Root of all evil
Pages
| Author | Topic: Root of all evil |
|---|---|
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 06:14
Profile
SkeleTony: I still think that everything you're asserting is flawed because it's limited by what you're able to perceive, whether on your own or with some tool. We *now* have the tools to prove to a blind person that color exists, but that wasn't so a hundred years ago. We have the tools to accomplish and prove all kinds of things that previously didn't exist. Who are you to say we won't develop the tools or the senses to discover whether God exists? That seems short-sighted to me. I'm willing to agree that, going head to head, the Christian God is as unbelievable as Santa Claus. This is because there's pretty good evidence that both were constructed by man. However, there is nothing close to an adequate explanation for existence, of which our world represents an infinitesimal part. Assuming you accept the Big Bang theory, there are still big questions out there: What happened before that? How can something come out of nothing? It really can't, based on the logic that you espouse, because your logic is chained to the existence of time and the laws of cause and effect. It seems to me that there must be something else going on that's bigger than/different than/outside the fourth dimension. That's a pretty big crack to fill - do you have a good or sound explanation? I don't worship God because, like you, I don't see evidence of any sort of interaction with the world. We could be just as insignificant as ants, for all I know. However, I am unable to rule out the possibility of something divine out there, because for me everything about existing is just so crazy, when I stop to think about it. Maybe I'm just not that smart and am too easily overawed, but it seems to me to be foolish to rule out possibilities, however unsettling they may be. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 09:50
Profile
Thuryl: Not sure what your beef with me is in this little debate(If I have come off as irritating or calous or something then I apologise) but the short answer is that when I refer to logic, I am talking about good old fashioned "reasoned thinking". I am no mathematician so all of those different systems you refer to, which I HAVE studied a bit but fail to fully appreciate because I don't go anywhere NEAR theorems, they are unecessary for my purposes. Ironically, before I read your reply I was reading an article on "paraconsistent logic" and thinking I would need Tylenol after doing so. SO I guess "Classical logic" is closest to what I am meaning when I invoke the term "logic". You don't have to know a damned thing about relevance logic, intuitionist logic or any of that to be a logical thinker. Logic is pretty simple outside of mathematical proofs and theorems. Things do not move away from you while getting closer and something cannot be everywhere adn nowhere at once etc. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 10:42
Profile
quote:This is STILL a gap argument. You might as well be arguing with me for saying that genies do not exist or leprachauns are not real(but somehow I doubt you would ;) ). You can pull gap arguments out to support ANY existential claim or position. I say no boogeyman lives under my bed while I sleep. I say this even though I am "limited" by my perception which does not allow me to see boogeymen under my bed while I sleep. Same goes for God. Again, I am also unable to percieve combustion engines made of gelatin. Is this because they do in fact exist and I have a disability or am I unable to percieve these because they are imaginary things adn have no independent existence? quote:THis is still a false analogy though. If ALL humans lacked an ability to percieve colors then the statemetns "colors exist." and "Colors do not exist" would both be nonsense statements since we would have nothing to base the inference or rejection on. But we KNOW that humans have eyes capable of percieving these wavelength variations and any human unable to do so is an EXCEPTION, having a disability. Your analogy will hold water when you can show ANYTHING "spiritual" or Godly that exists and that humans have a capacity to percieve such but atheists (or many/most people in genereal) have a disability or are lacking a "spirit sense". quote:We won't develope any "soul detector" or "Spiritometer" "Deitometer" for the same reason we won't develope a "fairy sensor" or "Sorcery analyser", because these things are made up things. They do not exist outside of our imaginations. Theists have YET to even present a logically consistent God-concept that I am aware of(I am all ears if you want to try though), let alone provided rational justification for such an existential claim. Theists have a few options when presenting such claims: 1)They present something that is rational, consitent and most likely already has a name/label(such as "The sun" or "The universe" or some emotional or conceptual thing) which I and other atheists see no reason to call "God". or 2)They present a "transcendent" God and reason goes out the window. The transcendent God is one who can have all sorts or paradoxial qualities that make no sense to rational minds but can always be supported by gap arguments and other bizarre twists of logic. The problem with #2 above is that whatever arguments you are offering in support of said deity, you can replace the word "God" with ANY claimed entity you can imagine and the argument neither loses nor gains any weight. Now if you do not say that fairies or genies or what have you do not exist(to maintain consistency in your position) then that is great...if you happen to be a solipsist or somesuch. But the second you proclaim a theistic belief you have thrown consistency to the dogs. You are believing in something based on reasoning you will not accept for other claims. quote:More