Doubting your disbelief?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And where does Taffer speak of meaning? And if he does not speak of meaning, how does this apply? And what do the other thinkers say?

As Taffer says, he holds to materialism, one of several possible escape routes from solipsism (all of which are unfounded assumptions).

You're nitpicking wikipedia now?

I posted the dictionary definition.

1.character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. 2.a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

Materialism itself is not related to pragmatism, either in the common or philosophical sense; it is a statement about the nature of reality. The common sense of pragmatism is a statement of utility; the philosophical school makes a collection of statements about the nature of knowledge.

What exact claims are you making?

In order to hold materialism to be true, in order to hold ANYTHING you see as being true you must first assume that it exists. You assume it exists for practical purposes though it can't absolutely be proven. This is pragmatism.

 

[Taffer]

And where does Taffer speak of meaning? And if he does not speak of meaning, how does this apply? And what do the other thinkers say?

As Taffer says, he holds to materialism, one of several possible escape routes from solipsism (all of which are unfounded assumptions).

Materialism itself is not related to pragmatism, either in the common or philosophical sense; it is a statement about the nature of reality. The common sense of pragmatism is a statement of utility; the philosophical school makes a collection of statements about the nature of knowledge.

What exact claims are you making?

Exactly. Thank you, PixyMisa.

 

[Taffer]

In order to hold materialism to be true, in order to hold ANYTHING you see as being true you must first assume that it exists. You assume it exists for practical purposes though it can't absolutely be proven. This is pragmatism.

No. Part of Materialism is that the universe exists, roughly as it seems to. Pragmatism and Materialism are not in the same fields. Pragmatism is an epistemological philosophy. Materialism is not.

 

[PixyMisa]

You're nitpicking wikipedia now?

Well, someone has to.

I posted the dictionary definition.

Yes. Which one did you want?

In order to hold materialism to be true, in order to hold ANYTHING you see as being true you must first assume that it exists. You assume it exists for practical purposes though it can't absolutely be proven. This is pragmatism.

So you are not talking about the philosophical school of pragmatism at all, but the common definition of pragmatism? Then the link to Wikipedia was some sort of diversionary tactic? Or did you just not bother to read it?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. Part of Materialism is that the universe exists, roughly as it seems to. Pragmatism and Materialism are not in the same fields. Pragmatism is an epistemological philosophy. Materialism is not.

Why do you hold that the universe exists? What do you base this upon?

Well, someone has to.

Well go fix it if you see a problem.

Yes. Which one did you want?

They are basically the same.

So you are not talking about the philosophical school of pragmatism at all, but the common definition of pragmatism? Then the link to Wikipedia was some sort of diversionary tactic? Or did you just not bother to read it?

The wikipedia link has a lot more content about materialism, it's history as well as other aspects however as I quoted earlier the basic jist of it is the same as the dictionary definition.

 

[Taffer]

Why do you hold that the universe exists? What do you base this upon?

I hold that the universe exists because I am a materialist. I base my view of materialism on many things, including the seeming uniformity of the universe, various philosophical arguments, such as Occam's razor, and because science (which is based upon materialism) seems to describe the universe. I am not, however, claiming 100% certainty in my belief. I could be wrong, I just don't think I am.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why do you hold that the universe exists?

Because I'm seeing something.

What do you base this upon?

It's the name I choose to give to the something I see.

Well go fix it if you see a problem.

I do edit Wikipedia articles on rare occasion, when I am an expert on the subject and I see a clear error. I'm certainly not an expert on philosophical pragmatism, and I don't think the author of the article is at fault either. I think the problem lies with Peirce himself; it seems he suffered from a particularly nasty case of Philosopher's Disease.

They are basically the same.

They are obviously categorically different.

The wikipedia link has a lot more content about materialism, it's history as well as other aspects however as I quoted earlier the basic jist of it is the same as the dictionary definition.

No, and no.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I hold that the universe exists because I am a materialist.

That's not an answer. That's like saying "I believe in God because I'm a Christian!".

