Classical Empiricism and Logical Positivism (Part 4-1)

[OrthodoxDarwinist]

Auguste Comte BITCHES!!!!!

[Krullor]

High-five for everyone who tried to wipe his cursor off their monitor.

[IAmTheScum13]

I can't help but imagine the Lost character expressing these views.

"Don't tell me what I can't empirically verify!"

[mjbarrowful]

Wasn't JS Mill an empiricist?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@mjbarrowful Indeed he was.

[AntiCitizenX]

Question about #3 of external world skepticism: Why should any of this "eviscerate" science? After all, one of the central tenets of all science is that we can't really "know" anything with absolute certainty. All theories in science may, in principle, be wrong, and we are all perfectly willing to overturn our most cherished ideas if the evidence goes against them. If anything, this bullet point is a fundamental principle, not a death blow.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@AntiCitizenX Because the problem isn't just that we can't be sure, the problem is we never have any exposure to the world at all. The world becomes epistemically isolated from us. We not only know nothing about 'the world itself,' we can never know anything about the world; indeed, we can never even have any ideas about the world at all, since we never experience it.

[AntiCitizenX]

@SisyphusRedeemed

I still don't see how that follows. What is wrong with simply operating under the tentative assumption that our sense experience is at least partially indicative of real information from the "out there" world? Sure, it might be wrong, but there is no reason to think so and it at least gives us a staring point from which to build a knowledge base. Or is this little assumption somehow contrary to positivism?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@AntiCitizenX "What is wrong with simply operating under the tentative assumption that our sense experience is at least partially indicative of real information from the "out there" world?"

The same thing that's wrong with assuming that this is all a creation of God: there is no way of verifying the claim. And if it can't be verified, it's meaningless, according to the positivists. That's they're way out of external world skepticism: it's not a problem because it's meaningless.

[AntiCitizenX]

@SisyphusRedeemed

Let me ask my question a different way:

How exactly is the positivist view of the external world invalid? What view has come along to replace it? After all, they are they are very much correct for the most part. We only receive sensory information from the external world, but never truly "perceive" it directly. How does this view "destroy" science? As far as I can tell, science is perfectly aware of this limitation and even embraces it as a fundamental principle.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@AntiCitizenX "What view has come along to replace it?"

Several. The falsificationism of Popper, the revolutionary view of Kuhn, the constructive empiricism of van Fraasen, to name but a few.

"We only receive sensory information from the external world"

Personally, I think it's a mistake to think of the world as 'external' at all. We are not 'inside our heads', we are inside the world.

"How does this view "destroy" science?"

Positivism doesn't destroy science, external world skepticism does

[AntiCitizenX]

@SisyphusRedeemed

Will you be doing any videos on some of the more modern topics in the future? I would enjoy watching them.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@AntiCitizenX That's the plan.

[ast453000]

Hi. These are great videos. It's really great that you're doing this. I've never really understood the etymology of 'positivism', though. I know it comes from Comte, but why did he choose that word? As far as I know, it comes from the Latin 'ponere', which means 'to put or place'. But that seems to imply some sort of conventionalism. Is it true that Positivism is synonymous with Empiricism? And if so, how did 'positive' come to have that meaning? I've never been able to understand this.

[makislav]

In my interpretation of empiricism, the standpoint of empiricism is not "All knowledge come from experience". Hume's fork asserts that "the relations of ideas", propositions of pure mathematics and logic, are found by the mere operation of thought. What comes to "matters of fact", they are indeed justified by experience.

So the point is that the empiricist (e.g. Hume, Ayer, Kaila) used logic to formulate the genuine propositions. Hence not all knowledge is derived from experience, as you noted.

[theantithesis1]

I find it amusing that in trying to turn to the 20th century and logical positivism. that you had to go back to classical empiricism and thus needed to go even further back to classical rationalism. Sort of like the opening to Fight Club that begins with a flashback and then flashes back further within the flashback.

[theantithesis1]

But what I found intriguing was that classical rationalism was invented to prove things that were beyond human senses, you mentioned Plato's forms and the existence of god. This is interesting to me because it means, as I see it, that things like logic and reason were invented to confirm figments of the imagination. I'm sure you'll call that a gross characterization, but I'm not well-educated. I just find it funny that reason was invented with an irrational purpose.

