Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me.
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 61 of 94 (459387)
03-06-2008 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
03-06-2008 6:35 PM


Re: The Difference Is
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
No such tests are available to your descriptions of God. No such evidence of your god existing anywhere but in your head are possible.
That is where you are saddly mistaken.
One day I will die, and one day iano will die. If we are correct and there is a God we will meet and I will know who iano is when we meet.
BTW we will meet and will know each other also but I am afraid under different circumstances but I hope not.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 6:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 7:16 PM ICANT has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 62 of 94 (459388)
03-06-2008 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Straggler
03-06-2008 6:47 PM


Re: Methods/Discourses
I'm up against it at the moment Straggler. But I'll get back to this in the next day or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 6:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 7:13 PM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 94 (459392)
03-06-2008 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by iano
03-06-2008 6:54 PM


Re: Methods/Discourses
Fair play. I know what it is like to start a thread in which the world and his dog all feel the need to explain to you exactly why they believe you are wrong all at once.
It can be exhausting and very time consuming.
In your own time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by iano, posted 03-06-2008 6:54 PM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 94 (459393)
03-06-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
03-06-2008 6:54 PM


Re: The Difference Is
One day I will die, and one day iano will die. If we are correct and there is a God we will meet and I will know who iano is when we meet.
Well this is pushing the limits of what can be described as testable somewhat........
Testable conclusions usually require that the result of the test can be determined either way.
If you are wrong about the afterlife any conclusions could be difficult to establish........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 03-06-2008 6:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 03-06-2008 7:47 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 67 by Rob, posted 03-07-2008 8:19 AM Straggler has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 65 of 94 (459398)
03-06-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
03-06-2008 7:16 PM


Re: The Difference Is
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
If you are wrong about the afterlife any conclusions could be difficult to establish........
If I am right we can compare notes one day.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 7:16 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 66 of 94 (459414)
03-06-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by bluegenes
03-05-2008 1:01 PM


About Iano
bluegenes writes:
Iano doesn't seem to agree with the creationist/I.D. types on this site, who look for external evidence of their Gods, so his evidence, perhaps, arrives in the brain directly, just like thoughts, dreams, hallucinations and delusions.
I actually rather like Iano. His ideas are weird (and wrong, I think), but he at least has the awareness to admit the limitations of his own thinking and the intelligence to acknowledge them. Further, he at least understands the basic principles of debate (which most theists do not).
His perspective is very interesting to me, and has caused me to think very hard about my system of reason. I have concluded that objective reasoning is still the best way to obtain real knowledge, even if what he says is true (of which I am very skeptical).
My trouble so far on this thread is sorting out what everybody means by "subjective" and "objective." This is how Wikipedia compares the two:
quote:
In reason, subjectivity refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject's point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity, which refers to such as based in a separate, distant, and unbiased point of view, such that concepts discussed are treated as objects.
Using these definitions, the brain-in-a-jar analogy is not truly subjective, because reality is still being fed from an external source, and is not based on the point of view of the experiencer.
A truly subjective reality would be one the experiencer creates and constantly modifies him/her/itself. Or, more precisely, it would be a reality that responds to, conforms to or relies upon the experiencer's interpretations. Thus, we would have the power to change it by willingly altering our perception of it (which could explain things like faith moving mountains and stuff).
However, my experience in this universe has taught me that no amount of personal viewpoint therapy or pious prayers will change how much I can lift (Yoda notwithstanding) or how much I have to study to get an "A" on a test.
When I was a missionary a few years back, I had convinced myself that I had enough faith to move mountains. I was wrong. I couldn't even stop my stupid bike from wrecking.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2008 1:01 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by bluegenes, posted 03-10-2008 8:35 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 67 of 94 (459425)
03-07-2008 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
03-06-2008 7:16 PM


Re: The Difference Is
Look at this in terms of your signature:
Ignorance is seen by science as an opportunity for discovery but by religion as a reason for belief.
Which one of us is religious vs. scientific when it comes to the question of God?
You see ignorance of God as a reason to believe he does not exist.
We see it as a confirmation of what the Bible says, 'that man is lost and in need of salvation by God'. We cannot cross from here to there. But if He exists, He could. And He could lead us home.
As for testing, what exactly are you testing for? Coherence?
And remember that many things cannot be tested in the historical sciences. We must infer, based upon what is observed now. The same goes for the future.
We extrapolate from what evidence we do have what happenned in the past and also into the future, using logic as our guide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 7:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Blue Jay, posted 03-07-2008 6:08 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 83 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 12:15 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 68 of 94 (459427)
03-07-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Straggler
03-06-2008 6:47 PM


