|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2010 : 08:37:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Perhaps some need God in order to be good and others do not. |
Perhaps, but is there any evidence for this? AFAIK, the evidence seems to suggest that people simply are more likely to behave according to the social norm (i.e. morally) when they perceive that they are being observed (be that by a god or society) and would otherwise suffer negative consequences.
As to the question of why this debate is highly polarised, I think (without offering any evidence) that people are quite sick of hearing various religious people sprout the false dichotomy that one has to follow some kind of divine objective moral code lest one slide into complete moral chaos (you know, raping children and so forth). |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 12:54:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Perhaps some need God in order to be good and others do not.
|
Those who do need therapy, not religion. |
Dr. Mabuse took a declarative position on this. I would hazard a guess that he feels that religion is an attempt at therapy by these folk. |
Now that you mention it, yes that could be a nice summary of my feeling of it.
Some people choose (for some reason or another) to self-medicate themselves with religion, as where others might (for example, cronically depressed) self-medicate with alcohol.
| Most athiests are of the Weiblen school; i.e. reality exists outside of and independent of the perception of reality. |
How can they be independent? |
In the oft-questioned hypothetical case of a non-perceived event being challenged as being a reality event (tree in the forest, etc.) You may not agree with Berkeley, but the logic of esse est percipi is difficult to contest, as you follow Dr. Johnson around kicking stones. |
When I hear the phrase "reality exists outside of and independent of the perception of reality", I think of the event of the falling tree in the woods analogy. It's still there falling and making the sound, independent of there being someone to perceive it or not.
Independence as in: reality is not dependent of someone being there to perceive it. Also, our perception does not always depend on reality in instances of optical illusions.
My English-skills are a bit fuzzy here. Could one say: "Perception and Reality are not interdependent."?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/07/2010 13:09:21 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 11:50:24 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
| This is why I love philosophy of this kind. It's so zany. And so well worth the time people spend contemplating questions like these. |
Zany is a value judgement literally describing an viewpoint or activity as: "fantastically or irrationally ludicrous : mildly insane : CRAZY" I can understand this viewpoint as expressed by one who is essentially pragmatic, adverse to complication and simply not interested in questions that are not easily answered or problems that are not easily solved.
I don't agree that irrationality or insanity is an appropriate description of metaphysics, but there is plenty of room for discussion as to the practical value of metaphysical speculation. Historically, a case can be made that centuries of philosophical discussion significantly impacted the development of science, law, political science, and the maturation of civilization in general
As to whether or not time is "wasted" in the discussion of such subject matter, the answer to that question pivots on what constitutes the proper use of time. This matter is obviously completely subjective and cannot have a universal answer. Is the time I spend in an effort to make money more or less "wasted" than the time another might spend playing electronic games or listening to rock bands? Obviously, there is no comparison possible as to inherent or absolute value of the respective times spent. To each his own.| Why do questions like these even matter? |
That question can only be answered indivudually by those to whom the questions matter and by those to whom they don't. My personal response is this: I find a great deal of what I spend most of my mental energy and my "work" time doing to be boring and repetitious. However, I greatly enjoy the lifestyle which that effort makes possible, or else I wouldn't do it.
But I also greatly enjoy thinking about and discussing imponderables such as morality, God or not, the nature of reality - the ageless philosophical ephemera much of which that you obviously disdain. Neither position is superior to the other. I just have somewhat different mental recreational needs, that's all.| It doesn't take hundreds of years to jerk off, but isn't that somewhat similar activity more fun? |
I am still eighteen years short of the century mark, but having spent considerable time practicing both activities and their derivatives, I have got to say there is a time and a place for everything. Even Dave W.. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 16:30:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave.......
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave Dubya, I await your withering reply.
Answered by a bewildered smiley |
It's good to see you fulfill your smiley's need for understanding. Your withering reply has arrived as expected, full of the sound and fury, and pompous pronouncements of what is and what isn't fact.| Religion is really, really bad therapy, since it tends to blame failure on the patient. |
Like psychiatry?| Reality isn't dependent upon perception, but perception is dependent upon reality. Just because we don't perceive things doesn't mean that they don't happen. |
An accurate précis of an age-old philosophical view. Naturally, there are other perspectives. Merely stating an opinion neither proves it or disproves the others, even when you do it.| Johnson's stone-kicking is utterly unconvincing. |
Oh, come on Dave, warm up your Google. Johnson took your dogmatic position on this never-resolved controversy. He kicked the stone, it hurt his toe, and he declared that was reality. You are preaching to the choir here, someone stubbing his toe does little to define the nature of reality.| Yeah, if you leave out some words, the meaning changes into something stupid. Bravo, bngbuck, on leaving honest discussion behind once again. |
Do you mean that inserting the inanity - knock, knock - makes this statement make sense -
If this desk is really here, then I perceive it because it's really here.?
