Epistemology - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!





The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Epistemology
in Philosophy

By DrCerealDrCereal 143 Pts edited November 2017
I wish to start a debate regarding this topic because of ViceRegent. Though he is not a very pleasent person to discuss with (specifically if you disagree with him), he has sparked my keen interest in this field of philosophy.
I have some proposed "truisms" that could be debated:
1. Logic is trustworthy.
2. I [i.e., humans] think.
3. I perceive reality (albeit it's independent or not).

Care to refute or expand on any of these or add anything else you wish to regarding epistemology.
(NOTE: Please attempt to keep this debate civil and intellectual; do not be a fool.)
Bis das, si cito das.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • The issue of logic is not relevant until you establish that your worldview can account for its existence.  And then you must prove what its rules are and their objectivity.  And then you must provide the way you know you use of it is sound.

    Prove you are not merely a  determinist machine, that you do not really think, but actually just react to environmental stimuli in keeping with your biological make up and the laws of nature.

    So what if you do?  How do you know your perceptions accurately reflect reality, that you are not some delusional idiot?

    BTW, nice hypocrisy in calling others both unpleasant and fools.  That is awesome.


  • DrCerealDrCereal 143 Pts
    edited November 2017
    The issue of logic is not relevant until you establish that your worldview can account for its existence.  And then you must prove what its rules are and their objectivity.  And then you must provide the way you know you use of it is sound.

    Prove you are not merely a  determinist machine, that you do not really think, but actually just react to environmental stimuli in keeping with your biological make up and the laws of nature.

    So what if you do?  How do you know your perceptions accurately reflect reality, that you are not some delusional idiot?

    BTW, nice hypocrisy in calling others both unpleasant and fools.  That is awesome.


    I. "The issue of logic is not relevant until you establish that your worldview can account for its existence.  And then you must prove what its rules are and their objectivity.  And then you must provide the way you know you use of it is sound."

    I was stating that it was a truism, though I will admit that it isn't really apparent. I will support this point later when I get back online.

    II. "Prove you are not merely a  determinist machine, that you do not really think, but actually just react to environmental stimuli in keeping with your biological make up and the laws of nature."


    You're assuming that my definition of thinking depends on free will.
    It doesn't.

    III. "So what if you do?  How do you know your perceptions accurately reflect reality, that you are not some delusional idiot?"
    Unless you (or I) can prove there is an independent reality, I will not assume that there is, and because of this, I will argue that my perceptions are reality.
    I must ask, why would being delusional makes someone an idiot? Or are you just insulting me for no reason?

    IV. "BTW, nice hypocrisy in calling others both unpleasant and fools.  That is awesome."
    How am I being hypocritical?
    To be specific, I called you unpleasent when I disagreed with you, and I told anyone willing to participate in this discussion not to be fools. I never said that they were.


    Bis das, si cito das.
  • On saying that his perceptions define reality, this fool confirms he is mentally ill.  I will waste no more time on him.
    DrCerealFascismMissDMeanorSilverishGoldNova
  • On saying that his perceptions define reality, this fool confirms he is mentally ill.  I will waste no more time on him.
    Good bye. It was nice (?) discussing (??) this with you.
    It is a shame you don't have more to say; you do provoke thought.
    FascismMissDMeanor
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @ViceRegent
    And I do want to specify that "reality" in my post was supposed to mean things that are real not things that are independently real.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @ViceRegent
    You have some good arguments. Instead of just insulting people try to make some good conversations out of them. 
    DrCerealMissDMeanor
  • @Fascism

    i do not converse with the mentally ill.  Waste of time.
    DrCerealFascismMissDMeanorNonCredentiSilverishGoldNova
  • NonCredentiNonCredenti 46 Pts
    edited November 2017
    DrCereal said:

    I have some proposed "truisms" that could be debated:
    1. Logic is trustworthy.
    2. I [i.e., humans] think.
    3. I perceive reality (albeit it's independent or not).

    Could you say how you're defining "truism"?   

    If we're talking epistemology, I would say there are some axioms from which I work, but I don't know if we mean the same thing. For example, I accept as an axiom that reality exists, that an outside world exists, that other minds exist, etc... But they are axioms in the sense that we cannot "prove" them--because to try to use logic to 'prove' logic is circular--they must merely be accepted.

    However, this does not give us cause to believe any old thing and call it an axiom. Axioms are what we reach when we get to the end of the chain of "why X?" For example, Why A? Because B. Why B? Because C. Why C? Because D.... Why X? Because it is axiomatically true. As Wittgenstein said, “If I have exhausted the justifications, I have reached bedrock and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: 'This is simply what I do.'"

    Edit: Removed principles of logic, because they don't really fit.
  • @DrCereal

    Never mind. I saw the post you're referring to, and it looks like we're describing the same concepts. Your "truism" is my "axiom" 
  • @DrCereal

    Never mind. I saw the post you're referring to, and it looks like we're describing the same concepts. Your "truism" is my "axiom" 
    Yes, I did mean "truism" as a synonym for axiom; I was trying to stress that they are self-evident.
    In hindsight, I just realized that "I think" isn't really an axiomatic statement.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • I guess I'll expand your list with a few more.  These are generally called our Properly Basic Beliefs:
    You are a self, an agent:
    There is a mind-independent reality:
    Deduction:
    Induction:
    Causation:
    Concept of truth and falsity:
    Existence of other minds
    Trust in your memory and perception:
    The reality of the past

    Note that, especially for the last two, I'm not saying we axiomatically trust all of our memories and perception, I'm saying we accept that there is a past (no last-Thursdayism).
  • I guess I'll expand your list with a few more.  These are generally called our Properly Basic Beliefs:
    You are a self, an agent:
    There is a mind-independent reality:
    Deduction:
    Induction:
    Causation:
    Concept of truth and falsity:
    Existence of other minds
    Trust in your memory and perception:
    The reality of the past

    Note that, especially for the last two, I'm not saying we axiomatically trust all of our memories and perception, I'm saying we accept that there is a past (no last-Thursdayism).
    Your second claim isn't really apparent.
    What is your proof that "There is a mind-independent reality"?
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @NonCredenti

    And what if someone denies your faith in yourself?
    DrCereal
  • NonCredentiNonCredenti 46 Pts
    edited November 2017
    DrCereal said:
    I guess I'll expand your list with a few more.  These are generally called our Properly Basic Beliefs:
    You are a self, an agent:
    There is a mind-independent reality:
    Deduction:
    Induction:
    Causation:
    Concept of truth and falsity:
    Existence of other minds
    Trust in your memory and perception:
    The reality of the past

    Note that, especially for the last two, I'm not saying we axiomatically trust all of our memories and perception, I'm saying we accept that there is a past (no last-Thursdayism).
    Your second claim isn't really apparent.
    What is your proof that "There is a mind-independent reality"?
    My second claim... there is a mind-independent reality?  It just means there is an external world. I accept as axiomatically true that the external world exists. 

    The point is that there isn't any proof for any of these things. They all must simply be accepted, because at the end of the day, any "proof" we could provide for them would rely on the very reasoning faculties (sense perceptions, memory, cognitive faculties) we're trying to justify. There is no non-circular way to do it. You can't build a ladder to get to the same ladder. So I don't try to get around that with mental acrobatics, I simply accept that, ultimately, rationality is made up of assumptions which are not themselves rationally justifiable. It would be great if they were, but they're not. 

    Edit: To clarify, saying "any proof" is probably misleading. There is proof as in "evidence" or "reason to accept" something. But we don't have incontrovertible full-proof way of establishing these things that aren't ultimately circular.

  • DrCereal said:
    I guess I'll expand your list with a few more.  These are generally called our Properly Basic Beliefs:
    You are a self, an agent:
    There is a mind-independent reality:
    Deduction:
    Induction:
    Causation:
    Concept of truth and falsity:
    Existence of other minds
    Trust in your memory and perception:
    The reality of the past

    Note that, especially for the last two, I'm not saying we axiomatically trust all of our memories and perception, I'm saying we accept that there is a past (no last-Thursdayism).
    Your second claim isn't really apparent.
    What is your proof that "There is a mind-independent reality"?
    My second claim... there is a mind-independent reality?  It just means there is an external world. I accept as axiomatically true that the external world exists. 

    The point is that there isn't any proof for any of these things. They all must simply be accepted, because at the end of the day, any "proof" we could provide for them would rely on the very reasoning faculties (sense perceptions, memory, cognitive faculties) we're trying to justify. There is no non-circular way to do it. You can't build a ladder to get to the same ladder. So I don't try to get around that with mental acrobatics, I simply accept that, ultimately, rationality is made up of assumptions which are not themselves rationally justifiable. It would be great if they were, but they're not. 


