Arguments of this type, beginning with “How do you know X isn’t…”, are traps that no one should ever step into.
It is perhaps the most common ploy of philosophical skepticism, asking you to suddenly doubt your lifetime of experience on the turn of one arbitrary question. It assumes you know the meaning of words like “reality”, “computer”, and “program”, but maybe all of your knowledge is invalid? Come off it!
Other variants of this argument include how do you know you are not a brain in a jar or that reality isn’t just a dream. Don’t fall for it, people! Your senses and logic are valid!
Not that I think the brilliant cartoonist actually is questioning reality or human knowledge, but I couldn’t resist warning against this common argument aimed at attacking the validity of the human mind.
Arguments of this type, beginning with “How do you know X isn’t…”, are traps that no one should ever step into.
It is perhaps the most common ploy of philosophical skepticism, asking you to suddenly doubt your lifetime of experience on the turn of one arbitrary question. It assumes you know the meaning of words like “reality”, “computer”, and “program”, but maybe all of your knowledge is invalid? Come off it!
Other variants of this argument include how do you know you are not a brain in a jar or that reality isn’t just a dream. Don’t fall for it, people! Your senses and logic are valid!
Not that I think the brilliant cartoonist actually is questioning reality or human knowledge, but I couldn’t resist warning against this common argument aimed at attacking the validity of the human mind.