Topic: Theology, Philosophy and Religion

[Col. Or'es'o (retired)]

If one cannot happen without the other, then the splitting of them into two concepts doesnt reflect the real world, no? Its an artificial conception, rather than a natural one. It might still be useful to do so, but i cant see what you gain by doing so.

Simply calling it a canyon is an interpretation. It is just the sensation of a canyon, it could be painting on a backdrop for instance.

Say for example, me and some medieval intellectuals stared at the horizon. I would go to them:
"There, the curvature of the earth"
and they would reply "No, the edge of the earth".
Interpretation is 9/10ths of perception. If not higher. Perception without interpretation is a random particle. I think we arent actually arguing concepts anymore, just language.

In the Descartes example, oh aye, he is not accepting that the wax experiment isnt dependant on the senses. But it does prove it isnt just the senses, mental faculties have to be involved. In Descartes example of course, he does have a higher power to call upon.

Tell me what you think of this reasoning:
How to prove an external world exists:
1. Dreams are constructed of perceptiions from the real world.
C. Perception is not a dream.

2. Things happen in my perception that i do not will
3. I am merely a thinking thing who has a will
C. Things outside of "me" exist. This is the external world.

If thats not bad enough, hows about this>
1. Humans cannot create an infinite idea.
C. An infinite idea must originate from an external world.

2. Humans have an idea of an infinite God.
C. The idea of infinite God must have came from an external world (and is therefore real)

3. God is benevolent and all powerful.
C. God would not trick me in my perception of the external world

Final Conclusion: My perception is real and unfaltering thanks to God.
Well thats cleared everything up no?

[Dark Exodus]

You really want to single handedly end this thread don't you?
Cool!  ...

[Colonel Tangerine]

I don't understand your insistence that two things that require each other cannot be seperate things. You are claiming that they must be the same thing, simply because they always happen together. I can find no logic behind that claim.

If there is one underlying reality, as you claim, we must percieve the same things when in the same circumstances. Therefore, the only thing that can account for differences between people is the differences in thier interpretations of what they percieve.

Yah, I think your right about the language thing. We're really just using different definitions of the words.

For the first two examples, we can bring in another famous Descartes example, the dreaming doubt. YOu can never know you are not dreaming, and since perception is not a dream, you have never be sure what you are experiencing is perception.

I've also viewed late Descartes, as represented in the last three, as much flawed. He was trying to make himself feel better, and so reach his conclusions with unwarrented assumptions.

Why can humans not create an infinite idea? Infinity is a very ancient mathematical concept, and there is no reason why not the assign it to the world. Or, conversly, if we cannot create an infinite concept, then what we think is a conception of an infinite God really isn't, it just appears that way to us.

He is opperating in the last one under the assumption of knowing Gods motives and plans. It is important to remember how religious Descartes was at this point. That would not stand up under a secular argument, which is what I use.

[Col. Or'es'o (retired)]

you must remember that interpretation and all 'conception' is a human thing. For instance, it is beneficial for us to divide the concepts of Proton and Electron, since after all, they can be seperated even though they work together in quite alot of stuff. However, we dont seperate the Electron and Proton parts of lightning as a rule, since theres no reason to do so. Also note, that Electrons and Protons arent definite things, they are just collections of vague spatial information exchanging with everything around them via a phenomena called a photon.
Unless you can give me a reason why i should think Perception and Interpretation are not only different, but separate, then i will consider them causally linked, and therefore part of the same process, indivisible for practical purposes. Just the same as i thought electricity was, until i learned of electrons and protons, and just as i thought electrons and protons were until i discovered photons were necessarily involved too.

For the record, Ive never claimed there IS an underlying reality, just that you didnt give me sufficient reason to assume there isnt one. I have also mentioned it may well be unknowable too.

The descartes stuff was mostly for fun. I agree, he was a reasonably great guy, he just couldnt get his head around certain things.

Descartes could well argue you back on mathematical terms there. He does agree that we have an idea of infinity, but it MUST come from outside. We are not infinite beings, and no matter how you manipulate a definite number, it will never become infinite without an infinite number being applied to it. Hence God is infinite and he applied it to us so we could grasp him. Being made in his image and all that.
You could argue that we dont actually know infinity (i remember one mathmetician who tried went insane, seriously), but i think we have got as close as is rationally possible without being infinite ourselves.

Yes of course, his final point is completely dependant on a benign theistic God, when of course, he hasnt even attempted to prove that, only a neutral deistic one. Hes just assumed that good is better than evil (and that good and evil are real concepts) and so God is Good.

