|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: one step at a time | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Lets put it this way, do you believe the universe exsists or do you know that the universe exsists? If you know, how? If you don`t know that the universe exsists don`t you think that that is a weakness in your arguments? I`m just trying to make sure you build it on a good foundation rather than an assumption....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: knowledge *is* belief i really try to build arguments one step at a time, which explains the earlier thread entitled 'knowledge'... knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind... can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified? assuming for the sake of argument that my mind is properly functioning, ie i have no mental or physical deficencies that might result in a belief i hold, do i have warrant to believe the universe exists? obviously so, unless not only my senses but the collective senses and evidences gathered via those senses of millions of others with properly functioning minds, is thrown out the window... now it's true that the number of people, even if each have properly functioning minds, who hold a belief doesn't a priori make that belief true, it's also a fact that for the converse to be true (a requisite for knowledge) the burden of proof is on the ones holding the converse view i can argue for the existence of the universe on intuitive, inductive, and deductive grounds, but to the person who insists all is illusion, all will remain illusion... you might be a huge brain in a universal vat imagining all of this, and if you believe that to be so nobody can convince you otherwise... but could you be said to hold that belief from a properly functioning mind? and would you be warranted in holding that belief? Universe: def. ('juni,ves) n. 1. the whole of all existing matter, energy, and space now i'm aware of other theories, the multiverse one for example, but look at the definition above... the *whole* of all, etc etc... if, as you affirm, "I" exist (cognito) then there is energy or matter or space, correct? and if "I" happen to be all that exists, then "I" am the entirety of the universe... correct? so no matter how you look at it, the universe exists... some might differ on what it is ("I" only), but that's another question
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The weird part to me is that you insist on skipping the first step. No offense....
quote: Sorry, no dice. I'm not buying your buddy Plantinga's epistemology. It is a house of cards. Is this the thread where we were discussing that?
quote: Without empiricism, what does it mean to verify?
quote: Just a note, I think Plantinga's 'properly functioning mind' is the assumption of something that doesn't exist. 'Properly functioning' is a very very hard thing to pin down.
quote: What if you do have mental or physical defects that MIGHT result in a belief you hold? How do we know THAT these defects do in fact result in the belief you hold? How do we know your belief's are a function of the part of your brain that works? I really should move this Plantinga stuff to the other thread.
quote: This is weird to me, because this 'truth' is fluid across cultures, assuming you look outside of christian/greek/roman derived cultures. Cultural anthropology ought to cure this ethnocentrism but noboby bothers to read the cultural profiles.
quote: Glad you realize that. As I read Plantinga though, this seems to be exactly what he is trying to slip in the back door.
quote: Fine, as far as it goes. But what is proof? The opinions of properly functioning minds? Dangerously close to circular.
quote: Well, what you've got here is a counter to your arguments-- postulated in the first sentense-- for the existence of the universe. Seems to me that everything is working the way it should. We start with the majority opinion and criticise it, but then...
quote: Here is the sneaky bit. You appeal back to the properly functioning mind idea to get out of the difficulty. In other words, those that disagree have improperly functioning minds. No longer dangerously circular, but quite decidedly circular.
quote: You've defined universe to include everything no matter what it is, so long as it exists. This is not typical usage in philosophy and should have been specified. More typical usage, and the usage implied in your initial statements is that of a dualism-- I and Universe. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: what first step? and none taken
[quote]
quote: Sorry, no dice. I'm not buying your buddy Plantinga's epistemology. It is a house of cards. Is this the thread where we were discussing that?[/b][/quote] no, diff thread i think... but john, before you accept or reject my buddy's epistemology, he really has some excellent books out.. now it's true you may share my preference for internet-based resources, but they can't really do justice to his philosophy... not saying your first take is in error, merely that there's far more to it than either i or the web can supply
[quote]
quote: Just a note, I think Plantinga's 'properly functioning mind' is the assumption of something that doesn't exist. 'Properly functioning' is a very very hard thing to pin down. [/b][/quote] maybe so... depends on how properly one's mind functions *grin*... just kidding... it is far deeper than i've portrayed
[quote]
quote: What if you do have mental or physical defects that MIGHT result in a belief you hold? How do we know THAT these defects do in fact result in the belief you hold? How do we know your belief's are a function of the part of your brain that works? [/b][/quote] now now, i stated "assume for the sake of argument" and you didn't so assume!! tsk tsk
[quote]
quote: This is weird to me, because this 'truth' is fluid across cultures, assuming you look outside of christian/greek/roman derived cultures. Cultural anthropology ought to cure this ethnocentrism but noboby bothers to read the cultural profiles.[/b][/quote] so much to read, so little time
[quote]
quote: Glad you realize that. As I read Plantinga though, this seems to be exactly what he is trying to slip in the back door.[/b][/quote] nah... sure, a world with inmates running the asylum can be imagined... but ...
[quote]
quote: Fine, as far as it goes. But what is proof? The opinions of properly functioning minds? Dangerously close to circular.[/b][/quote] i don't know, in this context... why not attempt a proof for "the universe doesn't really exist?"... the point seems to be (to me), the burden of proof should rest with the one holding such a belief
[quote]
quote: Here is the sneaky bit. You appeal back to the properly functioning mind idea to get out of the difficulty. In other words, those that disagree have improperly functioning minds. No longer dangerously circular, but quite decidedly circular. [/b][/quote] i disagree (thus showing an improperly functioning mind? *grin*).. it isn't circular when the term 'knowledge' is defined... it would be if i was equivicating on the terms, ie if i used that definition in one but not all instances... your disagreement with the definition doesn't ipso facto make the definition itself wrong... nor right
[quote]
quote: You've defined universe to include everything no matter what it is, so long as it exists. This is not typical usage in philosophy and should have been specified. More typical usage, and the usage implied in your initial statements is that of a dualism-- I and Universe.[/B][/QUOTE] sorry, i really thought the term was understood and accepted as such... btw, the definition wasn't mine... here's another, merrian~webster: Main Entry: universePronunciation: 'y-n&-"v&rs Function: noun Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn Date: 1589 1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated that would seem to include "I" eh? as i said before, some might disagree as to the contents of the universe, but granting even cognito presupposes the universe... therefore, the universe exists by definition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The examination of your premises.
quote: Look. Everything I can find about the guy tells me that he tracks pretty much with thousands of minor and forgotten philosophers. And he reminds me especially of certain branches of modern philosophy characterized predominantly by the profound shallowness of their work. There. I've said it. Not impressed. Not even intrigued. I see nothing to justify the effort.
quote: I don't believe you. Sorry.
quote: But you see the fragility of Planinga's construct yes?
quote: Nope. It is circular precisely because the term is defined. You've got your epistemological model of truth being the output of properly functional brains. You line up some brains and some of them disagree. So to sort out which ones are reliable you appeal to the epistemological model. In other words, knowledge from brains which is reliable because it is from brains..... brains brains brains....
quote: Not to many of the most famous philosopher is history. Dictionary definitions are dangerous. Dictionaries record colloquial and sometimes conflicting usages of words. You really ought not assume that everyone has your dictionary and picks the particular nuance that you choose. I actually never looked up the word, but went with what seems to me to be the most common usage in philosophy.
[quote][b]but granting even cognito presupposes the universe...[/quote] [/b] cogito ergo sum-- Descarte can be dismantled simply by asking where is the "I" that you presuppose is thinking?
quote: As per your definition... ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i already did # 1 long ago, and nobody objected... more below.. as for 2, it appears the objection is based on the definition of the term 'universe'... i can't do much about that outside of using your definition.. but why should i? i hope i'm not accused of appealing to the authority of the dictionary
quote: ok, no more about plantinga after this... even tho he has nothing to recommend himself for you, he is highly thought of in philosophical circles by theists and atheists alike, the latter even consoling one another after being mauled by him in debates with a term *they* made up... "you've just been plantingized"... but ok, no more
quote: know what sometimes amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have been "dismantled"... earlier i answered your objection here... the "i" is whomever is reading... in this case, you... if 'where' you are is important, it only becomes so after you establish whether or not you exist... it's nonsensical to ask 'where' a non-existent you is located... you are thinking, ergo you exist... you are a thing, ergo some thing exists...
quote: at the risk of repeating myself, it isn't my definition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: People have been objecting all throught the thread as it appears to me. And are generally being told to go away if they won't accept your presuppositions.
quote: Yep. You can work out what it means to exist among other things.
quote: Want to know what amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have NOT been "dismantled". They have been.
quote: Think about this. >>>>>I<<<<<< am thinkingTherefore, >>>>>I<<<<<< exist. It is damned blatant textbook obvious circular. The conclusion is assumed in the premise. The end.
quote: You don't get it. It is your argument, it is YOUR definition. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: John has already addressed a lot of the points I would have however I would like to point out that saying that knowledge is "true warranted belief" merely rolls the question back a stage to become how do you know its a belief that is true and warranted..... So?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: which means, how do you know what passes for knowledge *is* in fact knowledge? ... in any event, your last phrase is the whole point... for example, you believe you possess knowledge that there is no Creator of the cosmos.. is this an accurate statement? if it isn't for you, it is for someone reading... i believe i possess knowledge that there *is* a Creator... now we know thatP or Q ~P Q so one of our two knowledge claims is simply that, a claim... one of us is wrong... but let's accept for the sake of argument that neither of us can prove our claim to others, empirically... how, in that case, can our respective claims be anything other than beliefs? for the one of us who is correct, his belief would happen to be true, thus that one would in fact possess "knowledge" as for 'warrant', it's not as difficult a concept as it appears to be... we get so wrapped up in semantical arguments here, and that really seems a shame... i'm willing to grant the concept that your mind is properly functioning, ie it isn't under the control of an alpha centaurian (but i grant this only for the sake of argument *grin*), you have no serious mental or physical defects that might lead to irrational thought... you should grant the same.. this ties in with the "innocent until proven guilty" view... it's simply an evidentialist vs. anti-evidentialist argument, and one leads to a more open discourse in which a person's knowledge claim is viewed with an open mind see, for a long time in discussions like these, one side (usually, if we're honest, the atheist/agnostic side) would say "i won't believe until you prove God exists"... christians rarely counter with, "but why don't you have a burden of proof in this?"... the reason is because there's an antipathy between the views whereby one or the other is unwilling to really *listen*... all i'm saying is, fruitful discussion is all but impossible under those conditions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You are so funny with your little diagrams. 1. A ⊃ (B ⊃ C)2. B ⊃ (C ⊃ d) / ∴ A ⊃ (B ⊃ D) 3. A / ∴ B ⊃ D (C.P.) 4. B / ∴ D (C.P.) 5. B ⊃ C 1,3, M.P. 6. C 5,4, M.P. 7. C ⊃ D 2,4, M.P. 8. D 7,6, M.P.
quote: So, in other words, you've gone a very long way to get to 'we both disagree'
quote: Same reason we don't have the burden of proof for the disbelief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, magical french fries and Plantinga's wit . Basically, I can make up anything I want and the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove it. That is patently absurd. How will you respond? Well, what evidence do we have for unicorns? ... but my belief is evidence!!!! ta ta taaaaaaaaa ........ I win!!!!!! I cannot believe you do not see how hollow this philosophy is. A bit more seriously, the burden is on YOU to disprove Kali (my fave), Peli, Quetzalcoatl and coutless others.
quote: Back to my contention that the entire contruct is an plea that we play nice. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 11-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
ok john... what are your definitions of:
knowledge universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graedek Inactive Member |
bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: knowledge: What is the source of information? What is the most basic thing we have to work with? Perceptions. You know, those irritating bumps, whirs and whistles that get in the way of there not being anything at all. I am not aware of any way to bootstrap oneself out of this perceptual world. So we cross our fingers and make one assumption: there are dependable patterns in the chaos. Once you have dependable patterns, you are in like Flynn. These patterns, and the analysis of these patterns, are what we call knowledge. The Universe: The Universe can remain undefined. I really don't see the need for it. Now dear forgiven, it is your thread and your turn. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hmmm... so in your opinion knowledge is the analysis of dependable patterns which we observe or perceive... and even the dependability of these patterns we base on an assumption? no mention of the analysis being in fact true, i suppose since the pattern we're analysing is itself based on the assumption it's dependable?
quote: well this is so funny... i did define both, you didn't like the definition of universe i posted yet won't offer your own... in that case, we'll use mine by default {Fixed 2nd quote structure - Adminnemooseus} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So far you've got it.
quote: Didn't think I'd have to spell everything out... We have dependeble patterns, which we analyze-- find the patterns, find the bigger patterns, find the hidden patterns, whatever. It is a compare and contrast game.
quote: Reliable. That was the assumption.
quote: I agree. You asked how I would define universe. I wouldn't define it. And I don't need to define it, that I can see.
quote: I am not trying to make your argument work. That is your job. And I don't have to offer a definition of your term in order to point out the problems of your definitions. Defining your terms isn't my job. I'll define my terms when making my arguments.
quote: Don't really care that much actually. I can't think of anything useful you can do with a definition as broad as the one you've got. I pointed it out because your usages had confused me. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024