Wow - That is the height of logical persuasion, and a monument to honest discussion.| Why the hell do I even bother? |
Good question. Why the hell do you even try when you write crap like that?Originally posted by bngbuck
Why is this any closer to Truth than the position that perception is reality? |
Dave
Because we would then need to toss science out the window. |
Why? The perception that is the Science-reality would not change any more than the perception that is the Quad-reality (or anything else that we perceive as part of the Universe.) Neither Science, The Quad, or anything else would have to be "tossed out the window" They would exist exactly in the same sense as they do in a world defined as one in which "reality drives perception".Dave
Reality drives perception |
bngbuck
I don't understand the magic in the word "drives" that suddenly conclusively demonstrates truth. |
Dave
I never said anything about my position being conclusively demonstrated truth, I was responding to your mangling of my position, and trying to set you right. But you go ahead and keep rebuilding the straw man if you like. Have at. |
Thank you so much for the permission. I will.Dave
Reality drives perception |
A declarative statement if I ever heard one. If you don't mean that you are describing a true condition, then say "reality may drive perception." That would be your opinion. Remember?| the findings of particle physics are simply irrelevant to ontology. |
Are the findings of particle physics irrelevant to what is known as Reality?| Scientific inquiry rests firmly on the axiom that there is an objective reality. |
What is the evidence for that statement? --evidence given in the context of whatever you mean by objective reality?| Why don't you go find some evidence (since it's important to you) for perception creating reality, or at least try to justify it better than pretending that equally speculative guesses all have equal possibilities at being true. |
I won't for the very same reason that you don't give evidence when asked why you make declarative statements, which are really only your opinions on various matters. You can't, nor can I or anyone else, give evidence in the sense of scientific evidence, for that which does not lend itself to scientific investigation. This is not the realm of science, at least at this point in history, and you well know it. We are dealing with opinion and speculation, nothing else. "Evidence" as you ask for it, is impossible. And asking for it is merely "skeptical" nonsense. Asking for evidence is reasonable when it is probable that evidence exists, otherwise it is merely a skeptical cliché.| at least try to justify it better than pretending that equally speculative guesses all have equal possibilities at being true. |
If you would give me even a hint of why your speculative guesses on the true nature of reality are in any way superior than mine or many many others that have written on this subject for eons, I would listen to your pontification with more respect. As it is, all you have is a commonly held opinion - I deny holding even that. Not enough evidence is available on this subject to even warrant an opinion. I am merely expressing my knowledge that there are many and various guesses on the nature of reality; some of them very carefully and artfully worked out, and anyone that professes to know the answer to this conundrum is just brimming with arrogant bullshit.
Rather than smugly asserting by way of declarative prose that perception is reality, I will state one more opinion, that is consistent with Stephen Hawking's latest writings. The complete nature and description of "Reality" will be eventually disclosed by scientific endeavor and by a path of enquiry laid by particle physics. The role that perception plays in this discovery will also be described by the same scientific methodology.
If you know how to find scientific evidence for the nature of reality, do it; and at that point I will we happy to concede to the accuracy of your opinions and congratulate you on the earning of a Nobel prize. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 16:38:06 [Permalink]
|
Dude......
| de Waal is a fucking idiot. |
Deep, insightful, thought-provoking commentary. He will probably resign his academic posts and leave the New York Times upon hearing your assessment. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 18:16:56 [Permalink]
|
Ebone4Rock.....
| Yes, many. When I get home later I shall organize them. |
Are you home, yet? After they're organized, I would like to read them. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 19:15:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Oh, come on Dave, warm up your Google. Johnson took your dogmatic position on this never-resolved controversy. |
Read more carefully. Dave is as unimpressed by the stone-kickers as you are. He quite clearly states that the perception/reality paradox is a problem and that it is insoluble, so he finds pragmatism the only practical solution for escaping solipsism:
| I don't think there ever can be evidence of the "nature of reality," and that one must pick a philosophical escape route out of the default of solipsism... |
So whoever's position you think you're arguing against, it isn't Dave's. The reason he accuses you of misrepresenting his position is because you are.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/08/2010 19:16:23 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 20:52:01 [Permalink]
|
Hawks......
| Perhaps, but is there any evidence for this? |
None that I am aware of, and that is why I purposely used the adverb of non-certainty. Far too many folks tend to discuss highly controversial matters with what looks to all the world like statements of truth or fact.