gap arguments. "We do not yet know the answer to ________ so (genies/gods/fairies/wizards) must exist!". That is terrible reasoning. The rationalist's answer to your above question(s) is "I don't know yet." I would add to that that, beyond my natural curiosity, I don't much care if the universe had an orgin or what it might be. Oh and you are presupposing that teh universe had an ultimate orgin BTW, which I think probably is not the case. Everything we know about physics proclaims infinite regress. THere are positron-electron pairs that seem to pop in and out of existence uncaused but other than that we have no reason to think something uncaused may have caused the universe or that "something came from nothing". Furthermore, the conceptual "nothingness" you allude to above is nonsense. There cannot BE complete "nothingness". There is and has always been some form of matter/energy. If this were not so then we would not be talking about it right now. Also, if you cannot believe in a natural universe because you think that all things need a cause, then what created/caused "God"? And what created his creator? Ad infinitum. quote:Why? Even ignoring the lack of justification for such a belief, if something exists "beyond" our reality of linear time, space and matter then, for all intents and purposes it does NOT exist anymore than Paul Bunyan exists for us. It becomes another of Sagan's "Garage Dragons". If this entity interacts with our universe then it is NOT "beyond" our universe adn we should be able to detect and measure that interaction. quote:Do I know what exactly went on at t = 0 or t=-1? No. And again, this has no bearing on my denial of God's existence. quote:We MUST rule out possibilities because we do not live in an "anything is possible universe". Science is ALL ABOUT probing the limitations of our universe(not the "possibilities" that men can concieve of in fits of insanity and irrationality). If everything were possible then there would be no science, no ability to learn or know anything and no sentience would have evolved. If this is confusing then imagine it this way: Say I ask you to describe your living room. Now if your living room is 12' x 18' x 10' with one couch, a coffe table etc. then you could tell me an awful lot about the room. But now lets imagine your living room is INFINITE and ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE within. WHat could you tell me about it? Nothing. Anything you thought you percieved would be equally likely to false or delusion. Our universe has limits as described by our physical laws and theories and these same laws of behavior/operation rule out transcendent gods. Up until a few weeks ago, I was, like you, a "weak atheist". I simply lacked a positive God-belief but did not assert the contrary. It is a much easier position to defend and I am frequently still tempted to slink back into it just because of teh difficulty inherent in explaining the strong atheist line of reasoning that I currently espouse. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 10:51
Profile
quote:God has to follow the man made rules of logic? quote:Inherently contradictory The rules rule out something that is above the rules. The thing that was above the rules probably wouldn't be affected by being ruled out by the rules. Especially if he created them. [ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:55: Message edited by: Macrsp ] Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 12:04
Profile
quote:This statement is the root of my disagreement with your argument. These physical laws and theories were created by human beings, and we are the ones applying them to the universe, not the other way around. Throughout human history, new laws and theories have surplanted old ones, turning the scientific world on its head. Isn't it a bit brazen to assume that what we understand now is truth? At best, you're applying an imperfect tool to a potentially infinite subject. How can you be so confident? [ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:05: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 12:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:It shows? Sorry about that. I was mainly annoyed with you because it seemed as if you had your own pet issue to push and you were trying to push it into an active discussion where it wasn't particularly on topic. Now that the original line of discussion's petered out, we may as well continue on to this one. I fall into the weak atheist camp because I'm a fairly extreme sceptic about everything; after all, I can't even prove I'm not a brain in a jar (or a meta-brain in a meta-jar, if you insist on bringing up Hilary Putnam's argument against the BIAJ concept). Nor can logic itself prove itself consistent (or at least I hope it can't; Gödel's theorem shows that any formal system of sufficient power can only prove its consistency if it's inconsistent). I think the choice between theism and atheism comes down to whether you want a belief system that explains as many things as possible or whether you only want to believe things for which there's compelling evidence. This is basically a philosophical choice (perhaps even an aesthetic choice). Strictly speaking, is there anything wrong with choosing to believe an unlikely hypothesis that answers a question when the only alternative would be to leave the question unanswered? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 13:06
Profile
Homepage