Fascinating stuff.

[comradesteve1990]

@theantithesis1 Logic wasn't invented, it was discovered. Logic is a set of necessary a priori truths.

[cukasi]

this was informing. i mean i love philosophy and psychology and like to read about both but this has been extremely helpful. damn

[crazypills2]

This is a fantastic series; I'm enjoying it immensely.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

[fc007]

Cartesian Theatre resembles Plato's cave.

[niriop]

This has gone straight into my Philosophy of Science playlist! Any other videos you could recommend?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@niriop I'm in the middle of a whole series on History and Philosophy of Science right now. This is the most recent entry. I'll be adding more entries over the next several weeks. You can check out the whole playlist here: user/SisyphusRedeemed#grid/use­r/67E2553770A6E39E

[niriop]

@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks

[PluripotentBrain]

Great video.

I'm curious; how would a empiricist deal with the problem of morality? It seems to me that any moral position is clearly qualitative (rationally derived) and not quantitative (empirically observable).

In this regard I can't understand how anyone can hold logical positivism to be valid.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@PluripotentBrain I'll cover that in part 3 (The fall of logical positivism). In short, positivism holds that ethical statements are 'cognitively meaningless'; that is, they may have personal meaning for us, but they are neither true nor false. This is a position known as 'noncognativism about ethics.'

[Undersunandsky]

@PluripotentBrain : uhhh, duh. Morality is not intrinsic in our world. It's meaningful only to humans. How can you toss aside a school of thought merely because we have an opinion on how things should be (which is entirely different from how things actually are)?

[EthanMontgomery30]

There needs to be a quiz at the end.

[ebaltrace]

So what replaced logical positivism?

[PhilosophyofNature]

lol at john locke

[Naiant]

Thanks for the recommendation of Pirsig. I read that book at least once a year, and it has shaped much of my view of the world, especially ethics. Is he taken seriously at all by philosophers?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@Naiant Not really. In the rare instances when I hear him mentioned it's usually with a causal disparagement. When I can, I always ask someone who dismisses him if they've actually read his work, and so far anyone who has said negative things about him hasn't. But I'm sure there are some in the community who do like him, but not enough for him to be 'a name.'

Have you read his follow up to ZATAMM, "Lila"? It's also very good.

[Naiant]

@SisyphusRedeemed

I kind of figured that. Of course he pretty well savages philosophers, so I can understand some rancor.

I've read Lila, and liked it as a novel, but I think he made a big mistake abandoning his romantic/classical paradigm. I also think that he misunderstands evolution, which sinks his metaphysics some.

I do like, however, that he in the end identifies Quality with the Proto-Indo-European *H2ertus (he gets the linguistics a bit wrong, but he's not a lingusit) (cont.)

[Naiant]

@SisyphusRedeemed

(cont.) All the way through I'm screaming in my head, "It's the *H2ertus!" especially when he misunderstands the rta at first.

Two more things about Lila. First, I love the scene, "What kind of dog is that?" "It's a good dog." Second, he gives the wrong answer at the beginning of the book, and that's what sends him in the wrong direction. "Does Lila have Quality?" The answer should be, "No, Quality has Lila."

[jessemaurais]

Locke's argument against innate ideas was the only part of his treaties I found interesting.

Also, I hope you do Kant somewhere in this series.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@jessemaurais Not planning on focusing on Kant, though Kantian themes will probably show up here and there. The only reason I'm bringing up Locke is because Classical Empiricism is key for understanding Logical Positivism.

[ReasonsDialectic]

I hope the league of reason is watching this series.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@ReasonsDialectic I know Andromedaswake is a subscriber, but I think he's the only one of the 'big names' that is subed to me, to my knowledge.

[JuanPabl000]

excellent video

[HebaruSan]

I wonder what modern cognitive science would tell us about the tabula rasa senseless brain thought experiment. Presumably a total lack of sensory input would inhibit every learning process that shapes the brain in infancy and childhood. Such a person would suffer from severe mental impairments and disorders, at the very least.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@HebaruSan Not a cognitive scientist, obviously, but my impression is that if something like that actually happened then the brain would fail to develop in key ways and basically just atrophy to utter non-functionality on many levels. I don't think consciousness can develop without sensory input. But I could be way off on that.

[oarobin]

good video as usual sysphusRedeemed. i agree with all arguments 1,2 & 3 for external world skepticism but disagree that it would eviscerate science. sense experiences could be highly constrained and predictable in their interactions with the "real world" and so the scientific reliability in patterns is just the reliability in our sense experience without it being an experience of the real world.

[soultorment27]

Suppose I look out my window & see a yellow bird. I say "theres a goldfinch"! How do I know it's a goldfinch & not a different yellow bird? It's possible the bird was a canary & not a goldfinch. Even if it was a goldfinch, I still didnt know...

Therefore in order to know anything, all alternative explanations consistent with the evidence must be ruled out. But then in order to know anything about the external world, it must be ruled out that I'm not dreaming, not a brain in a vat, & so on...

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@soultorment27 Well put.

[mrmyxlptlk]

you're one video away from 100 way to go!

[Stonehawk]

external world skepticism is pure idiocy. if our senses were truly unreliable, then we'd all be living in our own little worlds completely and perfectly isolated from one another and nothing would work. Ah, but then, what if everything working is just a hallucination? Fine then, act like it's a hallucination. Don't eat your fake food, don't breathe your fake air, don't drink your fake water, and stop living your fake life. Existence removes any being that fails to observe it adequately.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@Stonehawk External world skepticism doesn't claim that the world IS a hallucination; it claims that there is no way to know that it isn't. The things you suggest (not eating, etc.) don't suffice to test the hypothesis that it is, since any outcome is consistent with hallucination. And triangulating with other people won't work either; if they are hallucinations, too, they confirm nothing. If all knowledge comes from exp & exp can't distinguish, then we can't know if the external world is real.

[mirabileamavi]

@SisyphusRedeemed well then, the argument would only work if we have some definite thing that we can call 'real' and from there we can go on to distinguish the 'non-real'. it seems to me that skeptical talks about the external world thingie is nonsense. can we even ask questions about what is p without some context or method to determine p?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@mirabileamavi Something like that will be the Logical Positivists response. They claim that talk of an 'external world' is meaningless, since the world looks the same either way. I'll talk about that in part 2.

[GodofCider]

(Thought provoking) Thank you.

[legodesi]

with the first question of empiricism, wouldn't you say their requirement of sense experience merely begs the question against the rationalist? also, there's this paper i read from eugene wigner (spelling?) about how at different times and places people arrived at similar abstract mathematical conclusions - so it seems that at least mathematics passes that test.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@legodesi As a bald assertion, like I stated it, yes, it does beg the question, but the empiricists had arguments in favor of that position (some of which, hypocritically, did not meet empiricist standards themselves, but others of which did.)

As for Wigner's(?) argument, it's not enough for isolated peoples to come up with the same idea; it has to be that ALL rational people have the same idea independently. And like I said, anthropology suggests there may be such ideas, so it's a live debate.

[bananabread119]

Hmm.. Great video Sisyphus!

[MobileThinker]

nothing is better than smoking a good cigar and watching a sisyphus video. excellent video once again.

[eydos]

You forget Leibniz!:)

[Steve2323ZX]

David Hume was a Scottsman who had to push a button every 108 minutes to save the world

[insidetrip101]

Good but a little basic, and I can't fault you for that because it is an "intro".

I do think it would be helpful to mention Nominalist implications from empiricism. For example instead of adopting external world skepticism you could simply deny that the external world exists and all that exists is sensory experience. It might not directly attack science, but it does attack geometry and other forms of mathematics that I think would have heavy implications in physics and other fields of science.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@insidetrip101 Sounds like you're describing phenomenalism, or idealism not nominalism. But all three are ways of dealing with the problem. But all three share the same burden: they have to reject the idea that science is actually describing a mind-independent reality.

[insidetrip101]

@SisyphusRedeemed

??? I thought Phenomenalism was more of a Kantian move to unify reason and experience, where Nomenalism was attributed to the Empiricists of the 19th century like Hume.

