Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 AT LAST! PROOF THAT WE DO NOT PERCEIVE THE EXTERNAL WORLD: THE END

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
phenomenal_graffiti
Potential Contributor
Potential Contributor


Male
Number of posts : 40
Age : 51
Location : Austin, Texas
Registration date : 2009-01-14

PostSubject: AT LAST! PROOF THAT WE DO NOT PERCEIVE THE EXTERNAL WORLD: THE END   Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:34 am











































































































* For more about Neural Magic or Neural Incantationism, see: Brother Hast Thou Faith In The External World? , http://dissidentsphilosophy.alldiscussion.net/religiosity-f6/brother-hast-thou-faith-in-the-external-world-part-one-t348.htm).
















































Scenes from Finale of the HBO Series: Six Feet Under
























FINAL THOUGHTS


When it comes to the Externalist's claim that we certainly have knowledge of the nature of the external world (that is, we somehow know how it appears and behaves even in the absence of consciousness: if this were not a claim, how do we explain the existence of [the views of] Direct and Indirect Realism?), given the inconceivable nature of the external world in the absence of any and all consciouslness, evidential knowledge of the outer world is (or should be) immediately ruled out.

What makes beliefs justified? According to evidentialists, it is the possession of evidence. According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified is the possession of evidence. The basic idea is that a belief is justified to the degree it fits S's evidence.

(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Epistemology , http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/)


The Externalist's perception of the external world does not exist, given the conceptual fact that the external world exists or can exist in the absence of the Externalist's perception, wholly unaffected (presumably) by the disappearance or nonexistence of perception. It is just this consciousness-independence of the external world that ultimately falsifies claims that we have knowledge concerning the nature of the external world (!)

Epilogue


"Brother....hast thou faith in the external world....?"

If Death and cerebral construction of perception (in stark contrast to lack of cerebral construction of the external world) falsifies belief that we directly and immediately perceive the external world, the consciousness-independence of the external world, its true form, falsifies belief that we have knowledge of its nature. The Externalist, at the last, is revealed to only have faith in the nature of the external world, despite the fact that knowing the nature of the external world is logically and metaphysically impossible.

(That is, one cannot directly perceive or observe the world as it truly appears and behaves in the absence of consciousness, because there can be no consciousness to observe it: thus the very existence of consciousness prevents it from access to a world that exists a certain way in its absence)

To support this quasi-religious faith that humans and animals possess visual perception that perceives or mimics the world even as it is in the absence of perception, the Externalist, without the aid of evidential knowledge, may fall back on Reliabilism:


NTK, on the other hand, conceives of the role of justification differently. Its job is to ensure that S's belief has a high objective probability of truth and therefore, if true, is not true merely because of luck. One prominent idea is that this is accomplished if, and only if, a belief originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties. This view is known as reliabilism.
[Reliabilism] holds that a belief is justified if, and only if, it results from cognitive origin that is reliable: an origin that tends to produce true beliefs and therefore properly probabilifies the belief.

According to a standard form of reliabilism, what makes [beliefs] justified is not the possession of evidence, but the fact that the types of processes in which they originate — perception, introspection, memory, and rational intuition — are reliable.

(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Epistemology, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/)


But this is futile: it is difficult enough to explain how neurons conjure subjective experience in the first place; it is going a step beyond logic to claim that neurons are structured the way that they are, and form the connections they do, in such a way that they can reveal or "tell the truth" about a states of affairs beyond the consciousness neurons purportedly create, simply because they "reliably" tell the truth concerning the nature of things within consciousness.

With evidential knowledge impossible, and reliablistic knowledge absurd, the Externalist must, in the end, rely upon either innate or revelatory knowledge to support purported knowledge of the external world.

In the end, the belief that we perceive the external world is supported only by quasi-religious faith that neurons are somehow capable of perceiving that which exists beyond the power of neurons to create. Our so-called knowledge of the external world is ultimately nothing more than the fraternal twin of faith in the existence of God.


THE END
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
AT LAST! PROOF THAT WE DO NOT PERCEIVE THE EXTERNAL WORLD: THE END
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Can Official Receipts be a proof that the project was completed? is it accepted?
» Proof of a Spirit World?
» Proof of Spirit Life.
» Proof demons exist Demon picture taken in Hospital taken on security camera
» youtube - proof wls works

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissidents Philosophy Forum :: Religiosity-
Jump to: