4 ms·

Everything is perceived, and our perception gets filtered based on our prior experience. Just because we're not directly perceiving objective reality, that does

Everything is perceived, and our perception gets filtered based on our prior experience. Just because we're not directly perceiving objective reality, that does not mean _everything_ is opinion. JFK was shot, that's not just my opinion. Unless you choose to believe some kind of post-modern crazyness, in which case - have at it.

hnlmorg 2mo ago
You don’t actually know JFK was shot from your own personal experience. You just choose to believe what credible source claim. And even if you were there, who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect? To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.
- rightbyte 2mo ago
  There is an pink elephant behind you. In practice, I believe that at least after the dust have settled, events of the type of "Count Ferdinand was shoot dead infront of 100 witnesses", like maybe 1/50 are fake? Dunno what share. The faking part would be in who is blamed and what country to bomb etc.
- switchbak 2mo ago
  "Who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect" - you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. I'm saying that not everything is opinion, that there does exist a category called 'fact'. And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
  - hnlmorg 2mo ago
    > you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. Do you have access to their head? How do you know that someone didn’t swap that head for someone else who had been shot? Like I said, this is purely a philosophic argument. I’m not actually trying to suggest that there isn’t such thing as “facts”. > And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. No, I’m making a psychological point that our perceptions are what we use to construct our reality, and that our perceptions are malleable. If they weren’t, then drugs would have no effect, psychosis wouldn’t be a thing, and people’s opinions wouldn’t differ about even the most straightforward things like god, globe vs flat earth, and so on and so forth. > This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live. I agree. As I said in the previous comment: “To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.”

hnlmorg 2mo ago

You don’t actually know JFK was shot from your own personal experience. You just choose to believe what credible source claim. And even if you were there, who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect? To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.

rightbyte 2mo ago
There is an pink elephant behind you. In practice, I believe that at least after the dust have settled, events of the type of "Count Ferdinand was shoot dead infront of 100 witnesses", like maybe 1/50 are fake? Dunno what share. The faking part would be in who is blamed and what country to bomb etc.
switchbak 2mo ago
"Who’s to say that your fallible memory is incorrect" - you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. I'm saying that not everything is opinion, that there does exist a category called 'fact'. And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
- hnlmorg 2mo ago
  > you can very easily test if someone has a bullet through their head. Well, assuming someone didn't go and steal their brain. Do you have access to their head? How do you know that someone didn’t swap that head for someone else who had been shot? Like I said, this is purely a philosophic argument. I’m not actually trying to suggest that there isn’t such thing as “facts”. > And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts. No, I’m making a psychological point that our perceptions are what we use to construct our reality, and that our perceptions are malleable. If they weren’t, then drugs would have no effect, psychosis wouldn’t be a thing, and people’s opinions wouldn’t differ about even the most straightforward things like god, globe vs flat earth, and so on and so forth. > This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live. I agree. As I said in the previous comment: “To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.”