Reason and Observation

[uruk]

Everything in that statement of mine is an absolute fact. All scientific-Knowledge derived from the sensations deals with "things" that are not real in themselves (this part is not provable. It is therefore your personal belief) . What we observe is a representative abstract-universe (o.k. with resevations). Science is the study of the mind's order of its own sensations that are yielding the intangible appearance of a universe "in here"
(this last statement is purely your own personal conjecture based on your previous statement of fact mixed with a personal opinion or belief).

So no, not everything in your statement is an absolute fact.
In many of your post you make claims that are unprovable and state personal conjecture and demand that we accept those as facts. I'm sorry, but we need more than just personal convictions.
That is why you need proof to back up your claims. Reasoning alone can not provide absolute proofs. Reasoning is only as accurate as the premesis that you build them on. you must be able to provide proof or evidence that your premesis are accurate or true. All reasoning is built on a house of cards. if any of those assumptions are false or premesis untrue, the reasoning is faulty.
Your reasoning is based on some facts mixed with personal assumptions and conjecture. (as shown above). Your Philosophy is only as true as your assumptions are accurate. The only way to know if you are accurate is to test those premesis and assumptions or to provide observational proof.


To Tom: sorry to derail your efforts.

 

[Upchurch]

Ignore your gaffes and do another foxtrot? Hah.

sigh.

You asked if I believed that the things we experience in our senses are real. I do.

You asked if I understand the difference between the perception of a thing and the thing itself. I do.

The ideas are not mutually exclusive. Just because I can understand that the perception of a thing is not the thing itself does not mean that I cannot believe that the thing itself exists. I'd almost go even one step further and say that it doesn't mean that I cannot infer the existance of the thing itself from the perception of the the thing, but I wouldn't want to upset you more than you are.

My proof is dependent upon you being able to understand it. Clearly, given your latest gaffe, that doesn't look too likely.

Understanding your proof and agreeing with it are not the same thing, lifegazer. If you can not provide objective absolute proof, you cannot claim absolute truth. If your proof is subject to my perceptions, it is not objective. It is subjective, hense the name.

So are you going to back up your claim of absolute proof, or are you going to try to slip away from having to make an effort again?

 

[lifegazer]

You asked if I believed that the things we experience in our senses are real. I do.

You asked if I understand the difference between the perception of a thing and the thing itself. I do.

LOL. Looks like you're a lost cause too. Let's see if I can talk you through this: If the "things" you experience in your senses are real (former statement), then there is no difference between the perception of a thing and the thing itself (latter statement), since - according to you - the perception of the thing IS the thing itself (former statement).
Clearly, your two statements contradict each other.

The ideas are not mutually exclusive.

They bleedin' well are!

Just because I can understand that the perception of a thing is not the thing itself does not mean that I cannot believe that the thing itself exists.

??
You've stated that the "things" you actually experience within your awareness are real in themselves. Consequently, there can be no difference between any thing that is perceived and the reality of that thing.
Obviously, your beliefs are pooh, since that is a nonsense.

 

[lifegazer]

... ""I am perceiving" is not merely a first principle. It's a personal experience. It's neither a priori or a posteriori. It's something else altogether."

Well? Are you all waiting for Tom?

 

[Gestahl]

LOL. Looks like you're a lost cause too. Let's see if I can talk you through this: If the "things" you experience in your senses are real (former statement), then there is no difference between the perception of a thing and the thing itself (latter statement), since - according to you - the perception of the thing IS the thing itself (former statement).
Clearly, your two statements contradict each other.

You are mixing levels, here LG. How about we take a photograph of a sphere. Is that photograph (the camera's perception of the sphere) a sphere? Is the artist's rendition of said sphere a sphere? Of course not. They are representations. In fact, the artist's painting is a representation of his mental representation of a sphere (whether the sphere actually existed or not is in doubt). I would argue that the photograph and the painting *are* perceptions of these things, in any normal use of the word. They are things that *are not* what they represent, yet symbolize them in another medium. Canvas, photographic plate, mind: all different mediums, all different perceptions.

You cannot explain this away by saying none of these things exist, which you constantly use to defend yourself. They at least exist in The Mind, (which we do as well). Our perceptions (and our minds) are representations of elements or processes in The Mind, LG. You cannot debate around this.

Your debate and logical skills are in serious need of revamping.

Edited to add:

Note, however, we do not consider the photograph to be unreal, just as we do not consider our perceptions unreal. The object they represent may or may not be.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Well, LG, I've found a good (and thankfully short) read relative to your philosophy. After reading it:

1. You will realize that you have stated nothing new whatsoever in your philosophy. It is completely expounded here with respect to Berkeley, Hegel, Descartes, and others.

2. Although the mind vs. material aspect of reality is still debatable, it is still debatable. You have proferred nothing which would tip the balance one way or the other (as noone else has either). There is still a cohesive 'reality' either way and the Absolute mind philosophy just adds more untenable hyperbole to the pot.

3. An evidential case for noncausality (at sub-atomic scales) and indeterminism is made quite strongly.

The book is "Physics and Philosophy" by Sir James Jeans. It is getting antiquated (written in 1943), but touches on most of the relevant topics as have been discussed in the other thread.

I suggest that you at least read it. Might be freely available at your local library, but even if not, it only costs $10 and a couple days reading.

Kuroyume

 

[uruk]

LOL. Looks like you're a lost cause too. Let's see if I can talk you through this: If the "things" you experience in your senses are real (former statement), then there is no difference between the perception of a thing and the thing itself (latter statement), since - according to you - the perception of the thing IS the thing itself (former statement).

Your talking about two separate things. There is the perception of the thing ("in there"). Then there is the thing ("out there"). we have knowlege of the thing via our senses when we come into contact with that thing. All we know of the thing comes to us by our senses. Notice how this does not negate the existance of the thing. Just because we have no knowlege of the thing does not mean the thing does not exist. it just does not exists to us. That is untill we encounter it.

example:
I have something sitting on my desk. You don't know what it is.
For you this thing does not exist. you have no knowlege of what it is. You could argue from your perspective that it does not exist. But it exists none the less. you have just not encountered it yet.

 

[lifegazer]

Well, LG, I've found a good (and thankfully short) read relative to your philosophy. After reading it:

1. You will realize that you have stated nothing new whatsoever in your philosophy. It is completely expounded here with respect to Berkeley, Hegel, Descartes, and others.

Prove it. Show me where these men say the exact smae things as me about the exact same issues as me.

2. Although the mind vs. material aspect of reality is still debatable, it is still debatable. You have proferred nothing which would tip the balance one way or the other (as noone else has either). There is still a cohesive 'reality' either way and the Absolute mind philosophy just adds more untenable hyperbole to the pot.

For the last few weeks, I've concentrated my efforts on demolishing science as a philosophy and materialism as anything other than a religion. When I've breached the walls, I shall drive home my own philosophy.

3. An evidential case for noncausality (at sub-atomic scales) and indeterminism is made quite strongly.

Look, I've proven that any-thing which is sensed does have a cause, since all the senses themselves have a cause. There's ABSOLUTELY NO CASE for the acausality of "things" we sense since they have a cause and we know of no other "things" beyond those that exist within our senses.
Anybody who tells you otherwise is talking through his backside. Seriously. No man knows of no "thing" other than those things existing within his senses... and since his senses have a cause... then so do all "things" known by man. Fact.
No man can show that the the concept of 'acausality' applies to any [perceived] "thing", by logical default. This fact is absolute. And since man only knows of perceived "things", we can condemn any conclusion pertaining to the acausality of perceived things.
Thus, the scientific conclusion relating to the acausality of some "things" is a crock of you-know-what.

I suggest that you at least read it. Might be freely available at your local library, but even if not, it only costs $10 and a couple days reading.

I'm reading **** all. I am here to take you beyond that BS. And that's what it is. Why don't you think about what I'm saying here instead of quoting your heroes?
... Some bozo wants you to believe that some "things" that you can sense are acausal. However, all senses are caused... and all senses are the cause of the "things" that you can sense = all "things" that you sense DO HAVE A CAUSE.

No man can proclaim that any-thing within his perception is acausal, since all "things" perceived do have a cause.
Man can only attribute the concept of acausality to things beyond his perception of them. HOWEVER, FIRST HE SHALL HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF THAT "THINGS" EXIST BEYOND HIS PERCEPTION OF THEM.
Can he? No. Never. Why? Because man knows of no "things" beyond his perception of them.

 

[uruk]

Look, I've proven that any-thing which is sensed does have a cause, since all the senses themselves have a cause. There's ABSOLUTELY NO CASE for the acausality of "things" we sense since they have a cause and we know of no other "things" beyond those that exist within our senses.

You have done no such thing. Please stop telling lies.
All you have been giving us is personal opinions and conjecture.

I'm reading **** all. I am here to take you beyond that BS.

*sigh* Nothing like willfull ignorance to preserve one's convictions. Prove to us that you have some integrity and read a few books that have been suggested to you. Or are you scared?

Look, I've proven that any-thing which is sensed does have a cause, since all the senses themselves have a cause

again you have doen no such thing becauses you keep mixing up the perception of the thing with the thing.

 

[csense]

I have something sitting on my desk. You don't know what it is.
For you this thing does not exist. you have no knowlege of what it is. You could argue from your perspective that it does not exist. But it exists none the less. you have just not encountered it yet.

If you're talking about existence per se, which you are, then this person would have knowledge of the thing's existence after your first statement.
Of course you could argue direct observation, but then, that would be in direct conflict with what you are proposing here now wouldn't it.

 

[uruk]

If you're talking about existence per se, which you are, then this person would have knowledge of the thing's existence after your first statement.

Oops! I think your right!!!!!
That's unless I did not tell him about it first!

 

[csense]

Oops! I think your right!!!!!
That's unless I did not tell him about it first!

First...or at all

 

[kuroyume0161]

First...or at all

Yes, that's correct. As long as there is any observer to something (according to this philosophy) the object exists.

Remember, uruk, that this is Berkely/Hegel's 'mind of God' or 'Absolute mind' (which has absolutely no possible or coincidental resemblance to LG's 'singular mind' - hmmmm).

There are two scenarios (major dichotomic ones anyway) for existential qualification:

1. The universe exists independent of the 'mind' and its observer facets - this is sort of like a simulated reality being experienced by everyone. It could be internal or external, but it exists whether it is observed or not.

2. Parts of the universe only exist when they are observed by the observer facets, but one cannot speculate on whether the simulation is running in the background and privy to the 'mind'. Since there is continuity (of experience, laws, and so forth) at certain levels, it begs that a representational framework
exist somewhere, even if 2. is to be maintained.

Kuroyume

 

[uruk]

First...or at all

well nobody,s perfect. (I could be lieing though and there not be an object at all )

2. Parts of the universe only exist when they are observed by the observer facets, but one cannot speculate on whether the simulation is running in the background and privy to the 'mind'. Since there is continuity (of experience, laws, and so forth) at certain levels, it begs that a representational framework

He kind of opted for this scenario when he gave the analogy of the computer game in a debate with Upchurch

 

[lifegazer]

"I've proven that any-thing which is sensed does have a cause, since all the senses themselves have a cause. There's ABSOLUTELY NO CASE for the acausality of "things" we sense since they have a cause and we know of no other "things" beyond those that exist within our senses."

You have done no such thing. Please stop telling lies.
All you have been giving us is personal opinions and conjecture.

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

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

again you have doen no such thing becauses you keep mixing up the perception of the thing with the thing.

LOLOL. I think you'll find that this is in fact the very mistake that you yourself are making. You still haven't grasped that you only know of the sense-of-things.

 

[Wudang]

Science is concerned with the discerning the order apparent in our perceptions - says LG
Part of the order that science has discerned is acausal - simple fact. Not assumed to be acausal, not "we can't see a cause", demonstrated to be acausal. Fact.
It is your job to reconcile that fact with your philosophy. If your philosophy is unable to handle that, then your philosphy needs a rethink. At the moment all you are doing is yelling that it must be wrong because it disagrees with your naive assumptions. If our perceptions are wrong then why does science yield a clear chain to acausal results?

 

[Upchurch]

Understanding your proof and agreeing with it are not the same thing, lifegazer. If you can not provide objective absolute proof, you cannot claim absolute truth. If your proof is subject to my perceptions, it is not objective. It is subjective, hense the name.

So are you going to back up your claim of absolute proof, or are you going to try to slip away from having to make an effort again?

Golly, lifegazer. In grossly misunderstanding the first part of my post, you totally ignored the second part of my post. Gee, that's a surprise.

*sniff, sniff* is that ...fear?

 

[lifegazer]

Golly, lifegazer. In grossly misunderstanding the first part of my post, you totally ignored the second part of my post. Gee, that's a surprise.

*sniff, sniff* is that ...fear?

I've stated - on several occasions - that my present purpose is to show that science is philosophically biased. I've been
heavily-involved in that quest for a few weeks now. I don't have time, presently, to also heavily-involve myself with a concise overview of my own actual philosophy.
I have promised to do that once I feel that I have presented sufficient reason to back-up my call for scientific-reform, by showing that science is nothing other than the study of the mind's own order of illusory "things".
I.e., science is not a philosophy... and does not tell us anything about the nature of reality. Science only tells us about the order of perceived reality.

Indeed, I feel that any presentation of my own philosophy will draw less attention and credibility unless and until I have finished with this quest.
... So no, I have no "fear" of presenting my philosophy, but I do not intend to do that until I have sufficiently tilled the soil, so to speak. Presently, you could say that I'm pulling out the weeds and the rocks from that soil in preparation for the seeds of my own philosophy.

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

 

[lifegazer]

Science is concerned with the discerning the order apparent in our perceptions - says LG
Part of the order that science has discerned is acausal - simple fact. Not assumed to be acausal, not "we can't see a cause", demonstrated to be acausal. Fact.

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

If our perceptions are wrong then why does science yield a clear chain to acausal results?

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

 

[Wudang]

showing that science is nothing other than the study of the mind's own order of illusory "things".
I.e., science is not a philosophy... and does not tell us anything about the nature of reality. Science only tells us about the order of perceived reality.

So is it my mind that's generating the acausality in the perceived order? Sorry, don't get where the demonstrated acausality comes in.