Re: Methods/Discourses
Straggler in respone to Iano:
Your thinking seems to be summed up thus -
I could be a brain in a jar
If I am a brain in a jar all knowledge is necessarily equally subjective
I can never establsih whether I am a brain in a jar or a conscious being sharing a reality with other conscious beings.
Because it is impossible to know which scenario is true all knowledge is equally subjective regardless of which scenario is true.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first three statements. However the last statement is false as it does not recognise the possibility that in the case of an objective reality shared with other conscious beings there are tests which can be done to determine the nature of that reality more objectively.
The questions then becomes whether or not such tests are possible and do indeed make some forms of investigation more reliable than others.
Such a test does exist. It is the test for logical coherence. And you are absolutely correct that Iano's statement that,'all knowledge is equally subjective', fails to support itself, because that statement would then be only subjective.
Straggler:
It is this last question that needs to be explored.
If logic is not objective, then we have no hope of getting outside of ourselves and seeing reality for what it is.
Isn't it you, who (in the other thread) implies this very idea, by believing that everything is just matter, that we are (in a sense) only brains in a jar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 6:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2008 5:19 PM Rob has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 69 of 94 (459433)
03-07-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
03-04-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Methods/Discources
Modulous writes:
Obviously on one end of the spectrum is the Cartesian demon of solipsism. ...Should we be total sceptics? ...If we are, we can stop discussing it - who do we think we are discussing it with?
...The other end of the spectrum is to accept all experiences as accurate reflections of reality. This could be called naive empiricism.
You've started out by establishing a continuum of possibilities to be considered in approaching the existance I assume I have. Rather than dismiss the extremes postions as quickly as you do, I'd like to look at them with a view to retaining them as possibilities.
Regarding solipsism. There is no need to "stop discussing" should I decide that the solipsist extreme reflects reality. The discussing would be with someone, with something - or even with oneself. So long as there was a desire to discuss, so long as it was interesting for me to do so, then there is no need to stop. One is permitted to extract ones own meaning out of this existance.
In labelling the other extreme naive empiricism, you appear to be condemning it before it even gets off the ground. Surely a fairer description would be perfect empiricism, where everything that I perceive to be the case is the case. That I perceive others similar to myself and they perceive other than I do, doesn't mean that anyone is wrong, it simply means reality has a rather Alice-in-Wonderland quality about it. Were I to suppose myself at this extreme, I would have no reason to suppose my senses fooling me. And would have no requirement for a way to determine that my senses were fooling me.
Both extremes are options - as is somewhere short of either extreme.
So we need to develop a method for knowing when our senses are fooling us and when they are not, but this means making a few assumptions.
1. We exist
2. one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time
3. That our mind can know the truth.
I have already assumed that I exist and exist somewhere on this continuum between extremes. I have also (assuming your assent) pushed your contention back: I am no longer compelled into concluding that others-like-me exist or that my senses might not be reliable.
The assumptions held by me aren't held in order that I can find out whether my senses are fooling me or not. They are assumed because they assist me in establishing a position on the continuum which I feel accurately reflects reality. If others, who also assume they exist on such a continuum, shared these assumptions (in whatever degree they did) then our positions could be said to be closer to each other than if we didn't. None of us could yet claim to be nearer than the other to whatever the true reality might be.
Whilst sharing the first two assumptions with you, the last assumption proposed is particularily problematic - given how you later propose truth to be arrived at. The various "confidence raisers" outlined would likely trip over the same basic obstacle I am going to illustrate - so I'll just look at one simple example:
Consensus: If everybody else agrees with your perception, then it is more likely to be true.
This is situation where a method is assumed to be truth-giving (or likely to be truth-giving). Outside the assumption however, all that can be said about common perceptions, is that x number of people perceive something in the same way. Whether their common perception is in anyway a true reflection of whatever the reality might be or not, is not indicated.
Feeding this method of truth-giving back into the (edited) third assumption gives us this:
3. I assume that my mind can know the truth by assuming the truth-giving method accurate.
Which places the onus back at me to decide whether my assumptions and perceptions are accurate or not. It seems to me that there is no way to escape some general conclusions:
- derivatives of my assumptions and perceptions cannot be utilised to indicate the accuracy or otherwise of my assumptions and perceptions. That certainly includes derivatives: such a assuming others exist or assuming what they assume to be truth-givers to be truth-givers.
- if I do deem a particular perception of mine inaccurate it is because I deem another perception of mine accurate.
Before we can classify something as knowledge rather than belief, we have to argue that the belief is true or very likely to be true. Your argument amounts to 'I perceive it so I believe it and since I perceive it the belief is true'. Which is not a good argument at all. So that can't be your argument.
It might be clear that there isn't a way for me to escape the fact that my assumptions and perceptions are ultimately the highest court in the land as to what it is I know to be the case or not. It should be equally clear that everyone sails in the same boat as me. They are their own highest courts for what ever it is they reckon themselves to know.
I obviously wouldn't argue that what I know to be the case is true. I would only argue that I know God exists and that if my perception is correct then he does exist. And if it isn't then he might not exist.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2008 11:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2008 3:27 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 70 of 94 (459435)
03-07-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Straggler
03-06-2008 6:47 PM


Re: Methods/Discourses
I agree wholeheartedly with the first three statements. However the last statement is false as it does not recognise the possibility that in the case of an objective reality shared with other conscious beings there are tests which can be done to determine the nature of that reality more objectively.
The last of (your) the three statements with which you agreed said this:
I can never establish whether I am a brain in a jar or a conscious being sharing a reality with other conscious beings
If you accept that you cannot establish it being the case that there is an objective reality as described, then it doesn't matter that the possibility is ignored. A possibility that cannot be established is hardly a possibility worth investigating or testing for

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 6:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RickJB, posted 03-07-2008 2:29 PM iano has not replied
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2008 6:02 PM iano has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 71 of 94 (459447)
03-07-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by iano
03-07-2008 11:05 AM


Re: Methods/Discourses
Iano writes:
If you accept that you cannot establish it being the case that there is an objective reality as described, then it doesn't matter that the possibility is ignored. A possibility that cannot be established is hardly a possibility worth investigating or testing for
But that gets no-one anywhere. As I stated earlier, even if reality is an illusion, that illusion is still our reality! Empirical testing within that reality is an entirely valid means of investigating it.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 03-07-2008 11:05 AM iano has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 72 of 94 (459448)
03-07-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Explorer
03-03-2008 3:07 PM


Re: Of Monitors and Gods
Explorer writes:
Nice categorization, Stile! It certainly applies good to many experiences and situations.
Thank-you.
I do think the ideas are sound, and it's important to note that showing we can't know God as well as we know our monitor doesn't provide proof of God's non-existance.
Internal to our perception of reality, this only shows that the monitor we perceive has a high possibility of being real that the idea of God does not.
It's quite possible that God is actually real, just unverifiable within our internal perception of reality. This possibility is equal to the possibility that anything in anyone's imagination has of being real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Explorer, posted 03-03-2008 3:07 PM Explorer has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 73 of 94 (459450)
03-07-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by iano
03-07-2008 10:29 AM


