I'm not sure why your not answering my questions. I'm trying to keep them simple and to the point.
Remember I'm simply asking you questions about your statements, could you please help me communicate with you by answering the simple questions. I don't mind talking about anything you like but I must make sure I'm understanding what you are saying and that you understand what I'm saying.
So again I will ask these questions:
"When I say that I know something, I mean that I possess some truth about it.
IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN?"
If your answer is "Yes," then we can continue.
If your answer is "NO," then you must tell me what you mean by KNOWLEDGE.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS:
1. when you say you know something, do you mean you possess some truth about it? Yes or no. You seem to reply "yes."
NEXT:
You say : "I think ... this set is small and inconsequential, and that with a little effort one can find exceptions to any such rule."
You say you can "with little effort" find an exception to these necessary or self-evident truths; but you DID NOT give me your example of these exceptions to these necessary or self-evident truths.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS:
2. Can you give me one example in which 50% of a thing is not less than 100% of that same thing?
NEXT:
You say: "I would add someone who agrees with the knower."
I SAID: Even if no one from Lucretius to Newton agreed with Einstein that the atom was divisible, did that effect the facts of the matter? Why would anyone have to agree with Einstein for his assertion to be true?
MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS:
3. If no one believed Einstein about the divisibility of the atom, would it still be true that the atom is divisible?
NEXT:
You say "But it is not sufficient..."
My question to you was "Would you agree with me that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth?"
You didn't answer my question, but you IMPLIED "yes."
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS:
4. Am I correct in assuming that you think that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth but you, in addition, believe there are other tests of truth?
5. Can you tell me: What are these other tests of truth by which we can obtain knowledge of a reality that exists independantly of the human mind?
You say: "How do we test this?"
I thought we were getting there. But if I'm the only one answering questions in our discussion then we will not get very far.
I told you to be patient but it looks like I'm the one that will need patience at this rate.
You say: Can I trust an honest answer from you..?"
I'm beginning to wonder if I will even GET an answer from you.
You say: "Can you demonstrate that my conclusion is false?"
Yeah, the precognition thing is interesting. I’m vaguely aware of an experiment where somebody sits in front of a computer and initiates an image appearing on the screen. They are wired up to record their emotional responses to each image, which are either disturbing or reassuring. The interesting point, as I’m sure you’re aware, is that the appropriate emotional response appears to precede the image appearing on the screen.
In Message 150 the possiblity of some kind of "radio tower" existing where we have not yet perceived the "radiation spectrum" is raised.
There is also the apparent ability of some animals to measure magnetic fields (migrating birds?), so could there not be some kind of modulation carried by magnetic fields (or gravity fields)? Dogs have been documented reacting to earthquakes before they are felt by humans.
It seems to me possible that some unknown field could explain at least some of this kind of phenomena. The problem becomes how to map it out.
In this we are definitely limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.
I was actually reading Message 150 a couple of days ago, and was fascinated by what I read. If we ever manage to start communicating effectively with other species, it’s anyone’s guess what we may come to learn about the nature of reality...and that’s before we even consider what’s happening at the quantum level.
I’m currently trying to get my head around the concept of negative probabilities, but am finding the mathematics pretty heavy going - A=33%, B=33%, C=-66%! So I guess the search for a site that makes some sense of this goes on .
I was actually reading Message 150 a couple of days ago, and was fascinated by what I read.
And that book was written in 1960.
If we ever manage to start communicating effectively with other species, it’s anyone’s guess what we may come to learn ...
Particularly when we start comparing perceptions of reality eh?
...and that’s before we even consider what’s happening at the quantum level.
I’m currently trying to get my head around the concept of negative probabilities, but am finding the mathematics pretty heavy going - A=33%, B=33%, C=-66%!
Not been part of that discussion, but if it has to do with quantum mechanics, I'll bet it has to do with the time dimension going negative.
Is this from discussion with Son Goku or Cavediver? If not maybe they can help.
Yeah, quantum mechanics is ... weird stuff. Yet it appears to be fundamental to everything we see hear feel smell and taste eh?
Perhaps reality is as the buddhists claim - all we see is illusion.
Particularly when we start comparing perceptions of reality eh?
Yip, that may be a bit of an eye-opener for us. But it’s like much else on here, the more we learn, the more there is to learn! I don’t know where some of you guys find the time. It’s back to work for me tomorrow, so EvC has to take a backseat again I’m afraid.
RAZD writes:
Is this from discussion with Son Goku or Cavediver?
Yes. SG has said he’s going to bet back to it when he get’s a chance, so that’s something I’m looking forward to.
RAZD writes:
Yeah, quantum mechanics is ... weird stuff. Yet it appears to be fundamental to everything we see hear feel smell and taste eh?
And these are only the things we observe in our own tiny corner of the universe. It makes you wonder what sort of things might be happening elsewhere.
Did you post all of this to prove that we do not know everything therefore we cannot know anything?
You are a contrary man. The words you profess to believe you live as though you do not. The words that I profess, you live by them and deny it with your mouth.
You harbor cherished opinions and then refuse to submit them to rational analysis as evidenced by the fact that you make bold statements and fail to answer my questions concerning your statements.
You pitch me your belief and when I swing and hit and send the ball back, you dodge it and leave the field.
Surely you know that we cannot establish any kind of truth at this rate. Perhaps that is good for you for it falls right in line with your thinking. That we cannot know. You behave as though you don't want to know and don't want to admit you know the things that you do.
You cannot draw a round square no matter how hard you try. You cannot even imagine it. There is no time when a part is greater than its whole. You live by these principles I can prove that. You claim such truths are easy enough to find exceptions to but you blatantly refuse to give me those exceptions.
It is at this time that a man says, he was wrong to say such a thing. You cannot claim you did not say it therefore you must be a man and admit you were wrong to say it. It is human to have error. It is manly to be able to admit to it and then go on to further learning. If you cannot, then you must do what you said and give me the examples that you can easily find and then we might be able to go a step further in our adventure of truth seeking. Perhaps you know somebody likeminded with you that can help you out a bit to help get this ball rolling at a steady even pace.
There is no shame in error, but shame on those who embrace it.
The elements of this universe are all the breath of God!
If you truly believe this then all science is just the proper study of the "breath of God" and the better a job science does of that -- unhindered by any dogmatic interference -- the closer it comes to finding that breath of truth that is the real creation. If you truly believe this then you must discard all preconceptions and then look for what the evidence shows - the actual breath.
If you truly believe this then no science fact can be considered incorrect when it is tested against reality and found to be valid, as that reality is the "breath of God" -- and that includes all of science, from age of the earth to evolution, from genetics to geology, from physics to paleontology.
If you don't accept that fact about science and the validity of knowledge of the "breath of God" then you are a hypocrite.
You claim "my evolution works and your evolution does not" yet you have provided no example of what your "evolution" is or how it works in the real world (God's breath). How does it work and how do you validate that it works?
How do you deal with evidence that contradicts any of your beliefs, even though that evidence comes from the "breath of God" - reality?
How do you validate your belief when there is no substantiating evidence?
If it is not validated then it is not knowledge, it is belief, fantasy, myth, imagination, etc.
How can you perceive reality based on belief, fantasy, myth, imagination, etc.?
Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
Sorry to bring up an old subject but i was following your discussion with DominionSereph in the earlier parts of this thread and noticed that the discussion was never really completed.
DS was making the point that if you can't be 100% sure that your own perceptions are accurate then you can't use your perceptions to validate themselves.
You replied.
quote:What we see with a "science" approach is:
1. My sensory data may or may not be accurate. 2. My sensory data tells me that my sensory data may be accurate (ie does not invalidate it). 3. The same sensory data is experienced by all others who repeat the same {experiment\experience}. 4. Different sensory data is not experienced by all others who repeat the same {experiment\experience}. 5. The probability is that the sensory data is accurate.
Unfortunately I don't see what this is getting at since points 3 and 4 must be removed from the argument because they both rely on your own perceptions of these results of these other people's experiments. For all I know, I might be misreading the things they tell me because my own perceptions are too faulty to give me true readings and I am just making the assumption that they agree with me. Heck! there might not even BE any other people. I only have my own perceptions of them to go by and if those are wrong......
OK It may be Solipism (which I don't subscibe to incidentally) but the argument stands that there is absolutely no way that any person can ever validate their own perceptions. Everything including any and all concievable experiments and validations, are equally suspect and could be nothing more than false readings of a suspect set of perceptions. At the base level, you have to take it on faith that anything other than your own consciousness, exists at all.
First thanks to Razd for pointing me to this discussion. I won't read all 160 messages. I'll just have a go at replying to the OP revised version - take 3.
Observation. If we have little faith then our green faith circle will close in on our other circles constricting them. Our faith is at the leading edge of our knowledge. Our inner circles cannot get bigger if our faith circle is restricting it. Our scientific and philosophy knowledge therefore cannot grow unless our faith grows with it. We must occasionally abandon what we know to take on new information on faith and then work these new ideas and knowledge into our beliefs. So a certain amount of faith is good and necessary. On the other hand if we have too much Faith then we are in danger of sliding into the realm of heresy. Heresy is belief in knowledge taken in faith or otherwise believed to be fact which is contrary to, for example, the orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church or philosophy/science at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.
