The argument makes less sense outside of it’s context. Moore was responding to the skeptical position that we’re all in a simulation. Moore argues that this skeptical argument undermines itself: all of the language, terms and concepts which form the simulation argument are based on the sensory experience that the argument would effectively dismiss. Furthermore, any argument that we’re in a simulation is epistemologically on a par with the argument that we’re not. Therefore we should have less confidence in the skeptical argument than the common sense conclusion that we have hands.
The point about “are we in a simulation?” is not that we are (setting aside the whole technological singularity thing for the moment), but that we could be. The common sense thing only says that we’re more likely not, but does not at all say that we definitely are not. “Could be” still remains.
Moore’s point is that we shouldn’t let the inability to eliminate that “what if,” which was specifically designed to be non-disprovable, actually affect ontology. That problems and questions created by philosophers basically just to stump philosophical methods should be all but ignored since, by design, there clearly can’t be an answer except that one thing is by far most likely, and the other thing cannot matter because we can’t prove or act upon it or treat it as anything other than a manufactured source of doubt/skepticism.
It is still important to understand that the only thing which can be known about reality with complete certainty is:
There is isness. Reality exists.
We cannot know with certainty the nature of that reality. We can only know our perception, and even if we accept that we are perceiving reality (which is most likely, but not necessarily, true), our perceptions of that reality are incomplete and flawed. That’s a pretty important part of the nature of being.
Objective reality doesn’t exist, and that’s a good thing, because it means our entire universe is subjective, and therefore, malleable to our perceptions. It means that with a big enough idea and a mind on which to balance it, we can move the earth.
That’s because you’re afraid to have an intellectually honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you. It’s easier to pretend people who disagree with you don’t exist.
The fact that the self is an illusion is not a new idea. Surely you’ve heard of it. But you’d rather pretend that I don’t believe in it than to have an actual conversation considering its implications.
Western neurotypicals are so very concerned with ego. It’s unhealthy.
all of the language, terms and concepts which form the simulation argument are based on the sensory experience that the argument would effectively dismiss
Nah, this is bullshit. What sensory experience is love? What sensory experience is honour? And more to the point, what sensory experience is money? Is law? Is a home? Is a mother? If Moore were correct to say that we do not live in a constructed material reality, we would still live in a constructed social reality. And if social reality can be constructed without the aid of the senses, then it must also be true that material reality can be constructed without the senses.
The argument makes less sense outside of it’s context. Moore was responding to the skeptical position that we’re all in a simulation. Moore argues that this skeptical argument undermines itself: all of the language, terms and concepts which form the simulation argument are based on the sensory experience that the argument would effectively dismiss. Furthermore, any argument that we’re in a simulation is epistemologically on a par with the argument that we’re not. Therefore we should have less confidence in the skeptical argument than the common sense conclusion that we have hands.
The point about “are we in a simulation?” is not that we are (setting aside the whole technological singularity thing for the moment), but that we could be. The common sense thing only says that we’re more likely not, but does not at all say that we definitely are not. “Could be” still remains.
Moore’s point is that we shouldn’t let the inability to eliminate that “what if,” which was specifically designed to be non-disprovable, actually affect ontology. That problems and questions created by philosophers basically just to stump philosophical methods should be all but ignored since, by design, there clearly can’t be an answer except that one thing is by far most likely, and the other thing cannot matter because we can’t prove or act upon it or treat it as anything other than a manufactured source of doubt/skepticism.
It is still important to understand that the only thing which can be known about reality with complete certainty is:
We cannot know with certainty the nature of that reality. We can only know our perception, and even if we accept that we are perceiving reality (which is most likely, but not necessarily, true), our perceptions of that reality are incomplete and flawed. That’s a pretty important part of the nature of being.
Objective reality doesn’t exist, and that’s a good thing, because it means our entire universe is subjective, and therefore, malleable to our perceptions. It means that with a big enough idea and a mind on which to balance it, we can move the earth.
I think, therefore I am. An objective reality exists, because you exist. The question is, how much of reality can you perceive, and to what limit?
My existence is subjective. Therefore any reality whose existence is assumed on my basis is also subjective.
deleted by creator
That’s because you’re afraid to have an intellectually honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you. It’s easier to pretend people who disagree with you don’t exist.
The fact that the self is an illusion is not a new idea. Surely you’ve heard of it. But you’d rather pretend that I don’t believe in it than to have an actual conversation considering its implications.
Western neurotypicals are so very concerned with ego. It’s unhealthy.
deleted by creator
Nah, this is bullshit. What sensory experience is love? What sensory experience is honour? And more to the point, what sensory experience is money? Is law? Is a home? Is a mother? If Moore were correct to say that we do not live in a constructed material reality, we would still live in a constructed social reality. And if social reality can be constructed without the aid of the senses, then it must also be true that material reality can be constructed without the senses.
Moore is clearly a simpleton.