Reality

[Liberal]

QuickSilver

Though we are diametrically opposed regarding our beliefs in God, I thought that in our prior discussion we had come to some sort of conclusion about at least sharing the same physical relm. So unless this is all a mass illusion a la Matrix, isn't there just a slight chance that at least some things can be objectively proven to exist?

No, I'm afraid not. The chance is zero.

At least to the extent that we humans can manage objectivity.

As humans, our consciousness is a closed reference frame. We can "manage" subjectivity only.

Or was Descartes completely wacked out on crack?

Descartes attempted to use a reason epistemology to prove his own existence, and then later (in Meditations III) a very complicated attempt to prove the existence of God.

Unfortunately, to prove anything at all, including your own existence, you must first exist, since a being who does not exist cannot leave such evidences. That makes your existence axiomatic. Because your axiom (that you exist) will match your conclusion (that you exist), your argument begs the question, and is a circle.

If I am wrong then I would like to challenge myself further on this topic but in another thread - you start it though, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Begin here.

[Scylla]

"Unfortunately, to prove anything at all, including your own existence, you must first exist, since a being who does not exist cannot leave such evidences. That makes your existence axiomatic."

But that doesn't prove that a being that does, can't. Therefore it's not necessarily axiomatic.

[Liberal]

A being that does can't because of rules of tautology (as explained). The only way you could prove that you exist is if you didn't. But then you couldn't.

[Scylla]

Isn't your closed reference frame unproven, and hence axiomatic?

[Liberal]

Yes, of course. Every truth is axiomatic.

[Scylla]

Is "I think therefore I am" axiomatic?

How about "2 + 2 = 4?"

or "a=b=c, then a=c?"

[Robot Arm]

Originally posted by Libertarian
A being that does can't because of rules of tautology (as explained). The only way you could prove that you exist is if you didn't. But then you couldn't.


This sounds like a job for Reductio-ad-absurdum Man! I assume that I don't exist. But then how can I be assuming anything? Contradiction, therefore my assumption is wrong.

[QuickSilver]

...Oh boy, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you, Lib.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that you exist while I must prove to you that not only do I exist but so do you and all the other wonderful people on this planet. Is that the challenge then?

[jb_farley]

no QuickSilver. You can't prove to Lib that you exist. Ever. Your job appears to be to demonstrate how you know that Libertarian is a real being and not some hallucination of yours or an artifact of a peculiar universe, and to prove that demonstration.

good luck.

[QuickSilver]

...and in order to do that I must first step out of that particular universe, demonstrate it's existance and then demonstrate Lib's existance therein.

I think I feel a brain aneurism coming on....

Okay, look, this is preposterous! If I must prove that Lib or anyone else exists prior to entering into any kind of dialogue with them, let alone some kind of contractual agreement (in a libertarian sense as I understand it) then I have to acknowledge their existance as truth. Else, what would compell me to honour that contractual agreement? I could simply wish them out of existance without carrying out my side of the bargain. They cannot wish me out of existance because this is my construct in which I am god.

So if all this is subjective reality, what is it that compells us as humans to function in a co-operative, even symbiotic manner? Is it our lack of intellectual ability to percieve any other kind of reality but this one? If so, how are we able to contemplate the possibility of other realities?

[Whack-a-Mole]

I know it's a painful concept Quicksilver but I'm afraid Lib has gotcha. As jb_farley said you cannot 'prove' anything to anyone else as each person is their own reference frame. As far as I know my hallucination that is this universe just had you do whatever it was you did. You're still just a figment of my imagination however.

I will say, however, via the concept of "I think therefore I am" and Robot Arm's example that I exist. I may not exist in the form I think I do (ala The Matrix) but there is something somewhere that is me or at least that I am a part of. I may not be able to prove it to you but then again you can't prove to me I don't exist either (although I think that might be asking you to prove a negative which is a no-no).

No-no or not it does give me some peace of mind to know that you can't prove I do not exist. I'm not sure what I'd do if you did...

[Whack-a-Mole]

I meant to add one other thing to my post then forgot till just reading Quick's post just above.

This may all be a painful concept but it's best left as a mental exercise. I don't think telling a robber pointing a gun at you that he must prove his existence to you a very useful or prudent course of action.

In the end it's best if we all assume everyone else we see around us not to mention the entire universe as really existing. A minor exception to this may be some religions. I believe Christian Scientists hold as a tenet that your body, this world, indeed this universe, is an illusion and strive to rise above it (sort of an enlightenment). Some of these people go to extremes and forgo medical care as one aspect of their faith. Beyond that, however, most people act as though this world is real.

[jb_farley]

also, keep in mind that 'reality' is a construct in your head based on memory and sensory data (note that just because it is a construct does not mean that it is false or fictional). reality is nothing but the present moment.

and keeping in mind that the average person spends one third of their existence asleep (and that dreams or dream-like sensations are believed to occur throughout sleep), then you can easily deduce that a full third of what you normally comprehend as an outer objective reality has no basis in reality.


i didn't mean that you must prove he exists before you can theoretically debate him. more along the lines that, since the debate focuses on subjective reference frames, your job is to deal with your head, and not with Lib's.

salud.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Part of the problem of proving you exist to someone else is the fact that we are all locked inside of our own skulls.

If, however, telepathy (or better yet a Vulcan Mind Meld) existed would that change the equation for anyone?

[jmullaney]

Oy. I hope Ren is reading this -- this answers your doubt that logic and wisdom are separate realms. If you don't use widsom to choose your axioms, you get into all kinds of trouble.

[oldscratch]

Taken from "The thing in itself"
"the appearance of ÒphenomenaÓ when our sense-organs experience an impact from external objects, the disappearance of ÒphenomenaÓ when some obstacle prevents the action upon our sense-organs of an object which we know to exist. The sole and unavoidable deduction to be made from this Ñ a deduction which all of us make in everyday practice and which materialism deliberately places at the foundation of its epistemology Ñ is that outside us, and independently of us, there exist objects, things, bodies and that our perceptions are images of the external world.! "

If I do not exist, I can have no perceptions of things that do exist. As these things do exist, I can sense them when they are present, I can not sense them when they are not, I must conclude I do exist.
If I did not exist, nothing would prevent me from smelling things in the future or past.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Jeff_42
Part of the problem of proving you exist to someone else is the fact that we are all locked inside of our own skulls.

If, however, telepathy (or better yet a Vulcan Mind Meld) existed would that change the equation for anyone?

Nope. I could still be a brain in a jar, hallucinating that "other" presence in my head.

[Liberal]

Dammit. Okay, back soon.

[Liberal]

Scylla

Is "I think therefore I am" axiomatic?

No. That is an implication. Implications are of the form "A implies B" or "If A then B" or "A therefore B".

How about "2 + 2 = 4?"

No. "2 + 2 = 4" is a conclusion that can be derived from the Peano axioms.

or [if] "a=b=c, then a=c?"

Well, no. That is an implication. But it is often presented axiomatically as an associative or implicative law.

QuickSilver

If I understand you correctly, you believe that you exist while I must prove to you that not only do I exist but so do you and all the other wonderful people on this planet. Is that the challenge then?

Huh? No.

The challenge (and an impossible one, I'm afraid) is to prove that you — just you — exist without using a tautology. (Remember, that's what drew your initial reaction, when I said that you can't objectively prove that anything exists because all epistemologies are tautological).

The request that I, as a man of faith, prove God exists is quite common. And I am willing to provide that proof to anyone who will first prove to me that he, the person desiring my proof, exists.

J B Farley

no QuickSilver. You can't prove to Lib that you exist. Ever.

You are exactly right. Not without begging the question, anyway.

QuickSilver

Okay, look, this is preposterous!

Dude! I opened the thread at your request! (See Opening Post.)

[Liberal]

Sorry. Missed this one from

Robot Arm

This sounds like a job for Reductio-ad-absurdum Man! I assume that I don't exist. But then how can I be assuming anything? Contradiction, therefore my assumption is wrong.

Reverse cause. Thank you for playing anyway. :)

You may assert that you don't exist, but you may not assume that you don't exist (because you can't assume until you do exist). And that makes your existence axiomatic.

You can't say that A=B if you have not first established that A=A.

[jmullaney]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Phillip K. Dick

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Libertarian

You may assert that you don't exist, but you may not assume that you don't exist (because you can't assume until you do exist). And that makes your existence axiomatic.


Lib, I've followed you up until this point. How may a non-existant entity assert something?

[Liberal]

I shouldn't leave this out, either:

Jeff 42

Part of the problem of proving you exist to someone else is the fact that we are all locked inside of our own skulls.

That is exactly the problem. Each consciousness is a closed reference frame. If there is any sort of objectivity, then it is a Reference Frame that is Absolute.

JMullaney

Your Dick is very wise. Whatever is Absolute, of course, will not ever pass away.

Ptahlis

Lib, I've followed you up until this point [You may assert that you don't exist, but you may not assume that you don't exist (because you can't assume until you do exist). And that makes your existence axiomatic]. How may a non-existant entity assert something?

Once that assertion is made (but not until), the entire argument is moot. It is the opposite of begging the question. It is asserting the consequent. (Watch out also for its converse, denying the antecedent.)

[Scylla]

I equals I. Before cognition there is the sense of "I." There can be no sense of I without one who senses. I sense. I sense. I am he. He who senses, that is me. Is that proof enough for thee? (though I cannot prove you to be.)

And proof of that which is outside of me? Painfully obvious for any to see.

Mathematically proven! An impossible notion. Is the idea of perpetual motion. I sense, you see. So, there must be something outside of me, to fuel this action, charge my battery.

[Liberal]

:D

[oldscratch]

Two questions. You are asking that I (or whomever else is arguing with you prove their existence) are you operating from the idea that you exist? There isn't much point in proving my existence to something that doesn't itself exist.

Do you believe that something must exist. Or is all non-existence?

[Liberal]

OldScratch

You are asking that I (or whomever else is arguing with you prove their existence) are you operating from the idea that you exist? There isn't much point in proving my existence to something that doesn't itself exist.

You're absolutely right. And that is no doubt exactly how God sees it. ;)

Do you believe that something must exist. Or is all non-existence?

Whatever does indeed exist must exist independent of any epistemology.

It must be Absolute, that is, objectively real. It must exist whether or not any closed reference frame can perceive it. Moreover, it must be perceivable by any arbitrary reference frame that happens to exist along with it. But that does not necessarily mean that every reference frame will perceive it, or even cares to.

[Liberal]

Erratum.

It must exist whether or not any closed reference frame can perceive it.

That should have read:

It must exist whether or not any closed reference frame exists that can perceive it.

[Scylla]

I laugh at Libertarian
"You poor silly guy,
this faulty false logic you think people will buy?
Evidence is evidence and evidence will show
A proof of God, sadly no.
Use Occam's razor, use it truly and fair,
Renounce Descartes, there are others out there.
Unproven God, evidence for man. What's the problem here?
Get with the plan!
Disproving one does not the other disprove,
Get off this unreasoned stance. Get up! Move!

[Derleth]

I once saw a bee.
I think I know that it saw me.

Because it did, I got stung.
I cried, for I was very young.

I can still remember what I did feel.
Damn! Reality's real!

Notes:
If you choose to quote Descartes
and claim tautology was his art
we will only be impressed with you
if you can prove his existence, too. :D

[BlackKnight]

If I think, then I exist.
I think.
Therefore, I exist.

Where's the problem?

[jb_farley]

for all I know, in your post my monitor is claiming to exist. you haven't proven that you in fact exist, merely made a claim.

[JasonFin]

Ah, yes. The question of ultimate reality. In all the talk about what is real, the concept of unreality is frequently ignored. Can a person really be positive that he or she is real? It may be tautologically impossible for a real person to assume his unreality, but what about for an unreal person (in a purely hypothetical sense, of course)? How might a hypothetical existence feel different from a real one? Does existence really "feel" like anything at all? In light of the fact that "reality" cannot be proven, and seems mysteriously to shed off all attempts at reductionistic definition or explanation, is it really a meaningful concept?

I don't expect answers to unanswerable questions, but I'd like to provoke a little thought. It seems to me that many people are a bit too attached to their axioms.

[Liberal]

BlackKnight

If I think, then I exist.
I think.
Therefore, I exist.

Where's the problem?

It is the same as the problem with this: The Bible says, "Every word in here is true," therefore, the Bible is true.

JasonFin

In light of the fact that "reality" cannot be proven, and seems mysteriously to shed off all attempts at reductionistic definition or explanation, is it really a meaningful concept?

It is a meaningful concept in the context of the closed reference frame that perceives it only.

It seems to me that many people are a bit too attached to their axioms.

Agreed! I learned that very thing about myself only recently, thanks mostly to Spiritus Mundi.

The science epistemology is of great interest nowadays because of its ability to make rather mundane atomic groupings into rather spectacular atomic groupings (the technology end), as well as its ability to make itself repeatable (the experimentation end). The former, the technology, is merely quaint, and is no different metaphysically from the miracle epistemology. But the latter is more irritating to most theistic apologists who react like deer in the headlights when atheists demand repeatability of their claims about God.

"You say you did such-and-such and found God. Well, I did such-and-such, too, but I did not find God."

Frustrating. Until you recognize it for what it is, a distraction fallacy. You want repeatability about my experiences with God? Fine, then. Be me. Your measuring machines with their gauges afford you repeatability because if I make a machine the same way you made yours, it will behave the same way in the same circumstance. Your repeatability won't work if I make a machine that is merely taxanomically similar to yours but fails in its design to do what yours does.

If you are to find God (assuming such a desire), then you must do so using the hand dealt to you: your own consciousness, a reference frame that is closed to me and to everyone else.

[IzzyR]

I wonder if someone can explain to me the point of this thread, fascinating as it is. As a practical matter, what difference is there between something that can be "proved" in a logical sense, and something that can be assumed to be true as much as is humanely possible? Unless the point is this itself - that no "proof" can be demanded about anything.

(I think JasonFin may have been touching on this issue).

[Liberal]

IzzyR

I opened the thread at the request of QuickSilver, as you can see from the Opening Post. We really haven't had any threads dealing with abstract metaphysics, so I thought it was a good idea.

I think the most interesting and most important point that we could all take from this is one that Spiritus taught me: whatever is objectively real, it is independent of any epistemology.

[Liberal]

And one more thing equally important.

Maybe we can all learn to have a bit more patience with one another's subjective reference frames. Perhaps the man who says "God exists" can co-exist with the man who says "God does not exist," and the two of them can understand why the other believes as he does, and stop demanding ridiculous proofs of one another.

[Spider Woman]

(seriously out of my league here; a minor leaguer viewing the majors) but here goes:

In order to accept a proof of existence, wouldn't one have to accept the axioms upon which that proof is based? And aren't axioms unprovable; they are either accepted or not accepted? So, I don't think it's possible to logically argue one's own existence.

oldscratch says:

If I do not exist, I can have no perceptions of things that do exist. As these things do exist, I can sense them when they are present, I can not sense them when they are not, I must conclude I do exist.
If I did not exist, nothing would prevent me from smelling things in the future or past.

Conversely(?)(I am having a little difficulty deciphering this one, oldscratch), there are blind people who have never seen and have no perception of color. There are deaf people who have never heard, and have no perception of sound. Our perceptions, and any logical proof we could give them, would amount to nothing to these people, because, to them, color or sound truly do not exist. The wavelenghts that emanate from objects which reflect light or sound DO exist to them, but not our perception of them. They may perceive some sort of vibration, but not sight or hearing in the way we perceive them.

I may be misinterpreting here, but that is what I conceive of as a closed reference frame; all of ours are different, and inaccessible to each other.

[Spider Woman]

And one more thing equally important.

Maybe we can all learn to have a bit more patience with one another's subjective reference frames. Perhaps the man who says "God exists" can co-exist with the man who says "God does not exist," and the two of them can understand why the other believes as he does, and stop demanding ridiculous proofs of one another

But can I still play? (How about women :)?)

[Liberal]

Spider Woman

You are clearly the equal of anyone here, as your analysis is impeccable.

This stuff really isn't rocket science. It is basically common sense. I just think we tend to take it for granted when we start screaming at each other, "Fallacy! Fallacy! Prove it! Prove it!" I have heard Atheists shred to pieces such arguments as Pascal's Wager, Descartes' Meditations, and Lewis' Dichotomy. But in the end, you have to blame Pascal, Descarte, and Lewis for making such silly attempts.

I think it is fair that, if a person ;) demands proof of God's existence, she accede to a demand that she first prove her own.

[Scylla]

Your logic is false for all to see!
Of course we all lack pure objectivity,
but peer we do although misty
Through the lens of consensus reality.

Does this alter reality to subjectivity?
Reality exists for all to see
But God remains hidden from you and me.

The one and the other are different and not the same.
I would not beleive they are on a plane.
I would not beleive it in a box.
I would not beleive it with a fox.
I would not beleive it here nor there.
I would not believe it anywhere.
Your views remain hopelessly agrarian (hey, it works)
my poor befuddled Libertarian.

[Liberal]

Scylla

A rhyme epistemology! I love it! Why not!

agrarian - Libertarian :D

You might find it interesting that my world-view makes a perfect Haiku!

---

Objectivism
Libertarianism
Christianity

---

Cool, eh? I therefore declare by the Haiku epistemology that my world-view is correct! ;)

[Scylla]

Haiku pales before the perfect art of Seussian verse.
Mine is better yours is worse.
besides your logic is flawed you see.
We learned that back in Philosophy 103

[Spider Woman]

I think it is fair that, if a person demands proof of God's existence, she accede to a demand that she first prove her own.

I agree :D.





[Oh, scylla, please come write us a limerick at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=35381&pagenumber=3 this thread, pretty please? :)]

[How about you, lib? :)]

[Liberal]

Scylla

But you are wrong, I dare to say!
Wrong tomorrow, wrong today!
I exist because I can,
just like any other man.
Women don't exist, you see,
because they have to sit to pee.
So there! So there! You have your proof.
Without a single logic goof.
Don't give me epistemology.
Just give me a pissed apology.

[dixiechiq]

And one more thing equally important.

Maybe we can all learn to have a bit more patience with one another's subjective reference frames. Perhaps the man who says "God exists" can co-exist with the man who says "God does not exist," and the two of them can understand why the other believes as he does, and stop demanding ridiculous proofs of one another.


lack of belief in something is not the same as belief in that same something. i don't have to prove that unicorns do not exist. the burden is upon those that claim existence.

the abstraction called god, if real, would be of major importance to every being on this and every other planet. and due to the profound implications existence of such a thing would have upon reason and science, proof needs to be quite rigorous and firm.

this smokescreen you are putting up about proving the existence of each other, while intellectually interesting, is only a smokescreen. i don't believe that you actually doubt the exitence of myself and the other posters to this thread.

[Scylla]

You will be filled with astounded elation
as I reveal to you female catheterization

Liberated, they can stand and pee
live as equals in man's reality

This you cannot deny
(though no doubt you will probably try)

Hence, no apology

[Cisco]

I think it is fair that, if a person demands proof of God's existence, she accede to a demand that she first prove her own.




That's one of the best quotes ive heard in a long time. I can already tell i love this guy and I hate him at the same time, I cant prove it though :D

[TwistofFate]

A great debate on reality
is too great a debate for me, you see.
so I will sit back and cognitate
on my inability to iterate
my simple views on existance
without error or recompance
For though Decartes had dwelt on much,
"because I think, I am" (as such)
for my claim I have no proof,
(so please inform if it's aloof)
to prove existence you must have ample
unexistence for to sample
for unless both sides you have tried
you're only claiming frome one side.
"Impossible!" I hear you cry,
"I know" would be my own reply.
"for if it was you did not exist,
you could not think, and would be pissed!"
so I revised Descatres own plan
its now "I drink, therefore I am."

[Spider Woman]

I've been looking for a sig line (if I can figure out how to use them). If Cisco doesn't want that quote, may I use it? :)

[Scylla]

Dammit TwistofFate!
nobody asked you to cogitate
but "poof" now you am
but I don't give a damn
Don't touch my Merlot '98

[Liberal]

DixieChiq

lack of belief in something is not the same as belief in that same something.

Of course. It is opposite.

i don't have to prove that unicorns do not exist.

That's right. You may believe they do not without proof.

the burden is upon those that claim existence.

What burden? If, in their reference frame, they have seen unicorns, why does any burden extend to some other reference frame (such as yours) that they cannot even experience?

the abstraction called god, if real, would be of major importance to every being on this and every other planet.

Then it behooves us to seek Him out.

and due to the profound implications existence of such a thing would have upon reason and science, proof needs to be quite rigorous and firm.

Please establish a relation, other than one gratuitously presented, between an epistemology of spiritual revelation and one of reason (or science, for that matter).

this smokescreen you are putting up about proving the existence of each other, while intellectually interesting, is only a smokescreen.

A smokescreen? What do you imagine the screen is hiding?

When a Theist says that your doubts are a smokescreen, what is your response?

i don't believe that you actually doubt the exitence of myself and the other posters to this thread.

Well, you're right. But that is a conclusion I have reached as a result of my own experience. The existence of God, same-same.

[Liberal]

Spider Woman

I've been looking for a sig line (if I can figure out how to use them). If Cisco doesn't want that quote, may I use it?

As you wish.

Cisco

That's one of the best quotes ive heard in a long time. I can already tell i love this guy and I hate him at the same time, I cant prove it though.

I pray that your intellectual and moral journey here at Straight Dope will be as fulfilling and edifying as mine has been. These are a wonderful bunch of people.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Ah -- a lovely thread. My kind of metaphysics.

Lib is, of course, correct that no epistemology can be proven valid in its own terms. The set of valid epistemologies is necessarily empty until the first member is accepted axiomatically. All of this, of coiurse, pales to the real issue:

Suessian doggerel vs haiku for epistemological champion of the 'verse. The truth, of course, reveals itself below.

There once were two styles poetic
Engaged in a righteous polemic
Haiku claimed a crown
And Suess threw him down
But we all know the king is the limerick

[soulsling]

Originally posted by Scylla
I equals I. Before cognition there is the sense of "I." There can be no sense of I without one who senses. I sense. I sense. I am he. He who senses, that is me. Is that proof enough for thee? (though I cannot prove you to be.)and
Originally posted by LibertarianIf you are to find God (assuming such a desire), then you must do so using the hand dealt to you: your own consciousness, a reference frame that is closed to me and to everyone else.So, is Occams razor necessary to use here?

Before thinking, before any sense of "I". Just that stuck moment where if someone where to ask you, where does that "I" come from? Or, if you will, where does God come from? With only logical, and acceptable proof to back your answer, when you attempt to answer, that brief moment of being stuck with no answer, this "not knowing" state of mind, Is that the same in all of us? Is this something we share? Is that the proof of our existence, since we all share it?

Because if someone isn't stuck at that brief moment, and can answer, then perhaps they are the only one that exist...

Too many words we seek to use
Too many theories and thoughts go abused
Only the intellectual stands in our way
of proving existence is just what we say.
Perhaps just agreement that we do is all?
Understanding like Lib said, and being mindful? (it's a stretch, i know)
Such great debates on reality
Prove only we have mentalities
Not these "real" physicalities
and boy is my poetry a shame!

[QuickSilver]

I layed awake till half past three
Trying to prove that I was me.

It then occured to me by chance
That this was all a silly dance.

I need not prove to Lib, you see,
That I exist and so does he.

I merely have to make the claim -
His epistemology is laim!

And as he cannot prove to me
That he exists - objectively.

I am then free to make the choice
of what is fact and what is noise.


Peace. ;)

[Spiritus Mundi]

Ah, but Lib, I must address

If, in their reference frame, they have seen unicorns, why does any burden extend to some other reference frame (such as yours) that they cannot even experience?

I place no burden upon anyone to prove they have seen a unicorn in their reference frame. I do place some burden upon those who claim that I could see a unicorn in my reference frame. I place additional burden upon those who claim that they know the manner in which I must look to see a unicorn in my reference frame and then conclude from my lack of seeing that I have not looked properly.

[Liberal]

Fair enough, Spiritus. And well said.

[Spider Woman]

Now I just have to figure out how to use it (presently I'll go practice at ATMB). :)

Spiritus Mundi posts this:

There once were two styles poetic
Engaged in a righteous polemic
Haiku claimed a crown
And Suess threw him down
But we all know the king is the limerick.

I think I'm in love. Puhleese post at the limerick thread.
:D

[oldscratch]

Here is what I submit. There are two epistemologies, idealism and materialism. Both revert to two axioms. One, that thoughts create matter, one that matter creates thoughts. Neither can be conclusively disproven.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

However, as an idealist I can not conclusively prove mine or anyone elses exsistence. God could very well exist. This is why I have never tried to prove that God does not exist, only the folly of idealists trying to prove to others that he exists.

As a materialist I can indeed prove the existence of my self. I can also reject the belief in God quite handily.

Again I admit that this rests on an axiom that matter creates thoughts, one that I can provide proof of again and again. And yet the staunchest idealists will never be swayed by my arguments.

[Spider Woman]

And yet the staunchest idealists will never be swayed by my arguments.

but we'll defend your right to make them! :)

[QuickSilver]

So is all this errudite silliness actually applicable in "Reality"?

I mean, if I cannot prove my own existence, then I must question everyone else's as well. Thus, if I conclude that none of what I believe exists actually exists then my social contract with the rest of my unprovable society is moot. I therefore can choose to act completely anti-socially believing that there will be no consequences. If as a result of my anti-social actions I am forced to stand up in a court of law to defend my actions, I can with imputinity scoff at the idea of judgement because in order to judge me the judge must first convince me that he exists.

Of course I do not have to act anti-socially. I can choose to behave as a model citizen and continue to fullfill my imaginary contract with society and continue to live moraly and responsibly as I have up until now.

My only question is this, do I or do I not have control of my construct? It seems to me that I have very limited control of some aspects and not others. Of course in my reality, only I can answer that question. Right?

So what purpose does this idea of subjective reality actually serve. Is it simply an unsolvable dilema for us amateur phylosophers and self proclaimed thinkers to mull over in our heads like so much cudd?

Surely if a logical statement brings one to a logical dead end, the usefulness of that statement or assertion becomes pointless and self defeating. It is of course usefull to recognize that all epistemology is tautological, however, how do we keep from throwing out the baby with the bath water? Seems to me that we cannot put too much faith into that idea afterall.

[Liberal]

QuickSilver

So what purpose does this idea of subjective reality actually serve[?]

Well, I suppose it is possible that it might serve various purposes, but there is one in particular that readily comes to mind, at least from the point of view of my own reference frame.

It is an excellent way to implement moral free-will. Each consciousness stands on its own as a separate reference frame, acting out whatever it pleases in the amoral context of the physical universe. Since it cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of a Perfect Moral Reference Frame, it sustains only whatever influence from that Reference Frame that it is willing to allow. If you can't prove that God exists, it means that ultimately you are acting on your own. Thus, you are free from the intervention of His will upon yours.

[jb_farley]

I think it absolutely necessary to keep in mind that all could be false. If you never question your own existence or perception of reality, you are blandly buying in to the illusion.

For example, think of your senses. When you touch a desk, regardless of the reality or not of the desk, all of the touching and feeling and texture-gathering is going on inside your head. The reason that these sensations seem so real is that we have a whole redundant range of them, some that clarify others and some that just back others up. I feel the desk, and see it only a few feet away from me, you know?

As to seeing, that is the most fascinating illusion of them all. We know for a fact that we only see a small wedge of the electromagnetic spectrum. We know that we only have receptors for red, green, and blue. We know that we don't really have two gaping holes in the front of our faces, but that's the way it seems. It's hard to imagine a full 360 degree view, but that would represent reality better than ours.

In short, much of what we perceive is an illusion, albeit an illusion shared by most of humanity. Not illusion in the sense that the perceived is fictional, but an illusion because we are not seeing the whole reality of the perceived's existence.

And hell, even if nothing is any different from the way we know it, I personally think it's healthier to keep in mind that it may be false.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by jb_farley
I think it absolutely necessary to keep in mind that all could be false. If you never question your own existence or perception of reality, you are blandly buying in to the illusion.

And what illusion is this? I know that you later defined it as images, yet the way you state it here, it sounds quite negative. Is there something wrong with percieving the images of things around you?


For example, think of your senses. When you touch a desk, regardless of the reality or not of the desk, all of the touching and feeling and texture-gathering is going on inside your head.

Well not exactly. A physical object is having a physical effect upon physical sensory organs contained in another physical body.


The reason that these sensations seem so real is that we have a whole redundant range of them, some that clarify others and some that just back others up. I feel the desk, and see it only a few feet away from me, you know?

They seem real because they are, they are physical objects interacting with other ones.


In short, much of what we perceive is an illusion, albeit an illusion shared by most of humanity. Not illusion in the sense that the perceived is fictional, but an illusion because we are not seeing the whole reality of the perceived's existence.

I prefer the term image. We are seeing images of real objects. The images we percieve don't correspond exactly to the actual object, but it's close enough for passing.

[jb_farley]

oldscratch, you're either being very contrary or else you have missed the whole point of these posts. true, the desk is outside of your brain. but the processing and the data-collating and the actual feeling is taking place in the brain.

you take the example of one piece of matter touching another and trump it up, but don't realize the two situations are quite different. My computer is up against my desk, but I think it safe to say it doesn't feel the computer. You feel the computer because of cellular reactions in your fingertips which are conveyed via impulse up into your brain and processed and felt, and then the sense of touch is projected via your kinesthetic sense into your hand.

it is an illusion. it doesn't make the desk unreal.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by jb_farley
oldscratch, you're either being very contrary or else you have missed the whole point of these posts. true, the desk is outside of your brain. but the processing and the data-collating and the actual feeling is taking place in the brain.

No no no. I'm not missing the point. It's taking place inside of the brain. Exactly. Inside of a physical object. It's not happening in the "mind", in some spirit outside of the body, it's a physical process.

and my question was "Is there something wrong with percieving the images of things around you? "


you take the example of one piece of matter touching another and trump it up,

I do?


it is an illusion. it doesn't make the desk unreal.

Again I object to your use of the word illusion. It carries conotations of unreal. What you are percieving is an image or a copy of the desk as object.

[jb_farley]

for one thing, if there is in fact a desk there, all the input that you are receiving is very biased and very very incomplete.

for another, this phenomenon is happening in the mind. just because you disagree with those who believe the mind is some transcendant soul controller of the brain does not mean you should do away with the concept of mind (I realize I am putting words into your head and mouth, and please realize that's not my intention- I'm trying to communicate a point to you and that's the best way I can say it).

and finally, you are missing the point. this conversation has center on the concept of the mind as a subjective closed reference frame of the universe. by trying to point to the fact "but I am touching the desk" you are completely and totally missing the point.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by jb_farley
for one thing, if there is in fact a desk there, all the input that you are receiving is very biased and very very incomplete.


True. Which is why I refer to perceiving an image of the true object. NOT the object itself.


for another, this phenomenon is happening in the mind. just because you disagree with those who believe the mind is some transcendant soul controller of the brain does not mean you should do away with the concept of mind


Right now we're quibbling over semantics. I'm not disagreeing with the concept of a mind. I'm disagreeing with those who argue against the physical object of the brain, as needed, to percieve objects. I'm not sure that's what you were arguing, but that is what it seemed like when I made my earlier post.


and finally, you are missing the point. this conversation has center on the concept of the mind as a subjective closed reference frame of the universe. by trying to point to the fact "but I am touching the desk" you are completely and totally missing the point.

You are missing the point. I haven't been pointing to touching the desk. I've been questioning what is wrong with accepting the images around you. You talked of "buying into the illusion". I asked, what illusion? Although I must confess I do not understand what point you are trying to make with the above quote.

[Liberal]

OldScratch

I have been told that my experiences with God are synaptic discharges. Are you saying that my experience with my chair are outside those discharges? Is the chair supernatural? And if my brain is "real", how do I know this? With what instrument am I perceiving my brain?

The Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true.

My brain is real because my brain says that it is real.

We cannot escape the tautologies.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by Libertarian
OldScratch

I have been told that my experiences with God are synaptic discharges. Are you saying that my experience with my chair are outside those discharges? Is the chair supernatural? And if my brain is "real", how do I know this? With what instrument am I perceiving my brain?

This we know. Removing the brain from a human being will cause the human being to stop functioning. The brain is needed for normal functioning. The chair exists as an object outside of those discharges. We percieve in every sense an image of the chair that is not the chair itself. We may not percieve the chair without those discharges, but it still exists. If you deny it's existence without those discharges you have eliminated time. For if nothing can exist without my perception of it, nothing in the past has existed.
You are not percieving your own brain but the brains of others.



The Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true.


You know, I'm interested. Where does it actually say it's true. I haven't followed the Christian debates too closely, so I've probably missed the specific passage.


My brain is real because my brain says that it is real.



God save me if my brain starts proclaiming it's own existence. :)


We cannot escape the tautologies.


Yes and no. Again, we can accept two possible ideas. Either there is a reality outside of us. Or there is not. If there is not, nothing outside of you, Libertarian, exists. There is no past, or future outside of your perception. Everything is and must be a construction of your mind.

[jb_farley]

Oldscratch, this is getting old to the point of getting insulting, but I must say that you are MISSING the POINT. Take your quote: "Removing the brain from a human being will cause the human being to stop functioning. The brain is needed for normal functioning. The chair exists as an object outside of those discharges." You have no proof that that human being has stopped functioning. The point has been reiterated in this post over and over, that you can only know that the brain is essential for the mind or normal functioning or whatever ONCE your own mind is removed and you cease to perceive or function or whatever.

Further missage of the point is the reference to the chair. You are right, that the chair exists outside of the tautology of the mind. If you understood why this tautology of the mind is the point of the conversation, you would have seen that the chair is outside of not just the 'discharges', but the discussion too.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by jb_farley
You have no proof that that human being has stopped functioning.

And here is where we get to the difference between materialism and idealism. The materialist says, of course he's not functioning you idiot. The idealist speaks of tautologies and the idea of a closed frame of reference. Give me materialism any day.


The point has been reiterated in this post over and over, that you can only know that the brain is essential for the mind or normal functioning or whatever ONCE your own mind is removed and you cease to perceive or function or whatever.

But then you can't know it. For if you cease to function you can no longer judge if you are functioning or not. The materialist points out that we can know that a bee will look for honey even if we are not our selves bees. That we can know that if I step on a rock it will not fly, regardless of wether I have stepped on that particular rock or not. If I place wings on a rat, it will not fly, no matter how much it wants to. These are objective truths to the materialist. To the idealist there is no reason why the rat can't fly if you wish it enough. And so I ask of you, make rats fly. Once you have proven to me that ideas can control matter, and not vice versa, I will become a commited idealist.



Further missage of the point is the reference to the chair. You are right, that the chair exists outside of the tautology of the mind.

But does it? What is your proof?

[matt]

Lib - I agree with you, completely! You can't prove that anything exists objectively, and all epistemologies are tautological.

However, my subjective reality includes a set of internal states which can be roughly categorised as "positive" or "negative." I'm not just talking about pleasure and pain here but hunger, thirst, warmth, cold, embarrassment, guilt, joy, satiation, loneliness, shame, self-esteem, smugness, triumph, pity, boredom, empathy, a whole set of carrots and sticks which affect me.

It's axiomatic that the positive states are superior to the negative. The states I experience are very much related to my interactions with my subjective reality - e.g. I experience more positive states when I eat, drink and bother to come in out of the rain. I also use these states to make value judgements on everything I experience. I have no other means by which to make value judgements.

If we assume for the moment that I'm really a brain in a jar in some objective reality, it makes no difference to me. The fact that my jar-brain is not harmed by my not eating is irrelevant - hunger hurts and stuffing my greedy little face with pasta-and-salmon-in-cream-sauce is nice!

Now, let's assume that someone starts tinkering with the settings in my virtual reality so I experience the same internal state irrespective of my interactions. E.g. I feel continuous boredom/pleasure/thirst and nothing else irrespective of whether I'm having sex, watching the Simpsons or being fed feet first into a garbage compactor. (I don't even feel fear of death in the last situation.) Chances are I would soon cease to interact with my subjective reality altogether.

Even worse, let's say someone inverts many settings in my virtual reality so I feel pride and satisfaction instead of shame and guilt, and my empathy and pity were replaced with disgust. My interactions with my subjective reality would change to those which I would currently call "evil". There is absolutely no way I could prevent this, or would even want to. What's more, the "new" me would rapidly come to regard my old behaviours as evil, since the memories of being nice to people would evoke feelings of shame.

I submit that in my case at least, the metaphysics of reality are irrelevant. If you were to attempt to prove your existence to me in some crude physical manner, say, with a cattle prod, I would be forced to act as if your existence was objective, metaphysics be damned! Similarly, the tautological nature of epistemologies is irrelevant - I have to judge epistemologies based on their usefulness in my interactions with my reality, measured in terms of the internal states I experience. I have no other yardstick.

I also submit that hypothetical other conciousnesses such as yourself are in the same situation. You can philosophise all you like, but everything you do, say or think is subject to the resulting positive or negative feelings you experience. Ultimately you have no other guide, not metaphysics, not ethics, not even God.

[Liberal]

OldScratch

This we know. Removing the brain from a human being will cause the human being to stop functioning. The brain is needed for normal functioning.

:D

You couldn't beg the question more if you got on your knees and pleaded!

Okay, the Bible says, "This [John] is the disciple who testifies to these things [John 1 through John 21] and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

Well, that settles it, doesn't it? I would like to be the first to welcome our new Christian, OldScratch, to the fold.

The chair exists as an object outside of those discharges.

No, it doesn't. So there! :p

How will you prove that it does? Oh, yeah. Right. You just know.

We [perceive] in every sense an image of the chair that is not the chair itself. We may not percieve the chair without those discharges, but it still exists. If you deny it's existence without those discharges you have eliminated time. For if nothing can exist without my perception of it, nothing in the past has existed.

And now, as always happens, you have come full circle. What you postulated (that the chair is real) is what you have concluded (that the chair is real). And in the course of it all, you have premised that time is not real (deny the chair, eliminate time). Those who find that the physics epistemology is valid might likely disagree.

Regarding the past, you have no proof whatsoever that anything existed, other than hearsay and induction.

The point, OldScratch, is that you must depend upon the validity of your selected epistemology to validate whatever conclusions you draw. Your whole argument about the chair is a blend of (very very loose) deduction and a stubborn induction.

In other words, what you have reasoned you present as right because you postulate (assume) that reason is right.

Tautology.

(Spare us any wailing about how you know reason is right because you see it work all the time. That's just another circle.)

You are not [perceiving] your own brain but the brains of others.

And in whose brain does that perception take place?

You know, I'm interested. Where does [the Bible] actually say it's true. I haven't followed the Christian debates too closely, so I've probably missed the specific passage.

Whoa, Nellie! You mean you disbelieve the Bible, though you have never read it for yourself?! Wow, you're just like I was. :)

Where does it say it? Practically everywhere. Here's a couple:


For the word of the LORD is right and true. Psalm 33-4
All your [God's] words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. Psalm 119:160
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 1 Corinthians 2:13
This testimony is true. Titus 1:13
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. Revelation 3:7


God save me if my brain starts proclaiming it's own existence.

There ain't no if about it. Your whole argument has been produced by your brain.

Again, we can accept two possible ideas. Either there is a reality outside of us. Or there is not. If there is not, nothing outside of you, Libertarian, exists. There is no past, or future outside of your perception. Everything is and must be a construction of your mind.


Either or, huh? Sounds logical.

Now, explain what makes logic a valid epistemology. (Warning, you can't use logic to do that, not without that dreaded tautology.)

[Liberal]

Matt

I also submit that hypothetical other conciousnesses such as yourself are in the same situation. You can philosophise all you like, but everything you do, say or think is subject to the resulting positive or negative feelings you experience. Ultimately you have no other guide, not metaphysics, not ethics, not even God.

You are exactly right. Moral free-will is thus assured.

That makes for a wonderful paradox, doesn't it? The most compelling argument for God's existence as a Free Moral Agent is the inability to prove His existence objectively!

:eek:

[Czarcasm]

I must say that this SDMB offshoot of the old {i]Eliza[/i] computer response program is amazing! Sometimes I even respond as if there really are people on the other end.

[Liberal]

To prove the existence of OldScratch
he looked for a logic escape hatch.
But what he kept finding
as his reason kept winding
was that nasty tautology catch.

[Liberal]

Slythe

Sometimes I even respond as if there really are people on the other end.

I do the same with God. Does that make God real?

[Spider Woman]

That makes for a wonderful paradox, doesn't it? The most compelling argument for God's existence as a Free Moral Agent is the inability to prove His existence objectively!
And, although I am not highly educated in the sciences, in my mind it makes sense that were there a god, and indeed this god did create all living creatures and the entire universe, this god would also be able to do it undetectibly, if that were its wish.

So even though within current scientific paradigms, a deity is unexplainable, I hold out that there is still the posibility of its existence (we humans don't know everything and maybe never will). This is why I classify myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist.

[a little side note, whaddya think of the sig?)
[and didya know there are two correct spellings for detectable? I found that out when I checked]

[Liberal]

SpiderWoman

And, although I am not highly educated in the sciences, in my mind it makes sense that were there a god, and indeed this god did create all living creatures and the entire universe, this god would also be able to do it undetectibly, if that were its wish.

If God made Himself absolutely undetectable, He would be what Poly calls "the Divine Weasel". Fortunately, He has made Himself detectable from at least one closed reference frame.

So even though within current scientific paradigms, a deity is unexplainable, I hold out that there is still the posibility of its existence (we humans don't know everything and maybe never will). This is why I classify myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist.

You are wise to hold out, especially since there is no reason to assume that the science epistemology in any way intersects the revelation epistemology. As I said before, if you want repeatability of what I have experienced, then be me.

[a little side note, whaddya think of the sig?)

Love it! :)

[Liberal]

By the way, about your sig, ("Spidey says: here I am!"), I don't know whether you're aware that Jesus said this:

In all truth I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.

[Spiritus Mundi]

That makes for a wonderful paradox, doesn't it? The most compelling argument for God's existence as a Free Moral Agent is the inability to prove His existence objectively!

Lib. I see no way that this provides a more compelling argument for the existence of God than it does for the existence of any other conceivable being. Can you develop it a bit more compellingly?

[Czarcasm]

Yeah, or so says what someone else wrote! :)
So you talk to your god the same way we converse with each other? Would you mind showing us the transcript of that correspondance(with his written permission beforehand, of course)?

[Polycarp]

Oldscratch commented:

Once you have proven to me that ideas can control matter, and not vice versa, I will become a commited idealist.

Uh, how about:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....

In direct response to this idea, numerous persons down through the years have fought and some have died in order to give us the privilege of debating this sort of stuff instead of accepting humbly the views vouchsafed us by a Supreme Leader or whatever the Queen's Council of Bishops think we ought to think...and to have the dubious privilege of choosing between Al and Dubya come November.

Quite a bit of matter depends on that idea. Have you seen the size of the IKE?

Ideas are perhaps the most powerful things under our control...when they are.

Oh, and slythe, while you addressed this to Lib., I would like to answer, in the same tone it was phrased :)
So you talk to your god the same way we converse with each other? Would you mind showing us the transcript of that correspondance(with his written permission beforehand, of course)?

That sounds really fair. Send me His written permission, and I'll send you a transcript. ;)

[Liberal]

Spiritus

Lib. I see no way that this provides a more compelling argument for the existence of God than it does for the existence of any other conceivable being. Can you develop it a bit more compellingly?

I should have included an emphasis, thus:

"That makes for a wonderful paradox, doesn't it? The most compelling argument for God's existence as a Free Moral Agent is the inability to prove His existence objectively!" My point was not about His existence, per se, but about His moral agency, which, of course, He extends to us by way of our own closed reference frame.

Slythe

Yeah, or so says what someone else wrote!
So you talk to your [God] the same way we converse with each other? Would you mind showing us the transcript of that [correspondence] (with [His] written permission beforehand, of course)?

I don't know what you mean. I've supplied numerous times my correspondence with Him in the matter of Gaudere. Did you want me to, say, ask Him what I should say to you specifically, and then share that with you? Or were you asking for other correspondences that are unrelated to you?

[Spiritus Mundi]

Ah, I get it now, Lib. Still don't see the argument, though.

If God were manifestly obvious in all reference frames how would that affect God's potential to act as a free moral agent.

[Liberal]

Because we are God.

[Spiritus Mundi]

So?

the manifestation would them simply create self-awareness. Are you arguing that self-awareness negates the possibility of free moral action?

[Czarcasm]

And lib says yet again that we are God.
And he is absolutely right, provided that "we", "are" and "God" are defined loosely enough.
In the same light, Red Skelton is Linda Lovelace.
Cats are Dogs.
The moon is green cheese.

Word games. :(

[Liberal]

Spiritus

[The] manifestation would [then] simply create self-awareness. Are you arguing that self-awareness negates the possibility of free moral action?

No, the opposite. That other-awareness would. Our free moral agency is contingent on our moral reference frame (our consciousness) being closed.

Heaven is a reunion.

Slythe

Word games.

I suppose from your reference frame, it would appear that way. I can recall when it did from mine.

[Spiritus Mundi]

No, the opposite. That other-awareness would. Our free moral agency is contingent on our moral reference frame (our consciousness) being closed.

I thought you were arguing God's moral free agency. I am quite certain that is what you posted, at least. Is your position that God's ability to act as a free moral agent is contigent upon ours? Or are you know arguing that the inability to objectively demonstrate God's existence is an argument that humans are moral free agents?

[Liberal]

Well, it's both. Hear me out, please.

Part of the confusion you're experiencing is surely my poor exposition, but another part might be like the "-" sign in math: look! it's subtraction! no! it's negation! no! it's an additive inverse!

God, in one context, is the Absolute Moral Reference Frame, the Categorical Moral Perfection. In another, He is we, acting out our moral play in the amoral context of the atoms. His Spirit is within us, and we are stewards of it.

[Czarcasm]

From my reference frame, words have meanings, and when I say these words, I try to use the common definitions of them to better communicate with others. When I use an uncommon definition of a word or phrase, I inform those with whom I am speaking, so that we may use a common frame of reference.
In regard to your "We are God" phrase, it makes sense only if you discard the common definition of "we" (i.e. human beings), and "God" (i.e. an eternal, all powerful and omnipotent being that supposedly created human beings), and subtitute vague terms for both.

Like I said-word games.

[oldscratch]

Ok let me try this. Every being on earth can percieve me, they can percieve the image that is me. wheteher by sound, taste, touch, smell, hearing, or by seeing. Everyone and every "living" being can percieve me. That is the evidence I use for existence of my self. If god is percieved by everyone on earth I will accept his existence. As he is not, I will not accept his existence. Libertarian made the point that you have to actually BE libertarian to percieve HIS god. That is not required for anything that is real. Anyone can percieve a real object. As everyone else in the world agrees that they can percieve me using one of the six sxenses I conclude I am real. That is the most basic test of reality.

[Spiritus Mundi]

God, in one context, is the Absolute Moral Reference Frame, the Categorical Moral Perfection. In another, He is we, acting out our moral play in the amoral context of the atoms. His Spirit is within us, and we are stewards of it.

Then please define the reference frame within which our inability to objectively demonstrate the existence of God is a compelling argument that God is a free moral agent.

All I am asking you to do is present the full argument that you find compelling. Now, I admit that I have been assuming it is an argument to which reason can be applied. If it is instead a purely subjective or faith-based position, then simply say so.

Of course, I will likely respond that I hardly think that qualifies as the "most compelling argument for God's existence as a free moral agent."

[Triskadecamus]

If God was a big rock, from which a booming voice came, giving instructions, and pronouncing the doom of any who spoke to it, it would be very easy to prove God’s existence. Just point at the rock, and say, “See, that’s God, ask Him.” It would also be pretty much a given that as the Rock spoke, so you damn well better do. (Assuming that the Divine Rock did more than talk.)

So, at that simplistic end of provability we have very little in the way of free will. You don’t have any choices. You do what the Rock says, and you don’t have to listen or pay attention to anything else. God obviously exists, and every thing God wants is pretty obvious as well. You just follow orders. In fact, your intellect is pretty much superfluous beyond the ability to follow the instruction of the Rock. Faith is pretty pointless, since there can be no doubt. If the Rock wants good works, no doubt the Rock will instruct you on what qualifies as good works. Free will is pretty much an exercise in self damnation.

If God is entirely spiritual, having no interaction with the universe other than the spirit, then the matter of provability is entirely moot, since the spiritual is necessarily perceived individually and only by those who have a spiritual aspect themselves. It is also makes the matter of faith entirely subject to free will. The nature of good, and the possibility of good works is, likewise subject to free will, within the frame of reference of the physical universe. Any intersection of the nature of “good”, and God is what exists in spirituality. Proof of existence is (as this thread examines) necessarily unavailable, because of the nature of proof, rather than the nature of existence.

To complete the examination, if God does not exist at all, the physical universe is unaltered from the second case, and the nature of spiritual orientation of free will toward any identified set of values as “good” is entirely delusional, but otherwise, also unaltered from the second case. Provability still does not exist.

[matt]

oldscratch, did you actually see The Matrix?

You seem to be assuming that the information you recieve through your senses is an accurate reflection of some objective reality. While it is pretty much impossible to function without this assumption, it is an assumption.

You could be a human brain in a jar, kept alive with machinery oxygenating your blood. Electrodes are hooked into all the nerve endings which would normally go to your sensory apparatus, and a big computer is simulating all those people who acknowledge you exist. Your consensus reality could be an illusion.

Or you could be a frog brain in a jar. Human beings might never have existed outside the computer simulation that is feeding your senses. Those hands of yours which you can wave in front of your face are simulated. Your own brain in your own head, in which you assume all sensory information is being processed, is simulated.

Or you could something completely undescribable, somewhere completely undescribable. All that you hold to be true about reality, atoms, fields, our laws of physics etc. could be part of a simulation in a different universe where they don't exist.

Okay, so this is a useless idea and you may as well treat your subjective reality as real, especially when not doing so HURTS. But you can't prove it's objectively real.

[Spiritus Mundi]

This case has no impact upon free will, in and of itself.

Godstone would seem to be an effective coersive force, but that does not prevent my free action. I simply have another factor to consider in making my decisions. While "Free will [may be] pretty much an exercise in self damnation," it can still exist. Ghandi opposed British rule knowing that they had power over him and would punish him.

If God exists and is entirely spiritual
Well, "having no interaction with the universe other than the spirit" disqualifies most of the Old Testament, so I assume we are not talking about a Christian conception. Still, I see nothing in your examination of this case that actually addresses the question of God's (or man's) free moral agency.

For instance, it might be possible that all of those and only those whom God's spirit has touched in a particular way have faith. This would mean faith was not a free moral choice for humans, merely a "programmed" reaction to a particular touch of God's spirit. Likewise, one might argue that the Spirit that is God lacked sentience entirely and was merely a channel (or a catalyst) through which other spirits experienced change. That would begate any question of free moral action by "God".

I doubt either of those possibilities matches your personal subjective experience, but your personal subjective experience cannot be called a compelling argument for the attributes of a God whose objective existence crosses al reference frames.

if God does not exist . . .

the physical universe is unaltered from the second case, and the nature of spiritual orientation of free will toward any identified set of values as “good” is entirely delusional

This, of course, makes sense only if one has first defined "good" in terms dependent upon "God". In fact, if one has done so then the non-existence of God would indeed make such an orientation delusional. However, it is trivially possible to define "good" without reference to "God".

In no way, however, does the above reflect upon free will. It is entirely possible that a universe without God could exist in which mechanistic principles determined every action and result. Inhabitants of such a universe would have no free will, though they might enjoy the illusion of free will. Some people, in fact, believe that such is the case with our own universe.

[Liberal]

Slythe

Whew! That's a relief.

I'm glad to learn that you are merely incredulous. I was afraid that you were refusing to allow undefined terms, which would have required us to throw out the Induction Axiom and most of geometry.

You likely missed the many times that I have defined God as Spirit1, and we as dual-natured beings, with physical bodies and spiritual essence. God is not made of atoms, therefore, the attribute that we share with Him is our Spirit. Since God is not made of atoms, atoms are not real.

1 "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit... God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth... The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." — Jesus of Nazareth

[Spider Woman]

I guess that gets into the whole mind/body dualism thing, which most scientific types eschew. If you don't accept the premise on which the spirit-as-separate-from-the-body belief is based, there will not be much common ground to even discuss anything.

I haven't really decided for myself (except to say that I do not know, so I am agnostic), as I have said previously, but I really enjoy following these sorts of debates. I feel that I learn and stretch my intellect.

[dixiechiq]

in the closed reference system i occupy, not only does god not exist, it is impossible for such a thing to exist.

[Czarcasm]

I don't mind undefined or self-defined terms at all, Lib. Of course, if you wish to prove your point with such, telepathy would be a much better form of communication. That way, we wouldn't have to refer back to a Lib-to-English, English-to-Lib dictionary to make sure of the meaning of otherwise common words and phrases.
Sorry, but even under your definition of "man", your statement still doesn't hold up. If we are both body and spirit, and your god is spirit, then at best we are only partially God. Though a cake contains flour, you cannot say that a cake IS flour, can you?
To say that "a=b" is to say that "a" holds all attributes and is the exact equal to "b".

[Liberal]

Spiritus

Then please define the reference frame within which our inability to objectively demonstrate the existence of God is a compelling argument that God is a free moral agent.

All I am asking you to do is present the full argument that you find compelling. Now, I admit that I have been assuming it is an argument to which reason can be applied. If it is instead a purely subjective or faith-based position, then simply say so.

First, a small nit. Reason is just as subjective and faith-based as any other epistemology unless you discover a way to begin your argument with no assumptions or undefined terms.

Second, it seems reasonable to me, given the assumption that we are God (that is, our essence is Spirit), an entity can be a free moral agent only if its consciousness is a closed frame of reference, that is, some outside agency cannot make its decisions on its behalf. That is analogous to the definition of freedom in the libertarian ethic, i.e., the absence of coercion. Were God not a Free Moral Agent, he might be influenced by evil, and that simply would not do because He would cease to be God since one critical attribute of His is Goodness — Perfect Goodness. That's just like if a government that is libertarian began to coerce its citizens, its libertarianness vanishes in that instant.

We can prove to ourselves to our own satisfaction (by postulation) that we exist, but, as we've discussed here at length, that is the best that we can do. I can prove that you exist only by experiencing your consciousness in the way that I do my own. Were I to invade God's consciousness, He would cease to be God, since another critical attribute of His is His Free Moral Agency (He chooses to be Good). If He opened that reference frame to me, I might make decisions for Him that would destroy His Goodness and therefore His Godness.

There seems to me one and only one way (unless you can demonstrate another) that God can be God, and we can also be God, and yet each of us be accountable for our (and His) own morality, and that is to close our consciousness and allow us to take the existence of others (including Him) on faith. The notion is in line with what Tris was saying. If I know for an absolute certainty that God will instantly poke me with a cattle prod when I sin (that is, when my heart grows cold) and that He is sitting on my shoulder as I go about my life, then I am not free, but in chains.

Only if I can take the risk that God might exist can I be free to act out my morality as I and I alone see fit. Likewise, if God can take the risk that I might love Him, then He can Himself be a Free Moral Agent (thereby remaining Perfectly Good) while allowing me to be one just like Him.

If God is proven to exist objectively, then all closed reference frames open up, and God dies.

[Liberal]

Spider Woman

Glad you're back! I agree that discussions of the abstract roots of our philosophies — metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and politics — are the most intellectually stimulating of all discussions, and for good reason! They are the foundations upon which all our world-views are built.

(Note: With respect to your sig, you might add that God said, "Before Spidey was, I am," thus proving His own existence in the same way you did yours.)

DixieChiq

in the closed reference system i occupy, not only does god not exist, it is impossible for such a thing to exist.

I respect that.

Slythe

Sorry, but even under your definition of "man", your statement still doesn't hold up. If we are both body and spirit, and your god is spirit, then at best we are only partially God. Though a cake contains flour, you cannot say that a cake IS flour, can you?
To say that "a=b" is to say that "a" holds all attributes and is the exact equal to "b".

:)

The body part of us is not real, but only atoms. Thus, for the duality, we have an additive identity.

a = b + 0

Therefore

a = b

[Spiritus Mundi]

Lib:
I have never said reason was not subject to the same weakness as every other epistemology. I used it simply because you called your argument compelling and, given the audience of the SDMB and GD in particular, reason seemd teh most likely context in which to persuade. I have no objection if you wish to recast it as faith-based (or anything else), but I would likely find such a framework less compelling.

As to your argument -- you seem to be running into a problem with the imprecisely defined boundaries between Spirit & Flesh and between God & us. You also seem to be shifting away from teh original proposition. For instance:

given the assumption that we are God (that is, our essence is Spirit)

Why not simply say our essence is Spirit? If we are God, then we would necessarily share a frame of reference. If we do not share a frame of reference, the identity breaks down in perhaps the most important element (when discussing free will/morality).

an entity can be a free moral agent only if its consciousness is a closed frame of reference, that is, some outside agency cannot make its decisions on its behalf.

This does not follow. In fact, you yourself later argue that if an outside agent (not sharing your frame of reference) coerces your actions, you are not a free moral agent. If I hypnotize you and influence your actions, then you are no longer a completely free moral agent though we do not share a frame of reference. Likewise, if you perceive everything exactly the same way that I do (sharing the frame) but have no power to affect my decisions, then I am a free agent despite the fact that my reference frame is open.

Were I to invade God's consciousness, He would cease to be God, since another critical attribute of His is His Free Moral Agency

I am not sure what you mean by "invade God's consciousness". Originally, you predicated only the lack of objective proof was necessary. The contrapositive would be to assume you could objectively demonstrate God's existence. Invading consciousness would seem to be an irrelevant point. Even idf we set this aside you seem to be saying that if you could control God's actions then He would not be a free agent. Can you smell the hint of irony?

There seems to me one and only one way (unless you can demonstrate another) that God can be God, and we can also be God

Well, in the first place this is another qualification absent in the original proposition. In the second place, you will have to be much more precise in the equivalence you are postulating if you expect me to understand it well enough to base an argumnt around that axiom. I can think of an arbitrary number of ways in which a human being is not an eternal, hyperdimensional, non-physical entity of perfect goodness who created the physical universe. Saying "we are both Spirit" carries nmo semantic value unless you can communicate what "Spirit" is with sufficient precision. I can also think of any number of relationships betewen beings that are composed of the same "material" (for lack of a word) yet are not identical.

close our consciousness and allow us to take the existence of others (including Him) on faith.

Again, that seems to be a factor in the free action of humans, not in the free action of God. Are you arguing that our reference frame is closed to God (that He cannot share in our perceptions, know what is in our hearts, etc.). Again, I remind you that sharing a reference frame implies only perception, not action.

I know for an absolute certainty that God will instantly poke me with a cattle prod when I sin (that is, when my heart grows cold) and that He is sitting on my shoulder as I go about my life, then I am not free, but in chains.

Not true. Wel, not true with regard to your freedom as a moral agent. At every juncture, you are free to decide your course with the knowledge of the outcome. You certainly are acting under coersion, but your moral free agency is unaffected by the consequences of your actions. Suicide is a moral choice with irrevocable and inescapable consequences, nevertheless a depressing number of people make that choice freely.

Of course, it takes a strong will to make a moral choice knowing that punishment will irrevocably follow. Nevertheless, human beings manage to do so quite often.

Only if I can take the risk that God might exist can I be free to act out my morality as I and I alone see fit.

If you knew for a fact that God did not exist you would, in fact, be forced to act out your morality as you and you alone saw fit.

If you knew for a fact that God did exist, but knew nothing else about Him, then you would likewise be forced to act out your morality as you and you alone saw fit.

Likewise, if God can take the risk that I might love Him, then He can Himself be a Free Moral Agent

If God did not care whether you loved Him or not, He could be a free moral agent.

Nothing in your original propositions or your axioms has raised the issue of whether you love God (narcisism?). The issue was whether His existence could be demonstrated objectively. Are you adding an additional axiom that any human who can perceive God would have no choice but to love Him? If so, what does that do to your free moral choice sa a human who has stated that he can perceive God.

If God is proven to exist objectively, then all closed reference frames open up, and God dies.

That does not follow. Demonstrating the existence of God would not necessarily allow us to share His frame of reference. Sharing His frame of reference would not necessarily kill Him. Didn't Jesus share His reference, in Christian theology?


he body part of us is not real, but only atoms.

This makes sense only if you define real==Spirit. In that case it is tautology.

In other threads, you have stated that you see the material universe as a context in which moral agents make choices. Are you now arguing that said context is illusory? If so, then what value does the context have? If it has no value, why would a perfectly good being create it?

Thus, for the duality, we have an additive identity.
a = b + 0

It is just as valid to write that we have b = a - 0. Where b is man, a is God, and 0 is hyperdimensionality, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc. Are these things also not real?

[Polycarp]

Lib is falling into the Platonic/Parmenidean trap here. That which is observable is mutable, and therefore not, ultimately, real, because only that which is eternal and unchangeable is real. Therefore the table/desk/whatever before you is not "real" in the Platonic sense, and only real insofar as it partakes of God's idea of what a table is, the only "real" thing.

This is the point at which most people throw their book on metaphysics across the room and pour themselves another cold one.

The structure I would construct would be this: everything perceivable is "real" in the sense that it is a true object occupying a given locus of points in the space-time continuum, with characteristics of mass, charge, speed, and so on. (Some of these may be set to zero -- there is no electromagnetic charge or speed on a typical object standing still.)

However, some phenomena are not detectable by the senses, and require special equipment to identify, though ultimately humans do react, negatively, to their influence. Consider, for example, gamma rays.

Due to anecdotal evidence and legendary evidence from history, man has come to accept the speculation that there is, indeed, an additional group of phenomena which function, like gamma rays, outside the arena of phenomena normally detectable by the senses. It has coined the term "spirit" for the underlying nature of these phenomena.

Note, at this point, that we have not as yet assumed anything personal about the concept "spirit." For our animist pagan associates, "spirit" infills the natural world and in some way functions to provide a unity between nature and oneself. (Sqrl, Matt_mcl, Freyr, others -- please emend this for accuracy.)

To be an acceptable hypothesis, one would have to assume the idea of "spirit" to be falsifiable. However, due to its difficulty of detection, it no more requires denial by a skeptic (as opposed to a "not proven" judgment, which can be quite fair given the nature of the evidence) than did neutrinos when they were hypothesized but not yet detected.

Bringing the idea of "God" into the "spirit" question then ups the stakes a bit, since we are now ascribing personal nature, extensive power, creativity, and "mysterious ways" to Him. However, the anecdotal and legendary evidence seems to suggest that He does in fact exist to many reasonable people, though by no means to all of them.

I personally subscribe to Tris's suggestion regarding why He is not absolutely and obviously evident to the senses, though I realize quite fully how lacking this point of view is to the skeptical contingent. I have been wondering for some time whether it might not be interesting to start a thread which presumes the existence of God as generally defined (not specifically the Christian Trinity, but not the supreme deity of the Kwakiutl either -- the philosophical God shared by most monotheists and non-atheist philosophers) and see what analysis of what He may or may not be and do results in. Having someone of Gaudere's or slythe's reasoning skills tackling the nature of God instead of refuting half-baked "proofs" offered by drive-by evangelists and the resident theists seems to me to be a positive step.

I personally quibble with the God=spirit presumption of Lib's recent arguments on much the same grounds as people have a problem with his God=Love/God=those-who-love item. What is happening here is that arguers are mistaking predication of a characteristic for equivalence. And to say, "God is the universe" or "God is the sum total of all human aspirations" is equally inadequate. At rock bottom, the formula He gave Moses, the Pharisees, and Libertarian is the only proper one: "He is." The Universe may be His material manifestation, and all slythe's requests for proof founder on the fact that it is therefore impossible to show unGodness to him. But this gets off into entirely separate and even more arcane speculations. So let me stop by submitting the analysis I've arrived at to this point for critique. Pray comment on each phase of it -- if you have a problem with adding a personal God into the mix, what about the generic "spirit" concept, divorced of godhood?

[Liberal]

Spiritus

I have never said reason was not subject to the same weakness as every other epistemology. I used it simply because you called your argument compelling and, given the audience of the SDMB and GD in particular, reason seemd [the] most likely context in which to persuade. I have no objection if you wish to recast it as faith-based (or anything else), but I would likely find such a framework less compelling.

I concede that point. I should have said that I find it compelling. There is no reason, particularly given the circumstance of your perspective, that you (and many others here) should find it compelling, if for no other reason than the sheer void of a common understanding of terms.

As to your argument -- you seem to be running into a problem with the imprecisely defined boundaries between Spirit & Flesh and between God & us. You also seem to be shifting away from [the] original proposition. For instance:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
given the assumption that we are God (that is, our essence is Spirit)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not simply say our essence is Spirit? If we are God, then we would necessarily share a frame of reference. If we do not share a frame of reference, the identity breaks down in perhaps the most important element (when discussing free will/morality).

I am fine with saying simply that our essence is Spirit, so long as it is then understood that that means we are God. It is my belief, based on revelation, that we are not just made of the same "material" God is made of, but that we are the very material that He is made of; that is, we each have a sort of "piece" of Him. This isn't something that's just like him sending a diplomat to dwell in us. It is He that is in us.

That is why the closed consciousness is a necessary entity. Without it, our consciousnesses would be "merged". There would be no autonomy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A an entity can be a free moral agent only if its consciousness is a closed frame of reference, that is, some outside agency cannot make its decisions on its behalf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not follow. In fact, you yourself later argue that B if an outside agent (not sharing your frame of reference) coerces your actions, you are not a free moral agent. If I hypnotize you and influence your actions, then you are no longer a completely free moral agent though we do not share a frame of reference. Likewise, if you perceive everything exactly the same way that I do (sharing the frame) but have no power to affect my decisions, then I am a free agent despite the fact that my reference frame is open.

I think you got mixed up just a bit. Coercion is applicable to the libertarian ethic which I thought I identified clearly as an analogy. It was to help illustrate the point that followed: if God invades our consciousness (or we His) He ceases to be God (or we cease to be free) in the same way that a government that coerces loses its libertarianism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were I to invade God's consciousness, He would cease to be God, since another critical attribute of His is His Free Moral Agency

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure what you mean by "invade God's consciousness". Originally, you predicated only the lack of objective proof was necessary. The contrapositive would be to assume you could objectively demonstrate God's existence. Invading consciousness would seem to be an irrelevant point. Even [if] we set this aside you seem to be saying that if you could control God's actions then He would not be a free agent. Can you smell the hint of irony?

I predicated the lack of proof as necessary, yes, but I also said that "I can prove that you exist only by experiencing your consciousness in the way that I do my own." Therefore, invading God's consciousness would be the only way to prove He exists. That is a biconditional implication. In other words, the only way to prove that He (or you or anyone else) exists is to attain your consciousness. What other way is there to "see for yourself"?

The irony disappears when the clarification is made that it is not enough to whip God into submission (or coerce Him) to prove His existence. After all, we coerce the atoms all the time, and they don't exist. We must take His consciousness into our own to prove His existence. And that would destroy Him.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to me one and only one way (unless you can demonstrate another) that God can be God, and we can also be God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, in the first place this is another qualification absent in the original proposition. In the second place, you will have to be much more precise in the equivalence you are postulating if you expect me to understand it well enough to base an argumnt around that axiom. I can think of an arbitrary number of ways in which a human being is not an eternal, hyperdimensional, non-physical entity of perfect goodness who created the physical universe. Saying "we are both Spirit" carries [no] semantic value unless you can communicate what "Spirit" is with sufficient precision. I can also think of any number of relationships betewen beings that are composed of the same "material" (for lack of a word) yet are not identical.

:D

Well, now, that's a hoot, Spiritus! You asked me to expand my argument (present it in full) and then ambush me with the glib observation that I have added something, thus: "this is another qualification absent in the original proposition"! That is like asking me, when I assert that 1 + 1 = 2, to develop a supporting argument, and then saying, "But, hey! You never mentioned the Induction Axiom before!" Of course I didn't. I also didn't mention that A is A and any number of other things that I might have thought you would assume on your own.

As to what Spirit is, I can tell you only that Spirit is. I cannot tell you its chemical composition since it hasn't one. But if you need a synonym, you may use Reality. Spirit is all that is Real. Chemicals are not. I accept that axiomatically.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
close our consciousness and allow us to take the existence of others (including Him) on faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, that seems to be a factor in the free action of humans, not in the free action of God. Are you arguing that our reference frame is closed to God (that He cannot share in our perceptions, know what is in our hearts, etc.). Again, I remind you that sharing a reference frame implies only perception, not action.

God does indeed know what is in our hearts. After all, what's in our hearts is He! :) But consciousness is in the brain. God is not corporeal; therefore His consciousness is manifest in some other way, namely, the same way ours is once our brain cells die. I haven't a clue how that might be described. Necessarily, God would have to reveal it to me. No other epistemology can discover it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[if] I know for an absolute certainty that God will instantly poke me with a cattle prod when I sin (that is, when my heart grows cold) and that He is sitting on my shoulder as I go about my life, then I am not free, but in chains.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. Wel, not true with regard to your freedom as a moral agent. At every juncture, you are free to decide your course with the knowledge of the outcome. You certainly are acting under [coercion], but your moral free agency is unaffected by the consequences of your actions. Suicide is a moral choice with irrevocable and inescapable consequences, nevertheless a depressing number of people make that choice freely.

Of course, it takes a strong will to make a moral choice knowing that punishment will irrevocably follow. Nevertheless, human beings manage to do so quite often.

I concede that point. The God-on-the-shoulder analogy fails. It was stupid of me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if I can take the risk that God might exist can I be free to act out my morality as I and I alone see fit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you knew for a fact that God did not exist you would, in fact, be forced to act out your morality as you and you alone saw fit.

If you knew for a fact that God did exist, but knew nothing else about Him, then you would likewise be forced to act out your morality as you and you alone saw fit.

Let alone that existence can be proved only subjectively. But how can I know whether He exists if I know nothing about Him? Suppose I am to know that Roxus exists. How can I have even evidence, much less proof? What the heck is Roxus?

I must know something about God, even to assess whether there is evidence that He exists. I must be Him in His Reference Frame if I am to prove that He does.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, if God can take the risk that I might love Him, then He can Himself be a Free Moral Agent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If God did not care whether you loved Him or not, He could be a free moral agent.

Nothing in your original propositions or your axioms has raised the issue of whether you love God (narcisism?). The issue was whether His existence could be demonstrated objectively. Are you adding an additional axiom that any human who can perceive God would have no choice but to love Him? If so, what does that do to your free moral choice sa a human who has stated that he can perceive God.

What original propositions or axioms? My original remark was a gratuitous implication for which you requested ADDITIONAL support.

At any rate, God could not be the particular Free Moral Agent that He is (none other matters in this context) if He did not care whether you loved Him. He is God. He loves everyone, and has said that His will is that they love Him. But His will is not our will. Our will is our own.

And no, certainly not everyone who perceives Him will love Him. Only those who already do, like Gaudere and Tris.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God is proven to exist objectively, then all closed reference frames open up, and God dies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That does not follow. Demonstrating the existence of God would not necessarily allow us to share His frame of reference. Sharing His frame of reference would not necessarily kill Him. Didn't Jesus share His reference, in Christian theology?

We would destroy God were we to share His Reference Frame because we might choose to be evil. But, as stated repeatedly, the one and only one way to prove the existence of anyone else is to share their reference frame.

Jesus is God's Reference Frame.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[the] body part of us is not real, but only atoms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This makes sense only if you define real==Spirit. In that case it is tautology.

Yes, it is. All definitions are tautological.

In other threads, you have stated that you see the material universe as a context in which moral agents make choices. Are you now arguing that said context is illusory? If so, then what value does the context have? If it has no value, why would a perfectly good being create it?

I have always argued that the atoms (the material universe) are not real. The value of the context is that it is a context that allows us to make moral choices. The lady in front of you on the subway is an amoral wave cyst. The morality comes in whenever you interact with her: push her down, help her to her seat, or something else.

The universe is a pallet for the picture you are painting. A pallet has great value to a painter.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, for the duality, we have an additive identity.
a = b + 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is just as valid to write that we have b = a - 0. Where b is man, a is God, and 0 is hyperdimensionality, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc. Are these things also not real?

Nothing is real but God.

Poly

Lib is falling into the Platonic/Parmenidean trap here.

No, I'm not. :)

[Polycarp]

No, I'm not.

That's all you have to say about my post? :(

[Liberal]

And no, certainly not everyone who perceives Him will love Him. Only those who already do, like Gaudere and Tris.

I shouldn't have left that so unqualified in case anyone did not know that I meant "already" in an eternal context. It is possible that you, Spiritus, "love God already" a year from now.

[Liberal]

Poly

That's all you have to say about my post?

Well, I wanted to respect your position other than your observation about my falling into a Platonic/Parmenidean trap. You mentioned a "quibble" that I did not seek to blow up. As to perceiving God, I think you know that He has revealed to me that He cannot be known by the mind. That means that no instrument of any kind, save the human essence (our hearts), can ever comprehend him. Our brain apprehends only. That apprehension is identical in those who love or hate Him.

[Liberal]

In fact, you might could say that Love is how we know Him.

[Czarcasm]

Let me get this straight:
That which we have absolutely no evidence of is "real".
That which we do have evidence of cannot be proven as "real".

I think I'll leave Wonderland now.
Bye.

[Liberal]

By "we", do you mean "you"?

[Scylla]

I remember when this thread used to MEAN something.

[Liberal]

Please tell us what science has discovered about meaning, Scylla.

[quasar]

No one can be told what reality is, you’ve got to experience it for yourself.

[Liberal]

Yep.

[Scylla]

When we did it in verse it at least had stylistic content.

[Spider Woman]

you could always come back to the limericks thread.

[oldscratch]

first in regards to matt's comments eralier. Sorry, I don't respond to arguments taken from hollywood movies and/or comic books.


second, in regards to reality. It was upon Darwin to prove evolution. He could not simply ask for proof of divine creation. It was upon te materialist to provide proof. So, since the overwhelming mass of humanity agrees that I'm real, I ask libertarian to provide proof of my non-existence. If you can not do so, I must conclude the only other possible solution, I am real.

thirdly.

Originally posted by Polycarp

Uh, how about:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....

In direct response to this idea, numerous persons down through the years have fought and some have died...

And how did this idea arise. Did some genious just happen to come up with it at theat time? If they had come up with it 600 years earlier would democracy have come about that much more quickly? Or is this idea based in the very real material interests of the era? What would happen if you took this idea and told it to a tribe of aboriginies. Not much. It need very real material basis to survive. And as material chages have occured, so to has the idea faded. (Nazi Germany, Italy, even parts of the United States)

[Liberal]

The overwhelming mass of humanity? :D Hey, are you Michael Jordan?

[matt]

Oldscratch said:

"first in regards to matt's comments eralier. Sorry, I don't respond to arguments taken from hollywood movies and/or comic books."

Well now I'm crushed!

I made no argument. I was trying to illustrate what the other posters on this thread were actually debating about, as opposed to what you were debating about.

You said in a reply to Libertarian - "Again, we can accept two possible ideas. Either there is a reality outside of us. Or there is not. If there is not, nothing outside of you, Libertarian, exists. There is no past, or future outside of your perception. Everything is and must be a construction of your mind.

Now, the OP is that you cannot prove the first idea, that there is a reality outside of us. You cannot prove that the second case isn't true. The OP is right. It's a trivial point, and not particularly useful, but it's right.
That's it, debate over, everyone lapses into poetry.

You, however, arbitrarily accept the first idea as true and go on to argue that conciousness is a construct of the brain, rejecting the notion of "spirit", "soul" or "mind" existing independently of the brain. Thus, to quote you, "matter creates thoughts", an axiom you "can provide proof of again and again".

That's a more interesting contention than the OP and probably deserves its own thread, but it isn't what is being debated here. Libertarian doesn't accept that there is necessarily a reality outside of us, so your proof (presumably demonstrations that the "mind" changes as a result of physical changes to the brain, people can be knocked unconcious, brain damage can change personality, etc.) won't get you anywhere - you can't demonstrate to him that matter even exists in the first place. Even if you whack him repeatedly upside the head with a shovel shouting "I exist, I exist!" it won't prove it to him because he accepts the possibility of the second idea.

Nobody actually lives their lives as if the second idea is true, because in practical terms it sucks. Even the most ardent, hair-splitting philosopher still eats, drinks, comes in out of the rain and takes his toothache to the dentist.

You later invoked the idea of consensus reality to prove your own existence and deny God's existence. Again, this requires the assumption that there is an objective reality. To make this argument you have assumed the OP to be false. That's why I posted my "hollywood movies and/or comic books" examples, hoping to illustrate to you that you were arguing from different premises to other posters. I didn't intend to be patronising, - sorry if it came across that way.

[jb_farley]

matt, thank you for saying what I couldn't.

Oldie, sorry I ws never able to point out well why you were careering off topic. Again, repetition of "You are missing the point" was not meant to be an insult.

Lib, here's a challenge for you. Attempt to prove to me that I do exist.

[Liberal]

Matt

[... tip o' the hat ...]

Stellar. Existence must be taken axiomatically.

The most interesting thing to me about OldScratch's argument is this: "Again I admit that this rests on an axiom that matter creates thoughts, one that I can provide proof of again and again." (Emphasis mine.) [Aside: the following is not a false dilemma because of the qualification of the bifurcation with "two possible".] Two possible implications are that he just doesn't get it, or he has (an understandable) intellectual pride (he is a smart fellow) that keeps him from saying simply, "Oh, I see what you mean."

To address the latter is a futile exercise in intellectual masochism.

To address the former, he doesn't understand that observed statistical invariance is not proof, but simply evidence. He doesn't get it that an axiom — by definition! — is unprovable. In deductive proofs, our definitions, axioms, and undefined terms are mere declarations, and not premises drawn from true implications. They say only, "I am about to make an argument, and we start here." They are nothing but the substance of whatever is "for the sake of argument".

Sometimes, axioms are assumed, especially in a forum like this, where we don't publish hundred-page proofs that list undefined terms, definitions, and axioms like "For any arbitrary entity, A, A is A." Here, we must identify unstated axioms from the particulars of an argument. Spiritus is especially skilled at this.

Existence must be taken axiomatically simply because whatever you do, like prove things, you must first exist or else you are doing nothing that is real. What I hope OldScratch is doing here, and what might account for his not getting it, is the confusion of an axiom with an hypothesis. The assertion that "furniture" is a noun can be proven, so long as we do not postulate that it is a noun, but merely hypothesize that it is. Such an assertion is the quod of QED.

The problem with any existence proof is that we can always identify the unstated axiom, "I exist". Otherwise, we find ourselves dealing with a nonexistent entity arguing that he exists.

The short of it is this: without the axiom, the argument is a contradiction; with the axiom, the argument is a circle.

JBFarley

Lib, here's a challenge for you. Attempt to prove to me that I do exist.

Whatever "proof" I might deduce that you exist will also "prove" the existence of God. You exist in my experience, but not in that of our cat, Jane.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by quasar
No one can be told what reality is, you’ve got to experience it for yourself.

Except, of course, that the being told part is part of reality (or, as the relativists say, "your reality"). And, of course, for your statement to be true one would have to accept that what one experiences is real, which apparantly many people deny.

What I truly don't understand about many of the posts in this thread is why people seem to conclude that without absolute proof, everything is just as "true" as everything else. Why is it impossible for some things to be more likely than others, even if nobody can ever be absolutely sure of any of them?

Just my 2 yen.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

I don't know if there's any point in trying to resurrect this thread, but I'm interested in epistomology, the history of the natural sciences and the possiblity of alternative methodologies, and I thought there were still a lot of questions about these concepts of "proof" and so forth still left hanging, so....well, I decided in the spirit of things to compose a poem about it. I call it "Ode to an Axiom (on a Sweet Midsummer's Morn)..."

Ahem.


Ode to an Axiom (on a Sweet Midsummer's Morn)

The Axiom of which y’all have spoken
Appears to be hopelessly broken.
For what good is a guess
That you can’t even test,
Or a statement that’s merely a token?

I pose to the Straight Dopers here
A question intriguingly queer.
Though our Axiom’s moot,
Since we gave it the boot,
Can we still find a truth to hold dear?

We'll grant that we can’t prove a thing
To a pauper or even a king,
Can we still find a way
To rescue the day,
And escape from this negative ring?

So logicians, let’s all gather round,
And ponder this puzzle profound.
Although I lack proofs
I still feel there are truths –
Life’s more than mere fury and sound.

Thank you.

[BlackKnight]

Thinker's Lament
"I guess that what is is what's not!
And a guess is all anyone's got.
Come guess away too,
but a warning to you,
We're all in the very same spot!"

The Reply
"You assume that assumption is shot,
That what we see's not what we got.
But how can logic be dead,
and still be in your head,
for deciding that axioms're not?"

Thinker's Response
"I meant when I said thoughts are fiction,
and what you say shows the affliction:
Logic shows logic's flaws,
though it sticks in our craws,
and reason is all contradiction!"

The Retort
"With parts of your speech I agree.
I too find things contradictory.
But it's simply a fact,
and I say this with tact,
things only contradict Logically."

[BlackKnight]

By the way, I appologize for the horrid poem above. I don't pretend to be lyricly inclined. :)

[matt]

I see we're back to poetry again!

BlackKnight said: "Why is it impossible for some things to be more likely than others, even if nobody can ever be absolutely sure of any of them?"

If you mean "likely" in terms of probabilities, you're stuck. Even if reality is objective, which you can never prove, you have no way to prove its nature cannot arbitrarily change at any moment.

You do have ways to make value judgements, however. You have (well, I have, I don't know about you:)) punishment/reward mechanisms built into your conciousness. You also have memories of your interactions with your subjective reality (experience, evidence) and the punishments/rewards which resulted.


An example: suppose oldscratch decides to apply the "shovel" proof of his existence to Libertarian. Libertarian has a number of possible ways to interact with his subjective reality:

1) do nothing
2) defend himself
3) run away
4) quickly lie to oldscratch and tell him he is right
5) pray
6) do something else

Now, there is no proof that any of these actions is superior to any others. There is EVIDENCE that option (1) is a poor one, but not proof. Memories of pain and injury from blows to the head are not a guarantee that this particular blow to the head won't be ecstatic and beneficial. Memories of pain and other punishment mechanisms are the only reason why this eventuality need be considered negative at all!

The other options involve a very large number of value judgements, most of which involve assumptions and guesswork. Again he has to rely on evidence, his memories. He may also use epistomologies such as reason, which are tautological but have served him well in the past as judged by the punishments/rewards he has received in his interactions with his reality.

So although you can't prove anything, you can judge things, based on experience and your judgement mechanisms. That's about as far as you can get.

Svinlesha - loved the poem!

[Liberal]

Actually, if OldSnatch hit me with a shovel (and it hurt), that would be evidence (to me) of my own existence, rather than his.

[Liberal]

Sorry, that should have been OldScratch. Oy.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

1) matt: Thanks!!

2) Lib: My my. What would Freud have thought?

3) Oldsnatch: Or Oldspice, or whatever your name is, please stop waving all those shovels about, will you? You're going to get somebody hurt. There's a good chap.

Well, poetry is a very fine thing, but when you need to get the job done, there's no better tool than prose. I think that BlackKnight and I were touching on essentially the same question in our posts: given Existence, what is the status of proof? Or is proof only possible within the realm of logic? When posters differentiate between "proof" and "evidence", what do they mean? Of course, I realize that I'm opening a can of worms here. Essentially, my question concerns the the validity of axioms: if one can't determine the truth-value of an axiom by means of logical proof, does this damn all of us to relativism's hall of mirrors?

matt, I don't really think that BK is referring to making value judgements, and it certainly isn't what I'm getting at. I'm trying to propose that some axioms are intrinsically more valid than others.

How can you prove that one axiom is more valid than another? you may ask. Well, you probably can't prove that an axiom is true -- however, you can, some have argued, prove that it is false.

Hume established with iron-clad logic that the conclusions of inductive reasoning were spurious. According to ole Dave, our belief in an externally existing world, functioning in accordance with specific laws, is an irrational superstition. This reasoning also knocked the support out from under Logical Positivism, at least philosophically, although it had little practical influence until Popper showed up. Popper introduced the idea of "falsification" as a direct response to Hume's critique. However, Popper's criteria are to be understood as means of differentiating "scientific" from "non-scientific", as he has stated on numerous occasions, and don't necessarily apply to the truth-value of non-falsifiable statements.

Science, via "falsification", claims to provide a methodology that allows us to approach statements of truth. My question is: are there other methods? How do they work? Does a "spiritual epistemology", such as Lib mentions, have a method? Does it need one?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Damn, this is slippery stuff.

The statement posted above:
Well, you probably can't prove that an axiom is true -- however, you can, some have argued, prove that it is false
is false.

"Falsification" doesn't falsify axioms, of course; it falsifies hypotheses. A thousand apologies.

[matt]

Svinlesha said "matt, I don't really think that BK is referring to making value judgements, and it certainly isn't what I'm getting at. I'm trying to propose that some axioms are intrinsically more valid than others."

Sure, but I don't think you CAN say that. The whole thing about axioms is that they are, well, axiomatic! You can gather evidence relating to them, you can judge them for their utility, but I don't think you can get any further. Could you give an example?


The claims of science are based on faith. A painful admission, being a science student, but I have come to acknowledge it as true. (YOUR fault Lib!) At the basis of science is the idea that the universe can be mapped and modelled, and these maps and models are time-invariant. (If reality were no more consistent than a dream, science would be useless and we wouldn't have developed it.) This cannot be proven. We trust it sufficiently to not worry about gravity suddenly reversing and launching us all into space, but it cannot be proven. We only have the evidence that it hasn't happened YET, and the value judgement that science is extremely useful.

Lib, I'm a utilitarian, as you may have guessed! (Metaphysics isn't really my thing, I like GQ. You know, groundhogs and screwdrivers.) I contend that despite the metaphysics, if you have punishment/reward mechanisms in your reality, you are compelled to be a utilitarian as well. (Hence the crude and nasty "shovel" example.) This doesn't change the validity of the OP, it questions its relevance in your interactions with your reality.

[oldscratch]

I think I'm coming at this from the right angle now. Bear with me. First off, apologies if I misuse some terms, this isn't really my field. And lib, oldsnatch, funny, I'll remember that. I must admit that Lib's first assesment, that I was "just not getting it" was correct. I blame it on the drugs I've been taking and abstaining from recently. :) Forgive my apparent earlier pigheadishness, and prepare for some more.


The Cat

The difference between Libertarian's cat and God is this. If you move your cat to a specific physical location, evidence can be given that Jane does indeed percieve me or any other "object" on this planet. The same can not be said of God. You can never provide evidence that the cat percieve's God. I can provide evidence of my existence, of Libertarian's existence (I think this is right, notice I didn't say proof) to everyone in the world. Since everyone's closed reference frame can percieve Libertarian, he is more real than God. There is much more evidence of his existence than God's.
The only way Lib say's that you can percieve his god is by stepping into his body. Using his specific instruments. No real object requires this step. I do believe that Lib's belief in god has validity (I think I've made this statement earlier, if not, I'm sorry). Just as Indian's belief in their god's has validity (I've dabbled in South Asian histories of religion, it's actually my father's field, but I find it quite interesting).
Likewise if Lib stepped into the body of Chris Summer's, he would no longer percieve God, but would percieve thousands of invisible insects crawling under his skin. I would assert that his experience did indeed have a small, certain ammount of validity. And he would argue with the medical doctors that he would provide proof of the insects once they provided proof that they existed to him. Needless to say, he would't be leaving the mental institution any time soon.

On seperate experiences and god

For Lib, evidence is subjective. Each person exists in their own closed reference frame. Of course, this, like my own ideas, rests on unprovable axioms. For him, in his xperience and axioms, each individual reference frame is equally valid. (correct?). In mine, they are not. Using my axioms, objective proof can be given. If I hit Libertarian's cat with a shovel (sorry to bring it back up, but since it's already here) and then hit it again in exactly the same manner, providing the state of the cat has not changed, I can expect the same reaction. If a chemical reaction happens one time under specific circumstances, that is proof that it will happen again using the exact same circumstances. For libertarian this is merely evidence.
Let's move on to God. In libertarians closed reference frame, my belief in god is as equally valid as his non belief. If we were to bring in a neutral (real) third party, are beliefs would be equally valid. God would exists as much as he doesn't exist.
In my reference frame, God does not exist. Libertarian's assertions that he exists carry no weight. To a neutral third party there is no proof of God's existence and much evidence of his non-existence.

In other word's I'm never wrong, and am correct in both instances. Libertarian is wrong in once instance, and correct in the second. I WIN! :)

The shovel
I'm curious how pain is interpreted to give you evidence of your own existence? Also, how can pain come from something that doesn't exist? Would not the shovel have to exist for you to feel pain from it? Also, would that not then mean that something had to propel the shovel? In absense of any other causes, wouldn't that give you evidence that the person swinging the shovel existed?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Just a couple of quick observations about your last post, Oldscratch:

Using my axioms, objective proof can be given. If I hit Libertarian's cat with a shovel (sorry to bring it back up, but since it's already here) and then hit it again in exactly the same manner, providing the state of the cat has not changed, I can expect the same reaction.
Yeah. A smashed cat. Yuck.
However, the issue here is not whether you can expect a smashed cat; you do, because that's what you've gotten every time you ever squashed a cat with a shovel in the past. The question is, by what laws of logic can you prove that your next swing of the shovel will produce a cat pancake? Just because it happened last time? Lots of things change from the past to the future. Can you prove, by means of pure logic, that the only possible outcome of the intersection of a shovel with a cat is a flat cat?
You make the same mistake (in my opinion) in an earlier statment as well:
The only way Lib say's that you can percieve his god is by stepping into his body. Using his specific instruments. No real object requires this step. Yeah, well, if you define "real object" as "that which can be perceived in such-and-such-a-way", you're right. Assume a different definition of "real", and your evidence fails. As a casual student of Asian religions, you must be aware that the material world is often characterized as an illusion in other religious traditions.

I work as a psychotherapist. In my job I am routinely involved in unique, non-repeatable interpersonal situations. To experience them, you would have to be me in that specific instance. Does that mean that they aren't real? Must phenomena be repeatable to be "objective"?
If a chemical reaction happens one time under specific circumstances, that is proof that it will happen again using the exact same circumstances.
I doubt many scientists on this board would agree with that statement.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by Svinlesha

Yeah. A smashed cat. Yuck.
However, the issue here is not whether you can expect a smashed cat; you do, because that's what you've gotten every time you ever squashed a cat with a shovel in the past. The question is, by what laws of logic can you prove that your next swing of the shovel will produce a cat pancake? Just because it happened last time? Lots of things change from the past to the future. Can you prove, by means of pure logic, that the only possible outcome of the intersection of a shovel with a cat is a flat cat?

Well. Again, I'm not an expert here so forgive me if my explanation seems a bit murkey. Let's move away from smashed cats (for a variety of reasons). If I jump off a 50 foot cliff and do not die, that is PROOF that it is possible to jump off a 50 foot cliff and not die. I'm not sure what "laws" of logic I must bring up to prove that, but they are there. You followin? If I apply a small ammount of pressure to a rock, using my hands, and it doesn't crumble. That is PROOF that by applyin that ammount of pressure to that specific rock in that manner, I can not make it crumble.

Yeah, well, if you define "real object" as "that which can be perceived in such-and-such-a-way", you're right. Assume a different definition of "real", and your evidence fails. As a casual student of Asian religions, you must be aware that the material world is often characterized as an illusion in other religious traditions.

My god man, you are right. And if I assume a different definition of evidence, fails, characterized, as, in, religious, other, and traditions all of of a sudden you're making an argument that badgers should support Tony Blair in the upcoming San Francisco Supervisor elections. You're point? For mydefinition I was using the ole Meriam Webster, you should try it sometime, it's quite popular around here. Their definition? having objective independent existence.


I work as a psychotherapist. In my job I am routinely involved in unique, non-repeatable interpersonal situations. To experience them, you would have to be me in that specific instance. Does that mean that they aren't real? Must phenomena be repeatable to be "objective"?

And interestingly enough, you appear to be ignoring my post. I talked of real objects, not experiences. That's a whole different debate and argument. We can't have real experiences if there are no real objects. Now, if you had a patient write on a piece of paper, and no one but you could (see,feel,smell,hear, or taste) this paper then I would argue that it wasn't real.



I doubt many scientists on this board would agree with that statement.

And I doubt many java programmers would agree with that statement? Could you be more vague? Some examples of why they would not agree would be nice. Thanks.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

First off, in response to matt:

Yeah, you may be right. It’s possible that axioms don’t have intrinsic value. Nevertheless, it would certainly appear that some axioms reflect Nature more accurately than others. That’s kind of what I’m trying to ask: given that we don’t have a standard by which we can compare axioms, how do we know which ones to choose? Or are we left to a kind of blind relativism?

I think part of my confusion with this question stems from the fact that I’m at this point no longer really sure about the difference between an axiom and a hypothesis. This is why I don’t know if I can find a good example for you. I can give plenty of examples wherein hypotheses have been proven false, and I’m sure you can too. But axioms? Let us say that before Copernicus, it was axiomatic that the earth was the center of the universe. That’s now been proven to be false (not really, but at least in the sense it was understood back then). Is that a good example? I’m sure you will point out the utility of Copernican astronomy as opposed to Ptolemaic, but even if Copernican calculations are simpler, that isn’t the only reason Ptolemaic astronomy was abandoned.

I’m not sure how utilitarianism fits into this discussion, except possibly as an expedient method to judge between competing axioms. Was that the sense of your statement?

Finally, regarding science, you state that it is based on faith. Religion is also based on faith. Does this make science a religion? :D

Well, okay, now to tackle oldscratch, and hopefully demonstrate that his PROOFS are really based on FAITH….

I’ll take your points in reverse order. You ask for examples as to why you can’t assume that just because a chemical reaction occurs a certain way one time, it will occur that way again. Fair enough. First off, let me start with a disclaimer: I’m not stating a dogmatic position here; there are probably philosophers of science who would agree with you. (I’m not much of an expert in this field either.) However, to state it briefly: the problem with your assumption lies with the faults inherent in inductive reasoning. I referred to this above, briefly, when I mentioned Hume.

As I’m sure you know, inductive logic attempts to derive general laws from a limited number of observations. This is both its strength and its weakness. Inductive logic states, “If such-and-such happens see-and-so many times, then there’s gotta be a law.” Sure thing, except that induction has been found to be wrong on numerous occasions. The classic example, often used in introductory discussions on the subject, is the “black swan”: scientists see several hundred (or thousand) white swans and come to the reasonable conclusion that there’s no such thing as the black one. Then, suddenly, a black swan is discovered, and induction is proved wrong. ( This is used as an example because it’s historical, by the way: scientists actually believed there was no such thing as a black swan until they discovered a gob of 'em in the interior of Australia in the mid-1800s.)

But a simple thought experiment can perhaps demonstrate my point. Let’s say I’ve never tossed a coin before and am interested in discovering how coins behave when tossed. I toss one five times and it lands heads up every time. Am I then justified in positing that a coin will always land heads up? I’m sure you’d say, “Of course not Svinlesha, you ignorant slut” (or something to that effect). In point of fact, even if I were to toss a coin 100 times and by some miracle it was to land heads up every time, I still couldn’t establish that there is a natural law stating that coins always land heads up.

Inductive logic relies on the assumption that the past always repeats itself in the present and the future. But unfortunately, this is nothing more than an assumption, an act of FAITH on the part of the assumer. That was David Hume’s point.

Admittedly, now, this is somewhat counter-intuitive. I remember that it took me a while to get my head around the idea after I first discovered it. Imagine my surprise to discover that it also literally stumped most of the philosophers of the time. Anyway, from the viewpoint of strict logic, you can never assume a general law is in place no matter how many examples of that law you produce. And if you don’t like it, well, don’t blame me bub; I didn’t do it. You quite simply can never rule out that there’s some force, or influence, or whatever, of which neither you nor no one else is aware, that is influencing events. And that's why you can't ever prove that just because a chemical reaction occured in certain way one time, it will occur the same way next time.

This post has gotten too long, so I’m just going to touch on your other points very quickly. With regard to “repeatability”, apologies, I may have misunderstood your meaning. But remember that “real objects” are experienced too, and the dividing line might not always be that sharp.

As regards the voting patterns of San Franciscan rodents, I think we are actually in agreement. Although, it would be absurd for any rodent to vote for the Prime Minister of England; if I was a badger, I’d definitely vote Nader! But see comments to matt above regarding the difficulties posed by the fact that logic seems to be useless in determining the validity of axioms. You make the very accurate point that without any method of determining the truth value of axioms, absurdity results. That also happens to be my point; our differences stem from the fact that you believe you have solved the problem, whereas for me it's still unresolved.

Finally, an apology for being so fuckin long-winded.

[jab1]

When I look around, using only one of my senses, I see shelves and shelves of books. (I'm in a public library. Or so I believe...) If I go over to one of the shelves, I can read the titles and the names of the authors and many, even most, of these titles and names are some that I could not have imagined. If I open them up, most of them will have passages written that would never have occurred to me. Some of them will be written in languages I cannot read. Many will have information totally new to me. Many will have pictures of places, people and things I have never seen IRL and know only from pictures. (The Eiffel Tower, the [/i]Mona Lisa[/i], the Pyramids of Egypt, George Washington, a map of the planet Venus.)

I look up at the clock and see the sweep-second hand moving at a steady rate. It is moving precisely, mechanically, far more precisely than I could have done with my hands or imagined.

I look at this well-worn keyboard and see ink stains, a bit of dirt, a loose hair, the "Num Lock" light is on (now it's off) and many other details I probably could have imagined, but not so quickly, so instantaneously.

And I can hear, smell, taste and touch many other things totally new to me. How can I, or anyone else, accurately imagine something we've never experienced before? If I had never tasted an apple, would I have imagined the taste that I experience when I eat one? Or would I have imagined a taste similar to something else I had had before, like a pear or a peach?

When I dream, events happen chaotically, randomly. In one moment, I'm at the seashore (for example), the next, riding a motorcycle on the freeway, the next, I'm flying like a bird. It's illogical. It's random. It's impossible. My dreams are not the same as what I perceive when I'm awake. And I do not see with clarity in my dreams. Everything is fuzzy, indistinct; details are lacking. A red object is a solid mass of red with no color variations. (Yes, I dream in color.) Faces are either indistinct or it's a familiar one I recognize. (Well, there's Daddy. I've seen you only in my dreams since 1985, when you died.)

But if I look to my left, I will see a young man whom I do not recognize. And I will see his face with perfect clarity. If I wish (and if he allowed it), I could study it and note more details in seconds than I could have conjured up with my imagination if I took a full hour, like the color of his clothes, the logo on his ballcap and on his t-shirt and shoes, that he's right-handed.

This is how I distinguish reality from dreams, from my imagination. "The Universe is not only more queer than we imagine, it is more queer than we can imagine," some wise person once said.

It also has more details.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If, as Libertarian said, "We are God," and I do not believe there is a God, would that not mean I do not believe that I exist? Would that not make me insane?

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by Svinlesha
Well, okay, now to tackle oldscratch, and hopefully demonstrate that his PROOFS are really based on FAITH….

Well I did admit that they were based on axioms that were as unprovable as Libertarian's.


As I’m sure you know, inductive logic attempts to derive general laws from a limited number of observations. This is both its strength and its weakness.


Agreed.


Inductive logic states, “If such-and-such happens see-and-so many times, then there’s gotta be a law.”


Which is what is so great about logic. As soon as you find the exception, you incorporate it into your rules. Faith does not allow for this.


Sure thing, except that induction has been found to be wrong on numerous occasions. The classic example, often used in introductory discussions on the subject, is the “black swan”: scientists see several hundred (or thousand) white swans and come to the reasonable conclusion that there’s no such thing as the black one. Then, suddenly, a black swan is discovered, and induction is proved wrong. ( This is used as an example because it’s historical, by the way: scientists actually believed there was no such thing as a black swan until they discovered a gob of 'em in the interior of Australia in the mid-1800s.)

This is a fairly poor example. The black swans were not the same as whit swans, they were a different species,
Cygnus atratus. They could have easily called them Black Trumpalumpas. Then all swans would still be white. Of course induction can be frequently wrong. Induction and deduction must be paired together.


But a simple thought experiment can perhaps demonstrate my point. Let’s say I’ve never tossed a coin before and am interested in discovering how coins behave when tossed. I toss one five times and it lands heads up every time. Am I then justified in positing that a coin will always land heads up? I’m sure you’d say, “Of course not Svinlesha, you ignorant slut” (or something to that effect). In point of fact, even if I were to toss a coin 100 times and by some miracle it was to land heads up every time, I still couldn’t establish that there is a natural law stating that coins always land heads up.

You are right, because circumstances outside that coin change. However, you could establish that if you tossed the coin in exactly the same manner, and the exact same outside influences were present, that it would indeed land face up again.


Inductive logic relies on the assumption that the past always repeats itself in the present and the future. But unfortunately, this is nothing more than an assumption, an act of FAITH on the part of the assumer. That was David Hume’s point.

A point that is wrong.

You quite simply can never rule out that there’s some force, or influence, or whatever, of which neither you nor no one else is aware, that is influencing events. And that's why you can't ever prove that just because a chemical reaction occured in certain way one time, it will occur the same way next time.

I didn't say that. You didn't read my post very closely. i stated that if circumstances were exactly the same, the same reaction would occur. Only a complete fool would argue that no outside force or influence could interefere. However, in present society, we can closely control the environment of chemical reactions. If a different reaction occurs, we KNOW (not have faith, but know) that an outside influence has stepped in. It is then up to us to determine what that influence is.


As regards the voting patterns of San Franciscan rodents, I think we are actually in agreement. Although, it would be absurd for any rodent to vote for the Prime Minister of England; if I was a badger, I’d definitely vote Nader!

WooHoo. He may not have the minorities, or women, but he has the Badgers. Victory is assured! :)


Finally, an apology for being so fuckin long-winded.


Hey no problem. I apologize for frequent mispellings. Especially in my last post, that was wince worthy.

[matt]

Svinlesha said "logic seems to be useless in determining the validity of axioms".

A big part of the problem here is the meanings different disciplines apply to the same words. Lib will probably tear me to pieces here, BUT...

In formalised logic, axioms, or postulates, are what you are given to start with. What you are allowed to assume is true. With the axioms plus the rules of the logic system you are using, you can then go on to test hypotheses. A proof of a hypothesis within the logic system is just that, no more and no less. Change the rules, change the axioms, and the same hypothesis may be proven false within the new system.
So the axioms can be more-or-less anything you like. They are "for the sake of argument" statements.

E.g. "for the sake of argument, let's say the world is flat. Then we can deduce etc. etc.", or "for the sake of argument, let's say God exists and loves us. Then we can deduce etc. etc." Those are axioms. And logic has nothing to say about their validity.


But what about applying "logic" to "reality"? Here's where it becomes interesting. We can observe a correspondence between events in our reality and logic systems of our own devising. We can then use proofs in the logic system to make predictions about our reality. The logic system is being used as a model of reality. Empirical evidence is used to select the axioms and rules which constitute the model. The correspondence between the model and our reality is assumed to be reliable - the "faith" part of science.

This is where our terminology becomes blurred. "For the sake of argument, let's say the world is flat" is a perfectly valid axiom from the point of view of logic, but for someone dealing with reality it has a poor correspondence with evidence. So the axiom is "invalidated" by evidence, and NOT by logic.

When we deal with reality, evidence is supreme. Logic is secondary to evidence, since evidence is used to determine the axioms and rules of the logic systems we use in modelling our reality. A "hypothesis" within a logic system can be checked using the axioms and rules of that logic system. In our dealings with reality however, "hypothesis" can also refer to axioms and rules themselves, which can be checked by observation.

Scientists (and others!) tend to treat reality itself as a logic system, and the process of scientific discovery is used to discover the axioms and rules which make reality run. This approach has the benefit of simplicity and utility, but assumes reality is objective and its logic system time-invariant. (I think logic systems are objective! Maybe someone will enlighten me on this.)

When we have debates in this forum, we tend to use logic but our axioms and rules are mostly unstated. (And for good reason! Try and construct the set of axioms and rules which we use to deduce that the sun will rise tommorrow. You'd pretty much have to list all the axioms and rules which comprise mathematics and physics, just to start with.) We use a set of implicit axioms and rules which are derived from experience. This can lead to disagreements about which axioms and rules are valid. Libertarian in particular takes delight in pointing out that:

1) since reality is subjective, you cannot prove that evidence in your reality is the same as evidence in the reality of other, hypothetical individuals. Commonality of experience is an assumption.

2) there are some implicit axioms required to even be able to have a debate (e.g. I exist, logic is valid) which makes proofs of those points tautological. I don't have to assume that logic is valid, but then I can't have a debate!

The first point has been dealt with by Spiritus Mundi - see invisible pink unicorns if you like, just don't expect me to see them!

The second is a quirk of logic itself if you allow "implicit" axioms to be identified and made explicit. Interesting, but not very useful unless you want to reduce any discussion to a stalemate.

Another quirk if you allow this is that all logical proofs must be infinitely long. It works like this:

Say I have a ten-step "proof" of something. I now invoke the implicit axiom, "if these ten steps are true, the conclusion is true." So now the proof has eleven steps. But now there is the implicit axiom "if these eleven steps are true, the conclusion is true." And onwards you go!

Maybe that's why some of these threads never seem to end...

[Liberal]

Matt

Good stuff! Thank you.

Axioms are always true. They are, as you say, the "given". In the Truth Table, when A is a true proposition and B is a true proposition, the implication A implies B is true. But even if A were demonstrably false, A implies B is still true if B is true. Thus, if the universe is 10,000 years old, evolution could not have occurred. True.

As you've pointed out, that's why these debates happen over and over. A theist and an atheist of equal intellect, for example, will always argue to a stalemate. A neat way to make something out of these debates is to examine one another's core axioms, as Spiritus and I did in the old Atheist Religion thread. We discovered that where we split apart was on the fundamental nature of continuum. No wonder our conclusions so greatly differed!

[Spider Woman]

Differing axioms is what brings debates to a stalemate, as you say, although it is quite interesting to me to learn about the viewpoints of others and discuss them.

At this page (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38445&pagenumber=3) of the thread "Pro-life: Is it about compassion or punishment," it is pretty evident that people will not agree about the morality of abortion itself because their beliefs are based on different axioms. (Of course the topic veered from the OP and seldom went back.) What can happen in debate threads is to find common ground on which to meet, and possibly learn about each other and grow from the experience.

[I didn't realize you were back, Lib, I'll have to pay more attention. Did you finish your story?]

[matt]

Libertarian:

Borrowed from Hofstadter (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465026567/o/qid=969370411/sr=2-1/104-8227060-7328763), who borrowed it from Lewis Carroll:

A) The universe is ten thousand years old
B) If the universe is ten thousand years old, evolution could not have occured.
Z) Evolution did not occur.

Implicit axiom - if A) and B) are true, Z) must be true. So we make it explicit:

A) The universe is ten thousand years old
B) If the universe is ten thousand years old, evolution could not have occured.
C) If A) and B) are true, Z) must be true.
Z) Evolution did not occur.

But now we have the implicit axiom, if A), B) and C) are true, Z) must be true. So we can make it explicit again, and keep going, for ever!

Also borrowed from Hofstadter; "This little debate shows the difficulty of trying to use logic and reasoning to defend themselves. At some point, you reach rock bottom, and there is no defense except loudly shouting, "I know I'm right!""

I haven't bothered with a sig. line so far. "I know I'm right!" is a contender!

[Smartass]

See, this whole thread is an example of why I am so picky about words.

Lib: "Prove to me that you exist and I will prove to you that God exists."

Of course, Lib wins. We cannot, after all, prove anything.

Then, why have a debate?

Lib, you know I often agree with you politically, but whenever the discussion turns religious, I think you start to play a little dirty. You throw out your beliefs ("by revelation", as I recall), and then refuse any challenges because nothing can be proven.

Might as well close down the message board.

Take my wife, for instance. I can describe her in detail. I can tell the story of how we met, talk about our honeymoon, post a picture of her on the web somewhere for everyone to look at. After a certain amount of effort on my part, most of the people on the board will be pretty convinced that both I and she exist. Will I have proven it? Of course not. But most of the people here will be fairly convinced.

The goal here is not to prove; it is to convince. If I describe my wife in sufficient detail and in a way that implies I am a reasonable person, then most people will be convinced that I have drawn a reasonable conclusion about her existence and begin to believe likewise.

Similarly, we all like to think that you are a reasonable person and that you believe things for reasons that we can understand. Theoretically, then, if you described your reasons for believing in God in the way that you do, and your experience that leads you to conclude that this must be correct, you may convince us that you are right. Or, you may convince us that you are nuts.

However, you take what I think of as the coward's way out. You pronounce your beliefs as if they were inarguably true; then, when given the opportunity to convince others, you retreat into the land of what can be proven. The result is a thread like this one.

So far, this thread has convinced me that I am dizzy.

-VM

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Thanks, matt !!! for your most excellent post about logic and axioms !! I may wind up quoting you in paper I'm writing!

I have some more questions to ponder concerning this issue, and especially the use of evidence in determining the connection between models and reality, but its very late here at the moment and I've got to hit the sack. I'll try to go back through the threat and formulate them when I get a chance (soon, hopefully!)

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Thanks, matt !!! for your most excellent post about logic and axioms !! I may wind up quoting you in paper I'm writing!

I have some more questions to pose concerning this issue, and especially the use of evidence in determining the connection between models and reality, but its very late here at the moment and I've got to hit the sack. I'll try to go back through the thread and formulate them when I get a chance (soon, hopefully!)

[Liberal]

Spidey

No, I'm only visiting for a few minutes each morning. The work load has increased greatly. I work on the story in the evenings, and it is coming together nicely. I hope to have it finished by sometime Sunday. I am also teaching myself to read music, so that along with work is why the story is taking so long.

Smartass

Politics is no different than metaphysics in that regard. You and I (but not Polycarp) accept the axiom that man has a natural or God-given right to give or withhold his consent. Thus, Poly makes an assertion that is astonishing to you and me, that the Noncoercion Principle is tyrannical and barbaric, or some such. In matters of faith, Poly and I (but not you) accept the axiom that God exists, based on our experience with Him. You think we're crazy.

There are many epistemologies. Logic is one, and with logic, you can prove that something is or is not logical. But what you cannot prove is that logic is valid. I think we can debate without restricting ourselves to deduction. If I could see what you see, feel what you feel, and taste and smell what you do — i.e., if I could get a glimpse of your proprietary reference frame — I might understand what you're saying just as well, if not better, than if you present a syllogism.

Look at OldScratch and Jab! OldScratch believes that if he smacks me, it will prove to me that he exists. But whose senses sense the smack? Mine, not his! I have no idea what he might sense, except what he might reveal to me. Thus, a revelation epistemology is necessary to learn of existence. And Jab asserts that dreams aren't real because they are chaotic and random. What does his assertion say then about the universe, manifesting as it does from the random chaos of subatomic particles?

In short, I guess we all debate for different reasons. I debate for the same reason Spidey does. Hopefully, I will learn something new; that is, something new will be revealed to me. ;) "You never know what's around the corner." — my mother

[Czarcasm]

But how can anything new be learned if your point of view is totally unasailable, and anyone else's point of view must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
"Prove to me I'm wrong, with the understanding that I will not accept any evidence you provide as being real." does not start a debate.
It finishes it.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Jab asserts that dreams aren't real because they are chaotic and random. What does his assertion say then about the universe, manifesting as it does from the random chaos of subatomic particles?

Quantum mechanics manifests itself only at the subatomic level. It does not manifest itself here at our level. EXAMPLES:

1) While it is true, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you can determine either a particle's location or its velocity but not both at the same time, I can, however, determine both MY location and MY velocity simultaneously. Why can't you determine both a proton's location and its velocity simultaneously? Beats me.

2) Cause and effect are distinct and easily determined at our level. If I am on the Earth's surface, with gravity present and I release a pencil (CAUSE), that pencil will fall (EFFECT). But at the subatomic level, sometimes particles do things with no apparent cause preceding it. Why? Beats me. But it DOES happen. It's been observed numerous times.

If my dreams happen chaotically, it means that my brain is doing nothing more than creating imagery from my memories on its own, without my conscious control. It's like a car with a stuck accelerator and no driver at the wheel. (It also means my dreams have no meaning and analyzing them is pointless; I'm not trying to tell myself anything, it's just my synapses firing at random. But that's another topic.)

If there's any relationship between the chaos of dreams and the chaos of the subatomic world, it may be this: Our thoughts are electrochemical in nature. Perhaps they are subject to quantum mechanics, which govern subatomic particles. Perhaps when we are asleep and no longer in control, quantum mechanics takes over and causes our synapses to fire at random and we dream. Maybe you need a certain number of synapses to be active simultaneously to overcome QM and be in control (consciousness). Below that number, chaos rules (unconsciousness). (And possibly insanity?) And maybe that number is different for each of us?

There are a number of books written that explore the possible connection between QM and consciousness, but I haven't had the time to read any of them. The preceding was just my own attempt to explain why dreams are chaotic and reality isn't (on the macroscopic scale, anyway).

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by Libertarian
OldScratch believes that if he smacks me, it will prove to me that he exists. But whose senses sense the smack? Mine, not his! I have no idea what he might sense, except what he might reveal to me. Thus, a revelation epistemology is necessary to learn of existence.

I'm sorry but I really don't follow you. If something hits you doesn't it prove the existence of that object to you? If you get in the shower, doesn't that prove the existence of the water that touches you?

[Ptahlis]

Brain in a jar oldscratch, being fed a simulation. He could be an alien dreaming this life. You could be a drug induced hallucination. There's no way around the closed reference frame of one's mind in an argument if someone refuses to grant a common, external reality.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
Brain in a jar oldscratch, being fed a simulation. He could be an alien dreaming this life. You could be a drug induced hallucination. There's no way around the closed reference frame of one's mind in an argument if someone refuses to grant a common, external reality.

Would you agree that there is an external reality, even if it might be difficult (possibly impossible) to agree upon what that reality is?

After all, in order to even consider that one might be a brain in a jar, one must first suppose that there is a reality external to one's current state where that brain resides in that jar. Same with drugs. How could drugs influence one's brain unless there are really drugs and really a brain?

[Smartass]

Lib:

In matters of faith, Poly and I (but not you) accept the axiom that God exists, based on our experience with Him. You think we're crazy.

At this point, I do not think that you are crazy. If I did, I wouldn't bother with trying to discuss anything with you. I've tried it with crazy people before--talk about closed reference frames...

Maybe I misstated my point. As you have neatly pointed out, there is no way you can "prove" God to me. Or anything else, for that matter. Further, while a detailed description of what you believe (and how it relates to objectivism/libertarianism) is certainly interesting, it goes nowhere toward convincing me. Both of these approaches are constantly in some stage of debate on this board, and are--to my mind--pretty tired, especially since greater minds than ours have been hacking away at them for centuries, with no real "success".

What I am more interested in is why you believe as you do. Obviously, I cannot experience what you have experienced or relive your memories. However, since I don't think you are crazy, I believe that you can explain/describe this. Not what you believe, but how you came to think this way. Particularly when you say "by revelation": That sounds fascinating, and I would be interested in what form this revelation took.

Given this type of information, I may conclude any number of things--that you are correct, that you are nuts, that you have way to much caffeine, etc. The point being that, by describing your reasons for accepting your "axioms", by explaining how you perceived them in your reference frame, I have useful information to work with.

In other words, you believe what you believe. All this talk of reality, objectivism, etc. is a description of the conclusions you have drawn during the processes of integrating these beliefs into your world-view. I'm more interested in how they became your beliefs to begin with.

This does not require strict adherence to any particular epistemology. As Spock said, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom."

I think a lot of these verbal peregrinations you engage in are, consciously or not, attempts to depersonalize beliefs that are actually very personal to you. If you dig a little deeper and describe what really underlies this stuff, it opens up your beliefs more to us and gives us the chance to understand. Of course, it also opens you up to have people hurt your feelings, because this is the kind of thing that people tend to be sensitive about.

Speaking purely for myself, I find your religious beliefs fascinating. From what I've seen, rather than insane, you are quite erudite and a deep thinker. And it amazes me that we can agree so strongly in one area (libertarianism) and disagree so strongly in another (God). I cannot help but wonder how that can be.

One thing that surprises me is the questions that seem to never get asked of Christians on this board. One day, I may have time to explore some of this stuff here. Right now, if I started the thread, I couldn't be sure I wouldn't have to abandon it in the middle. Even if my time gets more free later, though, I hesitate. I have had many friends who were strong believers in the past. Without fail, I have ruined it for all of them (with no discussion of axioms and proofs, by the way), and I feel like I may have taken something from them that they needed.

-VM

[matt]

Svinlesha

Hurray! Fame and fortune will be mine!

What's the title of the paper you're writing?

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by BlackKnight

Would you agree that there is an external reality, even if it might be difficult (possibly impossible) to agree upon what that reality is?

After all, in order to even consider that one might be a brain in a jar, one must first suppose that there is a reality external to one's current state where that brain resides in that jar. Same with drugs. How could drugs influence one's brain unless there are really drugs and really a brain?

While I find the closed reference system/no external reality argument to be logically sound, it's basically useless. Personally, I am all too willing to take as given an objective, external reality that is consistent from one person to another. My succinct description of this idea to oldscratch is flawed, however, in a way that you point out in your question. My examples only showed how the external reality could be vastly different from the perceived external reality, to show how Lib can maintain that oldscratch may not exist while having his head caved in by oldscratch's shovel. (Admit it oldscratch-- there's something tempting about that idea after this thread :)!)In truth, the mind is the only verifiable reality. All of this "stuff" that I perceive to be the universe could be nothing more than the imaginings of my mind, even including the idea that a mind needs a physical receptacle like a brain to exist in. So the short answer is "No." There's no way to verify anything empirically from the point of view of someone who is determined to deny it.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
In truth, the mind is the only verifiable reality. All of this "stuff" that I perceive to be the universe could be nothing more than the imaginings of my mind, even including the idea that a mind needs a physical receptacle like a brain to exist in.

How could that be your mind? Or do you mean your subconscious (or something similar)? What I'm trying to say is this: The postulation that one's experiences are he results of a part of one's self that one isn't aware of is just as much of an assumption as the postulation that there exists a world outside of one's self that causes those experiences.

Unless one consciously creates every sensation they experience, then there is something outside of their conscious self that is the cause of those sensations.

There's no way to verify anything empirically from the point of view of someone who is determined to deny it.

I agree that this is true, but I believe it is trivially true. Obviously if someone is determined to deny something, they can deny it. The question is, I think, whether or not they are correct when they deny it.

[quasar]

I haven't been reading this thread thus far so my comments are of a general nature, and not focussed on addressing the ongoing arguments.

First of all, what is real? All that exists, independent of its nature, whether it is physical or spiritual.

What exists and what does not? Everything that can effect--or has the potential to effect--changes upon its surroundings or itself, whether those changes are perceptible or not. Also, everything that can be conceptualized by conscious beings or derived from their rational processes, i.e. ideas, exists, albeit in a spiritual manifestation, and thus can only indirectly exert change, by virtue of the actions it motivates.

Does real has to be proved to make it so? Conscious beings, the ones who can question whether what they experience is real or fictitious, are restricted by sensorial limitations and biased by psychological perceptions. Thus interpretations of the one and only reality will vary according to the entity who interprets it.

Another relevant question, does awareness determine reality?

Nope, it doesn’t; it merely analyzes it and interprets it. Independently of a particular entity’s perceptions regarding itself and its surroundings, the all- encompassing and unique panorama of the universe in which it is submerged will remain invariable, unaffected by whatever interpretations and rational analysis it is subjected to.

Take stellar evolution, for example. A star of a fixed mass will go through the same processes of nuclear fusion until it reaches its final status, whether it is a white dwarf, neutron star or a black hole. The fact that the star isn't aware of what's transpiring doesn’t make these events any less real, or less inevitable for that matter. Nor, would they be any less real if it were aware of what's going on.

Consciousness, and the decision making processes that derive from it, merely allows to act, to forge a particular reality, to escape from the large scale determinism of the universe, but the awareness implied by conscious processes cannot dismiss the absoluteness of reality, it can only distort it Reality itself is absolute, the way it is perceived by conscious beings is not.

That is why nobody can be proved what is real and what is not, every conscious entity's brain houses a different conceptualization of reality, conceptualizations that, without exception, are derived from the same, unique, absolute reality. The fact that interpretations of reality are in conflict with each other does nothing towards challenging the absolute nature of reality, it just points out the variability between conscious being's rational processes.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by BlackKnight
I agree that this is true, but I believe it is trivially true. Obviously if someone is determined to deny something, they can deny it. The question is, I think, whether or not they are correct when they deny it.

Agreed. It's also an explicit refusal to engage in debate, since it amounts to nothing more than a trump card to allow one to disengage from any questions by denying the reality of anything they care to. While the concept is an interesting curiosity to toy with, it remains essentially valueless in any way other than as a shield against arguments one doesn't wish to engage in.

[Liberal]

Your usage of "valueless" is arbitrary.