Reason and Observation

[Yahweh]

I've made a very important point in my previous two posts. Please ponder it again:-
(1) We can only observe sensed-things.
(2) All senses have a cause.
(3) Therefore, all sensed-things have a cause.
(4) Thus, no human is in a position to attribute the concept of acausality to any "thing" which he can sense,

... A very simple, yet significant, argument.

In Premise 2, You assume such "causes" are deterministic.

Make sure you are really speaking of causality, and not some metaphysical answer to the question "Why does this occur".

 

[lifegazer]

(2) All senses have a cause.

In Premise 2, You assume such "causes" are deterministic.

Palease. How can you even attempt to argue that the abstract sensations upon awareness have no cause??

 

[kuroyume0161]

The conclusion would only apply if the things we were observing were in fact real. But this conversation has made the distinction between sensed-things & real things. And we observe sensed-things (we sense sensed-things), not real things.
Thus, the conclusion is dependent upon a belief in the fact that these sensed-things are in fact real.
... But sensed-things are not real.
Why is this so difficult for everyone here to understand? I'm completely puzzled by the responses here.

Pray tell, how are we to deem these 'sensed-things' as not real? In comparison to what? Our imaginations, thought processes, real real real reality? .... God? An unperceived, unevidenced, unknowable, non-existent (in real physical terms here) entity?

At the bottom of everything, what we perceive as real (in a strictly objective sense) is real. Beyond that is that which cannot be perceived or is subjective, therefore it cannot be considered in the realm of reality. Phenomena will continuously be added to the realm of perceived things, but we cannot, by definition, experience direct, raw reality. Still, there is no compelling reason to think that behind the sensed-things is something totally different - such as 'the mind of God' or a massive computer run by robots. Even if there were, it is beyond our ability to reach it, therefore entertaining it is moot. To do this, first you must find loopholes in the matrix - no one has done this yet.

In that vain, there is no way to say that it is not reality since there are no circumventions of the way real things work - gravity binds us, fire burns us, time passes, we die, we cannot instantaneous transport ourselves to other galaxies, and so on, whether we believe it is real or not. If 'reality' is a computer simulation, we are inherently bound to it in such a way as to justify the term 'reality'.

You want to expand what is deemed reality into areas that cannot be experienced; even sensory equipment used to enhance our sensory capabilities cannot sense outside of its reality framework. The only way to do this is to be an observer outside of reality, which no human, nor any other thing within it can do.

Kuroyume

 

[lifegazer]

Pray tell, how are we to deem these 'sensed-things' as not real?

"To exist is one thing, to be perceived is another.".
There is a distinction to be made between the reality of a thing and the perception of that thing. I.e., there is a distinction to be made between a real-thing and a sensed-thing.
As humans, we can only confirm the existence of sensed-things.

At the bottom of everything, what we perceive as real (in a strictly objective sense) is real.

Not it's not. I've just explained that distinction.

 

[lifegazer]

Tom??
I was hoping for a reaction to my response to your previous post, several days ago.

 

[kuroyume0161]

"To exist is one thing, to be perceived is another.".
There is a distinction to be made between the reality of a thing and the perception of that thing. I.e., there is a distinction to be made between a real-thing and a sensed-thing.
As humans, we can only confirm the existence of sensed-things.

Not it's not. I've just explained that distinction.

Yes, yes, yes. And again... How will you arrive at the 'real-thing' without sensing it? Pure logic? As I've said, this is impossible: what we sense of things is what they emit or reflect (in all ways sensible). One cannot shove a piano into their head to get a closer experience of the 'real-thing'...

But, we must make the assumption that the sensed-thing corresponds in some way to the real-thing that causes the sensory structure since there are nearly insurmountable cohesions:

1. sensed-things emit/reflect the same information for all sensors, adjusting for known conditions (such as relative motion).

2. sensed-things' characteristics can be largely agreed upon by nearly all observers (matters of disagreement are either subjective or open territory for more close objective approximation).

3. sensed-things retain cohesion over time and space (within limiting and known boundaries and conditions).

4. sensed-things follow ubiquitous laws and are constructed of similar measurable constituents.

Doesn't matter (no pun intended) whether the real-things are computer bits, holograms, matter, or whatnot. This is what we sense.

And more convincing is that we can sense more deeply with equipment (whether it's real or not) and still retain the cohesion. Why would the universe contain more cohension than is necessary for our senses if there were only sensed-things?

Kuroyume

 

[Upchurch]

For the umpteenth time, all "things" observed via the senses are sense-things (i.e., not real things). Meaning that all things observed via the senses have the same cause as the senses themselves.

For the umpteenth time, prove it. There are other possibilities for the sources of sensations, but you have definitively claimed it to be one thing. Still waiting for that absolute evidence.

