A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism - Page 8

Brian-E · 2012-10-08, 19:31

Isn't it good science to encourage doubt?

And isn't "certainty" a hallmark of most religions?

chalsall · 2012-10-08, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Any introductory philosophy course that leaves its students so in doubt
that they can not prove to themselves they are not in a dream
has done them a great disservice. Elevating doubt and denigrating
proof and certainty are the hallmarks of so-called modern philosophy.

But we know we cannot know everything.

Why must we lie and let people think we can?

chalsall · 2012-10-08, 20:34

Oh, and to pedantic, I note you haven't answered my questions:

1. "The world is just part of a dream" - can be disproven.

How, exactly, do you disprove this?

2. "The universe had a beginning and/or was created" - can be disproven.

How, exactly, do you disprove this?

I await your answer.

chalsall · 2012-10-08, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Isn't it good science to encourage doubt?

It's a cornerstone of the "scientific method".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

And isn't "certainty" a hallmark of most religions?

Yes.

Strangely, we find those who advocate the scientific method don't really understanding it.

davar55 · 2012-10-09, 02:06

Briefly:

"The world is not just part of a dream" - if everything is a dream, then
what we regard as reality isn't real, i.e. nothing is real, which contradicts
the fundamental concepts of existence (the primary basis of metaphysics)
and the impossibility of contradictions in reality (basis of logic).

"The universe had no beginning and wasn't created" - if the universe had a
beginning or was created, it happened at some time, so just ask what was
happening ten minutes earlier, and keep repeating that question; then
show that the infinite regress in time is not contradictory.

"I'm not typing this right now" - was self-disproving (to me.it was clear
and evident, hence trivially proven at the time; the truth of the sentence
afterwards and to others was intended to be an indictment of solipsism.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Any introductory philosophy course that leaves its students so in doubt
that they can not prove to themselves they are not in a dream
has done them a great disservice. Elevating doubt and denigrating
proof and certainty are the hallmarks of so-called modern philosophy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

But we know we cannot know everything.
...

Of course omniscience is impossible. And doubt is important in
examining scientific evidence. But in philosophy, as in math, both
of which are more fundamental than science, proofs (when possible)
are crucial.

chappy · 2012-10-09, 02:31

Aren't you being guilty of the same semantic sins (only reversed) as the Ontological Argument? Reality is not defined by our ability to describe it.

1) everything is a dream.
2)what we regard as reality isn't real. <--you mean our perception of reality inside the dream?
3) nothing is real <-- doesn't seem to follow from the first two premises since at least the dream is real, though our perception of it is false.
4) a contradiction exists between #3 and what we regard as reality, and since...
5) contradictions can't exist in reality

ergo: Bob's your mother's brother! Presto we exist!

I think you are placing a realness to our perception of reality that doesn't exist. I agree that you can prove that the Thinker exists. So you can prove your own existence (or that there is a being who thinks that it is you.) But that seems to be the limit of absolute knowledge.

I take the more pragmatic view that:

1) If I assume the world exists
2) The world that exists follows certain rules
3) those rules seem to always apply

ergo: it doesn't matter to me, The Thinker, whether the world actually exists in the manner in which I perceive it. Therefore it is easier to think in terms that it does exist and that it is coherent than to assume that it's coherence is in spite of it's non-existence. See William of Ockham. (and spell Ockham correctly :)

As an example inside the dream. Does it matter that Newtonian physics is wrong to the Wright Brothers? Of course not, it was a good enough approximation to slip free the bonds of gravity. Pragmatism, therefore, leads to excessive baggage fees and being groped by underpaid and under-trained flunkies at airports.

Also time is a construct of the existence of the known universe. At the point of the big bang it makes no sense to talk about going back 10 minutes before. It's like saying I put a triangle circle horse throughout the carefree.

AES · 2012-10-09, 03:28

And yet, there are many living earthen species to discover and document.

Batalov · 2012-10-09, 06:38

xilman · 2012-10-09, 08:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

I agree that you can prove that the Thinker exists.

I think that I think, therefore I think that I exist.

If I'm a piece of code in a simulated universe then that simulation may be sufficiently rich that it models the mental processes of intelligent beings.

So, do I exist in such a scenario?

Personally, I regard most of these word games as rather futile, though undeniably interesting on occasion.

chappy · 2012-10-09, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

So, do I exist in such a scenario?

Yes, what else could you possibly mean by existence?

I would be more worried in the counter that in a less sufficiently rich simulation some thinker exists but that it isn't the one that thinks of itself inside the simulation. How could I prove that "I" am the Thinker? I can't. Thus I am forced to use the term The Thinker, instead of the terms "I" or "Me."

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

Personally, I regard most of these word games as rather futile, though undeniably interesting on occasion.

Agreed. Our semantic system tries to describe our perception of reality, it doesn't change it. (just don't tell Plato I said that--he gets a little snippy if he hasn't had his morning coffee.)

davar55 · 2012-10-09, 13:56

Taking some statements out of their full context:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

...
Reality is not defined by our ability to describe it.
...
1) everything is a dream.
2)what we regard as reality isn't real. <--you mean our perception of reality inside the dream?
3) nothing is real <-- doesn't seem to follow from the first two premises since at least the dream is real, though our perception of it is false.
4) a contradiction exists between #3 and what we regard as reality, and since...
5) contradictions can't exist in reality

ergo: Bob's your mother's brother! Presto we exist!

I think you are placing a realness to our perception of reality that doesn't exist. I agree that you can prove that the Thinker exists. So you can prove your own existence (or that there is a being who thinks that it is you.) But that seems to be the limit of absolute knowledge.
...
If I assume the world exists ...
...
it doesn't matter to me, The Thinker, whether the world actually exists in the manner in which I perceive it.

Also time is a construct of the existence of the known universe. At the point of the big bang it makes no sense to talk about going back 10 minutes before. It's like saying I put a triangle circle horse throughout the carefree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

I think that I think, therefore I think that I exist.

If I'm a piece of code in a simulated universe then that simulation may be sufficiently rich that it models the mental processes of intelligent beings.

So, do I exist in such a scenario?

Personally, I regard most of these word games as rather futile, though undeniably interesting on occasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

Yes, what else could you possibly mean by existence?
...
Our semantic system tries to describe our perception of reality, it doesn't change it.

Reality precedes out abiliity to describe it, and then we as intelligent
beings proceed to describe reality based on initially our perceptions.
But perception isn't everything, as thinking proves.
"What we regard as reality" means our fullest understanding of it,
not just what we perceive. So when I go from the opposite statement
"everythihg is a dream" to "what we regard as reality isn't real"
I'm not referring to our perception of reality within the dream (which
may by the nature of dreams be at odds with reality) but to the
quasi-reality the dream presents, which if everything is a dream must
equate to reality (true, not dream, reality).

And so on with the other sentences in that "proof" of "everything is
not just a dream".

As to "a realness to our perception of reality that doesn't exist",
all knowledge ultimately is based on our perception. If percepts
aren't real, then no knowledge is real. Validating our perceptions
as real might take a longer argument, but why exclude the
possibility of doing so just by saying it can't be done.

"Assuming the world exists" or "it doesn't matter whether the world
exists as I perceive it" both ignore the basic fact of existence,
prior to any labeling or description of reality's detailed nature.
The world doesn't exist by assumption, but by validatable fact.

The BBT is a theory based on a hypothesis based on an interpretation
of astronomical data. It is not the only scientific cosmology possible.
________________

"I think, therefore I think I exist" sounds cool, but any thinking being
knows it exists in some measure, even if words get in the way.
Existence is primary, how you know it comes after.

"just a piece of code in a simulated universe" is, again, a form of
solipsism. Why even consider it. Ruling out all forms of solipsism
is very worthwhile in rooting out metaphysical errors.

2012-10-09, 02:31	#83
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13·89 Posts	Aren't you being guilty of the same semantic sins (only reversed) as the Ontological Argument? Reality is not defined by our ability to describe it. 1) everything is a dream. 2)what we regard as reality isn't real. <--you mean our perception of reality inside the dream? 3) nothing is real <-- doesn't seem to follow from the first two premises since at least the dream is real, though our perception of it is false. 4) a contradiction exists between #3 and what we regard as reality, and since... 5) contradictions can't exist in reality ergo: Bob's your mother's brother! Presto we exist! I think you are placing a realness to our perception of reality that doesn't exist. I agree that you can prove that the Thinker exists. So you can prove your own existence (or that there is a being who thinks that it is you.) But that seems to be the limit of absolute knowledge. I take the more pragmatic view that: 1) If I assume the world exists 2) The world that exists follows certain rules 3) those rules seem to always apply ergo: it doesn't matter to me, The Thinker, whether the world actually exists in the manner in which I perceive it. Therefore it is easier to think in terms that it does exist and that it is coherent than to assume that it's coherence is in spite of it's non-existence. See William of Ockham. (and spell Ockham correctly :) As an example inside the dream. Does it matter that Newtonian physics is wrong to the Wright Brothers? Of course not, it was a good enough approximation to slip free the bonds of gravity. Pragmatism, therefore, leads to excessive baggage fees and being groped by underpaid and under-trained flunkies at airports. Also time is a construct of the existence of the known universe. At the point of the big bang it makes no sense to talk about going back 10 minutes before. It's like saying I put a triangle circle horse throughout the carefree. Last fiddled with by chappy on 2012-10-09 at 02:34 Reason: time constraints.

2012-10-08, 19:31	#78
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 7·467 Posts	Isn't it good science to encourage doubt? And isn't "certainty" a hallmark of most religions?

2012-10-08, 20:34	#80
chalsall If I May "Chris Halsall" Sep 2002 Barbados 10011000000011₂ Posts	Oh, and to pedantic, I note you haven't answered my questions: 1. "The world is just part of a dream" - can be disproven. How, exactly, do you disprove this? 2. "The universe had a beginning and/or was created" - can be disproven. How, exactly, do you disprove this? I await your answer.

2012-10-09, 03:28	#84
AES Jul 2007 Tennessee 2⁵×19 Posts	And yet, there are many living earthen species to discover and document.

2012-10-09, 06:38	#85
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 9477₁₀ Posts