I deeply appreciate your cautious phraseology such as:| AFAIK, the evidence seems to suggest that people simply are more likely to behave according to the social norm... |
and | I think (without offering any evidence).... |
I greatly appreciate the lack of dogmatic certitude in your posting style. It is a rare and welcome breath of fresh air in a Forum that purports to value evidence of substantiation for claims of truth above all else!
| ....when they perceive that they are being observed (be that by a god or society) and would otherwise suffer negative consequences. |
Probably an accurate observation. The Rule of Reciprocity certainly works when phrased in the negative as well as the positive. And possibly one of the few positive things one can say about religious belief is that it has had some adverse influence on crime and bad behaviour in general. If a person is dumb enough to believe in a literal Hell, they probably are dumb enough to believe that they might go there eventually if they stole, foolishly fornicated, periodically cut innocent people up into pieces, or practiced serial rape.
However, I am cynical enough to feel that the fear of apprehension for committing such crimes is a greater deterrent than the prospect of spending forever in Gehenna/Hell/Hades or what-have-you. So the fear of secular punishment is probably more important than concern about possible after-life retribution for one's sins.| As to the question of why this debate is highly polarised, I think (without offering any evidence) that people are quite sick of hearing various religious people sprout the false dichotomy that one has to follow some kind of divine objective moral code lest one slide into complete moral chaos (you know, raping children and so forth). |
You and I and others above a certain psycho/emotional cognitive level certainly have heard more than enough of the religious arguments for morality. But I fear that there are many who welcome such bullshit as rationalization for not engaging in immorality that their base natures frequently lead them to commit. Not only the Devil made me do it, but God kept me from doing it. Obviously, such bullshit is almost unconciously stupid, but so are a whole lot of people (as witness the recent election).
Thanks for your attitude of "This is my opinion, I do not necessarily represent it as fact," Hawks.Cogito, ergo sum rectus really does not fly very well, irrespective of the Forum in which it is heard. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 20:56:44 [Permalink]
|
Humbert.....
Thanks for the translation of the unintelligible. Your services are appreciated. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 22:53:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.......
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave Dubya, I await your withering reply.
Answered by a bewildered smiley |
It's good to see you fulfill your smiley's need for understanding. |
It wasn't bewildered, it's rolling its eyes in exasperation.  | Your withering reply has arrived as expected, full of the sound and fury, and pompous pronouncements of what is and what isn't fact. |
Only in your own, personal reality (apparently).| Religion is really, really bad therapy, since it tends to blame failure on the patient. |
Like psychiatry? |
That'd be like no psychiatry of which I'm aware.| An accurate précis of an age-old philosophical view. Naturally, there are other perspectives. Merely stating an opinion neither proves it or disproves the others, even when you do it. |
Actually, if you try to summarize my opinion and you get it wrong, then stating my opinion certainly does disprove your opinion about my opinion. Or are you suggesting that you know my opinions better than I do?| Oh, come on Dave, warm up your Google. Johnson took your dogmatic position on this never-resolved controversy. He kicked the stone, it hurt his toe, and he declared that was reality. |
But that's nothing like my position. You can insist that it's my position (as you just did), but that just tells me that you're willing to lie about me.| You are preaching to the choir here, someone stubbing his toe does little to define the nature of reality. |
So now you agree that Johnson's position isn't mine at all. You're terribly confused, aren't you?Do you mean that inserting the inanity - knock, knock - makes this statement make sense -
If this desk is really here, then I perceive it because it's really here.? |
That's what I said. You removed "I perceive it because" and tried to call me out on circular logic. The difference between "If this desk is really here, then I perceive it because it's really here" and "If this desk is really here, then it's really here" should be fairly obvious to all.| Wow - That is the height of logical persuasion, and a monument to honest discussion. |
What, your ridicule and strawmen?| Why the hell do you even try when you write crap like that? |
You're the one who turned it into crap. I really don't get why you feel the need to resort to these sorts of personal attacks against me. Maybe someday I'll find out, but I doubt it.| Because we would then need to toss science out the window. |
Why? The perception that is the Science-reality would not change any more than the perception that is the Quad-reality (or anything else that we perceive as part of the Universe.) Neither Science, The Quad, or anything else would have to be "tossed out the window" They would exist exactly in the same sense as they do in a world defined as one in which "reality drives perception". |
You'll have to explain how, when different people with different perceptions would necessarily come to equally valid but different scientific conclusions and both be right. If someone perceives water to freeze at 10°C, nobody could say that they're wrong. Replication of results is vital to science, and with everyone perceiving different things, replication would be impossible.| A declarative statement if I ever heard one. If you don't mean that you are describing a true condition, then say "reality may drive perception." That would be your opinion. Remember? |
Ah, I see the game you're playing. You want to ignore the context of us speaking about philosophical positions, and instead claim that I'm stating some sort of empirically testable fact. Here: it is my philosophical position that reality drives perception. No "may" about it. A simple statement about my thoughts on ontology.| Are the findings of particle physics irrelevant to what is known as Reality? |
Depends upon what "reality" is, now doesn't it? In my philosophy, particle physics are a consequence of some underlying reality, and not a cause of it.| What is the evidence for that statement? --evidence given in the context of whatever you mean by objective reality? |
Why shouldn't the evidence be presented in the proper context: that of the philosophy of science? Why do you feel free to rip things out of context in order to try to insult me?| I won't for the very same reason that you don't give evidence when asked why you make declarative statements, which are really only your opinions on various matters. You can't, nor can I or anyone else, give evidence in the sense of scientific evidence, for that which does not lend itself to scientific investigation. This is not the realm of science, at least at this point in history, and you well know it. |
Then why have you been asking for evidence for this stuff? Oh, right: that childish game of yours.| We are dealing with opinion and speculation, nothing else. |
Hardly. Philosophical statements have logical and rational consequences, and we can test them against philosophical priorities to find if they are compatible. The idea of perception creating reality, for example, is philosophically incompatible with science.| "Evidence" as you ask for it, is impossible. |
Your memory is fading fast: you asked for evidence for a philosophical position. I suggested you meet your own standard for a position that you put forth as deserving of consideration.| And asking for it is merely "skeptical" nonsense. |
Thank you for admitting you were being nonsensical.| Asking for evidence is reasonable when it is probable that evidence exists, otherwise it is merely a skeptical cliché. |
Right. Something we can agree on.| at least try to justify it better than pretending that equally speculative guesses all have equal possibilities at being true. |
If you would give me even a hint of why your speculative guesses on the true nature of reality are in any way superior than mine or many many others that have written on this subject for eons, I would listen to your pontification with more respect. |
I was under the impression that that's precisely what I was doing, and that you're simply ignoring what I say, insulting me and asking me for things you think are "skeptical nonsense."| As it is, all you have is a commonly held opinion... |
I don't think so, at all. From my readings, my position is pretty rare.| ...I deny holding even that. |
You can deny it all you like, but it's clear that you're just trying to fool yourself.| Not enough evidence is available on this subject to even warrant an opinion. |
So your opinion is that there isn't enough of what you say doesn't now exist to form an opinion? That's just brilliant in its self-denial.Insulting me.| ...expressing my knowledge that there are many and various guesses on the nature of reality; some of them very carefully and artfully worked out, and anyone that professes to know the answer to this conundrum is just brimming with arrogant bullshit. |
Well, you'll have to find someone who "professes to know the answer to this conundrum" to berate, then, because I never said nor implied that I did. Correcting you about what I think is vastly different from thinking that I "know the answer," isn't it?| Rather than smugly asserting by way of declarative prose that perception is reality... |
More lies.| ...I will state one more opinion, that is consistent with Stephen Hawking's latest writings. The complete nature and description of "Reality" will be eventually disclosed by scientific endeavor and by a path of enquiry laid by particle physics. |
Well, that just makes me lose even more respect for you and Stephen Hawking. I don't hold science in such high esteem that I think it is even remotely possible for it to investigate its own axioms.| The role that perception plays in this discovery will also be described by the same scientific methodology. |
Why don't you opine as to how that would be possible? Oh, that's right: you don't have enough evidence to even form an opinion on the subject, except (obviously) when you feel like forming an opinion anyway. And since this is all equally speculative (according to you), your opinions are necessarily worthless in the first place, since they can't inform anything we might do or investigate.
So you've dug yourself an inescapable ontological pit from which science can't even save you, because the mere act of gathering evidence depends upon certain philosophies of knowledge, which you've decided are "speculative guesses" due to a lack of evidence. Despite this, you have faith that science will eventually provide the answers. Your philosophical opinions are self-contradictory, so it's no wonder you're confused and are pooh-poohing the whole enterprise.| If you know how to find scientific evidence for the nature of reality, do it... |
I never claimed to be able to (quite the opposite, in fact).| ...and at that point I will we happy to concede to the accuracy of your opinions and congratulate you on the earning of a Nobel prize. |
The accuracy of my opinions? That's really funny, considering this little dust-up began with me trying to correct your assessment of my philosophical opinions. And then because I explained that my ontology is concerned with usefulness and results because accuracy is impossible, your last comment, above, is simply another absurd strawman.
...
Wow, after reading your response to Hawks, it seems to me that you, bngbuck, are still clearly bitter about people asking you for the evidence on which you based your empirically verifiable opinions, and so you're trying to elevate philosophical discussions to the same evidenciary standards in order to claim that people here (me especially) who make philosophical assertions of fact are being hypocritical.
Unfortunately for this idea, I can justify my philosophical opinions as well as I can justify my empirical opinions, while all that you seem to be able to do is assert that the former are entirely "speculative guesses" and the latter are "just opinions." That's why I think you refuse to engage in a discussion with me in any but the most trivial of fashions, and instead you're resorting to insults and strawmen. Note well (for just one example) that rather than asking me how I justify my ontological opinions (which you didn't understand in the first place), you instead made clear that you think that all such opinions are currently unjustifiable and therefore I'm wrong to be asserting such "facts." But the hypocrisy is entirely yours, since you can't seem to avoid stating your philosophical opinions even while claiming that you don't know enough to even have such opinions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 23:06:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Pavlov sure had it right. Whatever they say about you, you are dependable. Thanks for the bump.
I'll be back to you in a day or two, I have real work to do tomorrow. Meantime, try to keep the hubris under control. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 23:07:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave:
the findings of particle physics are simply irrelevant to ontology. |
Are the findings of particle physics irrelevant to what is known as Reality?
|
No, but since we do not perceive reality as it is described in particle physics, particle physics is irrelevant to ontology.
What we perceive is the large-scale statistical distribution of particle physics. Sort of.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2010 : 00:55:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude......
| de Waal is a fucking idiot. |
Deep, insightful, thought-provoking commentary. He will probably resign his academic posts and leave the New York Times upon hearing your assessment.
|
He should. He should take his overly self important ass and stamp a resignation letter with it today. Fuck that guy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2010 : 09:38:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
Pavlov sure had it right. |
You used my name, twice, in a comment that was only tangentially related to what you appeared to want to discuss in the OP, and have directly or indirectly insulted me in six of your eight comments since then, and you think Pavlov's demonstration is somehow an appropriate analogy? Nobody would have found it interesting if Pavlov's research had been nothing more than calling dogs by name and showing them big slabs of meat.| Whatever they say about you, you are dependable. |
Gee, if I'm called by name, misrepresented and insulted, I respond. How surprising. | I'll be back to you in a day or two, I have real work to do tomorrow. |
I should care because...?| Meantime, try to keep the hubris under control. |
Disagreeing with you and responding to your insults is considered hubris?  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 00:53:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave....
I appreciate the the lightning-fast response to my last post. My ego is certainly large enough to not need further feeding, but it is pleasant to be be able to garner instant attention and response. Due to your uncommon interest in my writing, I did not want you to be disappointed if it took me a day or two to pick up on this recreation.| It wasn't bewildered, it's rolling its eyes in exasperation. |
Oh, I see. I always thought that exasperation was expressed by the one pounding it's head against a wall. | Only in your own, personal reality (apparently). |
You have knowledge of the personal realities of all those that read this Forum?| That'd be like no psychiatry of which I'm aware. |
I regret your lack of knowledge of much of classical psychoanalysis and a great deal of current behavioural psychotherapy. Once you inform yourself, we could discuss it - as theory, not fact.| Or are you suggesting that you know my opinions better than I do? |
I have understood you to maintain that there are no opinions, only statements of fact. I am stating that I took what you understand to be fact statements at 100% face value and responded accordingly.bngbuck stated
Johnson took your dogmatic position on this never-resolved controversy. He kicked the stone, it hurt his toe, and he declared that was reality. |
Dave
But that's nothing like my position. |
Well.....
| In reference to Berkeley's philosophy, Dr. Samuel Johnson kicked a heavy stone and exclaimed, "I refute it thus!" |
Johnson's view of reality was diametrically opposed to Berleley's - which was the classic position that perception is reality. Johnson believed that reality makes perception possible, as you have explained many times that you do also. Why do you say that Johnson's view is not the same as your's?| So now you agree that Johnson's position isn't mine at all. You're terribly confused, aren't you? |
No, I do not see that Johnson's position differs from yours and I am not confused at all, but you appear to be. Your precise quote was:| Johnson's stone-kicking is utterly unconvincing. |
This would appear to me that you disagreed with Johnson. His stone kicking was intended to refute the position that perception is reality. Therefore, the stone -kicking was an act supporting the philosophical position that reality makes perception possible - Johnson's position and yours. Yet then you state that Johnson's act was "unconvincing", obviously not understanding that it was a validation of your own viewpoint.
I am not confused - Johnson's viewpoint was the same as yours, and he was famous for it. You decried Johnson's demonstration of the falsity of Idealism, as if you supported Subjective Idealism. You have clearly stated that you do not. So why decry his condemnation of it? It appears to be self-contradictory. Perhaps you can explain the apparent self-contradiction?
I maintained that you are "preaching to the choir" with a statement that Johnson's confirmation of your philosophy is unconvincing. I agree that it is unconvincing.Your original statement was:| If this desk is really here (knock, knock), then I perceive it because it's really here. |
Removing the irrelevant {knock, knock} - gives...
If this desk is really here, then I perceive it because it is really here.
Symbolizing, this translates into a complex implicative function:
X = this desk.
Y = a desk that is really here.
A = A desk that is perceived.
{(X=Y).(X=A)} => (Y=A) or:
If this desk is a desk that is really here, and this desk is a desk that is perceived, then a desk that is really here is a desk that is perceived.
This statement appears to demonstrate that a desk that is perceived is a desk that is really here, but it says nothing about a desk that is not perceived. And the "reality" of that which is not perceived is what we are examining here.
The flaw here, of course, is that you assume the condition of the predicate in your statement of the conclusion. {If this desk is reality} is not the same statement as {this desk is reality} |
| I really don't get why you feel the need to resort to these sorts of personal attacks against me. Maybe someday I'll find out, but I doubt it. |
To begin with, you can only be insulted if you accept insult. Insult cannot be imposed on anyone unless they are receptive to it.You really don't get it because I am not personally attacking you by merely questioning your peculiar arguments. The "need" I feel is precisely the same need that you feel - to return derogation when derogative comment is received, but there is an easy answer to ending that - simply stop initiating derogation, or as you call it, insult.
In any event, for God's sake stop whining about it. Crap is crap. We all crap now and then. Certainly I do, and occasionally you and others have caught me in the act right here on SFN. With the abundance of insult that you have dished out and continue to dish out on these forums, your sensitivity to receiving some yourself is astounding. When you frequently insult others, you are going to get insulted back. Live with it, or get out of the Forum editing business, or at least stop shoveling shit into the fan blowing in your face. | You'll have to explain how, when different people with different perceptions would necessarily come to equally valid but different scientific conclusions and both be right. |
There are many answers to that oft-asked question in the ranks of Idealism and Empiricism's advocates. One that comes to mind immediately is the concept of multiple realities - an idea not too far removed from the concept of multiple, co-existing universes in contemporary astrophysics. Another possible scenario is that different people would not necessarily have different perceptions. What Law of God corollary to the possibility that Perception is Reality states that different people necessarily must have different perceptions of the same reality?
There are so many more responses that have been developed by, and since, Locke, Hume, and Berkeley to your supposed blockbuster question that I couldn't possibly recite them here. If you are truly interested, I suggest Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature and/or Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge , or at least brush up on reviews of these classical philosophical positions.bngbuck
Wow - That is the height of logical persuasion, and a monument to honest discussion. |
Dave
What, your ridicule and strawmen? |
No, this odd statement of the equivilance of reality and perception - If this desk is really here, then I perceive it because it's really here.| Ah, I see the game you're playing. |
Good for you! In Chess, it's best that both players understand what the game is that they are playing!| You want to ignore the context of us speaking about philosophical positions, and instead claim that I'm stating some sort of empirically testable fact. |
Not at all. You consistently do state opinions as though they were empirically testable fact. I was merely reminding you of your indefensible position that all opinion is statement of fact. | it is my philosophical position that reality drives perception. |
Yes, I've heard that several times. Now if you and I just knew what was meant by the word "drives" in this context, we might be able to understand what you are trying to say.| In my philosophy, particle physics are a consequence of some underlying reality, and not a cause of it. |
Well now, that's the most important thing that I have heard in this whole discussion. Some underlying reality Will this "reality" likely remain forever undiscovered - like God, perhaps? - Or is it probably to be forever unknown - like God perhaps?
And in your philosophy, would you say that you believed in the existence of this "underlying reality"? Dave
Scientific inquiry rests firmly on the axiom that there is an objective reality. |
bngbuck
What is the evidence for that statement? --evidence given in the context of whatever you mean by objective reality? |
Dave
Why shouldn't the evidence be presented in the proper context: that of the philosophy of science? Why do you feel free to rip things out of context in order to try to insult me? |
Well, alright, what is the evidence, in the context of the philosophy of science, for that statement?| As regards your recurring paranoia focused on insult, I've addressed that earlier in this response. I would prefer to stay on topic here right now |
| Then why have you been asking for evidence for this stuff? Oh, right: that childish game of yours. |
Yes, this entire exercise is a game of sorts, and we are both children engaging in play. Only I appear to be aware of that, however - I certainly am no longer concerned with whether or not or how often you "insult" me, and what your reasons might be. I have become completely accustomed to your inherent style of response and I am now quite comfortable with it. Like Dude - he neither knows or cares what effect the excess of the strong scatology he overuses may have on a lurking audience. I am comfortable with his noisy outbursts now, too.
