Science Assumtion v.s. Woo-Woo Assumtions

[SkepticalScience]

I was talking to someone at lunch today, who presented a question I couldn't answer.

His point is that at some level, you need to make assumptions. So religion, science. philosophy are basically the same thing. . . they just have different assumptions.

So, say you take the scientific method in a broad sense:

1. you make an assumption
2. you conduct an experiment
3. if experiment confirms your assumption, your theory is true
4. if not - you make another assumption

Now inorder to interpret your results, or to conduct an experiment, you need to make certain assumptions.

Why should those assumptions be any more valid than the ones for religion.

Put another way. . . lets say my friend believes that lightning is caused by zeus. I go through all the classic experiments to show that it's staic current, bla bla bla. . .

I still have to make assumptions about those experiments. . . and the results that they show. Why is his explanation any less valid than mine?

Need some Help!
SkepticalScience!

[arcticpenguin]

In science you will make the minimum number of assumptions necessary. You are free to revisit your assumptions at any time, and try to prove or disprove them, if any are found to be testable. If any are disproved, you make revisions.

Think back to high school geometry, where you learned all the theorems of geometry based on only a handful of assumptions = postulates. (Two parallel lines will not intersect, etc)

This is utterly unlike many religions, where any question of dogma is treated as blasphemy, and it is wicked to even listen to such questions. In particular I am referring to "revelatory" religions, which are based on "revealed wisdom".

[Andonyx]

This is not entirely true.

Yes science makes assumptions, but when they do the statements go something like this:

If 'X' can be assumed to be true than all evidence demonstrates that 'Y' follows.

Science does not use "assumptions" as a basis for proof, but only as a basis for valid arguments which describe the naturally observed behaviors of certain situations or systems.

The other kind of assumption scientific disciplines work with is a litte harder to explain but that is a postulate. Postulate are the root rules of our descriptor systems without which we simply cannot do any more useful work.

For example deciding that 1 = 1 is a type of postulate that forms the basis for all our mathematical systems and becomes the self reflexive property of identity.

This does not necessarily apply in any tangible way to the real world, but it is necessary to make this logical step in order to build any more on the foundations of numbers.

Ultimately the difference between science and philosophy, or science and religion is that science only uses assumption in a testable setting.

If the assumption turns out to have been proven wrong, or becomes less parsimonious than another assumption with equal evidence it gets discarded.

Reliable replicable results are constantly being weighed against the convenience of assumptions. Not so with religion. In fact religion actively discourages testing for or finding evidence of an assumption's reality.

The assumption for instance that when people die their soul goes to another places is untestable at the moment by any means known to man. So science will simply draw no conclusions one way or the other. Religion will continue to build assumption on top of assumption and assume they are all correct. The possibility that if the first assumption is incorrect all further assumptions are meaningless never enters into it.

In science, the first assumption must have strong evidence to support the weight of other assumptions. And that evidence comes from testing. If it could not be tested, it would not be scientific by definition.

Now in regards to your particular experiment. We have a logical debate. One is that we can demonstrate replicably that static, or the electromotive potential between Earth and Ionized gasses are the cause of lightening. And any time we can produce the right circumstances we can also produce the lightening.

That is strong evidence indeed for the scientific argument.

We can also look at instances where the elctromotive potential is too low and see that no lightening occurs which is not strong evidence but allows us to know that one easy test for ruling out EMP as the cause is false, and therefore there are still all possible connections between the circumstance and the phenomena.

The zeus theory cannot be tested. We have no working definition of Zeus, we cannot prove or disprove Zeus' existence, and we cannot deomstrate in any form his connection to ligtening.

The Evidence we have for lightening is what is called more parsimonious, that is to say it requires far less leaps of logic or assumption to fit into what we know about the world around us or can demonstrate.

The zeus theory requires the assumption zeus is real, that he can create lghtening, that he desires to do so, that he has lived since recorded history, etc etc etc. All of these assumptions would violate our current understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, history, astronomy, etc.

The electro-motive force violates none of these and can be predicted and used upon demand.

So ultimately you're asking, how do we know our explanation is any better than some made up one?

Well, has any untestable assumption based on religion, or just personal outlook been able to build upon other equally untestable assumptions and done the following:

Cured a disease...
Invented a form of transportation....
Made a smaller microchip...
Allowed you to make copies of documents...
Mass produced goods...
Blown up an entire city in one instant....

If you have to look at it this way, then here's an example:

If you have a choice to settle on two sides of an Island, with two different religions..

One religion makes up any theory they want to explain the weather, and sickness, and eclipses, the tides, and the seasonal appearance of food.

The other religion only keeps theories that have proved true time and again, and have been able to be demonstrated reliably. They dicard all other theories and build on the ones that have not been dis-proven and have strong evidence behind them.

AS a result. The first side of the Island is still hunting and gathering, they have a life expectancy of 22, they frequently lose all their teeth by 18, there is much disease, and they are currently in-fighting over which stars in the sky are holier and how they should be worshipped.

The other side of the island has started subsistence farming, they have some clothes to shelter from the rain. They live on average to 30, and disease has been steadily dropping for the last 25 years.

Well, which "religion" would you choose?

[Dancing David]

Science creates theories to approximate the behavior of external reality.

The difference is no faith is required. In fact replication of experimental results is essential to sound science.

[Silicon]

Religion can make as many assumptions as it cares to, as can any philosophy.

Many of them postulate a "soul" which is the essence of the person, and that soul inhabits a body, and that body is in a world that God created, for example.


So on one end, the internal end, a religious person assumes a soul that an athiest doesn't. And at the other end, the external end, the religious persoan assumes a God, that an athiest doesn't.

But from the Human body, to the boundaries of the universe (assuming no miracles not in evidence), science works the same for everyone.

Which is why religious people can be scientists, doctors, etc. It doesn't require a belief in a soul, it doesn't require a DISbelief in a soul.

The laws of aerodynamics just work, soul or not, God or not. Personal beliefs don't change the science.

Airplanes fly for everyone.

[Yahzi]

He is correct. Religion and science are the same, with different assumptions.

Here are the assumptions of science:

1. The universe exists, externally, independently and objectively.

2. It is law governed, repeatable, and consistent.

3. Those laws can be known, at least in approximation, and we can tell the difference between approximations (which one is more accurate).

Here are the assumptions of religion.

The first 3, plus:

4. God exists.

They are the same, except one system has one more assumption than the other.

Now, given that they are assumptions, how do we decide which system is more reasonable? The answer is Occam's Razor: the rule of parsimony.

We see that science, with its three assumptions, can explain everything that religion does, with its four assumptions. Three is less than four. Therefore, by the same logical rule that allows us to rule out invisible, intangible pixies as a cause for rain, we can rule out any system that requires more assumptions than science.

This is made particularly easy by the fact that religion is a superset of science: it contains all the same assumptions plus one. That extra assumption is not necessary, in the sense that it adds nothing to the explanatory power of the first three. You sometimes see religious types arguing that it does, that there are phenomona (like morality or consciousness or origin of species) that science cannot explain, but this is a waste of time. Eventually a Darwin comes along and shows how science can explain it.

So, in the abscence of any phenomona that would require more assumptions than science has, we are compelled by the rules of reason to restrict ourselves to the assumptions of science. We don't get to embrace more assumptions just because we like them: rather, we are forced to embrace as few and as small as we can make do with.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Yahzi

So, in the abscence of any phenomona that would require more assumptions than science has, we are compelled by the rules of reason to restrict ourselves to the assumptions of science. We don't get to embrace more assumptions just because we like them: rather, we are forced to embrace as few and as small as we can make do with.

But if parsimony is to guide us, wouldn't that make a belief system that contains no beliefs superior to the belief in science you lay out above? Parsimony as a rule makes your "science" of 3 assumptions out to be superior to the "religion" of 4 assumptions. However, if parsimony is the only criteria, then lack of any belief with no assumptions is superior to both, no?

The above seems to indicate a utility criteria, but how can utility of a basic core belief system be acertained without circular reasoning?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Suddenly
But if parsimony is to guide us, wouldn't that make a belief system that contains no beliefs superior to the belief in science you lay out above?
Occam's Razor does not say, "throw out everything." It says, "throw out everything you can spare."

If you take a piece off your car, and the car still runs, then you can safely deduce that piece was not necessary to make the car run. This is Occam's Razor. At no point does it suggest you may take all the pieces off the car and still expect it to run.

The three assumptions for science that I outlined are necessary. You cannot dispense with any of them and still be able to investigate the world rationally or productively. Therefore, since each of them are necessary, none of them are subject to Occam's Razor.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by Yahzi
1. The universe exists, externally, independently and objectively.

2. It is law governed, repeatable, and consistent.

3. Those laws can be known, at least in approximation, and we can tell the difference between approximations (which one is more accurate).
I think I disagree with these some of these assumptions.

