Empirical Evidence vs Reason

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47117)

Since you have yet to prove that there is a spiritual world, this entire thread is a moot point.If it's provable to me, then perhaps it's a matter of reasoning it out amongst yourselves?

By the way, what's with all the spam and derailing tactics here? I'm not referring to you in particular Tobias ... Is this typical of most of the threads on this forum or, is it a primary focus on those who tend to maintain alternative views? :confused: If you would like to discuss the difference between empirical evidence and our ability to reason, perhaps we can do so on another thread?

In fact I may as well make the split right here ...

[Tricky]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47117)

If it's provable to me, then perhaps it's a matter of reasoning it out amongst yourselves?

By the way, what's with all the spam and derailing tactics here? I'm not referring to you in particular Tobias ... Is this typical of most of the threads on this forum or, is it a primary focus on those who tend to maintain alternative views? :confused: If you would like to discuss the difference between empirical evidence and our ability to reason, perhaps we can do so on another thread?

In fact I may as well make split it off right here ...
Any "reason" that is not based on empirical evidence is suspect. An insane person may "reason" that there are demons in his basement because he has seen their faces in photographs he has taken of the wall. To him, this is pure reason. There are the pictures. There are the faces. What could be more obvious?

The fact that the empirical evidence is against him, meaning no-one but him can see the demons, does not conflict with his reason since he is not concerned with empirical evidence.

Note that this example is based on an actual poster who used to present exactly this "reasoning" on these boards. Do we know anyone else here whose reasoning is not based on empirical evidence?

[Iacchus]

Any "reason" that is not based on empirical evidence is suspect.Any empirical evidence that is not maintained by reason does not exist.

[Tricky]

Any empirical evidence that is not maintained by reason does not exist.
That is among the most incorrect things you have ever said. Evidence is totally independant of reason. By your definition, the planet Pluto did not exist until it was discovered, which is totally ludicrous. The evidence was there for many many years before our "reason" uncovered it.

[hammegk]

... Evidence is totally independant of reason.
Kewl. You know (whatever that might mean in your scenario) something is evidence without recourse to reason. Mmmkay. :)

[TobiasTheViking]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47117)

If it's provable to me, then perhaps it's a matter of reasoning it out amongst yourselves?

By the way, what's with all the spam and derailing tactics here? I'm not referring to you in particular Tobias ... Is this typical of most of the threads on this forum or, is it a primary focus on those who tend to maintain alternative views? :confused: If you would like to discuss the difference between empirical evidence and our ability to reason, perhaps we can do so on another thread?

In fact I may as well make the split right here ...
Spam? What do you mean.
Derailing? This is a science forum, we can't discuss something unless we agree on certain things, like for instance, we both have to agree on teh existance of a spiritual world or not.

Of course we COULD spend a week discussing the aspects of the world and the big bang in correlation to a spriritual world, even if a spiritual world doesn't exist. But most people(me included) would find such an endeavour to be a waste of time. So, before we start discussing the correlation between [some subject] and the spiritual world, then lets first agree on some foundation. For instance, that the spiritual world exists.

Since the scientific consensus is that the spiritual world does not exist, you will have to prove that it does exist to us, for us to feel that any other discussion involving the spiritual world is worth the endeavour.


Why don't you just simply prove to us that the spiritual world is fact, that is a part of the world we live in, and not just an idea you have. Once you have that proven, we can better discuss the implications that will have on the big bang and the expanding universe. And you would most likely have both 1 million dollars, and a nobel price.

[Tricky]

Kewl. You know (whatever that might mean in your scenario) something is evidence without recourse to reason. Mmmkay. :)
Umm.. yes. Elsewise, what would the term "discover evidence" mean? You cannot discover something that doesn't exist.

How you interpret the evidence is determined by your reasoning and indeed it is inevitable that faulty interpretations will be made. Science is a good, but not perfect tool for weeding out faulty interpretations by subjecting them to testing and independant verification.

[ceo_esq]

Any "reason" that is not based on empirical evidence is suspect.

Reason in its pure form (as in logic or mathematics, for example) is not based on empirical evidence.


Derailing? This is a science forum ...

The Religion and Philosophy Forum is a science forum?


Since the scientific consensus is that the spiritual world does not exist, you will have to prove that it does exist to us, for us to feel that any other discussion involving the spiritual world is worth the endeavour.

