe a book in front of me the point is moot. All I am ever talking about is what I observe. "Likely" does not fit into that. I observe or I don't. If you are simply saying that you are experiencing the phenomena of a book, and you claim absolute agnosticism about the reality of the book being there, then you could be a solipsist, but it seemed you were saying more than that. Nope. I was saying precisely that. This is the argument from irrelevance, positing that it matters not whether you are solipsist or objectivist. Calling myself a solipsist doesn't mean that there is no objective reality. Calling yourself an objectivist doesn't mean that there is. It is not an argument but an observation, and a very simple one at that. You pretend that it is actually there, where I say that it is actually there. Wrong. We both observe that it is there. You pretend to know that it objectively exists. You need to explain why it is that you consistently see a book before you, and why you feel a compulsion to consistently pretend the same thing each time. I have not compulsion to pretend anything. I simply observe. My previous experience tells me what I may expect to observe in the future. That works just fine for me without having to pretend I know for a fact that the book objectively exists. You also need to explain why you are unable to pretend that the book is not there, but why your mind forces you to believe in the book. I could pretend the book isn't there and it might actually work to make me not see it. I would need a very good reason to do so. My mind forces me to see the book because my mind expects the book to be there. If you (subject) are forced by your mind (object) to perceive a book, don't we have a seperate object acting upon you? I and my mind are one and the same. This can be taken in two ways: (1) there is one thing and that is you, or (2) there may be many things, but I am the only one I know with certainty. Assuming you mean #2, I can't see how you can believe that some things are true to varying degrees because you are making assertions about reality that go beyond just the fact that you exist. Read this carefully and please try your best to understand what I have been saying all along. Something is only true if I believe it is true. I have yet to get this across to very many people so I don't hold out much hope that you will get it. You will counter with the canard that things are true whether I believe them or not, meaning that my disbelief won't make something cease to exist. That is not what I'm talking about though. That things exist objectively is a nice theory. The real world, human subjectivity and human language do not work that way. If I say that it is true that something exists all I am ever saying is that I believe that the thing exists. The objective truth is that it may not. If I say that something objectively exists I am still merely saying that I believe it. I can leave out the objective part because it means nothing. Mow let's deal with my belief that a wall in front of me does not exist. Then I run into it. I now believe that it exists. Why? Not because it objectively exists but because I have observed that it exists. I've experienced it and changed my belief about it. How different is that from the belief that the Coelocanth no longer existed? That belief persisted until observation changed it. It was true that they were extinct until it wasn't true any more. It was true because people believed it. It is true that they are not extinct because people believe it. Truth is always about what we believe. The bottom line is that you can't tell me the truth. You can only tell me your truth. I can only tell you mine.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/24/09 - 04:42 AM:	#27
Rob wrote: 1)our universe (or my universe I should say) is only composed of our thoughts, and anything outside of our thoughts does not matter, which is not to say that we cannot strategize on how to expand our universe. 2)You should base everything on what you absolutely know to be true. A materialist (or dualist) offers an explanation for why things appear to exist througout time, and why they appear to affect our behavior. Being an idealist (or solipsist) doesn't mean that you no longer have to offer such explanations. You still have to offer an explanation for what rocks are and why the appear to exist external to us and why they cannot be fully manipulated by our minds.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/24/09 - 05:26 AM:	#28
oag wrote: I disagree. As a solipsist I use the word true only to indicate what I see as true. I do not and cannot use it in the sense of something being objectively true and neither can you. You are in a catch 22 here. Your theory of knowledge is that knowledge = a justified belief, and you've abandoned entirely the Truth element. By doing this, you permit me to state that I know there is objective truth if I have a justified belief that it is. Since justifications are entirely subjective, you cannot claim that my claims to objective truth are invalid unless you are arguing that my justifications are not objectively valid. You can only say that my claims to knowing objective truth do not seem valid to you, but, under your knowledge theory, subjective knowledge is knowledge. I can therefore state that I know objective truths and you can't contradict that. You are playing fast and loose with the word know here. I've accepted your definition. Knowledge = Justified Belief. I do not know and cannot confirm if anything else objectively exists. Neither can you. You can't tell me what I can do unless you are referencing some objective, absolute fact regarding what can be known objectively. I can know something objectively if I have a subjective justified belief. If you argue that my belief is unjustified, then what objective evidence are you pointing to to state that? You pretend to know that it objectively exists. My point was that you pretend day to day that there are rocks in front of you that you avoid. I could pretend the book isn't there and it might actually work to make me not see it. I would need a very good reason to do so. My mind forces me to see the book because my mind expects the book to be there. You can pretend that the cliff isn't there, and you may have a great reason for that, but you're still going to fall off it. Something is only true if I believe it is true. I have yet to get this across to very many people so I don't hold out much hope that you will get it. Your theory doesn't elude me. Mow let's deal with my belief that a wall in front of me does not exist. Then I run into it. I now believe that it exists. Why? Not because it objectively exists but because I have observed that it exists. I've experienced it and changed my belief about it. You didn't experience "it." You experienced, period, according to you. Your separation of the experience from you points to a seperate object, although you deny such an object existing. Whatever this experience is that imposed something upon your mind is an external reality that you need to explain. How different is that from the belief that the Coelocanth no longer existed? That belief persisted until observation changed it. It was true that they were extinct until it wasn't true any more. It was true because people believed it. It is true that they are not extinct because people believe it. Truth is always about what we believe. The bottom line is that you can't tell me the truth. You can only tell me your truth. I can only tell you mine. The earth was round even when everyone thought it was flat.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/24/09 - 08:39 AM:	#29