As far as I can tell, Andrew Miller is saying that it's possible that some sort of divine thing exists, and SkeleTony is saying that one should discount things that are possible but not reasonable certain. That is, I don't think either of you disagree on the degree of possibility involved in the existence of divinity: you both think it is possible but not currently demonstratable. You disagree about what one should think of such things: AM says that one should be open-minded about such possiblities, and SkeleTony says that we should ignore them until they have reasonable evidence supporting them. I think that's a personal preference, not a matter of being right or wrong. But SkeleTony, about the "color" argument: consider atoms. People have been saying that matter consists of atoms since the Ancient Greeks, and although atomic theory has changed dramatically over time, it survived. Little evidence beyond some common sense (matter must be made of something, right?) supported this theory, and no one could sense atoms at all. Modern technology gave us the ability to find them, though — Democritus was right. That is, Democritus more than two thousand years ago made statements that could not be verified by observation but were correct. This is a more proper analogy than color, I would think, since no disability (beyond the simple limitations of our sense) prevents us from seeing atoms, yet we cannot see them, despite the fact that they do exist. Some sort of divine thing could very well be similar. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 20:48
Profile
quote:Out of interest, what would you accept as reasonable evidence of God's existence? -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 22:41
Profile
quote:Man does not "make up" logic in the way he makes up legislation or the rules in baseball. Man recognises things as rational/irrational, well reasoned or poorly reasoned. ROund squares do not exist. Not because man made up a rule saying they should or can not, but because something cannot be both round adn a square at once. Gods do not exist for much the same reason(and if someone would just define what they mean when they say God DOES exist, I will show you why). quote:There is no "above the rules". SHow me ONE THING which exists "beyond" the three or four 'dimensions' of space, time, matter and energy. TO say, for example, that something "exists" and does not operate within a linear time frame is as nonsensical as saying one could travel in complete immobility. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 22:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've given that some thought in the past, and concluded that it'd have to be something on the level of an obvious miracle. Ideally it'd be something on a grand scale, simply to rule out the possibility of human intervention; obviously, it'd also have to be such as to make the possibility of a natural phenomenon unreasonably improbable. A meteor shower creating a clear image of a person's full name on the surface of the Moon would just about do it, I think -- and even then, I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt over the possibility of extraterrestrial intervention. (And even then, I'd want to make sure that a few weeks on antipsychotic medication didn't make it go away. Can't be too careful when dealing with apparent revelations; if we took everyone's at face value we'd end up with a very odd deity indeed.) [ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 22:49: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 23:25
Profile
quote:This statement is the root of my disagreement with your argument. These physical laws and theories were created by human beings, and we are the ones applying them to the universe, not the other way around.[/quote]I disagree. You seem to be making the same mistake as Macrsp above in thinking that humans just "make up" gravity, inertia, logic etc. out of some convenience-need or somesuch in the way we create traffic laws that say one cannot drive a lawnmower on the freeway or ignore red lights and stop signs. If we were just making these things up then we would have no reason to say that anything exists or does not exist. We should all be looking out for gremlins because a bunch of humans just decided that mischeivious technomancy causes mechanical failure. We don't "create" the way things work, we discover the way things work. We are wrong to some degree or other often enough but not so much so that we should expect to fly off the earth tommorrow because gravity doesn't really exist. The beautiful thing about science adn using it to answer questions about reality is that science is self correcting. Mistakes made are revealed by the method itself eventually. Same cannot be said of "faith". quote:Theories are revised with teh influx of new data. This is a good thing. But you are overstating the effect or relevance of this. Even after a thousand years of revision of Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection the theory will be much the same. We will not find that life evolves via ectoplasmic interactions or somesuch. No matter how much we learn about modern biology we will not discover that SMurfs or dragons exist in magical forests. No matter how much we learn about engineering we will not invent street legal automobiles made entirely of gelatin. quote:"Brazen" now eh? At least it doesn't sound quite as bad as "arrogant" but... meh. I'll tell you what I think sounds brazen and arrogant and closed minded; the dogma that says things MUST be other than what we observe them to be adn that any who disagree are short-sighted or closed minded themselves. TO observe a rubber ball bounce back up toward my hand after being tossed downward with some velocity, repeatedly and to spend countless hours studying the phenomenom so that we can understand it mechanicsticly and to then conclude that this is how such objects behave according to the laws of our reality is NOT "brazen" or short-sighted. It is rational. What you are arguing here is that it is somehow not reasonable to expect such consistent results. "God" is the rubber ball that transforms into gold bricks when thrown at a wall. I say God is a made up thing. quote:Your arguments would suggest that it is technically possible that WIle E. Coyote and Roadrunner