Comments

  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    A 1 hour dream lasts 5 minutes. REM. Seems good enough proof. A dog barking. Ýou talking in your sleep. Proof! — EugeneW
    That's not proof.

    Is this an empirical statement or a statement about grammar ? Or is it hard to say? — lll
    Empirical statement.
  • Free Will
    Mind over matter.
    ↪Agent Smith
  • Free Will
    ↪Agent Smith
    Yeah, I also have reservation as to his argument.

    But wow! Virtual choice sounds great! Especially about quitting smoking or other undesirable habits.
  • The meaning of life
    The thing is, I am not sure. — Tom Storm
    You can search for explanation of objective reality. Then decide for yourself if your understanding leans towards the subjective. I just gave you what is an objective reality is. For example, if you think that snow is white and blood is red, then there's your objective reality. Facts come in statements. So, think about that. "Snow is white" is a fact -- is it in the outside world? If you agree, then you agree there's meaning out there --that snow is white. And it is intelligible to us. We picked it out from the external world.

    But if you think that "snow is white" is not a fact, but our subjective interpretation of the world, then you don't believe in the objective world.
  • The meaning of life
    Reality? Not sure what is in scope here. In general, it seems to me that communities determine what is true through a collaborative exercise in creating agreement. You could say that truth is created not found. Examples of such truths might include - 'democracy as the best government'; 'the value of education'; 'god/s care about humans', 'the imperative of progress'... — Tom Storm
    Okay then, that means you don't subscribe to objective reality. Which is fine. I was merely saying that you clearly express it.
  • The meaning of life
    I am not certain what the term objective reality refers to. — Tom Storm
    Let's agree that objective reality is one that has facts and truths. So, facts, as we know, are actual/correct statements about the world.
  • The meaning of life
    I disagree that the 'outside world' is intelligible to us, but we may do better with our inside world - our thoughts. — Tom Storm
    Good. We're getting somewhere.

    So, would you agree if I conclude from it that you don't believe in objective reality?
  • The meaning of life
    We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. — Carlikoff
    This is the objective reality implication we often neglect when claiming we believe in objective reality. The corollary to claiming we believe in objective reality is, that the meaning lies in that reality, not in us, and we just found it out there. Because it is intelligible to us, it must be that the outside world has some form of meaning already prepared for us to discover.

    Do you agree with this? Because this is what we're really saying when we say there is meaning in that external reality. We discovered the meaning, we didn't create it.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    That's it! There is no scientific evidence of what goes on inside of matter. Science can describe the outside but not the inside. — EugeneW
    Science/Medicine has limits, it's fair to say. Dreams could run as long as an hour. If one could make a film of the dream while the subject is sleeping, then that's the proof of dreams. And we can't do that.

    It might seem odd to ask but how do we know perception exists? — Carlikoff
    Good to bring this up. As with any definition of perception, which you've already handled well, how do we know perception exists? Because to argue against it, or to even doubt it, is perception itself. In other words, we can't talk our way out of our own mind and say it doesn't exist. That's the logical double bind for ya. Cartesian.
  • Free Will
    Note that Schulkin does not say determined (or no free will). Instead, he argues that there are constraints.
  • Free Will
    That we can test every choice, simulate their effects for analysis, even the ones you don't like, must mean something, oui? If we come with preinstalled preference packages (no free will), your choice will be determined by them, obviously, but the point is virtual choices seem not to be affected by one's preference package. — Agent Smith

    According to Jay Schulkin, in his Possibilities and Constraints,
    To be is to be a mind. To be a mind is to be a decision-maker.

    Another passage from his essay:
    The world matters in the formation of such minds. Nature has limited, or constrained, the kinds of ideas that we can generate. Here one looks to the ecological conditions that minds adapt to for guidance. Nature has also insured that we can hit on the right ideas very often. Ideas are then not arbitrary. They are adaptive; they guide behavior. If the ideas are bad, they are rejected. The constraints on our hypotheses are tied to our creative potential....
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Your kindness is appreciated. — lll
    :smile:
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Probably because whether you dream or not has very little impact on yours and other's lives. — Philosophim
    This mirrors @lll explanation as to why belief in god is special and unlike dreams and pains and all other things we claim without requiring proof. And again, I ask, why is the experience of god -- sensation of the holy ghost, or whatever it is one experiences with god --as a private sensation like dream or pain, something to be proven? Our dear lll said because belief in god had led to war, deaths and whatnot. Then, I say are we not misplacing the problem here?

    Because such a belief has a fundamental way of altering that person, and other people's lives. — Philosophim
    And you repeated it here.

    When you have divine guidance, there is no possibility of thinking, amending, or improving. If "Gays are evil" for example, you can't have a rational discussion with that person, as they feel like they are divinely correct, thus your mortal arguments are against God, ignorant, and sinful. This stunts people's growth and makes them emotional animals. Satisfying for the person, but can potentially be terrible for themselves and society. — Philosophim
    I never said that belief in god frees one from responsibility. Hate against a group because god told you so is a responsibility that one has to answer to. The same way a person would act on a dream of end of the world -- this person has to answer to some authority if he acted badly.

    The illegality of one's action is not excused because he is allowed a belief in god. And if I may say so, what would you gain by asking a person, who acted badly based on belief in god, to produce proof of his god. Does that lessen his irrational behavior if he could somehow produce proof of god?

    Of course no one walks around with the kind of equipment needed to spot floaters :wink: - and - this does not affect your larger point. — EricH

    :up:
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    Ok, sorry about the crossed wires, I don't think our positions are changed by your update. — universeness
    :ok:
  • Freedom Revisited
    ↪Agent Smith
    Yes, deliberating the future is freedom in thinking as you're supposing things that haven't happened yet. No one can accuse you of making a decision that's already determined. Of course, they're gonna try to say, all future things are already determined. Then ask them, then predict something bad that's gonna happen in the future and let's avoid it. Or, try to predict some nuclear war in the far future, and let's change the course of our action. The future is not determined. We have the freedom to think how to shape the future.

    Non-action, as Schopenhauer indicated, is also a decision.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪EugeneW
    But I'm asking you, what's the logic of your asking if I'm awake? There are things we could ask and doubt, but you asking me if I'm awake is not one of those. Why ask me at all if you're doubting my state of awakeness? You sound like the atheists who continue to request for proof, after making a claim that god does not exist.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    With all due respect, you need to read a response more carefully.

    If every human alive stated that god exists then I would not be calling it a fable, because I would believe it too. — universeness     — universeness
    No. The below is what I quoted from your post. If I didn't see that, then that's not what I responded to originally. Please see below. I'm paralleling your post below.
    You were saying something about dreams.


    If each human you meet, confirms to you (if you ask them) that in their opinion, humans dream, then that is proof enough.

    — universeness

    So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god?     — L'éléphant
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    And why should one proof dreams? — EugeneW
    I did not even imply that in any of my posts. Back at ya -- why should I prove to you that I'm awake?
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    You might say you are awake but what if I say that I don't believe you? — EugeneW
    That's the thing -- I don't need to prove to you I'm awake.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    So atheism is logical as long as God is fictional ? Isn't that exactly what atheists say? — Hanover
    Incorrect. Atheists say god does not exist. Which is different than saying god is fictional. I just said that about bigfoot and company.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Do you have proof you are awake? You mean that you can never proof pain? — EugeneW
    I don't need to prove to myself I'm awake. But the question is, do you want me to prove to you I'm awake right now? So, my rebuttal is, why? What is your reason for asking? If I told you I had a dream last night and you responded by saying you don't believe me, the conversation stops right there.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    The existence of the universe is proof of gods. — EugeneW
    You know you can make a case about that. If physicists can make a case about the big bang by pointing to things present in our universe, you could also do the same with god. They call those things evidence that the big bang happened -- but mind you, those evidence could also be present without the big bang happening. It's not if and only if those things exists, that big bang happened.
  • Freedom Revisited
    ↪Constance

    I don't think you're agreeing with Schopenhauer. The freedom is in thinking, according to him. Our actions then becomes caused by our thinking. So, what conclusion could you form about this? The necessity is in our action, but freedom is in our thinking. Determinism is misplaced here. The ocean example is to point to you that one could think about an action, but chooses not to act on it.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    By the same token, can you proof to me that you are awake and not dreaming? — EugeneW
    Why would you ask that? Is that even intellectually honest? That's the thing -- this is not about JTB. This is about requiring someone to produce proof of his or her belief in god. What utter nonsense!
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    If each human you meet, confirms to you (if you ask them) that in their opinion, humans dream, then that is proof enough. — universeness
    So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god?
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    What about the denial of Bigfoot, ghosts, or aliens? Can one logically deny those? — Hanover
    Hah! Good one. I guess the statement "There are no bigfoot, ghosts, and aliens" could logically trip you off. But in fiction, we could be at liberty to talk about them. So, the proper way to deflect this type of inquiry is, bigfoot, ghosts, and aliens exist in fiction.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪L'éléphant
    Just a minor point of correction here. Floaters are real.     — EricH
    They are real. I think my OP implied that. We do accept them as true. What we can't really show the floaters to others. Only accounts of people who've experienced them.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    5. That my wife is right. — Benkei
    haha! Good one! That does not require proof!

    How is this not proof? If I stated, "When I sleep, I have experiences", then if I others say, "Oh yeah, I have that too", that's proof/evidence. If not one but one person in the world had experiences when they slept, then I think you would be right. Even then, brains have been scanned during sleep, and a lot of activity is found in there.To be fair to your argument, perhaps what you meant was more along the lines of "What we specifically dreamed of". — Philosophim
    That's what I'm saying -- my justification for the truth of my dream is your own experience, and vice versa. Are you not seeing the issue with this? There is no group of anti-dreams who calls us out on our bullshit dreams. No one.

    Why can't belief in god work the same way? Many people claim they have experienced the divinity or holy ghost. But we do not readily accept their account.
    Further, we have medication that eases pain. If we didn't have evidence or proof of pain, then pain medication would be no better than a placebo.

    Perhaps again, we don't have proof of your personal experience of what pain feels like. But that doesn't negate the proof that pain exists in people, and has very real physical impact on the brain and body.     — Philosophim
    This is not a proof. Doctors could only infer from our reports of pain -- but there's no thing that is called pain. It's not like a tumor, where there is concrete evidence of it. Medications work on pain, through trials and studies of subjects who report which pain medication eases their pain the best. Evidence is what you're thinking of. Trial and error is not proof. And so on.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Well, I guess an idealist would argue that everything we see, we take for granted as real when it is actually a product of mind. Does that count?

    When we see people walking down the road, we take it for granted that they are real. What if only 50% of them are real and the rest spectres?

    For me the question sometimes might be: what is it we have reason to doubt? Not so much what is it we don't have proof for.     — Tom Storm
    Good points!

    Dreams, pain, and fear are especial because they are never out there for others to witness. When I'm dreaming, you can't see or know what I'm dreaming. Simple as that.
    People walking down the road is external to us. Multiple people could witness those people -- they're not just in my mind or your mind. This kind of scrutiny is the JTB, which is not the issue here. The issue that I've been trying to point out is that I really do accept your dream as true when you tell it to me, even though I or others could not witness your dream.

    Now doubt -- we don't even doubt someone recounting his dream. That's the issue here. We don't doubt fear or pain when other things are present which we associate with fear and pain, even though those other things could also be associated with things that are not fear or pain.

    If you hear people talking in their sleep you have proof of the dreaming. Likewise for animals. You might even put me under a brain-scanning machine. Then you could see if I dream when asleep. What proof do you need more? Are you a solipsist? — EugeneW
    That's not proof.
    No, I'm not a solipsist.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    What I wanted to say but didn't now becomes relevant. A person has a religious experience and tells himself he had a one-to-one with God. The religious experience itself can't be denied, it is true and there's no need for proof.

    We have to prove that some things need no proof. The reality of a sensation/experience doesn't need an argument, it needs no justification. How do we do that? Looks like the JTB theory of knowledge needs an overhaul. I have no idea how to do that.     — Agent Smith
    So then why is it often required of belief in god that a proof be produced, when we do have other claims, equally important, such pain and fear, which we don't need a proof? Is it because a belief in god is something taught to us? While pain and fear and dreams just come to us naturally since we're babies? What is it about belief in god, even sensation of holy ghost that is so out of this world that it requires proof?

    I like this -- we have to prove that some things need no proof. It seems that's the unwritten rule about dreams, pain, and fear. We just took it upon ourselves that what "I" experience is the same as what you or others experience when we talk about these things. So, my justification for the validity of your claim that you had a dream, is my own experience of dreams.

    Since when did philosophers allow that justification? Okay W said it should be good enough, no proof is needed. But in truth, we accept it because we experience it as well, not that they experienced it. Are you seeing the issue with this?

    That depends on how a particular society treats religion. — lll
    So I think this is the gist of the issue -- belief in god is tied with religion. It is necessary that religion is involved. That's why atheists want proof. Because belief in god can never be treated like how we treat self-evident pain, fear, and dreams.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    1. What if god is a sensation, like pain is? God's relationship with suffering is well-documented (heaven/hell) (vide religious experience)

    2. Is "I am in pain" = "God exists"? The former is private but the latter is not. My pain vs. Our God. Both are propositions in their own right.     — Agent Smith
    Excellent point.

    Belief in god could be both viewed as private or public (later about this) -- private like pain, as you said. In which case, nothing else is required except for the self-reported sensation of divination or other holy experience. But if we consider it as a public knowledge, such as what @lll touched on -- since belief in god had led to some grave consequences such as persecution, then should it be held at a higher standard than other private sensation such as dreams and pains? Should we require proof of god?

    And here the issue of belief in god becomes muddled when organized religions are involved. And to me, this is when the practice of religion is more at issue here than belief in god.

    Nonetheless, I gave an example of the big bang, which is comparable to the existence of god in magnitude? Or not. But I guess I'm trying to find a comparison big enough to make it balanced.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Are you changing your tune or is it that I misunderstood you? That was quick. — Agent Smith
    I haven't changed my tune since I've written the OP. I can explain again. I said that there are things that we accept without requiring proof. I gave an example of pain. Then you quoted W for same idea that our experience is enough to claim its truth. I said okay, I agree with him. And we should really give the benefit of the doubt to the pain reporter, barring some wayward silly individuals who fake pain to get high on drugs.

    And the ending of my intro is that, we do accept certain things without proof. But belief in god seems to have not benefited from this leniency.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    And if we want to expand our search for accepted truths without proof -- how about the big bang theory? Here they really don't have a proof, per se. But what they claim is, it is testable, mainly by the presence of 3 things, among them CMB, cosmic microwave background, which they call evidence.

    So what's the difference between a proof and presence of evidence? A proof is the actual explosion that we witnessed or captured through some device. That's the proof. That's never gonna happen. Evidence is the background support for the plausibility of the big bang happening, evidence such as expansion of the universe, presence of CMB, and abundance of elements.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪lll
    Going back to the issue you touched on earlier -- life and death situation as against other topics that others might simply dismissed as philosophical inquiry. So, you think since the god topic is an all important life situation that we must require proof, whereas, other things in life could pass as not requiring proof.

    And as I countered, in philosophically sound argument, we do not put importance on life and death situation. So I guess my question to you is, should we? Should we put hierarchy on issues when we're doing philosophy?

    ↪Agent Smith
    Please see above. I am agreeing with W as far as being content with our self-reporting habit of pain -- no proof required except our own account of it.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    These are important, but what about intermediate theories which remain blurry and plausible? — lll
    Okay we can also include those. But, again, my point is, we don't require proof for certain things we claim to be true or we accept from accounts of other people.

    Wittgenstein said (paraphrasing) "When you're in pain, you know you're in pain; uou don't justify/require proof that you are in pain." — Agent Smith
    Yes. And I don't disagree with W.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    ↪lll
    Okay, I misspoke when I said "philosophical proof". That needs explaining. What I meant was, proof that we accept as epistemologicaly sound-- so it could be empirical proof (which includes scientific proof) or logical proof. Heck, even induction is acceptable as philosophical argument.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    Our culture doesn't make much of dreams, so we don't care enough to challenge them. The God issue is connected to bloody wars and issues like abortion and assisted suicide. As one might expect, claims that 'God told me X' are held to far more scrutiny. — lll
    Fortunately, in a philosophical argument, we don't distinguish between life and death situation when requiring proof to back up our claims. I mean, just search for Descartes's cogito and see how much time and space was devoted to it just so we talk about existence and the self. In epistemology, we don't put hierarchy on topics.

    If I try to sell a cancer-curing concoction without making a case for its effectiveness, I might get a visit from the government. — lll
    And now we are venturing into the legality of it, which again fortunately for the purpose of this topic, is not a requirement. I just really meant philosophical proof.
  • Freedom Revisited
    ↪lll
    :up:

    Naturalism is grounded in the apodicticity of the principle of causality. — Constance
    Okay, you got one thing right -- causality. But did you read what Schopenhauer wrote (I posted a passage in this thread). See where the necessity lies -- not in the thinking.

    As to the definition of the naturalism as a philosophical view, please read up on the definition. I think you're missing the main point of naturalism. Yes, it is nature - but I want you to think in terms of philosophical argument.
  • Things That We Accept Without Proof
    The grammar of sensation and pain is a bit special. In general, we do not question or doubt such statements. One 'cannot be wrong' about 'appearance' or 'what things seem like.' This grammatical habit is too readily taken as some great logical principle or discovery. — lll
    I agree. And that is also true of the other 4 points I outlined. We give them the benefit of the doubt.

    We should note exceptions though. How many doctors have doubted claims of 'back pain' from claimants who clearly want opiates? — lll
    Yes, this happens but under a different circumstance that what I'm trying to say in the introduction. Of course there would be liars.

    If you tell me that you dreamed vividly of 'round squares' but refused to draw one for me, I might doubt you. — lll
    Might. But in general, we do not have strict requirements for reports of dreams.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    No supernatural ability has ever stood up to scientific scrutiny, so I conclude that its just a product of human fear. Born from all the scary reptilian screeches we heard when we hid in caves at night because we were unable to fight in the dark! No natural night vision ability. You would think a benevolent god would have at least given us night vision when we lived in the caves, if it had then perhaps we would not have needed to develop the ability to sleep for 8 hours a day. — universeness
    You missed the point of my argument about the existence of dreams. And you totally did not get the dreams/dreaming exist. There's no doubt about it, people dream. My point of saying that while dreams exist, and people really do dream, we cannot show proof that we're dreaming. Yes, maybe a brain scan of a person dreaming might show some active parts of the brain through imaging, but the imaging wouldn't show the "dream" itself, only that the person's part of the brain is at the moment active.
Home » L'éléphant