To clarify: to attribute the label of acausality to "sense-things" is a complete nonsense. Since we can only ~observe~ sense-things, we can state with absolute certainty that acausality is not ever in fact observed amongst any sense-thing which we can observe (with the senses).
I.e., acausality cannot be "observed". Fact.

Opinion, actually. While all senses may have a cause, all causes of those sense-causes do not, necessarily, have causes. That is, unless you can prove otherwise.

I am being honest. My explanation why sense-things cannot be [observed as] acausal is spot-on.

So you say. Prove it.

 

[lifegazer]

While all senses may have a cause, all causes of those sense-causes do not, necessarily, have causes. That is, unless you can prove otherwise.

The causal-agent of the senses may or may not have a cause. But that's irrelevant to the argument I produced. All that we need to know for my argument to be sound, is that the senses have a cause.
... Why? You may ask.
... Because I'm talking about the "things" observed via the senses. Every "thing" you ever observe will be observed through your sensation of it. That makes that "thing" a sensed-thing... as opposed to a real thing.
So, everything you ever observe is a sensed-thing. And since the senses have a cause, all sensed-things have a cause. Therefore, no sensed-things are acausal. Thus, the concept of acausality does not apply to any observed sense-thing.
And so, the concept of acausality can only apply to the reality of things beyond our sense of them.

So Mister Upchurch squire, kindly explain to this forum how science knows that real things exist.
You can't can you? Neither can anyone else. It's just impossible to prove this. Humans know of no thing beyond the things that they sense: sensed-things.
Consequently, the fact that science has made a conclusion pertaining to the acausality of certain things, mirrors the belief in the reality of things.
... Scientific bias, handed to you on a plate.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes, yes, yes. And again... How will you arrive at the 'real-thing' without sensing it?

How do you know that the real-thing even exists?
That's the underlying point of this discussion. You don't.

But, we must make the assumption that the sensed-thing corresponds in some way to the real-thing that causes the sensory structure

Now here we have a prime-example, for all to see, of the kind of thought associated with one who is biased towards a reality-of-things.
Why must we make the assumption that real-things are, ultimately, the cause of sensed-things (that real-things exist)?
Aren't 'assumptions' best left to the religious folk? No offense intended to any religious folk, but science, like philosophy, should be exempt from assumed-realities (beliefs).

since there are nearly insurmountable cohesions:

1. sensed-things emit/reflect the same information for all sensors, adjusting for known conditions (such as relative motion).

2. sensed-things' characteristics can be largely agreed upon by nearly all observers (matters of disagreement are either subjective or open territory for more close objective approximation).

3. sensed-things retain cohesion over time and space (within limiting and known boundaries and conditions).

4. sensed-things follow ubiquitous laws and are constructed of similar measurable constituents.

Doesn't matter (no pun intended) whether the real-things are computer bits, holograms, matter, or whatnot. This is what we sense.

All you're saying here is that there exists a common-order of perception of sensed-things.

 

[Upchurch]

The causal-agent of the senses may or may not have a cause. But that's irrelevant to the argument I produced. All that we need to know for my argument to be sound, is that the senses have a cause.

Okay, let's play the simple analogy game in hopes of reaching young lifegazer.

Let's say that we have a television that is showing the local news. We know that every image we see on the television must have a cause, but we don't know what that cause is. Those images could be generated by the television itself. They could be generated by the VCR sitting next to the television. They could be generated by a computer somewhere. They could be generated by people in a studio. We don't know for sure.

What you're saying lifegazer is that because we don't know for 100% that those images actually have their root cause in actual people, it is unreasonable to assume that those people exist in a studio somewhere else. Further, you're arguing that because we know that the images we see are caused by the television, it is unimportant what may or may not cause the television to cause those images.

Further still, with no evidence whatsoever, you say that you know for certain that the television itself is fully responsible (that is, no other component is involved) for creating the images we see on it and that the TV does not receive any input from any other source.

Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? You are essentially arguing that the things you see on your TV exist only on your TV and have no root cause outside your TV.

 

[lifegazer]

Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? You are essentially arguing that the things you see on your TV exist only on your TV and have no root cause outside your TV.

Do you see how ridiculous your analogy is? You are essentially comparing a TV to God itself... arguing that because it is ridiculous to believe that a TV could be the source of the programmes it
displays, that it is similarly ridiculous to believe that God could be the source of the universe which it creates for its own awareness.
Do you not comprehend the difference between a TV and the concept of God itself?

Why don't you address, directly, the philosophy I presented earlier today? You're an intelligent man - you must see some sense in what I have said there.

 

[Upchurch]

You are essentially comparing a TV to God itself.