Is 2 really necessary? And what do you mean by consistent, there is a current theory now that there are 10 dimensions, but only 4 present themselves as the other 6 are wrapped up in the strings, this is string theory, and that the other dimensions are gradually uncurling, which is what is causing the accelerating universe we recently heard so much about, if this is true, at some point the other dimensions will speed out from a point at the speed of light and we would become a 10 dimensional universe, and all the rules would have changed. So the rules are consistent for billions of years, but could change, there are several other theories where it depends on where you are what laws of physics you are under, multiverse sort of models, I'm not saying these theories are true, but there are at least two models where the universe doesn't have to be consistent, it could just be consistent for a while, long enough for us to evolve and notice things. So as you said we can do away with this assumption, coz it works without it.

And as for 3, there is no need for us to assume we can know the rules, even if you could prove we couldn't possibly know the rules, I think we would keep trying to, humans can be stubborn like that. There really is no need to assume we CAN know the rules, so again we can lose this one.

What do you think, Yahzi?

[Correa Neto]

On a very similar line of reasoning as that in Andonix´s post...

One can make experiments reproducing the conditions that generate lightning (ex. sending rockets with conducting wire to the base of a storm cloud and measure the resulting bolt). The experiment was successful, its an evidence that the theory is correct. But how many times you´ll get lightnings by praying to Zeus?

Well, maybe Zeus sends bolts when his butt is hit by a rocket:roll:

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Yahzi
1. The universe exists, externally, independently and objectively.

2. It is law governed, repeatable, and consistent.

3. Those laws can be known, at least in approximation, and we can tell the difference between approximations (which one is more accurate).

Originally posted by SquishyDave

I think I disagree with these some of these assumptions.

Is 2 really necessary? And what do you mean by consistent, there is a current theory now that there are 10 dimensions, but only 4 present themselves as the other 6 are wrapped up in the strings, this is string theory, and that the other dimensions are gradually uncurling, which is what is causing the accelerating universe we recently heard so much about, if this is true, at some point the other dimensions will speed out from a point at the speed of light and we would become a 10 dimensional universe, and all the rules would have changed. So the rules are consistent for billions of years, but could change, there are several other theories where it depends on where you are what laws of physics you are under, multiverse sort of models, I'm not saying these theories are true, but there are at least two models where the universe doesn't have to be consistent, it could just be consistent for a while, long enough for us to evolve and notice things. So as you said we can do away with this assumption, coz it works without it.

And as for 3, there is no need for us to assume we can know the rules, even if you could prove we couldn't possibly know the rules, I think we would keep trying to, humans can be stubborn like that. There really is no need to assume we CAN know the rules, so again we can lose this one.

What do you think, Yahzi?

I'd go without assumption 1.
The world around us appears to us to be testable by repeatable experiment; we make the assumption that this is true when we conduct science. When basic tests become unrepeatable, then the very foundation of science becomes questionable. But that's why science is not involved with unrepeatable experiements.

Since our testable evidence supports 2 and 3, then position 1 becomes (I think) a reasonable inference, though not a necessity upon which to build further science.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Occam's Razor does not say, "throw out everything." It says, "throw out everything you can spare."

If you take a piece off your car, and the car still runs, then you can safely deduce that piece was not necessary to make the car run. This is Occam's Razor. At no point does it suggest you may take all the pieces off the car and still expect it to run.

The three assumptions for science that I outlined are necessary. You cannot dispense with any of them and still be able to investigate the world rationally or productively. Therefore, since each of them are necessary, none of them are subject to Occam's Razor.

This seems to be an argument from utility, "throwing out everything you can spare." The criteria used to judge the usefulness of the three assumptions is derived from the assumptions themselves.

The three assumptions boil down to "the world can be investigated "rationally or productively." Then saying these assumptions are necessary because they allow us to investigate the world "rationally or productively" is circular. The assumptions and the justifications say the exact same thing, just in different words. For example, say I make the the following two assumptions:

1) The Bible is absolute truth
2) Any apparent discrepancy between the Bible and what appears in reality is a test of faith.

I then declare these assumptions superior to yours on the grounds that yours does not explain the existence of God.

Then you say that is absurd as God existing is assumed via the two above assumptions.

Which is my point exactly. Your three assumptions assume the "utility" which you use as a secondary criteria (after parsimony) for selection.

[homunculus]

His point is that at some level, you need to make assumptions. So religion, science. philosophy are basically the same thing. . . they just have different assumptions.