Dark Exodus, me? end philosophy? ah, perhaps. Apparantly Wittgenstein beat me to it though, its just all these people are still around who claim otherwise!

[Colonel Tangerine]

This conversation seems to make you way too happy

I never said that they were not causally linked, they are indeed parts of the same process. That does not make a difference, they just have the differ from each other. Like a proton and an electron. I never said they were seperate in the sence of not being steps in the same process, all I said was they were different concepts, as you yourself admitted. They can exist as seperate concepts with seperate value. I would say your interpretation of a perception is dependant on your previous perceptions.

For the record, Ive never claimed there IS an underlying reality

I would interpret this statement as the same thing:

Baron Fel is right in that only one truth can exist even if it is unknowable.

Though you may of meant something else

My view is that the best thing to do is operate under the assumption that that which has no proof of its existence is false. So I operate under the assumption that there is no underlying reality, because I can see no proof that there is one.

I understand what Descartes as saying about infinity, I just disagree. I see no proof from him that people cannot come up with a concept that does not apply strictly to them as an individual. It simply a clever argument to prove Gods existence, with no real factual basis behind it. And that is why I much prefer early Descartes. And Hume.

[Col. Or'es'o (retired)]

Aye, understandably, i prefer Hume too. He's quite the hardass. As for enjoying philosophy, of course!

Lateralus, but there is evidence, there is a consistant sensation of an underlying reality. Its not total proof, but its not null. Until i see evidence of where this sensation comes from other than reality, then i will assume it probably comes from reality since that is what the signal suggests. Besides, if there is no underlying reality (or it truly is unknowable), we still have this consistant sensation which is as good as. 

About infinity, of course. We tend to think about infinity in a very definite way anyway. Hence there are three types of infinity,
a) One more than any given definite number (this obviously can be reached from any definite number)
b) Infinitely more than any given definite number (you can get this by squaring infinity a) )
c) A number so large it is impossible to give any definition (you cannot get this number).

Cool eh?

[Colonel Tangerine]

I don't view that sensation as anywhere close to proof of an underlying reality. There is no logical reason to view it as implying a underlying reality, simply sentimental ones. I honestly don't believe any underlying reality will ever be proved. We either have to be skeptics, and deny it's existence, or have unfounded faith and believe in it.

Dammit, my post count hasn't gone up in three days! Bloody thing.

[Col. Or'es'o (retired)]

of course there is proof of underlying reality, as much as we have proof of anything: we have a sensation of the sensation being tied to it.

Besides, if reality itself doesnt exist, the fact that a sensation of reality does exist is irrefutable. Thats all i need, the sensation is consistant, so the fact that it is only a sensation isnt important.

[Rasmus]

Besides, if reality itself doesnt exist, the fact that a sensation of reality does exist is irrefutable. Thats all i need, the sensation is consistant, so the fact that it is only a sensation isnt important.

   So then God, Harvey the Invisible Bunny, Santa - all of them are valid? I mean, since the people who believe have a definite sensation of these, and since the sensation is consistant then their true tie-in to a reality which may or may not exist (and isn't important in either case since we can't be aware of it) is unimportant, right?
   This is very very thin ice.

[Daemonknight]

Simply put, its a state of mind.  Seeing that humans are social creatures, the majority or the elite strong determines whats real or true.

A simple example is back when people believe in the earth is the center of the solar system and the sun rotates around it because the majority believe that was true and the elite (rulers) believe that as well and imprison/kill anyone who stated otherwise until it was proven otherwise.

[Col. Or'es'o (retired)]

Rasmus, of course. If someone has perceived a sensation of father christmas that they deem reliable, then obviously they must accept that father christmas is real. Its not thin ice at all, its the way things are.
If you can learn what exists and what doesnt without sensing it, thats groovy, but the rest of us have to go by whats given to us. All of your beliefs will be dictated by what you have sensed (through the scope of your genetic heritage of course), theres no two ways about it.

Daemonknight, there is the argument that truth is public, but if you are talking about what an individual can know, then other people mustnt come into consideration (as they may well be part of an illusion or such).

[Daemonknight]

Well Or'es'o, it is true that an individual can seek the truth by him or herself without others.  However in our society, we depend on others to give our the facts and the truth given we are a social race.  In fact how could you come up with such logic and reason to argue with Rasmus and me without other people to teach you to or write books/articles to learn from?  You can't easily discard other people without discarding almost everything you learn and know due to the fact you get it from other people

[Col. Or'es'o (retired)]

you misunderstand, your point is perfectly valid in practical terms, but we were discussing in absolute terms. Its true we live in second hand worlds, most of what you know will be from other people, and what little personal experience you have will be coloured by other peoples ideas anyway.

You can't easily discard other people without discarding almost everything you learn and know due to the fact you get it from other people

Exactly, but you must admit that other people are not infallible sources of information. So therefore, if you want to learn what is absolutely and irrefutably true, you can never get that information from another person, this core truth must be inherent to yourself since all experience and the particulars of any sensation can be reasonably doubted (ahem, the matrix).

As a side note, to break from arguing dry age old problems, why dont we discuss something more pressing, and dare i say, relevant?
Er, such as, "what are the necessary conditions for an ethically just war?"
or "what is the more practically constructive society; a competitive one (capitolism) with greed as the chief motivational factor or a supportive one (communism) where charity is"
Or whatever.

Cheers!

[Daemonknight]

You're right that using other people as source could be falliable but so can you or me as well.

Also how could anything be truly absolute?  In knowing what we know even if it is solid with evidence could well be throw out the window due to special events.  Like most people view killing is wrong.  So what about if you kill someone in self defense or in time of war? To think that anything is absolute is flaw.

The Iraq war was unjust, unethical and a big mistake due to capitalism of conquest of the rich oil by oil company (which Bush family has stock in) and maybe a bit on revenge (Saddam dissed the older Bush and try to kill him)

Capitalism will fall at the point when the majority of the people can't support a living for themselves even with jobs where the gap between the rich and poor is an ocean away.

Communism will only be achieve when resources are not scarces in the economical sense, where everything is plentiful for everyone which is not true presently

[Colonel Tangerine]

The Iraq war was unjust, unethical and a big mistake due to capitalism of conquest of the rich oil by oil company (which Bush family has stock in) and maybe a bit on revenge (Saddam dissed the older Bush and try to kill him)

So would it of been just if done with unselfish motives?

Capitalism will fall at the point when the majority of the people can't support a living for themselves even with jobs where the gap between the rich and poor is an ocean away.

That will not happen, because then the price would simply fall. The people have to be able to buy things, the rich are dependant on it, so they would not let this situation come to play.

Communism will only be achieve when resources are not scarces in the economical sense, where everything is plentiful for everyone which is not true presently

But is it just? Do people desreve to have the same amount of rewards for greatly different efforts? Capitalism has a proven record of improving the wealth of the ordinary people far better then capitalism, because under communism there is simply no point to generating new capital, as it will not go to you, and unfortunatly, humans will always remain, for the most part, inherently selfish.

[Daemonknight]

Well first off I don't think going to war for a bunch of lies is justifible. America went allow with Bush's plan for war for self defense of Iraq having WMD and willing to use them which was never shown that Saddam had them or any connection to Al-Qaida.  What resulted due to the war is billions in US tax payers money down the drain, US soldiers injury or kill on a daily basics as well as innocent Iraqi people and foreign allies, alienation with other foreign nations, increase in terrorist recruitment, corruption and scandels in the Military rank and a country that seems worse off than before the war that will probably lead to civil war among the three major religious factions.  Tell me if that was worth going to war for.

Price will simply fall? There is so much wrong in that.  The Great Depression was when price fall big time.  In economics, when prices fall than the companies would try to lessen the blow by laying off people or shut down which would result in no many people able to buy anything.  Also outsourcing recently gone rampant with 300 million jobs lost and more going out to sea since 2001. Perhaps the rich could be able to stop it but perhaps not, so far they ain't willing to increase their pay while cutting down labor workers and continued outsourcing

Just or not, that is the only feasible way for communism to work with unlimited resources (probably from nano technology.)  Of course when we have unlimited resources, our system of economics presently would change or be unless  as why would we need to work or pay when all resources is no long scarce?  Humans like animals are selfish due to the need for survival.

[Colonel Tangerine]

I didn't say I thought the war was just, I said would it of been if the motives were unselfish. Say, for humanitarian reasons, which really obviously existed.

The Great Depression(and any depression for that matter) is a completly different circumstance then the one you outlined above. You are inplying that either: A) Overal capital will actually decrease, and the people who will take the hit are masses, or B) Overall concentration of capital will re-locate to greater favour the upper classes, and they, not wanting more capital, will not re-invest it. If the concentration is so great, they will be able to lower prices without having to fire many workers.

Capitalism has seemed doomed before, noticably during the thirties and during the long depression, and has rebounded both times. Both of those times saw a dramatic increase in workers right and the power of unions. A dpression has to happen eventually, and I cannot see why it will not simply run its course like the previous ones.

If resources are infinite, there is no economic system required, communist or capitalist.