|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Perceptions of Reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
"Go back and look at your...conclusion" I told you what my conclusion was. It was a very modest conclusion. I'll try yet again. Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and a host of others condluded their examination on the question of God's existence by asserting theism not agnosticism (as you erroneously claim they must). It might comfort you emotionally to believe that they were agnostics, but they were not. Their logic did not force them "to agnostic[ism]" as you said it must. Further, I did not ever condlude that these theistic philosophers were right or that agnostic philosophers were wrong. I simply said that their examination of the question "Does God exist?" did not cause them to embrace agnosticism. My condlustion is quite valid. Why you continue to emotionally invest into my statement something I never said and then become emotionally inflamed by your own investment is very curious.Socrates, Plato, Aristotle...were theists not agnostics. Your insistence that I concluded anything more than this does not make it so. You justify your refusal to answer my questions with the following statement: "If you can't see the glaring error, [what's the] point" When I was in the 5th grade, the bully in the school used to pick on me. His name was Floyd Leblanc. I'm sure you know the type. He was angry at the world, always sarcastic and rude. He would call people names, insult them, push them around call them stupid and laugh. (sound familiar?) I finally got tired of the insults and stood up to him only to discover that he was a coward: "I would fight you," he said, "but what's the point; I would only get my clothes dirty." Nice try.
"Angry? You posted a bunch of opinions..." My opinion that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were theists not agnostics is a true and defensable opinion. On the other hand, the opinion (which you would like me to defend) that "Scocrates, Plato, and Aristotle were theists; therefore, this proves that God exists and the Bible is true" is silly, and no reasonable person would embrace it. Since neither you nor I embrace this silly notion, why not move on and converse like adults about important matters?
"your point was invalidated" Once again, you never even addressed my point. My point was that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were theists not agnostics. The only point you invalidated was the straw man that you constructed. In order to invalidate MY point, you must demonstrate that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, were agnostics. You are clearly wrong on this. They were theists. If you continue to insist that they were agnostic, then show your evidence or concede the point that you are wrong.
"Please quote correctly" I did quote correctly. I put quotation marks around the two words that you used in reference to atheism: "strong" and "logical." If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have used these words. If you did mean it, then you shouldn't be afraid to respond and defend your statement (as you seem to be). If you're afraid to respond and defend what you clearly said, then (as you have so elequently stated elsewhere) "why should anyone be concerned with what you think?" Unfortunately, I have found that, perhaps like you, most people simply harbor cherished opinions and are afraid to submit those opinions to rational analysis. I wonder why you're hesitant to answer my seven questions? I'm perfectly willing to answer ANY question you ask. It takes the semantic sophistication of a 6 year old to figure this one out. I hope you wont run away like Floyd Leblanc did. I ask kindly once again for you to "Answer the 7 questions". P.S. "The glory of man is his intellect; the perfection of the intellect his greatest good."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you think I’m being simplistic or nave in trying to suggest the small, inner voice referred to by many as an integral part of the ”god experience’ may be no more than an ability to tap into knowledge stored in the sub-conscious mind? No. That would be fairly consistent with modern psychology. I'm not sure, however, if it is sufficient to explain all such experiences. Several people talk about precognition experiences (warner for example on this thread), for example, and it is hard for that to come from {old} information eh? Or is there some universal subconscious that can be tapped by anyone? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I told you what my conclusion was. It was a very modest conclusion. I'll try yet again. It is the argument from authority and personal incredulity, not a conclusion. To be a conclusion it would have to come from a valid logical structure, which you have failed to present. To be a valid conclusion it has to be based on valid precepts, and you have totally failed to present ANY. Your argument is that two philosophers from over 2000 years ago concluded god, therefore god. You are also missing the middle precept that connects these two -- another logical failure. You fail to consider all the other philosophers that conclude {no god}, thus your argument is also a straw man argument based on part of the evidence, which is the logical fallacy of Illicit Minor.
When I was in the 5th grade, the bully in the school used to pick on me. His name was Floyd Leblanc. I'm sure you know the type. He was angry at the world, always sarcastic and rude. He would call people names, insult them, push them around call them stupid and laugh. (sound familiar?) I finally got tired of the insults and stood up to him only to discover that he was a coward: "I would fight you," he said, "but what's the point; I would only get my clothes dirty." Nice try. This is now an ad hominem logical fallacy, where you are attacking the person and not the message.
I did quote correctly. I put quotation marks around the two words that you used in reference to atheism: "strong" and "logical." This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. What you posted was not what I said, whether you included two words in it or not, you attributed the sentence to me. That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Like I said, your argument is laced with logical fallacies, and the need to proceed with any discussion of them is voided by their fallacy.
Once again, you never even addressed my point. Your point is invalid due to numerous logical fallacies, therefore it does not need to be addressed: it's a waste of bandwidth. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5341 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
RAZD writes: Several people talk about precognition experiences (warner for example on this thread), for example, and it is hard for that to come from {old} information eh? Or is there some universal subconscious that can be tapped by anyone? 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. Having said that, I guess this experiment suffers from the same potential pitfalls you highlighted regarding the work of Libet and Lau etc. I’m not aware of any other research that has managed to produce positive results, but it is clearly an area of interest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
Your argument is that two philosophers from over 2000 years ago concluded god, therefore god. I concluded no such thing. In fact, I specifically said that neither you nor I embrace such a rediculous notion, so why not move on like adults to important matters. This could easily be resolved by you showing me where I said such a silly thing. But you won't of course. You will continue to pretend that I said something that you know I never said. And, we both know why you are doing it. No amount of pedanting can change the facts. Nice try. "It is to the glory of God to have as enemies men so unreasonable." Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your argument is that two philosophers from over 2000 years ago concluded god, therefore god. I concluded no such thing.
Message 127 zaron writes: Plato in the tenth book of his dialog entitled the Laws, and Aristotle in the eighth book of his Physics and the twelfth book of his Metaphysics and in all three texts the philosophical conclusion reached by purely rational thought is that God does exist. That is your statement that "two philosophers from over 2000 years ago concluded god" and
same post writes: My question to you is: Why do you believe that the rational grounds for affirming Gods existence is insufficient? That is your affirmation that "therefore god" is a logical conclusion, it comes after a paragraph of why you find it amazing as well. You presented no other substantiation for said position. And you presented no counter arguement. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
The reason you can't find anywhere on any of my posts the statement: "Plato and Aristotle were theists; therefore, God exists" is because I never said it nor meant to imply it as I have tried to clarify numerous times. What I said was: Plato and Aristitle were theists; therefore, they were not agnostics." You have spent needless time and energy proving that something I never said is false. As I told you several times, I am in complete agreement with you on this point. Just because Plato and Aristotle and a host of other great philosophers condluded philosophically that God exists, this doesn't prove that God exists. In fact I specifically told you that no reasonable person would embrace such a ridiculous notion. I went on to say that since you and I agree on this point, why not move on like adults to more important matters? You need not continue to say I believe something I never said. In fact, I am an expert at what I believe; let me take you there. To important matters:
You seem extremely well versed in philosophy. Can you tell me--what is a contingent being?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Can you tell me what reality is? That's the topic of the thread (not whatever you want to talk about).
quote: Not much to go on eh? How do you know that you know what you know? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
Can you tell me what reality is? Yes, that which exists outside the mind.
How do you know that you know what you know? To answer your question I must know what you mean by knowledge. When I say that I know something, I mean that I possess some truth about it. 1. Is this what you mean? I think the two extremes that should be avoided is the extreme which says that nothing is knowable at all and the other extreme of saying that everything is equally knowable. I think self-evident truths (what the ancients called necessary truths) are the only truths we can know with certitude and finality, i.e. the whole is always greater than any on of its parts (50% of a thing is always less than 100% of that same thing). You know it and I know it. But there is also knowledge we can have that is not as certain as a self-evident truth- these are things we know with less certitude and incorrigibility as a self-evident truth- these are well founded opinions based on evidence and reasons and sufficient probative force to justify claiming the opinion we affirm is true even though it is not self evidently true, i.e., if you jump off a 500 story building you will be killed. The truth of this statement is based on a preponderance of evidence even though it is not self-evident. I think that science, history, and philosophy give us knowledge in this sense, well-founded opinion based on evidence and reasons and probative force. I think your question about reality is relevant here. I think William James is correct when he says that two things are necessary for knowledge to take place: One- a knower (that's you and I) and two- a thing that can be known (that's reality) 2. Do you agree? 3. Would you agree with me that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth? Edited by zaron, : typo errors needed correcting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
zaron writes:
Plato in the tenth book of his dialog entitled the Laws, and Aristotle in the eighth book of his Physics and the twelfth book of his Metaphysics and in all three texts the philosophical conclusion reached by purely rational thought is that God does exist. That is your statement that "two philosophers from over 2000 years ago concluded god" One final comment on this. I did indeed say that. It was to show the error of your thinking that philosophy only ended in agnosticism. History clearly shows that it had not. I showed you that.
Same post writes: My question to you is: Why do you believe that the rational grounds for affirming Gods existence is insufficient? The reason for this question was to try and understand why you held the opinion that philosophy ended in agnosticism. You apparently have the opinion for a reason. I was simply wanting to know it. I told you that two philosophers concluded God after you told me you believe philosophy ends in agnosticism. Don't you understand why I would ask that final question?