We could perhaps add a circle around faith called heresy. Knowledge believed to be scientific heresy could be knowledge which has infiltrated through faith and philosophy. They are falsehoods that we have built into our belief system.
The teaching of heresy can be disasterious. Wars have been fought over the knowledge of heresy. This is where God comes in.
On to how can judge the validity of perceptions of reality. Concordance - 2 + 2 = 4 - fair enough. Scientifically proven. Lack of Denial - A brain teaser at first. So the more we deny other knowledge to the contrary the less we have faith in it. This mostly seems to address philosophies or theories. 2 + 2 /= 5. I can prove a theory wrong. But there is little direct knowledge for example to deny Religous heresy.
However we can judge through trust in God. God could perhaps be thought of as siting on the outer boundary of faith. God therefore helps us control all the circles and keep them in a healthy proportions. God also helps stop heresy from entering our belief system. But if we loose sight of God then this boundary is weakened. When we listen to God we may realise that knowledge we thought we believed in to a greater extent can actually be moved to the next outer circle for further scrutiny or rejected and kicked out of belief.
Razd, Very interesting post and very excellent points, and very well laid out.
I will not read all posts (simply too many).
I just want to add something to faith. I am a Christian, and therefore I have faith in God.
Sometimes people mistake faith with an idea of ignorance. But faith is something based on knowledge. Those circles RazD made on his first posts is exactly how I view it. We have science in the middle which is what we observe and test (everyone is a scientists to a certain extent, think of little babies trying to chew and eat everything, they are testing and making conclusions, and we build on that and continually test using our senses).
An example;
Most of us drive cars, or bikes. Why? they are a safe mode of transportation. But we also know that there is a chance of dying in an accident. But we do not stop driving cars based on this fact. We keep driving because we have faith that we will arrive safely at our location. If you believe other wise, you wouldnt be driving the car.
Is driving a car ignorance when you know that you might die? No, because the faith is based on observable evidence that the risks associated with driving a vehicle is very low.
So, faith is a combination of knowing and believing. (Know the risks, believe you are safe).
So all in all, faith needs to be based on some facts, or, scientific grounds. Faith just takes these scientific grounds and extends them to a proposition or conclusion that makes sense for the individual.
... making the point that if you can't be 100% sure that your own perceptions are accurate then you can't use your perceptions to validate themselves.
It's worse than that actually: as soon as your perception is over, all you have is a memory of your perception: can you trust your memory to be accurate on what you actually perceived?
OK It may be Solipism (which I don't subscibe to incidentally) but the argument stands that there is absolutely no way that any person can ever validate their own perceptions.
We can make two assumptions:
(1) there is only {I} - in which case it's all irrelevant, as {I} is the reality, or
(2) there are others - in which case their perceptions are as valid as yours, based on your ability to communicate and remember accurately ...
At the base level, you have to take it on faith that anything other than your own consciousness, exists at all.
No, I can proceed to make a logical choice to assume case (2) applies having already exhausted the logical ramifications of (1).
If we have little faith then our green faith circle will close in on our other circles constricting them.
The green circle does not represent only one persons faith but all faiths of all people. Yours is in one part of that circle as it does NOT encompass the beliefs of hindus and buddhists yes?
I pointed you here specifically because you made the illogical comment:
Message 19 Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
With the assumption that only your god mattered.
I repeat: when are you going to admit the reality and become a Deist?
We could perhaps add a circle around faith called heresy. ... They are falsehoods that we have built into our belief system.
You seem to be afraid of knowledge and want to pull your circle of faith in tight around you, close in around your other circles constricting them.
I see the whole being a map of reality and our perceptions being limited to part of it. Reality outside that realm would not be "heresy" by definition.
Again, this is fear of knowledge that contradicts beliefs, rather than faith or any logical position based on evaluation of the validity of the knowledge. To me this is not reality but delusion:
Concordance is that you and I agree that 2+2=4, that the earth orbits the sun, that the sun is a star in a remote arm of a typical spiral galaxy, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Lack of Denial - A brain teaser at first. So the more we deny other knowledge to the contrary the less we have faith in it.
No, you are in denial because you have a certain belief and you are ignoring the evidence that contradicts your belief: see delusion.
Lack of denial just means that there is no evidence that contradicts your beliefs. Evidence is part of reality, so if you are denying the evidence you are denying part of reality.
For instance, you can deny that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is not based on knowledge or on evidence but on the denial of evidence that contradicts a younger earth.
However we can judge through trust in God. God could perhaps be thought of as siting on the outer boundary of faith. God therefore helps us control all the circles and keep them in a healthy proportions.
My god lives in the reality that extends beyond the circles. Free. Unconstrained.
