Yes, it is misleading but it does have a point, though, which is to warn against the naturalistic fallacy. — Pierre-Normand

Agreed.

Okay, I'll give another.

Banno is as smart as me. :gasp:

Wittgenstein said, if I remember correctly from so long ago something about the world being described properly only when it is described down to its atomic components. So surely the whole of the world would be included. But I have not read him for a long time so I might be wrong. — Sir2u

Atomic facts are reflections of elementary propositions. Atomic facts can combine to form facts of any complexity, and as such, describe the world. So yes the whole of the world would be included.

How about this one.

You can't derive an ought from an is.

:razz:

So objects are independent of their properties but the properties are dependent on the objects. — Sir2u

I'm not sure I see the connection between what you're saying, and what I said. Are you talking about Wittgensteinian objects, i.e., the objects of the Tractatus? You seem to be talking about objects like apples, trees, persons, etc. Your question may still be valid, but I'm trying to get clear on what you mean by objects.

So which came first, the picture or the thing that is made up in the arrangement described in the picture? — Sir2u

Pictures, in this model, are of facts, or the possibility of facts. It would seem that you have to have the facts, or the possibility of those facts in order to create the picture. What is in the picture is a possible form, that form either matches reality or it doesn't. You can't have the picture unless there is something to picture, so the picture isn't first.

:wink:

I can't keep up with all your threads. lol

"Since being is the first principle of all human knowledge, it is a fortiori the first principle of metaphysics (313). — tim wood

I'm not so sure this first principle is true. Being may be foundational, but not in terms of epistemology. One might say, it just IS. In a sense it defies epistemological questions.

It is a persuasive thought no? — Posty McPostface

If you're referring to bipolarity, my inclination is to say that it's not persuasive.

/

Atomic facts are constituted by objects that make up the substance in the world (or logical space if you prefer the original terminology). — Posty McPostface

Keep in mind that objects, for Wittgenstein, aren't the same as things. Objects are simple, they are the simplest constituent part of a fact that occupy space, but nowhere does Wittgenstein give an example of an object. They are simply requirements of his logical analysis. They are not things like, apples, trees, cars, mountains, numbers, properties, etc.

What are your thoughts on the Principle of Bipolarity and Wittgenstein? — Posty McPostface

I think it's a bit more complicated. Are there issues of bipolarity in Wittgenstein? Yes. I would say that ascribing a particular view of philosophy to Wittgenstein is a bit dangerous in terms of correctly understanding him. Also, when reading Wittgenstein it's best to not start with a particular interpretation in mind, look at him from many different views. If you look at him from a particular point of view, it's like looking at Mars through one telescope aimed at one particular area of Mars. It will give you some information, but not a complete or correct picture of Mars.

For some reason we love categorizing things, but especially people. He's this, or she's that, life is just much more complicated and diverse. I say generally resist this, in many of it's forms, especially when it comes to people.

One could make a good argument against bipolarity in Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

Wittgenstein was heavily influenced by Russell and Frege, especially in terms of the Tractatus. There is some influence of Schopenhauer and Kant, but, at least from my studies, it's not a heavy influence. Early in Wittgenstein's life (very early, probably as a teen) he accepted Schopenhauer's idealism, but later (probably early to late 20's) in his life he rejects it.

The world isn't made up of things. The world is made up of a particular arrangement of things. Things don't tell us anything. So facts are the arrangement of things in a particular way. The world is the world because things are the way they are in a particular way - they form a picture, a particular picture. Propositions, according to the Tratatus, are pictures of these arrangements. The picture either correctly describes the world, or it doesn't.

Yet, for some reason, people seem to be concerned with what scientists think about the existence of God. — LD Saunders

It doesn't' matter if the person is a scientist or a 6th grade dropout, what matters is how one justifies their belief. We want to hear the evidence or the reasons that support the conclusion one way or the other.

The problem I have with many scientists is that they believe that the scientific method is the only way to justify a belief. As if experimentation is the only method that could possibly answer the question. There are many ways of justifying a belief, some are weak and some are strong. Most of the knowledge we have is gained by other means.

