How do we know what existence is?

[Les Sleeth]

[moderator's note: This discussion began as part of the thread What Is Logic?, but was subsequently split off into this thread.]

Nothing is a concept without meaning. It is merely a relational concept--we know what existence is, and its opposite is nonexistence; this is sufficient when working with the non-existence of things.

I think you might allow that there is an important difference between a concept, and that which a concept supposedly represents. Since we are discussing things at an empirically-oriented site, I'd say the prevailing theory here regarding that is correspondence; that is, we aim for our concepts to correspond to something that actually exists in reality. How do we find that out? Well that's where the empirical predilection shows up (i.e., more here, than say at a more rationalistic philosophy site) since we want to know how much what's been hypothesized to exist has been experienced.

The reason I am bringing this up is to set up my challenge to something you've claimed, which I'll explain below.

All we need is to establish the rules in which existence is possible, and then apply those rules to understand what can and cannot exist.

First, you say we know what existence is. Okay, how? Do you believe we know existence first and foremost through experience, or do you believe we can we know the existence of something by reason alone? Some things you've said in earlier posts led me to believe the former, but if you do believe it then I want to dispute the following:

One can prove that God does not exist quite easily. However, it is pointless to do so for those who rest entirely on dogma--such as Kant followers and religious folks.

I say you cannot empirically prove God does not exist, and a purely logical proof (i.e., devoid of facts) is no proof at all (actually, it's not just God, you can't prove that anything doesn't exist . . . you can only prove something does exist). We cannot ever have sufficient evidence to prove God does not exist since God might exist somewhere or in some condition that evidence can't be obtained; and lack of evidence is not proof.

Existence is primary to consciousness; and as a corollary fact, all existents must possesses identity--things with identity have definite qualities and quantities. God has indefinite quantities (being infinite in every quality; omnipotence, omniscience, etc.), therefore God fails to meet the most basic requirement for an existent: Identity... Essentially, God is not an existent.

That is obviously not an empirical proof, and neither is it a logical proof even if we accept all your assumptions (and you must know that you cannot prove your assumptions). You are assuming a priori truths, but I don't think, for example, it is self-evident that all things with identity have "definite qualities and quantities." What if it is our own conscious limitations that can't understand an indefinite identity, and so we project our inadequacy onto God? There is, in fact, a variety of inner practitioner who claims it is precisely the effort of the intellect trying to define God that makes God inaccessible because God can only be directly experienced.

How about this one, what if God is generally indefinite, but becomes defined at times, such as to create a universe? If we throw out all our preconceptions about God, we might say something like:

Because we know creation exists where once it didn’t (or so experts believe), we also know something brought about creation. We can logically infer too that whatever created the universe and its contents had to have been there before the creation it generated. So a flexible definition might explain the “creator” as whatever it is that has brought about creation. With that definition we have not, in advance, decided the creator must be a certain way. The creator may be nothing but physical processes, as physicalists believe, or the creator could be somehow conscious as many of the religious believe, or the creator might be a combination of things known, believed and as yet unimagined.

Now, if God is the name we give the potentiality out of which all extant things arise, that potentiality just might be all the power there is, all the knowing (or knowing potential) there is, infinitely extended, eternally existent, etc.

I think the best you can do with your "proof" (which would be made significantly stronger by adding all the empirical facts we have about how reality works) is to show an omniscient, omnipotent, etc. God of the sort proposed by creationists is implausible. Your statements do not rise to the level of proof unless one wants to put blinders on to all the possible ways one can get around your assumptions.

P.S.
If you meant to illustrate that "One can prove that God does not exist quite easily" within the context of Aristotle's Laws of Thought . . . never mind.

 

[Rainer]

You need to study the history of philosophy more. Before Aristotle there was no such thing as formal logic, and reductio ad absurdium was routinely used as a formal proof. In fact, it was the entire foundation of Aristotle's formal logic.

You need to read what I wrote more closely.

In addition, every kind of formal logic incorporates some variation of the excluded middle, thus they are all founded ultimately upon reductio ad absurdium.

It is the other way around.



Lee Sleeth, most of what you speak of is Kantian in nature. It should be known that Kant is very far from perfect, and most of his claims in philosophy has been, in the past century, effectively destroyed.

First, you say we know what existence is. Okay, how? Do you believe we know existence first and foremost through experience, or do you believe we can we know the existence of something by reason alone?

Neither. That is a false dichotomy. Also, take into consideration that an existent and existence are two separate things--you are treating "existence," as an existent.

I say you cannot empirically prove God does not exist, and a purely logical proof (i.e., devoid of facts) is no proof at all (actually, it's not just God, you can't prove that anything doesn't exist . . . you can only prove something does exist). We cannot ever have sufficient evidence to prove God does not exist since God might exist somewhere or in some condition that evidence can't be obtained; and lack of evidence is not proof.

You cannot prove that God doesn't exist with merely look around, and you cannot prove God doesn't exist with pure logic. That is very, very far from what is truly occurring.

We cannot ever have sufficient evidence to prove God does not exist since God might exist somewhere or in some condition that evidence can't be obtained; and lack of evidence is not proof.

We have sufficient evidence the instant we are conscious.

That is obviously not an empirical proof, and neither is it a logical proof even if we accept all your assumptions (and you must know that you cannot prove your assumptions).

Look beyond the Analytic-Synthetic distinction. That has been dead in modern Epistemology for over half a century.

You are assuming a priori truths, but I don't think, for example, it is self-evident that all things with identity have "definite qualities and quantities."

We know what identity is--black hair, black eyes, 5'8", dark skin, angry-looking, black shirt, jeans, operator license #00812314, lives in a dungeon with 7 dogs. It establishes something as specific, definite, and different.

Once we are conscious, it is because we are conscious of something. We know then that that thing is a thing, we know that it has to be a thing, it has to have definite qualities, it needs to be a specific thing in order to be a thing; another name for it is that is has identity.

Something cannot be nothing in particular--then it is just nothing. A thing cannot be indefinite--otherwise it isn't a thing.

What if it is our own conscious limitations that can't understand an indefinite identity, and so we project our inadequacy onto God?

That would only occur if we failed to be aware of existence (of the true nature of things.) This would mean that we are unconscious. Which is a self-contradictory claim.

There is, in fact, a variety of inner practitioner who claims it is precisely the effort of the intellect trying to define God that makes God inaccessible because God can only be directly experienced.

That claim means that existence is indefinite--that doesn't exist.

The claim is self-contradictory.

How about this one, what if God is generally indefinite, but becomes defined at times, such as to create a universe?

Then God generally never exists.

Now, if God is the name we give the potentiality out of which all extant things arise, that potentiality just might be all the power there is, all the knowing (or knowing potential) there is, infinitely extended, eternally existent, etc.

So, all you've done is symbolize a not-so-spectacular concept with the word "God."

I would then say that God isn't spectacular--and that God is not meaningful to the course of my life as I live it.

I think the best you can do with your "proof" (which would be made significantly stronger by adding all the empirical facts we have about how reality works) is to show an omniscient, omnipotent, etc. God of the sort proposed by creationists is implausible. Your statements do not rise to the level of proof unless one wants to put blinders on to all the possible ways one can get around your assumptions.

They are all merely neo-Kantian variations of the same argument.

Again, there is no divide between "synthetic" and "analytic" truths, it is a misconception, to allude to Quine, a dogma of empiricism.

 

[wuliheron]

You need to read what I wrote more closely.

It is the other way around.

Prove it. I provided a highly respected philosophical website that explains reductio ad absurdium, it's historical roots, and it's extensive use in the formulation of Aristotelian logic. What you keep insisting on makes no sense whatsoever, it basically says formal logic is based on formal logic which is absurd.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Lee Sleeth, most of what you speak of is Kantian in nature. It should be known that Kant is very far from perfect, and most of his claims in philosophy has been, in the past century, effectively destroyed.

Nothing I said has the slightest thing to do with Kant. Mine was a pure experientialistic challenge to rationalism, probably closer to Locke if you insist I am aligned with someone premodern. In my insignificant opinion, all your comments to me were rationalist, so I don't think we can debate since I think rationalism is a HUGE waste of time (but of course you are certainly entitled to your philosophical preferences).

By George, I think I'll rant and rave a little :tongue2:. If all the rationalists who ever lived were still alive, they'd still have settled nothing and still be arguing over everything. Let's say experientialists and rationalists were each asked explain the apparent paradox of simultaneous existence/non-existence illustrated in the thought problem of Schrodenger's cat. The experientialist would set up experiments and observe until the answer revealed itself, while rationalists would try to figure it out by never leaving the house to go look at the reality they are content to assume a priori "irrefutables" about.

I find it a futile debate when no one particularly cares whether at least key assumptions are confirmed experientially.

 

[wuliheron]

I find it a futile debate when no one particularly cares whether at least key assumptions are confirmed experientially.

Would say "irrational"? :rofl:

 

[Rainer]

Prove it.

All I said was that for Reductio ad Absurdum to work, you need to have concieved of the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of Identity--more or less formally.

Yes, formal logic often uses Reductio ad Absurdum. But it is not always the basis.

Now I ask, can you explain how Reductio is the basis for Aristotelian logic? Rather than just it being used. There is a difference between something being used in a logic system and something being the basis.

Nothing I said has the slightest thing to do with Kant.

Plenty of what you said had to do with Kant.

But to explain, there is a certain belief stemming from Plato's day that what we see and what we think can too easily contradict one another. It shows up in the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy. But most notably in analytic-synthetic distinction.

Now, I understand that you like to see me as "rationalistic" and you as "more empirical." But the fact is that it is the same idea that fueled the analytic-synthetic distinction that causes a rift between rationalism and empiricism. And not only that, it simply causes the pursuit of a valid epistemology a hell of a lot more difficult.

Mine was a pure experientialistic challenge to rationalism, probably closer to Locke if you insist I am aligned with someone premodern.

No, I don't insist you align yourself with anyone--you did that on your own.

While your statements certainly appear to be consciously guided by mostly empirical notions; the result of what is achieved simply places yourself into another nameless variation of Kantian followership.

In my insignificant opinion, all your comments to me were rationalist, so I don't think we can debate since I think rationalism is a HUGE waste of time (but of course you are certainly entitled to your philosophical preferences).

I am neither a rationalist nor an empiricist.

Both are wrong. I reject both; "rationalists" are mystical. "Empiricists" are doomed.

A Priori vs A Posteriori is as great an epistemologic crime as Analytic vs. Synthetic.

