Board 8 > Question for the Atheists on the board.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Logic has nothing to do with sensory experience. If you logically prove something, and sensory experience then contradicts that, then, well, it's your sensory experience that must be flawed.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well it's great that Kant logically proved that space was flat! Good thing our satellites don't run on General Relativity calculations! (What are you saying? TIME RUNS DIFFERENTLY UP THERE?!?!)

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

If Kant really proved space is flat (which, strangely enough, matches our latest observations), then space must be flat and we can toss out all observations to the contrary. Who are you going to believe, infallible logic or your lying eyes? I seriously doubt Kant actually managed to prove something as fact-dependent as space being flat though.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'm tempted to start typing out my own philosophy and add it to this topic. It's pretty fun to read, if sometimes frustrating >_>.

--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.

Raze, can you tell me parts of my point which you don't understand or connections you feel are kinda weak? I'll (try!) and not to argue about you with them, because they're your feelings (AND THEREFORE WRONNNGGG errr valued) but I want to know if I'm being unclear, I'm talking at cross purposes with j or I'm just plain incoherent.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Huh?

--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.

Just.

What do you think about my posts?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

I'd have to reread them to give you any clear impression, but your position has been muddied mostly because talking to west makes things a mess by default. I feel your best bet would be to clearly think out everything, post it at once, and then turn to talking to him.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/JeffRaze1pngdy.png

Westbrick must be Jaffar.

--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg
'I am the master of your whole keep. I am the pastor, flock you like sheep.'

http://freesite1614.bcisiveonline.com/spaces/07f35ddf859be46add7bfd9c88997b9a716b04f6/

I think this is a relatively complete view.

(Updated since last night)

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

But that doesn't mean you just get to decide that I'm saying the same things as those philosophers! Just because you have an internal map littered with the quotes of dead white guys, doesn't mean that I do.

These "dead white guys" have thought more about these problems, and answered them more satisfactorily, than either of us likely ever will. I'm doing you a favor by aligning your views with their strongest advocates.

I know! I don't know anything dead people who didn't know a fraction of the things that I know now said! What a travesty.

It's clear you don't know as much as a philosophy undergraduate, let alone Bacon and Descartes. Really now, tone down the pretensions before it becomes impossible to take you seriously.

Also, I'm not trying to advocate any preexisting philosophical position.

Oh dear, are you that naive? Reductionism is the defining philosophy of the modern Western world. You couldn't be any less original with your worldview!

Just to be completely clear:
[...]
Science: Asking the voices for what they can do to prove that they are real, and then testing it to see if they are (assuming the test is of sufficiently low cost)

So in reality, your definition of "real" wasn't "What doesn't change when my beliefs do," but rather "Whatever science can justify through experimentation." That didn't take long to uncover.

In what way is logic undermined? Does it become paraconsistent? Self contradictory? What conclusions does it stop?

That one. Using logic to undermine logic while positing a logical view of truth is self-defeating.

I thought I implicitly demonstrated that in the foolmo post: You can begin to make better probabilistic judgments.

How long are you going to continue this without answering my questions?

Probability claims are claims of efficacy. What equates efficacy with truth?

Because thus far you have not shown me *any* system which would have that standard be fulfilled.

What, do you mean the "standard" where scientific truth isn't *the* truth? I provided a number of them already, so here they are again: phenomenology, Buddhism, Christianity, Nietzscehan philosophy (or hypermodernism), and Marxism. We can throw in Hegelianism (speculative philosophy) as well, and this is really only scratching the surface.

Your job is now to ask a) what these things mean (because you've made your ignorance on basic philosophical questions rather clear to everyone reading this conversation), and b) once I clarify, try to defend science as somehow "better" than these epistemic accounts.

If they talk anything like you do then they're nondisprovable; most likely because they're incoherent or confused.

You realize that the epistemic doctrine of falsifiability (the one you're using) is very new, right? It's also highly contested within the philosophy of science, because science itself doesn't follow this doctrine at times!

In regards to philosophy as a whole, falsification runs into the same problems generally that science does: namely, that it puts human reason on a pedestal for seemingly no good reason. Though I've asked this question fruitlessly a dozen or so times now, I'll ask again: if you want to preclude the possibility of a transrational faculty or intelligibility, you'll have to justify why science is true.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

just namedropping a bunch of concepts

...This is coming from the guy whose entire position rests upon abstruse probabilistic principles which, when analyzed with any degree of caution, prove themselves utterly pointless to the discussion at hand.

There is one level of reality,

In philosospeak, this can be translated as "There is one dominant perspective of truth." You've now staked a claim that the truth about reality can only be understood in one way; if that way turns out to be science, which it will, then you are indeed positing scientific knowledge as true at the expense of other forms of knowledge.

governed as far as we know by strings/quantum fields and fundamental forces of nature.

You and I both know that basing one's metaphysics on the theoretical physics of the day is going to make any argument look rather weak. Remember how primitive science was five hundred years ago? Now let's imagine how string theory will be imagined five thousand years from now. Quite embarrassing!

Instead, we should define the universe according to the method by which it is reached, i.e. science. This makes your account stronger because it doesn't pigeonhole it within the prejudices of modern theory.

We can TALK about something called chairs, people, thoughts, joys, emotions etc. but we have to remember that it all REDUCES down to our best knowledge of 'basement level reality'.

So what I was saying all along turns out to be correct: we can use other perspectives if we'd like, but only the scientific perspective is the correct one.

So again: what makes science true?

I'm guessing that you thought I was a philosophical reductionist instead or something.

No, no, this is the vanilla reductionism which I touched on earlier as being the most common philosophy today; the sweeping influence of New Atheism, the dogmatic devotion to scientists-as-priests, and all that jazz.

Now then, the "answer" to why you're a reductionist:

Because I once wasn't a reductionist and the universe was confusing and moved in seemingly random ways and now I am and so many things fall into place. It exorcises my feelings of confusion and also fit in with what I believed about the world from science before that. Note that now my justification for it has changed from that and I'll need to parse it out. But yeah. That's the CAUSAL chain which led to it. Now if you want something else you can try and specify.

So you're a reductionist because it "makes you feel good"? What part of having no value to your life helps things "fall into place"? Why put your faith in science? If it "makes you happy," then why not simply throw yourself into the world and enjoy your life? Why not be religious, marry a pretty religious girl, have a nice family, and live a normal life?

Your major claim for believing in science is complacency. Notice that there are no claims of "truth" here; presumably, if the scientific was utterly debunked tomorrow from a logical perspective, you'd still cling to it. That explains a lot about the direction this conversation has taken.

Recall all that you've said so far: you've demonstrated both contempt for logic and a shameless ignorance of philosophy generally, and your reductive philosophy specifically. I've enjoyed this conversation so far, but it's becoming more and more clear that truth isn't what you're after: it's the quasi-religious promulgation of a scientific dogma you embrace uncritically. I engaged this conversation to talk about philosophy and logic, not for a religious conversion.

You're free to prove me wrong, of course: just answer why science is true.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

Triple-post time:

If Kant really proved space is flat (which, strangely enough, matches our latest observations), then space must be flat and we can toss out all observations to the contrary. Who are you going to believe, infallible logic or your lying eyes? I seriously doubt Kant actually managed to prove something as fact-dependent as space being flat though.

He didn't, at least not from what I've read. What he does do is conceptualize "space" as one of the fundamental categories of the mind that shapes our understanding of the world.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

Right, well I like your position a lot more than Westbrick's. Not sure how complete that link was as far as your beliefs go, but it's pretty solid as things are. Anyways, I think it's time for me to enter this, because honestly I'm interested in what people think about my philosophy. I have a good chunk if it written down, and most of it relates to why I believe science to be the best path to truth. Before I get into that though, a couple thoughts on why taking things at the basest face value doesn't work. First of all, if you saw chairs as mostly being empty space, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you. It would be nigh impossible to survive like that. Our senses developed to enable our survival, not to directly observe the underlying nature of our universe. For example, we're programmed to see faces in damn near everything, because it's safer to see a face on a mountain, than to not see a face on a lion. We're hardwired for a lot of things like that, including not understanding probability (we're less afraid of standing under a coconut tree than seeing a shark for example), and various other things I can't rattle off the top of my head. That said, on to my worldview.


I'll start everything off with a tricky definition, namely that of truth. My personal definition for the word truth is this:

All properties of all that exists, and the properties of non-existence itself.

My reasoning is as follows. Every true statement can be boiled down to an accurate description of something, be it an object, event, or what have you. The more accurate, the more truthful the statement. The statement “I saw a bird today” is true if it accurately describes a change in the properties of a being, namely me, within a specified time period. When you see the bird, you gain the property of having seen a bird. I added the additional clause about the properties of non-existence counting as any non-existent thing can be described as having certain properties. However, other than what you refer it as, these properties are always exactly the same as the properties of non-existence itself. Note however, that fictional or hypothetical constructs do exist, just they exist as fictional or hypothetical constructs. What all this means is the truth can only be pursued for that which exists.

--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.

There is a set part of reality as a whole that it is possible to know exists. I define this part in five steps.

1: That which exists exists.

If I don't include this tautological statement, I risk getting my argument derailed by someone claiming nothing is true, which would simply eat up time and prove rather pointless to argue against, as by definition of that position, they cannot be wrong as there is no right. Moving on...

2: I think, therefor I exist.

As I, by thinking, attain at least that one property which is not included in the properties of non-existence, I must exist. I think therefor I am is an extremely powerful statement which can only be argued against if you believe you might not exist, and hopefully anyone who believes that would not have gotten past the first step.

3: I have access to a perception of reality. This perception must therefor exist either as an independent entity, or as a part of myself.

As long as I can be said to exist, my perception of reality must also exist. This doesn't mean it's accurate independent of myself. But whether I'm a human being on Earth, or a brain in a jar on SR388, I still have some perception of what I would call reality. Whether or not my reality is independent of myself is irrelevant to my worldview, as I have no way of telling for sure one way or the other.

4: All that I can observe directly or indirectly is part of my perception of reality, and must therefor exist either as an independent entity, or as a part of myself.

Essentially, anything I can note the existence of must exist. Even if I hallucinated a flying teapot, that teapot would exist in some way. Hallucinations certainly exist, they are just limited in who can observe them barring a level of neuroscience we currently do not have access to. Even if I know something to be a figment of my imagination, I cannot say that it does not exist. Rather, I can say it exists solely within myself and/or the physical structure that makes up myself (which may only exist in my mind as well, but that's already covered honestly).

5: I cannot objectively and conclusively say that anything I cannot observe directly or indirectly exists.

To put it more simply, I only know for a fact that reality exists as part of my perception of it. I believe that it exists independently of myself, but that's a matter of faith to be honest. If there's an invisible, intangible unicorn floating five feet in front of my face that cannot interact with the observable universe in any way, I can't say that I know it exists. Whether or not it does exist is irrelevant as far as my reaction to it, and it doesn't effect my worldview in any way.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/SantaRPG/MAIZEpngdu.png

The reason it is important to establish what I can and cannot know exists is that truth, at least by the definition I use, can only be considered for things that exist. That's not to say I cannot try to learn truths about things I do not know exist, simply that I cannot state those truths as being true until I confirm it does. Take for example, the Higgs-Boson. Theoretical physicists have declared many properties for a hypothetical construct known as the Higgs-Boson, which allows the creation of a possible model for a number of facets of existence. If we prove that the Higgs-Boson exists in some form by detecting it in a way that fits the properties given to it, great. We may have expanded the truth we as humans have access to. If however, we find that one of the properties of the Higgs-Boson construct does not fit with what we observe, we can say that the Higgs-Boson does not exist as defined outside of being a hypothetical construct. The important thing to note here, is that we can, given the tools, demonstrate the existence or non-existence of the non-hypothetical Higgs-Boson. This means that though I have not yet demonstrated that it does or does not exist, it can still be considered relevant until I do so.

On the other hand, take an overly simplified being that has only one property. That property being that no matter what we do, it is impossible to observe it directly or indirectly. Such a being cannot be considered relevant as there is absolutely no difference in our access to the truth whether it exists or not.

So at this point, I'll say that something is relevant if it can either proven to exist, or able to be proven or disproven to exist at some future point, without change from outside our ability to influence.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/JeffRaze1pngdy.png

So why is it important to establish what is relevant?

Simply put, if one aims to pursue truth, one must therefor be constrained to look at that which is relevant, as they cannot find the truth of that which is not relevant.

This means that theology cannot be considered a path to truth. For example, lets take the idea of whether or not a god exists. As is currently defined by every religion I am aware of, gods cannot be found through human effort to observe them (not in a way that I feel is conclusive at any rate). That isn't to say that they cannot be observed under any circumstances mind you. But if we cannot observe them without change from outside our ability to influence, the existence of such a god is not relevant to our existence in its current form. Despite the fact that we could observe a god that descended from the heavens to proclaim its existence, until it decides to do so, we must consider it irrelevant.

So theists might at this point interject that I might have a soul, and thus the existence of such a god might be extremely relevant to the point where ignoring it might cause me eternal suffering. That's all well and good, but the idea of a god that punishes all who are not atheist to eternal suffering is just as valid. As we have absolutely no way of knowing which of these two (if either) scenarios exist, our reaction to their existence is blind. Therefor it is perfectly valid to simply assume that neither scenario exists, as any action you would take would be utterly disconnected to anything relevant.

When I said that the two gods are equally valid, I've stepped into a conclusion that can apply to anything that is not part of the relevant universe. As we have no way of knowing anything about anything not relevant, there is no reason to assume any one hypothetical is any more valid than any other. That is not to say they are equally likely however. It is more likely that a stone exists than it is that a blue stone exists. And following that, it is more likely that a blue stone exists than it is that a round blue stone exists. What this boils down to is that for all that is not relevant, it is safe to assume that nothing exists. This is not to claim that nothing exists that we cannot observe, just that there's no difference to us whether there is or not. As all non-relevant possibilities are equally valid, the most logical course of option is to live your existence as though the relevant universe is all that exists. You cannot gamble with this as that would be like gambling in a game you do not know the rules to, cannot see any part of, and do not know you're playing in the first place. Which is of course why Pascal's wager is so flawed.

--
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg26/scaled.php?server=26&filename=jeffreyraze.png&res=medium

As we only have the tools to pursue the truth in that which is relevant, we must consider which tools are most effective in finding truth in the relevant universe. However, before any attempt can be made at discovering truth, there are certain assumptions that must be made.

1: Reality exists independently of myself.

Namely, my existence does not define reality. This is a bit of a leap of faith to make, but without making it there's no truth to discover really, other than to try to figure out my own thought processes.

2: That which I observe exists independent to myself.

Somewhat of an extension to assumption 1, but still quite important. If I'm a brain in a jar or some thoughts floating on the aether, then I do not have access to the truth, even if it is out there. Because the truth then is not relevant given that I can never hope to find it.

3: Truth remains truth regardless of time passed.

That which is true today must be true tomorrow if the pursuit of truth is to have meaning. Note that when I say that, I don't mean that a statement made today will always be true, but that it will always be true relative to when it was said. Saying something like “I saw a bird today” will be true or false on any given day, but it's truth value on that day will not change. If for example, birds could be suddenly erased from the timestream entirely, well nothing would be true for long really. So I assume constant values of truth.

4: The universe changes in an ordered manner.

An extension to 3, things have to change in a causal way or else truth becomes pointless. I assume that the universe follows certain laws, because if it does not truth exists only in instants. If what is a fish today is a bicycle tomorrow, then trying to find truth will be meaningless, and my own existence tenuous.

With those assumptions in place, we can proceed. By assumption 4, the universe must follow certain laws. That means that a great deal of truth can be found by investigating those laws. Perhaps those laws too may change, but they'd have to change in an ordered manner as well, subject to laws above themselves.

Which of course leads us to science.


And in the interest of not flooding further, I'll cut it off there. Any questions would be appreciated, and I'm sorry bout the walls of text :P

--
http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/FDpnggy.png

@Jeff: I'm not sure if your comments are directed at Touka specifically or the topic generally, but I was hoping to interject on a few things. If you don't really care about what I have to say, just let me know and this will be a one-time deal!

Right, well I like your position a lot more than Westbrick's.

There's likely a reason for this: my thoughts come from the continental tradition of philosophy, whereas Touka's are pretty plainly more analytic. I rarely recommend Wikipedia, but it's a decent starting point here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

Note that such categories are rarely absolute. Think of them like the labels "Democrat" and "Republican": no one school or thinker is going to fit perfectly into one or the other, but they reflect certain philosophical trends and emphases. You may find it interesting to look at some philosophy which doesn't consider its role the propping-up of natural sciences, which it is in the analytic tradition.

2: I think, therefor I exist.

I'll just turn to Nietzsche here:

"There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are 'immediate certainties'; for example, 'I think'... When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking-- that I know what thinking is... [the cogito sum] assumes that I compare my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me." (BGE §16; italics original, bold added).

In short, whatever "immediacy" the cogito sum appears to have at first blush is illusory. Best not to base too much on it.

Simply put, if one aims to pursue truth, one must therefor be constrained to look at that which is relevant, as they cannot find the truth of that which is not relevant.

This is the crux of the problem with Touka's argument: that what is useful corresponds with what is true.

In accordance with my "name-dropping" ways, allow me to provide some background on this phenomenon. Aristotelian philosophy understands the highest truth as metaphysics, or the contemplation of the forms of the universe. Unsurprisingly, this idle approach to truth didn't sit well with some, but it took time for an alternative to develop. Machiavelli was the first philosopher to introduce the term "effectual truth" into the Western lexicon; the term was developed extensively by Montaigne and then used as a springboard by Bacon. Most of us today first learn about effectual truth through Hume.

Why bring this up? For two reasons: not only is the understanding of truth as "effectual truth" relatively recent- certainly more recent than the Aristotelian conception which has defined thousands of years of philosophy- it was also endorsed by thinkers utterly unconcerned with metaphysics, i.e. the grounding of truth as truth. Bacon and Montaigne are skeptical that such truth can be reached in the first place, while Machiavelli and Hume seem relatively unconcerned about it; Hume famously condemns any and all "abstruse metaphysics" as deserving of being "cast into the fire" (even while he himself was participating in abstruse metaphysics! A great historical irony).

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

The short of the long here is that "effectual truth" has a nonexistent track recording in regards to defending its truth value as opposed to its efficacy value; this is what lends itself to such skepticism in serious epistemology.

As is currently defined by every religion I am aware of, gods cannot be found through human effort to observe them (not in a way that I feel is conclusive at any rate).

Platonism, or the backbone of Christian thought, posits a super-rational noetic faculty capable of ascertaining the moral intelligibility of the universe. What makes this "inconclusive," in your eyes? Arguing that it's not "verifiable," as Touka has done, would be a category mistake: in modern phrasing, because it presupposes an effectual standard of truth, making it circular; in Platonic terms, because it confounds the second (sensual) and fourth (noetic) levels of the divided line.


Then we come to a series of claims, which I simply have to call into question because they are so central to your worldview. Let's start from the top:

1: Reality exists independently of myself.

As you yourself have admitted, this is a leap of faith. How can you pretend that your philosophy is "rational" when its underlying foundation is arbitrary? How can you criticize religion when it seems to do the exact same thing?

2: That which I observe exists independent to myself.
[...]
Because the truth then is not relevant given that I can never hope to find it.

The first part of this claim doesn't follow. Even if reality exists independently of the observer, this doesn't mean we can know what is "really" independent and what is "really" just a byproduct of flawed human perception. It's the classic Kantian thing-in-itself problem; we simply do not have access to how reality "really" is.

I highlight the second part of your claim only because it seems to contradict your appraisal of effectual truth. Even if truth isn't true, why can't it be useful?

3: Truth remains truth regardless of time passed.

4: The universe changes in an ordered manner.

Both claims can be umbrellaed under the same objection: without a God, what compels the universe to follow a strict set of natural laws? If it just happens to be perfectly ordered, then why couldn't it just happen to become a state of disorder tomorrow?

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

Westbrick
I've concluded that talking to you is a dead loss.

You're trying to argue with an imaginary version of me who is making all the standard philosophical arguments for science (using the terms that THEY USE instead of the terms that I USE), not trying to make sure you understand my position before you started attacking it.

For example, when I was unclear about my use of the word "intelligibility" in response to your post about intelligibility, I didn't specify which definition I was using (and I should have asked for clarification). I gave several examples of what I thought intelligibility was, You say that I demonstrated a sophomoric understanding understanding of the word from western philosophy's PoV ,when there was no explicit mention of us agreeing to use that view. When I point this out, you reframe this point of confusion as me not having read up on background information that no one had made reference to. So of course, I say that I'm not trying to reference the western philosophical tradition, you (willfully?) misinterpret that as me trying to assert my creative independence from all other thought (???).

And this is just ONE conversational thread.

You do not try and engage with the other party in a meaningful fashion. You do not try and go beyond simple contradiction. You do not try and make yourself clear to the other party.

There is no point in talking to you.

Maybe you'll think of this as a triumph, but you have failed to change the other party's mind, failed to convey any new information and failed address the point the other person was making. Any gain comes from simple posturing. We are both worse people for having participated in this conversation.

If you wish to pursue this point further, I have provided two links earlier in the topic, I will try to clear up any confusion curious onlookers have (lol). But otherwise you can consider this conversation "won".

Jeffrey:

I want to know if I understood you correctly, so I'm going to try and extend certain things I think you left implicit and check to see if it fits your worldview.

When you see the bird, you gain the property of having seen a bird.

Can we also conclude other properties such as "the bird exists", "the bird was doing _____ when I saw it" from "I saw a bird today?"

The following is a ranking of truth values:

I saw a bird at 4:23, 20 seconds today > I saw a bird at about 4:00PM today > I saw the bird today = I saw a bird on April 14th.

Now I'm going to reverse the inequalities

I saw a bird. < I saw a blue throated thrush. < I saw a blue throated thrush, from my knowledge of biology I can say X, Y, Z properties the bird has.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Note however, that fictional or hypothetical constructs do exist, just they exist as fictional or hypothetical constructs. What all this means is the truth can only be pursued for that which exists.

So, the fiction/hypothetical constructs do NOT correspond to anything in reality, but the REPRESENTATION of the fiction/hypothetical constructs corresponds to the bit of the brain which hold them, correct?

Whether or not my reality is independent of myself is irrelevant to my worldview, as I have no way of telling for sure one way or the other.

Hm to check

Reality independent of perceptions:
Brain in a jar
Boltzmann brain (random particles forming to become a brain that thinks chaotic thoughts and disappear)

Dependent of perceptions:
What our senses tell us right now
What science as a body of literature tells us (?)

How would you talk about Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage, who (coincidentally) cannot have any test falsify it?

You answered this later, it's irrelevant. So does that mean you can't place it into either

Even if I hallucinated a flying teapot, that teapot would exist in some way.

So, I'm taking it to mean that the teapot exists encoded in your consciousness correct?

Hm, this might be confusing, would you be fine writing like this? You've referenced exist so far, which I think means two different things: Exists as an object in reality, exists as a representation in your brain, which is an object in reality. Would you mind referring to them as Exists::Reality or Exists::Representation? I mean, it's kinda unwieldy but otherwise I start getting really confused. (You've been clear so far, there's no point of confusion yet, this is just to head off future disputes)

If however, we find that one of the properties of the Higgs-Boson construct does not fit with what we observe, we can say that the Higgs-Boson does not exist as defined outside of being a hypothetical construct.

Like here! So what you're saying is...

Higgs-Boson::Theory Construct doesn't exist when you find one of the properties is different from Higgs-Boson::Observed right?

So at this point, I'll say that something is relevant if it can either proven to exist, or able to be proven or disproven to exist at some future point, without change from outside our ability to influence.

Assuming that this means what I think it means, I guess when I say I'm a reductionist, one of my beliefs is that irrelevant things do not belong in any discussion of truth.

It is more likely that a stone exists than it is that a blue stone exists. And following that, it is more likely that a blue stone exists than it is that a round blue stone exists.

Oh man the conjunctive rule in probability *squee* YES YES YES. YESSSS.

*Ahem*

So, let me explain how my view relates to that.

What's irrelevant, nonetheless, has a nonzero KC value.

We know the truer our statements given a set of observations are the more our KC value is minimized.

When we postulate what's irrelevant, we HAVE to add it onto the KC value of whatever else we have.

Therefore any statement with irrelevant statements in them are less true than statements without them.

As a sanity check, adding relevant statements doesn't necessarily have this flaw, because the minimum possible KC value also increases, because we have more observations.

3: Truth remains truth regardless of time passed.

So, what I would say is that reality remains reality regardless of time passed hm.

Do you acknowledge a difference between truth and reality? How would your version of truth apply to the coinflipping situation I said earlier?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Well, if I think therefor I am fails, then I have to look into the possibility of me not existing. However, that's something I cannot do if I do not exist >_>. Sorta like a lot of the things you've said about logic, you know?

As for what I said about only that which is relevant being possible to find truth for, remember I'm using a very specific definition of relevant and truth. You can disagree with my definitions, but please say so directly. If we have absolutely no way of learning anything about something, it is not relevant, and we cannot know any truth about it. Contemplating the universe from a purely logical standpoint is all well and good, but without relying on information gained outside pure logic, logic can only be used to make statements about very specific things, most of which being purely logical in nature. Without the experience of having thought, I cannot make any statement about anything whatsoever. Logic in a vacuum is entirely self contained, and ultimately as useless as language in a vacuum would be.

As for the comment about inconclusiveness, it was indeed likely poorly worded. I meant to say that I do not believe that hearing the voice of god or seeing miracles is something I find more grounded in reality than dreams. Truth is iffy when speaking of things like that as it's nigh impossible to define them in a manner that anyone other than yourself could see, so it's hard to distinguish it from any other pure thought construct.

As for the stuff under the dashed line, those weren't claims, they were assumptions I feel need to be made before any attempt to discover truth is meaningful. Usefulness then would absolutely be disconnected from truth. It's only in an ordered universe that usefulness can be derived from truth.

As for your last line, that's just pushing things back a notch. Then you have to explain why god is ordered/exists the way he does, and as god is certainly more complex than any universe could be, all that's done by postulating a god is to create much more work for yourself and accomplish nothing.

--
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg26/scaled.php?server=26&filename=jeffreyraze.png&res=medium

Speaking to Touka...

Yes, a statement becomes more truthful as more detail is added to it.

Yes, any construct has a set of properties as it's existence within the minds or media of others certainly exists. So to say Jedi wield lightsabers is a true statement when referring to the fictional Starwars universe, because it's making a statement about a property of that construct. It's just that those constructs are more or less properties of other existent objects. I'm not sure how to state it clearly, but... Hrm.

At any rate, whether or not the existence of something is a derivative of the existence of something else, it still exists at least as long as that which it's dependent on does. Screw it, I'll start quoting things when I respond to them.

Higgs-Boson::Theory Construct doesn't exist when you find one of the properties is different from Higgs-Boson::Observed right?

No. The construct still exists, but it exists purely as a construct. However, that construct can no longer be said to be relevant as far as discovering truth in the sense of things that compose reality directly... So it makes it more like a novel than a theory at that point if that makes any sense. So it's irrelevant in that it only has the properties of non-existence when speaking of things other than it's definitions. Ugh, I'm not explaining myself well.

Assuming that this means what I think it means, I guess when I say I'm a reductionist, one of my beliefs is that irrelevant things do not belong in any discussion of truth.

Yes.

Therefore any statement with irrelevant statements in them are less true than statements without them.

Yep.

Do you acknowledge a difference between truth and reality? How would your version of truth apply to the coinflipping situation I said earlier?

Using some previous terminology, I define truth as the map and reality as the territory. The further the map is from the territory, the less truthful a statement is. So saying a coinflip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails is a map with only one detail on it. As you add more detail, the probability shifts, and the statements become more truthful. Once again, I always feel like a moron when trying to clarify things, but what I'm saying is that I agree with you on what you've said about it I think >_>.

--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.

Well, if I think therefor I am fails, then I have to look into the possibility of me not existing. However, that's something I cannot do if I do not exist >_>. Sorta like a lot of the things you've said about logic, you know?

The excerpt I posted doesn't just say that the cogito sum is wrong, but rather explains *why* it is wrong. The potential strength of the assertion lies in its alleged "immediacy": that it cannot be doubted as true. But as Nietzsche explains, there are several hidden claims lying beneath the surface, such as the belief that an "I" exists in the first place, and that this "I" can correctly distinguish between thought and something like feeling or willing.

And doubting the cogito sum, unlike doubting logic (which Touka does), actually isn't circular. One can temporarily posit the existence of a self without needing to stake any metaphysical claims about it. Nothing is contradictory in saying "the self, as I understand it, is in part or in full illusory."

If we have absolutely no way of learning anything about something, it is not relevant, and we cannot know any truth about it.

I'll be coming back to this definition.

Contemplating the universe from a purely logical standpoint is all well and good, but without relying on information gained outside pure logic, logic can only be used to make statements about very specific things, most of which being purely logical in nature.

Regardless of one's stance on the "value" of logical claims, or its place in some hierarchy, we can still know logical truths. According to your definition, we can learn about logic, making it relevant. We can also learn about poetry, making it relevant. And phenomenology. And music. And anything which fits within the framework of the human mind, for that matter.

It's quite a leap to come from "only things we can learn are relevant" to "only quantitative scientific inquiry is relevant."

As for the stuff under the dashed line, those weren't claims, they were assumptions I feel need to be made before any attempt to discover truth is meaningful. Usefulness then would absolutely be disconnected from truth. It's only in an ordered universe that usefulness can be derived from truth.

Then I take it you'd agree that these claims aren't necessarily true, but only useful, yes? In other words: the universe may or may not adhere to strict universal laws, but conceiving of a cosmos in this way can reap practical benefits.

As for your last line, that's just pushing things back a notch. Then you have to explain why god is ordered/exists the way he does,

Hardly. We can turn this into a very simple logical proof:

1. Either the universe is ordered, or it isn't.
[Assumption 1: The universe is ordered.]
2. Either the order is permanent or it is fleeting.
3. For the cosmic order to be permanent, it must either be so randomly or because a God exists.
[Assumption 2: God does not exist.]
4. The cosmic order must be random.
5. A "random order," by definition, is fleeting.
C. The cosmic order is fleeting.

This is a rough way to demonstrate that the claims "There is no God" and "The universe is a permanent order (i.e. cosmos)" are mutually incompatible.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

So... to correct that earlier Higgs-Boson::Theory Construct always exists, but its correspondence to reality does not have to hold. Is that true?

Using some previous terminology, I define truth as the map and reality as the territory. The further the map is from the territory, the less truthful a statement is. So saying a coinflip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails is a map with only one detail on it. As you add more detail, the probability shifts, and the statements become more truthful.

Hm, this sounds like it contradicts your previous notion that truth is constant across time.

Actually there is one reconciliation: At any ONE particular moment in time, given a set of information, that is what we call true. The fact that we can only guess 50% at the start is ALWAYS true, no matter what data we receive later on. Similarly, the old Newtonian laws were our best approximation to truth before we started discovering breakdowns to it, etc. Is that right?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

I've concluded that talking to you is a dead loss.

What a surprise.

You're trying to argue with an imaginary version of me who is making all the standard philosophical arguments for science (using the terms that THEY USE instead of the terms that I USE), not trying to make sure you understand my position before you started attacking it.

As I've said several times now, your views are highly derivative and are highly unoriginal. There's nothing wrong with this; we all borrow and combine different beliefs from different thinkers. But in framing your beliefs within the tradition from which it has arisen, I'm hardly mischaracterizing or weakening it; if anything, I'm making it *stronger*.

Nevertheless, none of my central arguments have much to do with placing your views within an historical tradition. If you'd like me to treat what you believe as a special snowflake philosophy, then by all means I'll oblige.

You do not try and engage with the other party in a meaningful fashion. You do not try and go beyond simple contradiction. You do not try and make yourself clear to the other party.

This is all rather unfair. I've been very patient and rather respectful, especially compared to most serious debates I get into. What you need to learn is how to grow a thicker skin. Professional disagreements like this are common in every field, whether it's philosophy or law or business or anything else. If you have objections to things I've said, then clarify; bowing out of a discussion you've heavily invested yourself in, especially while it's still on-topic and hasn't become too personal, just shows a weakness of either will or intellect.

Maybe you'll think of this as a triumph, but you have failed to change the other party's mind, failed to convey any new information and failed address the point the other person was making.

This isn't a triumph; assuming things end now (and I'd prefer if they didn't), it was a waste of my time, and a testament to the problems with giving philosophical novices like yourself too much credit. I was never hoping to change your mind; rather, I was hoping to simply reveal brunt truths about your position's inconsistencies and allow you to deal with them as you deemed fit. Truth over persuasiveness, in other words.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

If you wish to pursue this point further, I have provided two links earlier in the topic, I will try to clear up any confusion curious onlookers have (lol). But otherwise you can consider this conversation "won".

Your links have served their purpose: they have provided a probabilistic argument for why science can be useful. But no one has disputed this. By the same token, if you wish to pursue things further (and the ball's in your court), I'd like for you to take the time and actually respond to the questions asked of you. Here are a few you've conveniently skipped over (italicized comments are yours; quoted ones are mine):

Because thus far you have not shown me *any* system which would have that standard be fulfilled.

"What, do you mean the "standard" where scientific truth isn't *the* truth? I provided a number of them already, so here they are again: phenomenology, Buddhism, Christianity, Nietzscehan philosophy (or hypermodernism), and Marxism. We can throw in Hegelianism (speculative philosophy) as well, and this is really only scratching the surface.

Your job is now to ask a) what these things mean (because you've made your ignorance on basic philosophical questions rather clear to everyone reading this conversation), and b) once I clarify, try to defend science as somehow "better" than these epistemic accounts. "

We can TALK about something called chairs, people, thoughts, joys, emotions etc. but we have to remember that it all REDUCES down to our best knowledge of 'basement level reality'.

"So what I was saying all along turns out to be correct: we can use other perspectives if we'd like, but only the scientific perspective is the correct one.

So again: what makes science true?"

and the big one...

Because I once wasn't a reductionist and the universe was confusing and moved in seemingly random ways and now I am and so many things fall into place. It exorcises my feelings of confusion and also fit in with what I believed about the world from science before that. Note that now my justification for it has changed from that and I'll need to parse it out. But yeah. That's the CAUSAL chain which led to it. Now if you want something else you can try and specify.

"So you're a reductionist because it "makes you feel good"? What part of having no value to your life helps things "fall into place"? Why put your faith in science? If it "makes you happy," then why not simply throw yourself into the world and enjoy your life? Why not be religious, marry a pretty religious girl, have a nice family, and live a normal life?

Your major claim for believing in science is complacency. Notice that there are no claims of "truth" here; presumably, if the scientific was utterly debunked tomorrow from a logical perspective, you'd still cling to it.

[how would you respond to such objections?]"

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

Newbie: you overrate KC. It's an interesting math idea, but not as wonderful a tool as you have been asserting.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'm late to the topic but I'll just answer.

I ****ing love the concept of religion and all the stories that came out of it but I does hate people who push their religion super hard on other people, but then again I also hate atheist who push their thing on religious people.

Though I'm not really an atheist, more of an agnostic.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/cosplaygifer.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TORtanic

The excerpt I posted doesn't just say that the cogito sum is wrong, but rather explains *why* it is wrong. The potential strength of the assertion lies in its alleged "immediacy": that it cannot be doubted as true. But as Nietzsche explains, there are several hidden claims lying beneath the surface, such as the belief that an "I" exists in the first place, and that this "I" can correctly distinguish between thought and something like feeling or willing.

And doubting the cogito sum, unlike doubting logic (which Touka does), actually isn't circular. One can temporarily posit the existence of a self without needing to stake any metaphysical claims about it. Nothing is contradictory in saying "the self, as I understand it, is in part or in full illusory."

I'm not making a claim that I exist as anything other than a collection of thoughts, and if that collection does not exist I do not think. The statement is in essence tautological. And anyways, if "I think therefor I am" is false, then I certainly have nothing to do with truth on any level, so this conversation is absolutely and completely without merit.

Regardless of one's stance on the "value" of logical claims, or its place in some hierarchy, we can still know logical truths. According to your definition, we can learn about logic, making it relevant. We can also learn about poetry, making it relevant. And phenomenology. And music. And anything which fits within the framework of the human mind, for that matter.

'We' implies our own existence, which can only be confirmed through experiencing thought (well, according to you it doesn't, which means in essence we cannot know logical truths). And logic, poetry, music, etc. are relevant and I never claimed they were not. However, they are constructs and therefor a level removed from the base reality. The construct of god is relevance, however the reality of god is not (at least as defined).

It's quite a leap to come from "only things we can learn are relevant" to "only quantitative scientific inquiry is relevant."

It wasn't learn so much as detect directly or indirectly. And I never once claimed that only quantitative scientific inquiry is relevant, just that anything that is relevant that isn't a construct falls under the jurisdiction of the scientific method because of the way the scientific method is defined.

--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn

Then I take it you'd agree that these claims aren't necessarily true, but only useful, yes? In other words: the universe may or may not adhere to strict universal laws, but conceiving of a cosmos in this way can reap practical benefits.

They are not claims. They are assumptions, which does in fact mean they are not intrinsically true, but only useful. You are however, missing my point. If the universe does not adhere to universal laws (which may change according to other, higher level laws, who knows) then it is impossible to discover truth outside of a single instant, that being the instant you are in. If the fundamental nature of logic wasn't consistent, then logical truth would cease to have meaning as well. Of course, given logic is a definitionary construct, it would take reality itself changing for that to hold. Which means if reality has no "ineligibility", neither does logic itself honestly.

Hardly. We can turn this into a very simple logical proof:

1. Either the universe is ordered, or it isn't.
[Assumption 1: The universe is ordered.]
2. Either the order is permanent or it is fleeting.
3. For the cosmic order to be permanent, it must either be so randomly or because a God exists.
[Assumption 2: God does not exist.]
4. The cosmic order must be random.
5. A "random order," by definition, is fleeting.
C. The cosmic order is fleeting.

This is a rough way to demonstrate that the claims "There is no God" and "The universe is a permanent order (i.e. cosmos)" are mutually incompatible.

How on earth does that follow in a way that doesn't also conclude god has have a god of its own, that has a god of its own, ad infinitum?

be right back.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/FDpnggy.png

So... to correct that earlier Higgs-Boson::Theory Construct always exists, but its correspondence to reality does not have to hold. Is that true?

Yes.

Hm, this sounds like it contradicts your previous notion that truth is constant across time.

Actually there is one reconciliation: At any ONE particular moment in time, given a set of information, that is what we call true. The fact that we can only guess 50% at the start is ALWAYS true, no matter what data we receive later on. Similarly, the old Newtonian laws were our best approximation to truth before we started discovering breakdowns to it, etc. Is that right?

Yeeeah, I'm messing something up. I guess I should speak in terms of accuracy and precision then. The I suppose what I should say is that the closer the predicted probability is to the actual probability, the more accurate it is. The 50% estimate is truthful only in that it's stating that the odds of one of two equally likely, mutually exclusive events happening is 50%. I'm not sure how to say it better. I suppose there isn't multiple levels of truthfulness like I stated, more that each detail added has its own truth value, and adding more details that are true improves accuracy. Or something like that.

--
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg26/scaled.php?server=26&filename=jeffreyraze.png&res=medium

I really do need to ask, do you disagree with my definitions for truth, and relevance? If so, how so.

--
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg26/scaled.php?server=26&filename=jeffreyraze.png&res=medium

Hey red sox, you really should jump into this conversation more proactively. I know from other topics (political ones) that you know what you're talking about, and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

And anyways, if "I think therefor I am" is false, then I certainly have nothing to do with truth on any level, so this conversation is absolutely and completely without merit.

"You" might not. Your body might. And "you" might not "think" truthfully, but you may approach it willfully. And there's a difference between understanding the self as a useful construction and providing it with immediate ontological necessity.

But this is all abstract and not particularly relevant. The central point is this: that if you really care about truth, "positing" truth as true is simply disingenuous. All philosophically-minded people have to ask two difficult questions eventually: what grounds truth? and what is the value of truth assuming it can be grounded?

However, they are constructs and therefor a level removed from the base reality. The construct of god is relevance, however the reality of god is not (at least as defined).

What is a "construct," and what is "base reality"? Logic is in many respects more base than sense experience, as one can always be doubted and the other can never be doubted. The scientific method is also itself a construct, one which approaches the world through a very specific lens.

And I never once claimed that only quantitative scientific inquiry is relevant, just that anything that is relevant that isn't a construct falls under the jurisdiction of the scientific method because of the way the scientific method is defined.

This is the snag here. Could you clarify?

You are however, missing my point. If the universe does not adhere to universal laws (which may change according to other, higher level laws, who knows) then it is impossible to discover truth outside of a single instant, that being the instant you are in.

Not quite. It would be impossible to discover objective truth, but perspectival truths would certainly be on the table. This, incidentally, is where I stand: that science is a perspective, and that it can provide scientific truths, but that these truths are no "more" or "less" true simply because they are scientific.

How on earth does that follow in a way that doesn't also conclude god has have a god of its own, that has a god of its own, ad infinitum?

...This is an entirely separate argument. This would be relevant if I postulated a God; since God was assumed to be nonexistent, I'm not sure of the relevance here.

So again, what compels the universe to be rationally intelligible without God? If you posit this as true, then it's true; but this is also true of God and any other proposition imaginable. If you care about the truth of the matter, then you won't simply assume what you're trying to prove.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

I think that disagreeing on definitions isn't... fruitful. What I need to be careful of is that I'll accidentally use my definition instead of yours. They're just words, why get hung up about words when they're just vehicles for meaning?

The I suppose what I should say is that the closer the predicted probability is to the actual probability, the more accurate it is. The 50% estimate is truthful only in that it's stating that the odds of one of two equally likely, mutually exclusive events happening is 50%. I'm not sure how to say it better. I suppose there isn't multiple levels of truthfulness like I stated, more that each detail added has its own truth value, and adding more details that are true improves accuracy. Or something like that.

Ohhh I see where the point of confusion is.

I don't believe there's such a thing as an inherently probabilistic thing in the universe. I believe that probabilities are a measure of your uncertainty. So there's no such thing as a random event, only events we find random because nothing we know can help us predict it.

A more precise statement i.e. a statement with more levels of detail in it is "better" because you concentrate more of your probability in a narrow conceptspace, which represents less uncertainty.

The 50% estimate is truthful only in that it's stating that the odds of one of two equally likely, mutually exclusive events happening is 50%.

This is called the maximum entropy distribution by the way; basically there are n options and you assign them 1/n chance of happening. It means that you have absolutely zero information about the thing you're trying to predict. Your entropy goes DOWN as you acquire more information.

red sox 777 posted...
Newbie: you overrate KC. It's an interesting math idea, but not as wonderful a tool as you have been asserting.

Good thing you've specified how and why so that I can find out instead of vaguely implying that it's insufficient in other vague and undefined ways so that we can talk about it and we don't waste five posts dragging it out of you.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Touka's clearly decided to bail, but that's okay: I'm willing to bargain. Please just answer this one question for me. It's not even about debating at this point; I just want to get inside the psychology of a hardline reductionist, since I run into them so often. Again:

Because I once wasn't a reductionist and the universe was confusing and moved in seemingly random ways and now I am and so many things fall into place. It exorcises my feelings of confusion and also fit in with what I believed about the world from science before that. Note that now my justification for it has changed from that and I'll need to parse it out. But yeah. That's the CAUSAL chain which led to it. Now if you want something else you can try and specify.

"So you're a reductionist because it "makes you feel good"? What part of having no value to your life helps things "fall into place"? Why put your faith in science? If it "makes you happy," then why not simply throw yourself into the world and enjoy your life? Why not be religious, marry a pretty religious girl, have a nice family, and live a normal life?

Your major claim for believing in science is complacency. Notice that there are no claims of "truth" here; presumably, if the scientific was utterly debunked tomorrow from a logical perspective, you'd still cling to it."

I really just want to know how you'd respond to these objections. Then we can wipe our hands clean of all this and move on.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

"You" might not. Your body might. And "you" might not "think" truthfully, but you may approach it willfully. And there's a difference between understanding the self as a useful construction and providing it with immediate ontological necessity.

But this is all abstract and not particularly relevant. The central point is this: that if you really care about truth, "positing" truth as true is simply disingenuous. All philosophically-minded people have to ask two difficult questions eventually: what grounds truth? and what is the value of truth assuming it can be grounded?

Alright, the term "you" is clearly not the simplest or even best one. Perhaps I should say this instead.

That which thinks, has a property not held by non-existence and therefor exists. Let us postulate that adding to a collection of thoughts is called thinking, and that the thing that thinks is called "I". Thus, I think therefor I am.

As for the grounding of truth, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I define truth as a set of properties of that which exists. So for anything that exists, any accurate statement of a property of it is true by definition. And such a thing does in fact not have to be independent of thought, but things that are dependent on thought are constructs. I have no way of telling whether or not that which I observe is a construct.

--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn

What is a "construct," and what is "base reality"? Logic is in many respects more base than sense experience, as one can always be doubted and the other can never be doubted. The scientific method is also itself a construct, one which approaches the world through a very specific lens.

A construct is something that can only exist relative to the existence of something that thinks. Language, science, philosophy, and even logic are constructs. Base reality is that which exists independent of thought. It is of course, not possible to know if anything is part of base reality other than the thoughts you have access to. Also, logic cannot be doubted in terms of logic. That's not saying much (because I certainly can't conceive of any other way to approach it), but it's a point worth making.

Science itself is a construct given that it most certainly is not something that exists independently of thought. It's a method that, after assuming the universe is not a construct and that it is ordered (neither of which are certain, but are more or less required to be made in order to pursue truth as something other than a function of thought), can be applied to anything that can be observed directly or indirectly to learn the properties of what you are observing. As you learn properties, you learn truth.

Not quite. It would be impossible to discover objective truth, but perspectival truths would certainly be on the table. This, incidentally, is where I stand: that science is a perspective, and that it can provide scientific truths, but that these truths are no "more" or "less" true simply because they are scientific.

Alright, sure. However, there is no actual way of determining the difference between objective truth and perspectival truth. You have to make certain assumptions if you want to even attempt it. While it is true that there are "truths" other than scientific, those either do not try to discover objective truth, or do so in a manner that could be used to justify saying anything is objectively true. Science is an extremely powerful tool in that the assumptions it makes are only the ones needed to establish the existence of objective truth, and it produces exactly the same results regardless of who applies it (assuming it is applied correctly of course).

...This is an entirely separate argument. This would be relevant if I postulated a God; since God was assumed to be nonexistent, I'm not sure of the relevance here.

So again, what compels the universe to be rationally intelligible without God? If you posit this as true, then it's true; but this is also true of God and any other proposition imaginable. If you care about the truth of the matter, then you won't simply assume what you're trying to prove.

Well, what I'm saying is you CANNOT use god to explain the ordering of the universe without digging yourself into a deeper hole, so it should be rejected as a hypothesis much the same as any other idea that explains nothing should be rejected. As far as what makes the universe ordered... I don't know. I can't know if it is ordered either. There is absolutely ZERO way to prove the universe is ordered. That doesn't matter though. God of the gaps is a terrible argument.

--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn

I think that disagreeing on definitions isn't... fruitful. What I need to be careful of is that I'll accidentally use my definition instead of yours. They're just words, why get hung up about words when they're just vehicles for meaning?

Fair point. However, if our meanings are fundamentally mutually exclusive, we need to try to find a different way to approach the discussion.

I don't believe there's such a thing as an inherently probabilistic thing in the universe. I believe that probabilities are a measure of your uncertainty. So there's no such thing as a random event, only events we find random because nothing we know can help us predict it.

A more precise statement i.e. a statement with more levels of detail in it is "better" because you concentrate more of your probability in a narrow conceptspace, which represents less uncertainty.

Given quantum mechanics, I'm not sure I agree that nothing is inherently probabilistic. Of course, we've barely began to scratch the surface of the field, so that may change. But other than that, sounds about right.

This is called the maximum entropy distribution by the way; basically there are n options and you assign them 1/n chance of happening. It means that you have absolutely zero information about the thing you're trying to predict. Your entropy goes DOWN as you acquire more information.

True. With absolutely no information whatsoever, everything is equally likely :P.

--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn

That which thinks, has a property not held by non-existence and therefor exists.

A supposition which the Beyond Good and Evil passage definitively calls into question. Is it that specific parts of the passage are unclear? I've taken a class or two on Nietzsche, so I can try my best to clarify what he's getting at if you give me some specifics.

As for the grounding of truth, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

What makes one perception of the world the "true" one.

I define truth as a set of properties of that which exists.

Most people would define truth as "that which exists," so your definition isn't that far off. What this doesn't make clear is its relation to science and how science is evaluated epistemologically (and I also don't understand what "a set of properties" means; so only part of which exists is true?).

A construct is something that can only exist relative to the existence of something that thinks. Language, science, philosophy, and even logic are constructs. Base reality is that which exists independent of thought.

In this case, you're staking the same turf that Touka was: namely, that while we have access to manifold perspectives, only one perspective is the "true" one. There's also the question of what "base reality" looks like, and whether such a "base reality" (the thing-in-itself, the hidden X behind appearances) can be accessed in the first place.

Science itself is a construct given that it most certainly is not something that exists independently of thought. It's a method that, after assuming the universe is not a construct and that it is ordered (neither of which are certain, but are more or less required to be made in order to pursue truth as something other than a function of thought), can be applied to anything that can be observed directly or indirectly to learn the properties of what you are observing. As you learn properties, you learn truth.

This is where I lose you. Science being a construct is fair, but what makes the scientific construct the one privy to truth? Remember that the central question I asked Touka was what makes science true; you're making the same claim a step removed, as science is the construction that gives us access to truth. Why? How do we know? If the answer is "because it's useful/predictable," then we've fallen right back into the circularity. This is especially troubling given that you accept this...

However, there is no actual way of determining the difference between objective truth and perspectival truth.

...and then contradict yourself with this:

Science is an extremely powerful tool in that the assumptions it makes are only the ones needed to establish the existence of objective truth,

If you assume that scientific truth can grant you access to objective truth, then are you really surprised when this turns out to be the case? We can do this equally effectively with religion, Marxism, Hegelianism, Buddhism, etc. etc.

If objective reality exists, you can't simply assume that it is scientific. This is circular. You'll need some other grounding.

As far as what makes the universe ordered... I don't know. I can't know if it is ordered either. There is absolutely ZERO way to prove the universe is ordered. That doesn't matter though. God of the gaps is a terrible argument.

Who the hell is making a "god in the gaps" argument? I'm demonstrating that without God, the idea of an intelligible cosmos is a contradiction. If you have a way out of this conflict, I'd love to hear it.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

However, if our meanings are fundamentally mutually exclusive, we need to try to find a different way to approach the discussion.

Hm yeah, what would we actually disagree on with our definitions of truth though? What would you call the 50% "guess" that the coin comes up heads? I call it truth, is that truth in your book?

Given quantum mechanics,

There's a lot of reasons to believe that quantum mechanics isn't probabilistic, at least not in the way you think it is, but that's a story that's way too long.

However, you can just reformulate that as a state in the future where you can't use the present's information to predict! I mean, I know it looks like sophistry, but there's a fine difference between believing there are inherently mysterious things out there and believing that the mystery only resides in your own mind (or, in the case of QM, in this particular everett branch's mind)

And yes, this is literally a part of our universe being "unintelligible".Well, unintelligible if you believe that probability exists in the world and not in the mind!

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

In this case, you're staking the same turf that Touka was: namely, that while we have access to manifold perspectives, only one perspective is the "true" one. There's also the question of what "base reality" looks like, and whether such a "base reality" (the thing-in-itself, the hidden X behind appearances) can be accessed in the first place.

There can be many true perspectives, but of course the best one would be the one that holds all properties of reality without holding any properties not held in reality. Of course, if base reality doesn't exist then nothing is true, and if we cannot access it then we cannot discover truth. Hence, relevance. And that's also why I went out of my way to assume we have access to base reality at some level, otherwise discussing truth is without merit.

This is where I lose you. Science being a construct is fair, but what makes the scientific construct the one privy to truth? Remember that the central question I asked Touka was what makes science true; you're making the same claim a step removed, as science is the construction that gives us access to truth. Why? How do we know? If the answer is "because it's useful/predictable," then we've fallen right back into the circularity. This is especially troubling given that you accept this...

Science is one possible construct that leads to truth, but of the methods available to us I believe it is the most useful for discovering truth. I think you're getting things confused with your definition of truth. As science is a method, of course I have to evaluate it based on how useful it is. It's just that the standard of usefulness is defined by how good it is at finding truth. And of course I can't know it to be the best, because once again, I feel there is only a handful of things it's possible to know with certainty. Thus, certainty cannot be what I aim for. I'm aiming for what is most likely, given the information I have access to, to reveal truth.

...and then contradict yourself with this:

Science is an extremely powerful tool in that the assumptions it makes are only the ones needed to establish the existence of objective truth,

If you assume that scientific truth can grant you access to objective truth, then are you really surprised when this turns out to be the case? We can do this equally effectively with religion, Marxism, Hegelianism, Buddhism, etc. etc.

I claim science to be strong because if any of the four assumptions I made do not hold, then objective reality is impossible to access. Religion and other methods require additional assumptions to be made in order for their reality to hold, on top of the ones science makes. That's why they're weaker methods.

If objective reality exists, you can't simply assume that it is scientific. This is circular. You'll need some other grounding.

Objective reality must exist for subjective reality to exist, so either it exists at some level or nothing does. As for why choose sciene to pursue it... Well, I think I've covered that.

Who the hell is making a "god in the gaps" argument? I'm demonstrating that without God, the idea of an intelligible cosmos is a contradiction. If you have a way out of this conflict, I'd love to hear it.

The bolded section is what I'm objecting to. Because adding god to the equation doesn't change the situation at all, even mentioning it isn't something you should do when questioning things. Assuming an intelligible cosmos by assuming an intelligible god really doesn't add anything to the discussion. So while I do not know what the answer to why the universe is intelligible (assuming it is), I do know that god is absolutely not a way out of the question. So your demonstration fails.

--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.

At Touka, I was more referring to Westbrick rather than you when I asked that. I think we agree fairly well. And I'm not well versed enough in QM to really continue the discussion on that front. Moving on to Westbrick...

A supposition which the Beyond Good and Evil passage definitively calls into question. Is it that specific parts of the passage are unclear? I've taken a class or two on Nietzsche, so I can try my best to clarify what he's getting at if you give me some specifics.

Um... Alright. Which are you refuting between these two statements.

That which holds a property outside the properties of non-existence exists
or
Thought/thinking holds properties outside the properties of non-existence

or something else?

What makes one perception of the world the "true" one.

Well, I'd say any perception of the world that holds no properties that base reality does not hold is true. If base reality exists solely in the existence of thought, then then the perception that holds that to be true would be true. Of course, the more properties a perception holds that fill that requirement, the better that perception is as a means to truth. This does of course, almost certainly mean that the current scientific worldview is not 100% true, but then again I doubt any worldview can claim to be 100% true without drastically limiting what it claims.

Most people would define truth as "that which exists," so your definition isn't that far off. What this doesn't make clear is its relation to science and how science is evaluated epistemologically (and I also don't understand what "a set of properties" means; so only part of which exists is true?).

Well, I wouldn't consider thought itself to be truth, hence the properties bit. Science comes into it because science is a means towards discarding properties that do not fit with reality, hence the scientific account will move closer to being a true account as time goes on. Science makes claims of more properties than most methods, and it regularly attempts to expunge any that are false, which makes it a very powerful method as far as discovering truth. I'd rather this doesn't get into another true vs useful discussion, so let me say that it is useful for discovering truth, on top of being useful from the standpoint of wanting to improve the quality of life as I, and many others (assuming they exist of course), define it. Usefullness and truth are not the same thing, but they are often connected quite closely, as that which is not true is usual less useful than that which is, and that which is useful can often be applied to discover truth.

--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn

The intelligibility argument is a good example of a confusion that only exists if you assume uncertainty exists in the world and not in the mind. Seriously, if it exists only in the mind, then it's only up to the mind to dispel it. There's no need to reference reality, no need to reference truth, because intelligibility is a statement about the ability to draw maps which is exclusively a statement about mapmakers, and not the territory.

There already is a bunch of unintelligible stuff, like the analytical solution three body problem, computability of KC or computers translation, but they're unintelligible because we don't know how to solve them not because they have some magical property that can't be understood no matter what. And if they did, it's not going to be a philosopher who tells us.

Also, I can try to explain the probabilistic stuff relating to quantum mechanics, but I don't feel confident at all in doing it, would you mind if I do?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Go for it. I've only taken a look at a very few parts of QM, and I don't know much about the finer points.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/FDpnggy.png

Um... Alright. Which are you refuting between these two statements.

That which holds a property outside the properties of non-existence exists
or
Thought/thinking holds properties outside the properties of non-existence

or something else?

I'm "refuting" that the cogito sum is in any way an immediate certainty. It's supposed to be a doubtless proposition, when there are about a half-dozen serious objections that call it into question, and cannot be sufficiently opposed. That's all.

Well, I'd say any perception of the world that holds no properties that base reality does not hold is true.

You realize that this is just a reformulation of the claim "The perception which corresponds with 'base reality' is true," right? It doesn't do anything to answer the question of what base reality is.

Science comes into it because science is a means towards discarding properties that do not fit with reality, hence the scientific account will move closer to being a true account as time goes on.

You continue to make circular arguments. Why is science able to "pick out" true properties from false properties? What are some examples of "false" properties?

[Just as a heads up, the word "property" is loaded in the history of philosophy, and has to do with an Aristotelian metaphysic that modern science doesn't like to associate with. It may be better to replace it with another term to avoid confusion.]

...as that which is not true is usual less useful than that which is, and that which is useful can often be applied to discover truth (in theory).

Making this probabilistic claim requires a root conception of reality (what you call "base reality") with which to make comparisons. I'd like to know what this base reality is like. What is the thing-in-itself?

Of course, if base reality doesn't exist then nothing is true, and if we cannot access it then we cannot discover truth. Hence, relevance.

Again, you've yet to explain why scientific understanding corresponds to "base reality."

Science is one possible construct that leads to truth, but of the methods available to us I believe it is the most useful for discovering truth.
[...]
And of course I can't know it to be the best,

This is an on-its-face contradiction. Not only are you not explaining why science is true, you're also not explaining why it's "probably" true.

I claim science to be strong because if any of the four assumptions I made do not hold, then objective reality is impossible to access.

Another circular argument, because you're defining "objective" as scientific; reformulated, you're saying that if science isn't true, then your scientific worldview isn't true. Sounds right to me!

Besides, why would you assume a position about truth to avoid difficult questions? Truth demands that we be honest.

Objective reality must exist for subjective reality to exist,

False. Perspectival truths, by definition, do not appeal to an underlying totality.

The bolded section is what I'm objecting to. Because adding god to the equation doesn't change the situation at all, even mentioning it isn't something you should do when questioning things.

Are you really incapable of assuming a position you don't believe? I'm an atheist myself, but I can still dissect and evaluate arguments that invoke God. Don't be so obtuse.

Assuming an intelligible cosmos by assuming an intelligible god really doesn't add anything to the discussion.

You've missed the point of the argument- again. I am assuming that a God does not exist, and then using it to show that the combination of no God and an intelligible cosmos is a contradiction.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

Let's explore the cogito sum issue a little more, since you seem to be having some trouble with it. The whole point of Descartes' formulation is that it is supposed to be an immediate truth; without this, it lacks the quality of a point of origin, an "Archimedean point" necessary to ground both body and mind. If we can call this necessity into question, then its value is lost. So just what does the cogito sum say?

I think.
Therefore, I am.

But there's a great deal left out here. For one, it's a syllogism, and since all syllogisms have three terms by definition, it has its middle term removed. We can replace it as follows:

I think.
[That which thinks has the property of existence.]
Therefore, I am.

But now we are compelled to ask why thinking necessitates the property of existence. Why can't thinking be illusory? Because Descartes offers no explanation, we'll simply have to admit it as a brute assertion:

I think.
[Thinking is a process with ontological status.]
[That which thinks has the property of existence.]
Therefore, I am.

Now we come to Nietzsche's many criticisms. For one (and this is shared by Kierkegaard, by the way), Descartes wrongly supposes that there is some ego, some "I," behind the thinking. How do we know that an autonomous agent "thinks"? What if- as I'm sure Touka would agree with- the individual is simply a mirage for a complex web of biological processes? What if it is not that "I" think, but that "it" thinks? We must account for this as well:

[{placeholder entity} has the quality of an autonomous individual, or "I."]
I think.
[Thinking is a process with ontological status.]
[That which thinks has the property of existence.]
Therefore, I am.

Then, finally, we must understand how the "glue" between basic logical propositions works. Even if Descartes original formulation seemed immediate (and as we've revealed, it's anything but immediate), it wouldn't change the fact that all logical propositions lack a "glue." For example, take a basic modus pollens statement:

A -> B
B
therefore A

But why does A -> B + B lead to A? This is unclear; we need to insert another statement, C, in the gaps. Which gives us something like this:

A -> B
B
C
therefore A

But then why does A -> B + B + C lead to A? Now we must insert D, and so on ad nauseum. This is the famous "Achilles and the tortoise" problem offered by Carroll, which calls into question any logical claim as being "immediately true." So not only does the cogito sum bury an incredible number of presuppositions, any one of which would make it "uncertain" and non-immediate, the very fact is that a logical formulation can never be certain...

...but even if it could be certain, there's still no guarantee that human logic corresponds to metaphysical truth / "base reality." The universe could very well be nonlogical, or logical in a way that would seem logical to our fragile human minds. There's a reason the cogito sum isn't taken very seriously: *no* purely rational claim is *ever* immediately true.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

And yes, that is supposed to be "modus ponens"; I changed my example in my head before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keystrokes, whatever) and it came out weird.

Why is it that an edit function is hidden from new users, again? <_<

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

You quoted me saying this: That which thinks, has a property not held by non-existence and therefor exists." when you were talking about cogito ergo sum. I think that that particular line only requires two suppositions, the ones I asked you which you were refuting. I'm not sure where immediacy comes into that particular quotation.

You realize that this is just a reformulation of the claim "The perception which corresponds with 'base reality' is true," right? It doesn't do anything to answer the question of what base reality is.

I really don't know how much more you're looking for. Is "That which exists independently of thought" lacking still?

You continue to make circular arguments. Why is science able to "pick out" true properties from false properties? What are some examples of "false" properties?

Science is different from most methods in that it is more a method to reject properties than to prove them. In fact, science essentially never aims to prove, but to disprove. It is only things that withstand a great deal of testing and scrutiny from a great many people that are added to the scientific worldview. And you have to recall that when I talk about science I'm always, always working under the four assumptions I made. As for false properties... Stuff like "the world is flat", "the sun revolves around the earth", "heavy things fall faster than lighter things", etc. Right up to the bigger stuff like time not being absolute.

[Just as a heads up, the word "property" is loaded in the history of philosophy, and has to do with an Aristotelian metaphysic that modern science doesn't like to associate with. It may be better to replace it with another term to avoid confusion.]

Well, I've never studied philosophy and don't intend to. I'm not really interested in Aristotle or metaphysics, and I've never talked with people who are so I've had no incentive to look into them. I'm not sure what other term would be better than property.

Making this probabilistic claim requires a root conception of reality (what you call "base reality") with which to make comparisons. I'd like to know what this base reality is like. What is the thing-in-itself?

That which is completely independent of thought.

Again, you've yet to explain why scientific understanding corresponds to "base reality."

One of the traits of science is that, at its core, it produces the same results completely independently of who seeks the results, where they seek the results, and etc. This makes it more likely to correspond to base reality than methods whose results do vary on who applies them and when.

--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.