Any consensus (if there is one, which would be news to me) that the spiritual world does not exist would necessarily not be a scientific one.

[TobiasTheViking]

The Religion and Philosophy Forum is a science forum?
Ah yes, forgot to look at the subforum. My bad, and agreed. I did mean the overall board though. But yes, this is Religion and Philosophy. My bad.

Any consensus (if there is one, which would be news to me) that the spiritual world does not exist would necessarily not be a scientific one.
I'm there are many organisations that have a consensus one way or the other. Not that it really matters if there are.
I don't know if the scientific community have a consensus that God doens't exist. But i do know that they don't have a consensus that God does exist.

But since this is Religion and Philosophy, i guess my entire argument is moot. I don't feel a discussion of this nature is worth anything without scientific backing. But since it is in Religion and Philosophy, and not in the science section, i should just keep my damn dirty fingers out.

Agreed, in this subforum scientific evidence is not required, and i shouldn't require it in the context of Religion of Philosophy.

I appologize to all parties involved, and i'll endeavour to check which section i'm in later.

Sincerely
Tobias

[Iacchus]

That is among the most incorrect things you have ever said. Evidence is totally independant of reason. By your definition, the planet Pluto did not exist until it was discovered, which is totally ludicrous. The evidence was there for many many years before our "reason" uncovered it.That would be great if you were capable of jumping out of your skin. :D Indeed, how is it possible to know something exists on the outside, unless "you" were looking at it from the inside? There has to be some form of mediator between you and the outside doesn't there? And, what do you think that mediator might be, if not reason?

[Iacchus]

But since this is Religion and Philosophy, i guess my entire argument is moot. I don't feel a discussion of this nature is worth anything without scientific backing. But since it is in Religion and Philosophy, and not in the science section, i should just keep my damn dirty fingers out.And perhaps this should serve as a reminder to some of the other folks around here too? ... Apology accepted.

[Iacchus]

Umm.. yes. Elsewise, what would the term "discover evidence" mean? You cannot discover something that doesn't exist.Why not, people do it all the time ... apparently. ;)

[Mercutio]

Why not, people do it all the time ... apparently. ;)
I'm sure you can give several examples, then...

[Tricky]

Reason in its pure form (as in logic or mathematics, for example) is not based on empirical evidence.
True, but I would separate this definition of reason from the scientific definition. Reason in math is more like carefully reading the rules.

[Tricky]

That would be great if you were capable of jumping out of your skin. :D Indeed, how is it possible to know something exists on the outside, unless "you" were looking at it from the inside? There has to be some form of mediator between you and the outside doesn't there? And, what do you think that mediator might be, if not reason?
What you know or don't know is not relevant to the evidence itself. It would exist even if you didn't. But you are correct that "reason" (I prefer "interpretation") is the bridge beween evidence and understanding. But this again is a personal thing. Some people understand a lot about how brains work, some do not. Some people understand how cosmology works, some do not. Their understanding has no effect on how those things actually work.

But I do not deny that it requires a "mediator" for you to understand it. It was this statement that you made:
Any empirical evidence that is not maintained by reason does not exist. which is so very incorrect that it defies "reason" that a sentient being could ever make such an error.

[hammegk]

True, but I would separate this definition of reason from the scientific definition.
Why not? Materialists also define the 'physical' out of physical. :)

[Iacchus]

What you know or don't know is not relevant to the evidence itself.Then why bring it up? Why do I need to know it? Is it supposed to just "lay there," without us doing anything about it? What is the evidence without any purpose?

[Tricky]

Then why bring it up? Why do I need to know it? Is it supposed to just "lay there," without us doing anything about it? What is the evidence without any purpose?
It is just evidence. It has no more "purpose" than the undiscovered fossils which may someday link major taxonomic groups.

However, if a claim is made that, oh let's say earthworms are related to insects, then that statement is useless unless supported by evidence. THe evidence for such a link could have been lying buried and undiscovered for millions of years prior to the claim. Nothing has changed about the evidence. The only thing that has changed is our knowledge and understanding of it.

I realize that because of your religion, you require a "purpose" for everything. Most of us here are not limited by such narrow interpretations.

[.13.]

It's true that this is a religion and philosphy subforum. But when you claim that some deity is necessery or responsible for our existence then you are mixing it with science. And you should be prepared to defend your statements scientifically. If we accept any wild claim regardles of any science at all, we might as well change the subforum to fiction/fantasy.