actually exist adn do the things they do and when they are on break from chasing around the four color desert, they turn on their TVs and watch humans they have created, just for laughs. THis would be a sound argument adn reasoned conclusion...IF we lived in a universe without the limits we observe adn are bound by. We do not live in such a universe though so cartoon characters are made up things. Gods are like cartoon characters. They systematically violate all observed and known physical laws at the drop of a hat but for some reason abide by such restirctions when it is convenient for us(?!). If we assume cartoon characters actually exist, they make no sense. We wonder why Wile E. does not buy food instead of rocket skates or why Yogi Bear does not simply earn a ton of money performing sop that he can buy all of the "pic-i-nic baskets" he wants? When we admit they are made up things they make perfect sense. Yogi's scheming to rob park goers of their picnic lunches is funny and Wile E.'s A.C.M.E. sponsored hijinks are most entertaining. WHen we assume that trnascendent gods are real, they make no sense. WHy not just reveal himself to as as per his omnipotent capacity adn reveal the "truth" about reality that we are so ill-equipped to understand ourselves? My mother did not see fit to go hide out for decades after I was born and still demand or request that I have a "personal relationship" with her!? IF flooding the planet with inexplicably large amounts of water is godlike rationality in answer to human misbehavior then why is it that the only flooding we see is mundane and affects saint and sinner alike? When I recognise that gods are made up things then they become sensible. They are constructs to teach us some lesson/moral or entertain us or explain something we currently(or at the time rather) lack the insight to explain. It is fine to say that we do not know everything there is to know about zoology so Sasquatch may exist(though on this matter I would say such a thing is HIGHLY unlikely) but it is another thing altogether to say "We don't know everything about everything so gods/fairies/wizards/round squares adn the like may exist." -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 23:31
Profile
Homepage
Except that round squares do exist, at least as conceptual objects. People under hypnosis when told to see a round square have claimed they were able to see one. They're invariably unable to describe the experience of seeing a round square to others in terms that are coherent or comprehensible, but subjectively the experience is very real. Similarly, people have claimed to have personal experiences of God. Is it really completely out of the question that such people are genuinely experiencing a mode of perception that people don't normally have access to? [ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 23:31: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 23:51
Profile
BTW Thuryl, i realize I left some questions/points you made unanswered. Will edit the above reply to you in a bit with said answers. quote:No. The "me" of a few weeks ago would have said something similar enough but what I am saying now is that there are sokme things which do not and can not exist. Transcendent gods being one of them. quote:No...again, I am arguing the "strong athesit" position here. I am saying it is 100% certain that God does not exist. Andrew is saying it is highly unlikely but that (in effect) nothing can be said to be impossible. It is just different perspectives. He sees(as many instinctively do) anyone with 100% certainty about anything as being somewhat closed-minded whereas I see the same thing in people who are 100% certain that we cannot be 100% certain of some things. quote:Agreed. I am a materialist and for me the "supernatural" or "transcendent" or illogical is ruled out in the same way that dice are ruled out in Chess or touchdowns are ruled out in baseball. The key difference is that, from the materialist & scientific position, we can make extraordinary progress in understanding our universe and how it behaves., just as observing several chess matches played at the same board & table will prove insightful to someone wanting to learn about chess. The person who speculates that "Twister" could be played on a chess board and chastises those who do not share this enthusiasm for being short-sighted will not learn much about the game being played on the chess board. quote:Yeah...? ANcient Greeks concluded that matter we observe was composed of even "smaller"(not the right word but close enough), different types of matter they called "atoms". When we found this was indeed the case, we stuck with the termology alreaady in use(atoms/atomic). Again, this is reasonable. If soemone were saying that, for example, in the future we might be able to invent automobiles that require no fossil fuels, I would not doubt this to be true or likely because that claim does not violate 2,000+ years of experiement and observance which show us consistent laws by which the universe operates. But saying that "I do not know everything that can possibly be known about subject X so maybe one day we will discover that four color cartoon characters are real" is another matter. quote:This is also a false analogy because no one was defining "atoms" in logically incosistent ways(i.e. "beyond" and "within" our universe). If Democritus had described atoms as "square shaped circles" then people would be right to say he was full of poppycock. quote:But we CAN see atoms! In science there are two kinds of observation: Direct and indirect. We use technology to aid us(microscopes and such) in seeing such things but we still see them. Not so for gods. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 23:57
Profile
