How do you argue against

[OI OI OI]

K I know someone who argues that everything is a theory and we don't know anything for sure.

For example gravity is just a theory because we just receive messages that tell us that what we see are the effects of gravity but that is just subjective and electrical impulses therefore we don;t know if anything exists.

Like I can't explain it very well because it gets kind of confusing and pointless but I think I ve outlined his way of thought.

So what tactic is the best to argue against that type of arguments?

[Vendetta]

How the hell is gravity a result of electrical impulses?

[OI OI OI]

when you recieve the message that gravity exists (because you see its effects)

that is nothing but electrical impulses in your brain!

Thats what he claims.

I just cant argue against him because its soooo confusing!

[Vendetta]

I'm pretty sure the Moon doesn't have electrical impulses in it's brain, but it is still subject to gravity.

[manic expression]

So basically he believes what he saw in the Matrix? You're right, it's completely pointless and stupid, but there are some holes in it. First, EVEN IF everything really is just "signals to the brain", that still exists and matters. A dream, for instance, is real, it matters and it affects us; it may just be a figment of one's imagination, but that still is part of existence. Basically what I'm saying is that so long as what we experience in this world affects us, it matters. Trying to doubt that is futile because the world obviously affects all of us.

Secondly, while our senses are just senses, that is not the beginning or end of the matter. Our senses are necessarily stimulated by external factors. If they weren't, they wouldn't be senses, would they? To argue that the world might not be real just because we sense it through various media is like arguing a tree isn't a tree if you see it through a window; both are essentially stupid arguments.

Anyway, people like that are useless and only have influence in a room full of pot-smoking wanna-be philosophers. They're not worth the time or the effort IMO, let them live in their warped little world.

[spice756]

To argue that the world might not be real just because we sense it through various media is like arguing a tree isn't a tree if you see it through a window; both are essentially stupid arguments


The world does effect us so does other people and the only way for the Matrix to work is we are are in a computer simulator and can do what ever we want!! But the laws of physics is the computer programming.



I'm pretty sure the Moon doesn't have electrical impulses in it's brain, but it is still subject to gravity.


No in human biology there is nerves that send electrical impulses to your brain when you feel pain,hot or cold.You senses all have nerves .Your brain operates on electrical impulses and chemicals/

The scientist don't really understand gravity all they know is large mass have bigger gravity effect.The bigger the star or planet the bigger the gravity effect.

You should look into the LHC project one of the things was to understand matter and gravity .

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=LHC+project&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=LHC+project&spell=1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)

[Black Sheep]

Secondly, while our senses are just senses, that is not the beginning or end of the matter. Our senses are necessarily stimulated by external factors. If they weren't, they wouldn't be senses, would they?
May i add,that at best,what we perceive is a distorted version of reality (to what extent,is still unknown), due to the severe imperfection of our human sensors (eyes,ears, etc)

In addition,the mentality that implies what OI OI mentions,is so damn stupid.It is like saying "this glass of milk doesnt exist", or "electrons are just an illusion".Such 'conspiracy theories' are utter bullshit because they leave you with no alternative but chaos.

[Sprinkles]

For example gravity is just a theory...


He's right that gravity is just a "theory" since the scientific use of the term "theory" is different that in everyday language. Although I doubt that's what he meant.


So basically he believes what he saw in the Matrix?

I think it's from originally from Descartes, he claimed you could not trust your own perceptions on the grounds that a devil might be controlling your every experience. He eventually rejected this but I don't remember the specific argument.


So what tactic is the best to argue against that type of arguments?If it really is a "I'm a-brain-in-a-vat" kind of philosophic point either save yourself the trouble or punch the guy in the face and maintain that's it's just a figment of his imagination. Although Googling "brain-in-a-vat" might also bring up some refutations.

[JimmyJazz]

Tell him he's actually asleep and only dreaming that he lives in a world where everything is only theoretical.

[Raúl Duke]

Just break his kneecaps and if he feels pain tell him it's only an illusion, since, to him, everything is a product from his brain and thus he should be able to control it.

Tell him to try "the Secret" (magical thinking; control the universe and people via thinking) and then ask him what results he got...

solipsists are a waste of time anyway (he also sounds post-modernist...another waste of time)

[Plagueround]

Just break his kneecaps and if he feels pain tell him it's only an illusion, since, to him, everything is a product from his brain and thus he should be able to control it.


This has often been my response. If there is a disconnect between perception and reality, that person should be "strong enough" mentally to overcome any sort of outside stimulus such as pain. If they aren't, they should stop using the "reality is an illusion" and start offering actual opinions and ideas. :D I think questioning what we perceive has merit, but it should not be used as an end all be all anytime you're challenged in a debate.