The Universal Liar?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

But are they perceiving falsely, or concluding falsely?

Exactly.     Point being that while reality is the standard of truth, what constitutes "reality" seems to include less self-evidence, and much more implicit reasoning (as with sticks in the water), than is generally realized.

 

We find and fix such errors by recognizing (as in the case of the stick, perhaps via touch) that what we conclude based on one sense without integrating it with the data from the other senses can potentially lead to error.

Yes, although I think even that is only part of it.  And it intrigues me because all of those methods used in perception have analogues in conception.

For example: With the visual dots, I think the primary reason nobody would consider them actual existents is because they're stationary in the visual field, while the images of real objects are not.  The implicit premise there being that "whatever sensations are unaffected by actuation, don't originate in reality" which is reducible to the primacy of existence.  So if someone like Kant were to experience that, to come to the obvious conclusion would be a fundamental betrayal of his own philosophy- just by grasping the obvious.

So anyway.  It interests me because I think, if we were to identify all of those parallel forms of reasoning, we'd have a much clearer and more elaborate understanding of how to think properly.

 

The more interesting aspect is: given the finite nature of our 5 senses, is there data out there that our senses are not cognizant of?

Of course.  But by translating such data technilogically, we can expand the scope and resolution of our own senses- provided we interpret it all properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_prosthesis

But then, teaching yourself to see for the first time requires such arrogant assumptions about things-in-themselves. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Additionally, by identifying the implicit reasoning which is necessary for any grasp of reality, we could show why no functional human being can sincerely deny Objectivism.

 

you dont seem to be real in being living, from the way you dont know that fact, where everyone is a liar

english plz, if will be possible, this one truly wants to understand

Edited November 13, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

If everyone is a liar then "everyone" includes yourself which actually makes that statement slightly less intelligible.

[absols]

everyone is a liar because one do not exist, freedom exist only, so none

 

while self is exclusively by recognizing else being objective existence first, which confirm the point of one being always a fallacy

[Skylab72]

Mmm, only a couple of week into the post, but I find it interesting that a thread initiated with the liars paradox, has had no mention of Kurt Gödel's completeness theorem. 

[StrictlyLogical]

The point

 

regarding rationalism, i.e. jumping into a rabbit hole of logic not strictly imposed by the original question versus approaching things from the view of reality...

 

was made.

 

 

The completeness theorem, symbolic logic, and Bertrand Russell's infatuation with empty self-reference, are interesting, very relevant to abstractions and mathematical systems, but are not relevant to reality itself, except perhaps in that they can all be illustrative of errors of thought.

[Skylab72]

No paradoxes? O.K. then SL riddle me this.  Does the set of all sets that do NOT contain themselves, contain itself?

 

I might suggest that set is a quantum set and it does not resolve until you look at it, like Schrodinger's cat.

[StrictlyLogical]

This is not a statement of reality. 

 

Secondly, it is an invalid meaningless assertion of a set which cannot exist. The question does X contain itself, in this case involves a meaningless X, about which there is in fact no answer to the question.  It is equally meaningless to answer yes to the question as it is to answer no.

 

In fact rather than a paradox I would call it a reduction ad absurdum... it proves that the notion of any set containing itself is meaningless to begin with.

[Skylab72]

Right you are, it is not. It is however a named paradox (Russell's) in the mathematical canon of set theory. It is a little absurd, even for 'pure math'.  That is why I like to poke fun at it by mixing in theoretical physics from the era when realists began becoming uneasy with theoretical physics. I thought 'quantum set' was quite descriptive.