Your entire "Perceptions of Reality" argument (Venn diagrams and all) takes what is perceived and then tries to determine how well this is evidenced. By taking this "top down" approach ...
Curiously, I consider it a bottom up approach -- first establish the foundation: what is evidence of reality, and how do we know it is true to reality.
We start with the obvious: all experiences of the external world are perceived through our senses, and our mind tries to understand the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality. Each person is an island of experience and understanding, as no one person can share their actual subjective experience of reality with another person.
What we can do is compare experiences and find those where it seems we agree so completely that it appears, for instance, that a green wooden chair is a green wooden chair and it exists independently of either of our experience of it as a green wooden chair.
This thread is about the nature of evidence. If the difference between concepts which are empirically evidenced and concepts which inherently cannot be empirically evidenced are not on topic or relevant then I am not really sure what is?
"Empirically" in this case meaning multiple experiences that correlate to form a consistent pattern.
The point being that we can take it as "given" that a person with no way to perceive an external world cannot provide evidence of that external world, and thus we don't need to have 50 posts discussing it.
The real problem though, is that you are using a false dichotomy: you have defined group (A) as "empirically evidenced" concepts and group (B) as "concepts which inherently cannot be empirically evidenced" while you studiously, and continuously ignore all the evidence in between. There are concepts where we just don't know if they are "empirically evidenced" or not, because we either do not have enough evidence, or the evidence is inconclusive. You've already had to equivocate on this point.
I ask that we be allowed to explore what exactly it is that constitutes "evidence". Nothing more.
Then let's start with what evidence IS, not with your opinion about what is NOT evidence of reality, then once we have determined that we should be in a much better position to talk about what doesn't make the grade.
I would say we have a basic criteria of how each person perceives reality, from culture, from learning and from experience. We believe certain things are true reality because:
(cultural) many people accept it as true - trees, houses, other people, etc - have such an overwhelming degree of confirmation that we define this as reality
(learning) scientific replication in multiple instances and places and by multiple people confirms the validity of such replicated experiences as part of reality, and finally,
(experience) personal experience, the total sum of our individual experiences, especially the many mundane everyday unremarkable everyday experiences.
Now we can take it as given, that some experiences bear no relationship to reality. We can stipulate that a person unable to sense the external world in any way, is not capable of perceiving that world by ordinary normal senses. Further, we can note that it only takes one such example to show that experience does not necessarily translate into de facto evidence of reality.
However, we also need to note that the evidence from each of the categories listed above needs to be regarded as tentative - in differing degrees, but tentative.
Apparently, Straggler, you can't understand that this has been answered. The contradiction is all in your head, a subjective concept with no bearing on reality. You employ logical fallacy after logical fallacy and convince yourself that you have proven something with confirmation bias.
We start with the obvious: all experiences of the external world are perceived through our senses, and our mind tries to understand the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality.
No, that is completely backwards, where did you get this idea? Sane people perceive the world through their senses and use this to conclude *what* is consistent with reality!
Only a lunatic would look at the world and modify it to fit some internal concept of reality; where could you possibly have come up with such a concept, and why do you think what you think internally has any effect on the truth of reality?
Sane people perceive the world through their senses and use this to conclude *what* is consistent with reality!
Ah, so you have a priori knowledge of what is reality? How did you come by that?
Only a lunatic would look at the world and modify it to fit some internal concept of reality; where could you possibly have come up with such a concept, and why do you think what you think internally has any effect on the truth of reality?
You are welcome to your opinion, and curiously, your opinion has no effect on reality, but we are all agog, yet patiently waiting for you to tell us how you came to *know* reality without using your senses.
We start with the obvious: all experiences of the external world are perceived through our senses, and our mind tries to understand the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality.
Phage0070 writes:
Sane people perceive the world through their senses and use this to conclude *what* is consistent with reality!
RAZD writes:
Ah, so you have a priori knowledge of what is reality? How did you come by that?
Reading comprehension dude, that was *your* position. You said you thought people looked at the world and tried to understand it in a way consistent with their beliefs about reality, aka priori assumptions. I said that people should look at the world and use that to adjust their concept of what reality is.
This is the crux of the disagreement I think, so don't try to put your words in my mouth. If your position sounds crazy then entertain the idea that it actually is.
Reading comprehension dude, that was *your* position.
ROFLOL. I love it when people tell me what *my* position was when they failed to understand what I said.
