Does morality/ethics have to be about valuations or preferences?
Yes. And in the fact that logic states nothing, and all propositions are equal, value statments can not be expressed.
2. Subjective senses of something feeling "right" and "wrong" (i.e., producing certain types of negative or positive physico-emotional reactions) are of course quite real for most people.
Once again, while there may be types of "yes"/"no" flags that goes off in the mind and body, they could be inifinitely more complex, grey, "contradictory" (in a poetic sense), and murky as to define them as comming to "positive"/ "negative", "good"/"bad", or "right"/"wrong" dichotomies, conclusions, and feelings. It may be language itself that creates a false dichotomy (not that I will claim there is or isn't a false dichotomy). These things go beyond the scope of language, all that can be looked at is the totality of a set context (be it the entirty of a persons life, a single event, etc) that is posited in a form of shared reality. If ethics is to exist at all, it can not be spoken of, at least in the context of logic.
As Dvorak's 9th (that is the actual content of the 9th in its entirety) can be "spoken" of in musical notation and playing an insturment, religion can be spoken of in various liturgical practices or symbology, and value statements can be spoken of in a form of poetry or perhaps a more intimite language (that is, with people who ae personally closer to you and "share"the same values): ethics, should it exist, may well have its own "language"; I am just unfamiliar with it. One thing is certain, ethics or anything else I stated can not be posited in any meaningful way in logic, science, or philosophy. That is not to say they can not be the driving force behind some/all of the actions to an individual, they just can not be spoken of with any meaning.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:For you. But there are objective truths that exist whether you percieve/know of them or not; gravity, for one.
If you couldn't percieve gravity, how would you know of its existence?
LibertarianfromGermany:Objective simply means value-free
I wasn't working from that definition.
Correct. Does atheism exist? Or does velocity, humans, or heat? No, not really, it is just one way of catagorizing reality as one sees it and can make use or sense of it. A heart can still be a perfect heart if it doesn't beat. It only doesn't "work" when you catagorize it as such, or it doesn't follow the rule of logic that it was viewed under. There is no atomism or reductionism there is only a rearrangment of catagorization to fit ones purpose.
Heraclitus: πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει
Jackson LaRose:I wasn't working from that definition.
Obviously, but the quote you were critizising basically stated this in a parahprazed way. Observer-independent simply means whether or not the actual thing exists and what it actually is does not depend on the person that observes it. For example: Whether I perceive the air around me, it either exists or it doesn't. Whether I think it exists or not has, at least according to my logic, no influence on its existence. The same thing goes for mathematics, etc. The human concept of it can be flawed, but whether mathematics has any relation to reality or not does not depend on if I think it does. Morality however is what I think it is, whether killing is wrong in my subjective morality depends on my valuations and if I do not have any such valuations or if I don't exist at all, then my subjective morality doesn't exist either. It is therefore dependent on me, the observer.
Irrelevant. It exists whether I percieve it or not.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Right, but @Epicurus, just saying, "you wouldn't assume truth is relative just because people disagree" still won't establish the concept that preferences can be objectively better than another. We define truth as the actuality of events in the world, so it is necessarily objective. We can describe preferences subjectively, so there's no need to make them objective as it saves an unecessary step.
We are subjective creatures in an objective space. We define truth when enough people, using testable/repeatable data come together to find what is or is not independant of the observer (at least on a macro physical level).
LibertarianfromGermany:Observer-independent simply means whether or not the actual thing exists and what it actually is does not depend on the person that observes it.
But I would contend that we can prove the existence of such a "thing". We could not observe this object without, well, observing it.
Whether I perceive the air around me, it either exists or it doesn't. Whether I think it exists or not has, at least according to my logic, no influence on its existence. The same thing goes for mathematics, etc. The human concept of it can be flawed, but whether mathematics has any relation to reality or not does not depend on if I think it does.
What is the basis for these assertions?
Morality however is what I think it is, whether killing is wrong in my subjective morality depends on my valuations and if I do not have any such valuations or if I don't exist at all, then my subjective morality doesn't exist either. It is therefore dependent on me, the observer.
I am skeptical of the distinction between your theoretical "observer-independent" reality, and morality. Could you explain why you consider this distinction valid?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Irrelevant. It exists whether I percieve it or not.