I find it a futile debate when no one particularly cares whether at least key assumptions are confirmed experientially.

What? You think that I think that existence, consciousness, and identity are innate ideas?? HA!

Now, here is the thing, experiments and empirical observations can yeild hundreds of possible hypotheses and cannot verify any of them. This never leaves the historical course of philosophy--and shows up in your post...and yes, it is Kantian in nature.

A priori and analytic truths are worthless misconceptions of the use of logic.

 

[wuliheron]

All I said was that for Reductio ad Absurdum to work, you need to have concieved of the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of Identity--more or less formally.

Yes, formal logic often uses Reductio ad Absurdum. But it is not always the basis.

Now I ask, can you explain how Reductio is the basis for Aristotelian logic? Rather than just it being used. There is a difference between something being used in a logic system and something being the basis.

Check out the website I posted and you'll find out just how wrong you are. The law of identity and noncontradiction are not necessary for a reductio ad absurdium argument. And again, prove any single formal logic is not based on Reductio ad absurdium.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Plenty of what you said had to do with Kant.

I can tell you are a thoughtful person, but it leaves me cold to talk about things in terms of others’ thoughts. I haven’t looked at Kant since college nearly 30 year ago, nor any other traditional philosopher (unless you consider thinkers along the line of Meister Eckhart traditional). Whatever you see written here is 100% me, taken from my insight and my understanding. If you can think for yourself and can stand on your own understanding, then I’d be interested in continuing; if not, then I wouldn’t.

But to explain, there is a certain belief stemming from Plato's day that what we see and what we think can too easily contradict one another. It shows up in the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy. But most notably in analytic-synthetic distinction.

Well, that sounds like rationalist propaganda to me. The only place you still find rationalist philosophy is where it's being taught in the universities, almost as history. It is a dinosaur, extinct, and achieving close to nothing, just as it always has. The closest thing I’ve seen to progress is the new field of consciousness studies, with Chalmer’s zombie analogies, etc. But that too proves nothing, it just stops functionalists from having their way for the moment.

Now, I understand that you like to see me as "rationalistic" and you as "more empirical." But the fact is that it is the same idea that fueled the analytic-synthetic distinction that causes a rift between rationalism and empiricism. And not only that, it simply causes the pursuit of a valid epistemology a hell of a lot more difficult.

I am sorry to continue dissing rationalism, but the “rift” you are talking about was resolved after rationalism was fatally wounded 150 years ago, and died about 75 years later when science started demonstrating it understood at least something unequivocal about reality. Rationalism continued to be all talk and no results. What has been proven epistomologically valid, again and again, is that experience produces knowledge; rationalism has not produced knowledge. How many failures does it deserve before we toss it for good?

While your statements certainly appear to be consciously guided by mostly empirical notions; the result of what is achieved simply places yourself into another nameless variation of Kantian followership.

I wish you'd drop it. You are sooooooooooo off base. If you want to see just how much, go into my profile and check out my past posts and threads.

Now, here is the thing, experiments and empirical observations can yeild hundreds of possible hypotheses and cannot verify any of them.

That is amazingly inaccurate. When you use your computer, and it WORKS, that is pure and unadulterated verification of someone’s hypotheses. What do the rationalists have to show for all their efforts? Have you ever seen a monad? Have you ever made use of one?

If you look back at what I said to you, I said “experientialism.” I used that term specifically so I wasn’t limiting the path to knowledge to sense experience (the basis of scientific empiricism). So if you think I am suggesting only science produces knowledge you are wrong; there is a rich history of other sorts of human experience producing knowledge (which, by the way, most science types I meet don't care to know about). I am not arguing against philosophical theorizing either, except when it strays so far from facts that it becomes the endless circular discussions that characterize rationalism.

 

[Rainer]

I can tell you are a thoughtful person, but it leaves me cold to talk about things in terms of others’ thoughts. I haven’t looked at Kant since college nearly 30 year ago, nor any other traditional philosopher (unless you consider thinkers along the line of Meister Eckhart traditional).

Whose thoughts? Of anyone here, it is you who is throwing other people's ideas around.

Whatever you see written here is 100% me, taken from my insight and my understanding. If you can think for yourself and can stand on your own understanding, then I’d be interested in continuing; if not, then I wouldn’t.

This places you in a dangerous position--it merely explains how your ideas have come to be as they are. Your position on how the non-existence of God is impossible to know isn't your position; it is a dogma passed accepted by our social culture--if your philosophy comes from observations of existence, it is necessarily based on social dogma. You didn't explicitly espouse any idea you illustrated in your post, but one theme throughout your post in response to mine about the non-existence of God screams one thing: Certainty in existence is impossible.

I can think for myself, and I am doing original work in philosophy.

While your statements certainly appear to be consciously guided by mostly empirical notions; the result of what is achieved simply places yourself into another nameless variation of Kantian followership.

I wish you'd drop it. You are sooooooooooo off base. If you want to see just how much, go into my profile and check out my past posts and threads.

What? You are the one who said you are more empirically inclined...that your patience only belongs to the empiricists...I was merely borrowing your words.

As for your older posts, all I care about is what you said in your post to refute my certainty in the non-existence of God. And as far as your profile goes, is that you:

https://www.physicsforums.com/image.php?u=43&type=profile&dateline=1081031809

Nice specs, man.

But to explain, there is a certain belief stemming from Plato's day that what we see and what we think can too easily contradict one another. It shows up in the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy. But most notably in analytic-synthetic distinction.

Well, that sounds like rationalist propaganda to me. The only place you still find rationalist philosophy is where it's being taught in the universities, almost as history. It is a dinosaur, extinct, and achieving close to nothing, just as it always has. The closest thing I’ve seen to progress is the new field of consciousness studies, with Chalmer’s zombie analogies, etc. But that too proves nothing, it just stops functionalists from having their way for the moment.

That wasn't rationalist propaganda... I'm not a rationalist...I wish you'd drop the whole empiricist vs. rationalist thing...it is a dead and worthless issue that does not apply to anything I've said.

There has been vast progress in epistemology that has left the empiricism vs. rationalism distinction in the dust.

I am sorry to continue dissing rationalism, but the “rift” you are talking about was resolved after rationalism was fatally wounded 150 years ago, and died about 75 years later when science started demonstrating it understood at least something unequivocal about reality. Rationalism continued to be all talk and no results. What has been proven epistomologically valid, again and again, is that experience produces knowledge; rationalism has not produced knowledge. How many failures does it deserve before we toss it for good?

Diss rationalism all you want...I'd join you if I thought it were a valid distinction.

That is amazingly inaccurate. When you use your computer, and it WORKS, that is pure and unadulterated verification of someone’s hypotheses. What do the rationalists have to show for all their efforts? Have you ever seen a monad? Have you ever made use of one?

Yes, a computer works because the theories that power it was miraculously verified...but not by a wholly "empirical," position as you like to think. There are many, many hypotheses and theories to fit empirical evidence alone. You need something more than empiricism--take note that I'm not saying one needs to disregard empirical evidence, you just need something extra.

If you look back at what I said to you, I said “experientialism.” I used that term specifically so I wasn’t limiting the path to knowledge to sense experience (the basis of scientific empiricism). So if you think I am suggesting only science produces knowledge you are wrong; there is a rich history of other sorts of human experience producing knowledge (which, by the way, most science types I meet don't care to know about). I am not arguing against philosophical theorizing either, except when it strays so far from facts that it becomes the endless circular discussions that characterize rationalism.

Are you attempting to obfuscate things or what's the deal here? Can you clarify this? As far as I can see there isn't really a problem at all.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This places you in a dangerous position--it merely explains how your ideas have come to be as they are.

I say it simply explains that I am not leaping from other's ideas, that I am observing and reasoning from my own experience and understanding.

Your position on how the non-existence of God is impossible to know . . . .

I didn't say that. I said the non-existence of God is impossible to prove. Knowing is a subjective thing, proving is normally considered an objective thing.

. . . [it] isn't your position; it is a dogma passed accepted by our social culture--if your philosophy comes from observations of existence, it is necessarily based on social dogma.

You have no idea how I came to my position, your if-then logic doesn't follow at all. Maybe I sit every morning at dawn, turn my attention inward, and experience my own existence, and that is the primary source of my ideas about existence. Maybe you aren't a rationalist but you certainly seem opinionated (add to the above, "Kant is a fool, imbecile, idiot, and wrong").

You didn't explicitly espouse any idea you illustrated in your post, but one theme throughout your post in response to mine about the non-existence of God screams one thing: Certainty in existence is impossible.

I implied no such thing. What I implied was that certainty about existence doesn't come through logic, it comes through experience.

Yes, a computer works because the theories that power it was miraculously verified...but not by a wholly "empirical," position as you like to think. There are many, many hypotheses and theories to fit empirical evidence alone. You need something more than empiricism--take note that I'm not saying one needs to disregard empirical evidence, you just need something extra.

I have never said one doesn't need to think (as in hypothesizing) to discover. All I said is that until one experiences what one has hypothesized, what has been hypothesized is not known. I was also pointing out that your statement "experiments and empirical observations can yield hundreds of possible hypotheses and cannot verify any of them" is about as wrong as a statement can get.

But let's not forget what we are debating. You said " One can prove that God does not exist quite easily." To demonstrate this you offered,"Existence is primary to consciousness; and as a corollary fact, all existents must possesses idenity--things with identity have definite qualities and quantities. God has indefinite quantities (being infinite in every quality; omnipotence, omniscience, etc.), therefore God fails to meet the most basic requirement for an existent: Identity... Essentially, God is not an existent."

Do you really think that proves God does not exist? If so, do you think that your opinion is supported by current epistomological and logic standards?

I claim my position is supported by those standards, and that position is, God cannot objectively or logically be proven to not to exist. But if a God does exist, then the only way to ever know is to directly experience God.

 

[Rainer]

I say it simply explains that I am not leaping from other's ideas, that I am observing and reasoning from my own experience and understanding.

And you don't live in a vacuum. And you either have come to parallel other's ideas; or you have come to accept other's ideas subconsciously. And "leaping from other's ideas," is not the only thing that can happen when a person accepts another person's idea(s) as true.

I didn't say that. I said the non-existence of God is impossible to prove. Knowing is a subjective thing, proving is normally considered an objective thing.

Very well then. Amend what I originally said to be: The nonexistence of God can be proven.

