Quote :

"I would argue with you that Socrates' philosophy was not worthless, rather destructive and poisonous."

You're caught in a meaningless particular. The point is, you've got a lot of philosophers who said shit that is commonly accepted as being very important but which isn't falsifiable, and you've also got a hell of a burden of proof to tell us that they were worthless/poisonous/whatever.

Quote :

"If you see and hear something that is not demonstrably there, is it more likely that you saw God than had a hallucination?"

That's a trickier question than you're giving it credit for. For one, we've got billions and billions of people throughout history who have been hallucinating the same things in detail.

4/4/2006 2:33:25 PM

My arguments against Socrates are way outside of the scope of this thread.

Some things that philosophers say are important because they deal with our internal states.

One thing that does not need verification is knowledge of our own internal states. The information conveyed in these states might be faulty, but the states themselves are without question -- they're foundational.

Quote :

"For one, we've got billions and billions of people throughout history who have been hallucinating the same things in detail."

Lots of people have thought all sorts of incorrect things. Besides, you'll have to explain how different people have differing and contradicting visions (this is how we have different religions), and the heuristics you use to select the "correct" one.

4/4/2006 2:41:33 PM

For the record I am an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in God -- but I do think I could be proven wrong about it. I just think it's unlikely and don't worry about it much further.

McDanger: Following your reasoning I agree that I cannot prove or disprove existence of God, and earlier I showed that you couldn't do either with mathematics because it is a human invention. I want to go a step further, though, and say that I cannot prove or disprove existence of jack shit, because all I see are my ideas, and those are my inventions. In some sense I need to have faith in my senses in order to be sure of anything. And, since I agree that faith is fundamentally unreliable ("world's biggest con"), I think my senses are fundamentally unreliable.

At the very least I am convinced that my senses are not accurate to reality. Here's an example:
http://plig.org/things/optical/tn/rotsnake.med.gif <-- It doesn't actually animate.

I think this is different from the argument you've been having with Grumpy. For example, I can amass evidence toward the existence/nonexistence of my left hand, but not toward the existence/nonexistence of God, is your standpoint (right?). Others around here would say that you can stack evidence toward both of those things. I would argue that you can stack evidence toward neither.

Wut u think homeboy


[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 4:05 PM. Reason : wrong fkn word]

4/4/2006 4:00:08 PM

Quote :

"I want to go a step further, though, and say that I cannot prove or disprove existence of jack shit, because all I see are my ideas, and those are my inventions. In some sense I need to have faith in my senses in order to be sure of anything. And, since I agree that faith is fundamentally unreliable ("world's biggest con"), I think my senses are fundamentally unreliable."

I don't agree, because whether this world is a big illusion or not, the illusion at least has testable rules.

Any number of things are possible, including that our senses are fooling us into believing a big illusion. However, even if this is the case, we have to deal with the nature and rules of the "illusion" as it is.

Ideas aren't necessarily inventions. The term invention suggests some sort of intentional creation. What we get from our perceptions are approximations. They happen due to the manner in which our senses work. Our senses try to give us as accurate and relevant a portrayal of reality as possible, seeing as how their primary purpose is survival.

4/4/2006 4:04:56 PM

Quote :

"Oh, so you've read it?"

Oh, hell no. I have hundreds of better things to do. But I have read his ethics, which is filled with a bunch of "imperatives" and "laws" he can't justify. It shouldn't take a genius to see the guy's concepts of value and reason are way off base.

4/4/2006 4:11:07 PM

Quote :

"It also doesn't rule out the reality of the experience. Perhaps the DMT merely attunes the brain, as Strassman suggests in The Spirit Molecule, to the realm/dimension/whatever where a person can directly perceive and interact with God/the gods/aliens/goblins. Highly speculative and unlikely, of course, but in the spirit of agnosticism: a totally distinct possibility."

Yeah I can't rule that out, but I will say that I feel it is less likely than the events just being hallucinations. I do own a copy of "DMT: The spirit molecule" btw.

Quote :

"That's a trickier question than you're giving it credit for. For one, we've got billions and billions of people throughout history who have been hallucinating the same things in detail."

That would make sense if a lot of this was caused by dmt and or experimentation with extremely close relatives of dmt. Some south american cultures used to make a psychedelic brew involving Psychotria viridis (Contains DMT) and a MAOI (allows it to be active orally) called ayahuasca. This brew was used in rituals in which these people likely communicated with spirits and all kinds of shit. Psilocibin mushrooms contain psilocybin (4-HO-DMT), which is pretty similar to DMT. Many cultures have a history of experimenting with those. The fact that it has happened to many people does not make it more likely that this is "real."