So, you are saying that some phenomena exist whether or we are capable of observing them. Sounds a lot like blind faith to me, in the most literal sense.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:We are subjective creatures in an objective space.
What makes you claim that?
We define truth when enough people, using testable/repeatable data come together to find what is or is not independant of the observer (at least on a macro physical level).
So, you believe that intersubjective consensus equates to objective reality. Another great example of a Humanist.
Jackson LaRose:So, you believe that intersubjective consensus equates to objective reality. Another great example of a Humanist.
He's a learner, cut him a little slack pls.
I am, at present, experiencing physical sensations. I can see my laptop computer in front of me and I hear the sounds in my house. I can feel the temperature of the room and even the fact that my body takes up space and has mass[1]. I can recall memories of past physical sensations that I have experienced. I also experience an ephemeral “inner dialogue” or “voice of the mind” whereby I reason through difficult problems and formulate responses to those around me. I divide my introspections into these three major areas – (1) my sensory experience of the physical world, (2) my thoughts or reasoning capacity and (3) my memories of past experiences of the physical world and past thoughts.
I think it is a mistake to differentiate between the inter-subjective and the objective because it assumes that there is some characteristic distinction between my knowledge of the world and the world itself to me. In fact, there necessarily can be no difference since the world is to me as it appears to me.
Now, there seems to be a sense in which the "real world" is what it is irrespective of how I perceive it. For example, if I look up into a blue sky I can see little dark dots in the sky that move with my eyes. Is the sky really dark in those places and do the dark spots in the sky actually move with my eyes? These spots are called floaters. They are, in fact, the result of little bubbles in the gel inside my eyeball. Floaters distort my perception of the world as it actually is. That my perceptions can be noisy or distorted implies that there is a reference to which they can be compared and found to be deficient or inaccurate.
But to jump right to the conclusion of the "noumenal" is to look past the fact that distortions or imperfections in my perception of the world still show up as inconsistencies in how I connect the dots in my own sense perceptions. To take the example of floaters, it is the fact that they move with my eyes that indicates that a naive hypothesis that the dark spots in the sky are actually a physical darkening however many miles up in the atmosphere that just happen to coincidentally move along with the muscles connected to my eyeballs is inconsistent with everything else that I know about the world from sensation, contemplation, memory and my brain's built-in evolutionary hardwiring.
This is much different than how noise or distortion on an electrical line is defined, for example. To define noise on an electrical line, we compare two measurements of signal power, one at the source and one at the destination. What is really occurring is a comparison of a high-noise with a low-noise signal. We take the low-noise signal as the gold standard or reference signal and we take the difference in signal power between the two measurements to calculate the noise on the line.
If my senses, my thoughts and my memories are my "oscilloscope probe" connected to the real world, I only have one reference point. I cannot ascertain how noisy my senses, thoughts and memories are by comparison to some external, low-noise reference. I am trapped within my single-point-of-reference subjective experience. It is only by constructing hypotheses within this subjective experience that my brain is able to build consistent models of what it is observing and hypothesize "noise" in my "oscilloscope probe." Floaters in my eyeballs do not actually cause a distortion of objective reality since they are also a part of objective reality (the part of it that helps construct my subjective experience of objective reality). Rather than viewing the dark spots in the blue sky as "noise", it is simply a much more plausible hypothesis that something that moves with my eyeballs is, in fact, in my eyeballs.
To differentiate between the inter-subjective and the objective would require that somebody have a second low-noise probe with which they could subjectively experience the world more accurately. This "gold reference" would permit at least that individual to see the absolute error in his own subjective experience of the physical world. Of course, no human possesses such a capacity.
Clayton -
[1] For those with a fascination for such things, there is a word for this sensation: proprioception
Jackson LaRose:But I would contend that we can prove the existence of such a "thing". We could not observe this object without, well, observing it.
I do not disagree with that. But I find it to be irrelevant. We can never truly prove anything and everything we accept as prove does rely at some point on a human logic that could be faulty and wrong. Therefore we can never really establish a "final" truth. We just try to draw logical connections between the thinks we perceive and try to make sense of them within the limited borders of the human mind.
Jackson LaRose:What is the basis for these assertions?
