Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
138 online now:
DrJones*, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 136 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,834 Year: 1,582/23,288 Month: 1,582/1,851 Week: 222/484 Day: 40/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 527 of 577 (570285)
07-26-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by sac51495
07-26-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Backtracking
ETA: The first few paragraphs of my post seem to have disappeared. Maybe God smote them in his wrath.

I'll try to type it up again, hold on.

-------------------------------------------

So if the Laws of Logic are merely product of human thoughts, then why do they not change? They must then have some truth outside of the human mind. But how can an atheist account for this truth? How could evolution produce this?

I can make neither head nor tail of this question.

Of course it is the case that, for example, if "a" is true and "b" is true, then "a and b" is true. I don't see what this has to do with God, evolution, or the price of eggs.

But the real monster that you did not deal with is numbers...

What makes "two shoes" fall within the class of "twoness"? Numbers are abstract. But if they are merely products of human thought, then are they not subject to change? So how can numbers be accounted for, that is, the "classes" of numbers?

Again, you're reifying things which aren't actually things in the sense that a fish or a tree are things. "Twoness" is not a thing, I don't have to account for its existence.

Indeed it would. And the simplest way of preventing that is to bury the dead. The performance of funeral ceremonies is completely unnecessary if only the well-being of the species is being taken into account. So why are funeral ceremonies performed amongst humans, and not animals, if they do not have survival benefits?

Animals do of course mourn their dead. We're just more organized about it.

Your question would make more sense if it was addressed to someone who maintained that people were perfectly rational, instead of someone who has consistently maintained the opposite. Our drives are instinctual, reason is just the way we gratify them.

A similar question might be addressed to theists. Why all this fuss about a corpse, when the person --- the soul --- is elsewhere --- is in the hands of an all-wise and benevolent God? You might as well be holding a ceremony to inter and mourn an old suit of clothes.

Would the chemicals that make up the Mona Lisa - if mixed together in a bowl and given eons of time - form the Mona Lisa? Would the chemicals that make up a car - if mixed together in a (large) bowl and given eons of time - form a car? Would the chemicals that make up this universe - if mixed together and given eons of time - produce this universe?

With the Mona Lisa, the chemicals have no artistic merit until a painter uses his cognitive and physical faculties to form something that has artistic merit.

With a car, the chemicals have no transportation merit until a builder uses his cognitive and physical faculties to form something that has transportation merit.

This has nothing to do with the point that we were actually discussing. It's a whole different fallacy.

Did I say we should never rely on personal experience?

So ... it's OK to rely solely on my own reason and experience for some things but not others?

How do I tell which is which? How do you tell which is which?

This is what puzzles me about your epistemology. You start off with the idea that all knowledge comes from God and that it's downright blasphemous to rely on one's own senses and judgment. But you end up with the same conclusion as me --- that when it comes to a life-or-death issue like getting across the road, it is quite right to use your own senses and judgment and it would be madness and folly to rely on God's guidance instead. Now, I don't see how you get from your premises to my conclusion. Can you join the dots for me? Where's the bit in your philosophy where you figure out that there are some things we're allowed to use our brains for, and what these things are?

But relying solely on personal experience and reasoning in the hope of determining truth ...

As I have pointed out, I have no alternative to the use of my own reason applied to my own experiences. I am me. All my decisions have to be arrived at by the use of my own brain working on data that I have obtained. Of course I can and do listen to what other people say (doing so is part of my experience, and what they tell me is part of the data available to me) but finally I have to decide what I think, using my reason to judge between competing claims to truth.

And you are in the same position. Having a theology doesn't get you out of that, because you had to choose your holy book and your interpretation of it. Having done so, you may not have to think about certain questions ever again --- but you had to do so once, and then for the rest of your life you are still relying on a decision that you made.

But relying solely on personal experience and reasoning in the hope of determining truth, and in the hope of finding some meaning to life, is, ultimately, hopeless.

Well, I seem to manage it.

If your choice of theology has given meaning to your life, then you seem to have managed it.

