|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 11/12/2010 : 01:04:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
To begin with, you can only be insulted if you accept insult. Insult cannot be imposed on anyone unless they are receptive to it. |
So you're saying it's impossible to insult someone behind their back? 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 16:03:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I appreciate the the lightning-fast response to my last post. My ego is certainly large enough to not need further feeding, but it is pleasant to be be able to garner instant attention and response. |
Time must just whiz by for you, if nine hours is "lightning-fast" and/or "instant."| Due to your uncommon interest in my writing, I did not want you to be disappointed if it took me a day or two to pick up on this recreation. |
If you don't want to disappoint me, you could just stop posting entirely.| That'd be like no psychiatry of which I'm aware. |
I regret your lack of knowledge of much of classical psychoanalysis and a great deal of current behavioural psychotherapy. |
Ah, when I think "therapy," I think pschycology, not psychiatry.| Once you inform yourself, we could discuss it - as theory, not fact. |
Well, those last four words explain a lot. What, in your mind, is the difference between a theory and a fact?| I have understood you to maintain that there are no opinions, only statements of fact. |
Then you've understood poorly. What've you've said there is like saying "there are no apples, only fruit." The difference between opinions and facts is nothing more than how strongly they are asserted to be true.| I am stating that I took what you understand to be fact statements at 100% face value and responded accordingly. |
Except that you continually ignore the context.bngbuck stated
Johnson took your dogmatic position on this never-resolved controversy. He kicked the stone, it hurt his toe, and he declared that was reality. |
Dave
But that's nothing like my position. |
Well.....
| In reference to Berkeley's philosophy, Dr. Samuel Johnson kicked a heavy stone and exclaimed, "I refute it thus!" |
Johnson's view of reality was diametrically opposed to Berleley's - which was the classic position that perception is reality. Johnson believed that reality makes perception possible, as you have explained many times that you do also. Why do you say that Johnson's view is not the same as your's?| So now you agree that Johnson's position isn't mine at all. You're terribly confused, aren't you? |
No, I do not see that Johnson's position differs from yours and I am not confused at all, but you appear to be. Your precise quote was:| Johnson's stone-kicking is utterly unconvincing. |
This would appear to me that you disagreed with Johnson. His stone kicking was intended to refute the position that perception is reality. Therefore, the stone -kicking was an act supporting the philosophical position that reality makes perception possible - Johnson's position and yours. Yet then you state that Johnson's act was "unconvincing", obviously not understanding that it was a validation of your own viewpoint.
I am not confused - Johnson's viewpoint was the same as yours, and he was famous for it. You decried Johnson's demonstration of the falsity of Idealism, as if you supported Subjective Idealism. You have clearly stated that you do not. So why decry his condemnation of it? It appears to be self-contradictory. Perhaps you can explain the apparent self-contradiction? |
It's easy to explain: I don't agree with Berkeley's solipsism, and Johnson's "refutation" of it was unconvincing. You seem to think that I need to accept one or the other, but I reject both.| I maintained that you are "preaching to the choir" with a statement that Johnson's confirmation of your philosophy is unconvincing. |
But Johnson couldn't possibly confirm my philosophy simply by kicking a rock. That's why it's unconvincing.Your original statement was:| If this desk is really here (knock, knock), then I perceive it because it's really here. |
Removing the irrelevant {knock, knock} - gives...
If this desk is really here, then I perceive it because it is really here.
Symbolizing, this translates into a complex implicative function:
X = this desk.
Y = a desk that is really here.
A = A desk that is perceived.
{(X=Y).(X=A)} => (Y=A) or:
If this desk is a desk that is really here, and this desk is a desk that is perceived, then a desk that is really here is a desk that is perceived.
This statement appears to demonstrate that a desk that is perceived is a desk that is really here, but it says nothing about a desk that is not perceived. And the "reality" of that which is not perceived is what we are examining here.