Re: Methods/Discources
Regarding solipsism. There is no need to "stop discussing" should I decide that the solipsist extreme reflects reality. The discussing would be with someone, with something - or even with oneself. So long as there was a desire to discuss, so long as it was interesting for me to do so, then there is no need to stop. One is permitted to extract ones own meaning out of this existance.
Sure you could discuss it all you like. However, you have no way of knowing if it is you that is instigating the discussion or if the discussion is part of the evil genius's program. You have no way of being able to discriminate any truths and there is no progress to be made in any discussion regarding it. Since no progress is possible why bother? You might find it entertaining, so go be entertained by it. Of course I am not dismissing solipsism as a possibility, but as one that is not really worth bothering to discuss - it doesn't get us anywhere interesting or useful.
In labelling the other extreme naive empiricism, you appear to be condemning it before it even gets off the ground. Surely a fairer description would be perfect empiricism, where everything that I perceive to be the case is the case.
Naive isn't meant in the peroritive sense but in the descriptive sense. See This wiki article on Nave empiricism. I'm not condemning it through the use of its label. Naive is just meant to get across that it is a simple view, without nuance or sophistication.
Both extremes are options - as is somewhere short of either extreme.
Yes they are options - but there are problems with them. We can still hold to them when moving into the next part of my post - its just that they can either lead to contradictory statements or no statements above 'I am'.
I have already assumed that I exist and exist somewhere on this continuum between extremes. I have also (assuming your assent) pushed your contention back: I am no longer compelled into concluding that others-like-me exist or that my senses might not be reliable.
I've not suggested you have to conclude that others-like-you exist. I have just suggested that in order to make a statement, the statement maker has to assume it exists.
Whilst sharing the first two assumptions with you, the last assumption proposed is particularily problematic - given how you later propose truth to be arrived at
How do you know that it is problematic unless you have assumed that your mind is able to know truth? That's why it is enescapable. In order to dispute its truth, you have to assume its truth.
For further information, if you are up for a read, try Jonathan Dolhenty's Essay on epistemology.
This is situation where a method is assumed to be truth-giving (or likely to be truth-giving). Outside the assumption however, all that can be said about common perceptions, is that x number of people perceive something in the same way. Whether their common perception is in anyway a true reflection of whatever the reality might be or not, is not indicated.
Well, consensus is a shitty criterion of truth for cautious intellectual reasonings. However, it is a useful guide in quick fire circumstances. If you see a man running towards you with a laser gun taking pot shots at various people, you might think 'is this happening?' When you see everyone else screaming and running away, you might conclude that based on consensus it is likely enough to be true to warrant joining them. Consensus can lead you astray for all the same kinds of reasons - making it a double edged sword. When the mind has more time to come to conclusions, just consensus is to be treated with an enormous amount of scepticism.
3. I assume that my mind can know the truth by assuming the truth-giving method accurate.
There's no need to combine these two things, or feed them back as it were. You don't have to assume the accuracy of any particular truth-giving method. You just have to assume that it is possible to arrive at the truth of a proposition. We might not know how, and we might not ever know how - but it has to be possible to get to the truth, our confidence that we have arrived there nonwithstanding.
Which places the onus back at me to decide whether my assumptions and perceptions are accurate or not.
True enough - you have to make the decision whether you believe they are accurate or not. Philosophers have developed several techniques to help make that decision.
derivatives of my assumptions and perceptions cannot be utilised to indicate the accuracy or otherwise of my assumptions and perceptions.
You won't be able to tell the absolute accuracy of things, but because of assumption number 3, it is at least possible to approximately reason the relative likelihood that a given proposition is true or not.
if I do deem a particular perception of mine inaccurate it is because I deem another perception of mine accurate.
To a certain extent, yes. If for example you perceived a green blues-singing rabbit appear out of nowhere, dance across your keyboard and then vanish again you are left with the decision - which of my perceptions do I trust?
a: Rabbits don't sing, aren't green and don't pop in and out of existence.
b: A rabbit that sung, was green and just popped into and out of existence.
To determine this, we can apply various criteria. For example: can green blues-singing ex-nihilo rabbits exist? Is there any independent evidence of them popping up? Can we instigate another ex-nihilo appearance of our soulful lapine friend?
Or perhaps it corresponds more with the idea that sometimes people fall asleep at the keyboard and have momentary dreams or haullucinations which seem to take place in the real world in real time, but are actually all in the mind?
I'd say the latter and would be happy believing the latter proposition. We can continue applying criteria to increase our confidence that this proposition is true. At a certain point, because of language convenience you could simply say that you know you hallucinated or dreamt that you saw a rabbit. Where 'know' is asterisked with a reference to the principle of fallibilism.
It might be clear that there isn't a way for me to escape the fact that my assumptions and perceptions are ultimately the highest court in the land as to what it is I know to be the case or not.
Ultimately, your perceptions are the highest court in the land as to what you believe to the be the case. Whether you or anyone else decides they want to call this knowledge is another issue. If you want to call it knowledge you'd have to explain how you came to the conclusion that it is true. You'd then be faced with a choice, do I hamper communication by calling something 'knowledge' when my audience would not accept it as knowledge - or do I concede that the criteria of truth I'm employing is suspect in my audiences mind and I will get my point across better by saying 'strongly believe' instead.
You can't show us correspondence with your perception and reality - and that is going to be your biggest obstacle to calling something knowledge. I can't see how it would be coherent with other facts that people already accept as true and it doesn't seem to be a way for you to apply that knowledge in a fashion that could be said to 'work'. Without those, most epistimologists would argue that you do not 'know' anything about God at all. If they were suitably philosophical they would concede that you think you know things about God.
It should be equally clear that everyone sails in the same boat as me. They are their own highest courts for what ever it is they reckon themselves to know.
But it raises problems about what it means to know something. If a friend of yours had a head injury and started believing completely that you looked like iano, but you had been replaced by an imposter - would you be comfortable condeding that your friend knows that you are an imposter? Would that not be saying that your friend's proposition is true?
No, your friend is suffering from Capgras delusion - and you can either agree that he knows you are an imposter or you can say that he really believes it, but that it is a false belief - and you can reason with him about it. You can point to the literature on Capgras delusion, you can say it seems to be caused by a disconnect between the face recognition part of the brain, with the associated emotional response part of the brain. You agree that he thinks you are an imposter but that is because his brain is telling him that you look the same but it isn't making happy-iano-has-come-to-visit-me signals so the brain is also saying that it is not iano, but someone that looks like iano.
He might accept this intellectually but be unable to shake the conviction that you are an imposter.
I obviously wouldn't argue that what I know to be the case is true.
No, and you can't argue that it is even likely to be true because the only criteria of truth that you can appeal to are suspect ones. Thus you can only say that you really believe it is true, just like technically your friend should say.
When do you get to say it is true? Well you aren't the judge over whether it is true, reality is the only judge. You get to say I think the proposition is true because...your only justification seems to be you believe what you perceive. That is a week justification for a variety of reasons, one being that your friend above cannot lay claim to truth based on his perceptions so just based on your simple perceptions it isn't really sufficient to call something 'knowledge'.
If you want to say that I percieve that God exists, and here are all the ways I have ascertained this truth, and here is why I believe that these ways do lead to truth and doesn't lead to a torrent of possible false positives. If you want to use communal language to describe this, you have to play by the rules of the community - if they don't count it as sufficient for knowledge then the word knowledge is not applicable. For these situations a different word has been forged: belief.
I would only argue that I know God exists and that if my perception is correct then he does exist.
By the standards of 'know' that the rest of the English speaking world uses you can't argue that you know God exists, only that you believe that he does. The issue you have is in ascertaining if your perception of God is correct or if it is not just a perception many people have and they give this perception different names, but that it is just a ghost, an internal illusion like deja vu or an 'optical' illusion (which are also internal illusions).
I can determine if my perception of an illusion is true (or false) by using accepted criteria of truth. It turns out that the acorns in my example really do seem to be moving, but using any solid criteria they aren't actually moving. Which perception is true? The perception that they are moving, or the perception that they are not?
I think the case that they are not moving is, in fact, on much stronger grounds than the case that they are moving so that is what I believe to the case. If I wish to communicate this to someone else, given my confidence in the criteria I have used, I can say 'I know the acorns aren't moving'. Obviously if we explored the proposition in depth, it would have to have a disclaimer regarding fallibilism - but for linguistic pragmatism, 'know' communicates the necessary details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by iano, posted 03-07-2008 10:29 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by iano, posted 03-12-2008 7:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 94 (459458)
03-07-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rob
03-07-2008 8:32 AM


