Reminder to question everything...

i donut get it :V

>>8255373
Point proven.

>>8255369
But remember to also not overdo it, lest it becomes a part of your identity and worldview in a way that Descarte's demon is a real worry that causes you anxiety attacks. Skeptisism is helthy, but too much can make you a little off. I would know, I'm a little off... even though I chose to forget most of the doubt.

>>8255390
>Descartes was a philosopher

point disregarded :) back 2 lit cuck

>>8255399
The world is more than the directly observable or that which can be effed with numbers. (You're consious right?) If you are talking about fundamental doubt, it fits, whether you like the fact that it exists as such or not.

>>8255369
>The brain is shit
What else is new anon?

You do know that every sound you hear is an illusion created by your brain to decipher different pitchs, tones and frequencies right? Even color is an illusion because when you think about it what the heck does red actually look without the brain decoding it. Smell is also an illusion all of your senses except touch are illusions.

File: 1466815910143.png (459KB, 724x764px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 724x764px

>>8255491
And what would "illusion" mean here? Not reduced to fundamental particles therefore inherently inferior? It is very real to me. It is the realest thing. The ONLY thing I may be certain of. Cogito ergo sum!
Equating "real" with consistently observable by many different observers or something similar perhaps?
Seriously why the fuck do you autists term everything that doesn't involve your personal standard of rigor an "illusion"?
This is oversaturated in /sci/, but fuck it! Right now it fits:
Define illusion!

>>8255509
The unperceived misinterpretation of reality.

Define 'real'.

>>8255518
Considering that what you ask me to define is part of the definition of what I asked you to define and a semantical game whose clowniness was the reason that I asked for a definition in the first place, I'll pass.

However... "unperceived misinterpretation"?
It seems to me that what you earlier defined or at least categorized as an illusion at least relates and at most is identical to (subjecitve) perception. Interpretation would be an even more tertiary concept based on these.
I can't say I completely disagree with the juice of your argument thought. Any interpretation of mr. reality is fundamentaly a model whose relation to dr. reality is defined by its interactions with other equally symbolical models.
I think I had a point here... I don't know. Maybe I'm just stupid...

>>8255544
Well, you'd probably make a good Pragmatist. Leaving ethos and pathos out as emotional and instinctual "convincing" of the consistency of any narrative through rhetoric, you are left with logos, but that gets to be tricky as well if you are not careful.
But, regardless of any narratives consistency, it has to reflect the world at least for the intent of the narrative.
Maths are fun, and surely can be "useful to be believed" but one of its strongest points is this:

All we ever have is a story, and the story is never the world, but the way we approach it is by making the pathways (narratives) in our brain first (connecting diverse narratives as consistently as possible if you are a mathematician, and by your feels if you are everyone else), then we check them against the other pathways (narratives) for consistency. But ultimately for them to be useful we have to see if they reflect the world, which assumes the narrative comes first. In reality, it is a recursion, and our givens are just recursions in equilibrium, not some magical platonic forms. The fault is that we only know our narratives and we always mistake them for the world.
The world is not the picture in our heads. It is out of conveneience that we think so.

So, I feel your frustration. Cutting out the informal first is noble, but necessary. Finding consistency in narratives not readily accessible to your senses, however, is where the effort pays off.

That takes sobriety, and it is no fun to be around a bunch of drunks.

>>8255369
this question would "surprise" less people if the arrows were more precise. Maybe red circles on each surface.

But if that was the case, it wouldnt get A FUCKING THREAD EVERY DAMN DAY