Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 02:16 (4872 days ago)
dhw compares the human consciousness to a television. This is a poor analogy, and I will demonstrate why.-A TV works by receiving a radio signal sent through the air, and interprets the signal into a form that humans can use, namely sound and light. -I have heard ancient (5+) years ago of experiments done looking at humans, and no exterior signal has been deemed present. Therefore, we should conclude that consciousness is at best--an extremely local phenomenon. -I will maintain that there is more evidence that consciousness is localized to the human brain than there is life was designed. First, to borrow from a previous argument I used with David, you need to be able to conceptualize design and what exactly it is. All knowledge we have is ultimately based on experience; an old teacher's adage: there is no better teacher. -Before I continue we should enumerate what I consider knowledge, and my hierarchy of rank. This is the discussion I've been wanting to have with everyone on this forum... but it seems to me that no one is interested in what I've repeatedly stated was the REAL cause for disagreement. -DEF 1: Transferable Knowledge is a final state of information that has been interpreted, and can be verified by an outside source. This would be knowledge you can gain by reading a book, for example. Data. Facts. Things before interpretation can begin. It is empirical. DEF 2: Tacit knowledge is knowledge unique to an individual; it is something that has been gained by experience. Dreams and emotions fall into this category, as does anything that simply has to be performed to be understood. It may or may not be empirical. DEF 3: Knowing is the state in which a being possesses valid information. DEF 4: Information is created from data; a graph for example. Information must be placed in its context. DEF 5: Data is the lowest possible level of something that we can perceive with our 5 senses. DEF 6: Inference I use synonymously with induction; though induction is technically the stronger of the two. An inference is an extrapolated prediction based on tacit or transferable knowledge. It can only become knowledge if it can be demonstrated to be valid. DEF 7: Valid/Validity: the state in which a being can apply DEF 1 and DEF 2 to some information. DEF 8: Intuition is not knowledge. It is information.-Based on these basic definitions (incomplete, they will undoubtedly be fleshed out as we move forward) we can move on to a few demonstrations of my ideas. -Using these definitions, I can know that the sun rose yesterday and today, but I cannot know it will rise tomorrow. I must infer that. Knowledge is only past tense. I might have a meeting tomorrow, but i do not know it will happen. I infer it. -Another example would be that you find dinosaur bones, and are able to use dating and what is known geologically to infer its age at some x-million years. We know dinosaurs existed, but everything we know about them is inference based on what we've found and what we know about similar creatures. -The evidence for evolution by NS when condensed, is essentially Systematics (paleontological study) and phylogeny. (Modern genetics.) Based on the success of predictions made on data, Natural Selection was chosen as the best explanation for the diversity of life. -What explanation do we really have for consciousness? My previous evidence is this; that the destruction of the human brain destroys consciousness. For me this is based on both DEF 1 and DEF 2. This doesn't explain consciousness, but it bounds the question by demonstrating that we center the search on the brain. -What explanation do we have that consciousness exists outside of the human brain? The evidence is clearly less firm; we only have what amounts to anecdotal evidence. We have patients that describe OoBEs, but clearly there is no way to take this tacit knowledge and verify it with some external source. Therefore, while knowledge, it is not something we can know. And as such, can never be knowledge. -Therefore, the comparison between consciousness and evolution--is a comparison of apples to oranges.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 02:31 (4872 days ago) @ xeno6696
Now for the part about life being designed. -One part of my framework that I was not clear about--final decisions on a topic should only be made when we can rest assured that we have knowledge. -The design of life--while I am open to the possibility, it has several problems that I've enumerated before and will do again. -1. You need to be able to demonstrate the difference between designed and not designed. This has a critical corollary. 1.a: You need to be able to differentiate further between a good and bad design. -You previously mentioned a television; we have people who can attest to having built them. We have plans and knowledge of electricity, radio waves, and digital equipment if you have satellite or cable. -The only evidence we have for consciousness is that we feel we are able to make decisions. I say this weakly on purpose, as there is evidence that some people (OCD sufferers) have problems with free will. This feeling is an intuition (see my previous definitions.) -If the television analogy is the best argument you can come up with, I hand it back to you thoroughly defeated. There is NO comparison possible to man made things and life. I will close the hole here by also asserting that a possibility is not itself evidence. -I will concede that you can make this hole a "reason." But note that nowhere in my normative framework do I allow reason alone as knowledge (it violates validity) and that questions are only closed when we have knowledge... it simply isn't sufficient. -All of the arguing we have here is due to distinctions of these kinds. We mentioned before about things such as shared experiences; as these experiences are tacit to anyone not a party to--this also is not knowledge. -What we come to is the firm realization that we have two kinds of knowledge (ultimately empirical and tacit) and that at least in my case; I will not accept tacit knowledge alone as basis to make a decision.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 02:37 (4872 days ago) @ xeno6696
What explanation do we have that consciousness exists outside of the human brain? The evidence is clearly less firm; we only have what amounts to anecdotal evidence. We have patients that describe OoBEs, but clearly there is no way to take this tacit knowledge and verify it with some external source. Therefore, while knowledge, it is not something we can know. And as such, can never be knowledge. > -Omit. I cannot edit out; non-deliberate self-contradiction.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
MATT: dhw compares the human consciousness to a television. This is a poor analogy, and I will demonstrate why.-Your demonstration refers to experiments showing that "no exterior signal has been deemed present". You've misunderstood my analogy. You argued that "if you harm the brain enough, you cease to be conscious", which you see as evidence that the brain is the sole centre of consciousness. My TV analogy demonstrated that wrecking the receiver doesn't prove there's no transmitter. If the source of consciousness isn't the brain, no-one knows WHERE it's situated. Some call death a release of the "soul" from the body (not from some station in outer space), and the implication of NDEs and OBEs is that it's normally encased in what Shakespeare calls "this muddy vesture of decay".-As regards your categories of knowledge, let me start with a few thoughts of my own. In my view, nobody can draw a clear border between knowledge and belief. If we want to use such terms, we must agree on how and on what level we use them. It could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case the discussion ends here. Or we can adopt a commonsense approach and agree that certain things can be known ... but then we must also agree on a criterion. Your list does not provide one, so I'll offer a tentative definition: knowledge is possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it.-And so to your list: DEF. 1: Transferable knowledge is a final state of information that has been interpreted, and can be verified by an outside source. I'd question whether there can be a "final" state (it was once universally "known" that the sun went round the Earth), and would suggest: "...has been verified and not contradicted by outside sources". Otherwise that fits into my definition (and encompasses my technological examples under "Inference"). DEF. 2: Tacit knowledge is knowledge unique to an individual; it is something gained by experience [you include dreams and emotions]. I don't like definitions that include the word being defined. Let's substitute "information unique to an individual". The individual may say "I know", but when others become aware of the information, this may be downgraded to belief. DEF. 3: Knowing is the state in which a being possesses VALID information. Who validates it? DEF. 4: Information is created from data [...and] must be placed in its context. Agreed, but this is not a definition or category of knowledge. DEF. 5: Data is the lowest possible level of something we can perceive with our 5 senses. Not a definition, I'm not sure that data have to be sensual (the Battle of Hastings was in 1066...), and sensual perception does not guarantee validity. DEF. 6: [...] An inference is an extrapolated prediction based on tacit or transferable knowledge. It can only become knowledge if it can be demonstrated to be VALID. Validated by whom? Not keen on "prediction": Darwin inferred common ancestry from similar structures ... all in the past. DEF. 8: Intuition is not knowledge. It is information. Some might include intuition under DEF. 2.-You then give examples of inferences with which I agree, but the argument seems to lose focus when you get to evolution and consciousness. You'd claimed that "we have no valid explanation for how consciousness could be "outside" of you, therefore it stands to reason that the brain IS you" (see above re the "soul's" unknown location). I wrote that if not having a valid explanation for (a) was reason enough to believe in (b), you could argue that since we don't have a valid explanation for how life and its mechanisms etc. arose by chance, it stands to reason that they were designed. Your answer is that NS was chosen as the best explanation for diversity (a non sequitur, and highly disputable ... see under "Inference"), evidence for non-physical consciousness is "less firm" (degrees of firmness don't alter the nature of belief ... see below), and the tacit knowledge involved in OBEs cannot be verified. "Therefore the comparison between consciousness and evolution ... is a comparison of apples to oranges." -My comparison was between consciousness and abiogenesis (not evolution), and it relates to validation, without which belief cannot become knowledge. There's no universal validation of OBEs or the theory that the mind is non-physical, and there's no universal validation of the theory of abiogenesis. Supporters may invoke "positive evidence", but they need faith to believe in them. I'm not comparing the theories to one another, but am arguing that not having a valid explanation for (a) is no reason to believe in (b). -The self-contradiction that you expunged was due to the fact that you had not distinguished any point at which knowledge becomes belief (or vice versa), and I hope my attempted definition will help clarify this extremely difficult but fascinating area of thought.-The second part of your post boils down to the fact that you won't make a decision unless you have the required knowledge. I can only respond that if you have knowledge as I've defined it, you won't need to make a decision. The inbetween stage is belief.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 13, 2011, 22:32 (4870 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, we'll handle my framework in another post. > Your demonstration refers to experiments showing that "no exterior signal has been deemed present". You've misunderstood my analogy. You argued that "if you harm the brain enough, you cease to be conscious", which you see as evidence that the brain is the sole centre of consciousness. My TV analogy demonstrated that wrecking the receiver doesn't prove there's no transmitter. If the source of consciousness isn't the brain, no-one knows WHERE it's situated. Some call death a release of the "soul" from the body (not from some station in outer space), and the implication of NDEs and OBEs is that it's normally encased in what Shakespeare calls "this muddy vesture of decay". > > As regards your categories of knowledge, let me start with a few thoughts of my own. In my view, nobody can draw a clear border between knowledge and belief. If we want to use such terms, we must agree on how and on what level we use them. It could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case the discussion ends here. Or we can adopt a commonsense approach and agree that certain things can be known ... but then we must also agree on a criterion. Your list does not provide one, so I'll offer a tentative definition: knowledge is possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it. > -You're dangerously close to what I have referred to as my own "radical skepticism." You discuss Agrippan skepticism here, and a very powerful form, but I will make it unassailable. -"The only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing." This kind of skepticism underpins everything I do here on this forum. From this principle I have weighed and measured my life and my world, and there is very little that defeats it. -The only thing that comes close is the scientific method; I mentioned model building before. All scientific theories are models. The goal is to create a 1:1 relationship to reality; Imagine a set of dots to your left, and an amorphous blob to the right. Draw arrows from the dots to the blob. -In a crude way, this is an analogy of science. For each dot, we have tested and feel reasonably certain that this link holds true to the blob. (universe)-If some thing is well tested, and works reliably--then this is the point in which (yourself?) and the rest of the world takes in as knowledge. I would say that what you actually have is justified belief. -I will continue this later, I must go to class...
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
MATT: (12 January at 02.16): Before I continue we should enumerate what I consider knowledge, and my hierarchy of rank. There follows a list of definitions, with what you call "transferable knowledge" in pole position (you define this as "a final state of information that has been interpreted, and can be verified by an outside source").-MATT (13 January at 22.32): "The only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing." This kind of skepticism underpins everything I do here on this forum. -If we know nothing, why did you enumerate what you consider to be knowledge? This list was the basis of the discussion you said you had been "wanting to have with everyone on this forum". Now you tell us there is no knowledge, in which case what is it you wanted to discuss? -In my response to your list, I wrote in bold: "It could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case the discussion ends here." -However, I also offered an alternative to universal scepticism: "Or we can adopt a commonsense approach and agree that certain things can be known ... but then we must agree on a criterion." I proposed one through the following (tentative) definition: "knowledge is possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it." I applied this definition to your categories of knowledge, and found that it fitted your "transferable" variety, as well as the technological examples I had given earlier. In my comments on your list, I also questioned your concept of validity, and attempted to draw the vital distinction between knowledge and belief.-If you genuinely want to discuss the "epistemological framework", please decide what level you want to argue on, but I really don't see the point of inviting us to consider your personal definitions of knowledge and then telling us knowledge doesn't exist. I have the breathalyzer at the ready!
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 01:16 (4866 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > If we know nothing, why did you enumerate what you consider to be knowledge? This list was the basis of the discussion you said you had been "wanting to have with everyone on this forum". Now you tell us there is no knowledge, in which case what is it you wanted to discuss? > -We all start from knowing nothing. But I also missed something else I needed to add: Truth. Frankly, while I've mentioned that there are a "precious few truths" a few times, I'm beginning to backpedal on that too. But I'll keep that for now. We can never be certain we've reached "the truth" on any endeavor. I think that sentence speaks for itself...-We experience the world, we try things, we add it to our "knowledge" pool. -Knowledge exists, but knowledge is not final--truth is final, and knowledge seeks the truth. But as I said earlier today, the truth is a moving target. -> In my response to your list, I wrote in bold: > "It could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case the discussion ends here." > > However, I also offered an alternative to universal scepticism: "Or we can adopt a commonsense approach and agree that certain things can be known ... but then we must agree on a criterion." I proposed one through the following (tentative) definition: "knowledge is possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it." I applied this definition to your categories of knowledge, and found that it fitted your "transferable" variety, as well as the technological examples I had given earlier. In my comments on your list, I also questioned your concept of validity, and attempted to draw the vital distinction between knowledge and belief. > > If you genuinely want to discuss the "epistemological framework", please decide what level you want to argue on, but I really don't see the point of inviting us to consider your personal definitions of knowledge and then telling us knowledge doesn't exist. I have the breathalyzer at the ready!-Knowledge does not equal truth. Knowledge is what we think --indeed hope--is the truth; my model of skepticism begins with stating "The only thing we can know for certain is that we don't know anything." Does knowledge have to be true to be knowledge? Newtonian physics demonstrates the opposite: the knowledge of physical interactions we've approximated is still extremely useful, even though it is the wrong description for gravity. -Knowledge vs. belief. In having this discussion, it should be apparent that I view belief as a kind of faith. I prefer to use words like "trust." (Trust must be earned...)-I trust that our knowledge of Newtonian physics is accurate. My own study of physics demonstrated that we can feel "safe" that we have a good idea on what's going on--but quantum physics demonstrated that what we'd learned through Newtonian physics was in contradiction to deeper principles of nature...-So therefore, it is folly to me to claim our knowledge has achieved the status of truth. There's a difference between being "reasonably sure" or "trusting" our findings, and concluding that "we know this" and calling it done. -Maybe you would accept that I would say our quest for knowledge on any topic can never be concluded because we don't know (and cannot know) what the truth is?-As for my position on "belief" I stay away from "belief" as much as possible. Belief is a word that to me connotes "something I take for granted." I hate it whenever I see it. Other connotations for belief for me are "I'm too lazy to research it so I believe it." Dictionary.com lists several definitions for belief, the only definition I'll allow myself to use the word for is in conveying an opinion. Belief also connotes "I'm not sure but I think it's..." as in the usage "I believe that the proper answer is..." it gives the user wiggle room to back out and save face. -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Belief
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
Matt,-This discussion is becoming more and more confusing. On various threads you have now listed your categories of what YOU consider to be knowledge, claimed that "the only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing" ... which you have now changed to "the only thing we can know for certain is that we don't know anything" ... and informed Tony that you are "not interested in things that can't be known".-On this thread, we're trying at your own request to establish an epistemological framework (although despite my pleas, you and Tony are still using it to discuss dualism, which belongs to the Consciousness thread), and so in an effort to establish a coherent basis, I will confine myself to a single point, in the hope of getting a direct response.-I have (tentatively) defined knowledge as "possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it".-Examples of such knowledge: the sun rises in the east; 2 + 2 = 4; I have a wife, two sons and a daughter; Spain are the current world football champions; when an apple comes off a tree, it falls downwards and does not rise upwards.-This definition even allows for your distinction between knowledge and truth, so do you accept it? If not, why not? And if not, would you please define what YOU mean by knowledge. Perhaps then we can proceed a little more systematically.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 03:22 (4865 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-We need to progress step by step. It seems when I try to write more comprehensively my style simply leads astray...- > This definition even allows for your distinction between knowledge and truth, so do you accept it? If not, why not? And if not, would you please define what YOU mean by knowledge. Perhaps then we can proceed a little more systematically.-I differentiate between "knowledge" and knowing. If you hear something from someone else, and don't test it or examine it--you don't have knowledge. You don't know.-The state of a being who knows is one where he has experienced in some fashion what he thinks. -This is confusing; my problem is that I don't know alternative words to express myself. If i'm told 2+2=4, I don't know it. Knowing only comes after I understand what 2 means, and what addition means, and what equality means... -The problem I have with the definition you provide, is that it's like I can tell you that 2+2=5 and if you didn't know anything about math, that's fine. (Think 1984.) Knowledge by democratic vote is not knowledge. -As for my assertion about "The only thing we can know for certain..." Agrippan skepticism--it's a "black boundary." Only when lighting a candle can you see; this form of skepticism keeps you in check about what you can really know about a topic. -Perhaps (by your scholarly prodding) I'm confusing terms of truth and knowledge myself... maybe I should start over...
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
MATT: We need to progress step by step. It seems when I try to write more comprehensively my style simply leads astray...[...] Perhaps (by your scholarly prodding) I'm confusing terms of truth and knowledge myself...maybe I should start over... Yes to all of that, and it's what I'm trying to do by pinning you to a definition of knowledge.-MATT: I differentiate between "knowledge" and knowing. And that's what leads you to make statements like: "Therefore, while knowledge, it is not something we can know. And as such, can never be knowledge." You withdrew this as a "non-deliberate self-contradiction", but in fact it arose out of your attempt to distinguish between knowledge and knowing, which has also led to further contradictions.-MATT: My problem is that I don't know alternative words to express myself. You then go on to talk about 2+2=5 (Think 1984). The problem as I see it is not that you don't know alternative words, but that you ignore (a) the fact that we must choose a level on which to discuss the topic, and (b) the fact that our knowledge depends on our language. As I've repeated ad nauseam, you can choose an overall level on which we can never know anything, and so put an end to the discussion. Or you can proceed on what I call the common-sense level, at which 2 + 2 = 4. If we want to continue the discussion, we must proceed on that level, and so let's talk about language.-As we all know, language is a system of signs, and each sign represents something but is not the thing itself. As you stressed in one of our discussions on maths, if you lay 1+1+1+1 items together, nothing can alter the number of items. The sign humans have chosen to indicate that number is 4, and the word is four (or vier, or quatre, or cuatro, or quattro....) If you decide to change that sign/word to 5/five, it won't change the number of items, it will just lead to total confusion and will negate the whole purpose of language. On the common-sense level, then, all those who are aware of the information will agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Your other objections are irrelevant: of course you have to understand the signs before you become aware of the information! A one-year-old won't be aware even of the meaning of "2 + 2", let alone "= 4". Awareness is part of my definition.-As for knowledge and truth, again we need to agree on a level. If someone says: "2 + 2 = 4, the sun rises in the east, Spain are the current world champions ... true or false?" I will not hesitate to answer: "True!" On this common-sense level, knowledge and truth can be said to coincide. But if you move to your philosophical level and argue that someone else might use the sign 5 instead of 4, that their word for east is west, that their word for Spain is France, I will have to say that knowledge depends on human agreement (see my definition), whereas truth exists independently of people and cannot be known. On this level, knowledge is the closest we as humans can come to truth, but it is not truth.-My common-sense definition of knowledge ("possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it") is tentative, but so far I see no reason to jettison it. We are still at Step 1, and I suggest we stay here until we've agreed on a definition. So far you have not offered one.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 14:49 (4865 days ago) @ dhw
I will have to say that knowledge depends on human agreement (see my definition), whereas truth exists independently of people and cannot be known. On this level, knowledge is the closest we as humans can come to truth, but it is not truth.- In math there are truths. Einstein noted that math is extraordinary in the way it can describe realilty (paraphrase). Here is a Christian's view of this 'truth', which he ascribed to the mind of God:-http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/writings/creation-and-mathematics/
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
dhw: I will have to say that knowledge depends on human agreement (see my definition), whereas truth exists independently of people and cannot be known. On this level, knowledge is the closest we as humans can come to truth, but it is not truth.-DAVID: In math there are truths. Einstein noted that math is extraordinary in the way it can describe reality (paraphrase). Here is a Christian's view of this 'truth', which he ascribed to the mind of God:-http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/writings/creation-and-mathematics/-My words have been taken out of context. The above quote follows on from an all-important distinction, which I will paraphrase with a mathematical example Einstein would have been proud of. If someone says "2 + 2 = 4 ... true or false?" I will say: "True!" On this common-sense level, truth and knowledge coincide. But on a philosophical level, God (or Big Brother, or Chief Abacus-Babacus) may tell us that he uses the symbol 5 for our 4, and he makes the rules. Therefore 2 + 2 = 5. There is no limit to philosophical speculation. The universe may be an illusion. (You and I might not think so, but are we privy to "the truth"?) Einstein may have claimed that maths describes reality, but can we be certain that in a thousand years' time those mathematical descriptions will still be regarded as valid? If we cannot be certain, we will have to say that on the philosophical level truth exists but is independent of people and cannot be known (unless God exists and tells us what it is).-As for the article, the author assumes the truth of mathematical equations, and also assumes the existence of God. On the common-sense level, I too accept the truth of mathematical equations that are accepted as being true by all those who are aware of them. However, this "truth" would exist even if God didn't.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by David Turell , Thursday, January 20, 2011, 14:04 (4864 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I will have to say that knowledge depends on human agreement (see my definition), whereas truth exists independently of people and cannot be known. On this level, knowledge is the closest we as humans can come to truth, but it is not truth. > > DAVID: In math there are truths. Einstein noted that math is extraordinary in the way it can describe reality (paraphrase). Here is a Christian's view of this 'truth', which he ascribed to the mind of God: > > http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/writings/creation-and-mathematics/&... > My words have been taken out of context. The above quote follows on from an all-important distinction, which I will paraphrase with a mathematical example Einstein would have been proud of. If someone says "2 + 2 = 4 ... true or false?" I will say: "True!" On this common-sense level, truth and knowledge coincide. But on a philosophical level, God (or Big Brother, or Chief Abacus-Babacus) may tell us that he uses the symbol 5 for our 4, and he makes the rules. Therefore 2 + 2 = 5. There is no limit to philosophical speculation. The universe may be an illusion. (You and I might not think so, but are we privy to "the truth"?) Einstein may have claimed that maths describes reality, but can we be certain that in a thousand years' time those mathematical descriptions will still be regarded as valid? If we cannot be certain, we will have to say that on the philosophical level truth exists but is independent of people and cannot be known (unless God exists and tells us what it is). > > As for the article, the author assumes the truth of mathematical equations, and also assumes the existence of God. On the common-sense level, I too accept the truth of mathematical equations that are accepted as being true by all those who are aware of them. However, this "truth" would exist even if God didn't.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by David Turell , Thursday, January 20, 2011, 14:12 (4864 days ago) @ David Turell
> > My words have been taken out of context. The above quote follows on from an all-important distinction, which I will paraphrase with a mathematical example Einstein would have been proud of. If someone says "2 + 2 = 4 ... true or false?" I will say: "True!" On this common-sense level, truth and knowledge coincide. But on a philosophical level, God (or Big Brother, or Chief Abacus-Babacus) may tell us that he uses the symbol 5 for our 4, and he makes the rules. Therefore 2 + 2 = 5. -You may change the symbol for '4', but four apples are still four apples. Your philosolphy is stretched beyond any reality. Math true is math truth. Ask the folks in Hiroshema if e=mc^2 works.-> > > > As for the article, the author assumes the truth of mathematical equations, and also assumes the existence of God. On the common-sense level, I too accept the truth of mathematical equations that are accepted as being true by all those who are aware of them. However, this "truth" would exist even if God didn't. -However the fact that the physical activites of the universe follow exact math equations is still left unexplained.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 20, 2011, 12:41 (4864 days ago) @ David Turell
I will have to say that knowledge depends on human agreement (see my definition), whereas truth exists independently of people and cannot be known. On this level, knowledge is the closest we as humans can come to truth, but it is not truth. > > > In math there are truths. Einstein noted that math is extraordinary in the way it can describe realilty (paraphrase). Here is a Christian's view of this 'truth', which he ascribed to the mind of God: > > http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/writings/creation-and-mathematics/-Inte... article! Not surprising, but he takes the minority view when he calls mathematics "discovery." The writings of Quine and Godel taken with the overall destruction of platonic idealism by the observation that our universe is not 3-dimensional, with the writings of Wittgenstein-pretty conclusively demonstrate that Mathematics is at base--only a language.-And to quote myself: "Should I be suprised that the world's most precise language describes the world accurately?"-There are plenty of mathematical dicoveries that have no bearing on reality. This guy sounds like an idealist.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 20, 2011, 12:46 (4864 days ago) @ David Turell
One quick explanation...-Math at its very roots is based upon axioms; axioms are tautologies. You can make the argument that since math is based on tautology it has no objective reality at all.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by David Turell , Thursday, January 20, 2011, 14:18 (4864 days ago) @ xeno6696
One quick explanation... > > Math at its very roots is based upon axioms; axioms are tautologies. You can make the argument that since math is based on tautology it has no objective reality at all.-And I'll reply with the old tautology: in evolution it is survival of the fittest. Who else would survive?
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 20, 2011, 17:11 (4864 days ago) @ David Turell
One quick explanation... > > > > Math at its very roots is based upon axioms; axioms are tautologies. You can make the argument that since math is based on tautology it has no objective reality at all. > > And I'll reply with the old tautology: in evolution it is survival of the fittest. Who else would survive?-Survival of the fittest isn't used in modern biology. I learned it as a bad approximation, but I get your point.-The comparison isn't quite the same, you and the author are amazed that a human language describes the natural world so well. Slow down and consider how exactly math is applied in physics. We don't begin with abstract math and try to explain physics with it, we observe nature and build mathematical abstractions for what we see. -EVERY human language attempts to model reality in some way, math just happens to be a highly precise language.-So I really, truly--do not understand the amazement you and the author have for human use of mathematics. I don't see you praising english for its ability to specify subject and object!
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by David Turell , Thursday, January 20, 2011, 17:44 (4864 days ago) @ xeno6696
> EVERY human language attempts to model reality in some way, math just happens to be a highly precise language. > > So I really, truly--do not understand the amazement you and the author have for human use of mathematics. I don't see you praising english for its ability to specify subject and object!-Actually I love the English language and I am appalled at how it is misused by today's high school students. The English language has over 550,000 words and is the most precise language invented. There is a modifier for every nuance of meaning. Think of the poor Israelis who started out to revive Hebrew with a base of 10,000 words taken from the Bible! I've got some books on the history of the English language. I always praise it!
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 20, 2011, 22:15 (4863 days ago) @ David Turell
> > EVERY human language attempts to model reality in some way, math just happens to be a highly precise language. > > > > So I really, truly--do not understand the amazement you and the author have for human use of mathematics. I don't see you praising english for its ability to specify subject and object! > > Actually I love the English language and I am appalled at how it is misused by today's high school students. The English language has over 550,000 words and is the most precise language invented. There is a modifier for every nuance of meaning. Think of the poor Israelis who started out to revive Hebrew with a base of 10,000 words taken from the Bible! I've got some books on the history of the English language. I always praise it!-lol... Well I won't rest my case, I think you know what I was driving at, lol. I wrote a new thread in response to this topic. I'm learning how to build programming languages and it's forcing me to explore this topic alot... and I might have caught a snag in your thinking. I await your response!
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 21, 2011, 14:01 (4863 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw, at this point we are in complete agreement. -Knowledge is a consensus of what we think the truth is.-What is step 2?
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
MATT: Dhw, at this point we are in complete agreement. Knowledge is a consensus of what we think the truth is. What is step 2?-I'm going to hold you to this, because once we've agreed to proceed on the common-sense level, there can be no return to the philosophical level (which precludes further discussion).-While we have a consensus on current and historical facts, mathematical principles, personal data, some scientific laws, there is none on issues like religion, the origin of life, the origin and nature of the universe, the nature of consciousness. It's unlikely that there ever will be, but in any case we can only discuss such topics in the light of what is known or believed in the present. What is known does not require a decision on our part (we learn that 2 + 2 = 4, and that the sun rises in the east). Belief, however, requires a decision (e.g. God exists, life originated by chance).-Step 2, then, is to establish an epistemological framework not for knowledge (already agreed), but for belief. First, though, we need to agree on a definition of belief, and so again tentatively let me propose this: possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it.-Establishing an epistemological framework for belief is obviously going to be a much more complicated affair, since we're moving away from our common-sense "truths", but steady as she goes...First I'll wait for the green light on the above.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by David Turell , Saturday, January 22, 2011, 15:29 (4862 days ago) @ dhw
Belief, however, requires a decision (e.g. God exists, life originated by chance). > > Step 2, then, is to establish an epistemological framework not for knowledge (already agreed), but for belief. First, though, we need to agree on a definition of belief, and so again tentatively let me propose this: possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it.- I've followed your discussion without stepping in, but now as a lurker, I must.Believers are those who accept without question certain 'facts' , as they view it. They recognize that others do not accept their point of view. Therefore they recognize they do not have possession of a majority belief. They understand they have faith. Your sentence impies much of this, but leaves out the faith part. Strong belief in disputed facts requires faith. As an example, I don't accept the miracles of the Catholic Faith, but they do.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 22, 2011, 18:11 (4862 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-Indeed as David just pointed out, the main reason I always avoid "belief" is because of its strong connection to faith. This is why in my own framework, I add "Accepted" as an alternative. What comes next modifies my use of this term.-Belief is often used synonymously for faith. I think that we should try to separate these; -Belief encompasses four categories I've identified. -1. Acceptance of a claim without evidence or experience. (Faith) "The stars will show me my destiny."-2. Acceptance of a claim by inference or deduction. (Reason) "If all goats are bofurs and and all bofurs are yaks, then all goats are yaks." "When I leave meat out, maggots appear. Therefore meat spontaneously generates maggots." -3. Acceptance of a claim by raw data. (Empirical) "When I leave meat out, maggots appear." "The sun rose yesterday." "The car was two meters long."-4. Acceptance of a claim by related experience. (Experiential) "You have no idea what it feels like to be unloved!" "You just... you just had to be there!"-I draw a distinction between 2 & 3 to differentiate data or observations from inferences. Though as even my examples point out, it can be difficult not to mix them. But my point is that some claims can be accepted without needing to think deeply about them. (Even though we should...)
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
I've defined belief as: "possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it".-DAVID: I've followed your discussion without stepping in, but now as a lurker, I must. Believers are those who accept without question certain 'facts' , as they view it. They recognize that others do not accept their point of view. Therefore they recognize they do not have possession of a majority belief. They understand they have faith. Your sentence implies much of this, but leaves out the faith part. Strong belief in disputed facts requires faith. As an example, I don't accept the miracles of the Catholic Faith, but they do.-Faith is frequently associated with religion, and in that context entails belief in God. It's still a form of belief, and as such is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it. At this stage of my attempt to establish an epistemological framework, I'm hoping to get agreement on my definition. Then I can move on to distinguishing the different factors which underlie belief, and hence the different categories.-Perhaps, though, it might be useful even at this stage to analyse the implications of what you've said, since they highlight the need for a clear epistemology. Firstly, I would define a fact as a piece of information which is known to be true, i.e. it would come under knowledge and not belief, and would therefore not be disputed. (If it is disputed, it has not been accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it.) Secondly, the example of miracles illustrates how beliefs may be derived from beliefs, and at every stage are subject to acceptance/rejection by individuals. 1) You must believe in God. 2) You must believe in the authenticity of the texts. 3) You must believe in the translation/ interpretation of the texts. 4) You must believe in the reality of events that run counter to reason and experience. These are some of the factors that I hope to systematize in my next post ... but first we need to agree on definitions.-Matt's response simply muddies the waters. Faith is a form of belief, and if we are to establish an epistemological framework, we MUST have a definition. Of the four "categories", only 1) is a belief:-1) "The stars will show me my destiny." 2) "If all goats are bofurs and all bofurs are yaks, then all goats are yaks." Logical fallacy. 3) "The sun rose yesterday." Fact/knowledge (unless you are reverting to a philosophical approach to defining knowledge, which I thought we had agreed would lead us nowhere). 4) "You have no idea what it feels like to be unloved!" I have no idea what sort of belief this is meant to illustrate, unless it's my belief that I can read your mind!-If you do not accept my definition of belief, please explain why, and please offer us a definition of your own.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 23, 2011, 07:00 (4861 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw, > > Matt's response simply muddies the waters. Faith is a form of belief, and if we are to establish an epistemological framework, we MUST have a definition. Of the four "categories", only 1) is a belief: > > 1) "The stars will show me my destiny." > 2) "If all goats are bofurs and all bofurs are yaks, then all goats are yaks." Logical fallacy. Correct.-Bad choice of words on my part, but in deductive logic, only form is important. The form I was seeking was: If p then q. If q then r. P .: r - > 3) "The sun rose yesterday." Fact/knowledge (unless you are reverting to a philosophical approach to defining knowledge, which I thought we had agreed would lead us nowhere). > 4) "You have no idea what it feels like to be unloved!" I have no idea what sort of belief this is meant to illustrate, unless it's my belief that I can read your mind! > -Maybe I should stay away from examples in the future... there is experiential belief. My friend Bill thinks that he has witnessed demons. (No joke.) On his part, this isn't faith. I accepted a common sense apprach to knowledge, but it conflicts with situations like Bill's.-> If you do not accept my definition of belief, please explain why, and please offer us a definition of your own.-I still classify belief into these 4 categories. I am not satisfied with the simplified version you offer. I retract my examples if that's what I have to do, but belief is a more complex entity than what your definition encompasses.-If you want to simplify, belief is synonymous with raw faith?
