Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:31 pm

AtariKo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:37 pm If you’re certain that you experience, then you’re certain of you! I think, therefore I am!

I have problem with that.

Could you explain to us why you have a 'problem' with that? Is it because it successfully refutes the premise of your thread?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:52 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:31 pm

AtariKo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:37 pm If you’re certain that you experience, then you’re certain of you! I think, therefore I am!

I have problem with that.

Could you explain to us why you have a 'problem' with that? Is it because it successfully refutes the premise of your thread?

Because the experience is the first thing which connects us to what we call reality. Moreover we know that the sense of "I" is byproduct of brain activity.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:12 pm Moreover we know that the sense of "I" is byproduct of brain activity.

So we know that brains exist.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:12 pm Moreover we know that the sense of "I" is byproduct of brain activity.

So we know that brains exist.

Well, brain and everything else is content of our experience. Everything could be local experience since there is no "I" anyway to experience things.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:24 pmWell, brain and everything else is content of our experience. Everything could be local experience since there is no "I" anyway to experience things.

Ah. So we don't know that brains exist.

absence of brains leads to hungry zombies

-Imp

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:48 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:08 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am All ontological arguments are wrong since we cannot be sure of existence of any being at all. The only certainty that we have is that experience exists.

With that line of thinking, all arguments are wrong, period.

Nah. Just underdetermined. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... rmination/

I'm saying that using his principle that arguments are wrong if you don't know them to be true with 100% certainty (which are all of them to him) would mean that all arguments are wrong, just by his own line of reasoning. So it's weird to me that he would make a thread to single out ontological arguments for god, specifically, because what he's saying has very general applications.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:13 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am All ontological arguments are wrong since we cannot be sure of existence of any being at all. The only certainty that we have is that experience exists.

certainty... the next moment is certainly not guaranteed

-Imp

You're certain of this?

focusinc wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:20 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:13 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am All ontological arguments are wrong since we cannot be sure of existence of any being at all. The only certainty that we have is that experience exists.

certainty... the next moment is certainly not guaranteed

-Imp

You're certain of this?

certainly not guaranteed but that moment is gone

-Imp