No, I am comparing perception to the image on the TV. I did not mention God once in my analogy. Please don't create more strawmen.

Despite the spin you'd like to put on it, so far all we're talking about are perceptions and their causes. This is what my analogy was about. Do you understand how my analogy of the TV compares to your model of perception?

 

[Wudang]

The causal-agent of the senses may or may not have a cause. <snip>
So, everything you ever observe is a sensed-thing. And since the senses have a cause, all sensed-things have a cause. Therefore, no sensed-things are acausal. Thus, the concept of acausality does not apply to any observed sense-thing.
And so, the concept of acausality can only apply to the reality of things beyond our sense of them.

So Mister Upchurch squire, kindly explain to this forum how science knows that real things exist.
You can't can you? Neither can anyone else. It's just impossible to prove this. Humans know of no thing beyond the things that they sense: sensed-things.
Consequently, the fact that science has made a conclusion pertaining to the acausality of certain things, mirrors the belief in the reality of things.
... Scientific bias, handed to you on a plate.

Science has not assumed an external world. It works with the perceptions and works out the order. That research demonstrates acausality. That acausality is most readily explained by an external world which behaves as our seems to do.
You claim it's impossible because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions of your external world. That's called dogma, by the way.

 

[metacristi]

Tom

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).

The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.

Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

Good points.Unfortunately we can never be sure that we found the first principles,the dream of Aristotle...A more formal way (in a very simplified form,there are still a lot of problems with this approach) to put the same things is the logical form of the hypothetico-deductive method which uses both induction and deduction (widely used in science).

1.If A -> C

and

C (one or more predictions are corroborated)
-------
Therefore (probably) A is true


2.If A -> C

and

~C
--------------
Then we have ~A (because A -> C is equivalent with ~C -> ~A).


1.If the set of premises (a1,a2...an) of a scientific hypothesis A implies a set of conclusions C (c1,c2...cn;the predictions of the hypothesis in fact) and some of those conclusions have already been corroborated practically we can say that (probable) the hypothesis A is correct.The premises (a1,a2...an) are (either) direct inferences from observed facts using the principle of sufficient reason (that is using the well known methods of agreement,difference and so on) or mere (fruitful anyway) postulates;they can be also conclusions of other (still) accepted theories.Thus we can never be sure of their (absolute) truth.

I'd argue here however,in spite of Popper,that the bayesian intepretation of probabilities is a valid 'tool',enabling us to have a (subjective) high degree of confidence in the truth of some theories for which we have a compelling set of empirical data backing them.Of course no certitudes are involved here,the bayesian probabilities are subjective (still enabling in this case an agreement among scientists).Anyway,as much as the theory is not disproved,there are sufficient reasons to prefer A provisionally to all other possible explanations (assuming also that it is the most corroborated among the existing competing hypotheses).


2.If ~C (nonC) is observed (one of the predictions is disproved experimentally) then automatically follows ~A,the hypothesis A is disproved (more exactly one of the premises,generally we do not know which one,is false).a new hypothesis must be proposed.



The interesting fact is that it is conceivable the scenario in which one hypothesis is an exact model of reality (an ultimate theory of everything).Unfortunately we would not have sufficient reasons to believe this...

 

[lifegazer]

No, I am comparing perception to the image on the TV. I did not mention God once in my analogy. Please don't create more strawmen.

What's the point of your analogy if not to compare it to my own philosophy?
Not once have I advocated that a TV is the cause of its own screen images. And yes, it would be ridiculous to state that a TV was that cause. But my argument pertains to the existence of an omni-entity better known as 'God'. And no, it is not ridiculous to state that such an entity - if existent - could be the cause of everything It perceives.
So I don't see the point of your analogy if not to compare it to my philosophy.

Despite the spin you'd like to put on it, so far all we're talking about are perceptions and their causes. This is what my analogy was about. Do you understand how my analogy of the TV compares to your model of perception?

Hah - (note the underlined bit) - you are comparing a TV to the concept of God, afterall. You told a porkie!
And since you are, my previous post suffices to answer your question.

Now, I think you owe me the favour of addressing, directly, the philosophy I presented earlier yesterday. Thankyou.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, let's take this really slowly for the analogy-impared.

My point is that it is irrelevent that all sensations have a cause (which I think we agree on, for the most part). What we're talking about is the source of that cause. The "cause of the cause", if you will.

Let me introduce the cast:

• A viewer will be playing the part of a human consciousness.
• A television will be playing the part of that human's senses.

To make this easier for you, when referring to a component of the analogy, I will include the actual term in parenthesis following the analogy compoenent.

Now, all the viewer (consciousness) knows is what s/he can see on the television (sense). So far, this is exactly what you've argued with a little role sustitution.

