...most people suppose that they have knowledge by means of the
senses. They suppose that they see, touch, feel, hear, smell, and
taste things, and that they thus know of the existence of these things
by means of sensory perception. You would maintain, prior to your
exposure to philosophy, that you see a book now and know there is a
book before you. You would claim to have gained knowledge of the
existence of the book, as well as its shape and color, on the basis of
visual perception. But do you really know these things? "Yes," you
say? Skeptics deny that you know...

...Current forms of skepticism often emerge from scientific theory and
speculation. For example, light takes a number of years to reach us
from a distant star. When we view the sky on a clear evening and...

Find someone who actually lives his life without his "senses"..

reality calls,
K e v

On Feb 20, 4:14 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

Your argument is self-refuting. If your argument were correct, we
could not know that light takes a number of years to reach us from a
distant start. In that case, how could you show that we are wrong to
conclude that we are mistaken in our belief that we know something
about how the star now looks?

In any event, the root error in your argument is the unstated
assumption that knowledge consists of information that is magically
separated from its source. In fact, knowledge is *always* connected to
its source.

In other words, if there is some fact 'X' we claim to know, we must be
able to say "I have good reason to believe that X is the case because
of Y". This statement can be completely correct even if X is false.

David Schwartz said the following on 2/20/2008 7:32 PM:

On Feb 20, 6:58 pm, kevirwin comcast.net> wrote:

You? Sometimes in your dreams you probably had little sense data when
you lived your life in the dream.

In reality though all your arguing for is the necessities of predicate
logic. Since the proposition that it would be hard to find anyone who
lived without senses sufficiently necessitates a conclusion, doesn't
necessarily entail that this is how things in the world are, that is,
outside the parameters of predicate logic.

On Feb 20, 7:32 pm, David Schwartz webmaster.com> wrote:

"Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:330e5479-b408-473d-8ad3-431fa6995657@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Preacher Immortalist gives the daily sermon from the Holy Book of Beliefs

Facinating .... now tell me what you "know" Imm.

Or maybe go open a book shop somewhere! :)

"kevirwin" comcast.net> wrote in message
news:90198c15-98b3-44c8-a539-21748cf82c36@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...

Can you list all those senses? :)

"David Schwartz" webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:a25acf2c-144d-4134-8148-55e78e89055a@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 21, 12:56 am, "Sean" blah.com.au> wrote:

non-sense!!!!!

Hadn't planned on getting involved; just found myself unavoidably
irritated earlier.

I said I was too pragmatic for this forum, I only wanted to wade into
the waters of philosophy, not drown in it. When the subject wanders
towards "how can I know anything", I generally just go back on the
beach and wait for that wave to recede (How's that for perpetuating a
metaphor!!!)...