tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2250579107773474617.post5888492399968032182..comments2010-12-29T09:03:56.205-06:00Comments on a stoners journal: chapter 10 from my book "martini Jesus"david sherwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953498664528923105noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2250579107773474617.post-12317270264896616902007-09-17T09:47:00.000-05:002007-09-17T09:47:00.000-05:00I just want to share the love that is philosophy. ...I just want to share the love that is philosophy. Sometimes, I can't escape the fact that it seems like such a fruitless pursuit and then there are times I do escape that fact and I am happy being left with nothing. I've been thinking about this for a couple weeks and don't want to selfishly keep it to myself. If you are not in the mood to pay attention, then turn away now.<BR/> <BR/>Suppose that I know that P...<BR/> <BR/>P: I've eaten less than a pound of salmon.<BR/><BR/>so, by way of EP (the equivalence principal, which just means that two propositions are logically equivalent...they both make sense), I should also be able to know Q.<BR/><BR/>Q: I've eaten less than 14 lbs. of salmon.<BR/> <BR/>My reason (r) for P is a visual experience of having eaten what appeared to be less than a pound of salmon. I saw myself do it. I was there. P and Q are supposed to be lightweight propositions (belief sbased on perception...what I experience). But who's to say that I didn't eat 14 or more lbs. of salmon, thereby causing me to hallucinate, one of my hallucinations being that I only ate less than a pound of salmon? Which means that my reason (my visual experience of having only eaten less than a pound) is not a conclusive reason for Q (or P for that matter) and so the argument that closure (*closure is the idea that if you know P and you know that P entails Q, then you know Q. Apparently, it's not really true.), while it doesn't hold for heavyweight props (beliefs that can't be based on or demonstrated by perception...like I am NOT a bodiless brain in a vat!!), but still holds for lightweight props, is false because apparently closure doesn't hold for some lightweight props either. <BR/> <BR/>So, the conclusion seems to be that we may very well be bodiless brains in vats that have just eaten (or been simulated to have eaten) more than 14 lbs. of salmon. And though there are ways to talk one's way out of it, I'm strangely okay with it as is. I like salmon.<BR/><BR/>Amy LeslieA-muse-inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01449290157209157720noreply@blogger.com