I think that any such being wouldn't want us to worship him/her/it. Nor would any such being want us to be obedient to their demands. That's seems to be a human construction. Especially if that being loved us unconditionally.

I would hesitate to put Wittgenstein's philosophy into any category, but there are some facets of structuralism that fit. People always want to label others. We love to categorize people and things. People are much more complex, and philosophical thinking can be much more complex than our categories.

You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.

I'm baffled by this statement. Where did I say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence? Unless you think that all testimonial evidence is hearsay by definition, but that's just not the case. Again you're not reading or understanding the argument.

What are discussions, or debates but differentiating opinions. Is not your topic an opinion? — jufa

No, it's not an opinion, it's a well-formed inductive argument, so the conclusion follows from the strength of the premises. I'm telling you what I know based on the evidence. I'm not simply giving an opinion based on what I happen to think is true.

What you have to do, if you disagree, is show where the argument fails. You said the testimonial evidence is hearsay, but that doesn't address my argument which addresses this very issue. I take great pains to make the point that it isn't hearsay, and why it is not hearsay or secondhand testimony. All you did is make a pronouncement that it is hearsay without showing how my argument relies on hearsay. Not all testimonial evidence is hearsay.

I have laid out the premises of my argument very clearly, so attack the specific premises.

Don't give me your opinion, give me an argument. Address the argument specifically.

Hello, I am a new member of this forum, and after reading some of the comments here, and skimping others, to me what is called valid testimonial evidence fits into the system of 'hearsay' because of relativism, not precision. — jufa

I don't think you've read my comments about testimonial evidence very closely. I've clearly distinguished between testimonial evidence that's hearsay, and testimonial evidence that has an objective basis, that is, corroborated or objectively verified in some way. I would suggest re-reading the argument.

.

Sam, it could be said straight out that the reason Tyson, Shermer, and others of that ilk can't accept that near-death experiences really amount to anything meaningful, is because if they did, then their world-view crumbles. — Wayfarer

I agree. Most of these kinds of arguments are self-sealing, that is, they won't let anything count as counter-evidence, and this is true with most religious people, so the problem is on both sides of the argument. Dogmatism on either side is the enemy of the truth. I'm not religious, so I try to look at the evidence from an unbiased position, at least as much as possible.

One of the most common criticisms aimed at near death experiences, is that they are hallucinations. Michael Shermer in a 2013 article in the Scientific American postulates that these experiences can be attributed to hallucinations. The question is then, is this likely the case, not is it possible, but is it likely that these cases are hallucinations? Since we cannot get a definitive answer, that is, an answer in absolute terms, our conclusion should give us an answer as to the likelihood of one conclusion over another. So, the question boils down to whether a hallucination is as good or a better explanation of what is happening, than the explanation that these are veridical perceptions. Moreover, the question is not, “Are these real experiences?” Why? Because any experience is real, even a hallucination, but we want to ask if the experience is as real or more real than our everyday experiences, which is why we want to know if the experience is veridical.

The question we should ask first, is, what is a hallucination? Hallucinations are sensory perceptions that a person experiences without external stimulus. In other words, the experience is purely subjective and only exists in their mind, as opposed to objectively verified experiences. Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality (hearing, seeing, taste, tactile, or smell). Hallucinations are not veridical, which is why they are called hallucinations. They are distortions of reality, and they are usually associated with illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

What distinguishes veridical experiences from hallucinations? A veridical experience has an objective component that is shared with others, that is, we generally see (feel, taste, hear, and smell) the same things, we have shared external stimuli, which is what makes a normal sensory experience.

If NDEs are hallucinations, then why are so many people seeing the same things, at least generally? Moreover, if these experiences are not veridical, then why do so many doctors, nurses, family members, and friends verify the accuracy of the experience. In other words, those who are not having the experience corroborate the testimonial accuracy of the one’s having the NDE. This is not the case with hallucinations, that is, others, who are at the scene of the hallucination do not report that the hallucination is an account of objective reality. Hallucinations are not corroborated.

Many people who have an NDE describe their experience as hyper-real, that is, more real than real. When they compare their normal every day experiences to their NDE, their normal reality seems dreamlike by comparison. They describe their sensory experiences as expanded. For example, the ability to see what is happening in a more expanded field of vision, or seeing colors that they have never seen before. These are not the kind of reports that are associated with hallucinations, nor are they the reports of those whose brains are shutting down, or that lack oxygen, or that are the result of medication.

Why do so many people say that NDEs are hallucinations? There are many reasons. First, they are just giving their opinion. Second, these experiences (NDEs) do not fit their world view. Third, most or many people who have beliefs that are strictly materialistic are biased, and this is true no matter their education. Fourth, they have not studied NDEs, so they are just not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, again just giving their opinion based on what they think they know.

So, the objection that NDEs are hallucinations is just not a viable argument. Neither is it a viable argument that NDEs are random firings of a brain that is shutting down. Other criticisms of NDEs are equally lacking in evidence, such as, a lack of oxygen to the brain, delusions, dreams, or some other brain malfunction.

The most likely conclusion based on the evidence, is that these cases are not hallucinations, and that it is more likely than not, that they are veridical experiences.

.

Simple: Logic = correct reasoning, that's what it's about, period.

There is simply no secular basis for morality.

Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective.

Atheists will try to dance around this and you will see some incredible logical gymnastics around this but the plain fact is that when you boil it down.... consistent atheists don't believe in objective morality. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. — Ram

Nothing could be further from the truth. First, that there is no secular basis for morality, is just not true, and it doesn't take much thought to recognize that this statement is clearly false. Moreover, one doesn't need to appeal to any religious or even mystical view of things to know that there are moral and immoral acts apart from religious or mystical beliefs. I'm not going to put forth a complete moral theory, but I can give an example that is clearly objective.

If I walk up to any person and cut their arm off without good reason, then I've have committed an immoral act by definition. Moreover, it's not a subjective claim, it's objectively immoral based on the harm done; and I don't have to appeal to anything religious to recognize that it's immoral. What's the basis of this immoral act? The basis for any immoral act is that it causes harm, not all harm is immoral but all immoral acts cause a degree of harm. Moreover, we can claim that some immoral acts are much worse based on the degree of harm done. So we can start with the principle of harm. If we get back to the example, was there harm done? Yes. Is it objectively true that there was harm done? Yes. We can see the objective nature of the harm in cries of pain, the arm severed from the person, the blood, etc. We can also observe the pain of friends and family members as well as strangers. The pain is also objective.

This is a clear example of why there can and is immorality apart from any religious or mystical belief. That there are more complicated moral issues there is no doubt, but how can anyone deny that the example given is not immoral without appeal to God.

If, as seems to be true, mystical life is one of the permanent needs of human nature. it should not only be respected, but protected against the too frequent assaults of superficial minds. — tim wood

For me, the mystical is not a need, but a fact of reality. It seems to be part of who we are as persons, not all people, but most people have an inclination or an intuition that seems to point to something beyond our everyday reality.

I wonder about the comment that "...it should be protected against the assaults of superficial minds." It's not only under attack from the assaults of superficial minds, but it's also under attack from those minds that are not so superficial. People who are intelligent, but are misguided by a particular world view put forth by intelligent people.

It seems to me that the biggest threat to truth comes from group think, i.e., not being able to think beyond the group, or beyond my comfort zone. Group think is dangerous, whether it's religious thinking, mystical thinking, or any other kind of thinking. We have to be willing to think for ourselves in spite of what others say, in spite of ridicule or even danger.

Finally, I think that reason or evidence should guide our beliefs, but part of the problem goes beyond these words, because it's much deeper. For me much of the disagreements about some of these issues have to do with what is meant by knowledge, i.e., what it means to have knowledge.

True mysticism is never found without some theology, and sound theology always seeks the support of some philosophy; but a philosophy that does not make room for theology is a short-sighted philosophy, and what shall we call a theology wherein no provision is made for at least the possibility of mystical experience." — tim wood

While I think that theology grew out of mystical experiences, I don't think the mystical is necessarily dependent upon theology, although some mystical experiences clearly are. I've spent a lot of time investigating various mystical experiences, and generally I find little in common with religion. In fact, religion seems to be man's way of trying to explain the mystical, his way of reaching out to the metaphysical, but I find it very deficient.

I recently was listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s answer to a question related to near death experiences, and while I respect his knowledge on the subject of astrophysics, I do not think his answer to a question about NDEs was adequate. I agree that testimonial evidence is one of the weakest ways of gathering evidence, but what he failed to mention is that some testimonial evidence can be quite strong, and the reasons for this were stated above.

It must also be pointed out that much of what we learn comes from the testimony of others, specifically from people in a position to know. There is a large amount of data that come from many fields of study that is passed down to us via testimony, and much of it cannot be doubted. Why? Because the vehicle for understanding our world and ourselves, including our language (concepts and words) is learned from others; and if we doubted or questioned most of it, we would be lost and reduced to silence. Our culture and our lives only succeed if most of what is conveyed to us is truthful. This is not to say that we should believe everything people say, only that we should keep in mind that there are criteria for ascertaining the reliability of testimony. For example, is the person in a position to know, that is, were they there? Were they firsthand observers? Did they study the correct materials? Second, is the person skilled in the appropriate subject matter? Third, is the person trustworthy or credible? Fourth, does the testimony harmonize with other established truths?

Based on what Dr. Tyson said, it seems as though he is not an expert on testimonial evidence, and does not seem to understand what makes reliable testimonial evidence. He made a comment about how our courts rely on this kind of testimony, and how it did not make him confident in our justice system. He may have said this tongue and cheek, nevertheless it does seem to make his point about how unreliable testimony is. He also said that if someone came to him and said that you should believe something based on what they saw, that is, it is true because they saw it, you should be highly suspect (paraphrasing). He is putting the worst possible face that you can put on testimonial evidence. So yes, in many instances what he is saying is quite true. Again, though he leaves out how it is that we discern good testimonial evidence from bad testimonial evidence.

He also made a comment that seems quite silly on its face, namely, that “…your senses are some of the worst data taking devices that exist.” This seems silly based on two things: First, our sense are generally reliable, if that was not so, then you would not be able to conduct science, period. Second, how do we observe experiments if not through our senses. I look through the microscope, I read the instruments, I smell the oder given off by a particular experiment, so, one’s senses are the very means that allow us to conduct the experiment/s. To be fair, it is not purely a sensory experience, it is sensory experiences coupled with other objective measuring devices. But our senses are extremely important in gathering the information, hopefully objective evidence, and not purely subjective observations.
There are many problems with some of Dr. Tyson’s comments about testimonial evidence and about sensory experiences, these are just some.

The following is a link to Dr. Tyson’s comments on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5qEBC7ZzVQ

This goes to show you that just because someone is knowledgeable in one field of study, that does not mean they are knowledgeable in other areas. Hence, the fallacy of appeal to authority.

I wouldn't equate calling states of affairs "fact" with calling whatever we arbitrarily choose to call a "game"... a "game". — creativesoul

You've misunderstood my point.

Take care guys I'm going to bed.

Why do they have to have something in common?
— Sam26

Because you're calling them all by the same name.

Do all games have something in common?

What difference does that make? — creativesoul

You don't see the parallel?

Seemingly yes. Yet, the parable exists insofar as to experienced of not, and individual particular fact can obtain or not in the world. — Posty McPostface

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

Sam what do all facts have in common that make them what they are, aside from us just calling them all by the same name? — creativesoul

Why do they have to have something in common? Do all games have something in common?

You're back at ground zero, what is difficult to understand here? It's pretty basic stuff.

Intuition isn't much to go on.

It's a negative fact, as opposed to a positive fact, or one that obtains.

I'm trying to elucidate the part with the paradoxical obtaining of a state of affairs is mystical in some sense? — Posty McPostface

Remember that just because something is possible that doesn't mean that it is so.