This is the crux of the disagreement I think, so don't try to put your words in my mouth. If your position sounds crazy then entertain the idea that it actually is.
I've only quoted your words, so if they did not come from you, I certainly did not put them there. Let's take it in baby steps:
Do you agree or do you disagree that we only know about a world external to ourselves through our senses?
If you disagree with that, then you must have some way of determining what is reality without use of senses, and one such way would be to have a priori knowledge, another would be through some mystical psychic ability.
The next question then becomes, if you have no a priori or psychic knowledge of reality, then how do we come to understand what reality involves?
If this understanding does not rely totally on your perceptions of the world external to yourself, then, again you must have some a priori or psychic knowledge of reality.
Do you agree, or do you disagree, that we get this understanding of what reality involves, from the evidence of reality ... as we perceive it?
quote:I would say we have a basic criteria of how each person perceives reality, from culture, from learning and from experience. We believe certain things are true reality because:
(cultural) many people accept it as true - trees, houses, other people, etc - have such an overwhelming degree of confirmation that we define this as reality
(learning) scientific replication in multiple instances and places and by multiple people confirms the validity of such replicated experiences as part of reality, and finally,
(experience) personal experience, the total sum of our individual experiences, especially the many mundane everyday unremarkable everyday experiences.
(bold for empHAsis)
Please note that not one of these suggests a priori or psychic knowledge of reality, so if you think my position revolved around a priori knowledge then please demonstrate where I've said it.
Note that when you put that together with the phrase you excerpted (quote-mined?) then it becomes clear (or should for those with reading comprehension skill)
You said you thought people looked at the world and tried to understand it in a way consistent with their beliefs about reality, aka priori assumptions.
And then went on to note how those beliefs were founded, not on a priori beliefs but on experience of reality through perceptions.
Evidently you misunderstood (so much for "reading comprehension dude"): what I said was that they looked at the world and tried to understand it in a way consistent their understanding of reality, an understanding that has accumulated over time, and that they believe to be true to actual reality.
I am still of the opinion that the quality of the evidence in question depends on the rationality of the question or belief as well as the the rationality of those who employ it.
If subjective evidence is dismissed outright as not being a acceptable means to find truth then we are at the mercy of our senses and can not convey truth by any other means than empirically. I just do not accept this is so.
Instincts, are they non-objective? Do they not serve to direct our minds and bodies to react to the physical world.
Feelings, nothing more than electromagnatism eh? These types of discussion always seem to end up in a argument about dualism and monism, Or epistemology
I have a feeling that the final word on what we can know will be the final word.
Do you agree or do you disagree that we only know about a world external to ourselves through our senses?
I certainly agree.
RAZD writes:
The next question then becomes, if you have no a priori or psychic knowledge of reality, then how do we come to understand what reality involves?
Through our experiences of course.
RAZD writes:
Please note that not one of these suggests a priori or psychic knowledge of reality, so if you think my position revolved around a priori knowledge then please demonstrate where I've said it.
A priori knowledge is something you have independent of experience; such as, for instance, interpreting an experience that is not completely in line with your previous experiences as being misleading, and concluding that it must be something other than it appears. When you say ...our mind tries to understand the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality, you are saying that your prior beliefs, as founded in observation as they are, always trump new observations. If a person followed this then reality could end up quite different from their internal view of it, since new experiences would be warped by their preconceived ideas.
Instead I am saying that people (should) use observations to define their reality as a rule. When they experience something that differs from their previous experience they may suspect that the experience is deceptive or they lack complete information, but it is only through observation that they can actually confirm such things. This means that if further investigation reveals the experience to be genuine they don’t explain it away to somehow fit their internal conception of reality, they modify their internal conception of reality.
It may seem like a subtle distinction of order or precedence, but it marks the difference between a religious viewpoint: God made the world in 7 days! What about these fossil records, eh? God put them there!
and a logical one: God made the world in 7 days! What about these fossil records, eh? Well there is something else going on here it seems!
IF you start from the premise that everything that is believed is evidenced unless contradicted by superior evidence, as your "Perceptions of Reality" theory does:
THEN you will inevitably fall foul of an inability to explain how belief in concepts that are inherently unable to be empirically experienced can possibly be evidenced at all.
This will inevitably lead to inherent contradictions in your position. Contradictions such as the one detailed in Message 145
Your whole theory is an exercise in treating belief itself as evidence for that which is believed. This is innately and indisputably circular. This is indisputably an exercise in confirmation bias run riot.
In the name of clarity and non-ambiguity can you please indicate to those of us that missed it your specific answer to the contradiction in your position detailed in Message 145?
A specific statement rather than a link to an entire (and very lengthy) post if at all possible.
I am happy to move onto the detailed flaws in your wider position (of which I can think of many) but only once you have either accepted or somehow reconciled the innate contradiction in your position.
Good, then we are in agreement. Probably a lot more so than you originally felt.
Through our experiences of course.
Which are experienced through our senses. Thus we are back to the beginning point: "We start with the obvious: all experiences of the external world are perceived through our senses" ... unless you have some other way. Do you agree that this is valid?
A priori knowledge is something you have independent of experience; ...
Not really, it is knowledge 'from before'. That is what the words mean. Thus it can be knowledge based on previous experience, but you are still stuck with the initial perception of reality coming via the senses: we still only know about the external world through our senses, and that there is no perception of reality that doesn't come through our senses originally.
... such as, for instance, interpreting an experience that is not completely in line with your previous experiences as being misleading, and concluding that it must be something other than it appears.
Yes, that is one way that "our mind tries to understand the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality" - certainly when there is a conflict between new evidence and previous total perceptions of reality, there is cognitive dissonance involved.
Also, rather obviously, when there is no conflict, the new experience is easily processed and added to the previous total perceptions of reality. Would you agree that in all the cases where there is no conflict, between new experiences and our previous sum total perceptions of reality and the "world view" we have of reality based on all those perceptions of reality, that our mind easily understands "the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality" or not?
Would you also agree that any 'world view' - where 'world view' is the sum of your past experiences and perceptions of reality - that does not have any conflicts with any known evidence is more likely to be true to reality, than one with one or more such conflicts?
... you are saying that your prior beliefs, as founded in observation as they are, always trump new observations.
Not always, no. Just that the end result will still be consistency, and that it will be consistent with what we believe about reality at that point in time. When I solve a soduko puzzle, that solution is part of my perception of the puzzle, no matter how impossible the solution seemed before. Rejecting new evidence is one way conformity is arrived at, and it is common when cognitive dissonance is high. Alternatively belief may be altered by new evidence and that is how consistency is achieved ... and how cognitive dissonance is resolved.
However, it is more likely that long held beliefs will be initially preferred over new evidence, for that is how our minds work. Certainly the new evidence does not trump long held beliefs without strong confirmation of the new evidence, and a single incident of perception is usually not sufficient to overturn years of belief. This is part of human nature, and to deny that is to deny the reality of human nature.
If a person followed this then reality could end up quite different from their internal view of it, since new experiences would be warped by their preconceived ideas.
Agreed. Have you not seen actual instances of this happening? Of course this occurs, otherwise we would all be rational robots of information processing and there would be no YEC creationists eh? Notice that I am not saying that this is what should occur, rather I am saying that this is what in fact occurs. We need to understand the process first, and then determine what improves our perceptions of reality so that we can avoid such situations.
It may seem like a subtle distinction of order or precedence, but it marks the difference between a religious viewpoint: God made the world in 7 days! What about these fossil records, eh? God put them there!
and a logical one: God made the world in 7 days! What about these fossil records, eh? Well there is something else going on here it seems!
Interestingly, I wonder where you think the religious viewpoint comes from? All the best evidence shows that people aren't born with it, so it must come through experience and perceptions, yes? Do you think such beliefs are not confirmed for people by their comparisons of evidence with other people? You don' think they build their world view understanding of reality by the same process - from culture, from learning and from experience? Would you not agree that they believe certain things are true reality because of their past experiences and the perceptions of reality they have built over time?
Instead I am saying that people (should) use observations to define their reality as a rule.
Curiously, most people are completely unconcerned with your preferred approach, if not totally unaware of it. Interestingly the question is not what people should do but rather what they really do.
Would you agree, or not, that people in general are convinced that their view of reality is true, and that all the evidence of their experience and perceptions of reality confirm that view? Do you also agree, or not, that most experiences do not conflict with anyone's perception of reality, and that those that do conflict are rare?
When they experience something that differs from their previous experience they may suspect that the experience is deceptive or they lack complete information, but it is only through observation that they can actually confirm such things.
That is one way to improve your assurance that what you perceive as reality is in fact likely to be reality, however we just are not able to do that in every instance, nor are likely to really need to do this with every perception of reality. But let's not get ahead just yet.
The question is one of forming a foundation for determining what reality is most likely to consist of. In determining that, we start with what people in general think reality includes, and how they come to believe that:
quote:We start with the obvious: all experiences of the external world are perceived through our senses, and our mind tries to understand the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality. Each person is an island of experience and understanding, as no one person can share their actual subjective experience of reality with another person. ... ... each person perceives reality, from culture, from learning and from experience. We believe certain things are true reality because:
(cultural) many people accept it as true - trees, houses, other people, etc - have such an overwhelming degree of confirmation that we define this as reality
(learning) scientific replication in multiple instances and places and by multiple people confirms the validity of such replicated experiences as part of reality, and finally,
(experience) personal experience, the total sum of our individual experiences, especially the many mundane everyday unremarkable everyday experiences.
Now we can take it as given, that some experiences bear no relationship to reality. We can stipulate that a person unable to sense the external world in any way, is not capable of perceiving that world by ordinary normal senses. Further, we can note that it only takes one such example to show that experience does not necessarily translate into de facto evidence of reality.
Note that this does not say that all perceptions of reality are true, just that this is how people in general come to believe that their perception of reality is true. Because we KNOW that all such perceptions are NOT true to reality is why we need to treat all perceptions, not just new ones, not just ones that conflict with our personal perception of reality, but all perceptions as tentative to understanding reality.
The next step is to develop criteria that allow us to reduce the tentativity.
This means that if further investigation reveals the experience to be genuine they don’t explain it away to somehow fit their internal conception of reality, they modify their internal conception of reality.
Is this the only way you can see to reduce tentativity? How does conformity with other people fit in to your picture?
IF you start from the premise that everything that is believed is evidenced unless contradicted by superior evidence, as your "Perceptions of Reality" theory does:
False. Looks like I'm going to need this guy again:
Instead, lets start with evidence that we have perceived through our senses while aware and conscious, evidence that may be unusual or not normal to what is expected. We can form conjectures about that evidence, and as long as those conjectures are not contradicted by any known evidence, then we can assume a level of validity that should lead to further investigation of the reality of the conjecture.
This will inevitably lead to inherent contradictions in your position. Contradictions such as the one detailed in Evidenced? Or not? (Message 145)
Except that your "contradiction" is built in by your "conclusion" made by person "A" and not by the experience - you begged the question. Curiously, what you show is that the "conclusion" made by person "A" is contradicted by the conclusion of person "A" and fascinatingly ...
... it doesn't come close to my argument about the validity of evidence from perceptions of reality -- perceived through our senses while aware and conscious -- even though the experience involved may be unique.
Person B, alone, has an unusual experience, one that is indistinguishable between an experience of empirical reality, and one that is imaginary. (that's what I am talking about - not your straw man).
Let's say that it's a remote mountainous jungle forest area, and that person B has been hiking all day before sitting down for a rest.
Person B thinks\believes that this experience is of a horse sized animal with some bold stripes and a single curved horn.
Has he found a new species? has he found the mythological unicorn? or is he day-dreaming? He doesn't know. We don't know. YOU don't know. We can make educated guesses, but we can't know for sure. Without being able to know for sure in ALL cases, the distinction is ultimately pointless.
If you cannot apply this(1) to person B, your argument is invalidated by B's subjective experience. Can it be both a new species AND a unicorn? Or is it a day-dream? Is there a necessary contradiction here?
(1) - where "this" is your "APPLICATION OF LOGIC" ...
There is no contradiction inherent in the person "B" scenario, ergo your conclusion that you have trapped me in a contradiction is falsified, and shown to be poor logic instead. Of course this is due in large part by failing to use my argument instead of your straw man concepts of it.
Your whole theory is an exercise in treating belief itself as evidence for that which is believed. This is innately and indisputably circular. This is indisputably an exercise in confirmation bias run riot.
Congrat's Straggler
That's a hat-trick eh?
Thus your entire position has been refuted.
By straw men?
Enjoy.
ps - let me know when you want to get back to the topic and stop embarrassing yourself. This dismantling of your "contradiction" was posted 3 days ago, and, while you replied to it (twice), you failed to even address the points raised that refuted your argument, and instead pretended that nothing was wrong so you could continue your pathetic accusations. Cognitive Dissonance? Confirmation Bias?