Maybe it can keep you from getting run over by a car, but does this really matter?

It matters to me. And if you were hit by a car, it would matter to you.

And if you think it would matter to God, you are still free to adopt a faith-based method of crossing the road.

So in relying solely on your own experiences and your own reasoning, you are not at all neutral, but deeply anti-God ...

And also in the same position as everyone else, including you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by sac51495, posted 07-26-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by sac51495, posted 07-31-2010 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 528 of 577 (570294)
07-27-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by sac51495
07-26-2010 9:57 PM


The Missing Bits Of My Previous Post
Seeing as how you think that metaphysics only deals with myths ...

I didn't quite say that. But I do say that it is irrelevant to epistemology.

To say, "the best means of gaining knowledge is through the use of our five senses", is to assume a number of obvious things, such as: we do have five senses, we can use our five senses, etc.

But these are not metaphysical assumptions, because they are not metaphysical propositions. And they are not assumptions of any kind, because they are, as you say, obvious. If there is an elephant in the room, it is not an assumption to think that there is an elephant in the room.

---

And if you think that these propositions are less than obvious, remember that, as I have explained at exhaustive length, the existence of a God would not actually solve these problems, since if there is a God he permits people to be wrong about all sorts of things. For example, someone with Anton–Babinski syndrome is blind but doesn't know it. They confabulate vision. They think they have five senses, when in fact they're down to four.

It follows that any chain of reasoning that starts with the existence of God and finishes with the conclusion that we know which senses we have must be flawed either in the premise (the existence of God) or in the reasoning --- since a person with Anton–Babinski syndrome could apply exactly the same argument to conclude that he knows how many senses he has, and he would be wrong.

Why shouldn't someone believe something that is wrong? Why does it matter what you think?

As I said, "shouldn't" in this sense is not the "shouldn't" of a moral philosopher. If I say: "You shouldn't expect to find giraffes at the North Pole", I do not mean that it would be morally wrong for you to do so.

Either you skipped reading onward, or you totally missed the point. If society is the determiner of good, then is infanticide, widow immolation, community suicide, and child harassment right in such a society? Or might it still be wrong?

As I don't accept the premise, this question is hardly relevant.

I think that you missed my point. Every theist attributes his morality to God. Now, even if there is a God who (in some way yet to be explained) possesses an objective standard of morality, that doesn't make the morality of the theist less subjective. It just means that in addition to having a subjective morality he also has a subjective opinion of what God thinks.

So, the universe is in accordance with God ...

It is hard to see what you can mean by this. Since people have widely differing opinions on morality, it seems clear that most of them are not in accordance with God on moral questions.

In such a universe (as we do indeed have), morals are not products of human thought, but revelations from God as to how we should live our lives in a universe that is based upon His very nature.

No, look, if one person's morals tell him that we should burn Protestants at the stake and another person's morals tell him that we shouldn't, then surely at most one of them has morals which are "revelations from God as to how we should live our lives". The other has a morality which is a product of human thought (or the lack of it).

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by sac51495, posted 07-26-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 531 of 577 (571269)
07-31-2010 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by sac51495
07-30-2010 11:37 PM


Uniformity Of Nature
And just so it won't look as if I'm avoiding the subject, let me once again iterate: this subject has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the scientific method; the subject is discussing whether or not *any* epistemological framework can stand alone as a means of determining truth, apart from any metaphysical framework.

Then the answer would be "yes".

My epistemology doesn't need a metaphysical framework, and yours doesn't benefit from the one you have.

I can't speak for PaulK, of course.

You said "pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform". But how can you know that nature is uniform without first assuming that it is uniform?

You can't know that, in an absolute philosophical sense.

It seems that this is another case where "Dr Adequate's Wager" applies. Consider a concrete case: I am hungry and I have a slice of apple pie.

If nature is uniform, then eating it will appease my hunger, so I should eat the pie.