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by David Turell , Sunday, January 23, 2011, 14:58 (4861 days ago) @ xeno6696
> If you want to simplify, belief is synonymous with raw faith?-That was my point. How about: insistence that certain unsubstantiated phenomena are true.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
I have suggested a definition of belief: "possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it." Matt has proposed four categories, but only one of his examples can be said to constitute a belief.-MATT: Maybe I should stay away from examples in the future... there is experiential belief. My friend Bill thinks that he has witnessed demons. (No joke.) On his part, this isn't faith. I accepted a common sense approach to knowledge, but it conflicts with situations like Bill's.-I have very few objections to your categories, but your examples show clearly that you haven't understood them yourself. Fortunately, the above is an excellent illustration of experiential belief (which is one of my own categories, as you will see if we ever get to the next phase of this discussion), and it's also an excellent illustration of my definition, though I'm happy to change this if you can come up with a better one. Firstly, in my effort to establish an epistemological framework for our discussions, I managed to get you to agree to my definition of knowledge: "possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it." The information that Bill has seen demons is not accepted by all those who are aware of it. Therefore it is not knowledge, and I don't know why you have brought knowledge into the discussion here. The information is thought to be true by Bill, perhaps by his nearest and dearest, perhaps by members of that famous US Society BIDAD (Believers in Devils and Demons) ... lots of people think they've seen angels as well ... but you (and I) and no doubt others who are aware of this information do not think it is true. And so according to my definition, the information that Bill has offered us (his sighting of demons) is not knowledge but belief. MATT: I still classify belief into these 4 categories. I am not satisfied with the simplified version you offer. I retract my examples if that's what I have to do, but belief is a more complex entity than what your definition encompasses. If you want to simplify, belief is synonymous with raw faith?-You should indeed retract all but one of your examples! As far as your categories are concerned, they are very much in line with my own, though I would like to approach them from a different angle once we've agreed on a definition of belief.-David has come up with an alternative: "insistence that certain unsubstantiated phenomena are true." I like it, but "insistence" bothers me: it certainly fits some forms (Bill and his demons, perhaps; the dogmatism of some politicians, some religious folk, some scientists), but it doesn't describe the gentle dhw's belief that evolution happened, that humans are born with certain innate characteristics, that animals are sentient. (I would not call any of these "faith" either.) Nor would I call these beliefs of mine phenomena. I wonder why neither of you is prepared to accept that faith is a form of belief containing information thought to be true by some and not by others, as this seems to be your only objection to my proposal. Would you at least agree to accepting it temporarily, so that we can move on?
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 23, 2011, 23:39 (4860 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > David has come up with an alternative: "insistence that certain unsubstantiated phenomena are true." I like it, but "insistence" bothers me: it certainly fits some forms (Bill and his demons, perhaps; the dogmatism of some politicians, some religious folk, some scientists), but it doesn't describe the [i]gentle dhw's belief that evolution happened, that humans are born with certain innate characteristics, that animals are sentient.[/i] (I would not call any of these "faith" either.) Nor would I call these beliefs of mine phenomena. I wonder why neither of you is prepared to accept that faith is a form of belief containing information thought to be true by some and not by others, as this seems to be your only objection to my proposal. Would you at least agree to accepting it temporarily, so that we can move on?-If we want a simplified version of belief, how about this:-Acceptance of a claim. -This definition will obviate our normal semantics and connotations of the word, and encompasses categories that we'll move to.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
MATT: If we want a simplified version of belief, how about this: Acceptance of a claim.-Sounds like the gold rush to me. I am not after a simplified version. I am after a definition that will fit all varieties of belief, will be clearly distinguishable from knowledge, and will cover the element of subjectivity that is integral to all beliefs. That, incidentally, was a point I missed in discussing David's suggestion: "insistence that certain unsubstantiated phenomena are true". Many people will say the "phenomena" have been substantiated, and this raises the question of criteria for substantiation.-I have now taken a bold and perhaps impolite decision, for which I hope you'll forgive me. To hell with the pussy-footing, I'm plunging into the next phase on the basis of my own definition. I hope this will lead to more fruitful exchanges and, eventually, to an acceptable epistemological framework for our discussions. See my next post.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
I have defined belief as: "possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it".-While knowledge is learned or acquired, belief requires a decision, and that decision will be based on one or more of the following (in no particular order): Knowledge, other beliefs, experience, observation, reason, intuition, outside influence....(maybe you can think of more).-These factors should not be regarded as categories, because many beliefs will result from a combination. -A few illustrations: Knowledge, observation, reason: many organisms have features in common. Belief: they have a common ancestor. Knowledge and Reason: Fighter Y has knocked out all 20 of his opponents, while fighter Z has been knocked out by all 20 of his. I believe Fighter Y will KO Fighter Z and indeed I have bet my house on it. (I know, the fight would never be allowed to take place!) Other beliefs: God exists and the Bible is the word of God. Belief: Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected. Experience: Mr X has had a NDE. He believes that there is life after death. (N.B. such experiences are personal and do not constitute knowledge.) Observation: Many people who have studied or lived with animals believe they communicate complex messages to one another. Intuition: very difficult to separate from other factors, but people sometimes have a "gut feeling" that something is true, and it overrides other considerations (e.g. belief that God exists and loves us; that my local MP is an honest man). Outside influences: as with intuition, these are often difficult to isolate, but religious, political, social, ethical beliefs may well be traced back to the influence of family, teachers, friends etc. as well as to circumstances (e.g. brainwashing).-A few relevant comments: Scientific theories and predictions are generally a combination of knowledge, reason, observation and shared experience, though theories and predictions need not necessarily be beliefs (they may be speculations). -Matt, in your categories of "knowledge" you wanted to establish a hierarchy. Any hierarchy entails a subjective value judgement, and this in itself constitutes a BELIEF, i.e. that one source of information is more valuable than another. For example, many people will argue that science is our most reliable source of information, but not everyone will agree.-Matt and David regard religious faith as special. It may be based on any combination of the factors I've listed, but no matter which, it will still consist of information that is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it.-In all matters of belief, decisions must be taken individually. Since belief is based on such a wide variety of factors, and each individual has his own criteria for evaluating information, it might be argued that philosophically this puts all beliefs on a par (see Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting the sun). Once again, I would argue that the common-sense level should come into operation during discussions. If all participants agree that a particular belief is too improbable to be considered, it should not be considered. -Until beliefs are elevated to the level of knowledge, they will remain suspect, and so they should be treated with scepticism, but also with respect, since none of us know "the truth". -All this, of course, is open to comment and debate, but I hope it will lead to a sounder epistemological framework for our discussions than has previously been offered on this thread.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 01:40 (4859 days ago) @ dhw
I have defined belief as: "possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it". > > Matt and David regard religious faith as special. It may be based on any combination of the factors I've listed, but no matter which, it will still consist of information that is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it. > > Until beliefs are elevated to the level of knowledge, they will remain suspect, and so they should be treated with scepticism, but also with respect, since none of us know "the truth". - In view of the comments I have selected above, I still feel that a belief is an acceptance of unproven information, and without general acceptance as truth,it requires faith.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
DAVID: In view of the comments I have selected above, I still feel that a belief is an acceptance of unproven information, and without general acceptance as truth, it requires faith.-Faith has too many religious connotations for my taste, but even in a broader sense, it involves confidence or trust in something or someone. Personally, I wouldn't associate faith with, for example, the belief that organisms have a common ancestor, that animals communicate complex messages, that the universe began with a big bang. -I like the conciseness of "acceptance of unproven information", but "unproven" raises a similar problem to your earlier "unsubstantiated" ... individuals have different standards of "proof". Talk to any religious fundamentalist. Matt has also been campaigning for "acceptance", and "possession" is probably the wrong word anyway. I was looking for a word that would convey personal internalization as well as stability. Perhaps "acceptance" is better. That would give us: "Acceptance of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it." I can't see that this contradicts anything in your own proposal.-Matt opened this thread because many of our disagreements have been due to the lack of an epistemological framework. His initial focus lay on defining knowledge, but I think the main cause of confusion was that we had philosophical discourse undermining what I call common-sense discourse. We seem now to have reached agreement that the philosophical approach will get us nowhere, so we've already made progress! The rest is a matter of detail ... particularly drawing a clear dividing line between knowledge and belief, which I think we've also done through definitions. For me the final phase is to understand the nature of belief, so that each of us is aware of his own subjectivity ... for instance, with regard to priorities. But I'm feeling my way, just like the rest of us, and I expect my last post to spark off discussion, not put an end to it!
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 11:40 (4858 days ago) @ dhw
"Acceptance of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it." -And my own: Acceptance of a claim. -To settle fears about this being too simple, lets consider that it is possible to believe something that is known by others, and not yourself. For awhile as an atheist, I believed in evolution, instead of having knowledge about it. -In my personal usage I use the term "accept" as in "I provisionally accept the claim [x] made by consensus," as opposed to "I believe [x]." -If more conciseness is needed, we can modify it.-Maybe "Acceptance of a claim where knowledge is ambiguous?" It is very similar to your own, only a tad more concise.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
MATT: "Acceptance of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it." And my own: Acceptance of a claim. To settle fears about this being too simple, lets consider that it is possible to believe something that is known by others, and not yourself. For awhile as an atheist, I believed in evolution, instead of having knowledge about it. -My definition of knowledge, to which you had agreed, is: "possession (internalization perhaps?) of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it" (e.g. 1+1=2). If you think evolution is true, that is belief. Having knowledge ABOUT evolution is totally different. As illustrated in my post of 24 January at 20.07, some BELIEFS connected with the theory of evolution are based partly on KNOWLEDGE: for example, common ancestry. Humans and chimps have similar structures (= knowledge, because everyone agrees). This is used as evidence that they had a common ancestor (= belief, because millions of people don't agree). I think my definitions make the distinctions clear. What elements of evolution were you aware of and believed but did not know? Or are you confusing the evidence ... similar structures (knowledge) ... with the conclusion ... common ancestry (belief)? MATT: In my personal usage I use the term "accept" as in "I provisionally accept the claim [x] made by consensus," as opposed to "I believe [x]." -Personal usage is not an ideal element in an epistemological framework designed to make meanings clear to everyone. There is already confusion here. In your post of 21 January at 14.01, you wrote: "knowledge is a consensus of what we think the truth is" (I don't accept this, by the way), so how in your terms can an "assertion of truth" (your definition of claim) made by consensus relate to belief? In any case, "accept" and "believe" can mean totally different things. "Mr X believes that he is soon going to die" = his conviction that this is so; "Mr X accepts that he is soon going to die" = he's resigned to the fact. I just don't understand your objection to "believe". What's wrong with it in the examples I've given (24 January at 20.07)? MATT: If more conciseness is needed, we can modify it.-Conciseness is not the issue. I'm looking for clarity (see my earlier post).-MATT: Maybe "Acceptance of a claim where knowledge is ambiguous?" It is very similar to your own, only a tad more concise.-First part already dealt with earlier. Second part: knowledge can't be ambiguous if everyone who is aware of the information accepts it as being true! -***I see from your latest post that 1+1=2 counts as a "claim"! So what is your definition of knowledge now? Your definitions may be more concise, but they get more confusing with every post.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 27, 2011, 04:10 (4857 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: "Acceptance of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it." And my own: Acceptance of a claim. > To settle fears about this being too simple, lets consider that it is possible to believe something that is known by others, and not yourself. For awhile as an atheist, I believed in evolution, instead of having knowledge about it. > > ...some BELIEFS connected with the theory of evolution are based partly on KNOWLEDGE...-> ...Second part: knowledge can't be ambiguous if everyone who is aware of the information accepts it as being true! -Any subject on which we have incomplete knowledge I would at the least consider incomplete if not ambiguous. We need a position from which it is safe to launch tentative (and testable!) conclusions. (Accepting) -We might be approaching this from different angles: we can derive any kind of belief from the statement of belief I proposed. We can then build flexible definitions based on the kinds of belief we're talking about. I'm an engineer; it makes more sense to build things with moving parts!- > > MATT: In my personal usage I use the term "accept" as in "I provisionally accept the claim [x] made by consensus," as opposed to "I believe [x]." > > Personal usage is not an ideal element in an epistemological framework designed to make meanings clear to everyone. There is already confusion here. In your post of 21 January at 14.01, you wrote: "knowledge is a consensus of what we think the truth is" (I don't accept this, by the way), so how in your terms can an "assertion of truth" (your definition of claim) made by consensus relate to belief? In any case, "accept" and "believe" can mean totally different things. "Mr X believes that he is soon going to die" = his conviction that this is so; "Mr X accepts that he is soon going to die" = he's resigned to the fact. I just don't understand your objection to "believe". What's wrong with it in the examples I've given (24 January at 20.07)? > -You say you don't agree with my definition... but the definition of knowledge we accepted from you is a congruent statement... yes, I am positively confused now! Thinking about what you say here a little more, science operates by consensus. So, scientific knowledge is spurious?-As for what's wrong with it, maybe a negative proof is in order. -There exists a society called "The Flat Earth Society." (No... I'm not making this up!) By your definition of belief, the earth being round becomes a belief--not knowledge--because this other group claims that the world is flat. -We might have to modify our accepted definition of knowledge. Consensus sounds more sane by the minute...-> MATT: If more conciseness is needed, we can modify it. > > Conciseness is not the issue. I'm looking for clarity (see my earlier post). > -Exactly what is the difference between these words; because a concise claim is necessarily clear! - > ***I see from your latest post that 1+1=2 counts as a "claim"! So what is your definition of knowledge now? Your definitions may be more concise, but they get more confusing with every post.-I do not mean this statement in a snarky or condescending way, but I don't know where you learned philosophy! The definition I'm using for claim comes right out of a textbook I have on critical reasoning. This was used in an introductory class on logic I took through my college's philosophy dept. Any assertion of truth that a person makes is a claim. -There are inductive claims (Sun will rise tomorrow) and deductive claims. (1+1=2)
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
Matt wished to define belief as "Acceptance of a claim where knowledge is ambiguous." I objected that knowledge can't be ambiguous.-MATT: Any subject on which we have incomplete knowledge I would at the least consider incomplete if not ambiguous.-I doubt if anyone would disagree with you that if something is incomplete it is incomplete. But if knowledge is what we all accept as being true, how can it be ambiguous?-MATT: Thinking about what you say here a little more, science operates by consensus. So, scientific knowledge is spurious?-All knowledge operates by consensus (a word I'm coming to like more and more ... see later), but even my own definition: "possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it" ... which I agree is faulty ... precludes spuriousness, bearing in mind our earlier agreement that knowledge (acceptance as truth) and truth are not the same thing. Again, though, this shows just how essential it is to distinguish clearly between knowledge and belief if we're to establish an epistemological framework.-However, you're right that there's a problem with my definitions, which I'll come to in a moment. First, we need to consider the implications of your "negative proof": the Flat Earth Society (well known here too). The very first point I made in bold when we started out on this discussion was: "It could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case the discussion ends here." "The Flat Earth Society" is a typical illustration of the problem when you leave the common-sense level and go back to the philosophical level, where there is no knowledge. In my post of 24 January at 20.07, what I wrote about belief also applies to knowledge: "...it might be argued that philosophically this puts all beliefs on a par (see Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting the sun). Once again, I would argue that the common-sense level should come into operation during discussions. If all participants agree that a particular belief is too improbable to be considered, it should not be considered." Flat earth is in the same category as Russell's teapot, and Chief Abacus-Babacus insisting that his symbol 5 must be used instead of our symbol 4. If we return to this philosophical level, the discussion comes to an end. -However, definitions even at the common-sense level should allow for exceptions and should stand up to philosophical scrutiny, and mine don't. That's a fair criticism. The task, then, is to find two definitions that will distinguish between belief and knowledge by incorporating the subjectivity of belief but will also allow for the flat-earthers.-As regards what's on offer, you defined knowledge as "a consensus of what we think the truth is". I like "consensus", which allows for exceptions. My problem is its combination with "what we think is the truth". Who are "we"? I can imagine a congregation of flat-earthers crying: "We think flat earth is the truth and we have a consensus!" (A consensus can be confined to groups.) -All knowledge and all beliefs relate to information of some kind, so perhaps we might agree on: "Information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it." Our definition needs to encompass recondite and personal forms of knowledge (hence "awareness"), and we must take consensus out of groups. I've added "general" to make that clearer. To counter a possible philosophical objection, Bill "knows" he has seen demons, but you are aware of this, and there is no consensus. If he keeps the information to himself, he can call it knowledge if he wants to.-Belief is trickier. As regards "claim", I have no problem with the "philosophical" definition, which in any case is one of the everyday definitions. My complaint is that your use of it does not clarify the vital distinction between belief and knowledge. Your definition of belief is "acceptance of a claim". One of your examples of a claim is 1+1=2. I accept that claim, and so according to your definition, my acceptance = belief. But we have agreed that 1+1=2 constitutes knowledge. -Before I make a suggestion, let's get the conciseness/clarity argument out of the way. You wrote: "Exactly what is the difference between these words; because a concise claim is necessarily clear!" Concise is brief, clear is easy to understand (as if you didn't know). A definition like yours, which confuses the two things we are trying to define, can hardly be called clear. I don't care about conciseness, and I'm not bothered about style. I just want clarity. New suggestion: Information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth. (I think "awareness" is unnecessary here, since belief is individual.)-Apologies for the length of this post, but you raised a lot of questions. I'd hoped our search for a framework would have moved onto my post of 24 January at 20.07, but I guess we're still stuck on definitions. Well, I'm game, though I suspect that you and I are now all alone in the universe.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 31, 2011, 01:17 (4853 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, ... "Information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it." > -Accepted definition of "knowledge." -> Belief is trickier. As regards "claim", I have no problem with the "philosophical" definition, which in any case is one of the everyday definitions. My complaint is that your use of it does not clarify the vital distinction between belief and knowledge. Your definition of belief is "acceptance of a claim". One of your examples of a claim is 1+1=2. I accept that claim, and so according to your definition, my acceptance = belief. But we have agreed that 1+1=2 constitutes knowledge. > -I might want to modify my agreement here. If 1, +, and = are all clearly defined, the statement 1+1=2 is really a deduction that says "if we have two single objects next to each other, they are each individuals, and when placed next to each other they have the property of twoness as a group." - > New suggestion: Information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth. > (I think "awareness" is unnecessary here, since belief is individual.) > -Accepted definition for "belief." -> Apologies for the length of this post, but you raised a lot of questions. I'd hoped our search for a framework would have moved onto my post of 24 January at 20.07, but I guess we're still stuck on definitions. Well, I'm game, though I suspect that you and I are now all alone in the universe.-I apologize for probably being... too dense perhaps by wanting the definitions to be as clear as possible. But as is my nature, I need to make sure that we're all in agreement in how to proceed.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 03:16 (4858 days ago) @ David Turell
I have defined belief as: "possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it". > > > > Matt and David regard religious faith as special. It may be based on any combination of the factors I've listed, but no matter which, it will still consist of information that is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it. > > > > Until beliefs are elevated to the level of knowledge, they will remain suspect, and so they should be treated with scepticism, but also with respect, since none of us know "the truth". > > > In view of the comments I have selected above, I still feel that a belief is an acceptance of unproven information, and without general acceptance as truth,it requires faith.-David, would you be willing to settle on belief as just being "acceptance of a claim?" It's as bare bones as it gets, and I think it encompasses everything anyone says...