Re: Methods/Discourses
Isn't it you, who (in the other thread) implies this very idea, by believing that everything is just matter, that we are (in a sense) only brains in a jar?
AAArrrggghhh!
I am not sure I can cope with tackling you on two seperate fronts relating to almost the same questions. Lets keep this to the thread you started.
Multiple brains in multiple jars each connected to sensory perception devices that feed us individual information realting to a shared external reality would be a better description (very Matrixesque)
Anyway likeI say lets keep this to the "What is science" thread you started. Once I have got my head round the contents of your essay there is ample opportunity to pick up on this sort of thing.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rob, posted 03-07-2008 8:32 AM Rob has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 75 of 94 (459463)
03-07-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by iano
03-07-2008 11:05 AM


Re: Methods/Discourses
If you accept that you cannot establish it being the case that there is an objective reality as described, then it doesn't matter that the possibility is ignored.
Totally untrue. It very much matters in terms of establishing whether or not different forms of evidence MIGHT be superior or not.
In post 21 you stated
As we might now see, neither of us can tell. I know what I assume and I think it's what you assume. I think we both assume our perception of reality is that it is objective and external to us.
Yet now
A possibility that cannot be established is hardly a possibility worth investigating or testing
Is the very nature of the reality that you have so readily agreed that YOU assume to exist not worth investigating?
This seems like an evasion tactic
There are only two possibilities. We exist in one of them. If we wish to understand the nature of reality both of them are very much worth considering on the basis that either one may be true.
In one possibility it is evident that some forms of evidence are superior to others (I have argued)
In one possibility all forms of evidence are equally valid (we both agree to this)
Your assertion that all forms of evidence are equally valid regardless of which possibility is true is based ONLY on the 'brain in the jar' scenario (and on your desire for this conclusion to be true)
This is selective reasoning at best.
What if we do exist in the first scenario? The scenario you have actually claimed to assume!!!!
UNLESS you can demonstrate that your assertion applies to BOTH possible scenarios you MUST logically accept that it is wholly possible that we exist in the objective reality scenario and that it is thus possible that some forms of evidence are superior to others.
Your argument falls apart unless you can successfully argue that independent corroboration has no bearing on standards of evidence in an objective reality and that all evidence is equally valid regardless of scenario.
Thus far you have evaded tackling that question
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 03-07-2008 11:05 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024