![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Can we know states of affairs in the world that exist independently of our imagination?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 14th, 2017, 11:50 pm wrote:Is reason in the hands of a fool may be more dangerous than mere belief in the hands of a fool?
Neri -Can we know states of affairs in the world that exist independently of our imagination?
you presume a dividing line and have no idea how you've come to have any perspective. There is no independent existence and to look for such is the exact same condition of looking for an "ontological proof of God"
Why can you not see this?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Neri » November 14th, 2017, 10:51 am wrote:To All,
We have wandered somewhat off the issue but can bring it in clearer focus by asking ourselves:
Can we know states of affairs in the world that exist independently of our imagination?
Neri » November 14th, 2017, 10:51 am wrote:I argue that we have the capacity to do so. Others disagree and maintain that it is impossible, because we are, as it were, locked within our own minds with no real access to the outside world. This leads them to conclude that imagined facts are on equal standing both with facts revealed by the senses and with facts logically derived from sense data. Actually, they deny there are such things as facts.
Neri » November 14th, 2017, 10:51 am wrote:This leads them to conclude that science—because it ultimately depends on sense data—is not superior to the imagination.
Neri » November 14th, 2017, 10:51 am wrote:On the other hand, while I concede that the senses may not be perfect, I say that they do reveal facts about the real world that are not concoctions of the mind. I base this on the following:
(1) Everyone, even those who profess otherwise, acts as though there are things outside of them that can do them harm. In other words, any sane person “believes his own eyes.”
(2) If the senses give us no real information about things outside of our minds, then the senses must be utterly useless. It hardly seems necessary to say that this cannot be the case.
(3) If one takes the position that there can be no absolute proof that we have access to external reality, it is also the case that there can be no absolute proof that we have no such access.
(3a) We are left instead with abductive proof—that which provides the simplest and most likely explanation under all the circumstances. Clearly, this heavily moves the matter in the favor of the proposition that the senses do yield real facts about the outside world. At the very least, it raises a presumption that places the burden of upon those who oppose the proposition to disprove it. This they cannot do.
That being the case, reasonable deductions based upon sense data are superior to the imagination. This is an argument in favor of empirical realism and accordingly argues in favor of science.
None of this means that sense information, reason or science is infallible. It means only that they are the best we can do and are are vastly superior to superstition (which results from the unfettered reliance upon the imagination.)
Indeed, every scientific theory, even those presently accepted as “laws of nature,” are susceptible to falsification by the discovery of new contradictory evidence (data provided by extensions of the senses through technology). Yet, so long as the evidence supports these theories, reason dictates that we are right to take them as true. Truth is not given to us as a perfection but always remains a work in progress.
Neri » November 14th, 2017, 10:51 am wrote:More than this, we are presently witnessing the influence of breeds of sciences not dependent upon the rigors of higher mathematics and the strict scientific method. Sadly, we see the unseemly union of science and politics.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Don't be silly! That is not something you can see. It is merely something YOU THINK.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 1:55 am wrote:Mitch -
Then you are equally blind to my point. You're bringing an assumption of existence to a subject matter that is purposefully questioning the very concern of "existence".
If you're merely deciding to frame ontology as a physical and material investigation then you're doing science not engaging with the ontological condition of said "physicality" and "materialism".
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 1:55 am wrote:Don't be silly! That is not something you can see. It is merely something YOU THINK.
Can you distinguish the difference between "seeing" and "thinking"?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 6:50 pm wrote:Idealism is just a kind of open skepticism. The position may hold more or less to this or that idea of "object" and "real", but essentially I don't see how we can look at it as anything but skeptical.
My analogy was simply meant to show the obviousness of limitation.
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 6:50 pm wrote:The sentence you stated was grammatically correct btw, yet you'd fail a grammar test if you dids writtens like that :D
Thanks the reminder. Better jot that down somewhere ... I forget the "tentacle-like movement" term that took me so long to remember as well :( ... I need to write these things down more!!
Anyway, tired ...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Yes! So can most of the rest of humanity -- those who haven't blinded themselves with some impractical ideology. It is why we have these two different words -- because this is a distinction people have always made and understood.
Skeptical? "Everything that exists depends upon the mind" seems like a rather affirmative and far-reaching claim to me. Extraordinary claims, as they say, require extraordinary evidence. Cognitive limitation seems like an odd way to show that cognition produces everything.
... ultimately we do understand some kind of ontological difference between horses and unicorns. St. Anselm (like Neri's differing formulation) is arguing that God is in the class of horses, not the class of unicorns, by virtue of His perfection.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 3:25 am wrote:And that is the major issue of ontology and epistemology. Far-reaching yes, but its affirmation is still vague because we've put it into words. If the "material" object of the table exists more than the idea of "table" then there is no table. It is ridiculous to bring a claim of "evidence" to an ontological argument because it doesn't measure up because it is not the means of measure under investigation.
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 3:25 am wrote:Theologically it is illogical to claim that god doesn't exist because its illogical. An ontological proof, from a theological position, does not rely on physical evidence or the view of the world as purely a physical substance.
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 3:25 am wrote:From a theological position I think that is a very shaky claim. Just because we categorise experience it does mean the underlying unity doesn't ground our meaning value.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Perhaps wittingly or perhaps unwittingly, you conflate metaphysics with epistemology here. There's no reason why ontology should be above or beneath the need for evidence - in fact I think evidentialism is the only means of settling ontological disputes. Opting for idealism doesn't render evidence irrelevant - whether or not the things which exist are created by the mind or begin with the matter, they are still the things which exist, and there is still a conceptual demarcation between what we observe and what we do not.
The ontological proof provided by Neri does in fact contain a premise which can be tested by empirical means - specifically, the neurological and psychological claim that we could not conceive of a perfect being if it did not exist (note, by the way, that this is supposed to be the conclusion of the argument, so Neri is right to identify a circularity). As phrased by St. Anselm it contains a premise which is more a matter of opinion - whether existence is a necessary constituent of perfection.
I don't see why theology should get special treatment. I'm not talking about categorising experience, I'm talking about distinguishing it from unexperienced fantasies. We do this for a reason - it's why we invent fire extinguishers and not centaur extinguishers.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 4:58 am wrote:You missed/avoided my point. I was looking at the different possible kinds of evidence. To make a judgment about a question we seem to need to be able to have a hierarchy of evidence.
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 4:58 am wrote:Are you telling me you can define something yet you cannot conceive of it? It looks like a simple denial of knowing what you're saying or you're simply saying nothing much at all. Or is it simply a case of extending something beyond its means? (referring to definition of "prefect".)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 9:25 pm wrote:Mitch -Yes! So can most of the rest of humanity -- those who haven't blinded themselves with some impractical ideology. It is why we have these two different words -- because this is a distinction people have always made and understood.
I see! ;)
Won't I don't see is how anyone can ask an unreasonable question about god and use it as refutation.
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 9:25 pm wrote:The very same refutation can be used because "existence" is not understood.
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 9:25 pm wrote:Take any examples you wish and say this exists where as this doesn't.
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 9:25 pm wrote: Then distinguish what it is that makes it exist.
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 9:25 pm wrote: you'll no doubt get caught up in the subject/object problem, an essential concern of ontology and epistemology I would say.
BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2017, 9:25 pm wrote:Do you see the light yet? Come join me in heaven, its more fun on this side :)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Ok......?
I exist. The solution to the following problem does not exist:
x+y =4
2x+2y =5
It is enough to reduce your skepticism to petty quibbling and pie in the sky babbling which is so out of touch with the realities of human existence that people have no reason to listen to such crap.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Lomax » November 16th, 2017, 12:15 pm wrote:I should addend that of course we can define something without conceiving of it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 7:59 am wrote:Lomax » November 16th, 2017, 12:15 pm wrote:I should addend that of course we can define something without conceiving of it.
Go nuts with this from the opposing yourself if you can. It would help me a great deal to see what you'd squeeze from it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » November 16th, 2017, 6:36 pm wrote:Well, way back up there, it seemed like there was agreement that "perfect" is a semantic artifact that really has little meaning when it floats free of very specific guidelines that are mainly social conventions. We can define all sorts of things as perfect and, if pressed on the matter, would have to admit we have no idea of perfection as something intrinsic to anything. A discussion of perfect cakes would be entirely a semantic dance with culinary conventions. Indeed, the word perfect really contains no meaning beyond "conforms to agreed upon conventions." So, St. Anselm's argument presumes prior agreement on that which it is arguing for, a perfect being. It's an argument that can only be generated in a very provincial and monistic culture.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 1:55 am wrote:Mitch -
It is here that I feel something of the theological (although I think the "logical" is quite peculiar to us mere sensible folk) swims around, and that it is likely here that meaning is nascent and imagination and fantasy are held at bay like demons by the light of our fire of propositional understandings - sorry, couldn't resist veering into a Jungian perspective there, which shows something of the spandrels of the architectonic understanding, the pragmatism being framed as merely structural not meaningful.
(I can also cut the flowery language out if it helps?)
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 1:55 am wrote:Ok......?
I exist. The solution to the following problem does not exist:
x+y =4
2x+2y =5
There are multiple solution depending on interpretation and application. We can of course create any number of set rules in which singular solutions are impossible. That is the solution though.
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 1:55 am wrote:Someone else may look at your problem and talk about how the different collection of lines and curves represent the possibility of a pattern (this would likely be the approach of anyone completely unfamiliar with number systems or written representations of any kind.
BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2017, 1:55 am wrote:note: I am trying to feed you bite sized pieces rather than smothering you with chaos pie.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests