ONCE AGAIN, why are my senses not valid?[/SIZE]
This is getting repetitive, guys.
I know it is. 
Because you have no way of validating your senses without using them.
Yes, I do. Corroboration from multiple other sources. YOU responded to me, quoting my post. Are you suggesting that YOU don’t exist?
Well I cannot prove to you I exist. Any way I have to interact with you is perceived by you through your senses. You gather corroborated information with your senses, so again you are relying on unverified sources to verify those exact sources.
Do you see my posts?
You don’t appear to be reading mine.
I’m addressing all your points.
You cannot verify my existence. I am just words on a screen to you. But even if I were right in front of you, you would see me, hear me an be able to poke me in the eye. You can ask someone else if I’m there, you can take a picture of me with a camera. But none of that matters because you cannot verify anything about me, the other person, or the camera. For all you know, none of it exists. That they seem to you to follow some sort of rules, or behave as you expect doesn’t factor in because even the rules and expectations are concepts you’ve learned through experience.
Answer my question.
I think I see where you are going with this.
I do ‘see’ your posts.
Okay. I see my post. You see my post. They match, right? You believe you exist. I believe I exist. My post is a bridge between you and I. You can confirm that you ‘see’ my post and I can confirm that I ‘see’ my post.
Corroboration. Validation. Mutha-fucking VERIFIED.
NOW DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS INCORRECT? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THIS IS WRONG? WHAT IS YOUR CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE?
I apologize for yelling but I don’t know how else to get through to you. I just want you to answer my questions.
I believe I see my post, and I believe I read that you read yours. But I cannot verify either is real.
I can’t confirm YOU at all, so whatever YOU do I cannot verify. I cannot verify that YOU exist at all. YOU cannot verify that I exist.
Looking at it from your perspective, you are assuming I exist.
Wrong. All you’ve shown is that you assume that I exist, that the forum exists, that your computer exists, and that other people exist.
I HAVE answered the question repeatedly. Your very question is dependant on an assumption, so you can’t start there. You really are being as bad as Christian apologists who use the bible to verify the bible.
I’m not sure if it’s on purpose or not, but you are missing a key concept of the conversation…still. You are leaping over your initial assumption, and you can’t do that because it is the focus of what I’m saying.
EDIT: Actually, let me try a different tack.
Why can’t I use my senses to verify my senses?
Because you aren’t able to verify the SOURCE of the information without USING your senses. It’s akin to saying ‘my senses are right because my senses are right.’
You keep insisting that I cannot use my senses to verify the source of the information. It’s not that I’m saying that my senses are right because my senses are right. I’m saying to provide evidence that my senses are wrong, unreliable, are otherwise unworthy. If you cannot provide evidence for your assertions (that my senses are wrong, unreliable, or otherwise unworthy), then it remains a completely baseless claim.
Think of it this way:
There is a ball on the table. I say that the ball in inanimate. I provide the following evidence: The ball doesn’t move under its own volition. It doesn’t possess any of the qualities of something that is alive. It doesn’t possess any qualities that it once was alive. I provide all this evidence of the ball being inanimate.
You come along and say that it’s not inanimate. You do not provide any evidence of this assertion and, in fact, claim that it’s not a claim at all. Except that it is a claim. You are contradicting all established evidence and not providing anything of your own to support said claim.
You say that my senses are wrong, unreliable or unworthy. Provide evidence for your assertion.
Because they cannot be verified without using them. Any evidence that cannot be verified should not be taken as useful for any further proofs.
Again, I assert nothing. I just say that I am undecided because I have no evidence of being right or wrong.
Yes, but I don’t claim your senses aren’t accurate. I contest that you cannot verify them, in the same way that I cannot verify mine. They could be accurate, they could be totally wrong. Without evidence that can be trusted, you can’t say one way or the other. If you are to present evidence, you must provide me with reason to trust this evidence. For it to be useful, it must be self evident without relying on outside sources, because I’m questioning the validity of ANYTHING gathered by my consciousness.
That’s a rather poor analogy. You say it’s alive. I say prove it. Essentially you provide me no information and say prove it’s not. Again, your evidence is what I question before I say one way or the other. I say I cannot know, you say You can. I want to know HOW you know.
I don’t know isn’t an assertion. You assert they ARE accurate. I say provide me with evidence that you cannot seem to provide.
I have a ball. It’s red. It’s round. It doesn’t move on its own. It bounces when it hits the ground. It’s a piece of inflated leather and rubber. And then you say that I am not providing evidence.
You contest that I cannot verify that these things are true. Then HOW DO I VERIFY? Please provide the EVIDENCE that YOU WILL ACCEPT. I can do a lot of things but I can’t read minds.
How do you know you have a ball?
Now your asking me to do what I say can’t be done…
…uh…
I don’t think evidence can exist to prove anything without the assumption that at least some of what we experience of the outside world is real.
That’s why I’m asking if anyone can think of self verifying truths to prove the outside world exists without using their perception of the outside world as evidence for the outside world.
I tried and I can’t think of anything. Even in a conceptual sense.
I see. So, there’s absolutely nothing to invalidate that my senses are unverifiable…but, for some completely unquantifiable reason, they are.
If we can’t even agree on what the definition of “evidence” is, then I can’t continue a rational discussion with you.
…You have to assume your senses are an unfiltered view of the world, giving you what it is for what it is, because you have no other alternative. So for all intents and purposes what you see is what exists. (Mind you, not necessarily what you perceive)