I don't mind stealing bread

[Sithis]

<p>

That’s because reality is what it is. It doesn’t mysteriously change forms and become something else just because I look at it. What I’m arguing is that reality exists outside of our consciousness. It doesn’t exist in some other form “inside” our perception - we perceive it as it is.

We perceive reality as we perceive reality. We cannot know that we perceive it as it IS. If we cannot know this, saying that the Law of Identity or “what it codifies” has meaning outside of the human experience is patently wrong.</p>

<p>

The implication is there as soon as you make the argument that there might be some kind of reality that we don’t perceive.

No it is not. In any case, money being there or not being there is a human perception. Even the identification of “money” is a human identification. It would be an inconsistency in our perception of reality as developed by experience for money as we have identified it as such to magically appear where it had not been before. The human brain does not cope well with inconsistencies.</p>

<p>

You keep saying “human perception” and the like, which denotes that there’s some other form of perception out there which changes existence in some unknown way - unless, of course, you’re willing to recant the argument concerning our “subjective perception” of reality.

I don’t see how saying “Human perception of reality is not necessarily an accurate perception of reality external to human experience” denotes that there are any other perceptions at all. Perhaps there is “reality external to the human experience of it” and “the human experience of reality” and nothing else. I do not see how you can competently prove that they are one and the same.</p>

<p>

I don’t really think you understand what I’m saying. The law of identity isn’t like God. We don’t “believe in it” because we think it makes things better to believe that it’s true. Our identification of it is a product of perception.

Yes, it most certainly is. Ok, “believe” was a bad word to use without stating my intent. By “believe” in it, I am saying that we act on it, we make decisions based upon it.</p>

<p>

The truth of it isn’t.

What does this statement even mean? I am positing that the “truth” of the law of identity is contingent upon human experience. We think that it is “true” because our experiences confirm its “truth”. Does “truth” have any meaning outside of human experience? Why? </p>

<p>

Something is what it is, even if we don’t identify it as such. The reason that we “believe in” the law of identity is because, if we refuse to accept that something is what it is, has a specific nature and properties, etc, then we die.

Not necessarily.</p>

<p>

If we treat man as plant, rather than as man, we die. Plants can sit in one spot and absorb nutrients from the soil. I dare you to stop “believing in” the law of identity, and to try being a plant for a few days.

You are making the “truth” of the law of identity contingent upon some arbitrarily decided upon “necessity of man’s survival.” You are not defending the idea that the Law of Identity is external to human affairs at all. In fact, you are confirming my view that we “believe” in it because it is pragmatic (practical) to do so.</p>

<p>

I wish you’d stop using the term “pragmatic”, first of all. To say that one lives “pragmatically” implies that one only lives for the range of the moment, with no concept whatsoever at the future. Pragmatists are the sort who say it’s ethical to violate someone’s rights if you really, REALLY need to do it in order to survive (such as the example of bending ethical rules by stealing bread).

By pragmatic, I mean “practical.” Still, I see no reason why I should adjust my word choice because it carries some negative connotation for you.</p>

<p>

5.b. Saying that our perception is “what we have” implies that there’s some greater level of perception out there which could do a better job of identifying reality. You argue earlier that I’m misrepresenting you, while later confirming my arguments. That’s impressive.

No, it doesn’t. I don’t see how I am confirming your arguments at all. You seem to be assuming that a single imperfect perception entails that there is a perfect perception. This is not necessarily the case. Perhaps there is just reality and imperfect perceptions of it.</p>

<p>

I do speak in absolute certainty. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that some super-being decided to tweak my consciousness when I was born so that everything I know of reality is only a distorted shadow of what really exists.

I never like to speak in absolute certainty (in as much as I can avoid it). I have no reason to hold that belief either. However, your consciousness does not directly interact with reality in any case. It interprets information from your sensory organs in some way. How do you know that your sensory organs are perfectly adapted to experience “true external reality?” From the evolutionary standpoint, all you can say is that humans have evolved over time to have some perception that is conducive to our Fitness. I think that your philosophical view of perception can best be described as direct/na</p>