"The G.E. Moore Shift" by The 21st Century Monads

[willardsheen1]

Raises a hand and says "here is a hand". Raises another hand and says "here is another hand", and so proved the existence of the external world. I tried that same argument once, except that I raised my feet instead of my hands. I fell over.

Does that prove anything?

[johnjamo1]

Awesome.

[alifeofreason]

I uploaded some of their songs on my page. It's so funny!

[TheAssholearchist]

I can't believe there's two people out there who didn't enjoy this.

[pyjamas1191]

i love it!

[mohamedbongfish]

Wittgenstein's On Certainty

[PhilFPugh]

What definition of knowledge are we using?

[unassumption]

I fear it is more pragmatic to accept the truth, unless there is some pressing reason not to which we know, than to not, for rational behavior requires as true knowledge as we can obtain about the world. To decide we know things absolutely, when we damn well know there is at least some philosophical doubt, could bite us in the ass later, if we're following a pragmatic epistemology rather than one based merely on likely truth values. Not to say it's not HIGHLY likely I haz hand, or 2+2=4.

[unassumption]

While a rational person cannot help but act and judge on the basis of their evidence, they must accept that their evidence base is not infinite, and it is possible, however small that possibility, that their perceptions are demonstrably false; they could never know they had all evidence, even if they felt they did. The naive perception, I HAZ HAND, can easilly be false (aphasia anyone?) IRL let alone physically.

Even deduction and induction are based on assumptions we can never prove.

[Letranger]

You're confused about what Moore's demonstration is supposed to prove.

[unassumption]

Common sense is nonsense.

Intuitionalist epistemology is based on perceptions that evolved to help our genes pass on, not to bring us to truth; maths and science, and philosophy, are required to help us overcome these flaws. It makes no sense to just deny the flaws, because you personally don't like them, or think a life with those flaws is pragmatically not worth living, or impossible to live... despite them being at the heart of the scientific method...

[JHBowden79]

"I certainly know that I have "seen" both of "my hands" in my dreams"

Literally speaking without the sneerquotes, no human being has ever seen their own hands while dreaming.

[rpsdmp]

But that's begging the principle that being awake is different from being asleep. If you see your hands in your dreams (I have, by the way and quite a weird dream it was) you might believe that you were awake, just as often happens in dreams...

[rpsdmp]

... in dreams, and therefore, you might believe you're awake now while you're reading this and be actually dreaming, and therefore, you might believe there's an external world and be actually being delluded by a mischivous genie. Not that I believe this, but I don't see how seeing anything can be a proof of the existance of the external world, and if it could, why one's hands would have a special role.

[JHBowden79]

rpsdmp--

Being awake is different than being asleep. These are what Ryle would call pair concepts. They make no sense in isolation.

Also note that words like 'perceive' and 'remember' are success words. They shouldn't be confused with 'believed to have perceived' or 'believed to have remembered'. Success/fail words such as recall and forgetting make no sense isolated from each other. If we never forgot anything, there'd be no recall. While if we had no recall, nothing would stick to forget.

[JHBowden79]

I think you're suggesting a different concept. It is logically possible for a contingent truth to be false; that is what a contingent truth is. Therefore, we can never know a contingent proposition, since it is possible we can be wrong.

This is like saying that it is possible for all human beings to be male or female. Therefore, it is possible for Jason Bowden to be female. But I'm not female. Moore's saying we can't refute beliefs by principles more uncertain than the propositions in question.

[JHBowden79]

The fallacy above, of course, is believing reality is deducible from the accounting of reality. When playing a game of chess, I have to obey the rules. How the game is played however is not deducible from the rules. It does not follow from a contingency of a proposition that we cannot know that proposition. Sure, it is true that I could be wrong about being male. But this is trivial, only logical bookkeeping. Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm certainly not.

[DrCarolineJenkins]

Yeah, thanks! This is cool. - Carrie

[fffninja]

Just wanted to say "thank you" to whomever made this video. Me and the other 21CMers enjoyed it. What a nice surprise to find that someone has made a video for one of our songs! - Kris

[LennyBound]

Glad to hear you liked it! Thanks for the great music. :-)

[sublimeobject]

No, Moore's logic isn't 'wrong'. His argument is an instance of modus tollens. If you want to attack the argument, you're going to have to go for one of the premises, not the inference form.

[frabjous79]

Check out the bands' website (...third link on the upper right....) for a bunch of other philosophical songs. Awesome.

[tempemonkey2323]

His argument for the external world is shit.... I have been meaning to read up on more Moore.... However, I doubt that he would seem as good as the master David Hume- Hume is the best mofo around!!!

[humanist7117]

??????????????? Gobbledegook!!!!!!!!!

[23discordians]

??? What's gobbledegook???

[humanist7117]

Check your dictionary.

[23discordians]

I was after a stipulative definition, rather than a dictionary one.

[23discordians]

Possibly my favourite argument ever. Other people don't seem to like it though. Oh well... I'm used to being wrong. But I do think some people are possibly looking at the argument in the wrong way. It is not supposed to be irrefutable evidence of the external world. It just makes the skeptic do a bit more leg work than they ordinarily get away with by making them justify their use of complex reasoning to doubt more basic beliefs. Am I wrong about this? Have I missed some horrendous flaw?

[upshall]

Moores logic is flawed

I think it is because of the arguments used. S's knowing is an argument which is not easily documented. Maybe the argument should be rewritten.

If S and not sp then S and q.

therefore we can glean nothing from S and not q.

[leawardseif]

Thank you Lenny. I was previously totally oblivious to the existence of this group. Jolly good stuff :)

As for the book cover @ 1:56; I think I saw a copy of Wittgensteins On Certainty with a cover like that once.

[LennyBound]

You win! :-)

[AutodidacticPhd]

Too bad the shift in argument being referred to is one that I find no more convincing than the argument it hopes to refute.

I certainly know that I have "seen" both of "my hands" in my dreams... unless there is considerably more to Moorean facts than the basic introduction, they are (at least in my experience) telling me that my dreams are all external worlds.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

That's amazing! I love it!

[skinnyjohnsen]

Well, for educational purposes, you should elaborate on it. Btw; The girl has a very nice voice.