NoodlesHighChief wrote: So the will is crucial for removing doubt and certainly plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge. So, might we conclude that absent a free will, we can know nothing? Wouldn't a determinist who cannot withhold premature judgment and thereby assents to premature decisions be said to possess completely unreliable beliefs? I would think that unless you're going to posit that the deterministic universe compels withholding judgment until knowledge is clearly and distinctly known, then you cannot say that knowledge exists in a determined world. Of course, we needn't be limited to Descartes' idiosyncracies here, and we can take the more expansive approach that we use our free will to decide even where things are not clearly and distinctly known in the Cartesian sense. That is, our free will has an affirmative function of deciding and not just a negative role in refusing to decide until matters become obvious. Whether we limit ourselves to Descartes' model or we take a more expansive view of the will, it seems, in either case, that the libertarian will is required for the meaningful acquisition of knowledge. Do you agree?
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/24/09 - 03:14 PM:	#30
Hanover wrote: You are in a catch 22 here. Your theory of knowledge is that knowledge = a justified belief, and you've abandoned entirely the Truth element. I disagree. I've narrowed the definition of the truth element to only that which I can decide. I've abandoned the belief that truth is objective and that I am forced to accept it. By doing this, you permit me to state that I know there is objective truth if I have a justified belief that it is. That is absolutely correct. I permit you to state the truth as you see it and to be right about it, even if I disagree, so long as it works for you. Since justifications are entirely subjective, you cannot claim that my claims to objective truth are invalid unless you are arguing that my justifications are not objectively valid. That assertion contains the answer. I can claim that your claims to objective truth are invalid because your justifications are entirely subjective, just as you said. You can only say that my claims to knowing objective truth do not seem valid to you, but, under your knowledge theory, subjective knowledge is knowledge. I can therefore state that I know objective truths and you can't contradict that. I can contradict any truth you put forth because what you are putting forth is not objective truth. It cannot be. You are attempting to use my belief that truth is not objective to make it impossible for me to deny objective truth. That makes no sense. You can't tell me what I can do unless you are referencing some objective, absolute fact regarding what can be known objectively. I can know something objectively if I have a subjective justified belief. If you argue that my belief is unjustified, then what objective evidence are you pointing to to state that? It is my belief that you do not have an objective POV. I believe that this is not possible. OTOH, if you believe that you can justify that to yourself then that is fine. You simply cannot justify it to me. I'm saying that I do not believe that you can or will ever have objective truth and you cannot ever, under any circumstances, satisfactorily justify to me your belief that you can have it. From where I'm sitting your belief remains unjustified and delusional. That is merely my opinion though. My point was that you pretend day to day that there are rocks in front of you that you avoid. I do not. I observe that there are rocks in front of me now and then and I avoid them accordingly. I don't pretend anything about them. I do not pretend to know that they objectively exist. I operate solely on what I observe with no thought to what I cannot know. You can pretend that the cliff isn't there, and you may have a great reason for that, but you're still going to fall off it. That is why I don't go around pretending about anything. If I observe a cliff I avoid falling off of it. I don't have to pretend it is objectively existing. I only have to observe it and react accordingly. You didn't experience "it." You experienced, period, according to you. Your separation of the experience from you points to a seperate object, although you deny such an object existing. Whatever this experience is that imposed something upon your mind is an external reality that you need to explain. Wrong. I don't know that it is an external reality and any explanation I offer is going to be my opinion, my best guess, just a subjective observation. I have not separated myself from the experience. I can't. The experience is mine and mine alone and I am only required to react to it or to ignore it. I am not required to explain it, most certainly not according to your objective parameters since doing so is meaningless. The earth was round even when everyone thought it was flat. That is a bad example. It is urban legend that everyone thought the Earth was flat. Educated people have always known the Earth was round, they just didn't know how big it was. What I cannot get across to you is that every truth you state, by way of example of something that was/is true regardless of what people thought, is nothing more than something people (specifically you yourself) think to be true. You think that you are pointing to an objective truth but you are not. You are pointing to another more current subjective truth. BTW, the Earth is not actually, objectively round. It is shaped somewhat like a football. You need to be very, very careful if you are going to go around making objectively true statements. They need to be perfectly accurate, inarguable and true forever.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.