PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Contextualism [HD]

[@zenithzott9554]

Unlike a brain in a vat or matrix scenario, it's actually not that difficult to differentiate between dreaming vs not dreaming, via something known among the lucid dreaming community as reality checks. For example, in one common RC if you pinch your nose closed and are still able to breathe through your closed nostrils, you are dreaming. If you can't breathe through your nose while you have it pinched closed, then you are awake.

[@westervonburgermeister9877]

I was awake until I started watching this video.

[@geoffpynn]

LOL

[@ZenMasterChip]

How would you know? lol Truth is it's really easy to tell if what state you're in if you have words you can read; and there are two (overlapping) states in dreaming. "Conscious or Aware (awake?)" or "Unconscious"; and, "Paralytic-dream sleep" or "Normal-dream-sleep" - Pick two, ex: Conscious-paralytic, Unconscious Dreaming, or Conscious Dreaming etc. Written words have a special connection in the brain, and when you want to know if you're awake or sleeping, read the words a 2nd time. If they don't change, you're awake, or conscious. It is impossible for one to read the same words a 2nd time when dreaming without them changing; and with training become conscious. When you're sleeping, the words will change into different words, or gibberish. If awake, they persist and remain the same as the first time read. The exception is if you're awake/conscious in your sleep, they still change and therefore you definitely know you're dreaming; however you are also conscious. I have been able to lucid dream for many years now, I wondered if I could *make* the words remain the same while dreaming. The problem was that I had to be awake in the dream to do it; and it requires intense concentration to force the words to turn into the same words read initially. Since I use this to actually wake up in dreams, I can state there's nothing more disturbing to your significant other than you laughing in your sleep. Which is what I did as I realized the futility in changing the words while I was wide awake in a dream. Not that keeping the words 'fixed' was impossible; but, also ironically, it's also a great way to stay awake in the dream - just pointless and I couldn't help but laugh. In fact, next time you're awake in a dream, go ahead and laugh. If you're in any stage sleep other than paralytic sleep, it's easy. But, in being conscious in paralytic sleep it's also too easy to panic a bit when you can't force yourself immediately to wake up. I'm pretty sure one could go crazy, if every time one was in paralytic sleep, woke up and couldn't suppress the need to wake up the body. It is difficult; but can be done. I have a rule about paralytic lucid dreaming: it's better to just go back to sleep, rather than force it, and then only to wake up to the Night Hag!

[@alonzoolivarez5480]

Haha

[@drxyd]

If I were to discover some knowledge through a thought experiment, do I only "know" my discovery in the context of said experiment? No because knowledge generalizes. Skepticism is specifically formulated to generalize beyond the context of the argument, it's about whether the evidence from which one draws inferences can be trusted and this applies to almost everything, not just philosophical debates.

[@cliffordhodge1449]

I don't see the contextualist claim as having any relevance to the epistemological problem - we cannot gain knowledge by devaluing it. In some contexts, a person will say, "I love it," even though there is clearly nothing like love involved, and so a contextualist might want to say, in these contexts a few moments of feeling mildly pleased actually is love even though it does not provide us a necessary condition for finding concluding that something is love. I say that in that case and the everyday cases of saying, "I know...," the term in question is used in a sort of colloquial metaphorical sense, but cuts no epistemological ice at all, and I don't see why that should cause any discomfort for a contextualist.

[@juanenfermobastardo337]

I've had enough experience at lucid dreaming that, even though when I'm in the midst of a vivid dream, there is a part of my consciousness that realizes I'm dreaming. Of course, I'm probably not "awake" in the Buddhist sense...

[@BulentBasaran]

A true Buddhist would say, there is in you that which is awake and that doesn't care much about probabilities.

[@davidbolan]

Unconscious ''Irracional'' or racional? vs context racional... Our minds have a context of senses as well, so what is the point of thinking for example: about quantum mechanics ,if our brains would never comprehend the difference in a total. one for everyone to understand and vividly feel that context... perhaps just a mere exercise of mind?

[@jmalko9152]

clear explanation. I liked and subbed

[@BelegaerTheGreat]

This "Contextualism" seems interesting, saying that "to know something" means different things based on the context, and that the Skeptics are actually right in their context. What I am unsure about, is whether different contexts (ergo different meanings of "know") actually exist. At 6:19 maybe Stewart Cohen is right, but the explanation in this video is fallacious.

[@michaelbalson]

This whole argument about the fact that you can't tell if you are dreaming or not right now was obviously made by people who have never dreamt.... Any time I have ever been conscious of the fact that I am dreaming invariably leads to the dream ending. My experience is that it is not possible to question the nature of your reality in a dream and come to the conclusion that you are awake. In other words, "I think therefore I am not dreaming". There is also just something fundamentally different about the reality and the physics of the dreamscape that makes it markedly different to real life.

