Philosophy

[manic_man]

Ah fair enough, apologies

 

[manic111]

For me this has always had a reasonably obvious non-answer (by non-answer I mean an answer that effectively states the implied reality is an impossibility).

Practically speaking, of course something exists without being perceived, if it did not then the intricate balance of variables that make up the known and unknown universe would not exist, our limited perception cannot possibly experience it all, heck we havent even physically gotten ourselves past the moon yet! In this case, the tree must have made a sound, even though nobody experienced it.

Metaphorically speaking (say it like the guy from the Mask), things we have not perceived, do not exist for us, therefore something we have not experienced does not yet exist in our own world.

But what if our own world is all that there is? Then a tree cannot fall in the woods with nobody there to hear it.

Some philosophy is just plain ridiculous ramblings made of statements which are either tautologies or non-sensical and pointless and self-evident.

Every mathematical statement is tautological. Does that make it pointless?

 

[manic_man]

But what if our own world is all that there is? Then a tree cannot fall in the woods with nobody there to hear it.

I allow for the possibility that what we experience is all that there is, but if this is the case then there is no way I can ever know the truth as I will never be there to not experience the tree falling.

It seems more likely to me given others experience things i do not and we have proof things have happened in the past before my existence, that in fact things happen without my presence. Although there is always the possibility that my experience of others experience is merely an illusion, meaning that indeed the only reality that exists is what I percieve.

It's a question that cannot be answered, only the implications of its possibilities.

 

[manic111]

I allow for the possibility that what we experience is all that there is, but if this is the case then there is no way I can ever know the truth as I will never be there to not experience the tree falling.

If all that we experience is all that there is, the answer is either "no", or the question is invalid, depending on what your point of view on the philosophy of language is...

It seems more likely to me given others experience things i do not and we have proof things have happened in the past before my existence, that in fact things happen without my presence.

But you can only imagine things happening in the presence of somebody. I can imagine a tree falling in the woods only if I imagine myself, or myself "empathising" with another viewer (ie imagining myself in the position that they were watching/listening from), there to perceive it. We cannot envisage a tree falling without a point of view.

Therefore, while it is (provided we ignore the problem of solipsism, or others only existing in our imagination) true that we can "know" that things have happened in the past, we only know these things as perceived by others. We can therefore never know if there are persistent objects outside of the perceptions of ourselves or of others.

I understand that you have said that it "seems more likely", and that really you are just putting your point of view across, but frankly I quite like a good debate

 

[BigglesPiP]

Get out, all of you.

 

[manic111]

Get out, all of you.

Cranky tonight Biggles?

 

[BigglesPiP]

Cranky tonight Biggles?

No, I just have a rational hatred of philosophy students.

 

[Audigex]

Philosophy makes me cry.

Logic:
1 AND 1 = 1
1 OR 0 = 1
NOT 1 = 0

Not logic:
All dogs have 4 legs
Fifi is a dog
Therefore fifi has 4 legs.

That works, assuming you "take the original premise to be true"... well fifi got run over by a car and had an amputation.
Therefore, god exists.

Gaaaah, it makes my ears bleed.
Unfortunately, my girlfriend does it and we have very different ideas on logic, causes some interesting debates. Very interesting subject, too academic (quotes, references and ********) for my liking. Give me the Java API, binary logic and a keyboard anyday.

 

[manic111]

No, I just have a rational hatred of philosophy students.

Ah excellent

That works, assuming you "take the original premise to be true"... well fifi got run over by a car and had an amputation.

But the point is that, in your Fifi example, you assume that all dogs have 4 legs for the point of the example.

In your mathematics example, you are assuming the premise that 1=1, and that I might not take "1" to mean "a small man wearing mostly clogs", in which case Not 1 does not equal 0.

What I'm trying to say is that you have the wrong end of the stick. Examples like that Fifi one are merely put there to aid understanding of predicate logic.

It is not trying to show that all dogs have four legs. What it is saying is that IF all dogs have four legs, and IF Fifi is a dog, then Fifi must have four legs.

It is not the logic that (generally) gets argued against in a debate, philosophical or other. It is perfectly valid that:

If the world was created
If the creator is all loving, all knowing, all powerful etc
If God is defined as an all loving, knowing, powerful creator
Then God exists

What people argue against is the premise. With the Fifi example, you have disproved the premise that all dogs have four legs. The logic of it is perfectly valid.

Likewise, we must accept the hidden premise in mathematics that 1 means what we think it does...if somebody disproves that, then the rest of mathematics falls apart.