The question arises, what are the origin of the images that the viewer sees on the television? (What are the origin of the sensations that the consciousness perceives?)

According to the materialist approach, the images on the television screen come a cable on the back of the television that leads outside. (Sensations in perception come from an outside source)

According to lifegazer's semi-immaterialist approach, the images on the television screen come from the viewer. (Sensations in perception come from the consciousness.)

Now, here comes the difficult part, lifegazer. It involves two questions you've not been inclined to answer. I'll state them both in analogy terms and actual terms in order to help you understand:

1. Why is it unreasonable to conclude that the television is receiving a signal from some other source? (Why is it unreasonable to assume that sensation is caused by an outside source?)
2. How do you conclude that the viewer is the source of the television image? (How do you conclude that the mind is the source of sensation?)
   [/list=1] Take your time. Whenever you're ready.

 

[lifegazer]

Science has not assumed an external world. It works with the perceptions and works out the order. That research demonstrates acausality.

Are you actually contemplating anything I have said? Let's analyse your mantras...
"It works with the perceptions". So, what exactly does this mean? It means that science works with sensed-things. And if you've been reading my posts, you should understand the distinction which exists between a sensed-thing and a real-thing.
Sensed-things are distinguishable from real things.

"... and works out the order". Yes, science works out the order which exists amongst the sensed-things within our awareness.

"That research demonstrates acausality.". Read my previous posts. It's quite impossible to demonstrate that sensed-things are acausal, since the senses themselves which yield this awareness of sensed-things, have a cause. I.e., since the senses have a cause, all sensed-things have a cause = no sensed-things are acausal.
Science only knows about sensed-things because that's all science has to work on. And it's absolutely incorrect to state that any sensed-thing is acausal. There's no way to demonstrate that a sensed-thing is acausal since it's impossible that a sensed-thing could be acausal.

"Science has not assumed an external world.". Really?! Then ask your neighbourhood scientist to explain what this concept of acausality applies to, for it certainly doesn't apply to any sensed-thing.
By default, the concept of acausality can only apply to real things, or to The Mind itself which creates its own abstract
sense-of-things.
However, there's absolutely no way to demonstrate the reality of things beyond our sense of them. It's impossible.
Consequently, if the concept of acausality is meant to apply to real things (as it must), then this necessitates a BELIEF in the reality of those things. I.e., if we cannot prove that real things exist, we must believe that they exist.

Clearly, if science states that some "things" are acausal, then science must believe in the reality of things beyond our sense of them = science is corrupted by an unfounded philosophy = science is in need of reform.

That's called dogma, by the way.

The only "dogma" demonstrated here, is that which cloaks the present establishment of scientific thought.

 

[uruk]

Upchurch asks cogent question.

Lifegazer sticks fingers in ears and goes "bla bla bla bla bla...I can't hear you! Bla bla bla....etc."

Lifegazer penchant for willfull ignorance pulls him through another day.

 

[lifegazer]

Okay, let's take this really slowly for the analogy-impared.

My point is that it is irrelevent that all sensations have a cause (which I think we agree on, for the most part). What we're talking about is the source of that cause. The "cause of the cause", if you will.

Of course it's not irrelevant that all sensed-things have a cause, since science has claimed that some things within our perception are acausal!!
That is, of course, unless science claims that real things are acausal, in which case I want to know how science knows about these real things. Care to deal with the issue, for a change?

I'm sorry, but you cannot compare an anology to a TV set to the notion than an omni-God is the causal-agent of all things, as previously explained. Also, let me remind you that my philosophy is not even the issue here.
I've spent painstaking hours in this thread exposing the philosophical bias of science and you've completely ignored everything I have said.

 

[Upchurch]

Of course it's not irrelevant that all sensed-things have a cause, since science has claimed that some things within our perception are acausal!!

Okay, this is what I'm getting at. Just because things in our sense have a cause (say a flash of light) does not mean that the cause of that flash of light can't be acausal. And yes, there are flashes of light that behave as if produced by acausal events. Usually, they appear on radiation detectors. So while the light that reaches your eyes has a cause, and the diode that produces the light has a cause, and the radiation that makes the diode light up has a cause, the mechanism that causes a particle to decay, however, does not have a cause. It is acausal.

That is, of course, unless science claims that real things are acausal, in which case I want to know how science knows about these real things.

Please see the television analogy above for an understanding. Of course, we cannot know for absolutely sure that there is a television studio somewhere with live actors, but it isn't an unreasonable assumption, now is it?

I'm sorry, but you cannot compare an anology to a TV set to the notion than an omni-God is the causal-agent of all things, as previously explained.

Strawman. Please point out where I have ever compared a TV to God.