    But then, if it were equally valid to assume that there wasn't a mind-independent reality, then why should either statement be accepted as true?
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • NonCredentiNonCredenti 46 Pts
    edited November 2017

    And what if someone denies your faith in yourself?
    We don't reach these axioms by faith in ourselves. We justify beliefs with prior beliefs. At some point (very quickly, actually) we reach a point where there is no prior belief we can use to justify a current belief. As I said earlier, A because B. B because C. C because D, but there is no E to justify D. I simply accept it. 

    This doesn't mean that we can take any old belief and call it an axiom. If we want to call ourselves rational, we must justify our beliefs until it becomes logically impossible to do so (because we would end up using rationality to justify rationality).   

    But to your point, what if someone denies, for example, the axiom that an external world exists?  Great for them. Why do they deny it? If you start asking them to justify themselves, you quickly see that they are not being rational. These Properly Basic Beliefs (PBB) are irrevisable (though they are not inerrant or a priori). They are the foundations of rationality; they are what make up rationality. To deny them is an example of irrationality. A person who acts as if they don’t trust their memory, senses, or cognitive faculties will be diagnosed as a mad person. So, yes, if someone could deny the existence of the external world without rejecting rationality, then I would have a reason to reject that axiom. But how could they do that? 
    DrCereal
  • @NonCredenti

    And what if someone denies your faith in yourself?
    I wrote a response to this, but when making a minor edit, it looks like it's lost. This is the second time this has happened. I'm going to wait a while and see if I can recreate the post later if it doesn't show up.
  • DrCereal said:
    But then, if it were equally valid to assume that there wasn't a mind-independent reality, then why should either statement be accepted as true?
    We're not equally valid to assume there isn't a mind-independent reality. Our senses, memory, and cognitive faculties tell us there is an outside world. The issue here is that we cannot rationally justify our belief in it without appealing to the same faculties that delivered the belief in the first place. But that doesn't mean we throw our hands up and decide it's not real; it only means we must accept it without rational justification.

    Let's say you're a police officer, testifying in traffic court that I was going 99 MPH. I'm going to challenge you at every step of the way to justify your testimony. So you say you used a radar gun. I ask you to justify your belief that the radar gun is accurate. You say "I know it's accurate because it clocked you going 99 MPH." I'm going to object because you can't use your radar gun's measurement of my speed to justify your radar gun's measurement of my speed! That's circular. You might then say that you have it professionally calibrated at a facility which measures objects of known speed, blah blah blah.  OK, so now you have some other thing to use to justify the reading of your radar gun.

    But we don't have some "other thing" to justify our rationality. We only have our rationality--our senses, memory, cognitive faculties.
    DrCereal
  • DrCereal said:
    But then, if it were equally valid to assume that there wasn't a mind-independent reality, then why should either statement be accepted as true?
    We're not equally valid to assume there isn't a mind-independent reality. Our senses, memory, and cognitive faculties tell us there is an outside world. The issue here is that we cannot rationally justify our belief in it without appealing to the same faculties that delivered the belief in the first place. But that doesn't mean we throw our hands up and decide it's not real; it only means we must accept it without rational justification.

    Let's say you're a police officer, testifying in traffic court that I was going 99 MPH. I'm going to challenge you at every step of the way to justify your testimony. So you say you used a radar gun. I ask you to justify your belief that the radar gun is accurate. You say "I know it's accurate because it clocked you going 99 MPH." I'm going to object because you can't use your radar gun's measurement of my speed to justify your radar gun's measurement of my speed! That's circular. You might then say that you have it professionally calibrated at a facility which measures objects of known speed, blah blah blah.  OK, so now you have some other thing to use to justify the reading of your radar gun.

    But we don't have some "other thing" to justify our rationality. We only have our rationality--our senses, memory, cognitive faculties.
    Where is the contradiction in the assumption that reality is mind-dependent? If there is none, then you can't say that it isn't equally valid.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • I didn't say there was a contradiction. I said it's not equally valid to assume the two different things. 

    How could you rationally tell me you think there is no world outside your brain? By talking to me you are showing that you think I exist, so there must be some outside world. If you tell me "You don't exist," you are not being rational
  • I didn't say there was a contradiction. I said it's not equally valid to assume the two different things. 

