So, you all think David Icke is crazy when he says that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards. Consider the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As you know, Kant proposed the radical idea that the human mind is not a passive recipient of sensory data, but actively constructs a framework in which to understand the sensory input. In particular, the human mind, according to Kant, creates the concepts of space and time, cause and effect. The world as it exists in itself is called the noumenal world, while the world we perceive, the world of appearances, is the phenomenal world. Kant referred to this insight as another Copernican revolution.
Look, I feel mildly masochistic, since I know oyu won't read this, but this is for any lurkers. And well, pratice.
Okay, yes, Kant did say that. However, if it works, does it really matter?
Just to be clear...Kant is asserting that, in all probability, space and time, cause and effect do not exist anywhere outside of our human minds. All of the results of science can be true in relation to the phenomenal world in which we operate, but none of those results may apply in the noumenal world. In other words, science may be nothing more than an exploration of the simulation rules built into the human mind rather than an exploration of any sort of external reality. Think about the movie The Matrix. Scientists within the simulated world of the Matrix could be making the most wondrous discoveries - finding the cure for cancer and such like - and yet the whole thing would be an illusion because human beings, according to the movie, are actually living in a completely separate reality where they are used as living batteries to power a computer world.
Possibly.
The Matrix wasn't a good movie, though. And uh.. I should note that postulating an environment where everything isn't real is about as valid as me asserting I am really an anthromoprhic tiger plushie. Neither is very possible, or likely. Or even true.
David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix: they can create a reality that allows them to manipulate humans at will. "Mr Smith" in the Matrix would be something akin to one of Icke's lizards. We see him as human, but, every now and again, he would do something that would demonstrate that he had far greater powers than any human. Icke thinks that every now and again the reptiles' masks slip and we see the horrific underlying reality. All of Icke's ideas are reflected in The Matrix, except, for him, lizard-like creatures replace computers as our secret masters. It may be exceptionally improbable, but it's not insane, as many of Icke's detractors claim.
It's as probable as my above statment. I.E: Not much at all. I'm not touching on Icke, as I prefer tackling things with a shred of basis. However, let me clarify insane ideas.
Things that have a probablity lower than a Planck Mass are insane. This is one such idea.
Now, while all of this is all incredibly far-fetched, it is nevertheless impossible to refute Kant. How can a human being ever know what it is like to see the world as a non-human?
Relevance?
We can never escape the way our minds are configured, meaning, as Kant realised, that we can never have the vaguest idea of what external reality, the noumenal universe, is truly like. Any claims that we can must surely be met with the utmost skepticism.
You're going into solipism. I should note I learned this in philosphy, and most conclude we can at least know the past-future and make reasonably accurate (or, the limit of the accuracy is so close to 1 that it's not important) guesses about our future-futures.
I am a scientist but I take a strictly instrumentalist approach to science: it is a useful tool that leads to useful things, and a coherent and meaningful way of understanding human experience. However, I am definitely not a scientific realist...I don't believe that science describes 'reality'. I would be in a position to say that science does describe reality only if I were able to consider the universe from some entirely mind-neutral stance - which is impossible.
You aren't much of a scientist. You're allowing your doubts about the meaning of reality to confuse how it works. Even IF this was the Matrix, we can still divine the way our reality works via emprical observations and testing. Whether or not it's real does not enter into the picture.
Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk we couldn't understand it. His point, it seems, is that a lion's mind may operate entirely differently from ours. There may be no common ground at all. Imagine one human being trying to communicate with another who had taken a very strong LSD pill. It would be a struggle to say the least! LSD massively distorts human perception of space and time. Maybe it's giving us a glimpse of the Kantian noumenal universe.
Or it could just mess with our chemistry. Assertion+Assumption.
And, finally, consider evolutionary theory. Isn't it peculiar that evolution has produced human minds that, in the majority of cases, do not believe in evolutionary theory?! That's the problem with evolution of course. It is on the side of what works in terms of sexual reproduction, not on the side of what is true. There are far more religious believers in the world than non-believers. Assuming that God does not exist and is nothing but a human fantasy then that means that evolution has produced minds that declare unswerving devotion to mass hallucinations and delusions.
Evolution does not imply we get perfect anything, but merely the best that can adapt to changing conditions. And ah.. a beginning psychology class can explain why human minds can do mass halluciantions and delusions.
These minds have proved massively more successful in the gene pool than the more sober minds of scientists. For every scientifically-minded, skeptical person in the world there must be at least ten people who are the complete opposite and who believe in any old nonsense. But since we 'intellectuals' are part of the same gene pool as the credulous masses, how can we be so sure of our own ability to resist delusion? After all, there's very little in genetic terms to separate the brain/mind of a skeptic from the brain/mind of a Truther. And how can we be confident of proclaiming the truth about anything when our minds clearly didn't evolve with the truth as a primary criterion?
P1. Many people cannot seperate truth and delusions [Appeal to the popuplace]
P2. Skeptics are part of humanity.
P3. Skeptics are prone to being unable to seperate truth and delusions [Composition Fallacy]
P4. Genetic terms don't seperate brains [False Dillema, as there are other, equally as important, influencing factors]
C. Skeptics cannot be confident of distinquishing truth from delusion (True, but not due to your argument)
See, skepticism is based on the fact you may be wrong and only through critical thinking, research, and keeping a possiblity that you may be wrong is how you can arrive at the truth. You're right, but not due to your really poor argument.
Anyway.
And how can we be confident of proclaiming the truth about anything when our minds clearly didn't evolve with the truth as a primary criterion?
I'm surprised you aren't citing Descartes. Look, if something works consistantly, it's not a bad idea to use that as t he truth. As I said, even if this was some Matrix, it works consistantly within this world. (And uh.. this also shoots your argument in the foot, too, because this can be /easily/ reversed to show how your argument is all wrong.)
I'm not a Truther by the way. I just made that up. Isn't that a worry too...that humans have such a propensity for lying. How do we know that we're not continually lying to ourselves as well as to others?
"What, ultimately, are man's truths? Merely his irrefutable errors." Nietzsche.
... Hm. I wouldn't have quoted a nihilist, but there's a reason why people promote critical thinking...