Reason in its pure form (as in logic or mathematics, for example) is not based on empirical evidence.

True, but I would separate this definition of reason from the scientific definition. Reason in math is more like carefully reading the rules.

I agree with both of you. Logic and math are not based on empirical evidence. But alone they don't tell us anything about the world. I could make mathematically and logically correct equations and arguments but without some empirical evidence they would be pure speculation.

[c4ts]

Example A:
1. Start with emperical evidence
2. Apply reason
3. Formulate conclusion
3. Support conclusion with 1 and 2
This is where knowledge comes from. It is made of win and good.

Example A, if done properly, works. It is built from the foundation up. It will collapse if you skip a step. It can easily go beyond what was already known, which is why it is called "learning."

Example A in action: Geometric proofs, science, philosophy, Pulitzer prize winning essays, everyday rational thought.

Example B:
1. Start with conclusion
2. Apply reason
3. Add emperical evidence (if you have any)
3. Support conclusion with any combination of 1, 2, and 3
This is a trap. It is made of ass and poo.

Example B does not work. It has no foundation. You can skip steps, and it won't make a difference, because it establishes nothing more than a possibility which existed in the first place. It cannot go beyond what it intended to prove. Because it contains reason and emperical evidence, it is indistinguishable from A if you do not think critically about it.

Example B in action: Studies supporting psi where the misses are ignored, Intelligent Design as it is presented in court, New Age, Kilik's many wonderful links, Gene Ray's Timecube, the theories of David Icke.

Now do you see why people tell you reason and emperical evidence alone don't make something true? Neither one is unreal or false, but either can be easily misused. I don't think I can break this down any more clearly.

[hammegk]

How did you conclude you had empirical evidence? By 'reason', perhaps? :)

[bagtaggar]

How did you conclude you had empirical evidence? By 'reason', perhaps?

Ladies and gentlemen, that's the kind of thinking that builds rockets to the moon.

[Iacchus]

It is just evidence. It has no more "purpose" than the undiscovered fossils which may someday link major taxonomic groups.Evidence of what? The nothing that you make it out to be? See, it's entirely meaningless. Or, if it was presented as evidence of "something," how would you know what to do with it?

[69dodge]

Logic and math are not based on empirical evidence. But alone they don't tell us anything about the world.Yes, exactly.

As Einstein put it (http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html), "Insofar as the expressions of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain, and insofar as they are certain they do not refer to reality."

(The rest of the referenced page unfortunately displays quite a misunderstanding of relativity. But I assume the author got the quote right, at least, as I've seen it elsewhere.)

[hammegk]

Ladies and gentlemen, that's the kind of thinking that builds rockets to the moon.
You are correct, even though you thought you were just being sarcastic.

And perhaps without reason, too, in your case. :)

[ceo_esq]

Example A:
1. Start with emperical evidence
2. Apply reason
3. Formulate conclusion
3. Support conclusion with 1 and 2
This is where knowledge comes from. It is made of win and good.

Example A, if done properly, works. It is built from the foundation up. It will collapse if you skip a step. It can easily go beyond what was already known, which is why it is called "learning."

Example A in action: Geometric proofs, science, philosophy, Pulitzer prize winning essays, everyday rational thought.

As an aside, I don't see how geometric proofs involve empirical evidence.

At any rate, some knowledge is independent of empirical evidence, as Kant pointed out in The Critique of Pure Reason (http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/prefs.html) (people with no stomach for this sort of writing should feel free to skip ahead):

Experience is, beyond all doubt, the first product to which our understanding gives rise, in working up the raw material of sensible impressions. Experience is therefore our first instruction, and in its progress is so inexhaustible in new information, that in the interconnected lives of all future generations there will never be any lack of new knowledge that can be thus ingathered. Nevertheless, it is by no means the sole field to which our understanding is confined.

For it may well be that even our empirical knowledge is made up of what we receive through impressions and of what our own faculty of knowledge (sensible impressions serving merely as the occasion) supplies from itself. If our faculty of knowledge makes any such addition, it may be that we are not in a position to distinguish it from the raw material, until with long practice of attention we have become skilled in separating it.

