Quote:My point all along, David, is that simply because you assume REALITY is "the external world" -- does not mean that REALITY IS "the external world."
LOL, Frank, I'm not the only one who assumes it....and this is its definition, ie, the external world.....and you've admitted that it exists{Wall}.
You're using a different definition of reality than I am, here's mine again..Reality=the external world known via our senses*
*ie, we receive raw data from the external world, we perceive this data, and "ideally" we effectively manipulate this data into knowledge...we use logic as the means to acquire truth about reality, that's what knowledge is, something specific and related to reality.
Now, I'm not intolerant of the notion of the transphysical, nor of intuition being a mode of knowing, but I
demand that anything uttered for public consumption should be logically justified{regardless of how rare that is}...IOW, intuition "might" be a valid premiss, but one still must be logical and deduce something reasonable otherwise this knowledge should stay in one's own head.
Quote:The TRUTH may be that we simply cannot KNOW REALITY. It may, in fact, be unknowable. (I am not asserting in either direction on that question -- merely positing the possibility.)
Again it comes down to "your" definition.
If you have decided that the senses aren't a valid starting point, then it seems reasonable on that basis that
you will reject the notion of knowing reality.
Quote:But the REALITY may be something not even remotely akin to "the perceptions" -- nor to the "assumptions" we make about those perceptions.
Well, this strikes me as an arbitary statement designed to support your prejudice,... which is that we can't know the external world.
I given my account of how we can know reality, you're just adding doubt, you're welcome to do so, but I need something in the way of reasonable doubt otherwsie I'm going to maintain
certainty.
Quote:...what you perceive -- and the assumptions you make based on those perceptions -- are nothing more than that -- merely your perceptions and the assumptions you made based those perceptions.
The REALITY of existence may be worlds apart from all that.
Yes but I need only be logical and produce knowledge and I'll gain support from other rational thinkers.
Also what is your method of knowing or doubting based on?
If you have no reasonable objections other than the introduction of doubt for doubts sake, then you have said nothing, you've offered nothing reasonable, and I need reasonable doubt to alter my certainty...as should any reasonable person.
Quote:** Whenever I use the expression "We do not know...", please rephrase those words in your mind to read, "I do not know and I suspect others do not know either." It is a shorthand expression.
Yes Frank....but these others may be just as incoherent as you've been, you see, you achieve nothing by saying.."e-gawd, what David's saying doesn't sound right"......you have to produce a superior argument and introduce "reasonable" doubt.
As far as I can tell, you've decided at the epistemological level that knowledge of the external world isn't possible, but you've offered nothing substantial to justify that stance other than doubt, doubt without supporting evidence is arbitary and is effectively worthless as far as motivating any evaluation of it.
David.
(No offense by the way.) 