quote:You asked Thuryl but please allow me to give my answer anyway. Depends on the God. IF you are a sun-worshipper then I see evidence of that God everyday shining through my window(I just do not agree that it is a god and I do not worship). If you are defining God in paradoxial ways/terms then you first have to propose an rational argument that does away with the paradoxes adn from there it is all rules of inference. For the Christian God(s), perhaps causing the sun to (relatively speaking of course) "stop in the sky" or a ressurection would maybe do it. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 23:59
Profile
quote:No, roundf squares do not exist even as coherent concepts. They exist only as meaningless assertions in the mind of someone allegedly hypnotised. If you cannot describe a thing as simple as a geometric shape then it is because you cannot observe such a thing. The definition of "squre" precludes any "roundness". -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 00:20
Profile
Homepage
quote:All the same, people hypnotised to see square circles are clearly perceiving something, and I feel it's worthwhile to question why it's so unreasonable for that something to be called a square circle; should mental space be held to the same rules as physical space? Is it necessary for the square circle to be a "shape" in the conventional sense at all? I suppose at this point I'd better show my hand; I'm much more of a phenomenalist than a materialist. I'm also a biology student with every intention of having a career in science; I don't regard phenomenalism as inherently inconsistent with empiricism (and modern science sometimes strays pretty far from empiricism anyway, so even if I did it wouldn't be an insurmountable handicap). However, all knowledge of anything beyond our own perceptions is ultimately inductive, because the only way to receive information is by repeated perception of patterns of one sort or another (whether they be "Things tend to fall when dropped" or "This reference book tends to be accurate"). Inductive knowledge is inherently unstable, because there's always the possibility of a counterexample. The only things I find myself unable to coherently doubt are my own perceptions; not necessarily that they "correspond" to anything in "reality" (what does that even mean?) but that I am in fact perceiving them. They are as certain as my own existence, or perhaps even more so; there is no "I" that I can pin down as an experiential reality, whereas I find myself completely unable to entertain the proposition that I am not perceiving what I am perceiving. Were I to perceive something that I perceived as a square circle, I would therefore be forced to conclude that, in some sense, perceptions at least of square circles "existed". -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 00:22
Profile
Oops! THought I already replied to this one but I guess I didn't. quote:Actually I was trying to keep out of the whole "God debate" thing but felt compelled to reply to the challenges/questions/critiques of others. I am not pushing any issue or agenda as I could care less what anyone else believes. When there is one person at a forum defending a particular position, the usual assumption is that he came onto the board, guns blazing adn looking for a "fight"(or trying to convert). If there are half a zoen people asking him questions or challenging his position and he replies to each, somehow we get it in our heads that he is some hard-headed ass. quote:Proving negatives is difficult and usually impossible but my answer to the BIAJ/Matrix/Taoist "butterfly dreaming it's a man" thing is that it does not matter if I am actually a brain in a jar. If my observations and experiences are concurrent with those of the other "brains" in said jar(even be they figments of my imagination) and I cannot "wish" or "deny" my reality so that it be something else, then for all intents and purposes, reality is reality. The BIAJ is where my skepticism would kick in, NOT my atheism. I am a card-carrying skeptic as well. I do not say that a conspiracy to kill JFK is impossible, just VERY unlikely. Same goes for bigfoot and nessie and extraterrestrials. quote:"Red" also cannot paint itself onto a canvas but this does not mean that red is not a real color. "Painting" cannot itself paint and automotive engineering cannot itself engineer an automobile. quote:In MY opinion? Yes. THere is much wrong with that because if you conclude that suspect 'A' murdered victim 'B' when in fact you have no reason to infer this, then you have made it very difficult to see the truth when it is within your sight. If I conclude that Zeus causes lightning then I am not open to learning about meterology or atmospheric conditions. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 00:50
Profile
Homepage
quote:You had rather a lot to say, and while a great deal of it was certainly worth saying, hearing it all at once over half a dozen posts in a row felt a little jarring. As far as I'm concerned, all is forgiven; I hope you feel the same way. I just hope the other readers/posters in this topic don't mind our little digression. quote:I agree with you, but demonstrating that the truth or falsity of a proposition is unimportant isn't the same as proving it false. quote:If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying we ought to assess the validity of a system of logic by some other standard than itself. What standard do you propose? Merely our own intuitions, or perhaps the fact that it demonstrates no inconsistencies when applied to our observations in various ways? If the latter, our assessment that logic is consistent is inductive and therefore unreliable; it's based only on the fact that we've found many examples favouring it and none contradicting it. (You may be getting the impression that I regard inductivism and falsificationism as being two sides of the same coin.) quote:I don't believe this is a problem as long as one maintains a realistic view of the possibility that one may be wrong. [ Thursday, January 27, 2005 00:53: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 00:53