I must admit though, I haven't studied too much past Descartes and only know enough to make things more confusing.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@insidetrip101 Phenomenalism is a Kantian move, but it's his attempt to save knowledge from Hume's skepticism by making knowledge pertain to experience, rather than 'reality.' While Kant doesn't deny that an external reality exists, he thinks it can never be known. But one can deny that external reality exists and say that only perceptions exist and that's still phenomonealism (or you can say that only ideas exist--idealism, like Berkley).

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@insidetrip101 Oh, NOUMENALISM. Your first post say 'nominalism', the view that reality just is whatever we name it to be. Noumeanalism is the idea (also Kants) that there is a mind-independent reality which can't experience or know, but which we infer from experience. Either way, it's not Hume's position.

[insidetrip101]

@SisyphusRedeemed

CURSE PHILOSOPHY AND ITS EVER CHANGING VOCABULARY!!!!!!! (not to mention with the spelling intricacies.) =P

=D

[vickmackey24]

I don't see how that eviscerates science. Even if science only has utility in our "subjective experience," that's ultimately the only experience that actually matters as far as our lives are concerned. So as long as science continues to be useful within our framework of perception, it is still valid and useful. The science used within Neo's Matrix was valid *within* that reality. In fact, it's the "true" science *outside* of that reality that is "eviscerated" within that particular framework.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@vickmackey24 And some people are comfortable with that, but many are not. I at least share the intuition that science isn't just describing patterns of experience, but is actually describing a real structure of nature. I want to say, for example, that evolution is TRUE, a real fact about reality, not just a convenient way of grouping a set of experiences we've had.

[vickmackey24]

@SisyphusRedeemed

The problem is that it's impossible to know what is or isn't the "real" structure of nature -- you can always take it up another hypothetical level. So whether people are comfortable with it or not, that is the inescapable reality of the situation.

[BionicDance]

There is absolutely No. Possible. Way. I can fit what I wanna say about this vid in 500 characters or less. Heh. :)

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@BionicDance I hope at least some of those +500 characters would combine to form complimentary words. There's always PMs.

[BionicDance]

@SisyphusRedeemed True. And your video WAS good...I would have more to say about the content than the production values, honestly. :)

I just have some...well...pretty STRONG thoughts and feelings about some of the notions here, like the ingrained, innate knowledge concept. The Cartesian Theater. All of that. But if I said anything, I'd want it public, so anyone could read or respond...stupid YouTube. Even 1000 characters would free me up to speak my mind more than 500! *grump*

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@BionicDance Do a multi-part response! Use two or three comment boxes. I'm curious what you're thinking.

[BionicDance]

@SisyphusRedeemed Okay.

Part 1 - Well, I have to admit that I actually quite like Logical Empiricism. I absolutely CANNOT BE a Classic Rationalist; I've often said that you can convince yourself of absolutely anything using pure reason, provided you never have to actually prove a bit of it.

The problem I have with the concept of the Cartesian Theater, and the idea that we cannot truly know anything is that the world can KILL US, which ought to suggest that it's real.

[ConscientiousMind]

@BionicDance A solipsist will get around the mortality argument by questioning your beliefs about people being mortal. What do you base that on? Your experiences, of course - but you've only seen and heard about people dying, never actually died yourself! All you know those deaths may have all been figments of your unconscious!

It's all bullshit metaphysics, of course, but unfortunately the philosophical intuitions for solipsism are very strong. Luckily G.E. Moore managed to get around that.

[BionicDance]

@SisyphusRedeemed Part 2 - I really like what Locke has to say about 'clearing the field of rubbish', and about attacking 'innate ideas'; on my own channel, my personal slogan is, "Don't run on automatic...THINK." I'm of the opinion that anything taken for granted is just one more grain in the Sandbox of Stupidity, or at least Ignorance; people should NOT assume that seemingly innate ideas are anything of the sort; challenge EVERYTHING. Taken for Granted = Not Adequately Thought Through.

[BionicDance]

@SisyphusRedeemed Part 3 - I'm not ENTIRELY certain I agree with the idea of 'Tabula Rasa', since I'm well aware that biology plays a part in how we think, what we're likely to think ABOUT, and so on...usually things necessary for survival. This may not be knowledge, exactly...but it's still thought.

But in principle, I agree with Tabula Rasa; nobody comes out of the womb knowing how to read or speak, understanding math, time, cardinal directions, any of that stuff.