If nature is not uniform, then eating the pie could

(a) appease my hunger
(b) make my head explode
(c) give me the ability to turn base metals into gold
(d) et cetera

whereas not eating it could

(e) appease my hunger
(f) make a sixteen-ton weight fall on me
(g) make me immune to all diseases
(h) et cetera.

I would, in short, have no idea whether I should or should not eat the pie. Or propose marriage to it. Or snort it up my nose. So I might as well eat the pie. Indeed, I might as well as not even if I was utterly convinced that nature was not uniform. And if there's even the slimmest chance that nature is uniform, at least with respect to pies, then eating the pie is clearly the superior option over not eating the pie.

So our best bet is to behave as though nature is uniform even though we don't know that it is; even if we don't assume that it is; and, indeed, even if we assume that it probably isn't.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 11:37 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by AdminPD, posted 07-31-2010 8:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 534 of 577 (571318)
07-31-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by sac51495
07-30-2010 11:37 PM


Turnabout Is Fair Play
Consider the subject closed.

OK, we'll put that on the list of things you won't answer questions about.

Me, I think that turnabout is fair play. You expect, demand, and get answers from us regarding such diverse questions as the "nature of reality", the foundations of logic, and the reasons why people bury their dead. But you aren't prepared to answer some fairly obvious and significant questions about your own philosophy, despite your frequent assertions that it's God-given.

Well, I shall add that to the reasons why my philosophy is superior to yours --- I am neither afraid nor ashamed to answer questions about mine, whereas yours apparently needs to be protected from all and any scrutiny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 11:37 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 538 of 577 (571501)
07-31-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by sac51495
07-31-2010 10:22 PM


Re: The hopelesness of Reality, Universals, and Uniformity without God
If they are not metaphysical propositions, then what are they?

Physical propositions.

The question of whether or not I am (for example) deaf is empirical, not philosophical.

To say that we have five senses is, specifically, an ontological statement ...

No. Ontology is the discussion of the question: "What do we really, really mean by saying that a thing exists?"

Merely asserting that some particular thing such as Belgium or antelopes or marmalade does exist is not ontology.

But when one is embarking on an epistemological venture (such as observing a tree), they make (sub-consciously) a number of assumptions (e.g., they can make observations).

That is not a metaphysical assumption, because it's not metaphysical. And it's not an assumption because I have evidence for it. That I experience qualia is as certain, or more certain, than Descartes' cogito. What to make of them is an epistemological question.

I'm not even discussing this matter. All I'm attempting to do is rid you of the notion that an epistemic stands alone, and does not need any meta-physic to support it.

To which I'm countering by pointing our that your "metaphysics" does not in fact support your epistemology.

I dealt with that in the paragraph preceding my statement, and in the second part of my sentence, which said, "and the reason that humans devise foolish moral systems is because of sin: they wish to make themselves as God (just as Adam and Eve did) in that they get to define right and wrong."

And whatever explanation you come up with, they're still not in accordance with God.

I'm not sure what your point is.

That people (or at least most people) do not get their morals from God.

How could a universal, such as the Laws of Logic, come about in a universe produced by the Big Bang, and evolution?

"Come about"? You're still reifying them.

Of course the laws of logic hold. How could they not hold?

Do you suppose that even God could create a universe in which (for example) the proposition lemons are yellow and limes are green was true, but the proposition lemons are yellow was false?

And I suppose that you would also say that the lion who sniffs his dead relative and then proceeds to eat him, is doing it as a way of showing his respect for the "dignity" of his fellow species...

Not necessarily. However I would say that ritual cannibalism is one of the ways in which humans have been known to honor their dead relatives.

"Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep." (Romans 12:15).

That doesn't answer my question. Why the concern for a corpse in the first place? "Because everyone else does it" does not explain why everyone else does, in fact, do it.

Numbers are abstract, of course. But in an atheist's worldview, how could such things as numbers (which are universals) come about?

They don't "come about". Stop reifying abstractions.

Even if God did create the universe, he didn't need to create the number two. Just as, for example, if he created apples and oranges and bananas and so forth he didn't need to create the abstract concept of fruit, which is not really a thing.