I do agree that we cannot rule out (not yet at least) the possibility that we are able to perceive other dimensions or something like that while in certain states of mind.

GrumpyGOP, if you truly believe that what is happening to these people is real, then I don't see why you think that what happens when someone is tripping on a psychedelic is 100% hallucination and pointless.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/4/2006 4:11:09 PM

Quote :

"Oh, hell no. I have hundreds of better things to do."

Better things to do like offer your opinion on works you have not read?

4/4/2006 4:14:13 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree, because whether this world is a big illusion or not, the illusion at least has testable rules."

I think those rules are not testable because you cannot believe any methods of sensory data gathering. The test itself is unreliable.

Quote :

"Any number of things are possible, including that our senses are fooling us into believing a big illusion. However, even if this is the case, we have to deal with the nature and rules of the "illusion" as it is."

Word. And so we do deal, just like when we dream.

Quote :

"Ideas aren't necessarily inventions. The term invention suggests some sort of intentional creation. What we get from our perceptions are approximations. They happen due to the manner in which our senses work. Our senses try to give us as accurate and relevant a portrayal of reality as possible, seeing as how their primary purpose is survival."

So, 'approximation' is a better word. 'Invention' lends itself to straight-up-illusion. An approximation, however, is still not correct.

4/4/2006 4:21:44 PM

Quote :

"An approximation, however, is still not correct."

It's still a representation of reality formed through deterministic processes.

I agree with you -- ideas are not reality. But that doesn't mean we don't have a thread in reality, or that we cannot show anything about reality. Naturally, nothing is "provable" but answers which can be reasonably corroborated do exist.

Our perception of reality is what we have.

Quote :

"I think those rules are not testable because you cannot believe any methods of sensory data gathering. The test itself is unreliable."

You should define unreliable. It's not spot-on, but neither is reality itself. That doesn't suggest we cannot formulate theories about what happens and how, and test them.

Your argument is moreso against scientific thought than anything else.

Edit: In order to really argue against scientific thought you're going to have to show us why it has no practical value, and how it does not yield significant explanatory power.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2006 4:31:55 PM

I think whatever I come up with is just going to look too reflexive atm. Maybe later. Back to work..

4/4/2006 4:45:28 PM

Quote :

"Better things to do like offer your opinion on works you have not read?"

I don't have to read Kant's every book to know he's out of touch with reality, just like I don't have to read all of salisburyboy's posts to know he's anti-jew.

But if someone wants to offer an impressive, convincing argument of his about ethics or metaphysics, I'll gladly give them an official certificate of apology.

4/4/2006 4:53:35 PM

Quote :

"One thing that does not need verification is knowledge of our own internal states."

Uh-huh. So now everything has to be falsifiable, except for these things, because they're special.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP, if you truly believe that what is happening to these people is real, then I don't see why you think that what happens when someone is tripping on a psychedelic is 100% hallucination and pointless."

That's good, because I don't think that what is happening to people who claim to see gods or whatever only under the influence of hallucinagens is real.

4/4/2006 5:26:46 PM

I don't see why you don't believe that a chemical is behind seeing god/aliens. The most likely explanation for this type of thing is the spontaneous release of dmt IMO.

What does it matter how it gets to your brain? It's going to pretty much do the same thing once it gets there. You discount people seeing god on lsd, dmt, 4-HO-DMT, etc, but then when someone sees god "sober" (BS) it's completely believeable? Just because you didn't intentionally consume a psychedelic doesn't mean DMT can't be spontaneously released. If you believe this shit is real, why aren't these chemicals just helping you perceive other realities/dimensions?

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 5:34 PM. Reason : I shouldn't have bothered, I keep forgetting that you don't even know what psychedelics do.]

4/4/2006 5:30:12 PM

"Atheists cited as America's most distrusted minority"

The fact that people often dislike minorities doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on the minority. The thread could have stopped there, although the search for god on the internet is proving to be interesting.

More ppl should add to the poll, & ppl interested in discussing God(s) might be interested in check out the thread

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=390004&page=9

4/4/2006 5:30:35 PM

Quote :

"Uh-huh. So now everything has to be falsifiable, except for these things, because they're special."

Yes. They're tautological, thus special. Your knowledge of your own current internal state is true by definition.

4/4/2006 5:40:52 PM

i think therefore i am.

