Re: OT: Reality (was: Re: Atlantean)

Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson :
>
>
> >But denying the assumptions still doesn't affect the objection!
>
> Your objection is not objecting to anything, since it's nothing but an
> assumption. You can object to any proposition by taking as preliminary a
> hypothesis that *by definition* objects to this proposition.
Would you care to state how you interpret what I originally said? I'm getting
this unpleasant feeling we're talking past one another.

> >Because, near as I can tell, you're not actually attacking my original
> point
> >at all, yet you present your arguments as an attack thereon.
>
> Not an attack, rather a comment.
OK. A comment that denies the validity of what it is a comment to is not an
attack. OK.

> >Either our definitions of "belief" differ, or one of us is insane. If I
> cannot
> >doubt something, I by necessity believe in it.
>
> I think our definitions of "belief" do indeed differ, and it strikes me
> that your definition is rather uncommon.
Could be.

> Your sentence seems to indicate
> that for you "believe" is synonymous to "not doubt" (and that doubting and
> disbelieving are synonymous).
I would make make a three-way distinction between to believe in something, to
disbelieve in something, and to have no certain opinion on the matter. "To
doubt something" could be used for the third alternative, but might perhaps
better not, since it's usage in not-technical speech tend to suggest being
closer to disbelief.

"To not doubt something", in normal speech, does indeed mean to believe it,
illogical as that may be.

> That's *not* the usual meaning of "believe".
> Believing is a very active behaviour, what you describe is purely passive.
> And disbelieving and doubting are very much two different things!
> Disbelieving is believing something does *not* exist. Doubting is merely
> being unsure, and seeing no compelling evidence to believe. The discussion
> about the different kinds of opposites is right on the mark here. The
> absence of belief is *not* the contrary of believing. And doubting is
> merely the absence of belief, not the contrary of belief. You seem to see
> things only in black and white, forgetting all the grey in between.
I should have say I can neither doubt it nor disbelieve it, so I must
necessarily believe it.

> > > And once again, believing in it or not wouldn't change
> > > the way I *have* to behave in response to my perceptions anyway, so why
> > > bother? :))
> >
> >This is a whole other kettle of fish, but what justification to you have
> for
> >thinking you behaviour needs to have any relation to your perceptions? Near
> as
> >I can tell, I'm a being of tolerably free will, able to ignore experience,
> >common sense and my immediate perceptions to a high degree.
>
> But actively ignoring experience is by definition reacting to it! Your
> behaviour is still influenced by your perceptions, actively ignoring a
> perception means you're aware of it, and making sure you don't react to it
> is just another way to react to it.
I'm not sure about that defintion, but even if we accept it, I still do not
see how I can know that my actions have any necessary relation to my
perceptions.

                                                        Andreas

Reply