Then please detail why it is fallacy.

It's the Argument From Design, which is a case of petitio principii. It also has nothing to do with the mistake that you were making, which is the Fallacy of Composition.

Our brains are mechanisms given to us by God which we can use to live in this world.

This doesn't answer my question. When is it OK to use your brain, when is it not, and how did you arrive at this conclusion from your theological assumptions? Oh, and what's your alternative.

Our flawed human reasoning, however, is not the final arbiter of truth.

It's our final arbiter, like it or not. Every conclusion that you've ever reached has been reached by you.

But even your anecdote made certain assumptions about the uniformity of nature. For example, you assumed certain truths about the uniformity of causal-effect relationships ...

No I didn't. I specifically didn't. That was kinda the point.

... and the uniformity of human reasoning, the uniformity of ones understanding of human language, etc.

I "assumed certain truths" about these things? Any truths in particular? I hardly know how to respond to such a vague and nebulous critique.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by sac51495, posted 07-31-2010 10:22 PM sac51495 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by sac51495, posted 08-07-2010 12:34 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 541 of 577 (571512)
08-01-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by sac51495
08-01-2010 12:08 AM


Re: Backtracking
So my point in discussing metaphysics and epistemology was to show that - contrary to what he thinks - Dr. Adequate's system of belief is not "neutral", nor is it possible for it to be neutral.

Actually, it's my job to tell people what I think. If you want to join in with that, please stick to real quotations from things that I have actually said, rather than putting things that I have not said in quotation marks and attributing them to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by sac51495, posted 08-01-2010 12:08 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 543 of 577 (571517)
08-01-2010 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 537 by sac51495
07-31-2010 10:22 PM


Wenn Ein Löwe Sprechen Könnte ...
And I suppose that you would also say that the lion who sniffs his dead relative and then proceeds to eat him, is doing it as a way of showing his respect for the "dignity" of his fellow species ...

Darius summoned the Hellenes at his court and asked them how much money they would accept for eating the bodies of their dead fathers. They answered that they would not do this for any amount of money. Later, Darius summoned some Indians called Kallatiai, who do eat their dead parents. In the presence of the Hellenes he asked the Indians how much money they would accept to burn the bodies of their dead fathers. They responded with an outcry, ordering him to shut his mouth lest he offend the gods. Well then, that is how people think, and so it seems to me that Pindar was right when he said in his poetry that custom is king of all. --- Herodotus, Histories, Book III, 38

What lions think is beyond me.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by sac51495, posted 07-31-2010 10:22 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 553 of 577 (571676)
08-01-2010 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by sac51495
08-01-2010 12:08 AM


Numerology
And yet they refuse to acknowledge God's divine imprint on nature, and on our consciences. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). What is this passage referring to when it speaks of understanding His Godhead? The Godhead is the Trinity, comprised of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We see the imprint of the trinity throughout the universe.

And yet somehow the triune nature of God apparently escaped the notice of the people who wrote the Old Testament. And the Evangelists. And Jesus. What's their excuse? --- oh, right, "they are without excuse".

Good old Tertullian, eh?

We see the imprint of the trinity throughout the universe. For example, there are three tones in a musical chord, and, interestingly enough, each one of these tones serves a function in music that is similar to the function of each of the members of the Godhead. There are also three different phases of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. The earth is the third planet from the sun. A family is made up of three entities: father, mother, and offspring. And, interestingly enough, the function of each of these entities is quite similar to the function of each member of the Godhead...on and on the list goes.

We see the imprint of the quadrunity throughout the universe. For example, there are four tones in a musical chord which has four tones in it, such as a dominant or a diminished seventh, and, interestingly enough, I can make up bogus analogies between musical theory and theology too. There are also four different phases of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. The earth is the fourth major body in our solar system (counting from the Sun outward). A family is made up of four entities: grandparents, father, mother, and offspring (hey, if you can have "offspring" as a single entity, I can have grandparents. Ever notice, by the way, how everyone has four grandparents?) There are four bases in DNA, there are four cardinal points of the compass, four seasons, four fundamental forces in physics, four dimensions of spacetime, four laws of thermodynamics, four limbs in the human body, four Galilean moons, four chambers of the heart ... on and on the list goes.