[ConscientiousMind]

@BionicDance "nobody comes out of the womb knowing how to read or speak"

That may not be entirely accurate, at least the speaking part. Steven Pinker, among others, has presented a strong case for language being instinctive - we have to learn the words and the grammar from our environment, of course, but there seems to be a basic syntax hardwired into our brains. For example babies have been observed to invent their own language when left amongst themselves and with minimal outside influence.

[BionicDance]

@ConscientiousMind S'got nothing to do with it; even if HAVING language--if communication itself--is an instinct, nobody is born with KNOWLEDGE.

It's no different than, as I cited, the innate survival instincts.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance Then from where come the instincts?

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider Evolution.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance Obviously, thus a form of ingrained knowledge.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider Instincts are not KNOWLEDGE. Instincts are reactions to stimuli, they're ingrained BEHAVIORS.

Don't confuse the two.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance They're a type of knowledge.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider No, they really aren't. They're behaviors.

Knowledge is information; instincts are reactions TO information.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance So apparently knowing how to react, given certain environmental circumstances, in light of ones evolutionary ancestry, is not 'knowledge'; but simply a reaction. Whereas 'knowledge' in and of itself is somehow external and separate from the entity in question, and is not acquired through reactive behavior from certain external stimuli.

Right...

Instincts are a form of knowledge that have been acquired and stored within a species genetic pool.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider Having an involuntary reaction to various stimuli is not KNOWLEDGE.

Knowing facts is knowledge. Possessing information is knowledge. Instincts are neither.

Instincts are blind, unthinking; they exist and are passed on as traits ONLY because the members of a species WITHOUT 'em didn't survive long enough to reproduce. This does not make them knowledge any more than jerking your hand away from a hot stove when it hurts is "knowledge".

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance That is knowledge. Knowing that the hot surface will burn you is knowledge; as redundant as that sentence is.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider No, it's NOT knowledge; if it were knowledge, your hand wouldn't have been on it in the FIRST place.

You jerk away because it HURTS, not because you know it's hot or even necessarily what has hurt you. You jerk away because your body has sensed pain and is reacting WITHOUT conscious control.

Not one tiny SCRAP of this is knowledge; it's pure instinct, nothing but stimulus followed by response.

You're reaching, and I think you know it, just as I think you know you're wrong.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance And instinct is a form of knowledge; akin to how you're a condescending sexist.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider Instinct is NOT a form of knowledge, it's an involuntary reaction to various stimuli. Exactly HOW is a reaction actually knowledge instead? *raised eyebrow*

instinct

-noun

1 - an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.

2 - a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency

source: dictionary(dot)com

And..."condescending sexist"? *raised eyebrow* Where the FUCK are you getting THAT???

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance Based upon repeated interactions.

Regardless, I still think that instinctual behaviors are a form of inherited knowledge.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider You can think it all you like, but you're still completely wrong.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance Perhaps, likewise I think you're wrong. Also, my apologizes for the...outburst I'll call it.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider But see, I actually have SCIENCE on my side on this one; if you've studied genetics, evolution, natural selection, you'd see the difference between instincts and knowledge.

And i don't even understand your outburst; I'm probably the most male-friendly lesbian you'll ever MEET. *raised eyebrow*

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance You're really not; as far as I'm concerned you are a condescending sexist; but of course that is my opinion of you, based upon limited interactions and as such is likely to be terribly off.

On knowledge: If I were to engineer a human so that its 'instincts' also included such things as an ancestral history, or complex mathematics, or even a fully developed language. Would such information be considered knowledge, or instincts? After all, it's merely inherited genetic material.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider Frankly, I can't even remember interacting with you EVER. But a very large number of my friends are guys, and I don't mistreat them, certainly not for being males. *raised eyebrow* I have NO IDEA where this is coming from. NONE.

You CAN'T engineer a human so that its instincts include any of that advanced knowledge; that's NOT what instincts are or how they work. You have NO idea what you're talking about. None.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance Yet, strangely enough it is 'naturally' possible for such things as the basic groundwork of language, very simple mathematical concepts, moral perceptions, and more advanced motor skills, to be present in the organisms of our world.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider It's still not knowledge.