I base my view of materialism on many things, including the seeming uniformity of the universe,

How is this an argument in support of the so called "Cartesian other" existing? Of a universe outside of consciousness existing.

various philosophical arguments, such as Occam's razor,

How does Occam's razor apply to the question of a universe or reality outside of consciousness?

and because science (which is based upon materialism) seems to describe the universe.

How does this address the question of a universe outside of consciousness existing? Science describing the universe could simply all be an illusion.

I am not, however, claiming 100% certainty in my belief. I could be wrong, I just don't think I am.

But why hold the belief that a universe outside of your consciousness exists if it can't be 100% proven?

Maybe because...It's the most practical?

Because I'm seeing something.

I see things in my dreams too. That doesn't mean anything.

It's the name I choose to give to the something I see.

Do you believe that this 'something' exists separate from your consciousness or is all an illusion and you're a brain in a vat?

They are obviously categorically different.

Most of the thinkers who describe themselves as pragmatists consider practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of both meaning and truth.

And

1.character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. 2.a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

Are not that different.

 

[PixyMisa]

I see things in my dreams too. That doesn't mean anything.

It means something - it doesn't prove anything.

Do you believe that this 'something' exists separate from your consciousness or is all an illusion and you're a brain in a vat?

Same thing. If I'm a brain in a vat that means there's a vat.

Are not that different.

Categorically different.

Once again: The common usage of pragmatism is all about utility; the philosophical usage is all about epistemology.

 

[PixyMisa]

Same thing. If I'm a brain in a vat that means there's a vat.

Vidi, ergo vatto.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Same thing.

A brain in a vat, Or let's make it simply no brain but a "thinking being". A "Thinking being" existing all by itself in a constant state of delusion deluding itself is the same thing as a universe outside of it's consciousness existing as it perceives it?

Try again?

Categorically different.

Once again: The common usage of pragmatism is all about utility; the philosophical usage is all about epistemology.

The second definition from the dictionary fits perfectly with the one from wikipedia.

 

[PixyMisa]

A brain in a vat, Or let's make it simply no brain but a "thinking being". A "Thinking being" existing all by itself in a constant state of delusion deluding itself is the same thing as a universe outside of it's consciousness existing as it perceives it?

Is the delusion internal or external, Dustin?

Try again?

Make up your mind.

The second definition from the dictionary fits perfectly with the one from wikipedia.

So you do mean philosophical pragmatism?

Well then, as I said, philosophical pragmatism is an argument about the nature of knowledge. Taffer was talking about what fundamentally exists. Please show the connection between the two.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is the delusion internal or external, Dustin?

The cause of the delusion is your unconscious mind.

Make up your mind.

On what?

So you do mean philosophical pragmatism?

Well then, as I said, philosophical pragmatism is an argument about the nature of knowledge. Taffer was talking about what fundamentally exists. Please show the connection between the two.

What does philosophical pragmatism say about the 'nature of knowledge'?

 

[PixyMisa]

The cause of the delusion is your unconscious mind.

What is the distinction between my conscious mind and my unconscious mind? Are they the same thing? Aspects of the same thing? Products of the same thing?

We know what minds are. Minds are brain function. We know what the unconscious mind is in those terms, but if you are whisking away all scientific knowledge, you will have to supply precise definitions of all your terms.

On what?

You hypothesize a brain in a vat. Then, no, it's a thinking being (albeit brainless), deluding itself. Then the delusions are coming from its unconscious mind, with no definition of what that means.

Make up your mind.

What does philosophical pragmatism say about the 'nature of knowledge'?

It says, and I quote,

This employment five times over of derivates of concipere must then have had a purpose. In point of fact it had two. One was to show that I was speaking of meaning in no other sense than that of intellectual purport. The other was to avoid all danger of being understood as attempting to explain a concept by percepts, images, schemata, or by anything but concepts. I did not, therefore, mean to say that acts, which are more strictly singular than anything, could constitute the purport, or adequate proper interpretation, of any symbol. I compared action to the finale of the symphony of thought, belief being a demicadence. Nobody conceives that the few bars at the end of a musical movement are the purpose of the movement. They may be called its upshot.

You tell me.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What is the distinction between my conscious mind and my unconscious mind? Are they the same thing? Aspects of the same thing? Products of the same thing?

The conscious mind is the aspects of your mind that you're aware of. The unconscious mind is the aspects of your mind that you aren't aware of. They (for our purposes) are aspects of the same thing, You, a thinking being.

We know what minds are. Minds are brain function. We know what the unconscious mind is in those terms, but if you are whisking away all scientific knowledge, you will have to supply precise definitions of all your terms.

See above.

You hypothesize a brain in a vat. Then, no, it's a thinking being (albeit brainless), deluding itself. Then the delusions are coming from its unconscious mind, with no definition of what that means.

Make up your mind.

See above.

It says, and I quote,
You tell me.

You didn't answer my question. You're the one claiming that pragmatism is an argument about the nature of knowledge so please explain exactly how it's such a thing opposed to not being such a thing.

 

[Taffer]

That's not an answer. That's like saying "I believe in God because I'm a Christian!".

How is this an argument in support of the so called "Cartesian other" existing? Of a universe outside of consciousness existing.

How does Occam's razor apply to the question of a universe or reality outside of consciousness?

How does this address the question of a universe outside of consciousness existing? Science describing the universe could simply all be an illusion.

Dustin, this is not the time nor the place to go into materialism. Needless to say, I actually know what it entails, and I actually know which philosophy I hold. You can keep telling me what it is I believe all you want. You will be wrong.

But why hold the belief that a universe outside of your consciousness exists if it can't be 100% proven?

Maybe because...It's the most practical?

Nope.

Go away. Learn about epistemology and materialism. Then come back and start a new thread on it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Taffer, It seems like you're avoiding the obvious because you know what point I'm about to make concerning theism.

 

[Beerina]

Allow me to restate what I said earlier since it's been driven off topic.

I believe that disbelievers/unbelievers are simply missing the forest through the trees. We are examining each tiny aspect of our universe while not looking at the "big picture" to see how it all comes together in a way which contradicts our world view.

Hence my observation that there may be something strange going on, but that it won't resemble any Earthly religion. Maybe the solution to the Fermi paradox is that, post-Omega point singularity, the best way to birth new minds is to create them the old fashioned way, which is here, as we are now.

 

[Gertrude]

If they are such big differences, then what actual difference do they make?

When you ask: "what difference does it make" when refering to the concept of god, you are implying a difference from a world without a god. If a god exists, then it is pointless to ask 'what difference' because we have no idea what a godless world would look like.

In this sense, god as a 'ruler' could have a very definite effect in the determinism of the world without us being ever able to pinpoint this effect, much less measure it. You could however not refute the fact that this god interacts with our material world, hence exists.

What do you mean by "vision"? This paragraph doesn't make much sense to me, and I'd rather not guess.

I'm talking about gaining knowledge a posteriori, ie. by experience. The motor of our experience is what I called vision, that is, the way we perceive things.

No!

I've stated what the axioms of science are, and that is not one of them.

What do you mean? What are the axioms of science as stated by yourself???

However, it is an axiom of all non-solipsistic metaphysics that our senses confer information of a world external to us in some sense. If you don't accept this, then Cogito, ergo sum is the whole of your existence, forever.

I'm not denying this. You do add "in some sense". The question is: how far can we trust this information? Is there more to the knowledge and existence acknowledged in this way?

I'm not talking about whether the theory is true, because it's pointless to do so, because it is impossible ever to know that it is true.

I'm talking about statements that a theory is true. These are pointless, because it is impossible ever to know that it is true.

I still don't see why it is pointless. You are, again, putting human knowledge on a piedestal: "If I cannot know, then the question is pointless". The question, imho, remains valid if the described concept is independant. QM could very well be a valid way to describe the world. I'll go further: QM could very well be true. Independantly from you. The fact that you cannot know makes no difference whatsoever.

That's leaving aside the definition of "truth" for a theory, which is something we should take a quite look at.

What do you mean?

A theory is true if all possible predictions made by the theory are correct. A theory is false if any possible prediction made by the theory is incorrect. A theory is successful if all predictions tested so far have been correct, and that's as good as you can hope for.

Yes, if you use 'true' without a capital 'T'.

The point is, saying that a theory is true can never be justified, not even in principle.

What do you mean, cannot be justified in principle?

Whereas my atheism can be. Atheism is therefor a more powerful statement.

Your atheism can be proven false? How?

No, it doesn't. It just requires that you apply them. You can believe they are false, or unsupported, or not take a position on their validity at all, and science still works.

Right.

There are two points here:

(A) If you accept the axioms of scientific naturalism, you cannot ever prove a statement regarding the universe; in other words, all knowledge is conditional.
(B) This works.


The point is, you don't need to believe anything, because it produces valid predictions regardless.


There you are then. Science is clearly not a belief, because you don't have to believe in it to do it.

You are right. Not only do you not have to believe in it to do it, but you don't need to believe it to accept its predictions as valid. All that is needed is to look at the material evidence and admit that science works at least at this level. Surely, one can believe in science. And in this case it does become a belief system. But this is not needed. The best example would be... me! I'm a physics student and although I want to eventually conduct some research in the field, I cannot say that I hold science as true. I admit that it works on some level and that is all. Actually, the reason I am in physics is that I simply enjoy solving problems. That I am "walking towards the truth" is pure baloney to my eyes.

It's funny, however, because despite my own convictions, I still held science as a belief system. But you are right that it does not have to be. Do you mind if I adopt your idea?

Can you be a Christian without accepting the tenets of Christianity? (No metaphors that really mean "humanist" or "charitable", thanks.) Can you be a Deist without believing in a non-intervening being outside the universe? Can you be an animist without believing in in spirits?

No.

But even a solipsist can be a scientist.

Agreed.

No, you can't do that.

Wait. What makes you think that no knowledge can be more general than science. It certainly is a possibility!

Look at the requirements again:

Requirements for what? Do you mean: the axioms of science?

(A) Universe is causally closed.
(B) Universe follows consistent behaviour.

Those are not the only axioms of science, if that's what you meant.

How can you be more general without being incompatible? Solipsism doesn't provide any method for understanding the universe.

True.

Dualism is more general, but it posits an inconsistent universe.

Why?

Idealism is either compatible with naturalism, actually dualism in disguise, or ill-defined nonsense (there are as many forms of idealism as there are idealist philosophers). Materialism is compatible, but less general than naturalism.

The belief in the supernatural world is more general... perhaps not valid, but certainly more general. Of course it is in opposition with naturalism but not with science in itself.

What were the points we initially wanted to make anyway?

 

[Gertrude]

Yes, and no.

If something is outside my light-cone, I cannot observe it, it cannot observe me, and it cannot affect me in any way. This is identical to not existing at all. And any observer I can communicate with will necessarily come to the same conclusion.

This is interesting. You said "if it interacts, it exist" and "if it doesn't interact, it doesn't exist". But here we come to a point where interaction is a relative concept. Existence is not. It either exist or it doesn't. Whether or not you can interact or detect it is irrelevant. As long as someone can, or as you say, as long as it can be detected in principle, it exists.

If you can't in principle know of something, in what sense does it exist? That's why I say existence is relative: Areas of space-time are causally disconnected from other areas of space-time by the limitation of the speed of light. Existence is a statement of potential causal interaction, and if there is no such potential, there is no possible difference - ever - between a universe where the object exists and a universe where the object does not exist.

Wrong. 'No difference to an observer outside of the light cone of the event' is not equivalent to 'no defference at all'. The fact that we exist makes no difference to some alien living outside of our light cone. But our existence is not affected by this observation. We exist independantly of what said alien might percieve.

In such a case, we say the object does not exist.

... as seen by [insert oberver].

But if it's simply the case that we cannot interact with the object right now, that's just a case of relative existence. If it is possible, in principle, that one day a signal from the object will reach us, we can say it exists.

(That still leaves open the question of whether the universe beyond the observable universe exists. Since it is retreating from us faster than the speed of light, we cannot ever interact with it.)

If there existed no life on earth, would the earth still exist? Talking about the limitations due to the speed of light is equivalent to assigning existence from observation. Whether we can observe it or not, whether we can interact with it or not is irrelevant to existence. As long as it interacts with something, anything, it exists.