Profile
quote:They MAY be seeing something in their imaginations but they are not seeing square shaped circles or round squares or something moving towards them while getting further away. They are not seeing these things because these things are impossible to see. They do not exist. If there WERE round squares and such and you could envision one then you would be able to draw or describe it somehow. Round squares, like gods probably come in a few varieties: Meaningless, undefined words and misunderstood phenomena or misapplied terms. If I define "monster" as a gargantuan, incredibly tiny, radioactive and non-radioactive dinosaur, then ask someone under hypnosis to recall what his uncle was like during the patient's childhood adn he describes him as an abusive "monster" this does not mean he has seen what I previously defined as a "monster". quote:No more unreasonable than calling a tree a "rock" but I am not arguing that people should not be allowed to call things whatever they want. I am saying that it is impossible to actually concieve of something that is both 'A' and 'not A'(i.e. a "round square"). quote:Not in terms of logically consistent ideas. Paul Bunyan exists in my head for example, but not in the forests around Lake Michigan. "ROund squares" do not exist, even in mental space because the concept is impossible. Something is either 'A' or 'Not A'. "Square" is defined(for purposes of this discussion) as "not circular"(precisely it is a two-dimensional shape with four equal sides that meet at 90 degree right angles). quote:Yes. Otherwise why bother saying it exists as a suare circle? You kight as well say that "G&b4rslatch*ping" exists. I have no idea what that is and you provide no description or definition. quote:DesCartes set out to show materilaism to be wrong with his Cogito(where the "I think therefore I am" line comes from) and inadvertently ended up proving materialism correct. If I am able to ask the question "Do I exist?" then I have to exist to do so. Therefore, if I am thinking about my existence, I must exist. Sure a demon might be tricking me to percieve physical hands which I do not actually possess but if we are going to go there then we might as well go all the way and speculate that I AM the demon or I am a figment of his imagining that will cease claiming his own existence as soon as the demon wakes up from dreaming. What it comes down to is that, like it or not, when you awake tomorrow, even if you are a "brain in a jar" or living in "The Matrix", you will still be bound by gravity and inertia and the reality we percieve. LAws and behaviors will still consistently reveal themselves in your studies and the only way for you, as a scientist to make progress in understanding this reality, will be for you to accept it(whether ultimately it is "real" or illusory). quote:If this were so then you would be able to describe how this could be so. The only things we have such difficulty describing are non-existent and nonsensical things. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 01:11
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm familiar with the argument, but it strikes me as a linguistic argument rather than a logical one. We assume that thought requires a thinker, because we speak a language that attaches a subject to every verb. (Fear not; I'm not going to argue the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, but I agree with most modern linguists that it's not completely invalid.) Some sentences, like "It's raining", have subjects only as a token gesture to the rules of English grammar; there are languages that don't require a subject in a sentence at all. "Perceive" or "think" could be seen as a subjectless verb, not requiring a perceiver or thinker. It doesn't seem to be impossible to doubt that thought requires a thinker; in fact, there's no shortage of serious philosophers who reject the concept of personal identity. Personally, I'd regard personal identity as one of the things I'm most certain of among all uncertain things, but still not quite on the same level as direct perception. quote:Probably. Then again, throughout millennia of Western civilisation, nobody had ever seen a black swan. quote:Don't worry about me. I've already worked with people whose philosophies make me look positively mainstream. :P quote:Linguistics again. You seem to be assuming that ideas are inherently impossible because they can't be expressed adequately in our language. Have you never experienced something you were unable to describe to others? [ Thursday, January 27, 2005 02:36: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 01:24
Profile
quote:You had rather a lot to say, and while a great deal of it was certainly worth saying, hearing it all at once over half a dozen posts in a row felt a little jarring. As far as I'm concerned, all is forgiven; I hope you feel the same way. I just hope the other readers/posters in this topic don't mind our little digression.