The issue here is what kinds of assumptions are necessary in the pursuit of "truth". Science is the only method likely to get us any closer to it, because it is of the nature of scientific enquiry to criticize what we know to be the case, by subjecting established knowledge to ever more stringent empirical tests designed to weed out any errors, inconsistencies etc. Since we are constantly finding new ways to actually apply established paradigms (this is what drives the scientific enterprise) in practical applications such as new technology, new medicine, and other advances, our theories are permanently under assault.

So, say you take the scientific method in a broad sense:

1. you make an assumption
2. you conduct an experiment
3. if experiment confirms your assumption, your theory is true
4. if not - you make another assumption

No offence, but this is ass backwards. Science begins with a theoretical problem, for example in the form of certain observations or experimental results, which seem conflict with what other, known theories lead us to expect. This is exactly what science is looking for (in contrast to religion, which works by garnering confirming evidence - which is why it makes such slow progress).

The next step is to formulate a number of new hypotheses, which both explain everything the known theory does, whilst accounting for these anomalies. We then have to analysize these proposed solutions, deducing testable consequences from them, and proposing carefully controlled experiments to eliminate the false ones.

Whatever survives, we may regard as provisionally true (until we stumble over new facts, which create yet more new problems). Where two or more hypotheses both account for the facts, it may be possible to deduce testable consequences from one which are no deducible from the others, making our choice between them empirically decideable.

Now inorder to interpret your results, or to conduct an experiment, you need to make certain assumptions.

All of which pales into insignificance when we consider the aim of science, which is to get to the truth.

You might argue that "the truth" is just another set of assumptions, but this post modernist attitude is self-contradictory, since in outlining your position you are presenting it as the correct view (rather than just another arbitrary framework of assumptions).

Why should those assumptions be any more valid than the ones for religion.

Because many of the "assumptions" made by religion, such as that the world was created 6,000 years ago by a benificent Creator, are flatly contradicted by the facts.

Paul.

[Bluefire]

What this basically is, is a discussion of "what axioms are the correct ones?"

There seems to be a belief by some that the axioms are arbitrary and as such you can choose any ones you want.

This is false. Every fact we accept as true need to be validated, even the axioms. They are not validated by counting them and then choosing the set of smallest number. They are validated objectively.

Before I turn to the specific axioms I have in mind lets make some general observations about axioms, and how we can formulate some objective criteria for our axioms:

-Axioms are at the base of all our knowledge. As such they must be 'fundamental'. That is, not analyzable into more basic propositions or principles.

-Since they are at the base of all our knowledge they are implicit in all our observations on which we base our knowledge.

-Because of the fact that they are implicit in _all_ knowledge, they must implicitly be used in any and all attempts to invalidate them. That is, even in the attempt to attack the axioms, the attacker must implicitly rely on them.

Now with some criteria for our axioms, lets look at them:

The basic metaphysical axiomatic concepts are : existence, identity and consciousness

And the corollar axiomatic principles are:
causality and the primacy of existence

(These axioms together can be expressed by the three points another poster used, there are other epistemological axioms too, but I won't touch them here)

Now for a validation of these axioms lets look at them one by one:

Existence, that is, something exists.
-Fundamentality : Existence as a abstract phenomenon can't be divided into anything more fundamental. You can point out specific existents, but not divide the phenomenon of something existing.
-attack self-refuting : In any attack against this principle the attacker must assume that he exists, and that the statements he make on the subject exists.

Identity, that is, that the existing has a specific nature.
-Fundamentality : This is existence viewed from another perspective. To be is to be something. A thing without identity would not be something, ie would not exist. You can point out specific attributes, but the phenomenon of having attributes as such can't be analyzed further
-attack self-refuting : In uttering his attack, the attacker would have to assume that his statement says what it says and nothing else.

Consciousness , that is, I am conscious
-Fundamentality : Consciousness as a phenomenon is basic. Though we might (possibly) some day be able to describe a specific consciousness as an effect of some energy-quanta in nerve-cells. The consciousness as such is a basic starting point.
-attack self-refuting : In uttering his attack against consciousness the atacker implicitly assumes that he and the adversary are conscious of the argument

And for the point about being implicit in all knowledge: These axioms are implicit in any act of awareness. No matter what the specific thing you are aware of is, the awareness of something means that :

You are aware of that something EXISTS
(existense)
You are aware of that SOMETHING exists
(identity)
You are AWARE of that something exists
(consciousness)

These axioms are validated by any act of awareness. They are _NOT_ proven deductively (not even by my reasoning above), simply because any such proof would be circular ,(remember that they are implicit in any and all acts of awareness and in any argument). But they form the basis of logic and proof.

