iano writes:
This is about the me making a statement born out of the position I find myself in. I'll modify "we are" to "I am" so as to highlight where the divergence in view might come from.
Very good, it was an oversight on my part. I agree that this distinction needs to be clarified.
iano writes:
Stile writes:
2. I perceive other people (to occupy this reality - iano) who I assume are also capable of perceiving this reality.
True. Note that I do not assume they will perceive reality as I will perceive it. It seems obvious they don't. And there are also times when I can't tell whether they perceive it as I do: how do they see 'red' for instance?
I agree with your note. I agree because it is irrelevant. How others are able to perceive the same reality I perceive doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if I see 'red' by a computer inserting 'red' into my brain, and if other see 'red' by analysing the wavelength of light. The 'how' doesn't matter. What matters is the perception. What matters is that I perceive red equally as others perceive red. How that perception takes place is irrelevant.
iano writes:
Stile writes:
3. When people (I perceive) assume something is true on their own, the reality I perceive often proves them wrong.
Inserting "I" instead "we" results in me disagreeing. I perceive something and their perception differs from mine. They are 'wrong' only insofar as their perception differs from mine.
I don't understand your disagreement. We'll change the sentence around as you suggest:
3. When I assume something is true on my own, the reality I perceive often proves me wrong.
How do you disagree with this? 'Their' perception disagreeing with yours? Who are 'they'? This point is singular. It only deals (as the examples provided attempt to point out) with personal mistakes or forgetting. Are you saying you never make any mistakes? Are you saying you never forget anything?
iano writes:
Stile writes:
4. When people assume something is true because others agree with them, the reality I perceive agrees more often, but still often proves the whole group of people wrong.
This is a confusing statement. Remembering that we are approaching this from my perspective: I don't assume something is true because others agree with me. I assume something is true based primarily on my trusting my own perceptions. Sometimes others agree with my perception, sometimes they don't. What occurs after that can vary. Sometimes my perception comes into line with theirs, sometimes it doesn't.
Okay, I have no problems with that whatsoever. You'd like to get rid of this point? Sure, we'll just forget knowing something just because other people's perceptions agree with you or not.
iano writes:
Stile writes:
5. When people assume something is true because others agree with them and the 'something' is reproducible with repeatable conclusions, the reality I perceive agrees every time I test again.
We might need to clarify the above confusion before progressing. To comment in the way I think I can though.
By inserting "I" instead of "we", we can see that reproducibility indicates that I perceive the same thing in the same way again and again.
Sure, I'll attempt a re-write here:
5. When I assume something is true because other's perceptions agree with mine and the 'something' is also reproducible with repeatable conclusions (by my perception and the same with other's perceptions), the reality I perceive agrees every time I test again.
So now we only have two categories of Knowledge:
Category 1Personal Knowledge - things I know based only on my personal perception
-is very often shown to be incorrect by my personal perception of reality
-eg. making a mistake, forgetting things
Category 2Repeatable Knowledge - things I know based on my personal perception agreeing with my perception of other people's perceptions and is also reproducible and repeatable.
-has never been shown to be incorrect by my personal perception of reality (once shown to be incorrect, it no longer fits in this category)
-eg. how objects with mass attract each other (gravity), electronics
iano writes:
Both God and monitor are personal perceptions. The monitor belongs to a class of my perception called perceptable by all others. God belongs to the category called perceptible to some others in not necessarily repeatable way.
Correct. The monitor is perceived by you, you also perceive that 99%+ of others equally perceive the monitor, and your perception of the monitor is reproducible and repeatable. This makes it category 2 -> Repeatable Knoweldge.
Your God is perceived by you. This makes it category 1 -> Personal Knoweldge.
Again, we see that the monitor ends up in the category that only contains things that have never, ever been shown to be incorrect in your perception of reality. And your God ends up in the category that routinely has many things shown to be incorrect by your perception of reality. Granted, your God has yet to be shown to be incorrect, but you cannot move your God into category 2. Your God doesn't meet the criteria.
That's why people say we 'know' the monitor better than we 'know' your God. Because the monitor is in category 2, and your God is in category 1. If they mean to say your monitor is absolutely true in an external-reality sense when your God is not, they are over-stepping the bounds on their own knowledge (as far as I can tell, anyway). But the fact remains that the monitor is in category 2, and your God is in category 1.
Again, it's left for the reader to decide if an absolute-external-reality (that we may not even be able to detect) is worthwhile in giving any consideration, or even if it makes any sense at all.
iano writes:
Seeing as the monitor is deemed to belong in that category by virtue of it's satisfying the categories entry criteria perfectly, this statement is kind of circular.
Um... that isn't 'circular', that's 'straight-forward'. When we have categories, and those categories have criteria, and an item is placed into a category because it satisfies all the criteria... that's called 'straight-forward'. Like how a square peg going into a square hole isn't 'circular logic', it's 'straight-forward'.
Perhaps you're trying to mention my example of 'electronics'? We can remove that if you'd like. It has no bearing on how a monitor will always end up in Category 2. We can remove 'electronics' as the example and replace it with 'bridge engineering' or 'how germs cause disease' or 'counting' or 'shoveling snow from my driveway'. Please pick whatever example you prefer.
iano writes:
Stile writes:
While 'the God I know' is currently in the class of 'things we know' that has the worst track-record for ending up in disagreement with the reality we perceive.
Similarily circular?
No. Similarily straight-forward. God meets the criteria for Category 1, God does not meet the criteria for Category 2. So we put God in Category 1. The monitor meets the criteria for both categories, so we put the monitor in Category 2. I didn't really think this was a difficult point. If you'd like to argue over what those criteria are, then yes, that would be an interesting point. But, well, when an item meets the criteria for a category, yes, we put that item in that category. This is not 'circular', this is 'straight-forward'.
But this is about the reality I perceive. Which includes the monitor and God. The fact "we" can perceive the one and not the other says only that in the totality of all my perceptions, some are shared by others at times and not shared by others at other times.
Exactly. Some perception are yours alone. Some perceptions are shared by others. Some perceptions are shared by others and reproducible and repeatable.
Sometimes your perception of reality proves your personal knowledge wrong. Like when you think your car keys are in your pocket. That's personal knowledge. You can check your pocket and if your keys aren't there then your perception of reality has proven your assumption wrong. This is Category 1, this is the same category your God is in.
Sometimes your perception of reality never, ever (yet) proves your personal knoweldge wrong. Like when you deal with gravity. This is Category 2, this is the same category your monitor is in. Your God is not in Category 2.
I am still left as the highest court in assuming my perceptions as accurately reflecting reality. What another perceives is not necessarily here or there. I submit that everyone is in the same boat as me regarding whatever it is that forms the totality of their perceptions.
Agreed. This doesn't change the fact that we can tell the difference between Category 1 and Category 2 knoweldge. Your God is in Category 1. Your monitor is in Category 2. Although 'my knowlege about everything' and 'your knowledge about everything' is in the same boat, your knowledge about God and your knowledge about your monitor clearly is not. This is the distinction.
™ Version 4.2