You're confusing content for methodology.

[GodofCider]

@BionicDance You're separating them unnecessarily.

To be blunt this is how I'm looking at it: how are instincts developed? Via compiled ancestral knowledge. Thus instinctual behavior is a form of knowledge.

[BionicDance]

@GodofCider No. That is COMPLETELY wrong. Knowledge is NOT transmitted genetically. Information, yes, but not knowledge.

Genetics make a creature grow a certain way, give it its temperament, its physical form, all of that; genetics CANNOT impart knowledge.

Behavior is not knowledge, instinctive reactions to stimuli are NOT knowledge. You're falsely conflating innate reactions to stimuli with knowledge, with facts and memories. They're NOT the same.

[soultorment27]

@GodofCider

Knowledge must be true in order to count as knowledge (i.e. it's impossible to know x if x is false). Now let's take the disputed example of "instincts". We must ask ourselves, are instincts or biological reactions, the kind of thing which can be true or false? NO! Well since we know that in order for something to count as knowledge, it must be true & instincts are not even the kind of thing that can possibly be true, it follows that instincts can NOT be knowledge!

[GodofCider]

@soultorment27 I'm really not following that line of thought.

[soultorment27]

@GodofCider

Well my objection might depend on the meaning of "instincts". When I think of what its meaning I think of biological reactions or involuntary reflexes to simuli. But of course an involuntary reflex isn't the kind of thing that can be true or false. That would be like characterizing a desire, or something like a sneeze, as being true or false. Perhaps this hinges on what the intended meaning of "instinct" is...

[ConscientiousMind]

@BionicDance It seems you're using folk psychology with concepts that aren't so clear cut in the real world. When we say we "know" things, we're simply accessing information in our brains, and some things are more accessible than others. Some things, such as syntax, are immediately(yet unconsciously) accessable to us, but as far as our brains are concerned the difference between that and "knowledge" isn't that great.

[BionicDance]

@ConscientiousMind But the difference is UTTERLY non-trivial, frankly.

Knowledge and instincts differ from each other in much the same way the conscious and the sub-conscious differ from each other. And in the same way that facts and fiction differ from each other, as well; our instincts are often WRONG because they have no empirical, objective basis. They're not ALWAYS wrong, but we certainly can't always trust them.

It matters, this distinction.

[ConscientiousMind]

@BionicDance So how exactly do you define knowledge? If it's "being able to access information in our brains that has been stored during our lifetime experiences", then congrats, you've proven a tautology.

We may think we grasp the difference between "true knowledge" and instincts intuitively, but in reality the former one is just easier to express linguistically. Knowledge is not neatly defined by conscious access either, because you and I "know" lots of things we can't remember right now.

[BionicDance]

@ConscientiousMind I'll give you some dictionary definitions with which I agree:

- acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation

- familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning

By contrast, here'z instinct:

- an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species

- a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency

See the difference?

[ConscientiousMind]

@BionicDance Of course I see the difference. The problem is that there's also some overlap.

Take grammar for instance. There's definitely a tendency for humans to develop linguistic skills(we're the only species that does so) and we for example recognize a subject-predicate pattern in declarative statements, even though we may not be conscious of it. This acquaintance, while it may not completely satisfy, definitely touches all of your definitions regarding instincts and knowledge.

[BionicDance]

@ConscientiousMind Sorry, but this is not quite true.

Grammar is LEARNED. Have you ever taken a foreign language? Have you noticed how grammar and syntax differ greatly from language to language? There are SOME--like Navajo--that are so arcane that you have to be raised to speak it to truly understand it!

Unless you can demonstrate that grammar is a thing which is understood by humans who otherwise lack language ENTIRELY, you're confusing knowledge and instinct AGAIN, and have no case here.

[ConscientiousMind]

@BionicDance In this day and age the tabula rasa -type problems are outdated metaphysical conundrums that philosophers before Wittgenstein used to get entangled with all the time. In reality it's simply a matter of language - we have come up with the concept of knowledge to be useful in daily interaction, but it's a hindrance in psychology and philosophy. It's better to get rid of it, focus on the fuzzy world of neuroscience and come up with better concepts based on its findings.