Now I have validated the basic axioms. For the other two principles:

Causality: This is a corollary to the axiom of identity. Or put it this way :

To exist, is to exist as something specific, and to be something specific is to act as that thing. To exist is to have identity, and to have identity is to causally follow ones nature.
Any attack on causality is self-refuting for the same reason as an attack on identity is self-refuting

Primacy of existence:
The primacy of existence is the principle that the consciousness is a consciousness of an objective external reality. It is opposed to the primacy of consciousness which means that consciousness creates reality.

The primacy of existence is implicit in the three basic axioms: To be conscious is to be conscious of something. Before a consciousness can identify itself as conscious it needs to be conscious of something. Alas, a consciousness conscious of only itself would be a contradiction in terms. As such, there must be an external reality which the content of consciousness is derived from.

Any attack on the primacy of existence is also self-refuting: If anyone attacks the primacy of existence he is claiming that the principle is false... as a matter of fact. That is, he is claiming that as a matter of objective reality, there is no such thing as en external objective reality which we can't mold by "wishing it so".

Hope that the matter of assumptions is clear now. Some of the explanations were very hasty, so if you need something more carefully explained,I'll be happy to do that.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Bluefire
What this basically is, is a discussion of "what axioms are the correct ones?"

There seems to be a belief by some that the axioms are arbitrary and as such you can choose any ones you want.

This is false. Every fact we accept as true need to be validated, even the axioms. They are not validated by counting them and then choosing the set of smallest number. They are validated objectively.


Before I turn to the specific axioms I have in mind lets make some general observations about axioms, and how we can formulate some objective criteria for our axioms:

-Axioms are at the base of all our knowledge. As such they must be 'fundamental'. That is, not analyzable into more basic propositions or principles.

Something that is "fundamental" cannot be broken down. Of course, anything that can't be deduced would meet this category, no?

-Since they are at the base of all our knowledge they are implicit in all our observations on which we base our knowledge.

Either this is tautological, in that we base our knowledge on the things which we base our knowledge, or this assumes observation is an acceptable basis for knowledge.

-Because of the fact that they are implicit in _all_ knowledge, they must implicitly be used in any and all attempts to invalidate them. That is, even in the attempt to attack the axioms, the attacker must implicitly rely on them.

Now with some criteria for our axioms, lets look at them:

The basic metaphysical axiomatic concepts are : existence, identity and consciousness

And the corollar axiomatic principles are:
causality and the primacy of existence

(These axioms together can be expressed by the three points another poster used, there are other epistemological axioms too, but I won't touch them here)

Now for a validation of these axioms lets look at them one by one:

Existence, that is, something exists.
-Fundamentality : Existence as a abstract phenomenon can't be divided into anything more fundamental. You can point out specific existents, but not divide the phenomenon of something existing.
-attack self-refuting : In any attack against this principle the attacker must assume that he exists, and that the statements he make on the subject exists.

The self-refutation does not arise out of the statements themselves. They assume that for an idea to exist, there must be something to have that idea and this is not so. If it were so, it would have a bad effect on the concept of "objective reality" would it not? Discounting an idea on the basis that for a concept to exist there must be someone to create that concept is a very big assumption in itself. We are left with only the idea that a concept exists.



Identity, that is, that the existing has a specific nature.
-Fundamentality : This is existence viewed from another perspective. To be is to be something. A thing without identity would not be something, ie would not exist. You can point out specific attributes, but the phenomenon of having attributes as such can't be analyzed further
-attack self-refuting : In uttering his attack, the attacker would have to assume that his statement says what it says and nothing else.

As put above, this assumes an attacker able to make these assumptions. The self-refutation is a sophisticated version of an ad-hominem attack, in that it refers to the attacker and not the attack itself.

Consciousness , that is, I am conscious
-Fundamentality : Consciousness as a phenomenon is basic. Though we might (possibly) some day be able to describe a specific consciousness as an effect of some energy-quanta in nerve-cells. The consciousness as such is a basic starting point.
-attack self-refuting : In uttering his attack against consciousness the atacker implicitly assumes that he and the adversary are conscious of the argument

Again, reliance on the existence of an attacker, which assumes many things about the nature of reality than is discussed here. This one really gets set back, as at least existience and identity can exist when dealing with concept. Consciousness can not.