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 06:24 (4858 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > In view of the comments I have selected above, I still feel that a belief is an acceptance of unproven information, and without general acceptance as truth,it requires faith. > > David, would you be willing to settle on belief as just being "acceptance of a claim?" It's as bare bones as it gets, and I think it encompasses everything anyone says...-You are right, the barest of bones, but it does fit with the implication that a 'claim' is never proof, and on that basis it works.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
MATT: If we want a simplified version of belief, how about this: Acceptance of a claim?-DHW: I am not after a simplified version. I am after a definition that will fit all varieties of belief, will be clearly distinguishable from knowledge, and will cover the element of subjectivity that is integral to all beliefs.-MATT (to David): Would you be willing to settle on belief as just being "acceptance of a claim?" It's as bare bones as it gets...-DAVID: You are right, the barest of bones, but it does fit in with the implication that a 'claim' is never proof, and on that basis it works.-I am not after the barest of bones. See above for what I am after.-In my post of 25 January at 09.24 I explained what I thought this thread was meant to achieve and what I thought we had already achieved so far. Following on from previous posts in which we sorted out the problem of levels (common sense v. philosophical), the gap between knowledge and truth, and the distinction between knowledge and belief (though we still don't agree on a definition), in my post of 24 January at 20.07 I attempted to enumerate the various foundations of belief. I thought this was the purpose of establishing an epistemological framework.-I don't really mind if you are happy with "acceptance of a claim". For me it conjures up the world of the gold rush, property law and insurance. But if we are trying to clarify distinctions, I don't find it very helpful. You had agreed to my definition of knowledge as "possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it." Does "acceptance of a claim" establish a clear distinction? Not for me. Again, see my first response quoted above. "Possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it" simply seems to me to be clearer, and I still don't understand why you object. I do remain dissatisfied with "possession", though, and am not convinced by "acceptance" (perhaps it's too passive). As I said in my response to David, I'd like a combination of internalization and stability. But for me this is only a means to an end, the end being to divide up the different components of our epistemological framework. -*** I've just read your latest post on the subject, and will have to leave my response till later.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 13:24 (4858 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw:-Quick clarification. My usage of "claim" is in the philosophical context: "A claim is an assertion of truth."-God exists. Mary had a lamb. I'm a billionaire. 1 + 1 = 2-Belief would be, accepting me at my word on those things that are not knowledge, nor are demonstrable.-"Acceptance of a claim in presence of ambiguous knowledge." I might be a Billionaire, in which case you would have true belief. If you saw my name on a Forbes 500 list, then you would have knowledge instead of belief.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 31, 2011, 01:32 (4853 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, I accept the reformulated definitions for knowledge and belief, I agree they are ostensibly clear and different from each other.-However, reading through the post (Jan 24 20:07)-I'm not sure what you're presenting here. If it is simply the "types" of belief and knowledge we deal with, I can accept these. If however, you're moving to something deeper, I'm unaware of what you intend.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
MATT: dhw, I accept the reformulated definitions for knowledge and belief, I agree they are ostensibly clear and different from each other. However, reading through the post (Jan 24 20:07) I'm not sure what you're presenting here. If it is simply the "types" of belief and knowledge we deal with, I can accept these. If however, you're moving to something deeper, I'm unaware of what you intend.-Delighted that we've reached agreement on defining knowledge and belief, and that we can also round off our evolutionary thread (for the time being, at any rate). Yes indeed, the role of devil's advocate is a crucial one, and I do appreciate your playing it.-What I presented, or tried to present, in my post of 24 January is an epistemological framework! You opened this thread because you felt ... quite rightly in my view ... that not having such a framework was the cause of many disagreements. You then enumerated "what I consider to be knowledge, and my hierarchy of rank". I disagreed with most of what you wrote, and so we embarked on a step-by-step construction of the framework, beginning with definitions that would distinguish between truth, knowledge and belief. The 24 Jan. post contains a number of points that I consider to be vital to such a framework ... for instance, I reject the concept of a hierarchy in discussions such as ours, and I lay emphasis on the subjectivity involved in evaluating information, both of which continue to cause disagreements. I'm about to post a comment on the excellent exchange between David and yourself on the Robots thread, which is directly related to these two elements of the framework. Our various discussions on evolution require a strict division between knowledge and belief, and all too frequently this division is blurred by those who have a personal agenda.-My 24 January post is not, therefore, moving towards anything deeper. The frame is not the picture! However, I don't expect it to be complete, and I don't expect all my comments to be acceptable to everyone, which is why I thought it would lead to further discussion. But if you're happy with it as it stands, I shall give myself a little pat on the back, and next time someone confuses knowledge with belief, or takes his own hierarchies for granted, I shall only have to murmur: twenty-four-one-eleven. Except, of course, that you Americans would say one-twenty-four-eleven. No wonder we can never understand each other!
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief)
by David Turell , Monday, January 31, 2011, 14:39 (4853 days ago) @ dhw
> My 24 January post is not, therefore, moving towards anything deeper. The frame is not the picture! However, I don't expect it to be complete, and I don't expect all my comments to be acceptable to everyone, which is why I thought it would lead to further discussion. But if you're happy with it as it stands, I shall give myself a little pat on the back, and next time someone confuses knowledge with belief, or takes his own hierarchies for granted, I shall only have to murmur: twenty-four-one-eleven. Except, of course, that you Americans would say one-twenty-four-eleven. No wonder we can never understand each other!-You Brits have is ass backwards, as usual. Only a leader of the pack has a change of scenery.
)
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 01, 2011, 03:28 (4852 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > My 24 January post is not, therefore, moving towards anything deeper. The frame is not the picture! However, I don't expect it to be complete, and I don't expect all my comments to be acceptable to everyone, which is why I thought it would lead to further discussion. But if you're happy with it as it stands, I shall give myself a little pat on the back, and next time someone confuses knowledge with belief, or takes his own hierarchies for granted, I shall only have to murmur: twenty-four-one-eleven. Except, of course, that you Americans would say one-twenty-four-eleven. No wonder we can never understand each other!-Yes, only your recent post has stressed to me that I don't see how its possible to subvert the order of rank...-I actually considered this part of a framework. We've got the skeleton, but no meat...
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
MATT (on the ROBOTS thread): 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. [...] 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.-This is an interesting post. In twenty-four-one-eleven I wrote: "Any hierarchy entails a subjective value judgement, and this in itself constitutes a BELIEF, i.e. that one source of information is more valuable than another. For example, many people will argue that science is our most reliable source of information, but not everyone will agree." This is a very inadequate summary, and your post shines the spotlight on the gaps in it. However, there's still no escape from the subjectivity of a hierarchy, and your post already emphasizes this ("I accept explanations that are 'most likely' to be true" [most likely in whose eyes?]; "I make certain assumptions"; "knowledge is king"). And yet, rather strangely, in the last section you've misunderstood what I wrote, and you talk about the subjective part of your nature as if it were separate from the other issues. I didn't ask how you valued it. I asked if it might not reflect phenomena beyond the reach of scientific materialism. I'll return to this in a moment.-My subjective view of "rank" is that it all depends on the topic under discussion and on the purpose of the discussion. If we're studying how the material world works ... the cosmos, the Earth, the body ... I think it would be foolish not to acknowledge the absolute supremacy of science. For all its inadequacies, it has the tools for examining and testing, and our technological and medical triumphs alone prove that it's possible to gain knowledge, which in these fields is indeed the priority.-However, if the topic is whether the mechanisms of life are too complex to have arisen by chance, whether our mental faculties and emotions are solely the product of chemicals, whether there's a life after death, whether there's some kind of universal intelligence at work, scientific materialism is not equipped to answer. Knowledge is not attainable in such contexts. In my subjective view, our experiences of consciousness, love, artistic inspiration, empathy etc. MIGHT be a reflection of a reality beyond that of the material world as we know it. There is no "order of rank" here, because there is no reliable guide. The fact that David's belief in a UI "cannot be tested" means, according to you, that it has "no practical use for philosophy or for man at large". I've stressed the fact that all beliefs are individual, and your statement already reveals the individuality of your own. Why must ideas be of practical use to philosophy, what do you mean by "practical use" anyway, and how many men do you need to call them "man at large"? Belief in a god or gods is of practical philosophical use to billions of people: it orientates their lives, brings them purpose, comfort, hope. Are their beliefs (as opposed to knowledge) irrelevant, valueless, not worth discussing? Of course not. But you say "an inference that does not lead to knowledge should be abandoned". You can never have knowledge of the above subjects, so in effect you're saying that every related belief (and disbelief) should be abandoned, i.e. everyone on Earth should be an agnostic. You are no more and no less entitled to such a subjective judgement than David, who reckons his scientific inferences plus his faith offer him a more reliable framework than your rejection of anything that is not knowledge. But if you're looking for a universally recognized "order of rank", you'll never get one. You say that you consider this part of a framework. "We've got the skeleton, but no meat..." A framework is just that ... a skeleton. And my skeleton says boo to your rank meat. Although you misunderstood my reference to the subjective part of your nature, what you've written is also revealing. 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!" For some reason you've narrowed your focus to time, but oneness is not confined to time. The oneness in all things as a concept is untestable and unknowable, but in your Buddhist moments perhaps you sense that you're related to invisible galaxies, the sun, the forest, the earthworm. This illustrates the very point I was trying to make, which is that as a guide to whatever "the truth" may be, an intuitive or spiritual experience (e.g. of oneness) may be just as reliable as inferences drawn from views through a telescope, microscope or agenda-tinted spectacles. And so to your "deeper" question: "Does a whisper compare to a rose in your hand?" It's a great question, and I fear my answer is nothing like as poetic. In terms of day-to-day living, of course the present moment has the priority. But in terms of philosophy, I don't need to make such comparisons. I can whisper and believe what I like about the future, the past, God, design, chance, consciousness, ethics etc., and still have the rose in my hand.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 03, 2011, 02:44 (4850 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > This is an interesting post. ... and your post already emphasizes this ("I accept explanations that are 'most likely' to be true" [most likely in whose eyes?]; "I make certain assumptions"; "knowledge is king"). And yet, rather strangely, in the last section you've misunderstood what I wrote, and you talk about the subjective part of your nature as if it were separate from the other issues. I didn't ask how you valued it. I asked if it might not reflect phenomena beyond the reach of scientific materialism. I'll return to this in a moment. > -Consensus. Shades of empiricism. These are the only things that can meet "most likely."-I assert that rank begins with knowledge. (This should be clear!) You've asked a few times about the role of subjectivity in my thinking; I've said many times that it is normative epistemology that causes disagreements between people on the issues surrounding agnosticism... Q.E.D?-> ...But if you're looking for a universally recognized "order of rank", you'll never get one. You say that you consider this part of a framework. "We've got the skeleton, but no meat..." A framework is just that ... a skeleton. And my skeleton says boo to your rank meat. > -*chuckles*-I'm sorry that my meat is rank to your bones! A framework tends to be more than a skeleton... for example in my line of work a framework refers to infrastructure that we tend to repeat over and over again. So we don't want to write it more than once. My goal in beginning the epistemological framework thread was to ultimately build to an attempt at solving the problem of rank.-As for the billions of people being served by theistic philosophy--I never started this with the common denominator in mind. -> Although you misunderstood my reference to the subjective part of your nature, what you've written is also revealing. 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!" For some reason you've narrowed your focus to time, but oneness is not confined to time. The oneness in all things as a concept is untestable and unknowable, but in your Buddhist moments perhaps you sense that you're related to invisible galaxies, the sun, the forest, the earthworm. This illustrates the very point I was trying to make, which is that as a guide to whatever "the truth" may be, an intuitive or spiritual experience (e.g. of oneness) may be just as reliable as inferences drawn from views through a telescope, microscope or agenda-tinted spectacles. > -You relate to time... and you hit the nut within Zen but with an erratically wild arrow!-Precisely because time isn't recognized, "oneness" is as you say. But oneness is testable, knowable: both subjective and objective... aren't we made of the same "stuff" as everything else? Don't we all share ultimately the same feelings and emotions? Doesn't paper require sun, wood, and people to process it for you to use? The interconnectedness--the oneness--of all things is really one of the few immutable truths revealed by science. Buddhism stirred within me the only spiritual concept of science that I'd ever encountered--while simultaneously crushing it. Because another truth is that human experience can only be pantomimed with words; therefore science will not capture--indeed cannot capture--everything. But how utterly odd if the dualist perspective is correct and God himself is nothing but mind...-> And so to your "deeper" question: "Does a whisper compare to a rose in your hand?" It's a great question, and I fear my answer is nothing like as poetic. In terms of day-to-day living, of course the present moment has the priority. But in terms of philosophy, I don't need to make such comparisons. I can whisper and believe what I like about the future, the past, God, design, chance, consciousness, ethics etc., and still have the rose in my hand.-Philosophy serving only you! If we mean it to serve other people, we must sacrifice some things. The rose or the whisper...-Perhaps the greatest "perspective" of all is this:-IN translating philosphy to all, we dilute perspectives to feed the lowest common denominator... and the philosophy for ourselves is the only philosophy that is divine--only we reveal to ourselves!-Philosophy that serves all serves none--yet philosophy that serves yourself serves no one else. Where is the perspective in that?-P.S. I thank you for catching the drastic difference in styles: simple logic to poetry... I was hoping to convey a deep meaning, and I think you got it!