    How could you rationally tell me you think there is no world outside your brain? By talking to me you are showing that you think I exist, so there must be some outside world. If you tell me "You don't exist," you are not being rational
    You existing and you existing independently are two different propositions. I do not at all deny the former; I'm saying that there is no way for me to prove that you exist independent of mind (of what I perceive).
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @DrCereal
    So you're saying I could be a figment of your imagination? That there might really be no outside world, and you're just imagining it all, including me?
  • DrCereal said:
    You existing and you existing independently are two different propositions. I do not at all deny the former; I'm saying that there is no way for me to prove that you exist independent of mind (of what I perceive).
    I think we're in furious agreement. I believe that the world existed before I began to exist. I don't think it's all a figment of my imagination. I cannot justify this belief in a way that would be non-circular, so I simply accept it as an axiom upon which I can build other beliefs. 

    But that lack of final justification doesn't mean it's equally valid to believe it is all a figment of my imagination. 
  • @DrCereal
    So you're saying I could be a figment of your imagination? That there might really be no outside world, and you're just imagining it all, including me?
    Strange way of phrasing it, but yes.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    You existing and you existing independently are two different propositions. I do not at all deny the former; I'm saying that there is no way for me to prove that you exist independent of mind (of what I perceive).
    I think we're in furious agreement. I believe that the world existed before I began to exist. I don't think it's all a figment of my imagination. I cannot justify this belief in a way that would be non-circular, so I simply accept it as an axiom upon which I can build other beliefs. 

    But that lack of final justification doesn't mean it's equally valid to believe it is all a figment of my imagination. 
    "But that lack of final justification doesn't mean it's equally valid to believe it is all a figment of my imagination."
    Incorrect. Either there is a contradiction, or it's completely valid to accept.

    For example in geometry, Euclid's fifth postulate doesn't necessarily have to be true. Similar - yet contradictory - postulates could also be given that rise to Hyperbolic and Elliptic geometry.
    They are all equally valid logically and mathematically.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • NonCredentiNonCredenti 46 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @DrCereal

    When you say "contradictory" do you mean "mutually exclusive"?  As in, an external world is mutually exclusive with a internal-only world (it exists only in the imagination)?  If not, can you tell me what you mean by contradictory? What is contradicting what?

    In talking about alternate postulates, do you mean they are equally likely?  I know you say they're equally valid, logically and mathematically, but do you also think they're equally likely?


  • @DrCereal

    When you say "contradictory" do you mean "mutually exclusive"?  As in, an external world is mutually exclusive with a internal-only world (it exists only in the imagination)?  If not, can you tell me what you mean by contradictory? What is contradicting what?

    In talking about alternate postulates, do you mean they are equally likely?  I know you say they're equally valid, logically and mathematically, but do you also think they're equally likely?


    That's what contradictory means. Reality can't both be independent and dependent.

    I do not know their liklihoods so I simply assume (until further investigation or arguments presented by others) that they are equally likely.
    Unless you can demonstrate it to me, there is no reason to suggest that one assumption is more likely than the other.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    I do not know their liklihoods so I simply assume (until further investigation or arguments presented by others) that they are equally likely.
    Unless you can demonstrate it to me, there is no reason to suggest that one assumption is more likely than the other.
    The bolded is not how we make rational decisions. One option has no evidence in its favor, no reason to think it's so. The only thing it has going for it is a bare possibility. The other has the acknowledgement that it could be false, but 99.99999% of our faculties tell us otherwise. 

    I guess you're saying you're a complete blank slate where an external world is concerned? The scales are perfectly balanced? OK let's tip the scales a little.

    Right now you see a computer outside of your body. You feel the computer outside of your body. You hear things going on outside your body. Your skin probably feels clothing being worn on your body. These things are not proof of an external world, but they are evidence to go on the scale. Is there a reason we should discard this evidence? No.  (We could discard it as hallucination, but should we? Why?)

    What can go on the other side of the scale? Nothing? There is no reason to think we are hallucinating. 

    Really, I'm trying to figure out how my "an external world exists" is different from your "I perceive reality"?  Why do you accept one as axiomatically true, but think the other is exactly 50/50?
  • DrCerealDrCereal 143 Pts
    edited November 2017
    DrCereal said:
    I do not know their liklihoods so I simply assume (until further investigation or arguments presented by others) that they are equally likely.
    Unless you can demonstrate it to me, there is no reason to suggest that one assumption is more likely than the other.
    The bolded is not how we make rational decisions. One option has no evidence in its favor, no reason to think it's so. The only thing it has going for it is a bare possibility. The other has the acknowledgement that it could be false, but 99.99999% of our faculties tell us otherwise. 