[BionicDance]

@ConscientiousMind Except that there IS a distinction between acquired, learned knowledge, and instinctive REACTIONS to stimuli; the discuss them as if they were equivalent, or even the same NATURE of cognitive function is to make a categorical error.

I'd say that I'm sorry to be so pedantic, except that I'm NOT; I'd prefer to be accurate and correct in cases like these. Fuzzy definitions lead to error and inaccuracy in discussion such as these, and lead to even lengthier arguments than this!

[BionicDance]

@SisyphusRedeemed Part 4 - If a person were born with no sensory perception at all...would they know anything? Depends on how you define "know".

What does a fetus know, even one that is cognitive, self-aware? Surely this sensory-deprived person is at least self-aware to some degree.

What would their existence be like? I'm picturing a constant dream-state, really, an entire life spent in a world of fiction...but unformed, the characters perhaps not even distinct from anybody but the person.

[BionicDance]

@SisyphusRedeemed Part 5 - Personally, I'm inclined to think that those who say we can never know anything about the world are fooling themselves; perhaps they're right in the strictest, most pedantic sense, but we have a kind of informal peer-review in the form of feedback from other people. Sure, you could argue they could be false people, but after a while you have to just go, "C'mon...if this is a put-on, it's pretty arcane and elaborate! I don't buy it!"

[BionicDance]

@SisyphusRedeemed Part 6 - And even IF this world is just an illusion, it's all we have to work with, it's all we CAN interact with...at least for now.

If we just throw our hands up in the air and go, "Well, we can't know anything; let's just give up!", what good do you do yourself? For now, at least, the illusion seems to behave as if it's real, and I say go with it until evidence that it's NOT presents itself.

...heh...told you I had a lot to say. This'll do for now. :)

[soultorment27]

@BionicDance

If the world isnt what we take it to be then even when our beliefs are true they still wouldn't count as knowledge. Imagine you have a dream that you lose your wallet & when you wake up you discover your wallet is actually missing. In the dream your belief about your wallet wouldn't constitute knowledge even if it's true. In order to know x, it is necessary that x is believed, true, & justified. Although those conditions are necessary for knowledge, they still are not sufficient

[Jacko38]

@SisyphusRedeemed Couldn't the skepticism that you mention in the video also be classified as a form of Academic skepticism?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@Jacko38 Academic skepticism was more extreme. They claimed, like the Pyronists, that no knowledge is possible at all.

[Jacko38]

@SisyphusRedeemed Actually pyrrhonism doesn't deny that people can have knowledge, seeing that claim as dogmatism

See the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's entries on skepticism and moral skepticism and the wiki entry on pyrrhonism

[poduck2]

I would actually agree that we have no way to know that what we experience outside our minds is what it appears to be. I have no way to absolutely know anything other than my own thoughts, and that's why it has been accepted that knowledge really speaks to level of belief, and not necessarily to reality.

I don't see a problem thinking that way, as long as you work within what your mind tells you it is experiencing and don't go jumping off buildings.

[insidetrip101]

@poduck2

"as you work within what your mind tells you it is experiencing and don't go jumping off buildings."

1) Why? At this point isn't jumping off of buildings an arbitrary judgment constructed by your mind?

2) What about fields of mathematics that we never experience sensually? For example a perfect circle, square, or triangle. Or to make it even more interesting, imaginary numbers?

[Lordlaneus]

does any one know why the John Locke form Lost was named after the philosopher John Locke? was it just to make the show seem more intellectual, or was their an actual reason?

[insidetrip101]

@Lordlaneus

I never watched Lost, but John Locke not only transformed epistemology, but used his epistemology to transform political theory.

Tabula Rasa ------> All men created equal

That sort of thing. I can't really say much about Lost but my guess is that John Locke on the show probably had some sort of leadership role with the survivors in establishing some sort of community.

[Pushtrak]

I'm actually reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance right now. One chapter off part IV.

[JustaEropeanGuy]

when rational right, no can defence

[mortemdei]

Hiss brain would probably be highly damaged

[Smidge204]

I think the Cartesian theater problem is mitigated to some degree (but not solved) by our use of external tools to make measurements. A prism spreads a beam of light out into a spectrum which we can observe, and we can verify those observations by using a photocell to measure the wavelengths without relying directly on our senses to tell us the colors are different. Even a blind person can tell the difference in color using the right tools.

[insidetrip101]

@Smidge204

Doesn't the blind person have to experience the tools in some way? I mean just because you have a ruler and are measuring the length of an object doesn't mean that you don't need your eyes.

[Smidge204]

@insidetrip101 That's why I said mitigate, not solve :p An ideal tool is not likely to hallucinate, for example, and it will generate the same measurement regardless of its user. You are not observing the phenomenon directly, and the ideal tool is a perfectly objective observer - consider the perfect tool as a trusted intermediate that verifies what you see is really whet you see. If the readout says "550nm" you know the color is "Green" regardless of what your senses tell you.

[insidetrip101]

@Smidge204

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I don't see how it mitigates the problem at all unless you don't understand it. You still have to SENSE the data of the instrument. If you can't trust your senses to tell you what green is, then why can you trust your senses to tell you the reading of the instrument?

"the ideal tool is a perfectly objective observer"

I'm not even sure what this means, because once something begins to observe a system it becomes a subject in relation to that system.

[Smidge204]

@insidetrip101 It's not that you can "trust" the tool, if I understand where you're coming from - it's that the tool changes the modality of sensory input. The tool itself is not subject to the "Cartesian theater" problem and thus is ideally objective (there is no "theater" to convey false information). (continued)

[Smidge204]

@insidetrip101 (continued) For example, if you claim two people may not experience color the same way, you can use an independent tool to avoid that problem entirely. You have quantified an otherwise subjective measurement. Are you suggesting that not only our senses that might be fooling us, but also no common objective reality exists? That would make the world a very difficult place to live in...

[MrMan322]

I am very much enjoying this series.

Keep up the good work!

[unseenstrings]

Rationalism is built upon a foundation of sense experience. Without sense experience, we would be equivalent to babes. We would "know" to suck when something was placed in our mouth, we would "know" to defecate when our bowels became full, we would "know" to cry when experiencing discomfort, et cetera. But we would not have enough knowledge of the world and of language to know how to rationalize. This is equivalent to the gene versus environment scenario, i.e. it is not one or the other but both

[Akatam0t0ma]

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on Popper! :-D

[duffry]

Loving this series and gratz on your next upload.

[Lazzzyeye]

Gooood stuff Sisyphus.

I was kind of hoping you'd give me some material to fight solipsism, but this external world skepticism doesn't look promising!

[ConscientiousMind]

@Lazzzyeye Check out G.E. Moore if skeptical arguments are getting on your nerves. A pair of hands and a swift modus tollens and you've done with any smartass solipsist!

SR, I'm looking forward to your follow-up on logical positivism since I never completely understood what it was all about. And I don't know if you've completed the video yet or not, but please tell us the story of how Gödel found Russell's and Whitehead's asses on a sidewalk and handed them to them on a reflective platter :)

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@ConscientiousMind Oh, the story of Godel's theorem is a great one, but that's philosophy of mathematics, not philosophy of science. Another great Godel story: he was up for citizenship and claimed to have found a flaw in the Constitution that could lead to a tyrant taking control. He was so upset about it he couldn't help but tell the judge at his naturalization hearing. Thankfully Einstein was there to shut him up.

[TheSameDonkey]

I feel quite sure you're gonna go there, but I'll ask now anyway, just in case.

Why can't operationalism combined with a little semantic trickery bypass the problems of external world skepticism?

[JCLeSinge]

Ok, would this Tabula Rasa argument defeat solipsism? If you argue that sensory information is the only way we can derive knowledge, then that information must come from an independently existing world, right?

[JCLeSinge]

...I spoke too soon; you've covered this somewhat in the video. Cool.

[ManicEightBall]

I know you didn't want to get into this, but Dan Everett has done work on the innateness of counting and language, and interestingly, recursion in language. This is one of my favorite topics, so I bring it up anyway.

[Cd3]

REALLY enjoyed this video. Can't wait for the rest.

[awfulnhead]

2nd, thank you so much for this series, it's wonderfully enlightening, educational yet entertaining, or maybe i just officially have a man crush on you, regards