The flaw here, of course, is that you assume the condition of the predicate in your statement of the conclusion. {If this desk is reality} is not the same statement as {this desk is reality} |
I assumed no such thing, because I was talking about what drives perception, and not reality. Once again, you're ignoring the context. I wasn't arguing for the existence of the desk, I was arguing about the directionality of perception (and certainly not "that which is not perceived").| You really don't get it because I am not personally attacking you by merely questioning your peculiar arguments. |
But you haven't been "merely questioning" my arguments, you've been building strawmen of my arguments and then ridiculing me for how easily they collapse.| The "need" I feel is precisely the same need that you feel - to return derogation when derogative comment is received, but there is an easy answer to ending that - simply stop initiating derogation, or as you call it, insult. |
So it's okay for you to insult me without provocation, and it's my job to stop the whole cycle by not insulting you any longer?| In any event, for God's sake stop whining about it. |
You could get me to stop whining about being insulted by not insulting me.| Crap is crap. We all crap now and then. Certainly I do, and occasionally you and others have caught me in the act right here on SFN. With the abundance of insult that you have dished out and continue to dish out on these forums, your sensitivity to receiving some yourself is astounding. When you frequently insult others, you are going to get insulted back. Live with it, or get out of the Forum editing business, or at least stop shoveling shit into the fan blowing in your face. |
You'll have to point out what "crap" you're talking about. The stuff you don't understand?| You'll have to explain how, when different people with different perceptions would necessarily come to equally valid but different scientific conclusions and both be right. |
There are many answers to that oft-asked question in the ranks of Idealism and Empiricism's advocates. One that comes to mind immediately is the concept of multiple realities - an idea not too far removed from the concept of multiple, co-existing universes in contemporary astrophysics. |
That doesn't address the problem at all. Multiple people perceiving multiple realities still can't do science.| Another possible scenario is that different people would not necessarily have different perceptions. What Law of God corollary to the possibility that Perception is Reality states that different people necessarily must have different perceptions of the same reality? |
How could it be "the same reality" when perception is causing reality?| There are so many more responses that have been developed by, and since, Locke, Hume, and Berkeley to your supposed blockbuster question that I couldn't possibly recite them here. If you are truly interested, I suggest Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature and/or Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge , or at least brush up on reviews of these classical philosophical positions. |
If I wanted to argue your position for you, I wouldn't have commented.| No, this odd statement of the equivilance of reality and perception - If this desk is really here, then I perceive it because it's really here. |
How could it possibly be a statement of the equivalence of reality and perception when I have no idea at all of whether the desk is really here or not?| Good for you! In Chess, it's best that both players understand what the game is that they are playing! |
This is chess? Or does the capital-C mean something of which I am unaware?| Not at all. You consistently do state opinions as though they were empirically testable fact. |
Name one.| I was merely reminding you of your indefensible position that all opinion is statement of fact. |
All opinions are assertions of fact. You have yet to present any convincing argument otherwise, so I'll have to consider it not only defensible, but successfully defended.| Yes, I've heard that several times. Now if you and I just knew what was meant by the word "drives" in this context, we might be able to understand what you are trying to say. |
Since you don't seem to give a damn about context, this is pretty funny. But let me ask you a question: what do you think causes perceptions?| In my philosophy, particle physics are a consequence of some underlying reality, and not a cause of it. |
Well now, that's the most important thing that I have heard in this whole discussion. Some underlying reality Will this "reality" likely remain forever undiscovered - like God, perhaps? - Or is it probably to be forever unknown - like God perhaps? |
The underlying reality is unknowable, like what's "outside" the universe. Don't know why you think that God might be an apt comparison.| And in your philosophy, would you say that you believed in the existence of this "underlying reality"? |
Of course not. Whatever it is (if it exists), it's actually irrelevant.Dave
Scientific inquiry rests firmly on the axiom that there is an objective reality. |
bngbuck
What is the evidence for that statement? --evidence given in the context of whatever you mean by objective reality? |
Dave
Why shouldn't the evidence be presented in the proper context: that of the philosophy of science? Why do you feel free to rip things out of context in order to try to insult me? |
Well, alright, what is the evidence, in the context of the philosophy of science, for that statement? |
How could science function otherwise? People don't all perceive the same things the same ways, so it would be impossible for any system of knowledge to progress asymtotically towards tentative subjective "truths."| As regards your recurring paranoia focused on insult, I've addressed that earlier in this response. I would prefer to stay on topic here right now |