[/b][/quote] I concur. quote:What I am saying is that, there MAY be soem rality wherein creatures have brains that are wired to make sense of what would be nonsense here. But I do not live in that reality and I do not have that brain so the specualtion is not even worth trying to prove false. I cannot prove that "Zibloing rak 3farst!" is false either but does it matter? Should I be concerned about the above's truth or falsity? In the context of this discussion, it matters not whetehr God might exist in "Bizarro universe" or whether said universe does not exist at all. Either way the claim is as good as false HERE. quote:No. I am saying that there are certain "useful assumptions"(we often refer to them as "axioms" or "first principles") that are not subject to, for example, scientific method. HTere can be NO knowledge or understanding without these base assumptions. Logic proceeds from the assumption that what makes sense to me, does in fact make sense(i.e. I cannot run towards you and get further away from you in the conventional sense and I cannot grow larger while shrinking) and science proceeds from the materilaist axiom(though there are variations on materialism such as functionalism and computationalism etc.). quote:Ok...I will take that bait :D . Using science and logic, I conclude that there exists a tree in my front yard. I propose a theory that says that trees have an independent existence adn my theory predicts that if I try to run through the tree, I will experinece the phsyical sensation of accelerating fleshy organism meeting well-rooted wood-thing(or "pain and stitches" to the layman) I verify this by running full speed into it's trunk. A broken nose results, which si consistent with my theory. As a result, I am able to learn a thing or two about velocity, trees, hospital procedures, human anatomy and treating injuries. Now a solopsist or other non-materialist might propose a hypothesis that nothing we think is real can be said to actually be real. Fine. But what does this lead to? What experiements are possible adn what can we learn about OUR reality(illusory or otherwise)? The logical conclusion of non-materialism is sitting on one's hands chattering becuase you cannot even say you(not "YOU" specifically of course,. I mean "you" the general non-materialists) are sitting on your hands chattering. quote:When the answer is "I don't know" then it is best(and therefore "right") to say "I don't know...yet." THis can be followed with the caveat "But I suspect *this*, based on my research..." but to say "God did it" in place of "I don't know" is wrong on many levels in my estimation. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 01:50
Profile
Homepage
quote:I dispute your assertion that science must be inherently materialist. Psychology (except to strong behaviourists) is the study of mental processes. It may not be a mature or orderly science, but it still has definite scientific aspects (science, in its broadest sense, is merely the systematic accumulation of knowledge -- and if you try to define "knowledge" you open up a whole new can of worms). Certainly, these days psychology draws significantly from neuroscience, but some aspects of psychology can be retained without assuming anything about the matter sustaining the minds which are being studied. In regard to your first point, I'm comfortable with accepting the existence of matter as a premise, or as a useful model, but not as an axiom that's beyond doubt or change. I'd rather not accept materialism at all (in the sense of every process being reducible to description at the level of processes involving matter); strict materialist attempts to explain consciousness strike me as handwaving, and since our perceptions are what we start with before we conclude anything from them, it seems to make more sense to accept consciousness as axiomatic and get to matter from there. quote:And you're right -- at least until the day you take a run at the tree and pass through it as if it isn't there. It hasn't happened yet; most likely, it never will. But you can't prove it won't. You're only confident it won't because of observations made in the past which share common characteristics. That's inductivism, and it can never be absolutely reliable, no matter how many observations you make. (I wonder, if one day you did pass through that tree, would you be most inclined to attribute it to a vanishingly unlikely quantum fluctuation, or to some kind of hallucination, or would it make you rethink your assumptions?) quote:So you choose to make assumptions about the world because they're useful. But the judgement of usefulness requires a judgement of the value of certain perceptions; you choose to see the world in a certain way because you predict that worldview will lead to perceptions which are judged as preferable to perceptions resulting from alternative worldviews. Once again, perceptions take precedence over material "reality". [ Thursday, January 27, 2005 02:30: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 04:19
Profile
quote:No more so than we "assume" walking requires legs or a "walker". Thought has no independent existence and neither does walking. We don't "assume" any such thing but rather we observe that entities do stuff with their own stuff. THings with legs can walk adn do walk. That is what legs do...enable things that have them to walk. Things with brains think. That is what brains do...enable things with brains to generate thoughts. You cannot EVER point to a "waling" or a "thought". The best you can do is point to something engaged in said activity(walking or thinking). quote:We have a word for philosophers who doubt that thought requires a thinker: Crackpot. IF the brain is not needed to generate thought then why do we have brains? WHy can't I recall anything before my birth? WHy does my ability to think abstractly coincide with my physical maturity adn health status? WHy does a blow to my head affext or even cancel my thinking? IS there any demonstrable case of thoughts wandering around sans brains? quote:I'm not certain what you mean by "personal identity"(I know what i think it means but I am unsure of what you mean here when you use the term) or how it relates here but I don't think direct perception itself is necessarily too convincing. If I see a dragon in the street the most likely explanation is delusion/insanity. If EVERYONE is running away from said dragon and pointing and screaming then we have concurrent observation. I realize that some will question whether these other observers are not hallucinations but since I am not a solopsist, I do not engage them. quote:Yes but if someone claimed that black swans existed that would not