FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
How do you know what to believe, or even that you exist?

How do you know what to believe, or even that you exist?

(18:44) To many people, this is a question that doesn't occur, at least not in depth, yet it is fundamental to everything. Delve deeper and you enter the world of epistemology, a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge. YouTube user 'Evid3nc3' explains his epistemological position of Evidentialist Foundationalism, that evidence is the basis of reality. Thought-provoking and mind-boggling in equal measure.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2300 days ago)
Latest comment: And how much evidence have you gathered about how much is 10694338 + 29486739? Do you rally need evidence to know the result? Metamathematics can in my opinion not be grasped by an empiricist view. Furthermore, it is probably not about justifyind (i.e. verifying) but about falsifying hypothesis (Read: Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery)
Original comment
Latest comment: And how much evidence have you gathered about how much is 10694338 + 29486739? Do you rally need evidence to know the result? Metamathematics can in my opinion not be grasped by an empiricist view. Furthermore, it is probably not about justifyind (i.e. verifying) but about falsifying hypothesis (Read: Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2303 days ago)
Three major problems with this epistemology. His first premise is a big jump, in fact there is no cognito ergo sum, your existence itself could easily be an illusion. In fact, your existence as a separate, objective viewer of yourself and reality almost certainly is. This is demonstrated by the contradictions such a view entails. Second he makes an unacknowledged assumption, he admits he doesn’t know if his perceptions are accurate but he fails to question his ability to objectively assess evidence. He does not note that logic might well be just a product of his brain chemistry and not reflect anything real. In fact this is probably also the case as recent investigations in physics yield logical contradictions. Finally On Descartes and 2+3=5, by ‘self evident Descartes probably meant that the definition of 2+3 is 5, two, three and five have no objective reality. In the example the pebbles are defined subjectively as representations of units, in reality there is no point where the pebble ends and the air around it begins. This border is imaginary, imposed on reality by the mind. In evidential reality there is no such thing as a right triangle, with a sufficiently sensitive and accurate measurement you will never find one, it’s an imaginary imposition and as such there is no sensory evidence to associate with it, anything you say about it is derived by definition and the structure of your brain and thus is ‘self-evident’. Other than that this is just skepticism and is fine as far as it goes which is not far enough to give a satisfying life for most people. Which is why you will find almost nobody who practices it. I’ve have yet to talk to self proclaimed hard skeptic for an hour without finding a raft of inconsistencies.
Original comment
Three major problems with this epistemology. His first premise is a big jump, in fact there is no cognito ergo sum, your existence itself could easily be an illusion. In fact, your existence as a separate, objective viewer of yourself and reality almost certainly is. This is demonstrated by the contradictions such a view entails. Second he makes an unacknowledged assumption, he admits he doesn’t know if his perceptions are accurate but he fails to question his ability to objectively assess evidence. He does not note that logic might well be just a product of his brain chemistry and not reflect anything real. In fact this is probably also the case as recent investigations in physics yield logical contradictions. Finally On Descartes and 2+3=5, by ‘self evident Descartes probably meant that the definition of 2+3 is 5, two, three and five have no objective reality. In the example the pebbles are defined subjectively as representations of units, in reality there is no point where the pebble ends and the air around it begins. This border is imaginary, imposed on reality by the mind. In evidential reality there is no such thing as a right triangle, with a sufficiently sensitive and accurate measurement you will never find one, it’s an imaginary imposition and as such there is no sensory evidence to associate with it, anything you say about it is derived by definition and the structure of your brain and thus is ‘self-evident’. Other than that this is just skepticism and is fine as far as it goes which is not far enough to give a satisfying life for most people. Which is why you will find almost nobody who practices it. I’ve have yet to talk to self proclaimed hard skeptic for an hour without finding a raft of inconsistencies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Knobette Knobette (2303 days ago)
What are you talking about?
Original comment
What are you talking about?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
The faults in the thinking of the person who made the video above.
Original comment
The faults in the thinking of the person who made the video above.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Stu (2302 days ago)
Maybe you only think it was you!
Original comment
Maybe you only think it was you!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
Now you are catching on!... One interesting thing to consider. According to science the human brain developed through evolution to be a aid to the survival and propagation of genes. It's ability to describe the material world is circumscribed by that imperative which is why Newtonian physics is pretty easy to understand (it describes the world of everyday experience) and post-quantum physics is so hard to grasp (Richard Feynman famously quipped that no one understands it). If this is so the human intellect is essentially a device for modeling the physical world (among other things) yet the Godel incompleteness theorem says that for any system sufficiently complex to be able to model itself the model will be incapable of expressing all true statements about the system. In other words the human intellect's model of the physical world will never be able to understand the physical world. Science has proved it will never contain everything which is true about the material world.
Original comment
Now you are catching on!... One interesting thing to consider. According to science the human brain developed through evolution to be a aid to the survival and propagation of genes. It's ability to describe the material world is circumscribed by that imperative which is why Newtonian physics is pretty easy to understand (it describes the world of everyday experience) and post-quantum physics is so hard to grasp (Richard Feynman famously quipped that no one understands it). If this is so the human intellect is essentially a device for modeling the physical world (among other things) yet the Godel incompleteness theorem says that for any system sufficiently complex to be able to model itself the model will be incapable of expressing all true statements about the system. In other words the human intellect's model of the physical world will never be able to understand the physical world. Science has proved it will never contain everything which is true about the material world.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The Atheist Experience - The chair in the room
The Atheist Experience - The chair in the room
Do we need religion to create a moral society?
Do we need religion to create a moral society?
Richard Dawkins: AI might run the world better than humans
Richard Dawkins: AI might run the world better than humans
Noam Chomsky - Is there anything you like about US foreign policy?
Noam Chomsky - Is there anything you like about US foreign policy?
Jim Carrey's quick lesson in nihilism
Jim Carrey's quick lesson in nihilism