That is your affirmation that "therefore god" is a logical conclusion, it comes after a paragraph of why you find it amazing as well. You assumed my beliefs by a question that I asked you. If I told you that some people think frogs are green and you responded with "I don't think some people think that." If I then named those that do hold that belief and then asked you why you think that frogs are not green, does that automatically mean that I believe frogs are green? How foolish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When I say that I know something, I mean that I possess some truth about it. 1. Is this what you mean? The problem is to validate that truth externally - just thinking you 'possess' it doesn't mean that you do.
I think self-evident truths (what the ancients called necessary truths) are the only truths we can know with certitude and finality, i.e. the whole is always greater than any on of its parts (50% of a thing is always less than 100% of that same thing). You know it and I know it. I think we'll find that this {set} is small and rather inconsequential, and that with a little effort one can find exceptions to any such rule.
But there is also knowledge we can have that is not as certain as a self-evident truth- these are things we know with less certitude and incorrigibility as a self-evident truth- these are well founded opinions based on evidence and reasons and sufficient probative force to justify claiming the opinion we affirm is true even though it is not self evidently true, i.e., if you jump off a 500 story building you will be killed. The truth of this statement is based on a preponderance of evidence even though it is not self-evident. These are observations that have been replicated innumerable times in different places by different people at different times. To me this indicates a reality independent of those variables. Being able to eliminate personal opinion is necessary to move from opinion.
I think your question about reality is relevant here. I think William James is correct when he says that two things are necessary for knowledge to take place: One- a knower (that's you and I) and two- a thing that can be known (that's reality) I would add someone who agrees with the knower. The more agreement between observations that have been replicated innumerable times in different places by different people at different times is why I'd agree:
...that science, history, and philosophy give us knowledge in this sense, well-founded opinion based on evidence and reasons and probative force. 3. Would you agree with me that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth? But it is not sufficient in cases where certain things cannot be contradicted. Let's take your series of posts on the relation between Plato, Aristotle, and the conclusion that god exists. To my view anyone reading those posts see you change your position from one side to the other, changing what you are arguing FOR, and that it appears that the sole purpose is to "catch me out" with some statement. I see your position as either being false at the start or false at the end, because (1) you did not really in good faith present your FULL opinion at the start, but were playing a semantic game of entrapment, OR(2) you changed your position after it was shown to be logically inconsistent with reality -- including the fact that there are other philosophers that have concluded "no god necessary" -- so that you could then try to claim your purpose was some other stand afterwards. One that now has no point. My position on these boards is that the only thing you have to evaluate the position of people are the words they post. You seem to be arguing that I've made a mistake in your position, and feel obliged to point it out so that this can be acknowledged for some kind of empty acclaim. There was another recent poster that has tried this gambit: "DominionSeraph" ending with Message 230, who claimed a rather pathetic victory after taking a long number of posts to discuss something that was irrelevant to the thread, and where he was, simply, by the evidence, wrong. Obviously both these views cannot be true, yet one truth is mine and one truth is yours. How do we test this? Can I trust an honest answer from you given the conclusion I've drawn? Can you demonstrate that my conclusion is false? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
hey!!! I'm back! Finally. You guys keeping it "real" in here?
Wherever "here" is and whatever "real" is! LOL!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
You didn't answer my first question: "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. 1. Again, when you say you know something, do you mean you possess some truth about it? Yes or no. You seem to reply "yes." 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 failed to give me your example. 2. Can you give me once example in which 50% of a thing is not less than 100% of that same thing? You say: "I would add someone who agrees with the knower."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? 3. If no one believed Einstein about the divisibility of the atom, would it still be true that the atom is divisible? 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." 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?" We're getting there. Be patient and answer my questions. You say: Can I trust an honest answer from you..?" Yes. You say: "Can you demonstrate that my conclusion is false?" Yes. Truth is discoverable by reason. Sincerely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zaron Junior Member (Idle past 6323 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
Hear from you after the holidays I suppose.