    I guess you're saying you're a complete blank slate where an external world is concerned? The scales are perfectly balanced? OK let's tip the scales a little.

    Right now you see a computer outside of your body. You feel the computer outside of your body. You hear things going on outside your body. Your skin probably feels clothing being worn on your body. These things are not proof of an external world, but they are evidence to go on the scale. Is there a reason we should discard this evidence? No.  (We could discard it as hallucination, but should we? Why?)

    What can go on the other side of the scale? Nothing? There is no reason to think we are hallucinating. 

    Really, I'm trying to figure out how my "an external world exists" is different from your "I perceive reality"?  Why do you accept one as axiomatically true, but think the other is exactly 50/50?
    "The bolded is not... decisions"
    I disagree. Decisions require substantiation. Without substantiation, there is no reason to assert - with certainty - that propositions are true.

    "One option has no evidence in ... of our faculties tell us otherwise."
    So is your argument that we should believe reality is independent because it's intuitive to do so? Our faculties could be wrong. There is (we're now moving the goal post) no way you can confidently say that our faculties are correct and are not simply "deceptions" or "hallucinations".

    "Right now you ... but they are evidence to go on the scale."
    They prove that I perceive things. They do not at all prove that those things exist independently of mind. Again, there isn't really a good reason to assume they do.

    "Is there a reason we should discard this evidence?"
    Most of my reasoning for this comes from "Cartesian Doubt". There is a chance that what we see is not what is real (in the sense of being independent of mind).

    "Really, I'm trying to figure out ... 'I perceive reality'."
    My statement was supposed to emphasize that I perceive, and that I call my perceptions reality. I do not at all discuss the dependence of this reality within this statement.
    If this is what you mean, then we are in agreement. If you still do mean that reality isn't a hallucination (or a deception), then we are still in disagreement.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    "The bolded is not... decisions"
    I disagree. Decisions require substantiation. Without substantiation, there is no reason to assert - with certainty - that propositions are true.


    Maybe our disagreement here is a bit of semantics. I'm taking your "demonstrate" to be a pretty strong demonstration. In discussions like this, "prove" and "demonstrate" and "provide strong evidence" are often almost synonymous. We can make rational decisions based on weak demonstrations and even no demonstrations. If you meant "demonstrate" in a rather weaker sense, then we probably agree and I'll withdraw that statement. However, the context of your argument doesn't seem to support using demonstration in a weaker sense. 

    For example, you keep talking about certainty, but the context of this discussion is that almost nothing is certain, so why would we say certainty is required to assert a proposition? The whole point is that what we must be provisional in affirming or denying propositions, not that we cannot affirm or deny any.

    "One option has no evidence in ... of our faculties tell us otherwise."
    So is your argument that we should believe reality is independent because it's intuitive to do so? Our faculties could be wrong. There is (we're now moving the goal post) no way you can confidently say that our faculties are correct and are not simply "deceptions" or "hallucinations".
    I think "intuition" carries some baggage related to understanding that makes me want to say no. I'd rather say we should believe reality is independent because we seem to experience an independent reality. Yes, it could be wrong, and when I have a reason to think it is wrong, I'll adjust my beliefs.

    Furthermore, I think your answer sidesteps my point. I'm drawing a comparison between our reasons for and against accepting two options:

                                                                       External World                  Hallucination
    1. Is it possible?                                         Yes                                      Yes
    2. Is there evidence to support it?             Yes, lots                               None or almost none
    3. Is there evidence to contradict it?          None or almost none          Yes, lots
    4. Is there reason to accept it?                  Yes, lots                              Minimal / Some
    5. Is there reason to reject it?                    None or almost none          Yes, lots
    6. Decisions made assuming...                  Hundreds of millions+         Zero

    You seem to be hanging your hat on row 1, as if to say both are possible, so they're equally likely.  But you're using the opposite extremes of justification for the two opposing positions. For "hallucination" you only require the barest possibility, but for "external world" you require certainty. When we admit we cannot meet that [absolute] certainty, you want to conclude they're both equally likely, but this ignores the supporting evidence for the respective options. 