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Thursday, February 03, 2011, 05:41 (4850 days ago) @ xeno6696
But how utterly odd if the dualist perspective is correct and God himself is nothing but mind...- Nothing at all odd about that! Life is managed by massive amounts of information. Information, especially when complexly coded requires mind!
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
MATT: My goal in beginning the epistemological framework thread was to ultimately build to an attempt at solving the problem of rank.-I hate to cast my sceptical shadow over your ambition, but I think there is a very good reason why this problem can never be solved, and you've summed it up at the beginning of your post:-MATT: I assert that rank begins with knowledge. [...] I've said many times that it is normative epistemology that causes disagreements between people on the issues surrounding agnosticism...QED?-Of course it's normative epistemology, and that is because we always discuss branches of philosophy for which there are no norms. Knowledge is not possible here, and without knowledge you are, whether you like it or not, stuck with subjective value judgements. That is why, in my admittedly amateurish attempt to build a framework, I've emphasized that knowledge does not require a decision whereas belief does, and belief is individual, whereas knowledge ... we have agreed ... is by general consensus. Once you have knowledge, there is nothing further to discuss except inferences, and these ... as you have repeatedly emphasized ... lead to belief and not to knowledge. Therefore our epistemological framework can only solve the problem of rank if it excludes every subject that cannot be "known"...QED?-On the subject of oneness, I had said that it was not knowable or testable. If you say that it is one of the few immutable truths revealed by science, I will take your word for it. My own focus was on the intuitive sensation of oneness with the universe and everything in it rather than on an intellectual acknowledgement through scientific information. Poetry rather than prose, if you like.-Maybe I haven't earned your thanks, though, for distinguishing between poetry and prose, because I don't understand some of your comments. I argued that I could keep whispering about the future, the past, God etc. and still have the rose in my hand. You have responded: "Philosophy serving only you! If we mean it to serve other people, we must sacrifice some things. The rose or the whisper..."-But philosophy linked to belief IS individual. And no matter whether I believe in God, believe in an impersonal universe, or have no belief at all, I can still accept and relish the reality of the present (the rose). So, I suspect, can you! Unless I've misunderstood you (and this part of your post is not easy to understand), I think it's the same problem as before: philosophy does not consist of one solid block, but is a vast collection of different subjects, some of which can't be subjected to any normative hierarchy. In terms of how to live life, reflecting on its nature, weighing up different explanations, conjectures, values (all of which = philosophy), each one of us can keep whispering AND smelling the rose. The devil's advocate has turned killjoy, because your criteria (which ultimately would turn us all into agnostics) demand a sacrifice where none is necessary. Ugh, that's normative epistemology for you!
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 06, 2011, 15:58 (4847 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: My goal in beginning the epistemological framework thread was to ultimately build to an attempt at solving the problem of rank. > > I hate to cast my sceptical shadow over your ambition, but I think there is a very good reason why this problem can never be solved, and you've summed it up at the beginning of your post: > > MATT: I assert that rank begins with knowledge. [...] I've said many times that it is normative epistemology that causes disagreements between people on the issues surrounding agnosticism...QED? > > ... Therefore our epistemological framework can only solve the problem of rank if it excludes every subject that cannot be "known"...QED? > -Let me posit something that might help us and salvage my goal...-What is the value of a belief if we're trying to penetrate the nature of the cosmos? I would argue that beliefs in general should be excluded.-You say that you shift your rank of order around depending on the subject, but couldn't this precisely be why the question seems impenetrable? -> On the subject of oneness, I had said that it was not knowable or testable. If you say that it is one of the few immutable truths revealed by science, I will take your word for it. My own focus was on the intuitive sensation of oneness with the universe and everything in it rather than on an intellectual acknowledgement through scientific information. Poetry rather than prose, if you like. > -If you ever spent time practicing with a Sangha of Buddhists, you would discover that much of the practices they use are to reproduce this experience with everyone who joins their ranks. The experience has been replicable for millions that have followed the path since Siddhartha. Not all who join ever attain this--it is considered the "penultimate" stage of enlightenment. But the tools of Zen seem to be able to reproduce results. -> Maybe I haven't earned your thanks, though, for distinguishing between poetry and prose, because I don't understand some of your comments. I argued that I could keep whispering about the future, the past, God etc. and still have the rose in my hand. You have responded: "Philosophy serving only you! If we mean it to serve other people, we must sacrifice some things. The rose or the whisper..." > > ... Unless I've misunderstood you (and this part of your post is not easy to understand), I think it's the same problem as before: philosophy does not consist of one solid block, but is a vast collection of different subjects, some of which can't be subjected to any normative hierarchy....-IN translating philosophy to all, we dilute perspectives to feed the lowest common denominator... and the philosophy for ourselves is the only philosophy that is divine--only we reveal to ourselves!-The only divine revelation is what secrets we choose to reveal to ourselves... dilution will be discussed shortly. -Philosophy that serves all serves none--yet philosophy that serves yourself serves no one else. Where is the perspective in that?-We only learn about the world really--from ourselves. That's why in my own personal definitions of knowledge that I was attempting to establish here previously, I attach the function of 'knowing' only upon those things that one has ultimately experienced for oneself; have you actually conducted the experiment? If not, then you don't know... you only accept someone else's judgment and explanation. Knowing is intrinsically personal, and each of us ultimately only knows a very few things that we share with everyone else.-Any philosophy that suits oneself will necessarily be incompatible if you're trying to build a philosophy for all; in this case, answering the questions we're trying to ask. There are things you need to give up to do this to satisfy the crowd. (giving up your whisper) Or, we impose ours. (thus giving up the rose.) -If you try to take a middle road here, you'll either have only thorny stems with no petals, or whatever is less than a whisper.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
Matt, for the sake of clarity, would you please identify quotes. In your latest post, you have quoted me, and then quoted yourself and responded to yourself, and although I know who said what, I'm sure other readers will find it confusing.-I'm afraid your latest post is also confusing. You wrote: "What is the value of a belief if we're trying to penetrate the nature of the cosmos? I would argue that beliefs in general should be excluded."-What is the value of an epistemological framework if we are only allowed to discuss what we already know? We can never KNOW the nature of the cosmos (e.g. whether or not it has a conscious intelligence); all we have are different possibilities. The fact that some people believe in one or other of these possibilities and provide what they consider to be evidence provides us with material for our discussions. We can then accept or reject it as we see fit. We can also point out that even if the evidence is "knowledge", the conclusions drawn from it are "belief" (often a cause of misunderstandings). This question ... the nature of the cosmos ... is "impenetrable", not because the rank of order changes with the subject, but because there can be no consensus on the possible answers. The nature of the internal combustion engine is knowable (i.e. there is a consensus on what constitutes the truth of the information), and so I would give priority to the natural sciences in such a context. The nature of love is not knowable, and the natural sciences have no greater authority than the insights of poets, psychologists and lovers.-MATT: The only divine revelation is what secrets we choose to reveal to ourselves. [...] We only learn about the world really ... from ourselves. [So you found out from yourself that the Earth went round the sun, did you?] That's why in my own personal definitions of knowledge that I was attempting to establish here previously, I attach the function of 'knowing' only upon those things that one has ultimately experienced for oneself. [...] Knowing is intrinsically personal, and each of us ultimately knows a very few things that we share with everyone else.-You are taking us back to the grim days when you were writing (and retracting): "Therefore, while knowledge, it is not something we can know. And as such can never be knowledge." This attempt to differentiate between knowing and knowledge confuses nobody more than you. Time and again you have insisted that "the only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing", whereas now the only 'knowing' is intrinsically personal (so we do know something), and yet after long discussions you accepted the common-sense definition that knowledge is "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it" (e.g. 1+1=2). On the other hand, we agreed that belief is "information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth." Belief, as I have stressed over and over again, is individual. Now you are saying that knowing is individual ("intrinsically personal"). If by "knowing" you mean an inner conviction that something is true, but if that inner conviction is not accepted by general consensus, what you have is BELIEF. That distinction is a basis on which one can build an epistemological framework, i.e. by separating the subjective from the objective, or as near as one can get to the objective, adopting the common-sense approach and not the philosophical. Again we agreed to do this, because otherwise there could be no further discussion.-MATT: Any philosophy that suits oneself will necessarily be incompatible if you're trying to build a philosophy for all.-Any epistemological framework that only suits yourself will necessarily be utterly confusing if you're trying to build an epistemological framework for all.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, March 02, 2011, 21:33 (4822 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-Wow... I had written a complete response here... and clearly I must have not hit send. -I can say this, in rereading everything, I originally set out the thread with the point of getting everybody who posts here to delineate their own epistemology. I got excitedly sidetracked when you offered instead to build a framework together, but somewhere in that mutual stream of consciousness I managed to lose my original point when we got to the problem of rank. Some of the arguments I attempted were aphoristic arguments which confused. So scrap 'em. -We can agree on basic definitions, but the root cause of conflicts between David and I, or you and I, boils down to epistemological weighting. No discussion of epistemology can be without a subjective order of rank. -In the true nature of Nietzschean perspectivism... we each have a unique view. I think there can be something to be gained by evaluating our roots in how we know what we know (epistemology) to determine exactly how much subjectivity exists here. It's pretty clear for me, that in regards to most issues I lean materialistic, meaning, I err towards the objective at every conceivable point. To a greater or lesser extent, you appear to as well. But not completely... I'm still not sure where to place phenomenon such as NDE/OBE because they completely lack any objectivity at all. -David looks at arguments such as Adler's as valid, but Adler and David both jump into the world of pure conjecture, and are content to live there. How reasonable is this? Going back to Sagan's Dragon, why do we think it's perfectly okay to dismiss the dragon and not claims such as David's or Adler's? Or the Young Earth Creationists? Or how about the old Ontological argument for God? Why do we dismiss this?-The level and degree to which supernatural claims are subject to raw interpretation is entirely a sticky matter. -I am hoping we can move this discussion to one where everyone's basic assumptions and normative positions can be scrutinized by everyone else. I realize that's the whole point of this site, but I'm looking to drill down and do this at the very root. (Epistemology.)
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 02, 2011, 23:32 (4822 days ago) @ xeno6696
But not completely... I'm still not sure where to place phenomenon such as NDE/OBE because they completely lack any objectivity at all. - I need to jump in here. When you get to my chapter on these subjects you will find third-party confirmation of events or items described by the unconscious NDEer's or OOBer's. That is objective evidence, not subjective.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
MATT: No discussion of epistemology can be without a subjective order of rank.-You have summed up one of the major causes of disagreement between all the contributors to this forum, as is clear from your comment on NDEs/OBEs, David's response, and the following statement: "I lean materialistic, meaning, I err towards the objective at every conceivable point." By what criteria do you identify the materialistic with the objective? David has pointed out that information obtained during OBEs/NDEs has been verified by third parties, which he therefore categorizes as objective evidence, but which you dismiss: "they completely lack any objectivity at all". Similarly, you ask, of David's conjectures, "how reasonable is this?" But what criteria do you have for judging what is and isn't reasonable? There is no escape from the subjectivity of ranking!-You are hoping "we can move this discussion to one where everyone's basic assumptions and normative positions can be scrutinized by everyone else [...] and do this at the very root. (Epistemology.)" That, as I see it, is precisely what we are doing, and all our discussions eventually lay bare the epistemological basis of our opinions. We have between us agreed that on a common-sense (as opposed to philosophical) level, knowledge ... which comes as close to objective truth as we can hope to get ... only exists as a consensus. Where there is no consensus, we have belief. In matters of belief, subjectivity is inescapable, and there are no criteria beyond those of common sense to establish any kind of hierarchy. How we define common sense must in itself be a matter of consensus between the participants in a discussion. -You ask why we dismiss some ideas (the Sagan dragon, or St Anselm's ontological argument for God) and not others (David's UI, or the Young Earth Creationists ... though I thought all of us had dismissed the latter). In my gallant but sadly neglected post of twenty-four-one, I tried to compile a list of factors that influence belief. The dragon would not engage any of these, the ontological argument is an attempt to appeal to reason which I personally find totally unconvincing ... and evidently so do you ... and I am personally more inclined to believe the findings of modern science (based on knowledge, reason and observation) than the YECs' interpretation of an ancient text (based on other beliefs and probably intuition and outside influence). All three dismissals arise from subjective evaluations of the various claims. I neither dismiss nor accept David's arguments for a UI because knowledge, observation, reason and other people's experiences make it clear to me that there is an area of existence that must have an explanation, and his is no more and no less unreasonable (subjective judgement) than any other. As for "the very root", can we really dig any deeper than the "subjective order of rank"?-I'm really sorry that you wrote a complete response and then lost it. Infuriating, especially as we were obviously waiting for each other. But as a Beckett fan, I'm probably more used to it than you, since I never expect Godot or even xeno to arrive!
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
For Matt:-When I posted my response to you last night, I had a niggly feeling that something wasn't quite right. On rereading the two posts, I'm still not sure, though, what you're looking for. However, there are points to which I haven't responded, so maybe a scattergun approach will hit the target!-You say that your aim was to get everybody to delineate their own epistemology, and yours is that you "lean materialistic", which you equate with being objective (see last night's post). My own position is that I can't have faith in anything that demands what Coleridge called the "willing suspension of disbelief", which makes many of my arguments horribly negative. But perhaps because of this I may be more conscious than some folk of the degree of subjectivity involved in most views, and when you opened this thread, my own aim was not to elicit personal statements but to set up a framework that would help us all to distinguish between knowledge (as near objective as we can get) and belief (always underpinned by subjectivity). -It's interesting that you felt the problem of rank was a side track. I think it goes to the very heart of many misunderstandings. Over and over again, contributors have revealed their priorities, in some cases unconsciously, and I'd hoped that by breaking down such subjective hierarchies we might all become more aware of what it was that influenced our thinking. I also think it's valuable to distinguish between levels: if you start flying up into the clouds of philosophy, in which everything becomes obscure, the discussion tends to turn into an intellectual game (often just of language). We need to keep at least one foot on the ground.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, March 04, 2011, 19:33 (4820 days ago) @ dhw
No, the problem of rank is central--my goal is to get us to assign some ranks and priorities so we can discuss-directly--the ACTUAL problem (rank) instead of falling into tertiary issues. Is it reasonable for me to lean materialist? When do other priorities override direct evidence or experience?
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
MATT: No, the problem of rank is central ... my goal is to get us to assign some ranks and priorities so we can discuss ... directly ... the ACTUAL problem (rank) instead of falling into tertiary issues. Is it reasonable for me to lean materialist? When do other priorities override direct evidence or experience?-I'm not sure if your questions are rhetorical or if you're asking me to search for answers, but I think you're trying to solve an insoluble problem. This is even clear from the way you've formulated it: you want to assign ranks so that we can discuss the problem of rank. For you this is the ACTUAL problem, and you don't want to fall into tertiary issues, but who decides what is the ACTUAL problem, and who decides what is primary, secondary, tertiary? Is it "reasonable"...Who decides what is and isn't reasonable? In your previous post, you quite rightly slammed the door when you said: "No discussion of epistemology can be without a subjective order of rank." I can sense mounting frustration here, despite our generally shared scepticism ... but how can your questions be answered other than by subjective ranking?-In my still so sadly neglected twenty-four-one, I tried to set out the various factors underlying the subjectivity of belief, and in the discussion generally, I've tried to differentiate between fields. To give a subjective answer to your two final questions, from my seat on the fence I would say ... for what it's worth ... that in the context of our discussions on religion, origins, consciousness etc., it is reasonable for you to "lean materialist" so long as you don't topple over. Direct evidence and experience have to be first-hand, and whatever conclusions you draw from them will be subjective. If they are convincing, you will be convinced, so other priorities won't enter the equation. A far greater problem for me is indirect evidence and experience (i.e. reported by other people), which includes the findings and conclusions of scientists: how much can we take on trust, particularly in fields of which we ourselves have no knowledge? Personally, I tend to take on trust information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it. (Ring a bell?) If there is no consensus (e.g. the origin of life, innovation in evolution, the nature of consciousness, OBEs/NDEs) I remain open-minded. There are no priorities, but a convincing material discovery or a direct spiritual experience might change that. Who knows?-My apologies if I'm not getting to what you consider to be the "the very root", but you will gather from the above that I'm still not sure what it is.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, March 05, 2011, 19:36 (4819 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > In my still so sadly neglected twenty-four-one, I tried to set out the various factors underlying the subjectivity of belief, and in the discussion generally, I've tried to differentiate between fields....-We will return to this post... after we understand what it is I'm trying to do.-> My apologies if I'm not getting to what you consider to be the "the very root", but you will gather from the above that I'm still not sure what it is.-The root of the problem, is that each of us places more weight on some kinds of knowledge than others. You mentioned previously that you shift your weights depending on the scenario--but the question that I would ask here, is "Why is this reasonable? Why do you do it?" -I've said previously that one of my primary reasons for leaning materialist is that there is only two means to inform ourselves about the world. The first is through direct experience. The other is through empirical means. Empirical means would more or less be the 5 senses, and the mind would be direct experience. -Realistically, direct experience includes mental formations, such as seeing connections that you were unaware of before. This is also coincidentally why I say that a person only truly knows something when it has permeated BOTH means of learning about the world. One could say that the divide between theists and atheists is precisely that each rejects the other's means of exploring the world. -That said, for us here on the "middle path," I think our goal should be to get more at the more abstract root--why we rank some property higher than others. -To date, we typically fall into a pattern where say, David submits an article with a judgment. We then discuss the article, but we never get to the REAL point of disagreement. I attempt to get to the real disagreement quite often, but the trappings of the situation fog and distract.-David follows Adlerian/Thomist reasoning. Why is this reasonable, when for the most part, Thomist thinking has lain abandoned for nearly 200 years? -Going back a post, again, why do we decide to reject some arguments and not others? Why does Behe feel that unworkable calculations are sufficient to infer a creator God? -Why does some of us feel that it needs to rush to solutions when we've only been aware of the deeper nature of these questions for about 70-80 years?-I know you might interpret this as "why isn't everyone agnostic," but we can turn different questions on ourselves: Are we not choosing for egoistic reasons? We know that we can't "know" if God exists, but why is it unreasonable to infer a God, knowing that even for the snapshots of life we've seen, we know that the odds are impossible for things to have come about by random combinations? Why can't reason alone be enough? (Other than it's unfashionable?)
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Saturday, March 05, 2011, 22:08 (4819 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Why does some of us feel that it needs to rush to solutions when we've only been aware of the deeper nature of these questions for about 70-80 years? > > I know you might interpret this as "why isn't everyone agnostic," but we can turn different questions on ourselves: Are we not choosing for egoistic reasons? We know that we can't "know" if God exists, but why is it unreasonable to infer a God, knowing that even for the snapshots of life we've seen, we know that the odds are impossible for things to have come about by random combinations? Why can't reason alone be enough? (Other than it's unfashionable?)-Your entire post is the best summary I've seen in a long while. The only disagreement I'd obviously have, is my observation that there is a very vocal minority that still are Thomists, and feel he is ignored for no good reason, in fact, that ignoring him is a loss for philosophy.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, March 05, 2011, 22:25 (4819 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Why does some of us feel that it needs to rush to solutions when we've only been aware of the deeper nature of these questions for about 70-80 years? > > > > I know you might interpret this as "why isn't everyone agnostic," but we can turn different questions on ourselves: Are we not choosing for egoistic reasons? We know that we can't "know" if God exists, but why is it unreasonable to infer a God, knowing that even for the snapshots of life we've seen, we know that the odds are impossible for things to have come about by random combinations? Why can't reason alone be enough? (Other than it's unfashionable?) > > Your entire post is the best summary I've seen in a long while. The only disagreement I'd obviously have, is my observation that there is a very vocal minority that still are Thomists, and feel he is ignored for no good reason, in fact, that ignoring him is a loss for philosophy.-Thomism is dismissed because he asserts that we can know truth. We can't. Truth of any proposition is only ever based upon the context of the situation--in other words, objective truth doesn't exist. Nietzsche summed this up well, in "Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense."-paraph. "Light hits the eye. First metaphor. The image enters the brain and is translated. Second metaphor. Lower level processes then try to ascribe meaning to the image. Third metaphor. Then we try to form words about what we see. Fourth metaphor."-Every stage of this process adds its own perspective; light, in that we can only see a very narrow band. Lower level processes ascribe subconscious meanings. Finally, language... language forcibly shapes how we perceive the world.-Realism--Thomist variety included, makes this distinction: "Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc."-This has been rejected by philosophers since Hume, with very few notable exceptions, primarily because linguistic relativism is accepted as a fact among humans.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Saturday, March 05, 2011, 22:34 (4819 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Thomism is dismissed because he asserts that we can know truth. We can't. > Realism--Thomist variety included, makes this distinction: "Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc." > > This has been rejected by philosophers since Hume, with very few notable exceptions, primarily because linguistic relativism is accepted as a fact among humans.-I understand your explanation, but where I am stuck is "First Cause" I know we do not see reality as it really is, but everything I know has a cause.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, March 06, 2011, 16:02 (4819 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Thomism is dismissed because he asserts that we can know truth. We can't. > > Realism--Thomist variety included, makes this distinction: "Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc." > > > > This has been rejected by philosophers since Hume, with very few notable exceptions, primarily because linguistic relativism is accepted as a fact among humans. > > I understand your explanation, but where I am stuck is "First Cause" I know we do not see reality as it really is, but everything I know has a cause.-Well consider this. -In Buddhism, the idea of "cause" and "effect" are treated as simplistic mental attributions: we separate things to make them easier to handle. A pool cue hits the cue ball. The cue ball sinks the 8-ball. -But, we can only make this kind of distinction on an incredibly small scale. Because the real cause is that you wanted to play pool with a friend. Your wanting to play pool caused the 8-ball to be sunk, not the pool cue. But you had a want to play with your buddy; the want was a cause. That want exists because you know and have a relationship with your friend. That relationship has a cause... -But analyze that same paragraph in terms of effect. Which is effect and which is cause? -The Buddhist answer is that distinctions between cause and effect are delusion; yes statistically a cause exists for a bacterial infection of C. difficile, but the real cause is something else. Something deposited C. diff, and the infected person picked it up. Those C. diff spores are the result of a constant wave of that organism though time, the entire reality of a single person's infection is a single continuous flow of causes and effects throughout time that culminated in that person in your office. There is an infinite network of causes and effects.-The distinction between cause and effect (in Buddhism) is that they are perspective-based things to begin with. A cause is a cause when viewed as a cause but can also be viewed as an effect of something else. The only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect. -This teaching causes alot of heartburn and is a big reason why Westerner's "don't get" Buddhism at all. But when you contemplate the real nature of things, all things are unity--all things are part of the same singularity. -The question of "first cause" is false. There simply "is". God told Moses "I AM." Consider that. -Reality supersedes all questions of cause and effect--an observer is required to be able to differentiate between them, but the differentiation is due primarily to linguistic relativism...
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Sunday, March 06, 2011, 16:45 (4819 days ago) @ xeno6696
I understand your explanation, but where I am stuck is "First Cause" I know we do not see reality as it really is, but everything I know has a cause. > > The Buddhist answer is that distinctions between cause and effect are delusion; There is an infinite network of causes and effects. > > The distinction between cause and effect (in Buddhism) is that they are perspective-based things to begin with. A cause is a cause when viewed as a cause but can also be viewed as an effect of something else. The only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect. > > This teaching causes alot of heartburn and is a big reason why Westerner's "don't get" Buddhism at all. But when you contemplate the real nature of things, all things are unity--all things are part of the same singularity.-Yes, and the only thing we do not know is the cause of the first singularity that caused this universe. > > The question of "first cause" is false. There simply "is". God told Moses "I AM." Consider that.-I know, "I am who I am". I've considered it. God is a first cause. Everything else thereafter 'is'. I don't see that Ed Feser is wrong. > > Reality supersedes all questions of cause and effect--an observer is required to be able to differentiate between them, but the differentiation is due primarily to linguistic relativism...-All reality is cause and effect. Even quantum uncertainty works as averages of all particle movements and states.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
MATT: (to dhw): Why do you do it? [...] Why [do] we rank some property higher than others? [...] Why do we decide to reject some arguments and not others?-MATT: (explaining Buddhist philosophy to David): [...] distinctions between cause and effect are delusions. [...] There is an infinite network of causes and effects. [...] The only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect.-Answers to "why" questions usually begin with "because". If you're trying to understand why people hold certain priorities, or have certain beliefs, or perform certain actions, how can you possibly avoid the sequence of cause and effect? Can you think of a single answer to your own questions that will not involve that sequence? The fact that there is an infinite network of causes and effects, and each cause is an effect of an earlier cause, does not mean that the distinction is a delusion. It simply means that whatever factor you are considering has a dual connection, like any link in a chain. -We can, of course, argue that EVERYTHING is a delusion, but then we might as well stop talking altogether. David says "I know we do not see reality as it really is", but nobody "knows" that. It's a contradiction in terms. How do you know you don't see reality as it really is if you don't know what reality really is? The fact that our understanding of reality comes about through our limited senses and language need not necessarily mean that what we perceive and verbalize is not real, or is not reality as it really is. Try stepping in front of a bus and you'll soon find out.-The claim that "the only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect" would rob us of virtually every technological, medical, and scientific advance we humans have ever made. Of course our understanding will only be partial ... as you say, the network is infinite ... but without that clear distinction we will be confined to the present state of things: the car will never start again, the disease will never be cured, I shall never know the cause of thunder.-David says "everything I know has a cause". I agree. Matt, can you tell us of anything that does not have a cause? But David is also riding the trail with Messrs Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas on the old first cause bandwagon. I think the only response we brother agnostics can give is that if there is a first cause, no-one can possibly know what it is.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, March 06, 2011, 22:08 (4818 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: (to dhw): Why do you do it? [...] Why [do] we rank some property higher than others? [...] Why do we decide to reject some arguments and not others? > > MATT: (explaining Buddhist philosophy to David): [...] distinctions between cause and effect are delusions. [...] There is an infinite network of causes and effects. [...] The only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect. > > Answers to "why" questions usually begin with "because". If you're trying to understand why people hold certain priorities, or have certain beliefs, or perform certain actions, how can you possibly avoid the sequence of cause and effect? Can you think of a single answer to your own questions that will not involve that sequence? The fact that there is an infinite network of causes and effects, and each cause is an effect of an earlier cause, does not mean that the distinction is a delusion. It simply means that whatever factor you are considering has a dual connection, like any link in a chain. > > We can, of course, argue that EVERYTHING is a delusion, but then we might as well stop talking altogether. David says "I know we do not see reality as it really is", but nobody "knows" that. It's a contradiction in terms. How do you know you don't see reality as it really is if you don't know what reality really is? The fact that our understanding of reality comes about through our limited senses and language need not necessarily mean that what we perceive and verbalize is not real, or is not reality as it really is. Try stepping in front of a bus and you'll soon find out. > > The claim that "the only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect" would rob us of virtually every technological, medical, and scientific advance we humans have ever made. Of course our understanding will only be partial ... as you say, the network is infinite ... but without that clear distinction we will be confined to the present state of things: the car will never start again, the disease will never be cured, I shall never know the cause of thunder. > -You went down the wrong rabbit hole here... This goes back to my distinction on what it means to know something. Not to just hear it. Not just repeat what someone told you, but to know. Knowing is a marriage of all the causes and all the effects that make up that object. It's a deep understanding, NOT a superficial one. Science's job is to give us workable knowledge--NOT truth. You're describing workable knowledge. -All of the bits of knowledge you discuss here, are instances where you don't really need to know everything there is to know about them: when a doctor prescribes you medicine, he's really playing a probability game. Based on what picture he creates between what you've told him and his tests, he gambles on the right course of action. He knows that if his action doesn't work, he needs to search down another path. If it works though, who cares if he didn't really arrive at the true cause? (Many kinds of bugs are killed with the same antibiotic... and if they all have similar symptoms, you don't really know the cause... it's often not cost-effective.)-> David says "everything I know has a cause". I agree. Matt, can you tell us of anything that does not have a cause? But David is also riding the trail with Messrs Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas on the old first cause bandwagon. I think the only response we brother agnostics can give is that if there is a first cause, no-one can possibly know what it is.-The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Buddhists and Indians both think that this foundational thought is the first step to understanding the universe at large.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Sunday, March 06, 2011, 23:29 (4818 days ago) @ xeno6696
The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Buddhists and Indians both think that this foundational thought is the first step to understanding the universe at large.-You seem to be saying that cause and effect are two parts of the same thing, not a relationship, but a unity. That suggests that cause and effect as an infinite regress does not exist and that cause and effect do not have a temporal relationship, or another way of putting it, part of an arrow of time. Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress?
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 07, 2011, 03:27 (4818 days ago) @ David Turell
The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Buddhists and Indians both think that this foundational thought is the first step to understanding the universe at large. > > You seem to be saying that cause and effect are two parts of the same thing, not a relationship, but a unity. That suggests that cause and effect as an infinite regress does not exist and that cause and effect do not have a temporal relationship, or another way of putting it, part of an arrow of time. Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress?-In a word, yes. If you think of the Big Bang, it was(is) everything that ever is(was). You've heard me say before in this regard that the only thing that truly exists is right now. The passing of time is an illusion of man's measurements. The universe is all-encompassing; my words in green. Study the permutations...-You're extremely close to both Vedic/Buddhist thought. Human psychology begins where we think to differentiate ourselves from the universe around us. Because we cannot truly separate cause and effect FROM cause and effect, the distance between us and 'initial cause' is zero. Viewed singly, there is an infinite amount of causes and effects that leads to David Turell. Viewed holistically, David Turell has always existed. -It's not hard to pick out where Kabbalah and Hinduism share common ground.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Monday, March 07, 2011, 14:42 (4818 days ago) @ xeno6696
Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress?-This sounds liked pre-determinism, everthing planned in advance. Yet another way of expressing it is, I was a potential at the BB, but not necessarily.-> Because we cannot truly separate cause and effect FROM cause and effect, the distance between us and 'initial cause' is zero. -What you seem to say: My God and I continue to exist together; it seems to jump out at me. We continue our connection that was there in the beginning quantum plasma. The BB is all potential, constant evolution, and our concept of time is of no consequence. My arrival is contingency, a la Gould.-If I am co-existing with my God, it seems to strengthen my belief system, not undermine it at all. -All of this is perfectly acceptable. It opens up my thinking but doesn't change anything. I am me. I look at reality around me the same way. I appreciate Gould a little more, but think he is totally wrong, as I still think evolution has coded directionality, and that explains much more satisfactorily where we are today than chance contingency.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 07, 2011, 15:23 (4818 days ago) @ David Turell
Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress? > > This sounds liked pre-determinism, everthing planned in advance. Yet another way of expressing it is, I was a potential at the BB, but not necessarily. > -Your second way of expressing it is a little closer. Some forms of Vedic thought do think in terms of predetermination, but the division is about what you see in the west, with say Calvinism. When it is remembered that the singularity is ALL possibilities, there's no guarantee that you'll actually appear. But the potential is there.-> > Because we cannot truly separate cause and effect FROM cause and effect, the distance between us and 'initial cause' is zero. > > What you seem to say: My God and I continue to exist together; it seems to jump out at me. We continue our connection that was there in the beginning quantum plasma. The BB is all potential, constant evolution, and our concept of time is of no consequence. My arrival is contingency, a la Gould. > -Yeah, you're getting it. This is why I liked process theology; the universe unfolds itself and God changes along with his creation in a continuous process. For the Hindus, one can find communion with God by mastering "the present moment." God doesn't exist yesterday or tomorrow, only today. -> If I am co-existing with my God, it seems to strengthen my belief system, not undermine it at all. > -Well, I wasn't actually trying to undermine anything; only share eastern perspectives. I thought I was a "miner." Am I an "underminer?" Maybe we can only find gold by going under...-> All of this is perfectly acceptable. It opens up my thinking but doesn't change anything. I am me. I look at reality around me the same way. I appreciate Gould a little more, but think he is totally wrong, as I still think evolution has coded directionality, and that explains much more satisfactorily where we are today than chance contingency.-Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Monday, March 07, 2011, 15:59 (4818 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided.-A problem. Chance to me implies potentiality without guarantee. I'm potential at BB but must follow certain contingencies to get to me. I'm here, I was not designed to be here, my potential was realized, but it seems all chance. Chance and design are not the same. Yet I am part of the overall process which includes both chance and design.-The other thought: if time is a human construct, what is Einstein's space-time? A form of human relativity? Or a form of space evolution from the BB, which we view in a time measurement?
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 07, 2011, 16:54 (4818 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided. > > A problem. Chance to me implies potentiality without guarantee. I'm potential at BB but must follow certain contingencies to get to me. I'm here, I was not designed to be here, my potential was realized, but it seems all chance. Chance and design are not the same. Yet I am part of the overall process which includes both chance and design. > -To speak more plainly, this version of God I'm discussing didn't start out with a concrete plan because it IS the universe. There wasn't an if->then; remember again that God told Moses "I AM" for his name. Why? Jewish mystics, Sufis, Gnostics (when they were around) and Hindus all came to a similar conclusion about unity, even about this very idea we're discussing. The version of God I'm discussing exists only at this moment, can only modify things as he moves based on past knowledge and future prediction. He gets an idea to create conscious beings in order to not be alone, perhaps, so works through experiment to get the universe where it needs to go so that in at least one pocket, sentient beings arrive and can fathom him. -> The other thought: if time is a human construct, what is Einstein's space-time? A form of human relativity? Or a form of space evolution from the BB, which we view in a time measurement?-Einstein's spacetime is a mathematical construct that eliminated time as a fourth dimension and simply treats time and space as the same quantity. Time is relative--that's the whole point of the theory of relativity. If time were a real dimension, it would be the same for all bodies of mass everywhere, but for massive bodies, they experience time at a slower rate than small bodies.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 08, 2011, 01:42 (4817 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided.-> > To speak more plainly, this version of God I'm discussing didn't start out with a concrete plan because it IS the universe. There wasn't an if->then; remember again that God told Moses "I AM" for his name. Why? Jewish mystics, Sufis, Gnostics (when they were around) and Hindus all came to a similar conclusion about unity, even about this very idea we're discussing. The version of God I'm discussing exists only at this moment, can only modify things as he moves based on past knowledge and future prediction. He gets an idea to create conscious beings in order to not be alone, perhaps, so works through experiment to get the universe where it needs to go so that in at least one pocket, sentient beings arrive and can fathom him.-That is the best description of process theology I've read; I may not fully agree with it, but I have learned! > > Einstein's spacetime is a mathematical construct that eliminated time as a fourth dimension and simply treats time and space as the same quantity. Time is relative--that's the whole point of the theory of relativity. If time were a real dimension, it would be the same for all bodies of mass everywhere, but for massive bodies, they experience time at a slower rate than small bodies. -And faster bodies become smaller. And speed slows the machines we construct to tell time. Makes more sense to me than it did before. But what of the proposal that a twin who travels near the speed of light returns to Earth much younger than his brother. If time is just a human construct how does it affect biological processes of aging, or does it?
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, March 08, 2011, 02:19 (4817 days ago) @ David Turell
David, > > Einstein's spacetime is a mathematical construct that eliminated time as a fourth dimension and simply treats time and space as the same quantity. Time is relative--that's the whole point of the theory of relativity. If time were a real dimension, it would be the same for all bodies of mass everywhere, but for massive bodies, they experience time at a slower rate than small bodies. > > And faster bodies become smaller. And speed slows the machines we construct to tell time. Makes more sense to me than it did before. But what of the proposal that a twin who travels near the speed of light returns to Earth much younger than his brother. If time is just a human construct how does it affect biological processes of aging, or does it?-It doesn't; Physics rejects any notion of a single frame of reference for time. That means exactly this: Time for me is different than time for you--if we're on differing masses. If I was on a ship going the speed of light (which requires A LOT of mass) my time would slow in relation to your time, but not against some universal law or physical reality. Biology works just the same for me as it does for you, I will feel it at the same rate as you, but yes, I would come back younger than my brother. -This is one of those counterintuitive results that physics is famous for.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
MATT: You went down the wrong rabbit hole here...-One of the stimulating and engaging aspects of corresponding with you, Matt, is that you take us down so many different rabbit holes. One of the frustrating aspects is that the moment we think we've caught up with you in one, you disappear down another!-MATT: This goes back to my distinction on what it means to know something. Not to just hear it. Not just repeat what someone told you, but to know. Knowing is a marriage of all the causes and all the effects that make up that object. It's a deep understanding, NOT a superficial one. Science's job is to give us workable knowledge--NOT truth. You're describing workable knowledge.-On 4 March your goal was "to get us to assign some ranks and priorities so we can discuss ... directly ... the ACTUAL problem (rank)", which you followed up on 5 March with such direct questions as: "Why do you do it? Why do we rank some property higher than others? Why do we decide to reject some arguments and not others?" And yet on 6 March you said that cause and effect are a delusion. How can such questions be answered without going into cause and effect? Now whoosh, back we go to the distinction between knowledge and truth! Earlier on in this discussion, we had already agreed that truth was unattainable, and that knowledge was "information accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it". Now suddenly you want to discuss "deep understanding", which means knowing ALL the causes and ALL the effects, which of course is totally impossible, because knowing ALL these would mean knowing the truth, which we have agreed is unattainable! MATT: The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. -There's nothing to chew on. It's self-evident. And it gets us nowhere. As I said in my last post, "whatever factor you are considering has a dual connection, like any link in a chain." I don't think anyone would question your statement that "there is an infinite amount of causes and effects that leads to David Turell" (read 'Tristram Shandy'!), but if you want to know why we do something, why we rank one faculty above another, why we reject/accept certain arguments, do you expect us to go back to the Big Bang? Ages ago I said we needed to decide which level we wanted to argue on. The philosophical level makes further discussion impossible. We can agree to disagree on the reality of time's "arrow" (= the SEQUENCE of cause and effect, in which cause becomes effect becomes cause becomes effect ad infinitum), but if you want to discuss rank, I see no alternative to the commonsense level. We can then delve into the factors that make us believe what we believe (inseparable from the problem of rank and from the sequence of cause and effect).-In this context, it might help if you would explain what you mean by "direct" experience, which you said was one of only two means we have to inform ourselves about the world. I pointed out that a vast amount of our information comes through indirect experience ... i.e. the experiences of others.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 07, 2011, 13:17 (4818 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-The thread of conversation I'm having with David is separate from what we're dealing with; but it does impact it. -> MATT: You went down the wrong rabbit hole here... > > MATT: This goes back to my distinction on what it means to know something. Not to just hear it. Not just repeat what someone told you, but to know. Knowing is a marriage of all the causes and all the effects that make up that object. It's a deep understanding, NOT a superficial one. Science's job is to give us workable knowledge--NOT truth. You're describing workable knowledge. > > ...How can such questions be answered without going into cause and effect? Now whoosh, back we go to the distinction between knowledge and truth! ... > -I think you're trying to weave different threads of mine into the same fabric. You... seem to get heartburn when I bring up my qualifications for knowledge. To know isn't just to have knowledge, to know is to live your knowledge. (Inaccurate representation, but your prior use of 'internalization' is close.) For each of us individually, it isn't possible to know deeply in any but a few areas. The Big Bang is a great analogy for this. At the moment when it was a single point of quanta, the universe literally was all possible futures at once. -Cause and effect being delusion: Brought up because David brings up the Aristotelian "prime cause." He said he can't get past it. To a degree, this is your problem too, because you've previously asked "If we were created, what created the creator?" In keeping up with my rabbit nature, I'm adjusting and asking you if you (either of you) are really asking the right question? The influence of eastern thinking upon me is really quite deeper than I had surmised--but it was David that asked to go down this particular rabbit hole. -In the post you're responding to, you're accusing me of philosophizing (sophistry perhaps?) away your concerns. I'm trying to get you to approach your notion of cause and effect from a completely different view. My response to David goes far down that path. He seems to follow the idea, though I surmise it might be giving him some heartburn. (It is a completely different teaching to what we grow up with--unless of course you grew up with Kabbalistic, Gnostic, or Sufi parents...). You have to give up your notion of time; which is counterintuitive. This goes back to several of my posts (that you probably understand in better context now) in looking at time. -The universe has only ever been 'right now.' The past is a picture of yesterday's state compared to today's. The future can be predicted, but not known. This isn't saying that previous states have no impact on now, or the future, only that reality itself is only ever the present moment. Hindu's Brahman, Buddha's enlightenment. David's panentheistic God.-Again, in eastern traditions, the notion of cause and effect are products of language and ego. Language because language attempts to make permanent things that are not intrinsically permanent. Ego because we're driven to use language to make sense of our world. Ancient sages in India recognized this and came to the conclusion that reality--is consciousness only. To perceive this you must learn to shut off the parts of your mind that deal with past and future. -> MATT: The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. > > There's nothing to chew on. It's self-evident. And it gets us nowhere. ... We can then delve into the factors that make us believe what we believe (inseparable from the problem of rank and from the sequence of cause and effect). > -It is self evident that causes and effects are truly inseparable? Useless how? Read my signature again; that's what we do with language and science. We get shades of the universe. But there's other perceptions; it's just a question of whether you think they're valid. [EDIT] According to Eastern tradition, understanding the root nature of the cosmos as unity, as all causes and effects simultaneously, is the rock from which differentiations of cause and effect are built. It's just a bit more explicit than it is here in the west. If cause and effect are two perceptions of the same thing--the irreducible thing--they are only two perceptions of a single object. The single object is reality. The perceptions are not. -> In this context, it might help if you would explain what you mean by "direct" experience, which you said was one of only two means we have to inform ourselves about the world. I pointed out that a vast amount of our information comes through indirect experience ... i.e. the experiences of others.-Direct experience: Knowledge gained through mental means alone. Information from indirect sources still enters through your ears or eyes.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 07, 2011, 13:43 (4818 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, -This needs a little more discussion:- The claim that "the only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect" would rob us of virtually every technological, medical, and scientific advance we humans have ever made. Of course our understanding will only be partial ... as you say, the network is infinite ... but without that clear distinction we will be confined to the present state of things: the car will never start again, the disease will never be cured, I shall never know the cause of thunder.-You went down the wrong rabbit hole here... This goes back to my distinction on what it means to know something. Not to just hear it. Not just repeat what someone told you, but to know. Knowing is a marriage of all the causes and all the effects that make up that object. It's a deep understanding, NOT a superficial one. Science's job is to give us workable knowledge--NOT truth. You're describing workable knowledge. -Truth was perhaps a misleading word for me here. Science gives us workable knowledge. Actionable. Just enough to transform our environment. But you seemed to me to be mistaking "what works" for "what's true" and by extension "what's reality." Reality can never be fully understood this way, to the extent that any individual is capable of understanding reality. Science is understanding reality by creating a chain of causes and effects and comparing them to what we see. We build a model from language and see if observations make sense. But even going back to my pool cue description, it only captures a small shade of what's going on--only that portion that can be described by language. -As a sidenote, diving back into these old teachings after having abandoned them for so many years has demonstrated to me more directly exactly what it is that scientism endangers. There's a sharper distinction to me in the mind that I didn't catch on the first pass.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, May 20, 2011, 23:18 (4743 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > My apologies if I'm not getting to what you consider to be the "the very root", but you will gather from the above that I'm still not sure what it is.-And we shall start again from here...
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, January 14, 2011, 22:33 (4869 days ago) @ xeno6696
> A TV works by receiving a radio signal sent through the air, and interprets the signal into a form that humans can use, namely sound and light. > > I have heard ancient (5+) years ago of experiments done looking at humans, and no exterior signal has been deemed present. Therefore, we should conclude that consciousness is at best--an extremely local phenomenon. > > I will maintain that there is more evidence that consciousness is localized to the human brain than there is life was designed. First, to borrow from a previous argument I used with David, you need to be able to conceptualize design and what exactly it is. All knowledge we have is ultimately based on experience; an old teacher's adage: there is no better teacher. -I see that more discussion has been devoted to the framework, but something in your dispute of his analogy was lacking. You state that 'no exterior signal has been deemed present. Therefore, we should conclude that consciousness is at best, an extremely local phenomenon." I would ask on what grounds any scientist is able to make such a sweeping statement. -1)First, we are not even able to pin down the nature of consciousness itself, so we are in essence unable to locate the 'receiver', should there in fact be one. -2)Secondly, we have no idea in what shape or form these 'transmissions' or 'signals' would take, thus rendering almost any 'empirical' study worthless except in the context of defining what is NOT a signal. Since we fail at step 1, we categorically are destined to fail at step 2 because without knowing where the receiver is or what form it might take, we can not definitively state that the 'receiver' is not receiving. -3)If a person experiences a NDE/OBE, during a time that the 'receiver' is 'disconnected' from the brain, can you confirm that the 'receiver' is in fact altogether inactive, or can you only infer that there is no data transfer between 'receiver' and brain, and nothing being written to the hard drive of the brain.-If you brought Di Vinci in and showed him a television, no matter how hard you tried to explain it, you would seem to him to be talking about God, until you were able to increase his knowledge level up with all the technology and concepts that makes television possible.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by David Turell , Saturday, January 15, 2011, 01:24 (4869 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> 3)If a person experiences a NDE/OBE, during a time that the 'receiver' is 'disconnected' from the brain, can you confirm that the 'receiver' is in fact altogether inactive, or can you only infer that there is no data transfer between 'receiver' and brain, and nothing being written to the hard drive of the brain.- A thorough review of the NDE/OOB literature supports your statement completely. No one knows exactly what is happeneing, but it is happening. Even if the EEG is 'flatlined' there is possibly some way for the person who is in the apparently nonreceiving state to receive informataion from the hubbub around him. What is occurring over and over again from hospice studies, is new info which the patient has received, could not have been picked up by the patient in the mental state that patient is in. So how did he get it in the NDE or the OOB. I'm speaking of events like death of a relative or friend, and not spoken of in the hospice. Where is the consciousness in an NDE, or in a patient whose eyes are covered, yet can describe the surgical room's activites? The Pam Reynolds case in "Light & Death", by Sabom is a prime example of this: Deeply hypothermic, EEG flat, ears covered by a headset making timed sounds during brain surgery. Yet she picked up many details. My advice to all on this website is to review that literature.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 15, 2011, 03:23 (4869 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
dhw, > I see that more discussion has been devoted to the framework, but something in your dispute of his analogy was lacking. You state that 'no exterior signal has been deemed present. Therefore, we should conclude that consciousness is at best, an extremely local phenomenon." I would ask on what grounds any scientist is able to make such a sweeping statement. > > 1)First, we are not even able to pin down the nature of consciousness itself, so we are in essence unable to locate the 'receiver', should there in fact be one. > > 2)Secondly, we have no idea in what shape or form these 'transmissions' or 'signals' would take, thus rendering almost any 'empirical' study worthless except in the context of defining what is NOT a signal. Since we fail at step 1, we categorically are destined to fail at step 2 because without knowing where the receiver is or what form it might take, we can not definitively state that the 'receiver' is not receiving. >-I just don't understand you here; I mean, I get your analogy and your argument, but here it is:-First, we know that our consciousness is our "inner" self. One of the best (and simplest) definitions for consciousness I've heard was "being aware that you are aware." We can identify thoughts--pictures, abstractions. -I'm a very empirical thinker, and to be direct--I've come across no evidence that suggests that the consciousness isn't in the brain. For each of us, we have only things internal to ourselves, and external to ourselves. To me, you are suggesting that our internal is caused by the external, and that's giving me frostbite!!! You seem to ignore the most advanced thing humans can do... > 3)If a person experiences a NDE/OBE, during a time that the 'receiver' is 'disconnected' from the brain, can you confirm that the 'receiver' is in fact altogether inactive, or can you only infer that there is no data transfer between 'receiver' and brain, and nothing being written to the hard drive of the brain. > -The problem here, is that our brain is capable of creating worlds for us--worlds that seem absolutely real until we wake up from a dream. In fact, I can deliberately daydream with this machinery, and be utterly severed from what's going on around me--I can basically ignore all external datum and "give myself" my own input. I can make myself smell things. -Just now I imagined walking by a fire hydrant, and being impaled as the pressure explodes at the exact moment I walked by it. I now see myself from the air like in a movie, as I draw my last breath, snowflakes falling upon my forehead.-In the next scene, I play a cartoon version of myself, dance, and jump off a cliff with a "help me!" sign. -In instances of NBE/OBE it's entirely reasonable that your brain's model of the world moves your self away from you and renders images that it pulls together from what bits of input it receives. If we don't know much about consciousness, than its reasonable to also consider that what we think is "conscious brainwaves" on an EEG is a correlation of some other brain activity. -What I'm saying here, is that the internal power of our brain is itself able to explain these events. I may not be able to tell you what my consciousness is, but I can certainly use it! So in this instance, I have alot of evidence that my consciousness is internal to me and myself; and that I will cease to be conscious if I jump off a real cliff and hit my head. -I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is outside of my head, and at least two reasons (one empirical) to believe that my consciousness is within my head. I think I'm within reason here.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, January 15, 2011, 07:59 (4869 days ago) @ xeno6696
dhw, > > I see that more discussion has been devoted to the framework, but something in your dispute of his analogy was lacking. You state that 'no exterior signal has been deemed present. Therefore, we should conclude that consciousness is at best, an extremely local phenomenon." I would ask on what grounds any scientist is able to make such a sweeping statement. > > > > 1)First, we are not even able to pin down the nature of consciousness itself, so we are in essence unable to locate the 'receiver', should there in fact be one. > > > > 2)Secondly, we have no idea in what shape or form these 'transmissions' or 'signals' would take, thus rendering almost any 'empirical' study worthless except in the context of defining what is NOT a signal. Since we fail at step 1, we categorically are destined to fail at step 2 because without knowing where the receiver is or what form it might take, we can not definitively state that the 'receiver' is not receiving. > > > > I just don't understand you here; I mean, I get your analogy and your argument, but here it is: > > First, we know that our consciousness is our "inner" self. One of the best (and simplest) definitions for consciousness I've heard was "being aware that you are aware." We can identify thoughts--pictures, abstractions. > > I'm a very empirical thinker, and to be direct--I've come across no evidence that suggests that the consciousness isn't in the brain. For each of us, we have only things internal to ourselves, and external to ourselves. To me, you are suggesting that our internal is caused by the external, and that's giving me frostbite!!! You seem to ignore the most advanced thing humans can do... > > > 3)If a person experiences a NDE/OBE, during a time that the 'receiver' is 'disconnected' from the brain, can you confirm that the 'receiver' is in fact altogether inactive, or can you only infer that there is no data transfer between 'receiver' and brain, and nothing being written to the hard drive of the brain. > > > > The problem here, is that our brain is capable of creating worlds for us--worlds that seem absolutely real until we wake up from a dream. In fact, I can deliberately daydream with this machinery, and be utterly severed from what's going on around me--I can basically ignore all external datum and "give myself" my own input. I can make myself smell things. > > Just now I imagined walking by a fire hydrant, and being impaled as the pressure explodes at the exact moment I walked by it. I now see myself from the air like in a movie, as I draw my last breath, snowflakes falling upon my forehead. > > In the next scene, I play a cartoon version of myself, dance, and jump off a cliff with a "help me!" sign. > > In instances of NBE/OBE it's entirely reasonable that your brain's model of the world moves your self away from you and renders images that it pulls together from what bits of input it receives. If we don't know much about consciousness, than its reasonable to also consider that what we think is "conscious brainwaves" on an EEG is a correlation of some other brain activity. > > What I'm saying here, is that the internal power of our brain is itself able to explain these events. I may not be able to tell you what my consciousness is, but I can certainly use it! So in this instance, I have alot of evidence that my consciousness is internal to me and myself; and that I will cease to be conscious if I jump off a real cliff and hit my head. > > I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is outside of my head, and at least two reasons (one empirical) to believe that my consciousness is within my head. I think I'm within reason here.- You are so very linear here, and (in my humble opinion) mistaken from word go. First off, we do NOT know that consciousness is our inner anything. We do not know what consciousness is, how it is achieved, or how it is maintained, or how our consciousness is different from animals. We know the effects of those differences, but not the ultimate root cause or of them.-Without knowing the precise nature of consciousness, its origins, and its M.O., we can not make any conclusive statements about whether anything is or is not being transmitted or received from an external source. -I find it hard to believe that scientist can sit around and reasonably and rationally debate quantum entanglement yet not understand that there doesn't have to BE a signal(that we can detect with our current technology) in order for something to be affected by an outside source. Nor can I understand, particularly in light of the aforementioned phenomena, that anyone can truly believe that we are not connected to the rest of the universe in a very real and physical sense, and that said connection would have an impact on us.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 15, 2011, 19:22 (4869 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
dhw, > > I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is outside of my head, and at least two reasons (one empirical) to believe that my consciousness is within my head. I think I'm within reason here. > > > You are so very linear here, and (in my humble opinion) mistaken from word go. First off, we do NOT know that consciousness is our inner anything. We do not know what consciousness is, how it is achieved, or how it is maintained, or how our consciousness is different from animals. We know the effects of those differences, but not the ultimate root cause or of them. > -The last sentence is a little tricky here, but I think I get the gist. -I don't tend to question my consciousness in this way. Perhaps its the years spent in Zen training, but I know my inner self well. I know when my brain is trying to get me to do something versus what I intend on doing. (If you've ever overrode your intuition, this is what I'm talking about.) -It would be better to describe to me what a nonlinear version of this discussion would be? You haven't been here nearly as long, but one statement I had made several times in the past is that I don't care too much for things I can't study. In this context it means, I see no reason to invoke explanations that we have no means with which to evaluate. We can evaluate the brain; we can evaluate our inner self. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. -> Without knowing the precise nature of consciousness, its origins, and its M.O., we can not make any conclusive statements about whether anything is or is not being transmitted or received from an external source. > -But as I've said previously, what reasons do I have to look at an external hypothesis? I see no reasons or evidence to suggest it's a valid approach. -> I find it hard to believe that scientist can sit around and reasonably and rationally debate quantum entanglement yet not understand that there doesn't have to BE a signal(that we can detect with our current technology) in order for something to be affected by an outside source. Nor can I understand, particularly in light of the aforementioned phenomena, that anyone can truly believe that we are not connected to the rest of the universe in a very real and physical sense, and that said connection would have an impact on us.-Quantum Entanglement is something that at present, can only exist under very special laboratory conditions--conditions that don't seem to exist in the natural world. Entanglement is studied usually at superhot or supercooled conditions. So maybe our interface with our souls exists in our Sun, or deep in subspace?
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, January 16, 2011, 18:11 (4868 days ago) @ xeno6696
dhw, > > > I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is outside of my head, and at least two reasons (one empirical) to believe that my consciousness is within my head. I think I'm within reason here. > > > > > > You are so very linear here, and (in my humble opinion) mistaken from word go. First off, we do NOT know that consciousness is our inner anything. We do not know what consciousness is, how it is achieved, or how it is maintained, or how our consciousness is different from animals. We know the effects of those differences, but not the ultimate root cause or of them. > > > > The last sentence is a little tricky here, but I think I get the gist. > > I don't tend to question my consciousness in this way. Perhaps its the years spent in Zen training, but I know my inner self well. I know when my brain is trying to get me to do something versus what I intend on doing. (If you've ever overrode your intuition, this is what I'm talking about.) > > It would be better to describe to me what a nonlinear version of this discussion would be? You haven't been here nearly as long, but one statement I had made several times in the past is that I don't care too much for things I can't study. In this context it means, I see no reason to invoke explanations that we have no means with which to evaluate. We can evaluate the brain; we can evaluate our inner self. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. > > > Without knowing the precise nature of consciousness, its origins, and its M.O., we can not make any conclusive statements about whether anything is or is not being transmitted or received from an external source. > > > > But as I've said previously, what reasons do I have to look at an external hypothesis? I see no reasons or evidence to suggest it's a valid approach. > > > I find it hard to believe that scientist can sit around and reasonably and rationally debate quantum entanglement yet not understand that there doesn't have to BE a signal(that we can detect with our current technology) in order for something to be affected by an outside source. Nor can I understand, particularly in light of the aforementioned phenomena, that anyone can truly believe that we are not connected to the rest of the universe in a very real and physical sense, and that said connection would have an impact on us. > > Quantum Entanglement is something that at present, can only exist under very special laboratory conditions--conditions that don't seem to exist in the natural world. Entanglement is studied usually at superhot or supercooled conditions. So maybe our interface with our souls exists in our Sun, or deep in subspace?-The linear version of the discussion is, "I think therefore I am." My brain exists, my brain calculates, which translates into thought, therefore my inner self is the product of the calculations and sensory evaluation of my brain. The non-linear version would be: I am. My brain is. Me('I') and my brain function together. 'I' is aware of my brain. My brain is aware of 'I'. This does not dictate that 'I' and 'brain' are one. We do not understand 'I'. We do not fully understand the brain. We do not understand the linkage between between 'I' and the brain. Therefore it is possible to speculate that they are in fact distinctly separate entities. The fact that you are aware of when reason tries to override intuition actually serves to highlight the fact that they are separate.- Quantum entanglement is something that we have only been able to study under the conditions you listed. That does not mean that they only exist under those conditions, but we do not, as of yet, have a way to study them in other conditions.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 17, 2011, 04:32 (4867 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance, > The linear version of the discussion is, "I think therefore I am." My brain exists, my brain calculates, which translates into thought, therefore my inner self is the product of the calculations and sensory evaluation of my brain. The non-linear version would be: I am. My brain is. Me('I') and my brain function together. 'I' is aware of my brain. My brain is aware of 'I'. This does not dictate that 'I' and 'brain' are one. We do not understand 'I'. We do not fully understand the brain. We do not understand the linkage between between 'I' and the brain. Therefore it is possible to speculate that they are in fact distinctly separate entities. The fact that you are aware of when reason tries to override intuition actually serves to highlight the fact that they are separate. > -Dualism. God I hope you're not serious... It's interesting when this beast pops up; but there's a good reason that it is one idea that has been repeatedly rejected by both eastern and western philosophy, writ large. In fact, I can steadfastly say that in my own Zen Buddhism the entire idea is anathema. I would perhaps direct you to Graham Dunstin Martin, an ID advocate that wrote a book "Does it Matter?" where he advances a revival of dualism. He has some excellent criticisms on AI and materialism, but I found the book chock full of "WTF" ideas than ideas with realistic merit. The problem with debating dualists is that since they assert that mind and matter are entirely different things, they have no problem accepting non-empirical claims. "If we can think it, that is its own reality." It's especially maddening to a mathematician.-Why not bring back idealism while we're at it? -I could be mistaking you when I analyse your statement in green. However, in my mind I am aware BOTH of my sense of intuition, and my ability to supersede it with reason. Consciousness to me, is simply the ability to make those decisions, in this sense "aware that I'm aware." Again we return to the fact that your description falls apart when we try to apply empirical methods to it; and as I discussed earlier in my framework, I'm not interested in things that can't be known. So as boring and "linear" as I seem to you I'm not really interested in pursuing this "nonlinear" approach. It seems a waste of time.-> > Quantum entanglement is something that we have only been able to study under the conditions you listed. That does not mean that they only exist under those conditions, but we do not, as of yet, have a way to study them in other conditions.-I put extra emphasis on your words here because it is precisely this reason that we shouldn't waste our precious time considering such options until a physical reality exists that allows us to pursue them.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
TONY: We do not understand the linkage between 'I' and the brain. Therefore it is possible to speculate that they are in fact distinctly separate entities.-I have made the same point on the thread "Consciousness, identity, OBEs", which I opened precisely for the sake of this discussion. Would contributors please, please, please continue it on the appropriate thread, quoting the arguments to which they are responding.-MATT: Again we return to the fact that your description falls apart when we try to apply empirical methods to it; and as I discussed earlier in my framework, I'm not interested in things that can't be known.-You set out your epistemological framework on 12 January at 02.16, defining what you considered to be knowledge, plus your own hierarchy of rank. It is full of holes, and in my post of 12 January at 20.27 I did my best to provide a critique of it, as well as offering a suggestion of my own, only to be informed on 13 January at 22.32 that your scepticism was underpinned by the maxim "the only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing." May I suggest that on this thread you explain your epistemological framework by responding to my critique, and that on the consciousness thread you explain the process by which ... I quote myself rewriting your own statement in materialist terms ... "The brain knows the brain well. The brain knows when the brain is trying to get the brain to do something versus what the brain intends on doing."
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 03:24 (4865 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: We do not understand the linkage between 'I' and the brain. Therefore it is possible to speculate that they are in fact distinctly separate entities. > > I have made the same point on the thread "Consciousness, identity, OBEs", which I opened precisely for the sake of this discussion. Would contributors please, please, please continue it on the appropriate thread, quoting the arguments to which they are responding. > > MATT: Again we return to the fact that your description falls apart when we try to apply empirical methods to it; and as I discussed earlier in my framework, I'm not interested in things that can't be known. > > You set out your epistemological framework on 12 January at 02.16, defining what you considered to be knowledge, plus your own hierarchy of rank. It is full of holes, and in my post of 12 January at 20.27 I did my best to provide a critique of it, as well as offering a suggestion of my own, only to be informed on 13 January at 22.32 that your scepticism was underpinned by the maxim "the only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing." May I suggest that on this thread you explain your epistemological framework by responding to my critique, and that on the consciousness thread you explain the process by which ... I quote myself rewriting your own statement in materialist terms ... "The brain knows the brain well. The brain knows when the brain is trying to get the brain to do something versus what the brain intends on doing."-I think we should pause here... lets get my thoughts in order so that they make sense to you first...
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, January 17, 2011, 16:01 (4867 days ago) @ xeno6696
No, I am not trying to bring back dualism. I am merely pointing out that there is a electro-mechanical function happening in the brain, and something that is aware of this function as a outside observer. When I think of my brain, I am not thinking of ME, I am thinking of a component of ME.
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 00:35 (4866 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
No, I am not trying to bring back dualism. I am merely pointing out that there is a electro-mechanical function happening in the brain, and something that is aware of this function as a outside observer. When I think of my brain, I am not thinking of ME, I am thinking of a component of ME.-Well, what you're describing now, and what you were describing before is a minor variation on textbook Descartes dualism. "I can doubt that I have a body (brain) but I can't doubt that I have a mind." THIS is the proper place for "I think therefore I am."-You're asserting that mind is a separate substance from the matter; you're making your brain the object and your mind the subject. Worded another way, you're asserting your mind is aware of the brain as something distinct from itself. But what is your evidence for this? (Not reasoning--evidence!)-From Wikipedia on Cartesian Dualism:-"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honour of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact. This is an idea which continues to feature prominently in many non-European philosophies. Mental events cause physical events, and vice-versa. But this leads to a substantial problem for Cartesian dualism: How can an immaterial mind cause anything in a material body, and vice-versa? This has often been called the "problem of interactionism"."-This single problem by itself is also one of my frequent positions with David on his theological formulation. You can't claim that an immaterial agent can act within a material world without providing a cause. The next problem is defining what exactly is material and what is not; any such explanation requires being able to concretely define this boundary.
--
\"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.\"
Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 16:13 (4865 days ago) @ xeno6696
First, I never said that 'mind' was immaterial, which is one of the major differences between my point of view and standard Dualism. I think we covered this topic in some depth in our discussion of God as organized energy, which is no different than what I view 'mind' or soul to be. Energy is very physical, and thus there is no interaction problem between an energy form and the brain, which is by design quite adept at manipulating and responding to energetic influences.