2 + 3 = 5 ...true or false?

[Iloko]

Although there is undisputed objective truth in that 2+3=5, that we choose to express this in base 10 is not equally so clear.

In base 2 for instance the same fact can be expressed as 10+11=101.

A given truth can be expressed in many ways, so in order to be certain something true you must always question how it is expressed.

As the basis of 2+3=5 does not change no matter how it is expressed, we know it is true.

But the rigor of this truth and others that we take as objective are dependent on doubt.

All Rationality is centrally dependent on doubt.

Method of Doubt is in philosophy too I think..

Meditation I

Method of Doubt

“But inasmuch as reason already persuades me that I ought no less carefully to withhold my assent from matters which are not entirely certain and indubitable than from those which appear to me manifestly to be false, if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt, this will suffice to justify my rejecting the whole. And for that end it will not be requisite that I should examine each in particular, which would be an endless undertaking; for owing to the fact that the destruction of the foundations of necessity brings with it the downfall of the rest of the edifice, I shall only in the first place attack those principles upon which all my former opinions rested.”

-- Descartes decided he would no longer believe those things about which there was the slightest doubt. In this way, he hoped to arrive at some beliefs that could not be doubted, that he knew with absolute certainty.

-- It would take to long to consider all of his beliefs one by one, so he considered broad categories of belief.

-- First category: beliefs that have been learned through the senses (a posteriori justified beliefs)

Doubting the senses

“All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once been deceived.”

“on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment”

Dream Argument (copied from PP, p. 137)

(1) When we dream, we have a certain sort of experience.

(2) If this kind of experience were by itself a reliable source of knowledge, then when I dream that I am hitting a home run in Yankee Stadium, I really would be hitting a home run in Yankee Stadium.

(3) But, when I dream this, I am not really hitting a home run in Yankee Stadium.

(4) Therefore, this kind of experience is not, by itself, a reliable source of knowledge.

(5) But this is exactly the same sort of experience we have when we are awake.

(6) Therefore, this sort of experience is not, by itself, a reliable source of knowledge even when we are awake.

This argument shows that beliefs justified by the senses are subject to doubt. Following his Method of Doubt, Descartes resolves to stop believing his senses until further notice.

Descartes’ Demon

“I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity; I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if by this means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any truth, I may at least do what is in my power and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be.”

Demon Argument (copied from PP, p. 138)

(1) When we reason that 2 +3 = 5, there are (at least) two possibilities about what is going on:

-- (a) Our powers of reasoning are reliable, and we are doing the calculation correctly. Thus, by this process of reasoning, we come to know that 2 + 3 = 5.

-- (b) An evil demon is manipulating our thoughts, and we seem to “see” that 2 + 3 = 5 only because he is putting that idea into our minds. Thus we are being deceived.

(2) We can trust our powers of reasoning—that is, we can be justified in regarding them as a reliable source of knowledge—only if we can rule out the second possibility and others like it.

(3) Therefore, our powers of reasoning are not by themselves a reliable source of knowledge. Our reasoning powers must be combined with some further considerations—considerations that would rule out hypotheses such as the evil demon—before we can be justified in trusting them.

So far, Descartes has actually made the Skeptical Challenge more difficult! BVH didn’t lead us to doubt our powers of reasoning, but the possibility of the Demon does. One way to think of this: the Demon Hypothesis introduces the possibility of cognitive malfunction, whereas BVH only supposes that our senses are deceived.

[Aodhan]

1 pound of bricks vs 1 pound of feathers

[Mr. Anybody]

[Warmian]

Oh thank God. I don't believe I could handle a transgender AngloJew rambling about Frankist Jews. That would be just too crazy for me.

Frankist Jews are real.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Frankist Jews are real.

The 18th century movement yes but the way Anglo-Jew spins his yarn is everything individual Jews do in the 20th and 21st century that he doesn't like suddenly become 'Frankist Jews are at work.' As I said before, Anglo-Jew would be the poster boy of Stormfront if he wasn't half Jewish. His 'wait... it's actually Frankist Jews and not real Jews who can be found leading 'progressive' anti-Western movements!' is his way of working around the unfortunate reality that an intelligent population that has been historically seen as an 'other' will find itself in positions of power in a society that is based on merit and push for policies that are more 'liberal' or 'progressive' than what society at large would initially find acceptable because of their sense of otherness. I hate to break it to Anglo-Jew but the change in immigration laws in the 60s, for example, had a large support from the Jewish communities. His claiming that everything he doesn't like promoted by people of a Jewish background is some sort of bizarre centuries old plot is absurd. The reality is Jews (outside of Israel: in Israel they are no longer an other) aren't as a group a conservative bunch except for Hasidic Jews whose conservatism is rooted in the preservation of their traditions and has no interest in the world at large.

So basically Anglo-Jew is angry at Jews but because this would be both emotional and psychologically damaging of him to accept he creates a fantasy.

[AngloJewess]

Method of Doubt is in philosophy too I think..