This is an interesting debate but Razd I'm new here, I haven't participated in any other debates. I should apologise because my response to your OP was rushed, I didn't understand your post fully and this a long post as a result.
RAZD writes:
I pointed you here specifically because you made the illogical comment:
StevieBoy writes:
Message 19 Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
With the assumption that only your god mattered.
The comment was not my best post. It is easily seen as disparaging towards the readers here. It's not that only my God matters, I don't believe that at all. But I think everyone has God and that matters. It is making the point (badly); that for anyone (not directed specifically at people on this board) who think they must subscribe to anything but their own version of God is wrong. It also implies a question: why wouldn't anyone want to believe in God? Perhaps you could tell me why you think the comment is illogical? I don't understand the connection between this and Deism. Nor did I believe it to be particularly relevant to your thread here.
RAZD writes:
I repeat: when are you going to admit the reality and become a Deist?
I found your original suggestion that I "admit your a Deist" intrusive. I hadn't even heard of Deism and I was further irritated that you would ask of it again. The notion that I should "admit" anything is point scoring and does not nurture debate. For what it's worth; I feel blessed to have been raised without any religious beliefs, of any kind, being forced or otherwise placed upon me and I maintain that position. I am free to choose a Religion if I want. What I didn't realise is that God is fundamental to the great source of knowledge that is Faith. Philosophy may have nurtured my belief in God but it was a calling that ultimately led me to God. I give this information in the trust that it not be misused.
The green circle does not represent only one persons faith but all faiths of all people. Yours is in one part of that circle as it does NOT encompass the beliefs of hindus and buddhists yes?
Correct. Your post talked about personal views of reality and individuals having different areas and sizes, and I misinterpreted your diagram No 3 to represent an individuals beliefs rather than the whole of society. Are you exploring how we can all agree on what knowledge fits into which areas? Rather I thought you were discussing commonality in how we individually perceive knowledge.
RAZD writes:
You seem to be afraid of knowledge and want to pull your circle of faith in tight around you, close in around your other circles constricting them.
I wasn't afraid of faith if that is what you mean to imply? I failed to see the wisdom in it. Without faith it was difficult to take on knowledge that is not backed by evidence and/or popular belief. It seems there is much confusion in the world over what God represents.
What led you to make the comment that I was afraid? Diagram 3 represents nicely how humans tend to organise our knowledge on a personal level as well as a whole. Either way I made an observation based on your diagram that I thought might be of interest to you. I reasoned that the knowledge of Faith is important for the advancement of the other realms of knowledge. Do you have any other comments on this?
RAZD writes:
I see the whole being a map of reality and our perceptions being limited to part of it. Reality outside that realm would not be "heresy" by definition. See Definition Above.
RAZD writes:
Again, this is fear of knowledge that contradicts beliefs, rather than faith or any logical position based on evaluation of the validity of the knowledge. To me this is not reality but delusion: See Definition Above.
Are you saying both Heresy and Delusion are not reality? There is an important distinction between Heresy and Delusion that you may have overlooked. Delusion is fixed, false and in confrontation with fact. Heresy is opinion or belief or theories that are widely believed to be false but that could become truth, scientific fact or orthodox through popular belief. Hence heresy exists in the realm of reality if it is true knowledge. But isn't it important to consider belief in knowledge which is false or delusional when judging the validity of perceptions?
RAZD writes:
Concordance is that you and I agree that 2+2=4, that the earth orbits the sun, that the sun is a star in a remote arm of a typical spiral galaxy, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Is this the same as general consensus? I agree that we can agree on what we can see through the telescope and what we find in the earth etc. For the most part we can agree. Although a friend of mine is colourblind and he thinks blue and green are the same colour. He takes it on faith that they are different. He may even believe everyone else is wrong.
RAZD writes:
Lack of denial just means that there is no evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Do you have any examples on how we can use Lack of Denial to judge our perceptions of reality? This I am confused about.
RAZD writes:
My god lives in the reality that extends beyond the circles. Free. Unconstrained.
I am glad to hear that. This is akin to what I believe. As I said I perceive God to be on the outer boundary of faith (as pictured in diagram 3). And there is infinitely small distance between something that is the edge of that line and that which is in the area just beyond. My God is also free to explore the unknown.
If that is all too much, I have two main questions that I would like to ask you:
How do you account for things that are widely believed but are not in fact reality? For example supposing if the current state of belief was that the earth is flat? Or doesn't this matter because we are only representing reality?
In your mind what do each boundary line between the realms of knowledge and the unknown represent? Who determines what knowledge goes where? For example, the scientific community may decide when something becomes scientific fact and we can place this knowledge realm of science.
™ Version 4.2