This, then, is a question which at least calls for closer examination, and does not allow of any off-hand answer: whether there is any knowledge that is thus independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses. Such knowledge is entitled a priori, and distinguished from the empirical, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.

Experience tells us, indeed, what is, but not that it must necessarily be so, and not otherwise. It therefore gives us no true universality; and reason, which is so insistent upon this kind of knowledge, is therefore more stimulated by it than satisfied. Such universal modes of knowledge, which at the same time possess the character of inner necessity, must in themselves, independently of experience, be clear and certain. They are therefore entitled knowledge a priori; whereas, on the other hand, that which is borrowed solely from experience is, as we say, known only a posteriori, or empirically.

Now we find, what is especially noteworthy, that even into our experiences there enter modes of knowledge which must have their origin a priori, and which perhaps serve only to give coherence to our sense-representations. For if we eliminate from our experiences everything which belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and certain judgments derived from them, which must have arisen completely a priori, independently of experience, inasmuch as they enable us to say, or at least lead us to believe that we can say, in regard to the objects which appear to the senses, more than mere experience would teach - giving to assertions true universality and strict necessity, such as mere empirical knowledge cannot supply.

...

In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all experience. Opposed to it is empirical knowledge, which is knowledge possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience.

...

What we here require is a criterion by which to distinguish with certainty between pure and empirical knowledge. Experience teaches us that a thing is so and so, but not that it cannot be otherwise. First, then, if we have a proposition which in being thought is thought as necessary, it is an a priori judgment; and if, besides, it is not derived from any proposition except one which also has the validity of a necessary judgment, it is an absolutely a priori judgment. Secondly, experience never confers on its judgments true or strict but only assumed and comparative universality, through induction. We can properly only say, therefore, that so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, then, a judgment is thought with strict universality, that is, in such manner that no exception is allowed as possible, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori. Empirical universality is only an arbitrary extension of a validity holding in most cases to one which holds in all, for instance, in the proposition, 'all bodies are heavy'.

When ... strict universality is essential to a judgment, this indicates a special source of knowledge, namely, a faculty of a priori knowledge. Necessity and strict universality are thus sure criteria of a priori knowledge, and are inseparable from one another. But since in the employment of these criteria the contingency of judgments is sometimes more easily shown than their empirical limitation, or, as sometimes also happens, their unlimited universality can be more convincingly proved than their necessity, it is advisable to use the two criteria separately, each by itself being infallible.

Now it is easy to show that there actually are in human knowledge judgments which are necessary and in the strictest sense universal, and which are therefore pure a priori judgments. If an example from the sciences be desired, we have only to look to any of the propositions of mathematics; if we seek an example from the understanding in its quite ordinary employment, the proposition, "every alteration must have a cause", will serve our purpose. In the latter case, indeed, the very concept of a cause so manifestly contains the concept of a necessity of connection with an effect and of the strict universality of the rule, that the concept would be altogether lost if we attempted to derive it, as Hume has done, from a repeated association of that which happens with that which precedes, and from a custom of connecting representations, a custom originating in this repeated association, and constituting therefore a merely subjective necessity.

Even without appealing to such examples, it is possible to show that pure a priori principles are indispensable for the possibility of experience, and so to prove their existence a priori. For whence could experience derive its certainty, if all the rules, according to which it proceeds, were always themselves empirical, and therefore contingent? Such rules could hardly be regarded as first principles. At present, however, we may be content to have established the fact that our faculty of knowledge does have a pure employment, and to have shown what are the criteria of such an employment.


For our purposes, it's sufficient to note that reality is composed of both necessary aspects and contingent aspects, and that empirical science can only yield knowledge of the latter (and perhaps not all of those). We shouldn't assume that knowledge of the former - i.e., pure knowledge - is not knowledge of reality.

[.13.]

We shouldn't assume that knowledge of the former - i.e., pure knowledge - is not knowledge of reality.

I assume that "pure knowledge" is "knowledge absolutely independent of all experience".

I call that speculation. Technically you are correct. But any connection to reality would be just coincidental.

[kmortis]

It's true that this is a religion and philosphy subforum. But when you claim that some deity is necessery or responsible for our existence then you are mixing it with science. And you should be prepared to defend your statements scientifically. If we accept any wild claim regardles of any science at all, we might as well change the subforum to fiction/fantasy.