As to why do I ask for evidence, I thought that was one of the cardinal requirements for this "Skeptic" posturing. God knows you, as de facto leader and adjudicator of these forums, ask for it enough. Why do you also ask for evidence when no evidence is possible? Like myself, it is a form of showboating. Don't we all perform for those watching?| Philosophical statements have logical and rational consequences, and we can test them against philosophical priorities to find if they are compatible. |
That is a wonderful collection of words. If you could explain what they mean, I would appreciate the effort. If not, blow it off or call me a fool for not understanding you. Perhaps Humbert could explain it to me. He has performed well as your Boswell.| Your memory is fading fast: you asked for evidence for a philosophical position. I suggested you meet your own standard for a position that you put forth as deserving of consideration. |
Yeah, right, we'll both take a flying fuck at the moon. one right after the other! | Thank you for admitting you were being nonsensical. |
You are certainly welcome! And thank you for demonstrating that requesting nonsense generally gets nonsense in return! What a surprise!| Right. Something we can agree on. |
There is a great deal we could agree on, Dave, if it just wasn't for that damn box office!| I was under the impression that that's precisely what I was doing, and that you're simply ignoring what I say, insulting me and asking me for things you think are "skeptical nonsense." |
Your impression was incomplete as it did not include your tap-dancing and card tricks. However, I will give you great credit and genuine thanks for your commentary on the "underlying reality" concept in which you have confessed a belief. To me, that was a very illuminating statement and cleared up many of the questions that I have had for some time about your epistemological realism. I appreciate that.
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere balloons are burst;
And there is joy in Centreville — mighty Davey's walked to First! |
bngbuck
If you would give me even a hint of why your speculative guesses on the true nature of reality are in any way superior than mine or many many others that have written on this subject for eons, I would listen to your pontification with more respect. As it is, all you have is a commonly held opinion. |
Dave
I don't think so, at all. From my readings, my position is pretty rare. |
Are you stating that Epistemological Realism as a philosophical position; a subcategory of objectivism, holding that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind, opposing the position of epistemological idealism - is a rarely held philosophical position? You either need to read more, or I am not understanding your ontological position.
Or do you mean to imply that those bewildered billions who believe that Reality exists outside of the mind of man and only in the mind of God qualify as ontological realists? Do you agree with Berkeley? In your view, was he a realist? I sincerely promise not to mock, insult, or even comment if you will explain this apparent massive contradiction to me. When you state that your ontological position on Reality is pretty rare, I just don't understand!| You can deny it all you like, but it's clear that you're just trying to fool yourself. |
Well, it's clear that one of us is. It would be nice to try to explore this matter without straying into all kinds of personal comments, but that would necessitate both of us taking the "Kick Me" signs off our backs.| So your opinion is that there isn't enough of what you say doesn't now exist to form an opinion? That's just brilliant in its self-denial. |
Brilliant or dull, I can't quite get your meaning from the bolded part in the quote. Could you re-phrase?Could it be that it is masochism? Naw, it's paranoia.| Well, you'll have to find someone who "professes to know the answer to this conundrum" to berate, then, because I never said nor implied that I did. Correcting you about what I think is vastly different from thinking that I "know the answer," isn't it? |
No, it is not. When you make a simple declarative statement like, for one example, "Reality drives perception" - you are stating that that is truth, you know the answer. If you were to say,"One possibility is that reality drives perception", or "my opinion is that reality drives perception", you would not be arrogating that what you said was the one and only answer to the question. Instead, you almost always make flat declarative pronouncements about controversial subjects - strongly implying that your's is the answer and no other should even be considered. This is a great deal of what you and I differ about. I am aware that I have from time to time been guilty of the same transgression - making opinion appear to be fact. I do make a constant effort to minimize that impression.