[@shanks1847]

What if there were times you were actually dreaming vividly but thought you were waking? Are you absolutely sure that's never happened? Maybe you don't remember it?

[@coreypiper7937]

I definitely agree with "i am obviously awake", key word 'obviously'. If i am unsure if i am awake or in a dream I would say "I am seemingly awake" I hypothesize adverbs and knowledge are very much intertwined some how but I am having trouble on seeing any logical connection

[@KohuGaly]

I think we can take this a step further a claim knowledge itself is context sensitive. Consider following statement: "Last night I had a dream that I WOKE UP, ate my breakfast and went to work." I was obviously awake in the context of the dream and that dreaming and being awake are not exclusive. In the sceptic argument the relevant context is simulation hypothesis, the question being "how do you know whether you are in base reality of in a simulated reality?" The question might not even make sense, because there may be no base reality, but an infinite regress of simulated realities instead. It is pretty obvious that any claims of knowledge are relative to the reality in question (of which you are part of, so even "cogito ergo sum" is relative in this sense).

[@brianstampe7056]

Good introduction! Thanks Geoff Pynn.

[@Strr27]

what's / are the difference between contextualism and contratstivism?

[@littlebigphil]

The concepts do seem pretty similar. Perhaps contrastivism makes strong epistemological claims rather than claims about language?

[@Adub0stubb123489]

The way that I've interpreted the views are: Constrastivism says that you can know a thing so long as you know it is that, rather than something else. Contextualism would say that you can know it is that thing relative to the situation in which we are referring to it. So for example a Contrastivist could say, "I know that creature is a dog because it is not a cat, nor any of the other creatures I'm aware of." a Contextualist would say, "I know that creature is a dog because the creature that I'm referring to happens to be the creature that our language has named a dog." This is just how I've come to understand the theories, and I've simplified them a bit. Hope it helps though!

[@geoffpynn]

It's a good question. Jonathan Schaffer initially presented contrastivism as an alternative to contextualism, but I think it's better to treat contrastivism as a view about the nature of knowledge (i.e., that it's contrastive) which naturally lends itself to a contextualist treatment of non-contrastive knowledge attributions (i.e., by saying that what shifts with context is the contrast proposition).

[@LiaAwesomeness]

has anyone ever dreamt of dying? and actually dreamt that they died and were dead before they woke up? because i dont think anyone has, and in that case i can prove that i am awake by trying to die (and succeeding)

[@LiaAwesomeness]

wait this is the plot of inception

[@TheGerogero]

Just call it a simulation; a person can, in fact, know whether they are dreaming.

[@trysteroelesuecaverne]

Ok, I've seen all 11 videos and realized philosophers are completely in the dark and failed big time to answer reliably even the problems in the very first video. Only the 4th video illustrating Chalmers' ideas got somewhat close to a solution... Only to lead to a terribly wrong conclusion. So *I* will propose a definite solution. It's all about information, quantity and systems. So information available within systems. And of course, a brain is a system with a certain access to information, and consciousness is another system that has a limited access to information. The theory is simply this: a statement or a claim is made of information. Proving that this claim is wrong requires MORE information. Therefore: I might not know whether I'm awake or dreaming, because at the present time I access information that says I'm awake. But in a different moment I might wake up, and I realize that I *WAS* dreaming. What happened? What happened is that when I wake up I'm able to access more information, and that information tells me something *more* about my previous state and claim. Knowledge increases. The same happens in science. A law is only valid until proven wrong. And proving it wrong requires obtaining more information to build a more accurate model. Human beings are partial systems that move within a very complex reality. Our existence is determined by the fact that our systems are defined by a SCARCITY of information. Shallow systems within a deeper bigger one. That's why we struggle to know more. We need more information in order to have a better map of the world, and so being able to more properly decide how to best navigate it. Makes sense? There's no "true" claim then. There's only a movement toward integrating more information within that limited information field that is our consciousness. We cannot say much about the "brain in the vat" kind of problems simply because we don't wield enough information to do so. But most importantly, this problem is about the outside of the system (the nature of reality). We can only reliably hope to access information WITHIN the system we inhabit. Information about the totality of the system is information that is only available to a point of view outside the system (Godel's incompleteness). Therefore we can infer problems that are pertinent to the system we inhabit (so information within), and problems that are irrelevant because answers to them produce no tangible changes. As the information to use to obtain answers is merely hypothetical instead of verifiable (as explained at minute 5 of that 4th video). So you don't know whether or not you're a brain in a vat. But this question is an illegitimate one, as we don't have any potential access to information that might let us answer this question. Hence, it's not pertinent. It's pragmatically useless (unless you can peek outside at information not usually available). The concept of absolute truth requires the premise of a deterministic system, and knowledge of the totality of the information within that system. But since we live within the system, then our truths are only always relative to our point of view and the limited information we have access to. Truth is always a concept relative to the total of the information available within a system. Human beings only access a little amount of the total of the information. Therefore what we "believe" is simply a temporary claim we make based on the information we currently have available. As soon we obtain more information there's the possibility that we'll have to correct our beliefs.

[@martinsattler4191]

This is the whole point of the argument! Very good description!

[@pranavbatra3934]

Some good insights man

[@wastelesslearning1245]

As long as your not inventing unfalsifiable and inconsequential possibilities of reality when not relevant to a conversation, your skepticism is contextually valid.

[@tribalstyle138]

Is it like compatibalism? basically, we cannot not know if we are brains in vats or determined or controlled by something else- all we can do is exist as if we are alive. We may be brains in vats with no free will but we still have to go on within that world- even if it is limited- as if we weren't limited to that world because our experience still gives the illusion that our choices matter. This seems similar.

[@ishanonta1529]

how in the worldddd am I supposed to write this in my exam paper.

[@jasminkarmacharya6410]

hahaha... 😂😂😂 was thinking the same..

[@pratapadhikari3665]

Your comments of three years ago are still contextual in the light of upcoming philosophy exam.

[@ritimasahikiya]

Hahahha. Hello, how did your exam go? 🥲 i have mine a day later

[@richardhill7478]

I think PEDANTIC is useful in these circumstances. The truth is we haven't developed our word definitions and usages to explain these things. Language is still in development. One has to persist. Each time a mind goes through it all, things develop; word definitions, grammar and maths evolve. Seek and you will find. The universe is such that the correct are rewarded and the incorrect struggle in their confusion. I'd try and explain the answer, however, ultimately, we all have to work it out for ourselves.

[@bergweg]

if you flip a light switch on and off, and it goes on and off but erratically, (unpredictable/irregular), would that be a good indication of a dream?

[@zenithzott9554]

Nope. Because the situation you describe could happen regardless of whether you are awake or not. What you are looking for is known as a reality check among the lucid dreaming community. An RC is a test you can perform to distinguish dreaming from not dreaming. There are many examples of RCs out there, but a good common example of an RC is the nose pinch test. Simply use your fingers to pinch your nose closed and try to breathe through it. If you can still breathe through your nose then you must be dreaming, and if you can't then you aren't dreaming.

[@pokegenstein]

this video makes me fall asleep whenever I should

[@Linck192]

for me the word "know" or "knowledge" is not a boolean word. You don't either have knowledge or you don't, it's on a scale, and the whole reason all these theories were not working is because they we're viewing the word know the wrong way. The problem I see with contextualism is that it seems to imply that given a certain context, you can still definitely know or not know something. In that example with the woman with the important meeting in chicago, you can maybe claim that she the word know means something different for her and that just reading the itinerary does not constitute knowledge. But now take that important meeting, and make it slightly less important. As you keep making the meeting less and less important, you eventually get to a point where reading the itinerary does constitute knowledge. That's the sorties paradox, and the words know and knowledge are subject to this paradox because they're vague, granular and sit on a scale.

[@samira1584]

This was pretty good!

[@TheGerogero]

8:12 Bingo. What was the point of skepticism, again?

[@Ansatz66]

The point of skepticism is to highlight that knowing things is akin to omnipotence. Whenever people think they are right about something, they can always be wrong. Skepticism is the philosophy of reminding people that they might be wrong even when they're most strongly convinced. It teaches people to go through life expecting to make mistakes.

[@TheGerogero]

Ansatz66 I think I've spent so long being a skeptic that I've forgotten that I am...

[@beek1965]

sometimes i wonder if life is all a dream and im still a child right now, trapped in a coma

[@daniel-zh4qc]

first charge that your opponent is "irritating," "whimsical," "extraordinary," "hyperinflated" with their claims on the word "know" - then sell quietism as a solution - i.e. normative attacks against a straw-man position, then change the goal posts and say you've won - the skeptical charge has many different registers but contextualism merely concedes defeat to the skeptic that there is no knowledge proving our anchor point in the world and then sells it like the problem never existed (how sour are them grapes?) - all the while missing how extraordinary the very phenomenon is -- beneath dreams/sleep/biv/etc. we need to appreciate the fact that the skeptic claim is about our grip on the world - not sure - "result of misuse of language" is quite right -- just look at mathematical skepticism - seems the status of numbers and logic might be more that different pragmatic uses of concepts and rules (unless your fine with psychologism and relativism).... either way..... not satisfied

[@skun406]

Thia is a good one.

[@PierreThierryKPH]

In a way, the skeptics are right. Noone knows anything. But we do believe to certain degrees, and I'm wondering if probabilistic reasoning doesn't make all that debate pretty much irrelevant. To be precise, it is always a abuse of language to say we know anything. But I can derive a 74% probability that my flight would stop in Chicago based on available evidence. Or a 99% probability that my brother is my biological brother, etc...

[@ciroguerra-lara6747]

...but there are deeper issues with knowing.... i.e. if we gather new knowledge and we already know what the new knowledge is, then we just compare the new knowledge with what we already know and we didn't acquire new knowledge, if we don't know what the new knowledge is, what do we compare it to to verify it? Thus we can't acquire new knowldege, but we seem to know stuff.. How?. We also seem to gather new knowledge thru logic, but logic is flawded (i.e. liar paradox) so our knowledge is flawed. It is not just a matter of context. It has had issues, i.e. accepting the newtonian model and, when it fails, predicting and discovering a new planet vs. needing a new model, i.e. einsteinian model. There are plenty of paradoxes of knowledge that are not just a problem of context.

[@socrates0ne]

Dreams aren't the best example. I'm a lucid dreamer, and there are objective ways of determining if you are dreaming.

[@StudioStar]

Same thing about "free will". Obviously highly contextual.

[@diablominero]

When I'm asleep, my ability to feel tired is shut off, just like you could shut off your carbon monoxide alarm when it goes off, you've stopped the source of the gas, and you've begun airing out the house. When I'm tired, I can be sure that I'm not dreaming.

[@BulentBasaran]

They seem to be saying that they are happy with their local/relative context and they don't care much for the absolute. That's a choice.

[@Jopie65]

Bulent Basaran It's not about not 'caring much' about the term in absolute sense. It's more about, when you strictly use the word 'know' in the absolute sense, then you cannot use the word in everyday speech because you cannot absolutely know anything.

[@BulentBasaran]

You can use "know", e.g., in "I know that I don't know."

[@Cheesesteakfreak]

The skeptic poses no threat? Your wording choice in this video was terrible.

[@nickm5807]

Who decided red was red.

[@sciencelearning263]

But... how do you know?

[@wnrch]

you definitely know you're not dreaming when your awake. no sane person would doubt being awake. this example of skepticism is only half true (you don't know you're dreaming when you're dreaming)

[@Cheesesteakfreak]

That wouldn't be skepticism, it would be denialist.

[@TheRealShadowBit]

It's actually solvable by using reality checks, one can actually know whether he is awake or dreaming.

[@afl8182]

Thomas Weinreich You missed the point. If you prefer, you do not know if you are into a complex simulation made by aliens that make you think waht you see is real but really is an illusion.

[@juliatomasiak2813]

mocne

[@selfinexile]

sounds like a weak cop out

[@BulentBasaran]

Why try to wake up those who seem to be enjoying their dream? It might even be a vivid one (for them.)

[@geoffpynn]

LOL I won't disagree with this --- it can sound that way. The question is whether it's true, though! Weak cop-outs can also be factually correct.

[@ReadingRhinoPress]

Or a sophisticated, enlightened solution! I guess it depends on the context :'D

[@BulentBasaran]

Correction: "lucid" dreaming.. It implies that the dreamer is aware of the context: it is a dream, and she knows that. Nonetheless, she honors the dream. Nightmares are also naturally honored, like the stoic philosopher who hears the news of his son's ship having sunk in the sea...

[@katjatissarj1086]

lol...on the beat! meow. n existing ref pic

[@katjatissarj1086]

of Language? OOOOOOOOOOPS!! Cult crock return to eden ... swalLow from the top forbid ...why stop then ... sky drop Chicken ..need known order no lead to system problem them own grown live on ... love shown... set free flown .... "who's bad?" ...

[@Swapnil638]

skptics arent villains lol

[@mcole222]

I am the one random 12 year old saying " of course, yes, intriguing, uhuhuhu"

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

This is perhaps the weakest argument ever made in epistemology. Why did this ever catch on? It deliberately dodges the question and just says "it isn't relevant, skeptics are irritating, don't listen to them". Pure dogma disguised as clever linguistic philosophy.

[@keystothebox]

Silly people truth is not subjectively contextual. This is pure just abusing weakly defined statements.

[@brendanobrien532]

this made no sense

[@millerk20]

I find Nozick's argument against skepticism more compelling than De Rose's

[@0cards0]

we can know if we are dreaming, pinch yourself

[@LiberatedMind1]

Sometimes it hurts in dreams too.