Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Like the yellow lemon.

Not even remotely, Fil. I hope you finally make it clear, because I honestly do not.




A guess is a guess. If the guess proves to be correct...that does not mean the guess was knowledge.

If I guess that Brazil will win the World Cup next time...would that mean that I know that Brazil will win the Cup?

No. It means that is my guess.

If Brazil wins...that does not retroactively make my guess, knowledge.




Because a guess is a guess.

If Brazil wins the world cup then your guess entailed the knowledge of a fact as the correspondence between the hypothesis and the fact were TRUE ! Truth is far more important then justification...you are now entering the muddling and obscure waters of "causality"...be aware !

Fil...no matter what I say, you are going to suggest that a guess is knowledge...so I think it would be better to just let it lie.

If you feel that a guess is knowledge...fine with me.

I do not...and since I do not know the true nature of REALITY...I will continue to say that I do not know...rather than make a guess and say, "okay, now I know."

Again confounding knowing X with having certainty if you know X...but lets set that aside since we are not going to agree no matter what...on forward you are to explain how is not a guess your very own opinion that you do not know the nature of reality ? Isn't your doubting itself a part of who you are and a part of reality ? How come you are certain your doubt is justified ? "You" the entity we call Frank may be justified in having doubts in general, doubts exist in the entity addressed with "you" or "I", once to achieve certainty on that regard "you" or "I" alone are the solely requirement of proof, but your claim is not on the ability to doubt per se...your claim is an assertion upon knowledge and knowledge is an intrinsic part of reality invoked through "you" ! you must assume knowledge exists in the real on the first place to deny the possibility of knowledge, a contradiction...otherwise what could you mean with "knowing" or "not knowing" ?

How can not a guess be knowledge? Because it's based on prior knowledge.

Fil...answer a question:

Do you KNOW the true nature of REALITY?

Simple. It is a guess...not knowledge.



It is a GUESS! That is what a guess is...A GUESS.

But guesses are based on prior knowledge. In other words, you have established some form of knowledge to determine what you don't know.

Not knowing would indicate you are dead. Without some knowledge, you would not be able to exist from day to day.

I might I am not certain if I know the true nature of reality as I am not certain I have a sufficiently good justification for my doubts on it, or better put, upon what I believe to know about reality, as those very same doubts I have, are an intrinsic part of reality itself for which I have no final proof...hell I am not even sure proofs have any validity once they assume a causal relation rather then a correlation...for all that I care knowledge upon the true nature of reality might be a matter of revelation and not proof...I find it funny that you being the intelligent person you assume to be, you keep missing all these assumptions implicit in your claim, oddly enough you seam certain of a lot of stuff in between those lines...you see your claim is so radical so absolute in its negativity and extension, go figure no less then the whole reality itself, that you just totally emptied the concept of knowledge from any meaningful sense it might had, and with it reality as something that can be experienced (that can be known) has been thrown out of the airlock...in which case one is not just allowed but compelled to ask how do you know that you can't know if you just killed knowledge out from existence ? the contradiction is all to evident !...

...I think I have clarified this matter in another thread using a different wording for "reality"...
..."reality" is one of those all encompassing words that becomes philosophically dangerous when one try's to clash it with any other absolute...
...if for one, a final proof regarding the true nature of reality, requires the whole extension of space time to be run through and with it the all sum of phenomena that it might contain, for another any single event that one comes to experience, is proof of reality true nature being knowable, as any event is a real event, a given to the experiencer...(for that matter even dreams are real events, in the sense that they are real dreams...dreaming is a reality per se)
So when one claims that reality is not knowable one is immediately asking what knowledge itself might mean without a "real reality" for background...(the pleonasm is intentional)

Sorry, but from semantic analysis, anybody who thinks the words "knowledge" and "reality" have any meaning at all outside specific common communicative contexts are producing word salad. This is NOT such a context. It is contrived situation . It is what Wittgenstein called "language on holiday" .

However, it may be the case that understanding this point is also the basis of a meditator's claim that the experience of the transcendence of all context is "ineffable".

Odd as it may seam on a first glance Frank is not the ultimate judge of what Frank knows...there is a distinction to be made between what Frank claims and believes to know and what Frank truly knows, as there's a lot that we know that we sometimes aren't aware at the moment...Frank claims to know nothing, (upon reality) but Frank already knows something if he knows that he cannot know anything... as whatever he knows, is real knowing, Frank not knowing, would require reality per se Frank not know his not knowing...by the way, notice that anything, any single thing is sufficient for having knowledge upon reality's nature, as any negative claims of knowledge upon reality reduced what is addressed with "reality" only to what you can know...if the only reality to exist was to not know reality, then you would not know your not knowing, in order to the reality of the not know...to wrap it up Frank bottom line is concerned with what he considers an invasion upon his right to uphold any belief that we wants and holds dear...as shown Frank couldn't care less if his doubts have any merit...Frank confuses and conflates his right to have doubts about everything with not knowing, but of course, it might be the case that Frank 's informed guesses are complete explanations of what reality truly is, Frank simply does not know that !

Are you claiming "philosophers", or for that matter "scientists" suffices, can only produce word salads ? And by the way what was not specific there ? Do you believe for instance the famous question: "Does the set of all sets who do not belong to themselves belongs or not belongs to itself ?" to not be a valid specific context ? It is the same kind of problem as: "if the only reality to exist was to not know reality, then you would not know your not knowing, in order to the reality of the not know..."

..you above all here, with your Cartesian "consciousness is reality" sort of claims, should understand what I mean...

Scientists are using specific observational contexts. Philosophers in general are not, hence the denigration of "traditional philosoph" by Rorty et al.

And of course Russell's paradox is contrived ! It is merely an outcome of the conceptual limits of a binary logic and "fixed set membership" and was a result of the abortive attempt to put mathematics on a "logical footing". Wittgenstein dismissed it as grammatically aberrant, and attempts at "solutions" included evoking "multi-level reality".

Funny enough most of your philosophical beliefs are presented with that very same binary logic Fresco...dismissing something like this can be proven a far more difficult exercise then you may think...you throw away the baby with the bath water...

PS - by the way have you notice the word "common" conflicts with the word "specific"...



...the more common the more general and the less specific..you perspire binary logic all over your thoughts Fresco...

ci...what makes you think I have no knowledge?

There are lots of things that I do know.

There are lots of things that I do not know.

I do not know the true nature of REALITY...and there are many possibilities about it that I can imagine. I cannot make any meaningful guesses about which of the many possibilities is the REALITY.

Obviously people like Fresco KNOW the true nature of REALITY.

What can I say? Maybe I am retarded.

I got to give you a hands up for your stubborn coherence of character...

...just mind as whatever you know is whatever is real to you, you just once more contradicted yourself...

...and no you are not stupid either just a damn stubborn old goat !...

.


Thank you, Fil.



I honestly do not see any contradiction in what I have said at all. I try to explain my position as clearly as I can...and I do not see any contradiction.



We certainly agree there, Fil. I am a stubborn., old goat.