Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Iacchus]

I didn't say I know it. I said I had evidence for it. Everybody I have ever seen who works on a computer has the computer in front of them. Computers are designed to be manipulated by a person facing them and typing on their keyboards. Since you are obviously working on a computer, evidence suggests you have the computer in front of you. There is a small possibility that you have devised another way to do it, but based on the evidence from the bulk of your posts, I seriously doubt you have the ability to design an alternate input system.

And what I'm suggesting to you is that self-awareness is our reference point. We can't be more certain of anything than this.

 

[Mercutio]

And what I'm suggesting to you is that self-awareness is our reference point. We can't be more certain of anything than this.

Darat addressed this months ago. What you actually see is everything but yourself! How is it that you are most certain of the one thing you have to infer?!?

I am not saying that you (or I) do not exist. What I am saying is that your choice of "self-awareness" as a reference point is every bit as flawed as any other. It is no more or less certain than any other thing inferred from our perceptions.

 

[Huntster]

To what end?.....

To discredit, defame, or otherwise harm him?

Because they disagree with him?

...Which is more probable
(1) a number of people interpretted Iacchus' position in a similar way (whether or not that is what Iacchus was trying to convey) or
(2) a number of people are lying about how they interpretted Iacchus' position (for some reason, which I won't bother to speculate about)...

Is probablility a consideration that skeptics accept?

Always? Sometimes? Only when it supports their views? Only when the mathematical probability equations are worked out on paper?

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, you really are amusing. Remember way back then, when you told me you were quite certain? Do you remember the other thing I asked of you? That you not only state what you believe to be true, but also state the evidence by which you believe it?

And what is your evidence?

The fact that I am self-aware and know.

So...thanks to multiple layers of a priori assumptions, and the miracle of circular reasoning, we get "I am aware that I exist, therefore god existed before time and space, and god created the big bang." One heck of an inference there...made possible by a collossal ignorance of biology, psychology, physics, and cosmology. Fortunately, since those are all sciences, and since science admits the possibility of less than 100% certainty, there is room for Iacchus to believe that his lunacy is legitimate.

"I" am the witness.

 

[Mercutio]

The fact that I am self-aware and know.

"I" am the witness.

As stated above, these things are not bedrock. Not even close. You think they are only because you are actively and aggressively ignorant of what is known about consciousness.

 

[wastepanel]

My 2 cents...

Nobody has evidence on either count of this issue of what happened before the Big Bang. I personally believe there is a creator. However, I don't require that anybody else agree with me. This is moot topic.

 

[Tricky]

My 2 cents...

Nobody has evidence on either count of this issue of what happened before the Big Bang. I personally believe there is a creator. However, I don't require that anybody else agree with me. This is moot topic.

How do you decide which things to believe?

 

[drkitten]

Is probablility a consideration that skeptics accept?

Of course. Usually they know more about it than the credophiles. Some of them (=us) even teach the subject at a post-graduate level.

But skeptics tend to be no more sympathetic to garbage dressed up as pseudoscientific probability theory than they are to garbage dressed up as pseudoscientific quantum mechanics, or for that matter to garbage au natural. Just because you use the word "probability" doesn't inherently make the unbelievable seem credible.

 

[Iacchus]

Darat addressed this months ago. What you actually see is everything but yourself! How is it that you are most certain of the one thing you have to infer?!?

Are you talking to me? Or, is there somebody else here?

I am not saying that you (or I) do not exist. What I am saying is that your choice of "self-awareness" as a reference point is every bit as flawed as any other. It is no more or less certain than any other thing inferred from our perceptions.

"I" exist, and of that I am most certain.

 

[wastepanel]

How do you decide which things to believe?

Huh?

I watch and I listen. I have never, ever seen evidence that a creator does or does not exist. It's my pure speculation. And, unless this whole mess is explained one day, you, me, andybody else has no idea either.

 

[Iacchus]

How do you decide which things to believe?

Yes, and if it were a matter of choosing between chocolate and vanilla that would be one thing.

 

[Iacchus]

Huh?

I watch and I listen. I have never, ever seen evidence that a creator does or does not exist. It's my pure speculation. And, unless this whole mess is explained one day, you, me, andybody else has no idea either.

You sound like a Deist.

 

[wastepanel]

Is that an insult?

 

[Mercutio]

Are you talking to me? Or, is there somebody else here?

Put the straw away; I explicitly said that I am not arguing that you do not exist. I merely pointed out that your assumption of "I exist" as some special fundamental bedrock is foolish. Your ignorance of cognitive development prevents you from knowing that the "I" concept is learned through interaction with environment, and is an inference drawn from perceptual constancies. Which, due to your ignorance of sensation & perception research, you are also unaware of.

"I" exist, and of that I am most certain.

It is an uncanny illusion, is it not? But no matter how much you call sand "bedrock", if you build your house on it, it won't last.

 

[Iacchus]

Is that an insult?

I don't know, do you know what a Deist is?

 

[wastepanel]

Depending upon who's definition, I could be or I am not.

Besides, who are you to tell me I'm wrong or right?

 

[Iacchus]

Put the straw away; I explicitly said that I am not arguing that you do not exist. I merely pointed out that your assumption of "I exist" as some special fundamental bedrock is foolish. Your ignorance of cognitive development prevents you from knowing that the "I" concept is learned through interaction with environment, and is an inference drawn from perceptual constancies. Which, due to your ignorance of sensation & perception research, you are also unaware of.

And you are sadly mistaken if you think I'm incapable of learning. As I said, it all begins with the awareness of self. There is no knowledge without the observer (hence the awareness of self) to observe it.

It is an uncanny illusion, is it not? But no matter how much you call sand "bedrock", if you build your house on it, it won't last.

So, if I can accept myself as an illusion, then I can accept everything else that I see around me as real? What would be the point?

 

[Iacchus]

Depending upon who's definition, I could be or I am not.

Besides, who are you to tell me I'm wrong or right?

Why do you think I'm wrong? You're the one who said it's impossible to know of such things. It sounds to me like you're not too sure about what you know.

 

[Mercutio]

And you are sadly mistaken if you think I'm incapable of learning.

Evidence?

As I said, it all begins with the awareness of self. There is no knowledge without the observer (hence the awareness of self) to observe it.

Circular. But then, you knew that, since you are capable of learning and have had this explained to you dozens of times. Not merely circular, but demonstrably wrong. An observer, a learner, is necessary, but awareness is not at all necessary for learning. One more thing you are ignorant about.

So, if I can accept myself as an illusion, then I can accept everything else that I see around me as real?

Show me where I say anything remotely like this. Like I said, put the straw away.

What would be the point?

My point is, you are arbitrarily choosing something to act as your bedrock. If you wish to be accurate, you should challenge this arbitrary choice. If it is important to your notions, you should challenge it aggressively. If you examine it, you will see it blows away in a gentle wind. Bedrock doesn't do that.

I am not trying to tell you what to believe. I am, however, correcting you when you claim things that are simply not true. If you don't like that, perhaps you should take it up with reality. If you look, maybe you will find it where you left it.

 

[Tricky]

I watch and I listen. I have never, ever seen evidence that a creator does or does not exist.

Yes, but there are lots and lots of things for which there is "no evidence that they do not exist". So how do you pick which ones of that very large list that you will believe in?

And, unless this whole mess is explained one day, you, me, andybody else has no idea either.

Right. So given that not you or I or anyone else has any explanation (or evidence, I might add) for this thing, why do you decide to believe it exists? Is it because of the way you were taught? That's certainly true for many many people, so it would be a plausible explanation.

I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm serious. Why do people believe the things they believe, especially the ones without evidence?