4/4/2006 7:59:23 PM

Quote :

"Well it doesn't.[\quote] yes it does . See I can argue that way to. Dictionary.com says: [quote]phi·los·o·phy Audio pronunciation of "philosophy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f) n. pl. phi·los·o·phies 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. 3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. 4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. 5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. 6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. 7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. 8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life."

see, mine is at the top that makes it correct. I love that it has 8 defintions for philosophy, ah that is philosophy isn't it.

Quote :

"empirical -- based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

but isn't thinking just a biological process? Isn't thought itself an experiment conducted by your brain? It's just electrical impulses mediated by that piece of meat in your head, right? To believe otherwise wouldn't be falsifiable would it?

Quote :

"Read more. Take a class from Professor Austin or Professor Carroll. Stop talking out of your ass. Statements like this make you look painfully ignorant, probably because you are. Don't make judgements on fields you don't know. Pick up a book. I can even suggest a few titles if you'd like to learn something"

I love how this is nothing but insult diguised as advice, not even bothering to try to address the substance of my previous observations about philosophy. Anyway, Dr. Austin's class is not so profound. I found his arguments that involved physics woefully simplistic. I tried to help him out by suggesting he phrase some things slightly different. But, he basically would poo-poo anything we said. Honest reasoning is not nearly as important to him as maintaining the illusion that he knows what he is talking about in that course. If just once I had heard words to the effect of "oh, that's interesting I guess we need to rethink this a bit" I would have immensely more respect for that man.
I guess I could take the course again, but I suspect my opinion of philosophy would lessen more.

Quote :

"Stop making yourself look so stupid, it's embarassing for both of us. Please go pick up a few books and read them."

did you even understand what I said?

Quote :

"No, you really ARE "that guy". You will stop being that guy when you educate yourself before you attempt to form a cogent argument."

yawn.

Quote :

"Seeing as how philosophy doesn't search with empirical methods, but rather logic, I'm not sure what your point is. Plenty of things in philosophy are falsified through empirical findings."

my point is that your methods are sadly lacking and have been proven to be such by math and/or physics in several instances.

Quote :

"How can you be "math"man and be so logically deficient? Do I really need to go into this quote to display the errors? They leap off the screen at me, and hopefully upon a second examination they will for you as well."

so I suppose you didn't understand that point either.

Quote :

"Pascal's Wager. So, which God should I believe in, out of the infinite variations of god one could think up? I have no better reason to believe in one god over another, seeing as how we cannot verify the existence of any god."

Let me help you out here. What you think does not determine who God is. More than just this the God I believe in is special, scripture and history not to mention the work I've seen Him do in the lives surrounding me, and the testimonies I've heard first hand. If that's not "verification" for you then I'm sorry. But, honestly what would it take to verify Him for you? You've already decided that it is impossible, so perhaps my question is moot.

Quote :

"What is rationality except a survival mechanism -- to associate a cause with an effect? Outside of the human brain, logic and reason have no meaning. They do not exist. They are human constructions to express the outside world."

this is certainly not a belief that is symbiotic with evolution. I would say a sceptic would do better to say that the human mind is the place we are the most certain that logic and reason reside. To say that reason does not possibly extend beyond our feeble minds would be a non-falsifiable statement and as such you have no buisness making it

4/4/2006 8:17:46 PM

Quote :

"It isn't. But alas, we're limited in our understanding to our brains and sensory organs. What cannot be expressed in brain matter cannot be grasped by a human being."

I actually think there may be logic more general then the one we have acess to with our minds. A logic which we cannot really comprehend since we are stuck in time for now. Perhaps it is that generalized logic is accessible to us at times, but in some almost subconscious way. Perhaps that logic guides intuition, allows us to create new thoughts, see the answer without working. I don't have such experiences that often but when I do it's really neat. Of course another line of reasoning would be to chalk up those kind of intuitive leaps to experience, but I'm not convinced that is
sufficient to explain the creative element of thought.

sorry for the digression, but not to sorry.

Quote :

"Examples of the lowest rungs of human intelligence should not dampen your expectations for man's full potential. This is religious thinking at its best."

Ah, but if you knew me then you know my expectations are higher than most. I merely think that man is more capable of reaching his potential when he realizes his postion in the world. Humility to admit there are (meaningful) questions which we cannot answer (definitively) is just one aspect of that position.

Quote :

"orly? Care to show me?"

I hesitate to debate a point with a person who has essentially by fiat defined the point to be moot, but here it goes. God's existence is at least suggested by the existence of other things. Why should there be anything? Why should there be laws of physics, or a universe at all? You can say some garbage about it being a "quantum fluctuation" of some primordial foam but that just begs the question why is there a primordial foam, and why is there quantum mechanics anyway. I find the existence of God a satisfactory explaination for the existence of other things. You are free to differ and I'm sure you will.

There is also the argument for morality, or conscious. Why do we care about people we have no chance of ever interacting with? Why is there good and bad, happy and sad,... sorry. I realize you might find the arguments from the perspective of "social contracts" and such convincing, I however do not. To me God seems the most logical foundation for moral thought.

There are of course other reasons, I'll address some of those later in this post. Others have already worked on this point since my last point as well, and there is a wealth of argument on this point.

Quote :

"You cannot even give me a method by which I could demonstrate God's existence or nonexistence. How can you begin to make claims about his cognitive functions?"

Well, there is this thing called scripture where God inspired men to write His thoughts on certain things. Obviously, I would use scripture to try to understand the thoughts of God. Not everone takes your view that logic alone is how to reason. I have this crazy idea that if you want to know how God thinks maybe you should read what he had to say.

Quote :

"Don't presume to know what I demand. I'm in charge of my own thoughts, assuming I'm fully alert and sober. I make no claims about being God. My only claim is that we cannot know about the existence of a god. Didn't you even attempt to read my arguments before responding? You can do better than this."

Like I said, you demand to be in charge. You demand to be a God onto yourself. What you think is right in your own eyes. Perhaps I should say instead that logic is your God. That might be more fair.

Quote :

"So what you're saying is, there's a story that's been passed down through dubious, heavily biased sources for the last two MILLENIA. In this story, this god of yours fulfills prophecies written in another equally dubious, heavily biased source passed down through presumably even more millenia. Then, you claim there's archeological evidence (where?) that corroborates these stories -- the only catch is that no reputable scientists buy it."

If the sources were biased then they didn't do a very good job of changing the scriptures. We do have scriptures from vastly different centuries that never the less agree. That goes to show that whatever bias the keepers of the scripture might have had it had neglible effects on the books themselves. Otherwise it'd be more like the book of Mormon where you need to make sure you have the current edition. There is plenty of archeological evidence, if you are willing to look for it.

Quote :

"You then ask ME to buy this. The course of human history was changed however, but not by Jesus -- by your cult that follows his memory. There is no rational reason for me to believe that your holy book is true, even if it was the only book of its nature. What makes it superior to the Koran, or to Jewish teachings without the Christian part? What makes it different than the teachings of Hinduism? "Just because" is not good enough. You cannot prove or verify anything written in the Bible except perhaps commonly agreed-on historical events (which have already been proven and verified through archeological evidence)."

The existence and preservation of the book is one good reason to believe there is something special about it. The fact that wherever archeology can check the record of scripture it does is another rational reason to believe that the Bible is true. As opposed to say the book of Mormon which says there were large cities in North America, we have no archeological evidence of those. Historically, archeology has been used as a reason to doubt scripture, but in many cases it has been shown that it was archeology that was lacking not scripture.

More than just this the action of the disciples, the self-sacrifice to the point of death to spread the gospel is most aptly understood if it was in fact the case that Jesus was the Son of God and did do the many miracles that scripture records. It is easy to understand the explosion of Christianity if Jesus was God and did in fact rise from the dead. Otherwise you've got to concoct some rather mad conspiracy theories to explain the actions of his followers.

Quote :

"So yes, God. Who is that? You still haven't given me a good answer (helpful hint: there isn't one)."

he bangs his head against the post...

Quote :

"It'll take more than lots of hoping and wishing. Do you think I get my jollies by not believing in an almighty creator who will love me no matter WHAT and cherish me in ETERNAL heaven? If I found subatomic matter with Jesus' traces on it, it would corroborate what we all know: Jesus existed. He was a man. Until you can prove otherwise, it's only reasonable to believe the obvious."

I doubt you find much comfort in your god. But, it is human nature to want to be in control. I can only pray that you will find it in your heart to relinquish that control some day. To me this is one of the most profound mysteries of all, why do so many reject the free gift of salvation? I suppose a partial answer is that it is not entirely free. When you ask for salvation you give up the right to be the boss, and that is what so many are unwilling to do.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you just need to hear a better argument for God's existence.

But, if you reject my last hypothetical then I'm really at a loss to convince you, if even that wouldn't do it.

4/4/2006 8:19:42 PM

Quote :

"I actually think there may be logic more general then the one we have acess to with our minds. A logic which we cannot really comprehend since we are stuck in time for now. Perhaps it is that generalized logic is accessible to us at times, but in some almost subconscious way. Perhaps that logic guides intuition, allows us to create new thoughts, see the answer without working. I don't have such experiences that often but when I do it's really neat. Of course another line of reasoning would be to chalk up those kind of intuitive leaps to experience, but I'm not convinced that is sufficient to explain the creative element of thought. "

Logic is a function of the human brain. Are you claiming that a system of logic exists outside of the human brain? What purpose would it serve? How does it exist? Do you have any justification or is this pure speculation? Any line of reasoning?

What about the creative element of thought suggests it's impossible in the physical centers of the brain?

Quote :

"I merely think that man is more capable of reaching his potential when he realizes his postion in the world. Humility to admit there are (meaningful) questions which we cannot answer (definitively) is just one aspect of that position."

Questions which are not falsifiable aren't just definitely unanswerable, they're also partially unanswerable. Anything resembling evidence or an answer makes no sense. It really, honestly means that the question makes no sense.

Quote :

"Why should there be anything? Why should there be laws of physics, or a universe at all?"

Why not? The Universe does not need a reason. Only man needs reasons. The need to identify causes for everything is a survival mechanism.

Quote :

"To me God seems the most logical foundation for moral thought."

Irrelevant. Just because you have invented a new form of thinking does not mean that the only person/object/thing that could justify its existence now exists too.

Quote :

"Well, there is this thing called scripture where God inspired men to write His thoughts on certain things. Obviously, I would use scripture to try to understand the thoughts of God. Not everone takes your view that logic alone is how to reason. I have this crazy idea that if you want to know how God thinks maybe you should read what he had to say."

I have this crazy idea that you should provide some justification that these texts were, in fact, dictated by God and are what he wants to say. You have provided no justification for how we can know a God exists. If you can justify to me HOW we can know, then you can proceed to justify how we DO know. Then, you can justify to me that these texts are, in fact, actual texts and have survived as long as they have in an uncorrupted form.

Good luck!

Quote :

"Like I said, you demand to be in charge. You demand to be a God onto yourself. What you think is right in your own eyes. Perhaps I should say instead that logic is your God. That might be more fair."

Incorrect. Logic is one of my many brain functions, and one of my many modes of thought. It just happens to be a good bullshit barometer too.

Quote :

"If the sources were biased then they didn't do a very good job of changing the scriptures. We do have scriptures from vastly different centuries that never the less agree. That goes to show that whatever bias the keepers of the scripture might have had it had neglible effects on the books themselves."

Even if these texts are 100% legit, the translations very so widely depending on who takes historical context into account, and depending on the agenda of the translating party. Claiming the Bible has any actual authority is a precarious position at best.

Quote :

"More than just this the action of the disciples, the self-sacrifice to the point of death to spread the gospel is most aptly understood if it was in fact the case that Jesus was the Son of God and did do the many miracles that scripture records. It is easy to understand the explosion of Christianity if Jesus was God and did in fact rise from the dead. Otherwise you've got to concoct some rather mad conspiracy theories to explain the actions of his followers."

Heaven's Gate people killed themselves. Cults are historically known for bat-shit crazy behavior. Christianity is no different. If Constantine hadn't adopted it as the official religion of Rome, it probably would have died out.

Quote :

"he bangs his head against the post..."

Surely not against yours -- it's too soft to serve as a kinetic outlet for my frustration with your willful ignorance.

Quote :

"I doubt you find much comfort in your god."

Nature can neither be right nor wrong. The mature come to realize this, and they appreciate its processes.

Quote :

"why do so many reject the free gift of salvation?"

Why do some many people reject the Cheddar Cheese Pact of Namblar XI, created a million years ago by undetectable dinosaur aliens?

4/4/2006 8:35:30 PM

Everyone knows the FSM is the supreme being.


[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 9:08 PM. Reason : s]

4/4/2006 9:07:47 PM

im way too tired to read all of that.

i took phi 340. biggest pile of bullshit i have seen in my time at state. i have taken classes where i have not learned anything, but i think its the only class that i thought was a complete waste of time for everyone involved.

mcdanger, your posts make me think you "learned" something from that class. if thats true i feel sorry for you.

4/4/2006 11:07:15 PM

I took 340 and 440, and this kind of philosophy is a big time hobby for me.

You're going to have to justify your viewpoint further instead of just insulting it.

4/4/2006 11:12:15 PM

Quote :

"Logic is a function of the human brain. Are you claiming that a system of logic exists outside of the human brain? What purpose would it serve? How does it exist? Do you have any justification or is this pure speculation? Any line of reasoning?"

No. Logic is a function of some human brains. But...Math and Logic go hand in hand. And a mathamatical proof is true anywhere, the human brain meerly recognizes and understands logic, it did not create it.

4/4/2006 11:13:47 PM

because its not philosophy.

you can't say "Your knowledge of your own current internal state is true by definition." after speaking so highly of the religious experiences of others.

look im sorry but anyone who says that socrates' philosphy was destructive and pointless ranks below dirt in my book. not just because of personal preference, but because everything you think really is just a footnote to him.

4/4/2006 11:19:29 PM

Quote :

"human brain meerly recognizes and understands logic, it did not create it."

Logic is a construction and refinement of a priori knowledge. What else does the mind understand and perceive that is wholly a priori?

Quote :

"because its not philosophy. "

Philosophy - Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

You're wrong.

Quote :

"you can't say "Your knowledge of your own current internal state is true by definition.""

Yes I can. How can you be mistaken of your own current internal state? Your current internal state is congruent to your perception of it.

Quote :

"look im sorry but anyone who says that socrates' philosphy was destructive and pointless ranks below dirt in my book. not just because of personal preference, but because everything you think really is just a footnote to him."

Until you know my line of reasoning, you really have no reason to rank me below dirt, and little credibility. Not because of personal preference? Then because of what, then? Can you even name Socrates' philosophies?

Whatever I say would be a footnote to him, duh. He's one of the most prominent philosophers ever. I'm just a layman.

4/4/2006 11:45:08 PM

Quote :

"Logic is a construction and refinement of a priori knowledge."

If you are saying Logic is derived from a priori knowledge. Then No. A priori knowledge is derived using Logic, not the other way around.

Quote :

"What else does the mind understand and perceive that is wholly a priori?"

Math. 1 + 1 = 2. Do you honestly want to debate math exists solely in the mind. Math and Logic are properties of this, it, universe, existance, whatever word you want to call 'the everything and beyond if any'. Simply because I may not exist, or you ceese to be, the concept of addition of the concept 1 and another concept 1, to equal the concept of 2, will continue to exist, even if no one is around to think it.

Humans use Logic and math to derive what we know as 'a prior knowledge', or knowledge from truth. truth is derived using the logical opperators true, and false. We use these opperators to compare observed data to make logical connections which we then compare to more data....and eventually we end up with a book of bullshit we call philosophy that we teach to people who don't care.

Edit..
Hmm.. observed data was not the word i was looking for...umm lets just go with ideas instead.

[Edited on April 5, 2006 at 12:06 AM. Reason : k]

4/5/2006 12:02:09 AM

Quote :

"If you are saying Logic is derived from a priori knowledge. Then No. A priori knowledge is derived using Logic, not the other way around."

Yeah you're right, a priori knowledge is derived from deduction. I need to use a better term than a priori -- how about... sans perception? Modus ponens is basically derived from our instincts and a need to predict events based on past knowledge. We try to search for causes to effects because knowing these used to be much more of a pressing issue in life vs. death.

Quote :

"Do you honestly want to debate math exists solely in the mind."

Yes, I do. Math is an idea. It's an expression of reality. It's handy, and it works out -- but it ISN'T reality. It's an expression thereof. Our entire existence is our brain.

Quote :

"Math and Logic are properties of this, it, universe, existance, whatever word you want to call 'the everything and beyond if any'."

No, math and logic are EXPRESSIONS of this, it, universe, existence, whatever word you want to call 'the everything and beyond if any'.

Quote :

"Simply because I may not exist, or you ceese to be, the concept of addition of the concept 1 and another concept 1, to equal the concept of 2, will continue to exist, even if no one is around to think it."

Things will combine, but the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 will not exist.

4/5/2006 12:19:02 AM

If a universe is born and 1 and 1 add, and no one is around to think it, does it equal 2?

4/5/2006 12:26:30 AM

Quote :

"If a universe is born and 1 and 1 add, and no one is around to think it, does it equal 2?"

This doesn't make sense to me. 1 and 1 do not add. Abstract numbers don't exist without people to think about them. Have you ever bumped into a 3?

