Reason and Observation

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
Your senses-of-things are not things in themselves. There's a distinction to be made between a thing and the perception of a thing. You squire, only experience perceptions-of-things. Do you understand?

Yes.

Because of this, you are in no position to discuss the acausality of any thing. Why? Because you can only confirm the existence of the sense-of-things, which are not things in themselves, but which all have a cause since your senses have a cause.

This is confusing. Why do you think my senses have a cause? And even if they do, my sense-of-things involves two separate aspects: First, my senses. Second, the event of my senses having something to sense. I could have senses, but never sense anything. What is the cause of the inputs to my senses?

And so, any conclusion pertaining to the acausality of things relates to the existence of things apart (and therefore external) from the sense-of-things.
Consequently, this conclusion requires a belief in a world-apart from awareness. Thus, since science has made such a conclusion, she has expressed an unfounded bias for such a world.
Science is guilty of unfounded philosophical-bias.
Science requires reform.

But how can any other philosophy be different? In an idealist philosophy, there has to be a source of experience, and that source follows laws (otherwise everyone would have random, unrelated experiences). Whatever assumptions science has to make about the external world, these same assumptions are necessary in idealism. It's simply a question of where you place the source of the laws.

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

I've stated - on several occasions - that my present purpose is to show that science is philosophically biased. I've been
heavily-involved in that quest for a few weeks now. I don't have time, presently, to also heavily-involve myself with a concise overview of my own actual philosophy.

And yet, here you are. Spending yoru valuable time trading insults instead of actually making an effort.

*sniff* yep.

... So no, I have no "fear" of presenting my philosophy, but I do not intend to do that until I have sufficiently tilled the soil, so to speak. Presently, you could say that I'm pulling out the weeds and the rocks from that soil in preparation for the seeds of my own philosophy.

*sniff* No, wait. it's fear and denial.

By the looks of things, there aren't many rocks or weeds left to pull out.

Ah, excellent. Then feel free to provide absolute proof for your claim of absolute truth.

 

[lifegazer]

And yet, here you are. Spending yoru valuable time trading insults instead of actually making an effort.

I've spent alot of time in this thread because it's called "reason & observation" and is directly related to my own thread.
Why don't you post something worthwhile and stop with the politics? Are you unable to refute my actual arguments?

 

[Upchurch]

Are you unable to refute my actual arguments?

I am unable to refute yoru claim of absolute truth because you have failed to provide absolute proof to back it up. Rather you claim of absolute truth is self-defeated by its lack of absolute proof.

There isn't much left for me to do other than to keep pressuring you to either back your claim up or retract it.

 

[Wudang]

That's a lie. Why? Because science can only observe sense-of-things... which all have the same cause as the senses themselves.
You cannot demonstrate that a sense-of-thing is acausal. It's absolutely impossible.

Can't be impossible because it's been done. QED.

Science points to an acausal source of these sense-of-things, that's all. But since the source of the sense-of-things is the mind itself (abstract creations), science has no evidence of an external reality.

I don't like making assumptions so I'm not going to assume that the mind is the source. All I know is that QM has demonstrated acausality through the order we perceive in our senses. So since everything "in here" is causal then the acausality must be "out there".
Don't just call the entire edifice of QM and everyone who studies it as liars. Provide some proof.

 

[lifegazer]

Can't be impossible because it's been done. QED.

Like I said, it's a lie. Wrong.

All I know is that QM has demonstrated acausality through the order we perceive in our senses.

Every "thing" seen through the senses, has a cause... since the senses have a cause. You cannot demonstrate that sensed-things are acausal. It's as simple as that.
To deny this and to repeatedly blabber that "It's been demonstrated - we've observed sensed-things that are acausal.", is just a reflection of your inabilities to reason for yourself. And that's the kindest way of putting it.

So since everything "in here" is causal then the acausality must be "out there".

Since every thing we experience is "in here", then perhaps you'd like to explain which acausal things science has been observing.

The behaviour of the sensed-things within our awareness reflect that these sensed-things have an acausal source, that's all.
But you (science) certainly cannot just believe that this source resides outside of the entity/mind which is having those sensations.
Indeed, it's quite easy to show that an entity which experiences abstract sensations such as pain et al, is the actual creator of those sensations.
I'll be dealing with this in more detail once I've fully exposed the unfounded bias of science.

Don't just call the entire edifice of QM and everyone who studies it as liars. Provide some proof.

I have.

 

[Upchurch]

Like I said, it's a lie. Wrong.

Prove it.

I have.

(I can't resist)

It's a lie. Wrong.

 

[lifegazer]

I am unable to refute yoru claim of absolute truth because you have failed to provide absolute proof to back it up. Rather you claim of absolute truth is self-defeated by its lack of absolute proof.

There isn't much left for me to do other than to keep pressuring you to either back your claim up or retract it.

Proof of what? I've provided plenty of proof to show that science is biased. Now post something worthwhile and stop wasting my time.

 

[Upchurch]

Proof of what?

That's funny. You've been avoiding it for so long, you've forgotten what "it" was.

For starters, how about your claim of absolute truth that the material world does not exist. What is your absolute proof for that claim of absolute truth?

After that (and assuming that you can get that far), we can talk about your absolute proof for other things like 'unity', 'omnipotent Gods' and the like. But one step at a time.

 

[lifegazer]

That's funny. You've been avoiding it for so long, you've forgotten what "it" was.

For starters, how about your claim of absolute truth that the material world does not exist. What is your absolute proof for that claim of absolute truth?

After that (and assuming that you can get that far), we can talk about your absolute proof for other things like 'unity', 'omnipotent Gods' and the like. But one step at a time.

How stupid are you? I mean, I've explained on several occasions now, that I'm heavily-involved in the quest to expose the bias of science and that I won't be dealing with my own philosophy until I feel I have done myself justice in this quest.
Which part of that statement don't you understand? I need to know because I've already explained it several times and yet you keep pretending that I didn't say it.

Stop trying to change the subject. I'll present my philosophy when I'm good and ready. If that's not good enough for you, then tough.

I am accusing science (and you especially) of an unfounded philosophical bias. And your defense is to try and change the subject.
And you accuse me of fear?

 

[Upchurch]

I am accusing science (and you especially) of an unfounded philosophical bias. And your defense is to try and change the subject.

I will take this very slowly for you so that you can understand. Please try reading the whole post instead of focusing on the small blurbs like you did with Tom.

--------------------------------------
Materialism is not unfounded because all observations and theories to date are consistant with materialism being true.

These observations are repeatible and testable.

The consistancy of these observations are not dependent on the observer, thus making these observations "objective".

The existance of a repeatible observation that is inconsistant with materialism would cause the theory of materialism to be adapted.

If adaptation is impossible, the theory of materialism would be rejected.

No such observation has been made.

Therefore, there is no reason to reject the theory of materialism.
--------------------------------------

And you accuse me of fear?

Quite so.

 

[lifegazer]

Materialism is not unfounded because all observations and theories to date are consistant with materialism being true.

Hah.
... All "observations" are of sensed-things "in here". Have you been following these conversations or not?

These observations are repeatible and testable.

Big deal - they're still "in here".

The consistancy of these observations are not dependent on the observer, thus making these observations "objective".

That all observers observe a common order-of-sensed-things only serves to unify those observers in One Mind.

Science studys the order of sensed-things. Science does not study real things. Science has no dealings with an external reality full of real things. NONE.
As a scientist, you would be studying the order which exists amongst the sensed-things within your awareness.
The fact that you are even trying to defend materialism is evidence of the bias I spoke of. The fact that you have done it so badly is the reason why science needs reform.

 

[Upchurch]

Hah.
... All "observations" are of sensed-things "in here". Have you been following these conversations or not?

I have. You still haven't provided proof that that is all that they are.

Big deal - they're still "in here".

Still unproven. Feel free to try.

That all observers observe a common order-of-sensed-things only serves to unify those observers in One MindProve it.

Science studys the order of sensed-things. Science does not study real things. Science has no dealings with an external reality full of real things. NONE.

Still waiting for your proof of that.

As a scientist, you would be studying the order which exists amongst the sensed-things within your awareness.
The fact that you are even trying to defend materialism is evidence of the bias I spoke of. The fact that you have done it so badly is the reason why science needs reform.

*yawn* Your argument would be much stronger if you could just provide a single shred of evidence that anything you are saying is true. You haven't, so why should anyone bother with you. Or continue to bother with you, for that matter?

 

[lifegazer]

"... All "observations" are of sensed-things "in here". Have you been following these conversations or not?"

I have. You still haven't provided proof that that is all that they are.

I don't have to provide proof of anything, yet. I'm only here, presently, to expose the bias of science towards an unfounded philosophy. Remember?
Your response doesn't acknowledge that this bias exists. Indeed, as usual, you try to change the subject by pushing the onus upon me again. Are you capable of facing the music?

"Big deal - they're still "in here"."

Still unproven. Feel free to try.

I HAVE proven this. We have a sense-of-things and order exists amongst these sense-of-things. When we observe this order, we are observing the inner-order of our sense-of-things. This is an absolute-fact.
Whether "things" exist apart/separately from our sense of them, is at the least arguable. But science can take no part in that argument, for everything science knows relates to the order of our sense-of-things.
Science relates to the mind's order of illusory things. Do you understand this yet?
No fact known by science can take you beyond the reality of the mind and its awareness of unreal things. Science is the study of the order which exists between unreal things.
Need I say more? Science is of the reality which exists within sensory-awareness. Any conclusion science makes refering to real "things" existing apart/separate from the mind, is completely founded upon an unfounded bias in such a reality.

*yawn* Your argument would be much stronger if you could just provide a single shred of evidence that anything you are saying is true. You haven't, so why should anyone bother with you. Or continue to bother with you, for that matter?

What sort of evidence are you looking for? Why don't you tell me so that I can make fun of your philosophical naivity.

 

[Beleth]

We have a sense-of-things and order exists amongst these sense-of-things. When we observe this order, we are observing the inner-order of our sense-of-things. This is an absolute-fact.
Whether "things" exist apart/separately from our sense of them, is at the least arguable. But science can take no part in that argument, for everything science knows relates to the order of our sense-of-things.
Science relates to the mind's order of illusory

(sound of phonograph needle being scraped across an album)

It is right here - at your use of the word "illusory" - that your description moves out of pure deduction mode.

What do you mean when you use the word "illusory?" Most people mean something like "fake" or "false" or "unreal" when they use that word. This implies that there is something "real" or "true" to compare it to.

The difference between a "real" thing and an "illusory" thing is that there is a discernable difference. Yet if all our perceptions are of one kind or another, what do we gain by calling them "illusory?" Aren't they as "real" as we can possibly experience?

If there's a higher level of "reality," one which we by definition cannot experience, then there is no point in discussing it, and no point in comparing it to our "illusory" perceptions. It certainly isn't something someone can either prove or deduce.

Our perceptions are as "real" as we can logically discuss.

I now return the needle to its rightful place on the album.

things.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
I HAVE proven this. We have a sense-of-things and order exists amongst these sense-of-things. When we observe this order, we are observing the inner-order of our sense-of-things. This is an absolute-fact.

Even if we agree that we only know things through our sensory perception of them, this does not mean that the inherent order of those things is internally generated.

Your basic thesis seems to be: Since we only know things through our internal awareness of our sensory perception of them. all the attributes of those things must be internally generated. This does not follow.

~~Paul

 

[uruk]

*Gobsmacked*.
Why don't you understand? Which bit do you want me to talk you through??

Your senses-of-things are not things in themselves. There's a distinction to be made between a thing and the perception of a thing. You squire, only experience perceptions-of-things. Do you understand?
Because of this, you are in no position to discuss the acausality of any thing. Why? Because you can only confirm the existence of the sense-of-things, which are not things in themselves, but which all have a cause since your senses have a cause.
And so, any conclusion pertaining to the acausality of things relates to the existence of things apart (and therefore external) from the sense-of-things.
Consequently, this conclusion requires a belief in a world-apart from awareness. Thus, since science has made such a conclusion, she has expressed an unfounded bias for such a world.
Science is guilty of unfounded philosophical-bias.
Science requires reform.

Of course the perception of the thing in our mind is not the thing, It is a representaion of the thing. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Our experiance is made up of these perceptions, now what you don't seem to understand is that just becuse all these perceptions are internal does not mean that an external realm does not exists. You are just making an assumption based on this observation. The assumption you are making is no different from the one I make when I say the things exist external to my perception.
QM acausuality was deduced from Heisenberg's uncertainty principal with a little of Max Plank thrown in. It was reasoned first (to wit you make much importance of) than observed.

