epistemology is

[Skepdick]

My experience is a duality, a conjunction of interior and exterior understandings and sensations.

How do you know?

Physical space is the correlation of the senses.

Correlation of your senses with... ?

The fundamental duality of my experience is that external ideas are persistent.

Persistent how?

How do you do it? Is it a broken magic 8-ball? I bet it's a broken magic 8-ball.

I don't fucking know how I do it. I just do.

I have a theory of "self". It works well enough.

[Skepdick]

Externality. Also, duh.

So where does the "internal" stop and the "external" start?

[Terrapin Station]

There is nothing knowledge can be but certainty.

No. You'd have a very difficult time understanding a big chunk of epistemology if this is your view.

And you'd have to conclude that almost nothing can be known in that case, because almost nothing (if anything) can be certain.

Certainty is a very silly thing to worry about.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=493831 time=1612202532 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493824 time=1612201104 user_id=15238]
My experience is a duality, a conjunction of interior and exterior understandings and sensations.
[/quote]
How do you know?

|This is why people don't take you seriously, the entire goddamn thing you're responding to is an answer to that fucking question, not to mention numerous other posts you've been active in. Creating an infinite regress for no fucking reason toward no fucking end is just fucking dumb, brah.

[quote=Advocate post_id=493824 time=1612201104 user_id=15238]
Physical space is the correlation of the senses.
[/quote]
Correlation of your senses with... ?

|Correlation between the internal and external ones.

|This is the same point as above, they feel different. My experience of them is not the same experience. I know "for all intents and purposes" what my fucking experience is because i'm the only one who could possibly know and i'm in possession of 100% of possible evidence and am the 100% expert in what it means in all possible relevant scenarios. Fuck.

|Just dig a hole and crawl in. Your philosophy doesn't give a shit about anything that matters, you are lost in the thrall of skepticism. Here's my question for you: Why should anyone care about any of your questions? They literally accomplish nothing progressive or good by any meaningful definition. And i "know" that because i'm smart. Perhaps it is egotistical of me to believe that i can open your eyes to the faintest speck of common sense.

[quote=Advocate post_id=493824 time=1612201104 user_id=15238]
The fundamental duality of my experience is that external ideas are persistent.
[/quote]
Persistent how?

|I see now that you don't even understand how words work. Look it up.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=493833 time=1612202595 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493825 time=1612201159 user_id=15238]
Externality. Also, duh.
[/quote]
So where does the "internal" stop and the "external" start?
[/quote]

Where my experience of my external senses begins. If you want to go any deeper than that, you'll have to ask a neuroscientist, and they don't know yet.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=493834 time=1612203239 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493827 time=1612201662 user_id=15238]
There is nothing knowledge can be but certainty. [/quote]

No. You'd have a very difficult time understanding a big chunk of epistemology if this is your view.

And you'd have to conclude that almost nothing can be known in that case, because almost nothing (if anything) can be certain.

Certainty is a very silly thing to worry about.
[/quote]

I understand literally everything in epistemology through that lens and there are literally no holes or discrepancies.

What you're missing is this: all words that reference the transcendent (ultimate certainty, for example) can only be placeholders for the ineffable. Knowledge cannot be justified true belief because the truth of a proposition is what knowledge is a pointer Toward. Knowledge is directional, and always subject to future hypothetical refutation. The Only way the word can be useful is as justified belief, and the degree to which it is justified is the degree to which it can legitimately be called knowledge. In other words, your reasons are correct but they point to the opposite conclusion that you reached. The point is semantic, but absolute. Words that appeal to the transcendent cannot be used in a finite manner - cannot be pragmatic.

Certainty is what gives us the best chance of obtaining our desires. Dispense with it at your peril.

[Skepdick]

Where my experience of my external senses begins.

Begging the question.

Which senses are your "external" senses and which senses are your "internal" senses?

[Skepdick]

I understand literally everything in epistemology through that lens and there are literally no holes or discrepancies.

Do you understand understanding?
Do you understand self-reference?

[Terrapin Station]

I understand literally everything in epistemology through that lens and there are literally no holes or discrepancies.

So how do you parse epistemology you read where the philosopher in question isn't at all concerned with certainty?

What you're missing is this: all words that reference the transcendent (ultimate certainty, for example) can only be placeholders for the ineffable. Knowledge cannot be justified true belief because the truth of a proposition is what knowledge is a pointer Toward. Knowledge is directional, and always subject to future hypothetical refutation. The Only way the word can be useful is as justified belief, and the degree to which it is justified is the degree to which it can legitimately be called knowledge. In other words, your reasons are correct but they point to the opposite conclusion that you reached. The point is semantic, but absolute. Words that appeal to the transcendent cannot be used in a finite manner - cannot be pragmatic.

What in the world??? No idea what any sentence there is saying, exactly. It seems like a bunch of vague, misunderstood gobbledygook.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=493840 time=1612204734 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493836 time=1612203667 user_id=15238]
Where my experience of my external senses begins.
[/quote]
Begging the question.

Which senses are your "external" senses and which senses are your "internal" senses?
[/quote]

That depends on the circumstance. You're again looking for some transcendent answer. There is no specific dividing line between anything and anything else, it's always contingent upon what you're trying to accomplish. What are you trying to accomplish here other than being a skeptical dick?

[Skepdick]

That depends on the circumstance. You're again looking for some transcendent answer.

I am looking for a categorical one. I am asking you for a decision procedure. A measurement to distinguish the two cases.

There is no specific dividing line between anything and anything else

So ... what do you mean by "internal" and "external" senses?

it's always contingent upon what you're trying to accomplish. What are you trying to accomplish here other than being a skeptical dick?

All my goals seem ineffable - language just doesn't cut it. You'll see when I accomplish it.

[Advocate]

>So how do you parse epistemology you read where the philosopher in question isn't at all concerned with certainty?

Either they're wrong or they're not doing epistemology. I'd be happy to parse an example.

>What in the world??? No idea what any sentence there is saying, exactly. It seems like a bunch of vague, misunderstood gobbledygook.

Certainty cannot mean an understanding that is never subject to update. That sort of transcendent definition renders a word useless.

There is no Ultimate certainty.

[Advocate]

>I am looking for a categorical one. I am asking you for a decision procedure. A measurement to distinguish the two cases.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've given here answers sufficient for understanding everything you've asked here many times over.

[Skepdick]

There is no Ultimate certainty.

I am not uncertain of my existence.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=493848 time=1612205102 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493845 time=1612204995 user_id=15238]
There is no Ultimate certainty.
[/quote]
I am not uncertain of my existence.
[/quote]

That is not subject to refutation but it might not be at all what you think it is.

Maybe the real you is Me, and i created a devil's advocate sub-routine that went wrong.