Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

Possibly, but it seems that they evolve subjectively.

Well that might indeed be true, but "boosts" isn't necessarily the thing, and we are not wholly static I don't think. As such, these interaction could serve our evolving perspectives by melding bits and pieces from this and that into them over time. Then again, maybe I'm just cooler and better looking.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well yeah
link etablishes context and background to question presented here...

to be conscious implies there is something to be conscious of.
contrast with "seems to be

can you do a genesis of wes?
the first nano seconds of awareness
examine the semantics involved

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

skepticism of what?

pardon
huge thread

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anything. But most notably: of the meaning of life.

 

Ah, I see what you're asking now I think.

I can't contrast them as conflicting. They interact. An understanding epistemology underlies everything to me, for it is necessary for any sort of utterance whatsoever. I'd be forced to regress to the basis of the language you use to ask the question. How do you know what those words even mean? Blah blah, all that jazz. IMO, it becomes fairly straightforward as a consequence of the assumption of existence, but unless that's established first - I have a hard time stopping the regression. I think valid questions are maintained down to that point. So to me, "self" (as in, whatever about an individual that "experiences", or "ego", or "the abstraction of survival implemented subjectively in a mind") is irreduceable, as it's the basis on which knowledge (like that required to ask your question) may build an abstract structure, like that in a mind. We, being individuals, can only experience representations of things, not really the things. To experience something, you have to be it. Otherwise you're experience you experiencing things that have sifted through your nervous system.

Bah I can't get this out concisely. Pardon. You'd think I might stumble on a good way to say something from time to time.

Meh I dunno, didn't I already do that? This whole conversation is an examination of semantics damn you!

 

another notable is the greeness of green
i also suspect pleasure is pain

 

i see a general agreement with the axioms. excellent. lets eyeball this "sifting"
why spectacles? what of the hubble telescope? cybernetics? why technology?
what is the underlying assumption that provide momentum for those particular endeavors?

 

yes. i found an excellent exposition here

 

What's going on? Are we discussing skepticism? Do any of you claim to be skeptics?

 

Assuming you mean something I said... this?:

 

topic has changed to sock puppetry

/cos we care

 

that too
i have never considered the reification of time in my ontology. there are no events. just implicitness. however.....http://metafysica.nl/ontology/general_ontology_1.html... you guys deal with that. spin bores me

 

whoa that's a helluva thread. forgot about that. man I'm a little dizzy after having re-read it. wow.

 

Just to point out this misconception, I will respond to the original topic.

If you are talking about philosophical skeptics in the original sense, rather than many modern skeptics (who aren't really skeptics), then you are wrong about the supposed trouble. Although the skeptic cannot be sure that he or she is actually in the dark, it appears that he or she is in the dark, which means skeptics would change the light bulb.

A skeptic in the original, Pyrrhonic, sense is not suspicious about seemingly unscientific claims, but he or she questions the accuracy of appearances. That does not mean there are no appearances.

For anyone interested, this online source outlines the difference between ordinary and philosophical skepticism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/.

(Unfortunately I am unable to post a link, apparently because I am a new member.)