Anyone not convinced by this that God is quadrune is "without excuse". Either that or they understand the Strong Law of Small Numbers.

Not convinced? Well, you're right, because in fact God is biune. We know this because there are two sexes; two truth values (true and false); two kinds of fundamental particles (bosons and femions); two poles to a magnet; we have two arms, two legs, two ears, two eyes (etc); there are two major divisions of life (prokaryotes and eukaryotes); there are two equinoxes; two solstices; two kinds of bases in DNA (purines and pyrimidines); two is the only even prime number ...

You're just cherry-picking nature --- the fact that some things come in threes doesn't particularly tell us about the number of persons in the Godhead; if you had a religion telling you that there were two or four you could make just as good (or, as it happens, bad) an argument.

You want an atheist version? There are zero unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, ghosts, griffins, mewlips, pixies, and items of evidence supporting the existence of a deity. I think that should tell us something about how many gods there are, particularly the last one.

---

Okay, back to the philosophy.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by sac51495, posted 08-01-2010 12:08 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 554 of 577 (571691)
08-02-2010 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by sac51495
08-01-2010 12:08 AM


More Numerology
What is this passage referring to when it speaks of understanding His Godhead? The Godhead is the Trinity, comprised of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We see the imprint of the trinity throughout the universe. For example, there are three tones in a musical chord, and, interestingly enough, each one of these tones serves a function in music that is similar to the function of each of the members of the Godhead. There are also three different phases of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. The earth is the third planet from the sun. A family is made up of three entities: father, mother, and offspring.

These guys are way ahead of you. Besides the examples you've given they've also listed Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva; cold, warm, and hot; knife, fork, and spoon; and Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato.

Yes, they're serious. But then, so are you.

I, on the other hand, am deeply amused.

The solemn, sacred Trinity,
is written, as we plainly see,
in everything that numbers three,
unless I'm much mistaken.
Fork, knife, and spoon reveal this rule
and so do hot and warm and cool
and also (if I'm not a fool)
tomato, lettuce, bacon.

All hail the triune Godhead ...

... wait, the other triune Godhead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by sac51495, posted 08-01-2010 12:08 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 556 of 577 (571734)
08-02-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 555 by bluescat48
08-02-2010 2:05 AM


Re: Backtracking
So why is the screwups like 4 seasons, 2 eyes in most species, 5 petals on most dicot flowers, 6 points on a snowflake and 1 moon circling the earth?

(4*5 - 2*1) / 6 = 3.

See?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 2:05 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 9:55 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 561 of 577 (572696)
08-07-2010 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by sac51495
08-07-2010 12:34 AM


Re: The hopelesness of Reality, Universals, and Uniformity without God
I need to rephrase my metaphysical statements...So if someone wants to go outside and examine a tree, they must first believe that there is at least a possibility of certain things being true about observation, and data, and movement, and causal-effect relationships, and other such things. The discussion of the nature of such subjects is metaphysical, and one must hold beliefs about the nature of such things before they can perform certain actions. For instance, one can not make an observation without first knowing what an observation is. The discussion of what an observation is - or what its "nature" is - is a metaphysical issue.

Not really. I know with Cartesian certainty that I experience qualia. I have empirically constructed a working theory to account for them. As for metaphysics, from this standpoint I couldn't give a hoot whether or not I am, for example, a "windowless monad".

They are perhaps done apart from God, but not outside of the will of God, nor outside of His sovereign rule. The terms , "apart", and, "not in accordance", do not coincide.

At this point you've watered down your original claim until it has no predictive or evidential power.

Unfortunately, no, they don't.

Thank you.

Exactly. Please explain how something that is merely a product of human thought is universally true, and universally applicable.