Have a good one friend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From The Forest and the Sea, by Marston Bates, 1960, Random House.
quote: So we can take two routes - one the sophist narcism of Plato that denies an external reality and that leads to solipsism or last-thursdayism or mind-games - and the other that leads to scientific investigation of what shadows of an external reality that can be described, analyzed, "understood" through the scientific method ... and the premise that this external reality obeys certain deducible "natural" laws that describe how things behave in a consistent manner.
quote: Thus we have a situation where we know we have an aspect of reality that is not measured - described, analyzed, "understood" - within the science of biology or ecology. But is this a known aspect of {biology\ecology} or is it due to our human inability to perceive radio waves without assistance? Perhaps because we are "deaf" to radio waves we cannot see how organisms could perceive them, and may not even consider testing for it. Since this book was written there have been some claims that cows are affected by power lines due to radiation of energy\radio waves. As far as I know this has not been confirmed, but it raises the possibility that there are organisms that can sense, make some use of, radio waves.
quote:(note: = angstrom = 1/100,000,000 millimeters) quote: As we have seen in the Peppered Moths and Natural Selection birds also see in ultraviolet AND they see more colors (they have four or five cones compared to our three -- see Message 98 in the thread (and later discussions) or Ecology of Vision - Exploring the Fourth Dimension)
Bird colour vision differs from that of humans in two main ways. First, birds can see ultraviolet light. It appears that UV vision is a general property of diurnal birds, having been found in over 35 species using a combination of microspectrophotometry, electrophysiology, and behavioural methods. So, are birds like bees? Bees, like humans, have three receptor types, although unlike humans they are sensitive to ultraviolet light, with loss of sensitivity at the red end of the spectrum. ... As well as seeing very well in the ultraviolet, all bird species that have been studied have at least four types of cone. They have four, not three, dimensional colour vision. Recent studies have confirmed tetra-chromacy in some fish and turtles, so perhaps we should not be surprised about this. It is mammals, including humans, that have poor colour vision! Whilst UV reception increases the range of wavelengths over which birds can see, increased dimensionality produces a qualitative change in the nature of colour perception that probably cannot be translated into human experience. Bird colours are not simply refinements of the hues that humans, or bees, see, these are hues unknown to any trichromat. We also saw that ultraviolet pictures of the moths showed they were visible in ultraviolet on the backgrounds where they were camouflaged to the human eye, and that the behavior of the predatory birds showed the moths were ALSO camouflaged to the birds. This leads us to the conclusion that the tetrachromatic birds eye was not predominated by ultraviolet, but that the view is a blend, and that in that blended color view the coloration of the moths still gave beneficial camouflage ability. Another conclusion is that other moths - with their shifted trichromatic vision - may also be able to see other moths easily, so they could be visible to each other and invisible to birds. This may not apply to these moths (they fly and mate at night) but it could be significant to other insects. We may be able to test some of these concepts, as there are some tetrachromatic people:
Susan Hogan can't be sure, but it wouldn't surprise her if she turned out to be a tetrachromat. A tetrachromat is a woman who can see four distinct ranges of color, instead of the three that most of us live with. A genetic test would be needed to verify whether Mrs. Hogan truly fits that description, but it could help explain why the interior decorator can hold up three samples of beige wall paint, "and I can see gold in one and gray in another and green in another, but my clients can't tell the difference." Each of the three standard color-detecting cones in the retina -- blue, green and red -- can pick up about 100 different gradations of color, Dr. Neitz estimated. But the brain can combine those variations exponentially, he said, so that the average person can distinguish about 1 million different hues. A true tetrachromat has another type of cone in between the red and green -- somewhere in the orange range -- and its 100 shades theoretically would allow her to see 100 million different colors. Dr. Neitz, who conducts his research with his wife Maureen, said only women have the potential for super color vision. That's because the genes for the pigments in green and red cones lie on the X chromosome, and only women have two X chromosomes, creating the opportunity for one type of red cone to be activated on one X chromosome and the other type of red cone on the other one. In a few cases, women may have two distinct green cones on either X chromosome. He estimated that 2 percent to 3 percent of the world's women may have the kind of fourth cone that lies smack between the standard red and green cones, which could give them a colossal range. So we see that human perceptions of reality are hampered by our normal senses, that we are blind to the colors that some birds and insects (and reptiles etc) see, both in range (spectrum seen) and in depth (numbers of colors seen). We also see this with hearing. Again from Bates:
quote: People that cannot see with "normal" (human) vision are labelled color-blind, blind, or partially blind. People that cannot hear "normal" (human) sound ranges are labelled deaf or partially deaf. We have words that {label\describe} impairment in these senses, but there is one sense where we have no such {label} word for impairment below "normal" (human) sense levels:
quote: We are all {blind\deaf}impaired in taste\smell sensing. Certainly in this regard there is a "radio tower" in any forest or field, broadcasting "radio waves" that we are unable to sense, but that other animals are completely aware of. It is entirely possible that there are other "towers" that we are totally unaware of, because we are unable to sense their output in any way, we cannot sense them with our "normal" (limited human) perceptions nor with our {mechanical\electrical\chemical} instruments - in part because we don't know where to look. These "towers" are as much a part of the external reality - Bates' third level of reality, that is also the reality of this thread that we are trying to perceive - as his radio tower in the forest that showed radio waves were a part of that environment, whether organisms were aware of the waves or not. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024