Let robots be \"babies\" first... (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 01, 2011, 02:46 (5043 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-I thank you for this safe haven, and am happy that you've chosen to keep me on for these past (3???) years. -> ... Since we've agreed that science can't provide "truth" either ... only knowledge ... your attack on Adler applies to all such contexts. The moment anyone, including a scientist, draws a conclusion from their findings/experiments/ knowledge/ reasoning/intuition, they're doing no more than offer "an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be". -To a greater or lesser extent, this is true. Let me tell you how I approach this. We agree that at a minimum, truth is hard to find. So I set any pretensions of the truth aside. I accept explanations that are "most likely" to be true, and the "most likely" explanations are those where we can observe or recreate the predicted results time and again. Most likely explanations can always be made better, and if an explanation comes along that explains our same subject matter in a better way--with fewer or equal assumptions--then we have more confidence that we have an idea of what's really going on. But if any explanation lacks predictive power--this property is paramount--it is a bad explanation. -I will repeat myself here in another way: From Nietzsche on, philosophy has been faced with the problem of the order of rank; how to rank ideas without resort to a supreme being, or in the absence of objective truth. It took the greater part of the last ten years for the final death pangs of truth to die in my soul. The only thing left is knowledge. The only reliable method to gain knowledge is the scientific method by the principles of induction, abduction, and deduction. -The only way to rank ideas, concepts, morals--whatever the philosophical subject is--is to test them. Those ideas that cannot be tested, have no practical use for philosophy or for man at large. -To do this I make certain assumptions:
1. The world behaves (sans humans) in a predictable fashion. Not deterministic--but predictable. It is clear that our world has a "causality" principle. -2. Any explanation I offer cannot extend beyond that which I can sense; and by that I mean any and all tools or techniques that work to make principles of reality understandable to myself and others. -I make hierarchical distinctions: Because knowledge is king, inference is second. Knowledge is the goal of inference, and therefore inference is the servant of knowledge. Most importantly--an inference that does not lead to knowledge should be abandoned.-In the discussions with David, he himself has declared his leap of faith unknowable. His inference therefore does not serve knowledge. -
In these contexts, you and I do refuse to take a decision, but there's a major difference between us. You have said on this thread (28 January at 01.38): "Physics trumps metaphysics any day of the week. Scientific Materialism is RELIABLE." Does it? Is it? Are all the factors, faculties, emotions, decisions that you regard as most important in your personal life based on scientific materialism? (I'm thinking of love, empathy, aesthetic pleasures, reason, imagination, and so on.) Is it not possible that these and all the intuitions you've been taught not to trust reflect phenomena beyond the reach of scientific materialism? Unless you have faith that scientific materialism has all the answers in store for us (which means you've already decided that there's nothing beyond the material world as we know it), why not ... in these contexts of unknowable truths ... keep an open mind? Your answer appears to be that this is due to your training. If you can't remove the blinkers of your training, might you not be denying yourself the opportunity of gaining a different perspective?-Here you ask me how I value the subjective part of my nature? I accept it and live by it. But you ask about the human world of feelings; what role for an order of rank here? Philosophy, yes the entire human race bows to the man in love! But here is where my Buddhist training sets in: Language is a poor fit for experience. In fact, the very act of trying to name and categorise things is a no-no in Zen practice. You concentrate on the oneness in all things; the only truth is that there is only one reality, only now--yesterday gone---tomorrow a whisper!-So the deeper question for you, "Does a whisper compare to a rose in your hand?"

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"