Would you agree that in all the cases where there is no conflict, between new experiences and our previous sum total perceptions of reality and the "world view" we have of reality based on all those perceptions of reality, that our mind easily understands "the experiences in a way that is consistent with what we believe is reality" or not?
Sure, but that is because both methods are functionally equivalent in that case. The distinction is how you deal with experiences contrary to what you expected from reality. Your opinion appears to be that one should modify their perception of that experience to fit their concept of reality; my position is that you should modify your perception of reality to fit the new experience.
RAZD writes:
Would you also agree that any 'world view' - where 'world view' is the sum of your past experiences and perceptions of reality - that does not have any conflicts with any known evidence is more likely to be true to reality, than one with one or more such conflicts?
Certainly, but this comes from changing your world view so that it does not conflict with the known evidence, not changing your perception of known evidence to fit your world view.
RAZD writes:
Not always, no. Just that the end result will still be consistency, and that it will be consistent with what we believe about reality at that point in time. ... Rejecting new evidence is one way conformity is arrived at, and it is common when cognitive dissonance is high. Alternatively belief may be altered by new evidence and that is how consistency is achieved ... and how cognitive dissonance is resolved.
I don't see how what you believe about reality has any bearing on if the experience is true or not. Consistency is great and all, but you cannot claim that ignoring conflicting evidence is the proper way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. This appears analogous to sticking your head in the sand and claiming that it solves the problem.
RAZD writes:
However, it is more likely that long held beliefs will be initially preferred over new evidence, for that is how our minds work. Certainly the new evidence does not trump long held beliefs without strong confirmation of the new evidence, and a single incident of perception is usually not sufficient to overturn years of belief. This is part of human nature, and to deny that is to deny the reality of human nature.
Denying it is one thing, submitting to it is another. Thinking logically is not part of human nature and yet it is a valuable and important discipline. We learn things that are not part of our inherent nature because they are worthwhile, so stating that people naturally think in a flawed manner is not a reason to continue doing so.
RAZD writes:
Interestingly, I wonder where you think the religious viewpoint comes from?
I think it stems from a small group of people willing to lie and misrepresent events to others "for their own good", which is then perpetuated by well-meaning people blinded by confirmation bias and goaded on by others with a vested interest in maintaining a moral and financial claim in their lives.
RAZD writes:
Do you think such beliefs are not confirmed for people by their comparisons of evidence with other people?
No, hence the invention of "Faith" which does not require the application of evidence. Faith is confirmation bias drawn to its most extreme.
RAZD writes:
Interestingly the question is not what people should do but rather what they really do.
No it isn't. The thread began asking "Is my hypothesis valid?" It did not ask "Is my hypothesis popular?" or "Is my hypothesis intuitive?" Logical validity is an idea which does not depend on the natural preference of humans to think in an emotional and disorganized manner, rejecting concepts that are difficult to think about or contrary to their upbringing.
RAZD writes:
Is this the only way you can see to reduce tentativity? How does conformity with other people fit in to your picture?
Conformity with others is certainly never going to trump direct experience, and if the "others" are unable to provide any evidence then if their views differ from what I perceive then they are extremely suspect. Peer pressure is not valid evidence if that is what you are implying.
... it doesn't come close to my argument about the validity of evidence from perceptions of reality -- perceived through our senses while aware and conscious -- even though the experience involved may be unique.
I noted the careful wording. RAZ regarding these experiences that you are suggesting that we should accept as evidence:
1) Are these experiences empirical?
2) If they are not empirical experiences: Then why are such experiences denied to our empirically challenged witness? See Message 145
3) If they are empirical experiences: Then how can they possibly be evidence for anything that is not itself empirically detectable?
If your entire "top down" methodology (Descartes is rapidly buidling up the RPMs with every Venn diagram you draw and every post you write) results in inherently contradictory conclusions regarding the very nature of evidence itself then your entire philosophy is in fact refuted. We can go through this in detail once the contradiction at hand has been sufficiently dealt with.
Which is it? Is your evidence ultimately empirical? Or ultimately not empirical? Be specific. Be precise. Be non-ambiguous.
I put it to you that you are attempting to sneak in some form of non-empirical evidence under the cover of vagueness. So prove me wrong.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