You're a laugh riot.| Yes, this entire exercise is a game of sorts, and we are both children engaging in play. Only I appear to be aware of that, however - I certainly am no longer concerned with whether or not or how often you "insult" me, and what your reasons might be. I have become completely accustomed to your inherent style of response and I am now quite comfortable with it. |
You're also obviously not concerned with how much you insult me.| As to why do I ask for evidence, I thought that was one of the cardinal requirements for this "Skeptic" posturing. |
Yeah, if you just try to parrot what others do, instead of actually learning the skills, you will fail.| God knows you, as de facto leader and adjudicator of these forums, ask for it enough. |
It's important enough, in discussions in which it's relevant.| Why do you also ask for evidence when no evidence is possible? |
You'll have to offer an example of me doing so.| Like myself, it is a form of showboating. Don't we all perform for those watching? |
No.| Philosophical statements have logical and rational consequences, and we can test them against philosophical priorities to find if they are compatible. |
That is a wonderful collection of words. If you could explain what they mean, I would appreciate the effort. |
How about an example: what reason could a solipsist or a nihilist have for getting out of bed in the morning? Anyone who calls him/herself one of those labels but who actively engages in any pursuit is acting in contradiction to their philosophy.| There is a great deal we could agree on, Dave, if it just wasn't for that damn box office! |
Your assumption is greatly mistaken. I'd take just as great offense to your posts here were you to send them in emails, for the same reasons as I find them offensive here.| I was under the impression that that's precisely what I was doing, and that you're simply ignoring what I say, insulting me and asking me for things you think are "skeptical nonsense." |
Your impression was incomplete as it did not include your tap-dancing and card tricks. |
No clue as to what you're talking about. I've been nothing but straight-forward with you.| However, I will give you great credit and genuine thanks for your commentary on the "underlying reality" concept in which you have confessed a belief. |
A belief in a concept? That's a bizarre concept in itself.| To me, that was a very illuminating statement and cleared up many of the questions that I have had for some time about your epistemological realism. |
Your statements in this post suggest otherwise.| Are you stating that Epistemological Realism as a philosophical position; a subcategory of objectivism, holding that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind, opposing the position of epistemological idealism - is a rarely held philosophical position? You either need to read more, or I am not understanding your ontological position. |
Bingo! Of course it's important to note that epistemology and ontology aren't the same thing. Perhaps that's why you're confused?| Or do you mean to imply that those bewildered billions who believe that Reality exists outside of the mind of man and only in the mind of God qualify as ontological realists? |
How are they relevant to my position?| Do you agree with Berkeley? |
Nope.| In your view, was he a realist? |
No, he's used as a textbook example of an idealist.| I sincerely promise not to mock, insult, or even comment if you will explain this apparent massive contradiction to me. When you state that your ontological position on Reality is pretty rare, I just don't understand! |
You don't understand because you're not paying attention to what I've been saying. Instead, you've been attributing to me positions I've never held in order to mock me, and then you insulted me some more when I tried to correct you.| So your opinion is that there isn't enough of what you say doesn't now exist to form an opinion? That's just brilliant in its self-denial. |
Brilliant or dull, I can't quite get your meaning from the bolded part in the quote. Could you re-phrase? |
Probably not.| Well, you'll have to find someone who "professes to know the answer to this conundrum" to berate, then, because I never said nor implied that I did. Correcting you about what I think is vastly different from thinking that I "know the answer," isn't it? |
No, it is not. |
Wow!| When you make a simple declarative statement like, for one example, "Reality drives perception" - you are stating that that is truth, you know the answer. If you were to say,"One possibility is that reality drives perception", or "my opinion is that reality drives perception", you would not be arrogating that what you said was the one and only answer to the question. Instead, you almost always make flat declarative pronouncements about controversial subjects - strongly implying that your's is the answer and no other should even be considered. |
Even more wow! Given how I make no attempt to hide how highly I value skepticism, you really think that I need to preface every statement I make with a disclaimer outlining how all my knowledge is necessarily held only tentatively?| This is a great deal of what you and I differ about. |
I suppose so! To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, I am willing to assume that any declaratory statements you make aren't attempts to deliver the Truth-with-a-capital-T, but instead only the truth as you understand it and which may be modifiable through suitable argument or evidenciary processes, and you're not. To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, that's quite a big difference.| I am aware that I have from time to time been guilty of the same transgression - making opinion appear to be fact. I do make a constant effort to minimize that impression. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, how one actually behaves is more important than the impression one might make.| If one knows, and can substantiate what he is talking about with external reference, that one is referencing fact; fine. Say so. Otherwise, it is just opinion, and usually not even informed opinion. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, the above depends on context.| Well, that just makes me lose even more respect for you and Stephen Hawking. I don't hold science in such high esteem that I think it is even remotely possible for it to investigate its own axioms. |
Fine, I understand that is your opinion. It is not mine. |
I'd like to know why you think science can investigate its own axioms.| Before disrepecting Hawking however, I would suggest you read his latest book The Grand Design. Hawking is held in extremely high favor by far greater intellects than yours or mine. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, if he's suggesting that science can be used to escape solipsism, then he's held in far too high a favor.| This current book is far more readable than A Brief History of Time, which is pretty tough going. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, A Brief History of Time was lightweight and breezy.| Why don't you opine as to how that would be possible? Oh, that's right: you don't have enough evidence to even form an opinion on the subject. |
Correct. Nor do you or anyone else, including Hawking. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, you're contradicting yourself here. To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, it is hypocritical to assert that it's impossible to have an opinion on the nature of reality and at the same time assert that science will someday tell us what that nature is. To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, if you can't possibly opine on the nature of reality, then you can't possibly opine on whether or not it is amendable to scientific investigation in the first place.| So you've dug yourself an inescapable ontological pit from which science can't even save you, because the mere act of gathering evidence depends upon certain philosophies of knowledge, which you've decided are "speculative guesses" due to a lack of evidence. |
Well, I and perhaps others here, would be fascinated to hear how your invention of an "underlying reality" solves your dilemma of digging into that mountain of speculation to find reality and discovering that you only are actually further distancing yourself from the truth. At someplace, do you invent God to help you out? No? What do you do? |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, you do what I do: realize that Truth-with-a-capital-T is unobtainable, that the "true" nature of reality is an insolvable philosophical problem that science can never touch (since doing so would require access to a meta-reality against which to check science's answers), but since some methods of inquiry appear to "work" (in the sense that they produce results which can be built upon in a growing mountain of knowledge and technology), you may as well act as if what we see is all that is, especially since other ontologies don't seem to provide any motivation to do anything - in other words, the "underlying reality" is in a black box we can never crack open and examine directly, and so it's actually irrelevant: all that matters is the inputs and outputs, which is all that science can measure, anyway.| Not having enough evidence in no way states that such evidence cannot be found. |
How can you find evidence if you can't opine on the nature of the evidence?| And speculative guesses are all that most scientists have prior to the initial search for evidence and formulation of hypotheses. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, the above is false: scientists begin with observations and rational tools like Occam's Razor, and use them to great effect, since having a history failed experiments doesn't look good on a grant application.| The particle physicists as well as astrophysicists are well on the way to such evidence according to Hawking. I hope that is true. |
And I hope you're reading him wrong, like you've been reading me wrong.| Asking me, as a layman, to guess at what such evidence will be is just as stupid... |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, I'm not asking you to guess, I'm asking you to justify your faith.| ...as me asking you to explain your "underlying reality". Which I just did, but since it can't be done, asking for it is useless. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, I was doing what you claim is impossible. Neat-O!| All of this nonsense has only one redeeming value in my opinion. It dramatically illustrates the folly of the "show me the evidence/all right but first you show me the evidence for your statements" - WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, only opinion. End of comment. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, your biggest problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that opinions are built on evidence, just not as good evidence as scientific conclusions.| The accuracy of my opinions? That's really funny, considering this little dust-up began with me trying to correct your assessment of my philosophical opinions. And then because I explained that my ontology is concerned with usefulness and results because accuracy is impossible, your last comment, above, is simply another absurd strawman. |
Really funny, eh? What's funny is your frequent use of the word opinion in this thread, and several others recently. Try substituting statement of fact every time you have written the word opinion in just your replies to me in this post and see how much sense your rhetoric makes. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, it makes perfect sense to me, since I don't have the hang-up that you do about opinions being something other than assertions of fact. To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, opinions come from processing a combination of knowledge, reason and evidence, just not as tightly controlled a process as science is.| Those particular opinions were completely non-verifiable, and I stated so when I gave them. |
If those statements were completely non-verifiable, then why did you hold them as opinions in the first place? What process got you from not having an opinion to having an opinion, and how did it proceed with absolutely no relation to any evidence at all? Did those opinions just pop into your head, de novo?| And you keep carrying on about me lying! |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, I didn't lie about this.| Philosophical assertions of fact are not hypocritical, they are oxymoronic. I thought you understood the differentiation of Science as a methodical discipline as opposed to Philosophy as a quest for truth through logical reasoning rather than factual observation. Apparently not. Pity. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, words have different meanings in different contexts, and you regularly ignore that fact in favor of semantic ridicule. Or do you really think that in human anatomy, "orbit" means the same thing as it does in astronomy?| Unfortunately for you you can't justify such opinions by labeling them "fact". |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, I never even tried to do so.| You used my name, twice, in a comment that was only tangentially related to what you appeared to want to discuss in the OP |
Gee, I didn't know it was copyrighted. |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, you're purposefully ignoring the context here again in order to mock me.| You don't respond, you implode into ego fractionation. Get a grip! |
To the best of my knowledge, which is only provisionally held and subject to change in the event of the arrival of new evidence or argument through rational inquiry, you are projecting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2010 : 14:47:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
How do you justify your ontological opinions? |
Congratulations to finally understanding what Dave's been trying to tell you for two pages why having to cope with your insults. I admire his patience.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2010 : 16:12:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Even more wow! Given how I make no attempt to hide how highly I value skepticism, you really think that I need to preface every statement I make with a disclaimer outlining how all my knowledge is necessarily held only tentatively? |
Being the pompous ass* BngBuck is, projecting seems to come naturally to him. I don't think he truly understands the skeptical mindset; the number of conflicts and insults in, and generated by, his postings over the years he's been here is evidence of this, my tentatively held conclusion.
To stay on topic: If my perception creates or dictates reality, then BngBuck truly is a pompous ass. How does anyone defend such a position? I'd love to know.
We know that there are colour blind people: the entire world isn't devoid of shades of red or green just because one colour blind man only have receptors for blue light and light-intensity. If someone sneaks up behind my back with a baseball bat, he doesn't exists until the bat hits my head?
However, if there exist an Objective Reality which drives my perception, several questions arise which needs answering. One is: how accurate is my perception of reality?
If we regard a tree, a simple microscope proves that un-aided, our eyes and touch do not reveal all there is to reveal about the Objective Nature of the tree; Our perception of the tree is filtered by the inaccuracy of our senses. The scientific process is a process to discover as much of the Objective Nature as possible, in spite of these inaccuracies.
Will science ever discover the entire Nature of the tree and Everything? BngBuck thinks so, if I interpret him correctly. He also seems to think that Steven Hawking agrees with him, but I suspect that he has misunderstood Hawking on this point, based on the amount of hubris required for such a statement and my belief that Hawking isn't that full of himself.
Our perception of reality depends on our entire cognitive apparatus, which involves not only our limited senses, but also our limited capability to process what we perceive. There is the possibility that my perception of BngBuck being a pompous ass is entirely or partially wrong. It may also be that the cognitive function of BngBuck precludes him from realising any personality faults of his own. (Discounting the possibility of him behaving on purpose)
The scientific method offer an applicable solution to our dilemma: by collecting repeated observations from independent observers, in order to eliminate personal bias, we can draw a tentative conclusion more likely to be correct than my or BngBuck's single observation.
*the hypocrisy of asking Dave to not be insulting, while simultaneously hurling insults round, like in the last post on the previous page. Just one example. Instead of actually asking for clarification, spent two pages of assuming how others reason and justify their opinions.
(edited to correct spelling) |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/13/2010 16:14:15 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The God-Science shouting match