even be in the same neighborhood(not even the same solar system really) as round squares and gods. quote:These things cannot be expressed in ANY language. Think about it for a minute...language is a tool we use to communicate ideas to other entities which are capable of comprehending those ideas. THe reason humans can talk philosophy with other humans is because we have the same types of brains, capable of such complex thought. We cannot talk philophy with mountain gorillas or basset hounds, not because they are incapable of speaking english/Cantonese/Russian/whatever but because they don't have brains like ours, capable of such complex thought.quote:Linguistics again. You seem to be assuming that ideas are inherently impossible because they can't be expressed adequately in our language. Have you never experienced something you were unable to describe to others? Round squares are not nonsensical simply because I speak english or I don't speak sopme other language. THey are nonsense because something cannot BE(as in 100% impossible) *This* and *Not this* or 'A' and 'Not A' or "round" and "not round". The very statement "not round" is denying roundness. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 04:30
Profile
Homepage
You never defined "round", nor "square". If "square" a geometrical shape with four points connected by four equal lines at right angles to each other, then you're right. "Square", as it does in Britain iirc, can also mean "a public, open area in a town" (or "plaza"), as in "Trafalgar Square". There are of course round squares in a lot of cities. It is definitely a matter of language and definition. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, January 27 2005 05:05
Profile
quote:I made no such assertion but if you are disputing that science proceeds from a materialist base then you are taking up arms against all of science itself! Materialism is to science what math is to theoretical physics. quote:Some forms of creationism have definate scientific aspects as well. Besides, even psychologists assume the materialist axiom. They MUST proceed from the "assumption" that thoughts adn "mind" are a function of phsyical/material brains. They often study how damage to said brains affect behavior and thinking. There is no branch of science that proceeds from idealist or solopsist axioms. quote:Science is a method for studying reality. In order for it to have any place we must "assume" there is a reality adn that we are percieving it. quote:Some aspects of just about ANY branch of science can be retained regardless of philosophical bent but the methodology of science itself requires materialism to one degree or the other. We do not assume thoughts create brains or legs evolved because creatures were doing so much walking. quote:If given reason tomorrow, I would become a non-materialist faster than you could say "Flip-flopper" at a republican convention. I would also be prepared to accept that 2,000+ years of experiement and observation were wrong and I know nothing and am incapable of knowing anything. All I ask for before I do that is a pretty good reason... ;) . MAterialism is necessary as an axiom FOR SCIENCE, not for you personally. No one is saying that you have to sign a contract that says you will nevere doubt materialism or some such. It's Just that, when you go to study the genome or cosmos or whatever, you can not assume the planet is just the dream of a sleeping child or somesuch(in your capacity as a scientist). quote:Ah but there is the rub! Are perceptions what we start with? Or do we start with things to percieve? Materialists say the latter. I realize I am in the minority on the consciousness issue but for the life of me I do not see what is so unfathomable about consciousness having a physical explanation!? We cannot say we know all there is to know about atletics but no one denies athletics are rooted in the physical. quote:[/b] I do not deny the possibility of passing through a solid object(however ridiculously remote it may be). There is nothing logically contradictory about such an event. I also do not deny the possibility of a shattered glass leaping back into my hand and reforming. Such things are different than round squares or God because they are as close to impossible as we need to disregard them as concerns but we cannot say they are 100% impossible(99.9999999999999999% sure but not 100%). We CAN say that a glass cannot be both "shattered" and "unbroken" with 100% certainty though and I do so. quote:I would opt for Occam's razor again. First order would be to rule out delusion/hallucination on my part. After ruling out all of the likfely, mundane culprits, I would THEN turn to unlikely quantum fluctuations and such. After that I would consider magic, miracles and the like. quote:We both do. Hell... we ALL do. You could not be doing science right now if not for a base assumption to proceed from. These first principles/axioms are not the same as assuming someone on trial is guilty or assuming I can trust that salesman. We have no choice in the matter of whether we will have base assumptions. We only have a choice in WHICH assumptions/axioms we adopt. quote:No, no, no...I do not "choose" to see the world a certain way. I SEE the world a certain way and it is consitent with how other humans seem to see the world. Knowledge and learning is like a journey. You have to start from SOMEWHERE. If you must walk to work one day you adopt the axiom of materialism to do so. You do not attempt to psionically teleport to work and you do not sit around pontificating about whether walking actually gets you to any destination. If you did so then you would be unable to walk to work. SO you "assume" that you do in fact have a job and you do need to be there at a certain time adn that walking is your best option adn then you get on with it. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |