Does anyone know anything at all for sure?

Originally posted by Starrman
If reality doesn't depend on our subjectivity and is objective as you say, there should be some way of certifying what it is, that it has charactersitics, is measureable etc. Do you know of any way to do this?

I agree with you, but do you think while we are going about to
certify what it is, we come up with a test or means to measure
and our method is in error because we got something wrong,
that could lead us down a path of getting a lot of things wrong?
I mean we would still get a data point, we would still be assuming
the data point meant what we think it does, but if something in
our testing isn't what we think, then what? What if we had a
battery of tests that are different, but they all share the same
error in one fashion or another, wouldn’t that strengthen our faulty
view about something, and if we had been using that belief to
understand other things which we use to build our world view, our
whole view becomes suspect.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you, but do you think while we are going about to
certify what it is, we come up with a test or means to measure
and our method is in error because we got something wrong,
that could lead us down a path of getting a lot of things wrong?
I mean we would still get a data point, we would still be assuming
the data point meant what we think it ...[text shortened]... and other things which we use to build our world view, our
whole view becomes suspect.
Kelly

So you are basically saying you do not have such a test and even those who think they do could be in error?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are basically saying you do not have such a test and even those who think they do could be in error?

Depends on what we are testing, I can look in my wallet to verify
the context of the ten or not, other tests and points we want to
prove are a little more complex.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you, but do you think while we are going about to
certify what it is, we come up with a test or means to measure
and our method is in error because we got something wrong,
that could lead us down a path of getting a lot of things wrong?
I mean we would still get a data point, we would still be assuming
the data point meant what we think it ...[text shortened]... and other things which we use to build our world view, our
whole view becomes suspect.
Kelly

It's possible, but what's your point?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Depends on what we are testing, I can look in my wallet to verify
the context of the ten or not, other tests and points we want to
prove are a little more complex.
Kelly

But you said that even after looking in your wallet, certain assumptions such as your beliefs in what a tenner looks like can mislead you into making false conclusions. If could actually be a cleverly forged note. Basically, there is no possible way you can ever know for sure if there is a tenner in your wallet or not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you said that even after looking in your wallet, certain assumptions such as your beliefs in what a tenner looks like can mislead you into making false conclusions. If could actually be a cleverly forged note. Basically, there is no possible way you can ever know for sure if there is a tenner in your wallet or not.

Then my facts would be in error correct.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you said that even after looking in your wallet, certain assumptions such as your beliefs in what a tenner looks like can mislead you into making false conclusions. If could actually be a cleverly forged note. Basically, there is no possible way you can ever know for sure if there is a tenner in your wallet or not.

Ever heard of checking notes with ultra-violet light?

Originally posted by Starrman
It's possible, but what's your point?

It's possible is the point.
Kelly

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
Ever heard of checking notes with ultra-violet light?

If what I have is a cleverly forge fake, I'd be in error and since
beyond looking at and handling and spending that ten is all I'm
going to do with it by choice, if someone spots the forgery as I
try to spend it; I'll get a reality check at the store.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It's possible is the point.
Kelly

So your point was trivial to the subject at hand then, and not really connected to the original post to which it was a reply.

Originally posted by Starrman
So your point was trivial to the subject at hand then, and not really connected to the original post to which it was a reply.

Spin it any way you want, your quite good at that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Spin it any way you want, your quite good at that.
Kelly

What's that got to do with anything? You failed to answer my post, choosing instead to waffle about something which had no purpose to the topic at hand. If you could address the question at hand, then things would move along.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think my "perception" is your "sensation".

Are you claiming I could have a sensation and not know it at the same exact time in which I am sensing it? Or that I could not sense something and yet believe that I am not sensing what I am actually sensing at the same time? What you are suggesting seems to me to be conceptually impossible. There's roo sumes nothing about the biological mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation

I'm using "sensation" and "perception" in the standard philosophical sense.

No, I was claiming that you could have a sensation of P and not know at the same time that it seems to you as though P. It is a different question whether you could have a sensation of P and be mistaken about it seeming to you as though you are having some sort of sensation or other. These two putative knowings have different propositional contents.

Here is another way to put the point I tried to make above: All instances of knowledge are instances of non-accidentally justified true belief. So, if you know that you are having an experience (a sensation that may also be a perception) as of a computer, then you must be justified in believing that you are having a sensation as of a computer. But how is this belief itself justified? It can either be justified inferentially of non-inferentially. If it is justified inferentially, then there must be some other justified belief you have that you inferred it from. This is clearly not such a case, since the only thing that is supposed to justify your basic belief is the sensation of the computer itself. But the sensation of the computer can't be evidence for the belief that is seems as though there is a computer unless you are able to recognize that sensations like that should have these concepts applied to them (e.g. the concept "computer" ). But if you are irremediably conceptually confused, then it is possible that you fail to apply the correct concepts to your sensations. If so, then your basic belefs about how it seems to you will be uncertain.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The only thing anyone knows for sure is that they exist and their perceptions exist. That's it. Nothing else is certain.

Agree?

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible" (Hebrews 11:1,3).

Originally posted by Starrman
What's that got to do with anything? You failed to answer my post, choosing instead to waffle about something which had no purpose to the topic at hand. If you could address the question at hand, then things would move along.

I guess you failed to see that I said, "I agree with you." on your
point, and started talking about something else since it brought
up another point. I did not fail to answer your point I agreed with
your point. Can we move along now, or do you not like us being
in agreement on anything?
Kelly