You have no idea how I came to my position, your if-then logic doesn't follow at all. Maybe I sit every morning at dawn, turn my attention inward, and experience my own existence, and that is the primary source of my ideas about existence. Maybe you aren't a rationalist but you certainly seem opinionated (add to the above, "Kant is a fool, imbecile, idiot, and wrong").

You said that you've gathered your epistemology from all of your experiences--you've derived from your sense of life, a philosophy. That is a very wise and admirable thing to do, but it can be more exact. The next thing is that everyone experiences society; no one (unless he or she has established a formal philosophy in his or her mind to measure the world against) can evade a social subconscious impression.

Our culture holds certain values, and you have subsumed them subconsciously over the years. Mix those in with your more conscious observations and experiences--the result is a mind which is a product of our culture.

You haven't touched Kant's work in 30 years; but society reaffirms his ideas in philosophy over and over and over...and for 30 years, it adds up.

And I'm not trying to make you into from victim of nature with no control whatever, no sir. You are entirely responsible for it.

I am no so much opinionated...I just know the truth.

Seriously though, I am not at all rationalistic...in my view, rationalists are irrational.

I implied no such thing. What I implied was that certainty about existence doesn't come through logic, it comes through experience.

Whenever you imply that objective proof is forever elusive (and you do; if you say otherwise, you contradict yourself...long story for now) and knowledge is subjective, you imply that certainty in existence is impossible.

I have never said one doesn't need to think (as in hypothesizing) to discover. All I said is that until one experiences what one has hypothesized, what has been hypothesized is not known. I was also pointing out that your statement "experiments and empirical observations can yield hundreds of possible hypotheses and cannot verify any of them" is about as wrong as a statement can get.

If you see something happen, induce a hypothesis, deduce consequences, and then run an experiment to see such consequences occur--you haven't proven anything.

The hypothesis is not true or valid because the hypothesis did not necessarily lead to the consequences deduced.

Essentially, there can always be something else going on. To hypothesize and then use experience to verify the hypothesis--you have not proven the hypothesis to be true...you've merely added some confirmation to a hypothesis, but it surely cannot be claimed absolute knowledge.

A different process of induction is required.

But let's not forget what we are debating. You said " One can prove that God does not exist quite easily." To demonstrate this you offered,"Existence is primary to consciousness; and as a corollary fact, all existents must possesses idenity--things with identity have definite qualities and quantities. God has indefinite quantities (being infinite in every quality; omnipotence, omniscience, etc.), therefore God fails to meet the most basic requirement for an existent: Identity... Essentially, God is not an existent."

Do you really think that proves God does not exist? If so, do you think that your opinion is supported by current epistomological and logic standards?

Not really. It is a true statement, and I knew it wasn't a full explanation. You are smart people. So I said that if one part didn't make sense, I'd be willing to expand it so that it makes more sense.

Yes, my claim meets and exceeds traditional epistemological standards.

I claim my position is supported by those standards, and that position is, God cannot objectively or logically be proven to not to exist. But if a God does exist, then the only way to ever know is to directly experience God.

Those "standards" defile the human mind...the are killing physics and philosophy. Plus, the "standards," you use are really old.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Very well then. Amend what I originally said to be: The nonexistence of God can be proven.

I disagree with just about everything you say, and especially the way you say it. I thought about answering you point for point, but I am pretty sure continuing to trade ideas isn't going to be fruitful.

Consider your statement, “Those ‘standards’ defile the human mind...they are killing physics and philosophy. Plus, the "standards," you use are really old.” How exactly does having a standard which makes knowing dependent on personal experience “defile the human mind?” How do you think people get conditioned by society or religion or whatever? Isn’t it by trusting what others tell them is true instead of finding out (i.e., experiencing) for themselves what is true? Then, does physics look dead to you? Are we living on the same planet, or have I missed something? And philosophy? It killed itself by trying to maintain the exact “really old standards” you are espousing . . . that mind alone, sans experience, can know. Now there's a dinosaur!

But the clincher is your above quote, which is just downright wrong. You are presenting yourself as knowledgeable about logic, but make a claim contrary to established rules of logic and proof, and which no philosophy professor worth his salt would agree with. Certainly one can formulate a structurally correct proof about anything, but to suggest a structurally correct proof necessarily proves something about reality is nonsense; surely that’s so obvious you wouldn’t waste our time offering that as meaningful. You must know that for the structurally correct proof to prove something about reality, the premises must be true.

So what possible premises that can be confirmed as true would eliminate all possible circumstances for something’s existence? IT CAN’T BE DONE! Every knowledgeable person agrees it can’t be done because we cannot possibly know everything we don’t know. Hell, you can't even prove Dodo birds are extinct. Even if that logic weren’t convincing, it is easy enough to review the history of so-called experts, with tons of “reasonableness” on their side, who have said “that is NOT possible” only to be proven it was possible at some later date.

If you have come up with the secret of how to know everything we don’t know, please explain. If not, and if are going to substitute your own unsupported ideas for well-established principles, such as those for proof, then I don't think we have a basis for meaningful discussion.

 

[Rainer]

Already you strawman me in nearly every paragraph, grossly generalize, and throw around opinions without feeling the need to justify them with evidence.

And this "evidence," is composed of the most basic conceptual units. Things we know after watching things for the first few years of life. I'm not going to give you statistics, I'm not going to give you observation data collected over hundreds of eyars. What I will give you is what you already know (if you didn't know, you'd be dead), and as far culture, go spend time at any University in the world and read newspapers and listen to the TV.

All that is required then is to link those little maxims thrown about all too easily by everyone to a philosophic idea.

You've thrown little sayings around...only instead of making a sentence like most people...you span it over a paragraph. So, I can logically infer your own personal philosophy, using the "evidence" that both of us possesses upon reading this discussion.



Now, I'll answer your questions. Having a standard that places personal experience above everything else into path to truth is dangerous..."why" you ask. Because reason is above all else. Otherwise, your personal experience goes unprocessed. If logical reasoning seems to contradict personal experience--and you choose personal experience...that is very, very dangerous. Do you need to personal experience neutrinos to believe that they exist? Or did you have other criteria as far as science goes?

In regards to God, you'd say that we can logically prove God doesn't exist, but unless we go and experience God's nonexistence, we cannot be certain, ja? Anytime you deal with existence and nonexistence of things, all you need is one glimpse at existence. And so, in that sense, all you need to "experience," is existence itself...not strictly to validate a theory, but to be a starting point.

People get conditioned by society anytime they place reason secondary. If one places "experience" above reason, one will ultimately come to be conditioned by society, because society plays a gigantic god damn part shaping everyone's experiences.

that mind alone, sans experience, can know. What a dinosaur!

God Almighty. I NEVER SAID SANS EXPERIENCE!

And stop labeling me a rationalist...if you still think that anyone is a rationalist or empiricist any more you, then are the dinosaur.



Physics isn't dead yet...but it is getting there. Philosophy is on the rebound...Kant hurt that one too...thank **** his influence is going away.

But the clincher is your above quote, which is just downright wrong. You are presenting yourself as knowledgeable about logic, but make a claim contrary to established rules of logic and proof, and which no philosophy professor worth his salt would agree with. Certainly one can formulate a structurally correct proof about anything, but to suggest a structurally correct proof necessarily proves something about reality is nonsense; surely that’s so obvious you wouldn’t waste our time offering that as meaningful. You must know that for the structurally correct proof to prove something about reality, the premises must be true.

Yes, in other words: Rainer, your post was purely analytic, and we both know you do not have the synthetic evidence, and probably you never will, and if you ever do, you will never be able to prove it to us because then you'd have to prove it synthetically, and this will never happen.

THAT is a dinosaur.

Of course my premises are correct. You need existence before you can be conscious. Yes? You need something to be aware of before you can become aware, and possesses awareness (consciousness), yes? Don't you always need to have at least something (anything) outside yourself to be there before you can wake up?

So what possible premises that can be confirmed as true would eliminate all possible circumstances for something’s existence?

The very first instance of evidence you experienced was when your mind developed enough to intake the things that were occurring around you...if you were in your mother's womb at the time, or otherwise...that would be the first instance.

As for right now, your computer moniter is enough evidence. The essences of concepts such as existence and consciousness can also be evidence...and preferably so.

Existence includes all that exists. Consciousness is that which possesses awareness; it is awareness.

Still with me?

IT CAN’T BE DONE! Every knowledgeable person agrees it can’t be done because we cannot possibly know everything we don’t know. Hell, you can't even prove Dodo birds are extinct.

There. That is you explicitly linking yourself to Kantian influences which I see every day. I knew you believed it...why? Because of subtle things you said, my subconscious is emotionally programed (after years of study) to instantly smell the slightest of Kantian influence...I just then jumped to say that you did implicitly espouse Kant, and now you are explicitly doing so.

Anyways. Being Kantian in nature is bad. But I really think that that is a subject for later on. I promise you that we will cover it at some point (unless I get hit by a car and go into a 13-year coma.) If you want to go into it now, let me know.

If you have come up with the secret of how to know everything we don’t know, please explain.

The reason you (and many, many) others think that valid knowledge is impossible, is due to the analytic-synthetic distinction. So I'll point you to a famous essay that pretty much killed its influence on the scene of modern epistemology: Two Dogmas

Now, mental concepts are like mathematical sequences...they include every particular unit as specifically defined, regardless if they have been experienced. The concept of "dirt," includes all dirt there is. Dirt in Japan, dirt under my apartment building, dirt in Kansas...I've experienced none of it, but I can be aware of it all conceptually.

 

[hypnagogue]

Anyways. Being Kantian in nature is bad. But I really think that that is a subject for later on. I promise you that we will cover it at some point (unless I get hit by a car and go into a 13-year coma.) If you want to go into it now, let me know.

If you do, please discuss it in a separate thread. :tongue2:

 

[Rainer]

Can the administrator of the forums "split," the thread or whatever?

I've seen it done in the past. A discussion strays from the topic and becomes quite lively...so the admin splits the thread to create two separate threads in the same forum. Know what I mean?

 

[hypnagogue]

Can the administrator of the forums "split," the thread or whatever?

Yes, I could do that if you feel the prior posts by you and Les would provide an important context for setting up your anti-Kantian argument. As it stands, the current discussion is still somewhat related to the original topic, although it is probably beginning to drift too far afield.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Having a standard that places personal experience above everything else into path to truth is dangerous..."why" you ask. Because reason is above all else. . . . And stop labeling me a rationalist...if you still think that anyone is a rationalist or empiricist any more you, then are the dinosaur.