Causality: This is a corollary to the axiom of identity. Or put it this way :

To exist, is to exist as something specific, and to be something specific is to act as that thing. To exist is to have identity, and to have identity is to causally follow ones nature.
Any attack on causality is self-refuting for the same reason as an attack on identity is self-refuting

I'm not real clear what you are talking about here. If tou mean causality in that there is such a thing as cause and effect ... nope, I still don't get it. Something exists in an identifyable manner, therefore it causually exists?

Primacy of existence:
The primacy of existence is the principle that the consciousness is a consciousness of an objective external reality. It is opposed to the primacy of consciousness which means that consciousness creates reality.

The primacy of existence is implicit in the three basic axioms: To be conscious is to be conscious of something. Before a consciousness can identify itself as conscious it needs to be conscious of something. Alas, a consciousness conscious of only itself would be a contradiction in terms. As such, there must be an external reality which the content of consciousness is derived from.

How is a conscious only aware of itself a contradiction? Couldn't a consciousness just be?

Any attack on the primacy of existence is also self-refuting: If anyone attacks the primacy of existence he is claiming that the principle is false... as a matter of fact. That is, he is claiming that as a matter of objective reality, there is no such thing as en external objective reality which we can't mold by "wishing it so".

Again, this makes the assumption that ideas do not exist in the abstract. Furthermore, refuting the primacy of existence is not making a claim that anything is objectively true or false, rather it is rejecting a belief the entire concept of objective truth. Saying that once you reject a concept you are still making judgments with respect to that concept is absurd. If consciousness rather than existence is primary, it would not be a contradiction that for some people objective truth would appear to exist. It just wouldn't be a universal truth, as that concept wouldn't even exist.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by SquishyDave

So as you said we can do away with this assumption, coz it works without it.
But the mere fact of uncovering or constructing rules assumes that the rules apply. The fundamental basis of science is that physics is the same over there as it is here, given the same conditions. Science cannot be done without this assumption.

Whether or not the rules change when conditions change is unimportant to this assumption, because, you may note, the rules change predictably (that is, only when the conditions are right) and furthermore, the scientists are postulating there are new rules, not the absence of rules.

And as for 3, there is no need for us to assume we can know the rules, even if you could prove we couldn't possibly know the rules, I think we would keep trying to, humans can be stubborn like that. There really is no need to assume we CAN know the rules, so again we can lose this one.
1. If people didn't believe we could know the rules, they wouldn't try so hard.

2. The evidence that we can know the rules is shown by the power of science to transform the world we live in. Or do you think Detroit makes a million cars a year, each of which runs purely by coincidence?

3. Arguing that we can't know the rules is ultimately arguing that knowledge is impossible. Since that claim is itself knowlege, it fails.

Originally posted by Bluegill
Since our testable evidence supports 2 and 3, then position 1 becomes (I think) a reasonable inference, though not a necessity upon which to build further science.
That's an interesting idea, that objective reality is simply the best explanation for consistency and knowability. But if science can do away with it, so can religion, for exactly the same reasons. So we are back to religion being science + 1 assumption.

Originally posted by Suddenly
The three assumptions boil down to "the world can be investigated "rationally or productively."
The truth of the claim that the world can be investigated rationally and productively is self-evident. This claim needs no further support than the fact that you are reading this on a computer.

The truth of the claim "The Bible is true" is not self-evident, nor is it supported by the crushing weight of empirical evidence.

The assumptions, therefore, simply explain how the claim is possible. They do not support the truth of the claim: that truth is self-evident.

[Bluefire]

Originally posted by Suddenly


The self-refutation does not arise out of the statements themselves. They assume that for an idea to exist, there must be something to have that idea and this is not so. If it were so, it would have a bad effect on the concept of "objective reality" would it not? Discounting an idea on the basis that for a concept to exist there must be someone to create that concept is a very big assumption in itself. We are left with only the idea that a concept exists.

...

As put above, this assumes an attacker able to make these assumptions. The self-refutation is a sophisticated version of an ad-hominem attack, in that it refers to the attacker and not the attack itself.

...

Again, reliance on the existence of an attacker, which assumes many things about the nature of reality than is discussed here. This one really gets set back, as at least existience and identity can exist when dealing with concept. Consciousness can not.

[/B]

Showing that any attempt to attack the principles is self-refuting is not an attempt from me to logically disprove the attackers statement. It is an attempt to show that the axiomatic concept/principle is inescapable , which is one of the properties needed as axioms.