Your philosophy argues for acausuality. you say that our senses are the cause of our sensations. Essentially you are saying our senses are generating the very thing they are designed to sense.
That's like saying that a video camera generates images without input. That would be spontaneous sensation with out stimulation from a source. acausuality. a result with no cause.
You get around this by claiming that god is the source of the input. But you have no proof that god exists. Just your personal belief.

 

[Wudang]

"To deny this and to repeatedly blabber that "It's been demonstrated - we've observed sensed-things that are acausal.", is just a reflection of your inabilities to reason for yourself. And that's the kindest way of putting it."

No, it's the most dishonest way of putting it. I have followed the chain of reason from the refutation of naive solipsism through the analysis and calculus and experiments and solutions to the Dirac equations etc. I cannot follow your chain of reason because there is none. You are the one in denial. You gleefully claimed that you could predict QM and now that it has consequences you don't like you claim that it is all a lie.
Why do so many believers think they can serve truth with lies?

 

[Upchurch]

I don't have to provide proof of anything, yet. I'm only here, presently, to expose the bias of science towards an unfounded philosophy. Remember?

Actually, that's a different thread, isn't it?

Your response doesn't acknowledge that this bias exists. Indeed, as usual, you try to change the subject by pushing the onus upon me again. Are you capable of facing the music?

I repeat my reply as often as it takes for you to understand it. That we are only aware of our sensations does not necessarily imply that there are no external, physical, material causes for those sensations any more than it proves that there are such causes. Your positive assertion that external causes for sensations difinitively don't exist does, in fact, put the onus on you to back that claim.

I HAVE proven this.

No, you have not proven that "things" are only "in here".

Whether "things" exist apart/separately from our sense of them, is at the least arguable.

Prove. It.

Science relates to the mind's order of illusory things. Do you understand this yet?

Prove. It.

What sort of evidence are you looking for? Why don't you tell me so that I can make fun of your philosophical naivity.

heh. "my philosophical naivity" Cute.

I'll repeat it one more time. Under the highest standard for evidence, there can be no determination for the causes of our sensations. Any speculation would be just that. You have claimed with 100% certainty that those causes are not external. There is simply no way that you can know this, but because you continue to insist that it is true, I continue to challenge you to provide whatever evidence you have in order to make that determination. That is, evidence that you couldn't possibly have for a determination that you couldn't possibly make.

Ultimately, what I'm getting at is this: You do not have absolute truth (even though you consider it such). What you do have is subjective truth based on, seemingly, absolute faith. We can know this because you make claims of absolute knowledge on issues in which you can have no source of that knowledge. You're very arguement as to why science cannot know the causes of sensation is the same argument as to why no one can know those causes, including yourself.

So, if you want to continue to say that you definitively know that the cause of sensation is internal, I will continue to question you as to the source of that knowledge. That you cannot answer it in a rational way (i.e. "God dunnit"), should be an indicator that you need to re-examine how you came about your ideas.

 

[lifegazer]

Your basic thesis seems to be: Since we only know things through our internal awareness of our sensory perception of them. all the attributes of those things must be internally generated. This does not follow.

I've told several people on several occasions that my present purpose is merely to highlight the bias of science. Once more you seek to put the onus upon me and avoid the very subject I want to discuss.
I don't want to talk about my own philosophy yet. I want to talk about the scientific bias which exists towards an unfounded reality. This has nothing to do with my own philosophy.

I have shown that we can only confirm the actual existence of unreal things "in here". We can only confirm this because that's all we experience.
From here, I've tried to show that science is in fact a study of the mind's own order of illusory-things, "in here". Scientific laws apply to the things "in here" because those are the things that science studys.
Now, it's an absolute-fact that nobody can prove of a reality external to "in here". Don't listen to anybody who says that they can. They are liars.
Even though there is a possibility that such a reality exists, science is wrong to just assume that one definitely does exist, which it does.
And that is all I want to convey in this thread and my own.
Discussions pertaining to my own philosophy will follow the acknowledgement of this bias.
Are any of you honest enough to acknowledge this?