First you swear you aren't a rationalist, and then you provide us with your philosophy which is the exact definition of rationalism! I have four philosophical encyclopedias, Britannica, a Columbia one volume, and an unabridged Websters (if that's not enough try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_rationalism) . . . every one of them says this statement of yours "reason is above all else" is the essential meaning of rationalism.

And, this site is packed with empiricists and future empiricists in case you haven't noticed.

. . . reason is above all else. Otherwise, your personal experience goes unprocessed.

What have I said to suggest experience isn't to be processed by reason? That is not what I am arguing. If you think that's what I meant when I used the term "experientialist," it isn't. I was only trying to avoid limiting experience-based knowledge-seeking to scientific empiricism. Since "empirical" means experiential, technically I could have used the term "empirical" to describe what I mean. More on experientialism below.

The reason you (and many, many) others think that valid knowledge is impossible . . .

Who is saying that? I am saying knowledge that isn't confirmed by experience is not real knowledge. As William James put it, "To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another."

If logical reasoning seems to contradict personal experience--and you choose personal experience...that is very, very dangerous.

Okay, so I have logically concluded that leaving my car door windows down rather than using my air conditioning will save money in gas. After an experiment shows me that wind drag from open windows uses more gas than the air conditioner, I should reject my experience for what is "logical" to me.

My logic tells me that if light is traveling at the speed of c, and I am traveling on a train at 100 mph in the direction of the light's source, then when I measure the speed of light it should be x + 100 mph. But when I measure light's speed, it turns out to be just c! Do I hold to my logic or do I yield to what experience tells me?

Do you need to personally experience neutrinos to believe that they exist? Or did you have other criteria as far as science goes?

Yes! There is no other way to know if neutrinos exist other than to find observational evidence of them; "other criteria," such as logic and math, might help one know where to look for that observational evidence, but something is not considered "known" until it is experienced. And then, if there is more to infer from what's been experienced, reason comes into the picture again.

Reason and experience work together for the experientialist. Perhaps you might appreciate this type of "reason first" philosophy more than my "experience first" philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism. At the end of the explanation it says, "Modern rationalism has little in common with the historical philosophy of continental rationalism expounded by René Descartes. Indeed, a reliance on empirical science is often considered a hallmark of modern rationalism, whereas Continental Rationalism rejected empiricism entirely."

In regards to God, you'd say that we can [edit: can't] logically prove God doesn't exist, but unless we go and experience God's nonexistence, we cannot be certain, ja? Anytime you deal with existence and nonexistence of things, all you need is one glimpse at existence. And so, in that sense, all you need to "experience," is existence itself...not strictly to validate a theory, but to be a starting point.

That is a priori talk if I've ever heard it, and classic (continental) rationalism.

People get conditioned by society anytime they place reason secondary. If one places "experience" above reason, one will ultimately come to be conditioned by society, because society plays a gigantic god damn part shaping everyone's experiences.

All I can say is, if I were used car salesman, I'd wish all my customers had your philosophy. You come and see a crappy car, but I reason you into believing it is a valuable antique. Yep, subordinate your experience to your mind; give reality a glimpse every once in awhile, especially to anything that remotely confirms what you are already thinking and/or wish were true. Hey, I got a nice cult I'd like to get you into.

Physics isn't dead yet...but it is getting there.

There. That is you explicitly linking yourself to Kantian influences which I see every day. I knew you believed it...why? Because of subtle things you said, my subconscious is emotionally programed (after years of study) to instantly smell the slightest of Kantian influence...I just then jumped to say that you did implicitly espouse Kant, and now you are explicitly doing so.

You sound like the only people you've read are Kant and Quine. :zzz:

I don't think you are paying attention to what's going on in the world. People haven't come to modern conclusions about knowing and logic because of Kant or any other philosopher (even if they did point us in productive directions). The epistomological prevalance today has been established by what "works." If you sit around all day and talk about the perfect way to grow food, but never do it, you will starve. By doing it, and doing it with the intention of learning as much as possible, then no matter what was decided by thinkers sitting in that room, what the doers learn that "works" while doing it is going to replace the inactive thinkers.

Experienced-based learning and thinking has worked better than all the grand thoughts of the past put together. Nobody is going back to the dark ages when all we did was talk.

Now, mental concepts are like mathematical sequences...they include every particular unit as specifically defined, regardless if they have been experienced. The concept of "dirt," includes all dirt there is. Dirt in Japan, dirt under my apartment building, dirt in Kansas...I've experienced none of it, but I can be aware of it all conceptually.

Well, you've just confirmed you prefer to be "in your mind" rather than being properly attentive to reality. No wonder you aren't making any sense. In your mind reality can be anything you imagine, but reality will slam you if you don't yield to its ways.

Of course my premises are correct. You need existence before you can be conscious. Yes? You need something to be aware of before you can become aware, and possesses awareness (consciousness), yes? Don't you always need to have at least something (anything) outside yourself to be there before you can wake up?

Well, that is a controversial issue. Some of us claim that one can experience one's own consciousness, without external stimulation. But that's another subject. For now, let's say you are correct that we need existence to be conscious, and we need something to be aware of to be become aware.

The very first instance of evidence you experienced was when your mind developed enough to intake the things that were occurring around you...if you were in your mother's womb at the time, or otherwise...that would be the first instance. As for right now, your computer moniter is enough evidence. The essences of concepts such as existence and consciousness can also be evidence...and preferably so. Existence includes all that exists. Consciousness is that which possesses awareness; it is awareness.

Still with me?

Not even close. I don't see how any of that proves your premises for the nonexistent God proof. Your premises were:

1. Existence is primary to consciousness;

Okay, I've acknowledged that.

2. and as a corollary fact, all existents must possesses idenity--

Sounds right.

--things with identity have definite qualities and quantities.

Now you are in trouble. Quantify infinity. If you can't, are you saying infinity is impossible?


God has indefinite quantities (being infinite in every quality; omnipotence, omniscience, etc.),

More trouble. First, isn't it anthropomorphic to say how identity is defined for we humans here in a finite situation must apply to all things with identity? And then, how do you know that God is infinite in every quality? What if people are wrong and God is 99% omnipotent and omniscient? Here's that empirical problem again . . . we are speculating about God without experiential evidence to tell us for certain what God is or isn't, everything is just a guess.

The "therefore" of your "proof" should have been: ". . . therefore, the concept a God with infinite qualities is not a concept that aligns with principles observed in our universe."

Your jump to nonexistence is unjustified. You have not made a proof, and you'll never make a proof for what does NOT exist.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yes, I could do that if you feel the prior posts by you and Les would provide an important context for setting up your anti-Kantian argument. As it stands, the current discussion is still somewhat related to the original topic, although it is probably beginning to drift too far afield.

If what we are talking about gets too far afield, then I'll stop. I can say for certain, most definitely, that I do not want to participate in a thread devoted to Kant.

 

[Eyesaw]

A population blinded to the color green are abandoned by their people on an island. To survive, these colorblinds ate the llamas there until there were no more llamas. Then they ate the fish in the waters surrounding the island, until there was no more fish.
The ate all the rabbits, birds, rats, until there were no more animals left to eat. So they began to eat the vegetables and fruits on the island. They ate all the grass. They ate all the potatoes. They ate all the oranges and the orange trees. They ate all the peaches and the peach trees. They ate all the grapes and the grape vines. Finally, on a Wednesday morning, when they awoke they found the island bare of all life but for three apple trees.

One tree born blood red apples. The second tree's apples were dark violet. The third tree grew apples that these colorblinds saw as grey. They also saw an aluminum sign planted besides with the invitation "Eat the green apples and die".

Wisely, they chose to eat the red apples and violet apples and their trees and left the "grey" apple tree alone. Then they fasted. They fasted for 7 days until they could fast no more. Then on Sunday, they saw a ship in the horizon that looked to be heading their way but estimated it would take another week for it to arrive. And even if the ship stopped on their shore, they might not be friendly.

"Do those apples look green to you", asked the leader of the group. They all shook their heads. "These are grey apples so I think we can eat them. That sign must be referring to some apple tree that is gone. Really though, which among you have seen such a color as green? And if we can't see it, surely it doesn't exist?", continued
the leader. "So, let's eat". All nodded except one. This one that did not nod his head
did not go to the same college as the others was a Frenchman who grew up on Descartes and the likes. He objects " but I don't see the moon at this time of the
afternoon yet I know its there, I think we should wait for the boat".

The leader rejects this Frenchman saying " ah but in the evening we see the moon so we know it's there. In the morning it may as well not be there. But I know without a doubt in my mind that I have never, ever, seen a green apple. And I am as certain
that these juicy apples I see in front of me are grey! Don't you agree?" This time, they all nodded. The Frenchman had dropped out of college and couldn't remember how his mentors would have reasoned. So they all ate. And they all died. The next day, the ship came to their shore.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This one that did not nod his head did not go to the same college as the others was a Frenchman who grew up on Descartes and the likes. He objects " but I don't see the moon at this time of the afternoon yet I know its there, I think we should wait for the boat".

The leader rejects this Frenchman saying " ah but in the evening we see the moon so we know it's there. In the morning it may as well not be there. But I know without a doubt in my mind that I have never, ever, seen a green apple. And I am as certain that these juicy apples I see in front of me are grey! Don't you agree?" This time, they all nodded. The Frenchman had dropped out of college and couldn't remember how his mentors would have reasoned. So they all ate. And they all died. The next day, the ship came to their shore.

We've been talking about what logic is, and what it can and can't tell us about reality. In your story, we have all evidence we need to make a logical decision about reality. All the apples are gone except one color, and there is a sign warning of death if one eats a certain color. A rescue ship will arrive the next day, so starvation is not an issue. If one wants to make the best decision which will ensure one continues to live, then to eat the apples is not the logical choice. Does this story have a point that is relevant to what we've been discussing?

 

[Rainer]

What have I said to suggest experience isn't to be processed by reason?

Then what happens if your reasoning contradicts your experience?

Who is saying that? I am saying knowledge that isn't confirmed by experience is not real knowledge.

Then you are saying that all real knowledge is synthetic.

Okay, so I have logically concluded that leaving my car door windows down rather than using my air conditioning will save money in gas. After an experiment shows me that wind drag from open windows uses more gas than the air conditioner, I should reject my experience for what is "logical" to me.

My logic tells me that if light is traveling at the speed of c, and I am traveling on a train at 100 mph in the direction of the light's source, then when I measure the speed of light it should be x + 100 mph. But when I measure light's speed, it turns out to be just c! Do I hold to my logic or do I yield to what experience tells me?

In the first example I have to ask how you got to that conclusion. That is where the error lies: A misconception of how logical reasoning works.

In the second example you've failed to understand the nature of light--this is a failure of reasoning. The neat thing is that you know you've messed up before you conclude what you did in the example. Whenever you leap to the next step with a blank spot in your knowledge, you'll know it--and continuing on with that blank spot is irrational.

Yes! There is no other way to know if neutrinos exist other than to find observational evidence of them;

When your reason concludes something, your senses will report just that conclusion. Seeing what you've concluded rationally adds some confirmation; but you can conclude with certainty that what you've reasoned is correct.

Reason and experience work together for the experientialist. Perhaps you might appreciate this type of "reason first" philosophy more than my "experience first" philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism. At the end of the explanation it says, "Modern rationalism has little in common with the historical philosophy of continental rationalism expounded by René Descartes. Indeed, a reliance on empirical science is often considered a hallmark of modern rationalism, whereas Continental Rationalism rejected empiricism entirely."

In all cases you've presented, the reason-observation/experience dichotomy is present. They are separate processes, but not opposed...as implied by the website and by your words.

The epistomological prevalance today has been established by what "works."

What "works," according to most physicists, is Popper's conception of epistemology. Which is neo-Kantian.

Well, you've just confirmed you prefer to be "in your mind" rather than being properly attentive to reality.

Why? Because I state the nature of concepts?

Do you have any real refutation of that statement?

Well, that is a controversial issue. Some of us claim that one can experience one's own consciousness, without external stimulation. But that's another subject. For now, let's say you are correct that we need existence to be conscious, and we need something to be aware of to be become aware.

Consciousness is awareness. If you want to be aware of your awareness you need something to first be aware of--otherwise it is a hopeless loop that will never happen.

Now you are in trouble. Quantify infinity. If you can't, are you saying infinity is impossible?

Infinity is larger than any specific quantity. It is no specific quantity...it is nothing.

First, isn't it anthropomorphic to say how identity is defined for we humans here in a finite situation must apply to all things with identity?

No. And this is why...

To say that our minds are hopelessly limited with respect to knowing what reality is, is to say that we aren't volitional--that we aren't conscious.

But we are conscious--there is no way you can deny that. We are volitional. We can know reality--because that is all we'll ever know.

Because of this, we didn't invent identity, we discovered it--as a part of reality itself. Applying the concept of identity to all of reality is simply staying true to what reality is.

And then, how do you know that God is infinite in every quality? What if people are wrong and God is 99% omnipotent and omniscient?

99% omnipotent is an oxymoron.

If God is not infinite, God isn't spectacular.

If God is very, very large in every quantity, he would be the same as a very, very large human. In this case, God would not be the creator, and God wouldn't know all there is to know.

God could merely continue to learn about this universe that he merely helped create, God would only be able to manipulate matter like humans--and because existence is primary to consciousness, God would have to hold a physical form.

Here's that empirical problem again . . . we are speculating about God without experiential evidence to tell us for certain what God is or isn't, everything is just a guess.

Your jump to nonexistence is unjustified. You have not made a proof, and you'll never make a proof for what does NOT exist.

Speculation on God's nature is not a bad thing. I've narrowed down what God could and could not be. All the things God cannot be is what the religious claim--I think that is a major advance in knowledge.

All the things God can be, a human can be.

Also, we can determine the things that don't exist without empirical evidence--but your insistance that we can reminds me of the "Black Swan" analogy...which is neo-Kantian .


(And no, my posts are not devoted to Kant; they have nothing favorably to do with Kant's ideas.)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then what happens if your reasoning contradicts your experience?

Keep checking. Reexperience, and delve into the logic and psychological forces behind your reasoning.

Then you are saying that all real knowledge is synthetic.

I saw a huge lightning flash today, seconds later I heard a thunderous boom.

Take away my intellect, leave me like my cat who saw and heard the same thing, and who ran under the couch to hide.

I "know" light, flash, distant . . . I "know" boom, rumble, silence. I don't need the synthesizing processes of my intellect to know that way, my cat knows the same thing. You are confusing knowing with interpreting.

When we experience we interpret that and represent it with a concept in the mind. That intellectual warehouse of concepts some people call knowledge, but really it is a synthesis of language and interpretations attached to the experience. But that is not the knowing part of it, the experience is. You might have interpreted the light/thunderousness as a sky god. My cat might have interpreted it as a huge dog. We might never agree about the interpretation, but if we are honest, and we all saw and heard what happened, we can all report EXACTLY the same thing about what we experienced. That is what we know for certain, the rest is open to interpretation.

In the first example I have to ask how you got to that conclusion. That is where the error lies: A misconception of how logical reasoning works.

Most people have reasoned with the understanding that air conditioning in a car uses more fuel than not using air conditioning, which is correct. On the surface, it seems reasonable then to leave the windows open. The problem is, reality sometimes works contrary to what common sense, ordinary logic, tells us. There is no misconception of how logic works, there was a lack of facts. How do we get facts? We test and observe. What is observation? Experience!

In the second example you've failed to understand the nature of light--this is a failure of reasoning. The neat thing is that you know you've messed up before you conclude what you did in the example. Whenever you leap to the next step with a blank spot in your knowledge, you'll know it--and continuing on with that blank spot is irrational.

For centuries Newtonian reasoning was applied. It worked admirably on most everything. Nothing could possibly clue thinkers into your so-called "blank spot" until, that is, guess what? Observational evidence started contradicting what logic said was true. Experience is what made the difference.

When your reason concludes something, your senses will report just that conclusion. Seeing what you've concluded rationally adds some confirmation; but you can conclude with certainty that what you've reasoned is correct.

Mr. Rainer, I think you need to face what you are in denial about: you are a rationalist through and through. That nonsense of yours I just quoted has been proven SO wrong. Your "reason" cannot come to proper conclusions unless you are reasoning with correct premises. You cannot be sure your premises are correct unless you can observe/experience what you hypothesize is true.

In all cases you've presented, the reason-observation/experience dichotomy is present. They are separate processes, but not opposed...as implied by the website and by your words

Yes it is present. But you are confusing interpretation principles with "knowing" principles. You are right, they are not in opposition, they are totally distinct but complimentary processes. There is experience, and there is the intellect trying to interpret that experience. No matter what the intellect decides, what was experienced will always be the closest thing to a true reflection of what occurred in reality.

What "works," according to most physicists, is Popper's conception of epistemology. Which is neo-Kantian.

Jesus, why don't we reestablish the date as 200 AK (after Kant)? My concept is probably closer to Peirce, but actually it is just my observation about how to validate things.

Here is a simple explanation of "what works." You and a neighbor have new puppies you want to train. The neighbor thinks the dog needs total domination at all times, 24 hours a day, and so applies training in that way. You think the dog needs to know who's boss only when it challenges that. Three years down the road, his dog is a nervous wreck who cowers when you try to pet him; your dog is happy, healthy and well behaved too. Which approached "worked" best to bring about the happy, enjoyable pet one hopes to have and who also understands the rules of participating in human life?

Consciousness is awareness. If you want to be aware of your awareness you need something to first be aware of--otherwise it is a hopeless loop that will never happen.

Consciousness is not mere awareness! A microphone is "aware" because it can detect things, but a mic is not aware it is aware. That is exactly the definition of consciousness, self awareness. If I were a microphone sitting there waiting for someone to talk, then there would be no evidence the microphone can respond unless someone talks. But consciousness has something a mic doesn't, it is aware that it is aware. So whether something external is stimulating awareness or not, that self-aware part of us can always know that it exists as consciousness.

Infinity is larger than any specific quantity. It is no specific quantity...it is nothing.

Read what you said. You've just negated your non-existent god proof by admitting you assigned a trait to God that is nothing. So it was YOUR invented premise that gave us a proof, not something you know is actually possible (i.e., infinity).

To say that our minds are hopelessly limited with respect to knowing what reality is, is to say that we aren't volitional--that we aren't conscious. But we are conscious--there is no way you can deny that. We are volitional. We can know reality--because that is all we'll ever know.

I think you just have too much time on your hands. Do you really believe what you wrote? Why would being limited to what we can know rob us of volition? Man, you need to come out of your mind.

When you were a kid, and didn't understand so much as you do now, were all the choices of the universe available to you? Now that you know more, are more choices available? We will never know it all, but that doesn't rob us of volition, it only means it is impossible to have absolute choice.

 

[Rainer]

Keep checking. Reexperience, and delve into the logic and psychological forces behind your reasoning.

And how do you know when you've reached the true and final conclusion?

I don't need the synthesizing processes of my intellect to know that way, my cat knows the same thing.

That is not what I meant by synthetic.

I assume you are familiar with Kant's Analytic-Synthetic distinction--because that is the kind synthesis I intend.

I "know" light, flash, distant . . . I "know" boom, rumble, silence.

Percepts are not knowledge; they are perceptual data. They are concretes--knowledge is always the integration of concretes; knowledge is composed of abstracts. You perceive light, flash, distant...you know it is electricity ripping through the air.

When we experience we interpret that and represent it with a concept in the mind. That intellectual warehouse of concepts some people call knowledge, but really it is a synthesis of language and interpretations attached to the experience. But that is not the knowing part of it, the experience is. You might have interpreted the light/thunderousness as a sky god. My cat might have interpreted it as a huge dog. We might never agree about the interpretation, but if we are honest, and we all saw and heard what happened, we can all report EXACTLY the same thing about what we experienced. That is what we know for certain, the rest is open to interpretation.

You are saying that the only true knowledge of the world is perceptible. Anything beyond that is rationality--interpretation.

"Intreptation and synthesizing," can just be called "integrating." When you take percepts and use reason to integrate those percepts into the vast whole of knowledge--you require the use of concepts.

You say that from percepts, integration through reason might yeild different concepts. This would go back and reinforce my idea about theories--the percepts will not change, but the theories to describe them are abstract; they are "interpretations."

As you yourself said, there can be many, many different abstract ideas to explain a perceptual occurence. A cat thinks one thing, I think another, and you think something completely different.

Later you describe the validation of theories kinda...so I'll talk about that next.

Here is a simple explanation of "what works." You and a neighbor have new puppies you want to train. The neighbor thinks the dog needs total domination at all times, 24 hours a day, and so applies training in that way. You think the dog needs to know who's boss only when it challenges that. Three years down the road, his dog is a nervous wreck who cowers when you try to pet him; your dog is happy, healthy and well behaved too. Which approached "worked" best to bring about the happy, enjoyable pet one hopes to have and who also understands the rules of participating in human life?

And the fact is that as modern Physics has evolved, a need for epistemology grew deeper.

I agree, the epistemologists went with what worked...like everyone else...but they looked to history.

History has shown us what these epistemologists have come to deem what "works." Scientific problem-solving is the best explanation of what has seemed to "work."

In short, it is the the search for the black swan. Our "intellect," may conclude something about a perceptual occurence--but how do we know that that conclusion works? History, according to certain epistemologists, has shown us that we come closer to knowing reality by revealing how our current ideas about reality are false by the rise of a newer, clearer theory.

Would you agree with that?

Also...would you say that certain ideas not connected to directly perceptible concretes are uncertain (e.g., the ecosystem)?

Most people have reasoned with the understanding that air conditioning in a car uses more fuel than not using air conditioning, which is correct. On the surface, it seems reasonable then to leave the windows open. The problem is, reality sometimes works contrary to what common sense, ordinary logic, tells us. There is no misconception of how logic works, there was a lack of facts. How do we get facts? We test and observe. What is observation? Experience!

And I agree.

But the fact is that the "logic," of the air-conditioner analogy was illogical. It was irrational to try to prove that you could save money by hvaing the windows down. That was my only point. You cannot reason unless you have a solid basis to do so--if you disregard that, you are being irrational, illogical, and stupid.

And I know that you agree with that; your statement is consonant:

Your "reason" cannot come to proper conclusions unless you are reasoning with correct premises.

No ****, Sherlock...I never implied anything else.

You cannot be sure your premises are correct unless you can observe/experience what you hypothesize is true.

And we are limited in what we can observe and experience--leaving the vaster part of human knowledge to the process of induction.

Observational evidence started contradicting what logic said was true.

What observational evidence?


Newton missed certain things...but that is only due to bad epistemology.

When you have rotten induction, you will have muddled theories. With good induction, you can rest assured that your theories will be as true today as they will be 1000 years from now.

Consciousness is not mere awareness! A microphone is "aware" because it can detect things, but a mic is not aware it is aware. That is exactly the definition of consciousness, self awareness. If I were a microphone sitting there waiting for someone to talk, then there would be no evidence the microphone can respond unless someone talks. But consciousness has something a mic doesn't, it is aware that it is aware. So whether something external is stimulating awareness or not, that self-aware part of us can always know that it exists as consciousness.

A mic is not "aware."

It can detect vibrations in the air and transform them into electrical signals. Serving as merely a function to react to certain attributes of reality is not awareness.

Parakeets are conscious; but they are not aware of their own consciousness...they talk to mirrors and scare themselves with their own noises.

Humans are aware of existence...then later, their own existence.

Read what you said. You've just negated your non-existent god proof by admitting you assigned a trait to God that is nothing. So it was YOUR invented premise that gave us a proof, not something you know is actually possible (i.e., infinity).

I know that...which is why it is so easy to refute the literal Christian "God."

All that you can do to escape a refutation of God is to change its identity or drop various contexts.

And no, that does not negate a proof. Many people honestly believe that God exists as omnipotent and omniscient--I'm refuting that God.

All other definitions and versions of God can still be resolved by the Existence > Consciousness metaphysical fact.

Ultimately it comes down to what I said earlier:

All the things God cannot be is what the religious claim ...
[almost] All the things God can be, a human can be.

I think you just have too much time on your hands. Do you really believe what you wrote? Why would being limited to what we can know rob us of volition? Man, you need to come out of your mind.

This would be an instance of you dropping the context.

Read what I wrote. Then read what you wrote that I was responding to.

I obviously meant that being limited in capability would negate volition. What we know is obviously limited, and always will be--but out capability to know more than we do today is not limited.



Now, we both agree that reasoning only works with correct premises. These premises can come from concrete observed within reality...or they can come from other abstractions of concretes. The facts needed to prove/disprove the existential nature of God requires only knowledge of the fundamental facts of reality--something we experience by merely being conscious (because being conscious implies existence and identity and hence the existential facts of reality.)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Percepts are not knowledge; they are perceptual data. They are concretes--knowledge is always the integration of concretes; knowledge is composed of abstracts. You perceive light, flash, distant...you know it is electricity ripping through the air.

I can know a light flashed in the distance without having a clue what caused it. If you try to tell me I don't KNOW it happened I will tell you to go fly a kite. And my cat can know that happened too and, in fact, might never forget it if it impressed her enough.

You are saying that the only true knowledge of the world is perceptible. Anything beyond that is rationality--interpretation.

Yes, almost. I am saying everything we know has been established by experience, but not just perception experience (which is normally considered sense experience . . . I think there are other sorts of experience available to a human being). And yes, everything beyond what experience establishes in consciousness in rationality, interpretation.

Also...would you say that certain ideas not connected to directly perceptible concretes are uncertain

Yes, except I'd say ideas not connected to experience are uncertain.

But the fact is that the "logic," of the air-conditioner analogy was illogical. It was irrational to try to prove that you could save money by hvaing the windows down. That was my only point. You cannot reason unless you have a solid basis to do so--if you disregard that, you are being irrational, illogical, and stupid.

Just when I think we are on the same page you say that! It wasn't illogical in the slighest. If your premises are that air conditioning uses more energy than having the windows down, it is perfectly logical to roll the windows down to save energy. The issue here is how we get the right premises, and I've been saying its by observation, or experience. (I went with the windows-down theory all my adult life until someone here, Greg I think, posted a study done proving the theory wrong. All my friends were similarly surprised to hear that, especially my super-frugal friend who lives in Las Vegas and has suffered needlessly for some time. :rofl: Another friend who is an airline pilot, however, just looked at us all like, duhhhhhhhh )

And we are limited in what we can observe and experience--leaving the vaster part of human knowledge to the process of induction.

Ha! I say we are most definitely limited in what we can experience, and that is why our knowledge will always be incomplete. So as far as "knowledge" coming from induction, boy do we disagree there. That ain't knowledge at all; it is at best good theory until the inductive hypothesis or model has been experienced.

Newton missed certain things...but that is only due to bad epistemology.

When you have rotten induction, you will have muddled theories. With good induction, you can rest assured that your theories will be as true today as they will be 1000 years from now.

We do the best we can with the tools we have. Newton's epistomology was awesome compared to the Pope's at that time. Are you sure we've got epistomology all figured out now? Even if we do, the theories we have are called "theories" because we haven't been able to observe if they work as we predict. Often when a theory is proven wrong later, it is because new information comes in. How can one predict info is missing? The universe at one time was believed to be static, but then new observations showed it is expanding. So then everyone thought it was expanding at a steady pace until, that is, new observations indicated the rate of expansion is increasing. As our observational tools improve it gives us information we couldn't detect before, so it isn't necessarily "bad" epistomolgy that makes a theory not quite right at a later date.

That also means your statement about good induction producing "theories . . . as true today as they will be 1000 years" is quite wrong. That, again, is a statement of rationalistic faith. You place too much emphasis on the logic and reason of a situation, and not enough on the quality of information.

Also, your ideas about how knowledge-gathering works is not consistent with history. It is not a perfect, tidy little affair. It is usually quite a messy, piecemeal, hardwork, fortunate-accidents thing that takes patience and an open mind.

Now, we both agree that reasoning only works with correct premises.

Absolutely.

These premises can come from concrete observed within reality...

Right.

. . . or they can come from other abstractions of concretes.

One can draw an abstraction from an observation and use it as a premise in a couple of ways. For example, one can represent the observation with an exact conceptual or mathematical facimille, and reason/calculate with it; and one can make abstract inferences from the observation and do the same thing. The first case produces results most likely to be confirmed if the associated premises are similarly derived, while the second case is going to be more speculative. In both cases however nothing is empircally proven, or considered "known," until what's been calculated is observed. Why?

Let's say you walk around your ranch to count the number of horses you have. In the barn you see 5 horses, in the corral are 11 horses, and you know your two kids are each riding a horse somewhere on the ranch. How many horses do you know have? As you can guess, the horses you can't see are the problem. Your math can be perfect, your assumptions pefectly reasonable, but until you can confirm one of your daughters hasn't sold a horse you are only guessing you have 18 horses. In fact, when you walk from the barn to the corral, and those barn horses are out of sight, right then the guesswork starts.

There is no escaping that problem with induction or any other situation where something is calculated in the absence of experience. Even situations that have held true since humans started observing them, such as the inverse square law describing how the effect of a force relates to distance, is only "known" by its history. We assume the law will hold for future calculations, but we don't actually know if it will, or if it does at every spot in the universe. We only know it has worked when and where we have used it so far.

The facts needed to prove/disprove the existential nature of God requires only knowledge of the fundamental facts of reality--something we experience by merely being conscious (because being conscious implies existence and identity and hence the existential facts of reality.)

Nice try, but no cigar. We don't know if we know, or can ever know, what consciousness can NOT experience which may nonetheless exist. How do we make certain that conscious existence gives us the existential facts of reality when it is as clear as day that from the moment we are born until we die consciousness is learning? Since lots of stuff will always exist that we don't know about, one of those things might be our own underlying nature. I might agree that we have the potential to experience the basis of our existence, but it does not automatically follow that we are born able to do that just because we exist.

 

[Rainer]

I can know a light, flashed in the distance without having a clue what caused it. If you try to tell me I don't KNOW it happened I will tell you to go fly a kite.

I'm saying you most certainly perceived something occur in reality. I'm just saying that (even though one will have a memory of it occurring) if that perception is left un-integrated into one's knowledge, it means nothing to oneself.

Yes, almost. I am saying everything we know has been established by experience, but not just perception experience (which is normally considered sense experience . . . I think there are other sorts of experience available to a human being). And yes, everything beyond what experience establishes in consciousness in rationality, interpretation.

I have some questions: Can I have an instance of a non-perception experience? What are all legitimate "experiences,"?

If your premises are that air conditioning uses more energy than having the windows down, it is perfectly logical to roll the windows down to save energy. The issue here is how we get the right premises, and I've been saying its by observation, or experience.

But here is the thing, in both cases the person has started with unsound premises...and he or she knows it.

If you know your premise is not sound, and you use it anyways, that can hardly be called rationality.

My friend who is an airline pilot, however, just looked at us all like, duhhhhhhhh

I'm a pilot as well. When I took my first flight in a retractable gear aircraft I was amazed...and it was only a Cessna 172RG...****, I got 35 extra knots just like that.

Ha! I say we are most definitely limited in what we can experience, and that is why our knowledge will always be incomplete. So as far as "knowledge" coming from induction, boy do we disagree there. That ain't knowledge at all; it is at best good theory until the inductive hypothesis or model has been experienced.

I agree to most of that.

But we use induction all the time, and it works just fine. Flying to the moon took plenty of induction.

Absolutely.

I don't remember saying any of that.



Before I continue, I'll let you answer my questions on experience written in bold.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't remember saying any of that.

First things first. I left out a bracket so I quoted myself as you. I've corrected that so you can see what I said. Sorry.

 

[Rainer]

We do the best we can with the tools we have. Newton's epistomology was awesome compared to the Pope's at that time. Are you sure we've got epistomology all figured out now? Even if we do, the theories we have are called "theories" because we haven't been able to observe if they work as we predict. Often when a theory is proven wrong later, it is because new information comes in. How can one predict info is missing? The universe at one time was believed to be static, but then new observations showed it is expanding. So then everyone thought it was expanding at a steady pace until, that is, new observations indicated the rate of expansion is increasing. As our observational tools improve it gives us information we couldn't detect before, so it isn't necessarily "bad" epistomolgy that makes a theory not quite right at a later date.

That also means your statement about good induction producing "theories . . . as true today as they will be 1000 years" is quite wrong. That, again, is a statement of rationalistic faith. You place too much emphasis on the logic and reason of a situation, and not enough on the quality of information.

Also, your ideas about how knowledge-gathering works is not consistent with history. It is not a perfect, tidy little affair. It is usually quite a messy, piecemeal, hardwork, fortunate-accidents thing that takes patience and an open mind.

I will be honest. This is what I've been trying to get you to say for a while. Now, do you credit that idea to anyone other than Popper and his groupies?

Next, because this is where the disagreement now lies...what is "experience"? What all does it include?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am not sure if our discussion for this split-off from the original thread can be characterized in terms of Kant's analytic-synthetic judgement model. If you recall, I challenged your ability to prove God does not exist with logic alone, and later I made sure to say that I wasn't talking about the closed logical structure of a set of statements.

Kant's view, at least as I remember it, was about what we can tell about statements, not about how we verify the accuracy of a statement to begin with. So if you posit that an omnipotent God is all-powerful, then analytically you are correct. But if you only say God is all-powerful, there's nothing in that synthetic statement to tell us if it is true.

But my argument seems outside that dynamic. I have only been maintaining that the logic of statements, whether analytic or synthetic, cannot be considered true or false about actual reality unless the statements' premises have first been confirmed by experience. To my mind mere statement manipulators (e.g., logical positivists?) have not been epistomologically productive.

Now, do you credit that idea to anyone other than Popper and his groupies?

From what I've already admitted about myself, you might guess that I wouldn't believe Popper has anything to do with it. Either we can justify something right now and here with evidence and reason, or we can't.

Next, because this is where the disagreement now lies...what is "experience"? What all does it include?

Hmmmmm, this a BIG question, and I don't think it fits this thread. What experience is and all it's potentials are is, I think, a question for another thread. I would be willing to say that the reason I believe experience is the main street of knowing is because of how well it has been demonstrated to be true through empirical applications and from my own life experience. It "works."

 

[Rainer]

If you recall, I challenged your ability to prove God does not exist with logic alone

Perhaps that is what you had in mind. But it was not the challenge you gave to me.

You said that God cannot be "disproven," or God's nonexistence "proven." Which ever verbiage you perfer.

You said nothing about a "proof with logic alone," and if you had I would have said "good-bye." Simply because it doesn't exist, it is a lame **** around that has nothing to do with anything--it has no significance in itself that God's nonexistence cannot be proven with tautological statements. That kind of "proof," is hardly a "proof."

What is worth saying and the only thing I'd spend my time on is the proof that God does not exist. You didn't specify, so I plugged in what I wanted.

Kant's view, at least as I remember it, was about what we can tell about statements, not about how we verify the accuracy of a statement to begin with. So if you posit that an omnipotent God is all-powerful, then analytically you are correct. But if you only say God is all-powerful, there's nothing in that synthetic statement to tell us if it is true.

Of course, that is an example of one of the largest and most structured "lame ****-arounds."

But my argument seems outside that dynamic. I have only been maintaining that the logic of statements, whether analytic or synthetic, cannot be considered true or false about actual reality unless the statements' premises have first been confirmed by experience. To my mind mere statement manipulators (e.g., logical positivists?) have not been epistomologically productive.

With chronological factors disregarded; and the primary concern being the ideology of the analytic-synthetic distinction my argument makes sense. And it works in reality.

My argument at this point is that your epistemology is ruled by the analytic-synthetic distinction, at root. If I am wrong, many apologies are due.

Anyways. Synthetic statements are only true when they are confirmed by experience.

Saying that God is all-powerful requires experience of God. It can be considered a synthetically true statement if you gain that experience. If I say that my shirt is blue, it will be synthetically true once I observe it in all its blueness.

From what I've already admitted about myself, you might guess that I wouldn't believe Popper has anything to do with it. Either we can justify something right now and here with evidence and reason, or we can't.

Disregard the fact that you do not consciously espouse Popper's views; you hold them anyway.

I would be willing to say that the reason I believe experience is the main street of knowing is because of how well it has been demonstrated to be true through empirical applications and from my own life experience. It "works."

Would I be safe in assuming that "experience," is like memory. A history of percepts.

Your percepts over time add up to experience, yes...no?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Perhaps that is what you had in mind. But it was not the challenge you gave to me. You said that God cannot be "disproven," or God's nonexistence "proven." Which ever verbiage you prefer.

You said nothing about a "proof with logic alone," and if you had I would have said "good-bye." Simply because it doesn't exist, it is a lame **** around that has nothing to do with anything--it has no significance in itself that God's nonexistence cannot be proven with tautological statements. That kind of "proof," is hardly a "proof."

You are correct, in that quote of mine I did mix up your non-existence God proof with my earlier argument with Cogito. If you recall, you stepped into the conversation while I was maintaining that arguing from the assumption that A is either A or not A is not, as Cogito suggested, only a truth derived from logic (i.e., sans experience). The principle of contradiction described in Aristotle’s laws of thought was itself first established by human experience with how reality always seems to work. Some may assume it is a self-evident bit of logic because we are so used to reality being that way; but if we had absolutely no experience with reality we wouldn’t know for certain or not if A could be both A and not A.

What is worth saying and the only thing I'd spend my time on is the proof that God does not exist. You didn't specify, so I plugged in what I wanted.

That’s fine with me, but I still say you cannot prove God or anything else does NOT exist. Besides, I know God does exist, prove me wrong!

You can state something “isn’t” if you put the right qualifiers on the statement. The kind of qualifiers I mean is like if you say God is undetectable where you are directing all your sensing devices. That you can safely say, but similar to Heinlein’s “Fair Witness” in Stranger in a Strange Land you cannot go on to conclude with full certainty that no God is present. At one time we were unable to detect virtual particles flashing in and out of existence. I’m sure you don’t want to take the idealist route and say if we don’t detect a tree falling in the woods . . . (or the joke I like to tell my wife: if something goes wrong and no one is around, is it still the man’s fault?).

The problem with disproving the actual existence of something is that you cannot possibly know if you know all the factors of existence. Even if you claim to know it because you can experience the nature of your own existence, the problem for a "proof" is that you have to provide the same evidence to others for evaluation. If the true nature of existence is known to you, it is an inner experience, and I don't see how you are going to externalize that for an objective proof. Now if you mean you believe you can prove it to yourself alone, then I am unable to dispute that.

With chronological factors disregarded; and the primary concern being the ideology of the analytic-synthetic distinction my argument makes sense. And it works in reality.

I can only agree that it “works” to decide the content of a statement, as you yourself admit when you say, “Synthetic statements are only true when they are confirmed by experience.” Truths about reality are not determined by the structure of a statement, so it has never made sense to me to make a big deal about that. In my humble opinion, that is just more rationalist baggage still floating around; in other words, if one sits on his duff arguing about reality without looking at it much so that ideas become of supreme importance (i.e., ideas over experience), then one begins to nitpick about the structure of sentences. It’s silly!

My argument at this point is that your epistemology is ruled by the analytic-synthetic distinction, at root. If I am wrong, many apologies are due.

I am not sure how I can be more clear that the root of my epistemology is a experience and non-experience distinction. I am a hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool experientialist both when arguing epistemological theory and when living my life. If I experience something enough, then I might come to believe it is true; if I don’t experience it, then I can’t believe it, and that is especially so if what’s said to be true doesn’t make sense or jive with anyone’s past experience.

Disregard the fact that you do not consciously espouse Popper's views; you hold them anyway.

If we talk long enough you will probably be able to attribute something I say to most anyone, but I don’t see the point. When I joined PF, I made myself a promise not to make my case with other’s ideas, and not to try to win a debate by claiming some aspect of my education, professional status, etc. automatically makes me correct.

Just like I’ve found the experientialist approach best for learning, I also feel strongest and most real when I write, speak and act from my experience. So any similarity to what others have said is a coincidence. I am speaking from me and from what I observe and have learned to be true.

Would I be safe in assuming that "experience," is like memory. A history of percepts. Your percepts over time add up to experience, yes...no?

After admitting that what's about to follow is Les' preferred way of describing experience, I’d differentiate between experience which I would say gives us information, and the history of experiences which I would say establishes knowledge.

I think experience is the part of me which is aware of what I am detecting with my senses, and what I am feeling inside. If you took that central self-aware part out of my consciousness, it might still detect light and sound, or still have internal feelings, but there would be no subjective “I” to be aware of it. So it is the combination of sensitivity to information, both external and internal, and my subjective awareness of that information which together create experience.

In regard to the history of experiences, in another thread I used the term retention to generalize about that capacity of consciousness. For example, say a man takes a walk in the woods to think about something important. The majority of sense data which floods his perception – the environmental sights, sounds, smells, etc. of where he is walking – is usually only retained briefly; although his subjective aspect of consciousness is present, he is not paying attention to all that peripheral info. But if he concentrates on something like a beautiful tree showing off its Autumn colors, then he will usually retain that experience (self-aware perception) more strongly. If we do something that requires a variety of elements to do well, say ride a bike, and we do it often, that may be retained in a way that could be described by a term you used earlier, “integration.” In other words, the more experience is concentrated upon and/or repeated, the more it “integrates” as knowing.

A description of knowing like that might sound to you like it is not as absolute as many people wish knowing were. If so, I would agree with you. I think knowing is a level of certainty which is never absolutely safe from being rearranged by new information. Mostly what we know is how reality has been. We get into the most epistemological trouble when we assume how reality has been, and our limited experience of it, is how reality must forever and everywhere be.

 

[Rainer]

That’s fine with me, but I still say you cannot prove God or anything else does NOT exist. Besides, I know God does exist, prove me wrong!

Be picky then: To be exact, I had proven specific things in the nature of existence itself.

This, as a consequence, then rules out the existence of many other things. The Christian God for one.

Now, I've seen you, in many posts, change and obfuscate the hell out of God's "definition." So, your "proof," as I have said in earlier posts, would be uninteresting and unspectacular.

Truths about reality are not determined by the structure of a statement, so it has never made sense to me to make a big deal about that.

No. That isn't how the distinction works. It runs deeper than mere grammatical concerns.

I suggest you revise the rest of the paragraph.

I am not sure how I can be more clear that the root of my epistemology is a experience and non-experience distinction.

Either that, or empirical vs. logical, or a priori vs. a posteriori, or analytic vs. synthetic.

If I experience something enough, then I might come to believe it is true; if I don’t experience it, then I can’t believe it, and that is especially so if what’s said to be true doesn’t make sense or jive with anyone’s past experience.

What you are saying is that the standard for validation of a theory is repeated experience. And somehow that isn't being a champion to someone else's idea...

This all ties back into the problem of induction.

If we talk long enough you will probably be able to attribute something I say to most anyone, but I don’t see the point.

No. There are specific people only who I can link your ideas to.

A description of knowing like that might sound to you like it is not as absolute as many people wish knowing were. If so, I would agree with you. I think knowing is a level of certainty which is never absolutely safe from being rearranged by new information. Mostly what we know is how reality has been. We get into the most epistemological trouble when we assume how reality has been, and our limited experience of it, is how reality must forever and everywhere be.

I bolded one part of my own writing in this post: "What you are saying is that the standard for validation of a theory is repeated experience."

My response: Repeated experience does not validate a theory.

 

[Philocrat]

The analytic-synthetic distinction is fundamentally paradoxical! However, Transitional Logic renders both universally indistinct, or should I say, interchangeably one of a kind!

 

[Rainer]

A paradox is something that seems like a contradiction, but is still true. The analytic-synthetic distinction is just a contradiction AND is wrong.

According to Quine, statements of analyticity do not exist simply because of how our language works, rather than how our minds work. His argument is superficial (not that his is the only refutation of it.) But it still establishes some doubt in Les Sleeth's notion that there is a broad gap between "experience," and "nonexperience," and that only one can establish truth through repetition.

The analytic-synthetic distinction has a deep psychological grip that Quine doesn't address--a massive effort to make knowledge impossible.

I want to show that knowledge of reality is possible and is certain.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Be picky then: To be exact, I had proven specific things in the nature of existence itself.

I have been busy, plus I wanted to think about how to answer you, but I think we are too far apart on what we believe constitutes a proof (and by that I mean a proof about reality and not a logic proof). You seem to believe key premises you rely on in your proof are self evident, whereas I don't believe they are and need to be verified by experience.

Now, I've seen you, in many posts, change and obfuscate the hell out of God's "definition." So, your "proof," as I have said in earlier posts, would be uninteresting and unspectacular.

I have done no such thing. You are assigning qualities to God which we don't know are really God's qualities. Just because Christians et al believe God is a certain way doesn't mean they actually know anything about the God they believe in.

I am not trying to be difficult, but if you say God is omipotent and then begin your non-existent proof, I will stop you and ask you to show me your evidence that God is omipotent. If you say, well, I will prove the Christian God doesn't exist if they claim he is omnipotent, then I will say, no, at best you might be able to prove that omipotence in a being is inconsistent with the limited experience we have with reality. So I am just ultra-conservative when it comes to statements about reality, and how logic is used to arrive at so-called "truths." (And, what's the deal with "uninteresting or unspectacular"? What do that have to do with accepting truths about reality? It is what it is.)

What you are saying is that the standard for validation of a theory is repeated experience. And somehow that isn't being a champion to someone else's idea...

Just because I find out that experience gives me knowledge, and it happens to agree with what someone else says, that doesn't mean I am now advocating someone else's idea! I see what works . . . I go with that.

Even accepting someone's idea doesn't have to be following them. Someone says to me, "try out this new racquet, it is the best I have ever used and I think you should use it." Now, I can start using that racquet because he says so, or I could try out the racquet, find out it is the best I've ever used, and then start using it for that reason. So just because my behavior is the same as someone's doesn't mean it is from adopting their ideas.

I test out things for myself. I never buy wholesale anybody's philosophy, not ever. Even to try something new it has to jive with my past experience and make sense.

What you are saying is that the standard for validation of a theory is repeated experience. My response: Repeated experience does not validate a theory.

You are entitled to your opinion, and that's why I said I think we are too far apart in what we believe.

In my own life I have had many theories, and they remained so until I tried them out in real living situations. My experience is what proved or disproved the theory.

If you needed open heart surgery, would you prefer an experienced surgeon, or one who was top in his graduating class but who has never performed the operation.

See all the technology around you? All that has been discovered by people who rely on experience to confirm theories.

These are the reasons I believe experience leads to knowing . . . because it works for me and I see it works for others. And the reason I don't believe reason without experience linked to it produces knowledge is because of all the dreamers and crackpots I've run into throughout my in life who think they have it all figured out, but haven't lived much (if any) of their theories.

The angry raging Carl Marx comes to mind as I write that, where you have what appears to be a grand theory except for one little flaw . . . he didn't understand human nature very well. Since his social-economic model required humans to live and work within the system, the system's failure to accommodate fundamental human psychological needs means it can never work very well.

 

[Rainer]

I have been busy, plus I wanted to think about how to answer you, but I think we are too far apart on what we believe constitutes a proof (and by that I mean a proof about reality and not a logic proof). You seem to believe key premises you rely on in your proof are self evident, whereas I don't believe they are and need to be verified by experience.

Another split between the logical and the empirical to make knowledge impossible.

I always use the word "proof" to mean a proof about reality--I don't believe that "logical," proofs exist...what does exist in its place is a lame ****around.

Again, logic (A is A) doesn't stand apart from from our understanding of reality.

The "key premises," I believe in are axiomatic. Not the Euclidean axiom. I mean that it is self-evident and irrefutable--and yes, experience helps to confirm that; the fact that we experience things is what makes the axioms self-evident.

Consciousness is such an axiom--it is obvious when you are conscious; and if you wish to deny that you are conscious, you will need to use your consciousness in your refutation.

Existence is such an axiom. It is obvious that existence is all around us. Denial of it requires its use.

Which is dependant upon which? Consciousness requires something to be conscious of: Existence. Consciousness depends on existence. The corollary axiom of both is identity (as in the Law of Identity.)

This means that if anything is to exist it must be a thing. It must be definite. Essentially: Reality conforms to identity in every aspect.

Logic is the noncontradictory recoginition of identity. Logic recognizes reality...yes, through experience, but experience has limits and can only be used up to a point. Without logical reasoning we wouldn't be able to fathom the distance from the Earth to the moon. We made the first trip to the moon without previous experience--it required from serious inductive logic to complete. And it worked out just fine.

These axioms are neither distinctly experiential nor distinctly "logical." Experience means nothing without logic--and I'm not saying that logic can EVER be isolated from experience, and I'm not saying that it is more important than experience.



Les Sleeth. End this distinction between the logical and the empirical--or, in your words, experience vs. nonexperience.

You are assigning qualities to God which we don't know are really God's qualities. Just because Christians et al believe God is a certain way doesn't mean they actually know anything about the God they believe in.

God would have to live within this existence. God's capabilities would have serious limits thanks to what we know is logically true. (Remember the corollary axiom of identity.)

What we know to be logically true about reality means that we know reality's identity. We may not have seen every star in the universe, but we can still know reality's identity.

The products of logic will always be the extension of empirical observations. ALWAYS. Thus, a proof that God doesn't exist, in my way of doing things, will always mean a logical proof than can extend what we've observed here on Earth to every inch of the universe.

Going back to what God is. I chose the Christian God for a reason. God, according to them, has capabilities far past those of any human--my proof doesn't just deny that that God doesn't exist, it proves which capabilities in the world of the contingent are possible.

Humans can reach all these possible capabilities--because we are rational beings (we can recognize and conceptualize reality because reality has identity and we have the tools to recognize such identity.)

This is quite a significant understanding of reality. It means that if "God" really does exist, "God" would match humans in capability. And, really, that is the same as wondering if there are aliens on other planets...so what?

Just because I find out that experience gives me knowledge, and it happens to agree with what someone else says, that doesn't mean I am now advocating someone else's idea! I see what works . . . I go with that.

But you've still aligned yourself with someone else's idea.

Even accepting someone's idea doesn't have to be following them. Someone says to me, "try out this new racquet, it is the best I have ever used and I think you should use it." Now, I can start using that racquet because he says so, or I could try out the racquet, find out it is the best I've ever used, and then start using it for that reason. So just because my behavior is the same as someone's doesn't mean it is from adopting their ideas.

I'm saying that the creator of the raquet has engineered it to fit you perfectly--and you slid right into it.

In my own life I have had many theories, and they remained so until I tried them out in real living situations. My experience is what proved or disproved the theory.

And when you've seen an idea work along with your experience, do you stop testing it? Or do you go on forever? Are you to be uncertain forever? The question is: When do you stop?

The angry raging Carl Marx comes to mind as I write that, where you have what appears to be a grand theory except for one little flaw . . . he didn't understand human nature very well. Since his social-economic model required humans to live and work within the system, the system's failure to accommodate fundamental human psychological needs means it can never work very well.

The argument you'd get from communists would be that there has yet to be a good example of communism in action.

Failures of communism come from the fact that the ideal culture for communism hasn't ever existed.

Now, I can tell you that communism won't work because it contradicts human identity. For that reason, it will forever fail, even with an "ideal" culture...it will ultimately fail.



Finally, to say that ONLY experience can validate theories says that reality does not conform to the identity. Which means to say that consciousness is above existence. Which is to say that solipsism rules.