4/5/2006 12:31:26 AM

Yes.

4/5/2006 12:32:57 AM

lol.

You disarmed me with the comedic option.

4/5/2006 12:33:56 AM

7 8 9, WHAT!

4/5/2006 12:38:49 AM

1, +, =, 2 all point to abstract representations and we use these symbols to represent them. So if I do not exist and none of humanity ever has, sure, the symbols will not exist, but their function is still true.

4/5/2006 12:38:51 AM

Quote :

"1, +, =, 2 all point to abstract representations and we use these symbols to represent them. So if I do not exist and none of humanity ever has, sure, the symbols will not exist, but their function is still true."

What you mean to say is that what the symbols express would still happen.

Yes, this is right. But it doesn't mean the symbols are absolute or are truth. They're our expressions of what goes on. Our expressions will never perfectly master reality.

4/5/2006 12:41:36 AM

Yes.

But, we simply don't have a clear picture of reality. Never will. But we at least hold a piece of it, logic and math. Which we represent using funny squiggles.

And that abstract piece of reality is true without us.

[Edited on April 5, 2006 at 12:43 AM. Reason : s]

4/5/2006 12:43:21 AM

Quote :

"But we at least hold a piece of it, logic and math."

What we hold are approximations, not truth.

The approximations are human constructions used to describe.

4/5/2006 12:44:22 AM

well, we will have to simply disagree on that part. You can not prove they are approximations nor can I prove they are exact representations.

4/5/2006 12:46:28 AM

Math can describe a perfect circle, though they do not occur in nature. Zoom in far enough and it stops being perfect.

Nothing perfectly follows a mathematical formula. Some people argue because they're gross approximations, and that if we had all of the math we could properly predict it. This is possible.

Math is perfect because it's an idea, but reality is far from perfect. We cannot perfectly describe our surroundings because we are created by the same stuff -- our brains are both the beginning of thought and the upper limit of thought. Every bit of information that you have at your grasp exists in some represented form in your brain. What you think you know is an approximation of reality, filtered through your senses, and then stored in a format that your brain can easily understand. It's a very compressed format, and a hell of a lot different from the reality it's derived from. However, this format is useful -- it HAS to be. We're animals, and thus we are built to interact with our environment in such a way as to survive.

4/5/2006 12:51:04 AM

They're clearly approximations. I can think I'm looking at solid objects around me all the time, but the objective truth of the matter is that in any given moment, somewhere between 90-95% of what I'm looking at is actually empty space.

4/5/2006 12:56:59 AM

But it's a damn good thing you see the objects you do, because they're helpful approximations.

4/5/2006 12:57:36 AM

No...see you are talking about the "Use of math is an approximation to describe reality" where as I, am saying math in an of its self exists period. With or without us. And is perfect in it's representation of things wholely math based. Not, math describes reality perfectly. I'm simply saying math is a self truth. Our use of it however is, yes in the case of describing reality, an approximation.

4/5/2006 1:00:04 AM

Good from a survival standpoint, sure. Otherwise we would've evolved into creatures capable of perceiving the individual atoms and empty space within them.

4/5/2006 1:01:11 AM

I think our argument is a semantic misunderstanding at this point

Math can be used to describe the workings of natural law, ie how the universe works "just because" (Carroll's definition. Not kidding).

Natural law exists and happens. We can see it every second we're alive, we're immersed in it. However, any attempt to predict or describe it is an effort of math -- which is an approximated form. It's a way for humans to explain it. Who knows, there might be a different way to do it that we cannot fathom at this point. We have very basic mental operators that are hard to break out of and beyond (because we simply don't have the necessary hardware). There is a "logical" operator of the brain. Causality is one of those sticky things that we're COMPELLED to believe, but that we cannot properly define.

4/5/2006 1:03:47 AM

Quote :

"Causality is one of those sticky things that we're COMPELLED to believe, but that we cannot properly define."

True.

Our compulsion to believe in it and operate by its principles doesn't speak for its existence in objective (beyond human sense) reality, however.

4/5/2006 1:09:27 AM

Things certainly appear causal, and seem to act that way -- but it's one of those funny things; nobody can define it properly.

4/5/2006 1:10:15 AM

I attribute it to the linear perception of time (itself an illusion) and post-hoc reasoning, myself.

4/5/2006 1:25:04 AM

All this shit is kind of a mind-fuck to talk about and consider. We too often take all of our perceptual experiences at face value. The other weird occurrence is when people are immersed in abstract mental constructions instead of perceptual experiences.

4/5/2006 1:44:05 AM

where in god's name did you get:

Quote :

"Philosophy - Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

let me break this down for you.
PHILOSOPHY
Philos- love; one of three greek words for love, this generally refers to the love one has for a friend
Sophia- wisdom.

philosophy is nothing more then the above. BUT, if you want to change the definition from what it really means to what you said then I will continue to stand by my argument that your bullshit is not philosophy. my perception of reality, the state of my existence, and its cause is different from your perception of these things. reality is one thing, therefore one of us is wrong. to say that this is not worthy of discussion, or that the above is not a philosophical question is idiotic.

As for the:

Quote :

"Can you even name Socrates' philosophies? "

I am quite certain that I have read more of Plato's dialogues than you have ever heard of, so if you want to start a pissing contest go right ahead.


One of the reasons I am not an atheist, or anything else really, is that I believe the exploration of our existence to be man's highest purpose. To say at the age of 20 that I know everything about how I came into being is absurd, and to reject the argument entirely by saying "you cant prove god exists" is even more absurd.

edit- I was saying that what you thought was a footnote to him exclusively. i was paraphrasing a famous quote (the author of which i cannot remember right now) who said that all western philosophy was a footnote to plato.

[Edited on April 5, 2006 at 8:11 PM. Reason : edit]

4/5/2006 8:08:20 PM

Quote :

"I am quite certain that I have read more of Plato's dialogues than you have ever heard of, so if you want to start a pissing contest go right ahead."

Can I get in on that?

4/5/2006 8:25:27 PM

Quote :

"where in god's name did you get: [the definition of philosophy]"

From the dictionary. It's the commonly accepted definition.

Quote :

" let me break this down for you. PHILOSOPHY Philos- love; one of three greek words for love, this generally refers to the love one has for a friend Sophia- wisdom."

Everybody knows what philosophy breaks down into and what language it comes from. This is helpful information to determine from where the word was derived and what its roots are. The common usage, however, is extended. You'll find the English meaning of philosophy in an English dictionary. There's even one on the internet -- why your ignorance persists perplexes me.

Quote :

"philosophy is nothing more then the above."

Quote :

"BUT, if you want to change the definition from what it really means to what you said then I will continue to stand by my argument that your bullshit is not philosophy."

Please look up the word and concede that you are incorrect. Your beef is with the English language, not me.

Quote :

"my perception of reality, the state of my existence, and its cause is different from your perception of these things."

Our perception is probably nearly identical. Our sensory organs probably don't differ by a whole hell of a lot in terms of accuracy and quality. If you're talking about how you filter these perceptions and compulsively apply biases, then yes, we are very different people.

Quote :

"to say that this is not worthy of discussion, or that the above is not a philosophical question is idiotic."

I didn't see you pose a question, perhaps you can reiterate your point more clearly so I can understand you. It is worthy of discussion, how we parse experiences and why. Metaphysics is also a viable branch of philosophy, I'm not discounting it.

Quote :

"I am quite certain that I have read more of Plato's dialogues than you have ever heard of, so if you want to start a pissing contest go right ahead."

Are you? I've read Plato's dialogues. We can get into a discussion of Socrates' philosophies in another thread at another time, because it's not relevant to this discussion. I am mildly curious why people defend Socrates to the death. The West has canonized him and forgot he was a man like you or me.

Quote :

"To say at the age of 20 that I know everything about how I came into being is absurd, and to reject the argument entirely by saying "you cant prove god exists" is even more absurd."

You cannot prove anything. You can supply corroborative evidence to support a theory. My argument is that this cannot be done for the question of God's existence, nor can it be disproved. The reason why is because the core of the question is little more than gibberish. Anything that is beyond possibly demonstration and verifiability bears no relevance to our existence, and certainly shouldn't be relevant to any of our systems of law or thought.

Quote :

"I was saying that what you thought was a footnote to him exclusively. i was paraphrasing a famous quote (the author of which i cannot remember right now) who said that all western philosophy was a footnote to plato."

That author didn't know what the hell he was talking about, frankly. Just because you have a boner over Socrates' philosophy doesn't mean other lines of thought aren't valid, or perhaps moreso. Check out Heidegger or Nietzsche. I'd hardly call them a footnote to Plato or Socrates. To claim that they hit the nail on the head so early in our history, and that nobody else has made noteworthy achievement since then is idolatry.

4/5/2006 8:28:14 PM