I see no logical connection between me perceiving an object and that object existing. Therefore I see no reason to create one. It's like children who see something scary and try to make it "non-existent" by covering their eyes with their hands. My logic tells me that this isn't going to affect the existence of the scary thing the child thinks it saw, whether it exists or not.
Jackson LaRose:I am skeptical of the distinction between your theoretical "observer-independent" reality, and morality. Could you explain why you consider this distinction valid?
I feel like we're moving in circles. Morality, as I've already explained, is in my opinion no different than preferences, values, and therefore subjective. And subjective simply means that it is true, valid, for the individual/observer concerned only. I do not draw a real distinction between reality and morality in that sense, but I assert that morality is simply a part of an individual that exists within reality. Surely you would not suggest that me preferring 2 apples to 1 banana is somehow reflective of some objective, observer-independent value scale that exist independently of human thinking and is somehow valid for all things or all humans. What I'm saying is that valuations are a human concept and without humans they would not exist. The same with morality, it being a subcategory of valuations. But I have no reason to believe that for example air would not exist without humans - in fact, there is quite a lot of evidence suggesting that air has existed even before humans have.
Clayton:To differentiate between the inter-subjective and the objective would require that somebody have a second low-noise probe with which they could subjectively experience the world more accurately. This "gold reference" would permit at least that individual to see the absolute error in his own subjective experience of the physical world. Of course, no human possesses such a capacity.
Well said.* Basically what we have here is an abuse of standards of evidence. It'd be like if you read a peer-reviewed scientific paper that said it's impossible for someone like you to read a scientific paper, and you believed it.
*If you mean what I think you mean by inter-subjective.
Why anarchy fails
Clayton, excellent post!
Z.
Jackson, if as a part of a five-member group you observe a big black bear running furiously toward you, would you (1) join the rest by running to the safety of the house or (2) try to convince them that inter-subjective consensus has nothing to do with objective reality?
Yes, and yes. Fortunately, I am not afraid to trust my fellow humans (to a certian point). I am not afraid to be called a humanist, whatever that means... as if it is a bad thing. To think there is not a difference between reality and observation of reality is just silly. The whole of scientific progression is based on the fact that reality is not dependant (tho I wouldnt say independant) on individual observers; i.e. repeatable data and experimentation.
Are you saying reality would not exist if there wasn't "human" life to observe it? That seems a pretty silly notion to me.
Clayton B:I think it is a mistake to differentiate between the inter-subjective and the objective because it assumes that there is some characteristic distinction between my knowledge of the world and the world itself to me. In fact, there necessarily can be no difference since the world is to me as it appears to me.
The is a difference between our knowledge of the world and the world itself to you. It is the difference between faith in transmitted (written, oral,etc.) knowledge, and your empirical observation.
Take a look around your kitchen counter for germs, or climb the tallest vista and your neighborhood, and let me know if the Earth appears to be round. Now, isn't there a distinct differentiation between what we know (believe), and what we see? I bet you can invite all of your family and friends with you as well to do the same. Do you think they would find something you didn't? Likely, you would reach almost complete consensus about your observations, yet you all "know" that what you all percieve, and agree upon (your inter-subjective consensus), is a rather shoddy representation of what you "know" (believe) about the nature of our reality (the objective "Reality at Large").
Now, there seems to be a sense in which the "real world" is what it is irrespective of how I perceive it.
This statement is neccessarily a statement of faith. If you were unable to percieve the world in a particular state (whichever you consider to be "real"), yet still was convinced of that particular state's existence, how is that any different than a Christian's faith in the existence of God?
Floaters distort my perception of the world as it actually is.
How can you know that?
That my perceptions can be noisy or distorted implies that there is a reference to which they can be compared and found to be deficient or inaccurate.
If your only means of percieveing this "real" world (your senses) were, as you stated, "noisy or distorted", how wou;d you be able to initially percieve the "real" world, in order to recognize the "noise" or "distortion"? Past personal observations, anectodal evidence of others? How can one be assured that these clearly subjective sources weren't "noisy" or "distorted" as well? What is the protocol, what is the perfect method you deem acceptable to separate "fact" from "fiction"?
the fact that they move with my eyes that indicates that a naive hypothesis that the dark spots in the sky are actually a physical darkening however many miles up in the atmosphere that just happen to coincidentally move along with the muscles connected to my eyeballs is inconsistent with everything else that I know about the world from sensation, contemplation, memory and my brain's built-in evolutionary hardwiring.
You just finished saying how terribly inconsistent our perceptions can be, yet are more than comfortable leaning upon them to prove their inconsistency!
it is simply a much more plausible hypothesis that something that moves with my eyeballs is, in fact, in my eyeballs.
What makes this hypothesis more plausible?
And as far as signal quality goes, you can only tell the shitty signal from the good one if you have the manual handy. If we don't know what we are looking for, we have know frame of reference to distinguish "high noise" from "low noise". What you decide to use as your reference is a matter of faith.
A rather paradoxical statement. How does one experience the theoretical "objective" more "accurately"? If you are unaware of the standard (in this case, the perfect observer-independent reality) how would you be able to discern that this new observation was more "accurate" (that is, a more complete representation of the observer-independent reality)?
I will agree that it is doubtful which claimaints of truth (if any) possess the truth. Although, that isn't to say we should throw up our hands and say, "close enough" and equate intersubjective consensus with an external, observer-independent reality, and all become Humanists. They're rather distinct, with objective reality squarely in the realm of the metaphysical.
z1235:Jackson, if as a part of a five-member group you observe a big black bear running furiously toward you, would you (1) join the rest by running to the safety of the house or (2) try to convince them that inter-subjective consensus has nothing to do with objective reality?
I would run like hell. It could be nothing, but I'm not brave enough to find out. Monsters under my bed were rather terrifying at one point in my life, regardless of wherther they were "actually" there or not.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I am not afraid to be called a humanist, whatever that means... as if it is a bad thing.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just pointing out an example.
To think there is not a difference between reality and observation of reality is just silly. The whole of scientific progression is based on the fact that reality is not dependant (tho I wouldnt say independant) on individual observers; i.e. repeatable data and experimentation.
I'm sure Muslims think Hindus are rather silly, too.
How can you hope to validate that notion?
Jackson LaRose:I would run like hell.
Why would you run?
Let me preface this by saying I in no way mean violence on you, just a hypothetical. But if thousands of years of taking the combined knowledge of people's mistakes, and this new thing we call the scientific method I am almost absolutely sure, if I aim this shotgun, right in your face, and pull the trigger.. assuming the gun fires properly, that you will cease to exist in my reality.
Through this same method I know that if I put a lot of very powerful fuel in a large object that will push energy downward and ignite it, it can go into space. The difference between this knowledge and faith is that I can show you that it can always be repeated.
I, as a subjective creature, can have faith in things that I have scant evidence of. Or I can have knowledge of things that are shown to be independent of whether I percieve them or not.
Jackson LaRose:The is a difference between our knowledge of the world and the world itself to you. It is the difference between faith in transmitted (written, oral,etc.) knowledge, and your empirical observation.
One quick note on that comment: Technically, those two are not really different in a general sense: Empirical observations also rely on faith; you have to rely on the fact that your senses are working properly and/or that you are able to "translate" reality correctly into terms that your brain can interpret. And then the interpretation of the information that your senses bring into your brain, i.e. the logic, could be faulty as well. So I would say that a priori statements should be considered first grade knowledge, empirical observations second and other people's empirical observations third (if only those three are considered; I'm sure you could also make different categories). The reason being that human logic is required in all those 3 types (for empirical knowledge to be relevant, you have to have "faith" in causality and other logical notions), the second and the third require additionally intact that no mistakes in observation is being made and the third also requires that no mistakes in judging the honesty of those other people are being made.
This is a personal judgement, but I would trust more in empirical observation, especially ones that have been shown to be repeatable by anyone anywhere (under the limits of the observation), than subjective judgements no matter how valid the logic.
Evidence > Theory
If I don't understand it, the problem is with my logic, not with the phenomena.
But Theory is required for any kind of Evidence. Evidence, as explained by Mises in human action, does NOT explain itself, but needs to be analyzed before reaching ANY kind of conclusion, even the most basic ones. Therefore, theory is the first step in any kind of assertion, regardless of whether it is empirical or not. And if you can reach a conclusion on PURE theory, it is as close to final truth as humans can get. For example, 2 lines that are parallel to each other can never meet each other. This is a truism and I have more trust in it than in any kind of conclusion that is reached by empirical means, simply because it can never be invalidated.
PS: If you have not already read Mises' Human Action or it's been too long to remember, I would advise reading the first part about praxeology (again), it's really intriguing.
For example, 2 lines that are parallel to each other can never meet each other. This is a truism and I have more trust in it than in any kind of conclusion that is reached by empirical means
That is an empirical observation. The reason you accept it as true is because it can be shown to be true, anytime, anywhere. I could say "two lines that run perpindicular can never meet each other." Which is the same statement if you dont know the definition of parellel, perpindicular. One is true, one isn't. Don't believe your answer is true? =======================
Proof > pudding
I agree that we can make no judgements without reason. But there is a large difference between knowledge and reason. Heat to skin is first an observation, then you make a judgement call that ow, fire burns.
Sorry, but you're entirely off on this one, it is not an empirical observation. If you want to prove it empirically, you would have to draw two lines parallel to each other and draw them to infinity, which is of course impossible. The reason that I know that 2 parallel lines can never meet each other is because the very definition of parallel is that they will always have the same distance to each other at a given point. Therefore, if at any given point those lines somehow met, they are not parallel anymore. Even if I had never seen a line in my life, I'm sure that I would be capable of grasping this truism even without one ever showing a line to me.
If you really believe that this is an empirical issue, let me ask you this: For how long did you draw lines parallel to each other to check whether they ever meet each other or not? Oh, you didn't? Well, are you even sure then that parallel lines never meet?
PS: On your last statements: Those truism I'm talking about are of such nature that you cannot use reason against them without contradicting yourself. I have shown that on my example above that stating "2 parallel lines CAN meet each other" is a contradiction.
I have a feeling there is a lot of agreement in this thread (this page, not the part about morality) but the words are getting in the way.
z1235:Why would you run?
"And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
- Matthew 14:25-31, NIV Bible
"Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, 'Why could we not cast it out?' He said to them, 'Because of your little faith. For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you."
- Matthew 17:19-20, NIV Bible
My lack of conviction. I don't claim the bear isn't real, I claim it may not be real. It's like the difference between being an atheist and an agnostic. I don't "know" if the bear is there, but frankly, I am too afraid to find out.
Even if I had never seen a line in my life, I'm sure that I would be capable of grasping this truism even without one ever showing a line to me.
I really don't think you would. How would you have any idea what "line" meant if you were had no sensory perception? You couldn't see shapes to determine lines. You couldnt feel things to determine boundaries. The whole concept of line and direction would be utterly meaningless.
The reason that I know that 2 parallel lines can never meet each other is because the very definition of parallel is that they will always have the same distance to each other at a given point.
Again, how do you know the definition of parallel without some form of observation of direction and boundaries? To a rock, the idea of shapes is utterly meaningless.
If you want to prove it empirically, you would have to draw two lines parallel to each other and draw them to infinity
I don't neccesarily have to draw it into infinity, unless you want to be that stubborn and not accept solid evidence. Perception is all subjective, I agree. But as far as you deem it necessary to go, I can keep drawing two parellel lines into infinity, and they will never meet. Or I can just teach you what lines mean, and then we can create an a priori truth. We could do a priori, then observation, but that leads to all kinds of silly things like geocentric theory.
Those truism I'm talking about are of such nature that you cannot use reason against them without contradicting yourself.
I posit that you cannot reason without sensory observation, human reason is just a very advanced form of sensory perception.
EIK, the scientific method, liek a gun, is a tool. it is nothing without your application of it. Your senses are still the sandy foundation on which the citadel of science rests precariously upon.
LibertarianfromGermany:The reason that I know that 2 parallel lines can never meet each other is because the very definition of parallel is that they will always have the same distance to each other at a given point. Therefore, if at any given point those lines somehow met, they are not parallel anymore.
Well put. If you define the limitations into the term, it is possible to state results in absolutes. The problem when applying this mindset to perceived phenomena is our inability to make a perfect observation, which makes it impossible to know the limitations and boundaries of the theoretical observer-independent reality. Therefore, it is a faulty analogy.
Jackson LaRose:My lack of conviction. I don't claim the bear isn't real, I claim it may not be real. It's like the difference between being an atheist and an agnostic. I don't "know" if the bear is there, but frankly, I am too afraid to find out.