As I said, the axioms can't be proven/disproven logically. They are self-evident facts validated directly by any act of awareness by anyone. Showing the self-refutation of the attack is to validate the principle not merely as "true", but as inescapable,fundamental -> axiomatic

[Bluefire]

I'm not real clear what you are talking about here. If tou mean causality in that there is such a thing as cause and effect ... nope, I still don't get it. Something exists in an identifyable manner, therefore it causually exists?

Causality in the system I defined simply says that everything acts according to it's nature -> According to it's identity.

Among the possible causations you find some that can be described as "cause and effect", if you by that understand that the entity possessing the identity is the cause.

Of course, by this I reject the Humean view of causality which primarily views causality as a relation between events, in favor of an Aristotelian view of causality which views them as entity-bound.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Bluefire


Showing that any attempt to attack the principles is self-refuting is not an attempt from me to logically disprove the attackers statement. It is an attempt to show that the axiomatic concept/principle is inescapable , which is one of the properties needed as axioms.

As I said, the axioms can't be proven/disproven logically. They are self-evident facts validated directly by any act of awareness by anyone. Showing the self-refutation of the attack is to validate the principle not merely as "true", but as inescapable,fundamental -> axiomatic

It is understood that axioms do not have to be proven. This is by definition. However, the obvious question is (as I would put it) why one set of axioms are better than another or (as you seem to put it) what those true axioms are. We need criteria to select these axioms or sets of axioms. How can this be done without logic and reference to the outside world? You have an "inescapable/fundamental" test, but where does that come from?

Axioms can not by definition be proven or disproven, but they need to be evaluated, and when that evaluation in informed by those very axioms there seems to be a circular problem. If the evaluation is not informed by those axioms then it follows that additional assumptions are being made. It seems that your formulation is a way to "define away" a problem by levels of definitions that obsure the inherent circular nature to the problem, that no concept can ever justify itself, and by extension we can never rationally justify everything because we by defintion can't find anything to justify it with.

[Bluefire]

How is a conscious only aware of itself a contradiction? Couldn't a consciousness just be?

No, a consciousness not conscious of something would be unconscious.

Our selfawareness is a product of a loopback funktion, but this loopback funktion can only detect something (eg be aware of tjat it's aware) if there is something in awareness to be aware of. And this material (or if we are aware of that we are aware of that we are aware etc. etc.) must in the end be an awareness _of something_ eg, it's basic material must be provided from externally from our awareness.

"pure awareness" without supplied content wouldn't look any way to our awareness, and as such there wouldn't be anything to be aware of, and as such we wouldn't be aware -> not conscious

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Bluefire


No, a consciousness not conscious of something would be unconscious.

Our selfawareness is a product of a loopback funktion, but this loopback funktion can only detect something (eg be aware of tjat it's aware) if there is something in awareness to be aware of. And this material (or if we are aware of that we are aware of that we are aware etc. etc.) must in the end be an awareness _of something_ eg, it's basic material must be provided from externally from our awareness.

"pure awareness" without supplied content wouldn't look any way to our awareness, and as such there wouldn't be anything to be aware of, and as such we wouldn't be aware -> not conscious

So you can never be conscious of nothing? It seems that you are saying that since we are aware we are conscious, and therefore there is something to be conscious of? This seems to be putting the cart before the horse, like saying since we hear there must always be sound, or else we are deaf.

[Bluefire]

So you can never be conscious of nothing? It seems that you are saying that since we are aware we are conscious, and therefore there is something to be conscious of? This seems to be putting the cart before the horse, like saying since we hear there must always be sound, or else we are deaf.


I'm never conscious of a literal nothing. Sometimes I'm _unconscious_ though, (say the few times I'm violently knocked out). Needless to say, while I'm unconscious I can't assess the validity of the axioms. :-)

What I'm saying is that to be conscious is to be conscious of something.

So if you took a human brain and put it in a vat, not giving it any stimulus, it simply wouldn't be conscious. It would sit there having the neurological connections giving it a _potential_ ability of consciousness. But it wouldn't be conscious.

So to your hearing analogy, I would say you only hear something whenever there is some sound-stimuli present. You're only conscious of sounds, if there is some sounds to be conscious of. The few times that it is completely quiet, you simply don't hear anything, though you have the apparatus giving you the potential to detect any sounds should they start occuring.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Bluefire


I'm never conscious of a literal nothing. Sometimes I'm _unconscious_ though, (say the few times I'm violently knocked out). Needless to say, while I'm unconscious I can't assess the validity of the axioms. :-)

What I'm saying is that to be conscious is to be conscious of something.

So if you took a human brain and put it in a vat, not giving it any stimulus, it simply wouldn't be conscious. It would sit there having the neurological connections giving it a _potential_ ability of consciousness. But it wouldn't be conscious.

So to your hearing analogy, I would say you only hear something whenever there is some sound-stimuli present. You're only conscious of sounds, if there is some sounds to be conscious of. The few times that it is completely quiet, you simply don't hear anything, though you have the apparatus giving you the potential to detect any sounds should they start occuring.

Can you see why I then object to your original point that because we are conscious, then the exitstance is primary? It seems you argue the following:

1) Consciousness exists
2) You cant be conscious without some thing to be conscious of
3) Objective reality exists

If valid, then the very assumption that Consciousness exists presumes objective reality. This reality is used to validate consciousness, when it is part of the assumption.

However, there are real world examples of seeming consciousness without objective reality. Dreams for one. One can be conscious of nothing beyond the self. If we seperate the mind from the consciousness, then we are conscious of our own mind. On the other hand, if consciousness can't be seperated from the mind, the consciousness is aware of itself. Neither of these require objective reality.

[Bluefire]

Can you see why I then object to your original point that because we are conscious, then the exitstance is primary? It seems you argue the following:

1) Consciousness exists
2) You cant be conscious without some thing to be conscious of
3) Objective reality exists

If valid, then the very assumption that Consciousness exists presumes objective reality. This reality is used to validate consciousness, when it is part of the assumption.

However, there are real world examples of seeming consciousness without objective reality. Dreams for one. One can be conscious of nothing beyond the self. If we seperate the mind from the consciousness, then we are conscious of our own mind. On the other hand, if consciousness can't be seperated from the mind, the consciousness is aware of itself. Neither of these require objective reality.


But I thought I was clear with my meaning that existence was primary. I can't identify myself as conscious before I'm conscious of something. That is, I can't introspectively detect that I'm conscious until there is some conscious content there.

Or to put it differently: A contentless state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is always a consciousness of some content.

Dreams are also derived from reality. That is, the content is from things you've been aware of but which your mind then recombines into fleeting images. Before you can dream there must be some content to recombine in your consciousness.

What you show up there is that a proof for the axiom would be circular.....which is what I've claimed all along.

I'm not sure what you mean by separating the mind from the consciousness, how could they possibly be separated? Consciousness _is_ the mind operating.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Bluefire


But I thought I was clear with my meaning that existence was primary. I can't identify myself as conscious before I'm conscious of something. That is, I can't introspectively detect that I'm conscious until there is some conscious content there.

This seems like a language game. Can not the conscious mind be consciuous of itself? I'm not contesting consciousness per se, just the contention that it proves the primacy of existence.

Or to put it differently: A contentless state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is always a consciousness of some content.

Dreams are also derived from reality. That is, the content is from things you've been aware of but which your mind then recombines into fleeting images. Before you can dream there must be some content to recombine in your consciousness. This seems a rather large assumption. I obviously cannot dispute it straight up, as anything I describe would have to be in terms of existence, or they would be meaningless. If I said this isn't true because I "ssrfsaddf dsfsaes dsfdesa saedssae" in my dream last night it would be dismissed as jibberish. However this does not prove the concept that the mind cannot create on its own. In fact in a way this is a very large point as far as the "primacy of reality" thing goes. It is an assumption that reality informs the mind and not vice versa.

What you show up there is that a proof for the axiom would be circular.....which is what I've claimed all along. An axiom needs no proof. However, an axiom must be justified on some level or we are in effect allowing anything to be an axiom. The central problem is that if we are to accept things without proof, how do we select what is to be accepted? You have constructed an elaborate explaination of selection that I contend is circular in that the best it can offer us is coherence.

My larger point is that I think it entirely possible that much of what we take for granted as "reality" is a construct provided more by (what we see as) the human mind. Even the arguments I make now or the keyboard I type on can be more a product of mind than reality.

I don't have a belief in any ot the above paragraph. I just think it important to take a clear hard look at basic principles. I suscribe to logic and the scientific method as the best thing going at describing reality and measuring belief. It is a method that seeks to understand rather than explain away for the most part, and is one that is self-referentially coherent I just wonder if and how one can accept these principles themselves as absolute fact.

I'm not sure what you mean by separating the mind from the consciousness, how could they possibly be separated? Consciousness _is_ the mind operating.

1) Sense of "self" as opposed to thought process, in that I can be aware of my own thoughts, yet they are part of the mind.

2) Plus, I should point out that you are assuming the absence of a dualist reality where the "consciousness" is seperate from the physical brain.