I agree with both of you. Logic and math are not based on empirical evidence. But alone they don't tell us anything about the world. I could make mathematically and logically correct equations and arguments but without some empirical evidence they would be pure speculation.

I would add that this entire argument started with a discussion (where the h is codeblue anyhoo?) about Intelligent Design. By its very nature, ID will call in both religion and science. Iacchus had started by claiming that the universe "had" to have a blueprint/design/plan/script/whatever and it devolved (ironically) from there.

[ceo_esq]

I assume that "pure knowledge" is "knowledge absolutely independent of all experience".

I call that speculation. Technically you are correct. But any connection to reality would be just coincidental.

One way of looking at pure knowledge is "knowledge of things that are necessarily true", as opposed to "knowledge of things that are contingently true". When you suggest that any connection between pure knowledge and reality is "just coincidental", it implies that what is necessarily true is only contingently true. That seems necessarily false.

[.13.]

One way of looking at pure knowledge is "knowledge of things that are necessarily true", as opposed to "knowledge of things that are contingently true". When you suggest that any connection between pure knowledge and reality is "just coincidental", it implies that what is necessarily true is only contingently true. That seems necessarily false.

"knowledge of things that are necessarily true" <--- What does that mean?

I'm not exactly sure of your meaning. But if you mean that pure knowledge (as "knowledge absolutely independent of all experience") which describes reality only by coincidence is not pure knowledge, then I would have to say there is no pure knowledge.

But if "knowledge of things that are necessarily true" is different from "knowledge absolutely independent of all experience" I'll have to wait for clarification before I can comment.

[drkitten]

"knowledge of things that are necessarily true" <--- What does that mean?



There is a long-standing tradition in philosophical epistemology of distinguishing between so-called "necessary" and "contingent" truths. As with every philosophical concept, there are a few different ways to define the distinction, but the general idea is that a "necessary truth" is one that is true by virtue of the inherent meaning of the words and the fundamental way that the world is put together, while a "contingent truth" is something that is true merely by accident.

For example, it is a necessary truth that all spinsters are unmarried, because the word "spinster" means "unmarried woman." It's also a necessary truth that if all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are C, by the basic structure of logic itself. In no "possible world" can the converse hold.

On the other hand, it's a contingent truth that my coffee cup is empty right now. As a matter of fact, by the time you read this message, it may no longer be empty. If the world had been slightly different, it might be full right now, but I decided to respond to this post before refilling it.

The general idea is that "necessary truths" can be established by pure thought and reason from the comfort of your armchair, since they are true of all possible states of the world. It is a necessary truth that for Julius Caesar to invade Britain, he must have crossed water, as a simple glance at the map hanging on my wall will confirm. On the other hand, there are a thousand different points where he might have landed, and to determine which one will require work -- either drugery in the library reading the historical accounts, or a lot of navvy-style digging to see if I can find archeological traces of the invasion beach.

Because necessary truths are by definition true, they are in fact connected to reality. That's not a coincidence. That was more or less ceo_esq's point. The problem is that necessary truths are by definition true, but they're also by definition pretty uninformative, because they are tautological.

[ceo_esq]

Because necessary truths are by definition true, they are in fact connected to reality. That's not a coincidence. That was more or less ceo_esq's point. The problem is that necessary truths are by definition true, but they're also by definition pretty uninformative, because they are tautological.That's a fair explanation of what I was getting at. However, I would dispute that necessary truths are "pretty uninformative", if by that you mean either that they are obvious or that resorting to them is unhelpful. First of all, not all necessary truths are obvious (which is why, for example, a complex logical or mathematical proof is often required to ascertain them). Second, necessary truths are rather useful to the extent that human beings would be in a confusing, problematic, and probably hopeless position if those things were merely contingently true or false, and we had either to refrain from relying on them or else try to determine them empirically.

[Iacchus]

Ohm's Law anyone?

[.13.]

Thanks for the good explanation drkitten. It was informative and simple.

I understand now that ceo_esq meant that "knowledge of things that are necessarily true" is different from "knowledge absolutely independent of all experience". And the former is not coincidental with reality because of its definition. Unlike the latter.

[ceo_esq]

I understand now that ceo_esq meant that "knowledge of things that are necessarily true" is different from "knowledge absolutely independent of all experience".

Well, you've misunderstood something, because knowledge absolutely independent of all experience is knowledge of things that are necessarily true.

[.13.]

Well, you've misunderstood something, because knowledge absolutely independent of all experience is knowledge of things that are necessarily true.

Oh. Well, then there seems to be some misunderstanding. Probably with the phrase "absolutely independent of all experience".

Best way to explain my understanding of the phrase would be with an example. I'll take this from drkitten's post: "It is a necessary truth that for Julius Caesar to invade Britain, he must have crossed water, as a simple glance at the map hanging on my wall will confirm."

I understood it this way. That simple glance would be experience and then the knowledge of Caesar to cross the water would not be independent of experience. You would also have to know what the blue are on the map represents.

I think this clears up things quite a bit.

[ceo_esq]

I understood it this way. That simple glance would be experience and then the knowledge of Caesar to cross the water would not be independent of experience. You would also have to know what the blue are on the map represents.

That example might represent what Kant would call a priori knowledge that nonetheless has an admixture of something empirical in it. It is still a priori, though; it doesn't posit the actual existence of any contingently true empirical phenomena: If there was a Caesar, and if he invaded an a country entirely surrounded by water, then the process would necessarily involve crossing water.

A "purer" example of an a priori truth would be more along these lines: A thing cannot simultaneously possess a property and not possess that property.

Consider this one: If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. A true understanding of what a man is, what mortality is, or who Socrates is, requires experience. However, the truth expressed in the statement relates only to the relationship among those things. It is a truth that is independent of the actual qualities of men, mortality, or Socrates; it is, indeed, independent of whether such things as men, mortality, and Socrates actually exist. In short, it is absolutely independent of experience.

[.13.]

That example might represent what Kant would call a priori knowledge that nonetheless has an admixture of something empirical in it. It is still a priori, though; it doesn't posit the actual existence of any contingently true empirical phenomena: If there was a Caesar, and if he invaded an a country entirely surrounded by water, then the process would necessarily involve crossing water.


I see what you mean. If we didn't know what Caesar and water were then the connection to Caesar and water in reality would have been purely coincidental. I originally thought you meant we could "guess reality" (that Caesar and water are real things) and it wouldn't be a coincidence. My mistake. Though in my defence I would have to say I've seen pretty "out there" theories on these forums and thought this was just one of those.

I see logic merely as a tool to examine and categorise reality. Without prior experience logical constructs as "If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal." are meaningles in relation to reality (though internally correct). That statement would make sense (in terms of reality) only if we would know what mortality, Socrates and men are. But I guess that wasn't debated here.

[Roboramma]

Mathematics is based on axioms. Now, I'm no expert on math, but it seems to me that while everything in math works if those axioms are true, in order to apply it's conclusions to the real world we first have to assertain that those axioms are in fact true.
And that requires evidence.
While pure reason is a great tool, I can't think of anything of value that can be drawn from it without evidence that it's conclusions actually do apply to the world we live in.

Maybe I'm mistaken.

Also, to Iacchus, your arguments don't seem to be simply from pure reason, but rather just from assertion.
Nor are you claiming them to be without any evidence- you often suggest that this evidence comes in the form of dreams - this means that those conclusions are not evident to just anyone, but only someone else who has access to this evidence. And since the only person who has access to your dreams is you, I don't see how they are relevant to discussion on this forum.

Finally evidence must be weighed - for instance if there is an equally valid, more likely, hypothesis for why you had those dreams, then you should at least concider it. Just because the evidence isn't contradicted by a hypothesis doesn't mean it supports it any more than it supports any other hypothesis.

eta: okay I feel dumb. I wrote this without reading what had been posted since I was on yesterday. It looks like everyone has already moved on...

[Tricky]

Also, to Iacchus, your arguments don't seem to be simply from pure reason, but rather just from assertion.
Nor are you claiming them to be without any evidence- you often suggest that this evidence comes in the form of dreams - this means that those conclusions are not evident to just anyone, but only someone else who has access to this evidence. And since the only person who has access to your dreams is you, I don't see how they are relevant to discussion on this forum.
Hey! That's good. You've found a way for Iacchus to combat his problem with reality.

Because the axioms and evidence that Iacchus presents are only in imaginary states, such as dreams, they can only be considered operative in those states.

So is the stuff you spout true, Iacchus? In your dreams.

[Iacchus]

Hey! That's good. You've found a way for Iacchus to combat his problem with reality.

Because the axioms and evidence that Iacchus presents are only in imaginary states, such as dreams, they can only be considered operative in those states.

So is the stuff you spout true, Iacchus? In your dreams.And, when I'm dead and gone, so what huh? Maybe it was just a dream?

:dl:

[Belz...]

Any empirical evidence that is not maintained by reason does not exist.

That is pure dung, Iacchus. Evidence exists, whether you can accept it or not.

[Belz...]

That would be great if you were capable of jumping out of your skin. :D Indeed, how is it possible to know something exists on the outside, unless "you" were looking at it from the inside? There has to be some form of mediator between you and the outside doesn't there? And, what do you think that mediator might be, if not reason?

The absence of the mediator does not mean that the outside and the inside don't exist.

[Belz...]

Well, you've misunderstood something, because knowledge absolutely independent of all experience is knowledge of things that are necessarily true.

Don't you need logic to understand these truths ? Isn't that experience, per se ?

[Iacchus]

That is pure dung, Iacchus. Evidence exists, whether you can accept it or not.Nonetheless, it's still wholly reliant upon reason to explain to us what it means.

[PatKelley]

Nonetheless, it's still wholly reliant upon reason to explain to us what it means.

Not really. To really show our idea of what it might mean is correct, we have to perform experiments to eliminate contradicting explanations. And the results of the experiments don't change over time, so the "meaning" of evidence is persistent, whether or not anyone is there to reason over it.

[Tricky]

And, when I'm dead and gone, so what huh? Maybe it was just a dream?

If you died this instant, there would still be evidence that you had existed. Iacchus fossils, if you will.

[Iacchus]

Not really. To really show our idea of what it might mean is correct, we have to perform experiments to eliminate contradicting explanations. And the results of the experiments don't change over time, so the "meaning" of evidence is persistent, whether or not anyone is there to reason over it.Yet I bet if you tried to explain those results to a chimpanzee it would mean something entirely different if, anything at all. In which case we have to ask, who's doing the interpreting and, who wants to know?

[drkitten]

Yet I bet if you tried to explain those results to a chimpanzee it would mean something entirely different if, anything at all.

Than it would if we tried to explain them to you? I disagree.

[Iacchus]

If you died this instant, there would still be evidence that you had existed. Iacchus fossils, if you will.So what, what would it mean to "me" if I were dead? If you folks are right, and there is no afterlife, then the life I "thought" I knew was nothing more than just a dream. So, dream on dude! :D

[Tricky]

So what, what would it mean to "me" if I were dead? If you folks are right, and there is no afterlife, then the life I "thought" I knew was nothing more than just a dream. So, dream on dude! :D
Your posts would still be here. People would remember you. The parts of your body would be tranformed into other things, perhaps fossilized if the conditions were right (like if you were dropped into wet concrete)

True, you wouldn't be generating any more of your brilliant insights, but the ones you had would still be around, like your book. Of course, if you had said truly brilliant things, like Shakespeare or Einstein, you'd be remembered a lot longer.

But we have evidence of people who lived many thousands of years before us. They weren't a dream.

[Iacchus]

Your posts would still be here. People would remember you. The parts of your body would be tranformed into other things, perhaps fossilized if the conditions were right (like if you were dropped into wet concrete)

True, you wouldn't be generating any more of your brilliant insights, but the ones you had would still be around, like your book. Of course, if you had said truly brilliant things, like Shakespeare or Einstein, you'd be remembered a lot longer.

But we have evidence of people who lived many thousands of years before us. They weren't a dream.Yes, and when I'm dead and gone, you might as well try explaining this to a brick wall. ;)

[DreadNiK]

Well, anyone who has dealt with your threads clearly has practise in that area.

[Tricky]

Yes, and when I'm dead and gone, you might as well try explaining this to a brick wall. ;)
Your meaningless non-sequitur in no way addresses the point that I have made. Evidence of you will exist after you are dead. Do you deny this, or are you just running away again?

[Iacchus]

Your meaningless non-sequitur in no way addresses the point that I have made. Evidence of you will exist after you are dead. Do you deny this, or are you just running away again?And my answer to you is, so what? Why should I care when I'm dead and gone?

[Iacchus]

That is pure dung, Iacchus. Evidence exists, whether you can accept it or not.What would be the point to establishing it then? And how would you do so without reason?

[kmortis]

And my answer to you is, so what? Why should I care when I'm dead and gone?


HOLY CHICKEN!!! Do you realize that you and I agree 100% on that statement? It's a bloody manifestation-of-a-nigh-impossible-occurance....hrm, that doesn't have that "roll off the tounge" quality I'm looking for; I'm gonna try it again.

It's a bloody miracle!!!!

That's better.

[Iacchus]

And, if our assessment of materialism is correct, would you agree, that life is nothing but a dream?

[kmortis]

And, if our assessment of materialism is correct, would you agree, that life is nothing but a dream?

Nope. I'm not Brahma. ;)

I have, at times, been convinced that I was living a nightmare, but then I took some asprin, drank a lot of water and the hangover went away.

We could lapse into sophistry by discussing how to differentiate between wakefullness and dreaming, but I'm too tired, I haven't had enough coffee, and it's too pretty out. I'll just state that dreaming is something that you do while sleeping (ok, maybe some while daydreaming too, but it's not quite as good). I don't know if it has any real purpose, but I've heard that it's a side-effect of the brain "settling" after a dayfull of events.

Life, on the other hand, seems to be that which you do when you AIN'T sleeping.

[Iacchus]

While it's funny how nobody seems to wish address the materialist notion that when we're dead and gone, it will be as if we (to those who are dead and gone anyway) were never here. Doesn't this suggest that life is merely nothing more than a dream?

[kmortis]

While it's funny how nobody seems to wish address the materialist notion that when we're dead and gone, it will be as if we (to those who are dead and gone anyway) were never here. Doesn't this suggest that life is merely nothing more than a dream?

If you're being allegorical by equating life and dreams, then yes, I'll agree with you. If you are being literal, then I have to disagree.

You're correct that, to the dead, life will have no meaning. To the living, however, we still remember those who've left us, they've left legacies of one sort or another, they aren't totally forgotten.

[Iacchus]

If you're being allegorical by equating life and dreams, then yes, I'll agree with you. If you are being literal, then I have to disagree.All except for one thing, why should our dreams be considered any less real, if we are unable to maintain them either when we die? And, since these are something which occur within us, how do we know that this isn't actually where "we" begin?

You're correct that, to the dead, life will have no meaning. To the living, however, we still remember those who've left us, they've left legacies of one sort or another, they aren't totally forgotten.While I would venture to say that the vast majority people who have ever lived on this planet have been forgotten, at least on a "personal" level.

[kmortis]

All except for one thing, why should our dreams be considered any less real, if we are unable to maintain them either when we die?

We aren't able to maintain dreams very well after we awaken either. Also, dreams can change from night to night, moment to moment. REM lasts for very short periods of time, and the dream you had in one REM period won't necessarily carry on to another. Dreams are less real than reality, as any form of random neuron firings should be.

While I would venture to say that the vast majority people who have ever lived on this planet have been forgotten, at least on a "personal" level.
Yeah, so what? For a while they were remembered, then those that remembered them died themselves and so on and so on. So it goes.

[Iacchus]

We aren't able to maintain dreams very well after we awaken either. Also, dreams can change from night to night, moment to moment. REM lasts for very short periods of time, and the dream you had in one REM period won't necessarily carry on to another. Dreams are less real than reality, as any form of random neuron firings should be.In and of themselves dreams are very real. Or for that matter, how do we know that external reality isn't merely a consolidation of what goes on in this other worldly (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=45982&page=11) state of our dreams? Isn't this in fact the only thing that makes it real for us, how we experience it on the inside?


Yeah, so what? For a while they were remembered, then those that remembered them died themselves and so on and so on. So it goes.And there will no doubt come a point when "all" is forgotten.

[DreadNiK]

Is there a point to this?

[Iacchus]

Is there a point to this?Am merely asking how reality is maintained. From within or, without?

[TobiasTheViking]

Is there a point to this?
no

[Iacchus]

And do you realize there is no such thing as external reality? Because all is maintained from within.

[TobiasTheViking]

And do you realize there is no such thing as external reality? Because all is maintained from within.
I have no idea what on earth you are talkign about. You seem to have no grasp of reality at all.

[Iacchus]

Reality is nothing more than one big interaction. An interaction that occurs between things on an interior level. So, the only thing about reality that is external, is how it appears on the surface.

[TobiasTheViking]

You aren't making sence.