I don't believe I said that they were "merely a product of human thought".

In like manner, the Laws of Logic exist (not in the literal sense) ...

Quite. You might try to answer my question about lemons and limes, by the way.

Let's ask an even simpler fruit-related question. Could an omnipotent God create a universe which contained apples and oranges but did not contain apples?

Suppose an artist wants to do a self-portrait. And we will also suppose that this is a very handsome artist, and that he looks very dignified, and that he is a very good painter. So the artist proceeds to paint a portrait of himself. Once the portrait is done (assuming it is a good portrait), one might look at the painting and say "the man in the painting is very handsome, and very dignified-looking".

Now, let us suppose that you came along and said: "I can see that the painting resembles the man. This means that there is a resemblance between them. I know that the artist made the picture using brushes, canvas and paint, but with what additional tools did he make this third thing --- the resemblance? What would happen if God (while leaving the man and the painting both exactly as they are) used his powers of divine omnipotence to destroy the resemblance? What would the painting look like then --- when it still looked the same and the man still looked the same but the resemblance between the two no longer existed?"

This is what happens when you reify things that aren't things.

1. - Would you consider it honorable for someone to cannibalize their dead relative?

That depends. Let's grant that it is proper to honor one's dead. Curiously, we do it by dropping them in a pit in the ground and letting worms eat them. Some people have found it more reverent to eat them themselves. If one's society says that that is how one honors people, then that is, in fact, how one honors people in that society. (If there was a language in which the phonemes "your royal majesty" meant "you cretinous pig-faced git", then it would not be an honorific in that society.)

I might add that millions of Christians ritually eat what they think is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, and consider this about the most sacred thing one can do.

That was just one reason. The most important however is that we are created in God's image, and so the honoring of one's dead body is simply the honoring of the body of God's creation.

Why do people hold funerals for pets? (Few people, I think, ever toss the remains of a beloved family dog into the garbage.)

If I were to give an account of funerary customs, it would go something like this. When someone dies, we are sad. They leave behind them the most intimate possible memento we could have of them --- their body. Yet practical considerations force us to dispose of it (or, if we are a nomadic society, to leave it behind). In any case, to throw it away. Funerary customs help us to cope with that --- we wish to throw it away with respect, rather than like trash.

Once again: could you please detail why my specific argument was a fallacy.

I happened to mention things which were man-made, and you overgeneralized from that. I might just as well have asked whether a rose decomposed into its constituent atoms would smell as sweet.

You assumed that actions do have effects ...

Not necessarily. If you wish, add to my list of things that could happen when I eat the pie the possibility that it has no effect at all.

... you assumed that your reasoning is uniform

Please expand on this point. So far as I can see, to the extent that your claim is true or even meaningful it would be another instance of the wager.

you considered the possibility of nature being uniform - which relies on the uniformity of nature itself, because if nature was not uniform, then we would have no comprehension of what nature would be like if it were uniform

In the first place, this is obviously not true. For example, I can imagine what it would be like if the weather was the same every day even though the weather changes.

In the second place, I don't see what this has to do with my supposed metaphysical assumptions.

- , you assumed the uniformity of relationships between your mind and body

Again, we can throw that in to our hypotheses about the non-uniformity of nature. Suppose that I attempt to perform the series of actions that experience tells me will result in the eating of the pie, only this time I punch myself in the face. That could happen too.

---

Really, if people needed a set of metaphysical assumptions to get a grip on reality, how would babies learn to do it? Somehow they manage to learn to associate cause and effect without ever thinking about the Ding an Sich. In practice, metaphysics is what people jaded with reality entertain themselves with after they've learned every practical fact they need to cope with what life is likely to throw at them. An alternative entertainment, which I myself prefer, is to learn facts that I don't really need to know.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by sac51495, posted 08-07-2010 12:34 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 574 of 577 (576401)
08-24-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by sac51495
08-23-2010 10:36 PM


.

That was very Zen.

I think I just achieved satori.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by sac51495, posted 08-23-2010 10:36 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020