Meditation I

Method of Doubt

“But inasmuch as reason already persuades me that I ought no less carefully to withhold my assent from matters which are not entirely certain and indubitable than from those which appear to me manifestly to be false, if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt, this will suffice to justify my rejecting the whole. And for that end it will not be requisite that I should examine each in particular, which would be an endless undertaking; for owing to the fact that the destruction of the foundations of necessity brings with it the downfall of the rest of the edifice, I shall only in the first place attack those principles upon which all my former opinions rested.”

-- Descartes decided he would no longer believe those things about which there was the slightest doubt. In this way, he hoped to arrive at some beliefs that could not be doubted, that he knew with absolute certainty.

-- It would take to long to consider all of his beliefs one by one, so he considered broad categories of belief.

-- First category: beliefs that have been learned through the senses (a posteriori justified beliefs)

Doubting the senses

“All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once been deceived.”

“on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment”

Dream Argument (copied from PP, p. 137)

(1) When we dream, we have a certain sort of experience.

(2) If this kind of experience were by itself a reliable source of knowledge, then when I dream that I am hitting a home run in Yankee Stadium, I really would be hitting a home run in Yankee Stadium.

(3) But, when I dream this, I am not really hitting a home run in Yankee Stadium.

(4) Therefore, this kind of experience is not, by itself, a reliable source of knowledge.

(5) But this is exactly the same sort of experience we have when we are awake.

(6) Therefore, this sort of experience is not, by itself, a reliable source of knowledge even when we are awake.

This argument shows that beliefs justified by the senses are subject to doubt. Following his Method of Doubt, Descartes resolves to stop believing his senses until further notice.

Descartes’ Demon

“I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity; I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if by this means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any truth, I may at least do what is in my power and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be.”

Demon Argument (copied from PP, p. 138)

(1) When we reason that 2 +3 = 5, there are (at least) two possibilities about what is going on:

-- (a) Our powers of reasoning are reliable, and we are doing the calculation correctly. Thus, by this process of reasoning, we come to know that 2 + 3 = 5.

-- (b) An evil demon is manipulating our thoughts, and we seem to “see” that 2 + 3 = 5 only because he is putting that idea into our minds. Thus we are being deceived.

(2) We can trust our powers of reasoning—that is, we can be justified in regarding them as a reliable source of knowledge—only if we can rule out the second possibility and others like it.

(3) Therefore, our powers of reasoning are not by themselves a reliable source of knowledge. Our reasoning powers must be combined with some further considerations—considerations that would rule out hypotheses such as the evil demon—before we can be justified in trusting them.

So far, Descartes has actually made the Skeptical Challenge more difficult! BVH didn’t lead us to doubt our powers of reasoning, but the possibility of the Demon does. One way to think of this: the Demon Hypothesis introduces the possibility of cognitive malfunction, whereas BVH only supposes that our senses are deceived.

The dream argument addresses the inherent limitations of empiricism. We are able to minimize these limitations by formalizing our reasoning, which can be done by abstracting what we perceive.

With Descartes's Demon it is no longer possible to ensure effective deduction by developing an abstract structure to represent what one perceives. If we can not control our thoughts we can not abstract our perceptions.

However even though we may not be able to abstract from our perceptions, the demon still can. In the proposed situation the demon would have powers of rationality while the possessed would not.

You could think of it in levels. Perception is at the bottom, than comes thought or cognition, and at the top comes the Demon or controlling force. Abstraction brings you up one level, but not two (otherwise the separation between you and the demon becomes hard to define). The Demon's perceptions are your cognitive state as that is his external experience. From those perceptions he can form an abstract structure that is beyond your comprehension.

Thus using abductive reasoning we can determine that the best option for arriving at the correct answer is to follow with the demon's will. If you resist the demon there is a negligible chance to arrive at the correct answer, while if you follow through with the demon the answer is coming from a force capable of higher reasoning and thus is actually capable of arriving to an answer deliberately. With a random selection the probability at any given answer is equal and as the number of possible answers the demon has may be infinite the probability that the demon will choose the correct answer is negliable , while with a deliberate selection on the other hand the distribution will be certain to be unequal (because of deduction on part of the demon eliminating answers which he fits unreasonable.) and thus the amount of possible answers will be finite and thus the chance that the Demon will provide the correct answer will possibly be greater. That is what the abduction is based on.

I think it would be reasonable to say that rationality is only possible if one has the capability to abstract. You have to be able analyze based on a structure that is separate from your direct experiences in order to view your experiences objectively.

The higher level structure is the only thing that can judge lower levels and the lower levels must always be doubted over higher levels.

That is my take on these thought experiments.

[Decius]

Ridiculous thread.

[Warmian]

i Tl;dr’d this thread so fucking hard

[Skjaldemjøden]

Been playing in my head all night now cause of your silly thread

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Philosophy is dead. It was slayed by neuroscience. To understand ourselves and the world we don't have to play at mental masturbation at best and sophistry at worst. Lives are on the line. Civilization is on the line. So you go with what works best in explaining ourselves and our relation to the world and toss out what doesn't as a waste of time.

Philosophy is like a hacksaw. Neuroscience is like a chainsaw. A lumberjack chooses what is best.

Real world consequences, mutha fuckers.