Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
If you are most certain about something
that doesn't allow you to be certain about
anything, where do you find room for
rationalization?
An excellent point !
I think that rationalization of any kind
can only be drown from and connected to
our data input (perception/knowledge/sense) -
sum of all our observation.
I believe many ancient philosophers saw it the
same way, however, they knew far less in terms
of science to learn how misleading and complex
it can be and thus some of them preferred to
see the observed as absolute, which I think is
certainly a mistake.
Another point is what we call abstract thought.
Apparently another type of data within the
total input data. Abstract thought, however,
does not show signs of any uniqueness, it seems
to be just a consequence of observation without
any specific difference.
Even more basically, the above approach can not be
drown from anything. It appears to be like
the simplest approach, a default if you like.
Most current physical laws, for example, are
the result of seeking the shortest possible
explanation - optimizing the observed into
the ultimate pattern. In much the same way I think
the most basic approach is to accept the
data you observe without ANY application
of prior reasoning. If new data replaces it -
so be it and it must not be stopped by rationale
drown from the previous data(even if it seemed
so simple and basic earlier).
As you can see, such an approach can not support
any absolutes because it recognizes the possibility
(the most basic and simple one I think) that
new observation may refute them. As such, this
system can't also absolutely support itself because
it can't prove absolutes and thus can't show
it's really the most basic, simple, productive
or usefull approach. On the other hand, it
doesn't seem to be able to allow a refutal of
itself. In short, it's doubt.
It teaches you to accept all views and never
dismiss any. And what's wrong with that ?
Originally posted by Mentat
This is the difference between you and me.
You take the pessimistic view-point, that
things are unexplainable, while I
(realistically, or - perhaps - opptimistically)
allow for them to simply be unexplained.
Well, notice I did not say the PoE's lack of
solution is absolute. I just said it's most unlikely.
I prefer not to have any bias but rather
view the situation as it is. This may not
always work
, but I think it does here.
The PoE presents many unanswerable questions
of the most basic type, hence it's solution
seems most unlikely.
Of course, often the most extrordinary questions
lead to the most extrordinary and yet very simple
and basic answers that due to that simplicity
also often prove to be very usefull (like
relativity for example), and that's what I
believe this thread enitially referred to.
Originally posted by Mentat
The same thing that doesn't allow you to
accept my view, probably just stubornness.
Stuborness is a result of some effort,
an intellectual effort in this case,
and that is ussualy a positive thing
so it's not too bad either way - it's
the usefullness part again.
btw, I do ACCEPT your view as any other,
I simply do not agree with it for now.
Originally posted by Mentat
You can only define the limits of something
after assuming it's existence.
Hmm... Existence of existence...
Existence IS absolute, but there's no
way of defining it I think (and again,
that is already a claim of some sort and
hence not absolute , aren't you tired
of hearing it again and again ? believe me
it's even greater trouble of reminding
it all the time in every message ).
Live long and prosper.