“the question isn’t how to arrive at the Truth, but rather how to eliminate error. Which sounds kind of obvious, until I meet yet another person who rails to me about how empirical positivism can’t provide its own ultimate justification, and should therefore be replaced by the person’s favorite brand of cringe-inducing ugh.”
—Scott Aaronson
Either there a reality and then there a basis or there reality in the first place and it’s meaningless to speak about things having a basis in reality.
I mean do you believe that reality has a basis in reality?
I think we mean different things by “basis in reality”. I use it to refer to something correlating with the real world, and evidence that demonstrates such a connection either probable or certain. Probability, of course, can only work if probability were somehow demonstrated valid.
Circular arguments do not count as a basis in reality, hence your argument, which assumes the existence of physical brains, does not work.
“the question isn’t how to arrive at the Truth, but rather how to eliminate error. Which sounds kind of obvious, until I meet yet another person who rails to me about how empirical positivism can’t provide its own ultimate justification, and should therefore be replaced by the person’s favorite brand of cringe-inducing ugh.” —Scott Aaronson
Complete elimination of error would logically imply knowing the truth.
Something like empirical positivism is like a castle on air- it makes assumptions with no basis in reality.
Given that it happens within physical brains it obviously does have at least some basis in reality.
Genuine deep skepticism doesn’t happen in real brains and therefore has no basis in reality.
Circular argument- You assume a basis in reality which assumes skepticism is wrong.
Either there a reality and then there a basis or there reality in the first place and it’s meaningless to speak about things having a basis in reality.
I mean do you believe that reality has a basis in reality?
I think we mean different things by “basis in reality”. I use it to refer to something correlating with the real world, and evidence that demonstrates such a connection either probable or certain. Probability, of course, can only work if probability were somehow demonstrated valid.
Circular arguments do not count as a basis in reality, hence your argument, which assumes the existence of physical brains, does not work.