    I think the 6th row of the table exposes our positions beyond a mere mental exercise. Rational people don't behave as if the external world is a hallucination. The rare person who does ends up institutionalized. When we step into the street and a bus is roaring down on us, we don't ever say, "The illusionary bus is speeding down the illusionary street at my illusionary body," or "Meh, it's 50:50 this is all a hallucination." We always step back off the street.


    "Right now you ... but they are evidence to go on the scale."
    They prove that I perceive things. They do not at all prove that those things exist independently of mind. Again, there isn't really a good reason to assume they do.

    Usually the very perception is of something that exists outside your mind. You say you accept that you perceive things, but you ignore the content of those perceptions. What is the justification for rejecting the content? Yes, it could be illusory, but what has made you conclude it is illusory?  The "good reason" to assume you're eating an apple is because you can feel, taste, touch, smell, and hear the apple as you're eating it.  The probability of this being an actual thing happening in an external world doesn't need to be 100% to count as a "good reason." Conversely, what is the good reason to think it's a hallucination? 


    "Is there a reason we should discard this evidence?"
    Most of my reasoning for this comes from "Cartesian Doubt". There is a chance that what we see is not what is real (in the sense of being independent of mind).
    That seems a reason to accept the evidence provisionally, not to discard it.


    "Really, I'm trying to figure out ... 'I perceive reality'."
    My statement was supposed to emphasize that I perceive, and that I call my perceptions reality. I do not at all discuss the dependence of this reality within this statement.
    If this is what you mean, then we are in agreement. If you still do mean that reality isn't a hallucination (or a deception), then we are still in disagreement.
    But then your statement becomes I perceive my perceptions. I think it's reasonable for "reality" to imply the external world (which is what I first thought you meant).  
    DrCereal
  • @NonCredenti
    I have exhausted myself of this conversation.
    I feel as if we have only been banging our heads on walls trying to explain what we mean to each other, and I simply don't care anymore.

    I'll respond to your contentions if I ever feel like I need to.
    (Don't fret, this will most likely be soon, but currently, I'm frustrated as hell with real world problems.)

    I would simply like to point out that mentioning that people make the assumption that the world is real as if it's evidence is an irrelevant appeal to popularity.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @NonCredenti
    Actually, I will not be responding here.
    Instead, in the near future, I will create a new debate topic centered purely around this very issue, and we can debate this there.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @Fascism

    i do not converse with the mentally ill.  Waste of time.

    So you don't talk to yourself?
  • @DrCereal (NonCredenti - "One option has no evidence in ... of our faculties tell us otherwise."
    So is your argument that we should believe reality is independent because it's intuitive to do so? Our faculties could be wrong. There is (we're now moving the goal post) no way you can confidently say that our faculties are correct and are not simply "deceptions" or "hallucinations"

    In the spiritual sense our faculties are perfect, it cannot be wrong. But how it manifests itself to our physical world could be detrimental., because we (our body, our world) are not our own creation, but Gods.

    Now if you believe that you are a result of your environment, I agree that your faculties are full of deceptions and hallucinations. But than that shouldn't be a problem from an Evolutionary standpoint, it is what you are, what NonCredenti is, .. which is a danger to both yourself, and to everyone and everything around you.

    In another word, caution should be exercised by everyone around an Evolutionist, no different than with a full grown adult pet lion. No telling when that "animal" in you will pop up, .. a lightning outside could trigger it, or someone just stepping in a dried twig.
  • DrCerealDrCereal 143 Pts
    edited February 7
    @Evidence
    In the spiritual sense our faculties are perfect, it cannot be wrong. But how it manifests itself to our physical world could detrimental., because we (our body, our world) are not our own creation, but Gods.

    I'm afraid that your first assertion stands without foundation - most likely because I do not understand the sense which you intend. I must advise you to tread carefully around the topic of God for the assumption that he (or she) exists is without proof (as the assumption that materialism is the right standpoint regarding reality is).

    Now if you believe that you are a result of your environment, I agree that your faculties are full of deceptions and hallucinations. But than that shouldn't be a problem from an Evolutionary standpoint, it is what you are, what NonCredenti is, .. which is a danger to both yourself, and to everyone and everything around you.

    That perspective on reality would be called materialism, and I by no means believe in such a standpoint. The point I wished to make is that we can't just assume a materialist standpoint is the correct one to have when considering reality, as - I'm assuming - NonCredenti has done throughout this discussion.

    In another word, caution should be exercised by everyone around an Evolutionist, no different than with a full grown adult pet lion. No telling when that "animal" in you will pop up, .. a lightning outside could trigger it, or someone just stepping in a dried twig.

    This paragraph is nothing more than niaiserie.

    Evidence
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • MikeMike 86 Pts

    I find philosophy in its many forms a dialectic—a set of reasonable arguments seeking to establish the perception of understanding through wisdom and logic, in part, dealing with the intangible machinery of nature until the scientific method provides clarity.

    We are a product of the physical laws of nature, we are a way for nature to see and experience itself; and by the property of omnipotence, trapped within its matrix, where there are no exceptions. The constructal flow of humanity through this matrix gave rise to philosophy, the taming of fire, the scientific method, having freedom to seek the path of least resistance in human evolution providing greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature.

  • We are a product of the physical laws of nature
    As I had with NonCredenti, I simply must challenge this assertion. (Hopefully I will be able to do a better job than what I had a while ago.) What reason is there to actually accept the materialist standpoint? I have yet seen proof that would suggest materialism is the correct standpoint to have when considering our perceptions.

    It is most definitely my inner "atheist" tendencies, but I can't accept a claim that must be accepted as an assumption without justification. I've even begun to question my stated "truism" that logic is trustworthy because it too must be accepted without question to be true. (If there was a proof that logic is trustworthy, it would be implicitly assuming that logic is already trustworthy and would therefore beg the question.)
    EvidenceMike
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    @Evidence
    In the spiritual sense our faculties are perfect, it cannot be wrong. But how it manifests itself to our physical world could detrimental., because we (our body, our world) are not our own creation, but Gods.

    I'm afraid that your first assertion stands without foundation - most likely because I do not understand the sense which you intend. I must advise you to tread carefully around the topic of God for the assumption that he (or she) exists is without proof (as the assumption that materialism is the right standpoint regarding reality is).

    Now if you believe that you are a result of your environment, I agree that your faculties are full of deceptions and hallucinations. But than that shouldn't be a problem from an Evolutionary standpoint, it is what you are, what NonCredenti is, .. which is a danger to both yourself, and to everyone and everything around you.

    That perspective on reality would be called materialism, and I by no means believe in such a standpoint. The point I wished to make is that we can't just assume a materialist standpoint is the correct one to have when considering reality, as - I'm assuming - NonCredenti has done throughout this discussion.

    In another word, caution should be exercised by everyone around an Evolutionist, no different than with a full grown adult pet lion. No telling when that "animal" in you will pop up, .. a lightning outside could trigger it, or someone just stepping in a dried twig.

    This paragraph is nothing more than niaiserie.

    @DrCereal- I'm afraid that your first assertion stands without foundation - most likely because I do not understand the sense which you intend. I must advise you to tread carefully around the topic of God for the assumption that he (or she) exists is without proof (as the assumption that materialism is the right standpoint regarding reality is).

    Yes, so true coming from a carnal, materialistic view. I lived most of my life outside that box, but I know what you mean. I am surrounded by boxes.

    Dr.Cereal- That perspective on reality would be called materialism, and I by no means believe in such a standpoint. The point I wished to make is that we can't just assume a materialist standpoint is the correct one to have when considering reality, as - I'm assuming - NonCredenti has done throughout this discussion.

    So how do you understand a "spiritual perspective" of life? (assuming you believe the mind is the result of the brain)

    Dr.Cereal- This paragraph is nothing more than niaiserie.

    From an Evolutionary perspective, yes, that would be, .. total nonsense. But you see God does exist, He created this body of dust, which is just a tool, a temple we/spirit/mind use to develop/evolve our individuality, or character. It's amazing how God was able to do that, .. now that would be a good philosophical debate, on: "How did Infinite able to create a body where a part of Himself could redefine itself!?" I know, you're thinking: "That does not compute".

    Too bad that those into quantum theory don't step out of their box, but only peek. What are they afraid of? Like that Markram guy in Switzerland, uses biologically-detailed digital reconstructions and simulations of the mammalian brain.
    But I understand if all he is looking for is for "health and disease", (or how to best depopulate?) .. but he does peek out of the box, for It is hoped that it will eventually shed light on the nature of consciousness. Imagine consciousness limited to a 3lb. brain!? What a waste of resources and time.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch