The Cartesian Argument

[trilldrone]

So this is a serious philosophical question, so I guess I would like some real, non-trolling responses. I look forward to your insight.

Everyone knows Rene Descartes as the man whose words were synthesized as "I think therefore I am." This stemmed from his work Meditations on First Philosophy, and while he would refer to his skeptical questioning as the Evil Genius Argument, many today would recognize it as the idea that the popular Matrix series was based on. My question would refer to the nature of this argument and it's plausibility as well as its defeat. To this day, only one conclusion has been offered and deemed strong enough to defeat the argument, and it was given by Descartes himself. Descartes believed that there was no evil genius controlling his awareness because God would never allow such a thing. His rebuttal is reasonably powerful, and regardless of whether one is religious or not one can concede that upon the merits of an all powerful being existing, the argument does hold up - however no secular argument has been able to do so. So the question remains, is there a secular rebuttal in existence? Can Descartes "Evil Genius" be refuted without the existence of a benevolent God?

Factors to Remember:
Don't give that standard, bullshit response: "Because Science." If you're too small minded to understand that science has no bearing in a synthetic world in which mathematical truths are only manifestations of what you are made to believe, then chances are you aren't intelligent enough to even comprehend the amount of skepticism put forth by the argument.
Don't place bearing on other people - you can't prove that they are existing and freethinking beings. You can only prove that you are. Self-awareness of thought is a precondition to existence, and since you cannot be aware of another's thought you cannot prove they exist (you can't even be sure that I am truly writing this post or if it was placed here for you to see by whatever is controlling your universe).
Don't rely on perceptions. If you haven't read Meditations, I can understand why you would bring this up. However, earlier in the Meditations, Descartes proves that perceptions cannot be trusted and often lead us astray. This is backed up by the fact that in the modern world (if it is real), neurologists have proven that perception is just a firing of synapses in the brain and thus you can be fooled into having certain perceptions. For all you know, you are a brain in a jar, hooked up to wires that fire the synapses and create your reality.
Time cannot be proven to be linear. The only moment you can truly prove to exist is the one you are in right now - your past memories can very well be constructs and the idea of future may be inexistent. You may be suspended in a single moment, always believing you have experienced things you have not and never moving forward.
Lastly, I return to my first point, as it is always the one that others cannot seem to comprehend. You know nothing. Knowledge is false. Just because you believe that there is no technology in existence capable of doing such a thing, does not mean that there isn't in the world which controls you. Maybe 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical truth in this moment, but it could just as easily be that 1 + 1 = 87, and for all you know you may be existing in a world in which 1 + 1 = 2 but soon it will be 87. All of scientific research and mathematical calculations are a fabrication, placed to convince you of truths that may or may not be actually represented in true reality.

The mathematics are simple. You have a one-in-an-infinite percent chance of your perceptions being an accurate representation of true existence. And lastly, stop to think for a moment that you actually are a being floating in a synthetic reality. Stop to think about how this argument was formed out of thin space by either you or your grand designer (evil genius, all-knowing computer, God, whatever you choose to picture the designer to be). Stop to think about how maybe you do not exist, and you are just being mocked where you sit by your grand illusionist by tempting you with this argument. Stop to think about how alone, ignorant, and pitiful you may be.

The point of this post is to make people question their world. Maybe the argument can be disproven, maybe it can't, but that question is only the tip of the iceberg. Suppose the world is real, you exist and I exist and everyone and everything around you exists the way it really does. How much do you really know? Can you trust that Madagascar exists just because it's on a map and someone told you they have pictures of it? Even on a more general scale, can you honestly trust everything you are being told in this world on the merits that you are being told them? We sometimes doubt our friends, our family, politicians and celebrities - but can you trust astronomists? Can you trust the mapmaker? Why do you trust nameless individuals you have never met more than your own acquaintances? Have you seen for yourself the surface of Saturn or have you been everywhere on the planet? Have you seen a Sumatran Tiger with your own eyes? And if you have, can trust it was Sumatran, or trust it was really a tiger? Maybe these questions seem stupid to you - and if they do, I worry about you. For you to believe so willfully the things you are told is a troublesome thought.

The Cartesian Argument is a fun one, and I've used it to draw you in. But the real point of this post goes so much farther than that. Debate if you want the merits of the Evil Genius, but even if you conclude that your reality is real (which good luck, because no thinker aside form Descartes has done so since the argument was raised), consider asking yourself the validity of absolutely anything you know. At the very least, just come away from this a little bit more skeptical of the world around you, because things are hardly ever as the seem, and even when they are there is so much more to the story.

[Sensationalism]

Descartes is a retard. He thought animals were clocks. He was so dumb.

[naronic]

At 2/12/14 02:20 PM, trilldrone wrote: To this day, only one conclusion has been offered and deemed strong enough to defeat the argument, and it was given by Descartes himself. Descartes believed that there was no evil genius controlling his awareness because God would never allow such a thing. His rebuttal is reasonably powerful, and regardless of whether one is religious or not one can concede that upon the merits of an all powerful being existing, the argument does hold up

No it doesn't, it relies upon the infinitely shaky assumption that there is in fact a god, and that said god just so happens to be merciful enough to let you roam in reality. Making ridiculous objective assumptions in order to construct a jumping off point.

The point of this post is to make people question their world. Maybe the argument can be disproven, maybe it can't,

It can't, and you weren't the only person to think of this

[SuperElroy]

At 2/12/14 02:29 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Descartes is a retard. He thought animals were clocks. He was so dumb.

Who's to say they're not?

[Entice]

At 2/12/14 02:20 PM, trilldrone wrote: Can Descartes "Evil Genius" be refuted without the existence of a benevolent God?

Well, there's the assumption that "I" is doing the thinking.
How do you know that "I" isn't a conduit that merely experiences the sensation of thought?