4 ms·

Every chain of reasoning needs to bootstrap with one or more statements that are entirely self-evident, such that they don't need to be justified by reference t

by kijin 4y ago

Every chain of reasoning needs to bootstrap with one or more statements that are entirely self-evident, such that they don't need to be justified by reference to other statements. Otherwise you run into an infinite loop. "I'm a conscious entity" is about as close to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" as modern philosophers are willing to go.

tshaddox 4y ago
I disagree with any sort of “justified belief” epistemology, so of course I disagree with you completely. If knowledge were “justified true belief” or anything like that, then it would indeed be the case that any knowledge would require either an infinite chain of justifications or a privileged self-justified fact that cannot be examined or criticized using reason. If, on the other hand, the pursuit of knowledge consists of something like using creativity and reason to solve problems by making new conjectures and criticizing them, then no infinite regress or un-criticizable is required. According to ideas like this, the goal is to solve problems rather than to “justify my beliefs” or “increase my confidence” or “guarantee that I’m not incorrect.”
- manx 4y ago
  Isn't what you describe an Axiom? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)
  - epgui 4y ago
    I’m sorry to barge in on the conversation, but I also had the same thought. However, I believe there is nothing axiomatic about the existence of consciousness: not only is consciousness not “one localized thing” but “a collection of delocalized features”, but there is nothing trivial about it, and I doubt very much that everyone in the room would agree on a single definition of it without getting into semantic quabbles. Axioms tend to be much simpler.
- kijin 4y ago
  I'm not a big fan of JTB epistemology, either, but you can't help regressing to some sort of common ground in order to make conjectures and refute them. In order for someone to make a conjecture that A does B, and for someone else to point out that A actually doesn't do B, both parties need to agree on the meanings of A and B, as well as what it means for A to do B, usually by appealing to C, an independent common ground. You climb down as many levels of abstractions as needed until you reach C, because otherwise you're just talking past each other. Even in a coherentist system, the network of existing beliefs forms the common ground against which questionable beliefs are tested, and some beliefs are held firmer than others. Those beliefs are treated as already justified for the purpose of the current investigation. Few people who talk about consciousness would ever consider denying that they are conscious.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > but you can't help regressing to some sort of common ground in order to make conjectures and refute them. > In order for someone to make a conjecture that A does B, and for someone else to point out that A actually doesn't do B, both parties need to agree on the meanings of A and B, as well as what it means for A to do B… You try to establish common ground, of course, but there’s no process you can follow that guarantees that you’re not being misunderstood or justifies your belief that you’re not being misunderstood.

by kijin 4y ago

tshaddox 4y ago

I disagree with any sort of “justified belief” epistemology, so of course I disagree with you completely. If knowledge were “justified true belief” or anything like that, then it would indeed be the case that any knowledge would require either an infinite chain of justifications or a privileged self-justified fact that cannot be examined or criticized using reason. If, on the other hand, the pursuit of knowledge consists of something like using creativity and reason to solve problems by making new conjectures and criticizing them, then no infinite regress or un-criticizable is required. According to ideas like this, the goal is to solve problems rather than to “justify my beliefs” or “increase my confidence” or “guarantee that I’m not incorrect.”

manx 4y ago
Isn't what you describe an Axiom? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)
- epgui 4y ago
  I’m sorry to barge in on the conversation, but I also had the same thought. However, I believe there is nothing axiomatic about the existence of consciousness: not only is consciousness not “one localized thing” but “a collection of delocalized features”, but there is nothing trivial about it, and I doubt very much that everyone in the room would agree on a single definition of it without getting into semantic quabbles. Axioms tend to be much simpler.
kijin 4y ago
I'm not a big fan of JTB epistemology, either, but you can't help regressing to some sort of common ground in order to make conjectures and refute them. In order for someone to make a conjecture that A does B, and for someone else to point out that A actually doesn't do B, both parties need to agree on the meanings of A and B, as well as what it means for A to do B, usually by appealing to C, an independent common ground. You climb down as many levels of abstractions as needed until you reach C, because otherwise you're just talking past each other. Even in a coherentist system, the network of existing beliefs forms the common ground against which questionable beliefs are tested, and some beliefs are held firmer than others. Those beliefs are treated as already justified for the purpose of the current investigation. Few people who talk about consciousness would ever consider denying that they are conscious.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > but you can't help regressing to some sort of common ground in order to make conjectures and refute them. > In order for someone to make a conjecture that A does B, and for someone else to point out that A actually doesn't do B, both parties need to agree on the meanings of A and B, as well as what it means for A to do B… You try to establish common ground, of course, but there’s no process you can follow that guarantees that you’re not being misunderstood or justifies your belief that you’re not being misunderstood.