If one knows, and can substantiate what he is talking about with external reference, that one is referencing fact; fine. Say so. Otherwise, it is just opinion, and usually not even informed opinion.Well, point them out to me and I will gladly retract and apologize. And I will assume that you will be happy to do the same? | Well, that just makes me lose even more respect for you and Stephen Hawking. I don't hold science in such high esteem that I think it is even remotely possible for it to investigate its own axioms. |
Fine, I understand that is your opinion. It is not mine. Before disrepecting Hawking however, I would suggest you read his latest book The Grand Design. Hawking is held in extremely high favor by far greater intellects than yours or mine. This current book is far more readable than A Brief History of Time, which is pretty tough going.| Why don't you opine as to how that would be possible? Oh, that's right: you don't have enough evidence to even form an opinion on the subject. |
Correct. Nor do you or anyone else, including Hawking.| So you've dug yourself an inescapable ontological pit from which science can't even save you, because the mere act of gathering evidence depends upon certain philosophies of knowledge, which you've decided are "speculative guesses" due to a lack of evidence. |
Well, I and perhaps others here, would be fascinated to hear how your invention of an "underlying reality" solves your dilemma of digging into that mountain of speculation to find reality and discovering that you only are actually further distancing yourself from the truth. At someplace, do you invent God to help you out? No? What do you do? Your description of my descent into perdition is worthy of Danté however it must be your own predicament because it certainly does not describe what I have stated.
Not having enough evidence in no way states that such evidence cannot be found. And speculative guesses are all that most scientists have prior to the initial search for evidence and formulation of hypotheses. The particle physicists as well as astrophysicists are well on the way to such evidence according to Hawking. I hope that is true.
Asking me, as a layman, to guess at what such evidence will be is just as stupid as me asking you to explain your "underlying reality". Which I just did, but since it can't be done, asking for it is useless. All of this nonsense has only one redeeming value in my opinion. It dramatically illustrates the folly of the "show me the evidence/all right but first you show me the evidence for your statements" - WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, only opinion. End of comment.
| I never claimed to be able to (quite the opposite, in fact). |
Yeah, but you just asked me to, etc. etc. We've covered all that.| The accuracy of my opinions? That's really funny, considering this little dust-up began with me trying to correct your assessment of my philosophical opinions. And then because I explained that my ontology is concerned with usefulness and results because accuracy is impossible, your last comment, above, is simply another absurd strawman. |
Really funny, eh? What's funny is your frequent use of the word opinion in this thread, and several others recently. Try substituting statement of fact every time you have written the word opinion in just your replies to me in this post and see how much sense your rhetoric makes. At least you got to say "strawman" again.Would that be your ontological pit?| are still clearly bitter about people asking you for the evidence on which you based your empirically verifiable opinions |
Those particular opinions were completely non-verifiable, and I stated so when I gave them. And you keep carrying on about me lying!| trying to elevate philosophical discussions to the same evidenciary standards in order to claim that people here (me especially) who make philosophical assertions of fact are being hypocritical. |
Philosophical assertions of fact are not hypocritical, they are oxymoronic. I thought you understood the differentiation of Science as a methodical discipline as opposed to Philosophy as a quest for truth through logical reasoning rather than factual observation. Apparently not. Pity.| Unfortunately for this idea, I can justify my philosophical opinions as well as I can justify my empirical opinions, |
Unfortunately for you you can't justify such opinions by labeling them "fact". Not to most of the folks reading this, anyway.| That's why I think you refuse to engage in a discussion with me in any but the most trivial of fashions, and instead you're resorting to insults and strawmen. |
Oh my God, poor you! My "refusals" are breaking your heart. Why don't you try with just one stab at a clear explanation of the "underlying reality" you have mentioned in your post. And if I take one unfair shot at you(excepting returning insult) in response, I'll pay you a $100.00 fine. Same goes for you. One unfair shot (like the above mention of empirically verifiable opinions) and you pay me a c-note. Kil can judge if the rules are being obeyed. | Note well (for just one example) that rather than asking me how I justify my ontological opinions (which you didn't understand in the first place), you instead made clear that you think that all such opinions are currently unjustifiable and therefore I'm wrong to be asserting such "facts." |
How do you justify your ontological opinions?
RESPONSE TO LAST POST
Dave........
| You used my name, twice, in a comment that was only tangentially related to what you appeared to want to discuss in the OP |
Gee, I didn't know it was copyrighted.| directly or indirectly insulted me in six of your eight comments |
I keep trying. I'll get even, one for one, with you someday!| Gee, if I'm called by name, misrepresented and insulted, I respond. |
You don't respond, you implode into ego fractionation. Get a grip!| I should care because...? |
Well, hell, I didn't want you to just start getting all whiney and go to pieces because you thought I'd left you!| Disagreeing with you and responding to your insults is considered hubris? |
Yeah, it's the why can't I be God? thing. Gets real problematical when you consider the consequences of being impossible.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The God-Science shouting match
