|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2010 : 16:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
We all base our understandings on something which is beyond verification.>>
Yes, but only on unprovable abstracts we can't see or feel. Substantive things that function don't have to be understood. They're open for everyone to see. |
How could you have possibly become an engineer with the idea that nothing that functions needs to be understood? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 17:18:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
Yes, but "I exist" implies "reality exists". The underlying assumption is the same for both statements. |
But there's a big difference between a personal reality and an objective reality. Solipsism offers the existence of a reality, but not an objective one. "I exist" is true no matter what kind of reality exists.
|
Sure. But it still doesn't avoid the solipsism issue. As soon as you move to any object other than yourself, you are right back at the whole external reality thing with the same batch of problems.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 19:11:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Filthy.....
If you are going to "move the goal posts" (an expression that I completely detest because of it's constant misuse), from an invisible pink dragon (or whatever) to an invisible, pink, intangible, zero odor intensity, noiseless, tasteless dragon that you define as existing but completely incapable of being detected by any means; and then you state that I cannot prove that there is not one in your closet; I would then challenge you to demonstrate that your dragon was in any way different from "nothing" without committing Petitio Principii.
If you could not do that, I would simply open the door and demonstrate that there was nothing in your closet (except shoes and clothes, previously excepted) - thereby proving a negative.
Actually no one can prove or disprove that FSMs, colored Imaginary animals, or Nothing, properly defined, either exist(s) or do(es) not exist.
However it is perfectly possible to prove that the circle cannot be squared to anything more than an extremely fine approximation! The same is true of many mathematical proofs of impossibility.
Which raises an interesting question. True mathematical impossibilities exist because of axioms which are either self-evident or givens (definitions not subject to mathematical disproof.)
What is the true existential difference between mathematical impossibilities and the fact that you can't prove a negative (real world "impossibilities")?
"There are no married bachelors" proves a negative, but "bachelor" is defined as a not married male, so the statement becomes trivial.
A bit more complex is "God can not be both omnipotent and eternal because if he used his omnipotence to destroy himself he would no longer be eternal"
Is this a paradox or an example of disproving a negative?
|
I'd say a paradox because I'm not really sure of what you're asking of me.
As we are unlikely to ever see the inside of each other's closet, the invisible pink whatever is just a rhetorical gambit.
We look in the closet and see nothing: "There ain't nothin' in
there."
"'Course there is; it's just that it's invisible."
And so forth. The odds against there actually being something invisible in there are astronomical to the point of nonsense, but there still exists that minuscule chance. Going by the existing evidence, the various gods are pretty much in the same category.
As for squaring a circle, it seems to me that we are indulging in mathematics rather than philosophy. I do not see how the inability to square a circle has much to do with the initial question. But then, math has never been my strong suit.
Anyhow, I'll sleep on this and maybe come up with something better in the morning.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 19:52:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Sure. But it still doesn't avoid the solipsism issue. As soon as you move to any object other than yourself, you are right back at the whole external reality thing with the same batch of problems. |
If we're concerned with the utility of ideas (the second axiom I mentioned), then all forms of subjectivism or solipsism are about equally worthless. There's no practical difference between me being stuck inside my own head, and my organic senses being completely unreliable guages of reality. The only hypothesis from which I can build any further hypotheses is the one in which not only do I exist, but so does the vast majority of what I sense. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 23:48:17 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
Did not intend to ask for response, Rhetorical question. Commentary only.
We completely agree - "reality" is described in statistical terms of probability, "mathematics" in terms of absolutes. Different universes with different rules. Certainty (taken as an absolute) only exists in the mathematical universe, probability rules the ontological Realism of Dave's version of existentialism. I feel that it is highly probable that classical Realism is the proper view. I sense that is your view also. Whether this should extend to an embrace of Platonic realism, I have not yet decided, although I have been thinking about it for a long, long time.
Comment offered for consideration only, no response is expected.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 03:26:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by welshdean
Welsh - to be born with the privilge of knowing you are the best in the world. Especially in a rugby sense.
|
That's why I picked football and not rugby.
(What's the point of calling a game football if you barely ever kick it, but run around with the ball in your hands?) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 04:50:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| The only hypothesis from which I can build any further hypotheses is the one in which not only do I exist, but so does the vast majority of what I sense. |
We don't disagree.
It still doesn't get you out of making an assumption about the nature of reality though (internal vs external).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 04:55:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by welshdean
Welsh - to be born with the privilge of knowing you are the best in the world. Especially in a rugby sense.
|
That's why I picked football and not rugby.
(What's the point of calling a game football if you barely ever kick it, but run around with the ball in your hands?)
|
It's like evolution, Mab. The game evolved incrementally by many minor tweeks. At no one point its history was it overwhelmingly vital to call it anything other than football. It's as if humans were still called "fish." |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/10/2010 : 05:47:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Filthy.....
Did not intend to ask for response, Rhetorical question. Commentary only.
We completely agree - "reality" is described in statistical terms of probability, "mathematics" in terms of absolutes. Different universes with different rules. Certainty (taken as an absolute) only exists in the mathematical universe, probability rules the ontological Realism of Dave's version of existentialism. I feel that it is highly probable that classical Realism is the proper view. I sense that is your view also. Whether this should extend to an embrace of Platonic realism, I have not yet decided, although I have been thinking about it for a long, long time.
Comment offered for consideration only, no response is expected.
|
"Ah, now I see," quoth the blind man.
These are all interesting questions that are capable of inspiring the sorts of mental meltdown that sometimes produces genius. Or migraine.
Now, I must go and feed my alligator...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 06:50:56 [Permalink]
|
[hijack thread]
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by welshdean
Welsh - to be born with the privilge of knowing you are the best in the world. Especially in a rugby sense.
|
That's why I picked football and not rugby.
(What's the point of calling a game football if you barely ever kick it, but run around with the ball in your hands?)
|
It's like evolution, Mab. The game evolved incrementally by many minor tweeks. At no one point its history was it overwhelmingly vital to call it anything other than football. It's as if humans were still called "fish."
|
Hey HalfMooner,
Your not wrong there bud. Football/soccer/rugby all owe their origins to a Roman game called Harparstum http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/255728/harpastum. The soccer fans will tell you that their game evolved first, and William Webb Ellis one day decided to pick the ball up and run with it. Utter myth. Rugby first, soccer second, then that funny game those damned americans play, (what's with those pads???)
The mayans also played a crude and similar game, but they didn't bring it with them when they invaded ancient Britain.
[/hijack thread]
|
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 10:18:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by welshdean
[hijack thread]Hey HalfMooner,
Your not wrong there bud. Football/soccer/rugby all owe their origins to a Roman game called Harparstum http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/255728/harpastum. The soccer fans will tell you that their game evolved first, and William Webb Ellis one day decided to pick the ball up and run with it. Utter myth. Rugby first, soccer second, then that funny game those damned americans play, (what's with those pads???)
The mayans also played a crude and similar game, but they didn't bring it with them when they invaded ancient Britain.
[/hijack thread] |
Thank you for those details, welshdean. That's yet another fascinating fact I had not known. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 10:47:54 [Permalink]
|
Wikipedia has an article on harpastum. From the article and included preserved fragments written about harpastum, the game appears to be very much like Rugby -- except with a small ball, and a sort of reversed scoring system that relied on snatching the ball and getting it back behind your own team's lines. Passing and wrestling were not only allowed, but pretty much necessary.
As to the relative merits of the various "footballs," first, all these sports have highly skilled and athletic players. Tactics and strategy can be vital. Generally, one's perceptions of which is "best" depend upon one's culture and tastes, and whether one plays or watches. With one exception: In my opinion, soccer is the better game for children to play, as it seems less likely to damage growing joints. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/10/2010 11:10:33 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 10:47:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It seems to me that beginning with just two axioms (or presuppositions), "I exist" and "that which is useful is 'good'," we can logically escape from solipsism and create a valid basis for an objective reality, thus building empiricism, evidencialism and modern science, and even justify moral codes like the Golden Rule which tend to be considering immune from rational inquiry. |
Without having thought about it too much, it seems to me that this would make it easy to ignore to Golden rule. After all, if all I know is that I exist, why would I care about anyone else?
I realise that people "getting along" is good for a society, but for me as a single person, it is surely better to "cheat" whenever I can? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 13:42:01 [Permalink]
|
Hawks.....
The following is strictly my opinion. Not wishing to appear hypocritical, I fully understand that there may be different and possibly better ideas on this subject than these.
You said:
| I realise that people "getting along" is good for a society, but for me as a single person, it is surely better to "cheat" whenever I can? |
If your "cheating" as an individual is not recognized and penalized by society as a violation of formalized rules of behavior (laws) and if you do not share the common ethics or morality that decries "cheating" as "wrong", thereby troubling your conscience; then it may be better for you to cheat whenever you can.
Do unto others only as it may benefit you, otherwise to hell with anybody besides you. It works for lots of folks!
However, if your behavior (getting away with cheating) encourages others to cheat, eventually the ethical constraints of civilized society begin to crumble, and the bad consequences will eventually affect you personally.
Originally posted by Dave W.
It seems to me that beginning with just two axioms (or presuppositions), "I exist" and "that which is useful is 'good'," we can logically escape from solipsism and create a valid basis for an objective reality, thus building empiricism, evidencialism and modern science, and even justify moral codes like the Golden Rule which tend to be considering immune from rational inquiry. |
As there is no prerequisite for anyone to intellectually worry themselves into a solipsistic delusionary state, I doubt seriously that many folks are in need of "logically escaping from solipsism"
With the exception of those that suffer from masochism, adoption of the Golden Rule is probably a good thing for society and the individual. Neither the pathological syndrome nor a philosophical persuasion of solipsistic ontology is likely to affect either exercise of the golden rule or the advancement of science!
Much more troublesome than philosophical musings on the effect of inchoate concepts such as solipcism upon human behavior, are commonplace ethical failings such as simple greed and egocentrism as manifested in adults.
Greed is a concious rejection of the precepts of the Golden Rule and appears to be endemic in American politics and much of the corporate world as well as all too common in ordinary society. Egocentrism, exemplified by many right-wing apologists such as Limbaugh and O'Reilly, does not allow for consideration of any view or opinion other than that of the egocentrist. These two common human failings in politicians, influential media personalities, and leaders in business and industry appear to me to be a greater threat to the fabric of democracy in this country than solipcism.
Irrespective of the "true" nature of reality - which may never be known - if humans could simply do a better job of recognizing and responding to the needs of one another, the "reality" which each of us knows in an individual way, would be a far happier one!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 13:52:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by Dave W.
It seems to me that beginning with just two axioms (or presuppositions), "I exist" and "that which is useful is 'good'," we can logically escape from solipsism and create a valid basis for an objective reality, thus building empiricism, evidencialism and modern science, and even justify moral codes like the Golden Rule which tend to be considering immune from rational inquiry. |
Without having thought about it too much, it seems to me that this would make it easy to ignore to Golden rule. After all, if all I know is that I exist, why would I care about anyone else? |
Nononono. That's just one of the starting axioms. That other people exist who are pretty much just like you is a conclusion which logically follows after a bunch of steps, and when you discover that happy people are more productive (useful), the Golden Rule is a natural consequence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is 'Presuppositional' apologetics?
