Justified True Belief: can anyone tell which beliefs are true?

[BestGuessYet]

There is an apparent reality outside of me. That is my best guess, which in casual conversation, I call my knowing.

I know this apparent reality exists because it has been apparently beating me about the head for many years now. I have been reacting, changing my behavior and beliefs, all based on it.

For example, I have decided that I will not challenge the apparent reality of an oncoming bus. I honor its apparent reality by stepping aside when I see it apparently coming. I don’t wish to be culled yet, and this reality seems intent on culling those who don’t play along.

This is all fine and good, but there’s an issue—which is that I live in a black and silent cave, as do all other creatures, so far as I can tell. [Edit: The brain in a skull.]

Problem: Many of these other creatures claim they can see outside their caves perfectly well. They can see reality as it is.

Imagine how that makes me feel.

Am I malformed? Handicapped?

So I’m faced with a decision. Do I accept that they can actually see outside their caves, or do I guess that they are simply mistaken, even deluded?

My evidence for the latter seems immense. I have watched them making the most outrageous claims about what they can see, and very often their claims are directly at odds with the claims of their neighbors. I don’t see how they can both be right. If that is the case—that there is simultaneously both God and no God, for example—well, what is the use of even trying to figure things out?

Also, I judge that all creatures have a primal lust for certainty. Naturally, they will be inclined to make claims of great certainty.

And so I proceed under the assumption that we can’t actually see outside of our caves… that my fellows are mistaken when they claim that power. We can’t remove ourselves and observe reality directly. That’s my best guess.

But here come the philosophers, claiming that we can know things, but only if the things are true. The Justified True Belief (JTB) model says that we only know a thing if the thing is actually true. That word “true” seems to mean “corresponds with actual reality,” but I consider that there is a cave wall between us and actual reality. So I see it as a claim of magic. (Formal thought systems excluded. Those are internal games. I’m talking about truth connected to the universe somehow.)

All of which means, in my understanding, that while we can maybe know P, we can never know which one of us knows P. There is always the chance that our knowledge corresponds to actual reality, but how can we ever say which ape has gained a true sighting from his cave?

Anyway, it is my considered opinion that while a human might own the T in JTB now and again, we cannot tell which one owns it.

Because of the cave setup and all.

I’m curious if anyone disagrees.

Can a human ever know that he owns the T in JTB?

To the question, “Is it possible that…?”, can we ever answer with a definitive No?

[Frenetic_Zetetic]

Your premise is a rational AND existential contradiction, OP.

[BestGuessYet]

You are standing outside your cave, telling me this?

[Andy]

@BestGuessYet

There is an apparent reality outside of me.

You’re starting too late. The starting point is what some people today refer to as conscious experience (CE). There is CE of a world – a world as it would be observed by an object within that world – i.e. from a perspective. The inference that “therefore I am an object in a world that consists of other objects” – i.e. that CE divides into ‘me’ and ‘not me’ – has the consequence that the ‘me’ gets mistaken as the starting point, and CE gets assigned to it as though it were a property. So instead of correctly saying “there is CE of a ‘me/not me’ distinction,” we say “I have CE of a world.” The trap has been sprung – the ‘me’ puts the cart before the horse, and then struggles to find a place and a role for the horse.

[ac64]

@BestGuessYet

To the question, “Is it possible that…?”, can we ever answer with a definitive No?

Yes, I think we have to answer “No”, because, upon reflection, the very idea of the existence of truth, meant as something objective that exists out there, independently of any subject, proves untenable and contradictory to me. If we assume that truth exists, we are forced to acknowledge that in this assumption there is always a subject involved, the subject who makes the assumption. This automatically makes always impossible the very concept of “independent of any subject”. How can we think of such a concept, since the very action of thinking of it contradicts it?

[BestGuessYet]

@Andy

You’re starting too late. The starting point is what some people today refer to as conscious experience (CE). There is CE of a world – a world as it would be observed by an object within that world – i.e. from a perspective. The inference that “therefore I am an object in a world that consists of other objects” – i.e. that CE divides into ‘me’ and ‘not me’ – has the consequence that the ‘me’ gets mistaken as the starting point, and CE gets assigned to it as though it were a property. So instead of correctly saying “there is CE of a ‘me/not me’ distinction,” we say “I have CE of a world.” The trap has been sprung – the ‘me’ puts the cart before the horse, and then struggles to find a place and a role for the horse.

OK. That seems one way of looking at things and speaking of things.

I’m not sure how it’s relevant to my argument, though.

[Frenetic_Zetetic]

How are you reasoning there’s a reality “outside” of you?

What’s your metaphysical primary, OP?

You’re presupposing a ton of metaphysical assumptions and running with it from there, then thinking you’re hanging out on second base when in reality you’re in your driveway in the car still, keys not even in the ignition.

What is your metaphysic and how are you reasoning it to make these points which are informed FROM said metaphysic?

[BestGuessYet]

@ac64

Yes, I think we have to answer “No”, because, upon reflection, the very idea of the existence of truth, meant as something objective that exists out there, independently of any subject, proves untenable and contradictory to me. If we assume that truth exists, we are forced to acknowledge that in this assumption there is always a subject involved, the subject who makes the assumption. This automatically makes always impossible the very concept of “independent of any subject”. How can we think of such a concept, since the very action of thinking of it contradicts it?

OK, what exactly is the proposition you’re proposing… the one which answers “Is it possible that?” with a NO?

[Andy]

@BestGuessYet

I’m not sure how it’s relevant to my argument, though.

Notice the reversal: the one certainty (CE) gets sidelined in favor of an inference – that there is a “real world” that is inherently unknowable because it lies “outside” CE. Consequently, CE is some kind of facsimile of that “real world.”

What is inference is taken to be real, and what is real is taken to be facsimile. Only now, after the cart has been put before the horse, can we entertain the idea of the “correspondence theory of truth.”

[BestGuessYet]

@Frenetic_Zetetic

How are you reasoning there’s a reality “outside” of you?

I don’t reason it at all. As I say, I experience an apparent reality.

@Frenetic_Zetetic

What’s your metaphysical primary, OP?

I’m sorry. I have no idea what that means.

@Frenetic_Zetetic

You’re presupposing a ton of metaphysical assumptions and running with it from there, then thinking you’re hanging out on second base when in reality you’re in your driveway in the car still, keys not even in the ignition.

What metaphysical assumptions am I making. Can you write them out? I’d like to examine them.

@Frenetic_Zetetic

What is your metaphysic and how are you reasoning it to make these points which are informed FROM said metaphysic?

What is a metaphysic in your language? And how will I know if I have one?

[Frenetic_Zetetic]

How and why are posting on a metaphysics and philosophy forum if you don’t know what your root metaphysics are, let alone what the word itself means…?

That might be the first issue here, which explains everything.

[BestGuessYet]

So you are uncomfortable answering my direct questions?

I can’t communicate with you if I don’t know what you are trying to mean with your words.

[BestGuessYet]

@Andy

Notice the reversal: the one certainty (CE) gets sidelined in favor of an inference – that there is a “real world” that is inherently unknowable because it lies “outside” CE. Consequently, CE is some kind of facsimile of that “real world.”

What is inference is taken to be real, and what is real is taken to be facsimile. Only now, after the cart has been put before the horse, can we entertain the idea of the “correspondence theory of truth.”

I’m sorry. I just can’t make confident sense of that. Can you tell me in small words what you find objectionable about my OP?

Directly, I mean. What exactly is wrong with the way I’m thinking about this.

All I can get from your messages is that you would rather be talking about conscious experience than about apparent reality.

[Andy]

@BestGuessYet

And so I proceed under the assumption that we can’t actually see outside of our caves… that my fellows are mistaken when they claim that power. We can’t remove ourselves and observe reality directly. That’s my best guess.

Adopting representational realism is to start from the wrong place, as already described, but you make a good first move – to acknowledge the epistemic constraint and so to acknowledge the fallibility of any ontology based on the epistemology. If you follow your nose on this issue, it will eventually undermine the representational realism you have adopted as your foundational ontology. It is like sawing off the branch you’re sitting on, but in a good way – losing a misconception is not really a loss at all.

[BestGuessYet]

@Andy

Adopting representational realism is to start from the wrong place,

OK. I guess I don’t know what you mean by “adopting”. Do you think I have built a foundation and reason from there? It doesn’t feel so to me. I am just watching and thinking.

But what is the right place to start, in your view?

@Andy

…as already described, but you make a good first move – to acknowledge the epistemic constraint and so to acknowledge the fallibility of any ontology based on the epistemology.

I’m not sure I even have an ontology. I just observe apparent reality and make my best guesses about it. And apparent reality includes the other creatures.

@Andy

If you follow your nose on this issue, it will eventually undermine the representational realism you have adopted as your foundational ontology. It is like sawing off the branch you’re sitting on, but in a good way – losing a misconception is not really a loss at all.

I have followed it out as far as I can see. But I’m curious to hear why you think the limb will be sawed off. Can you tell me about that?

[Andy]

@BestGuessYet

Do you think I have built a foundation and reason from there? It doesn’t feel so to me. I am just watching and thinking.

But what is the right place to start, in your view?

You begin with the assumption that there’s a ‘me’ “in here” and a ‘world’ “out there.” What there is in fact is CE of a process of thinking that divides CE into an “in here” and an “out there.” The right place to start is with CE, prior to that bifurcation.

[ac64]

@BestGuessYet

a human ever know that he owns the T in JTB?

To make it clearer: if the question is:

Is it possible that a human can ever know that he owns the T in JTB?

My answer to this question is the message that I posted.

[BestGuessYet]

@ac64

To make it clearer: if the question is:

Is it possible that a human can ever know that he owns the T in JTB?

My answer to this question is the message that I posted.

OK. I leave open the possibility that there could be a prophet of God, although I’ve never seen a convincing one.

But I find this place crawling with claimants.

[BestGuessYet]

@Andy

You begin with the assumption that there’s a ‘me’ “in here” and a ‘world’ “out there.”

Well, that is how it seems to me, yes. But I don’t know that I assume it. I just experience it.

@Andy

What there is in fact is CE of a process of thinking that divides CE into an “in here” and an “out there.” The right place to start is with CE, prior to that bifurcation.

I’m just not following. I see no difference between “starting with the CE” and what I am doing. I am starting with the CE and the world. Are you saying there is no world separate from the CE or something?

And I’m still curious what you mean about sawing my limb off. What distant realization awaits me that will upend my conception of things?

[MadLad]

Cave? I’m trying to figure out what the metaphor is, but I can leave my dwelling, step into the elements, and experience reality as it is and not as it is not. There is no other way to experience it.