"Run like hell" looks pretty convincing, IMO. If your actions are consistently indistinguishable from someone who does claim that the bear is real, what are the consequences of your convictions (or lack thereof) to the world outside your head? Or, why should I care why you run like hell when you do it just like everyone else EVERY TIME you see a bear? Btw, why even bother running when you may actually not be running at all? May I also propose that the ones who did decide to stick with their "No such thing as a real bear, or real running" philosophy by not running, may not be around long enough to procreate and spread their wisdom? Good for you that you're at least smarter than them.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I really don't think you would. How would you have any idea what "line" meant if you were had no sensory perception? You couldn't see shapes to determine lines. You couldnt feel things to determine boundaries. The whole concept of line and direction would be utterly meaningless.
And as far as you were concerned, non-existent. But for some reason, you would still believe in its existence, right?
It would be the theoretical parallel, perhaps. the human mind is capable of constructing pretty wild and vivid worlds which we do not percieve.
I don't neccesarily have to draw it into infinity, unless you want to be that stubborn and not accept solid evidence
Inter-subjective consensus is a satisfactory proof for some, not for all. Simply because he won't subscribe to your belief system, doesn't necessarily mean he is being stubborn (or contrarian, I get that one a lot).
z1235,
The old "well, descriptively they're the same, so there is no real difference" crowd. You and Angurse are a real PITA. The difference is that I consider righteous action a threat. In fact, I consider it the most dangerous force on the planet. It is the cause of the state. Therefore, I'd like to check it's spread.
Jackson,
Sorry, I have no idea what you just said. How is saying that bears (and your consistent escapes from them) are real, "righteous" in any sense of the word?
That parallel lines never meet is contained in the definition of parallel so it is not subject to refutation by evidence. Just like "All bachelors are unmarried." You may say that you have to know what a bachelor is and what marriage is, but you don't: all you have to do know is something like "B's are defined as an M's with characteristic U." Then we can say "All B's are U." It's just a tautology.
However, Epicurus is right in that human reason all takes place through sensations, such as pictures. Imagine we have a bunch of starting premises.
Premise 1: The British Islands and Ireland are in the British Isles.
Premise 2: The United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands are in the British Islands.
Premise 3: Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in the United Kingdom.
Premise 4: Scotland, England, and Wales are in Great Britain.
Premise 5: No part of Great Britain is in Northern Ireland, and no part of Northern Ireland is in Great Britain.
etc.
And then someone says, "All right, I've come up with a proof that England is in the United Kingdom. By Premise 4, England is in Great Britain. By Premise 3, Great Britain is in the United Kingdom. Since if X is in Y and Y is in Z, X must be in Z, England must be in the United Kingdom, even though none of the premises explicitly say so."
But instead, imagine our starting premises are visual, that is, you have this diagram in your mind as your belief about the structure of the British Isles:
Now the fact that England is in the United Kingdom need not be deduced or proven, it can be observed in one's own mind.
In that odd sense it is empirical, but not at all in the sense that it is about observing something in the "real world." To see this, just envision a new set of imaginary islands and countries with a different structure; that would be entirely in your mind. If you say we have to have experience with islands and countries, or at least with objects contained within outer objects, you may be right; however that experience should not be confused with our reasons for believing that "England is in the United Kingdom" given we believe the above diagram.
z1235: Jackson LaRose:My lack of conviction. I don't claim the bear isn't real, I claim it may not be real. It's like the difference between being an atheist and an agnostic. I don't "know" if the bear is there, but frankly, I am too afraid to find out. "Run like hell" looks pretty convincing, IMO. If your actions are consistently indistinguishable from someone who does claim that the bear is real, what are the consequences of your convictions (or lack thereof) to the world outside your head? Or, why should I care why you run like hell when you do it just like everyone else EVERY TIME you see a bear? Btw, why even bother running when you may actually not be running at all? May I also propose that the ones who did decide to stick with their "No such thing as a real bear, or real running" philosophy by not running, may not be around long enough to procreate and spread their wisdom? Good for you that you're at least smarter than them.
I think Jackson means lack of absolute conviction. But you're right, one's beliefs are just what what one deems useful to act as if.