Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kantian · 12-31-2002, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Keith Russell : Kantian: So, you won't listen to me unless I disagree with Rand, is that it? (On the question of reality, though, I don't disagree with her--by the way.)

Actually, i was hoping for a pleasant surprise, Keith. Yet, my prediction is painfully true- and that doesn't please me in the least.

Quote:

Keith: Yes, a 'description' of reality could be called a 'theory' of reality, so comparing descriptions is the same as comparing theories. But, at least you didn't say that comparing descriptions or theories of reality is the equivalent of comparing realities...

What is the difference between "comparing theories of reality" and "comparing reality?" Or are you merely erecting a goalpost a priori in order to stake out territorial claims on the discussion of 'realities?'

~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

John Page · 12-31-2002, 07:43 PM

Thomas:

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
What I'm saying (and I think what Bill is saying, though I can't speak for him of course) is about the existence of external reality, which you acceped a few posts back.

I believe it makes sense to divide the world into mind(s) and a common external reality, its how my mind conceives of its place in the world. I don't see how you thing this supports an argument for absolute truth.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
For a second, ignore humans and human perceptions of truth (and therefore sentences.) Now we're just talking about "unknown (existential) facts", a you phrased it. All I'm claiming when I say absolute truth exists is that there are certain existential facts, regardless of whether they're known or not.

Facts exist in the mind, I don't any conclusion as valid unless we understand how we come to know it. I don't think facts exist separately from the mind - and if you believe that a fact is an absolute truth then I vehemently disagree.

Cheers, John

John Page · 12-31-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
There you go, bringing epistemology into the discussion again. How many times must we say that the ability to know whether or not facts exist, or what they are has nothing to do with the points Thomas and I are attempting to make?

How do you know this? Where does you information come from?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden

We are attempting to discuss whether or not "reality" (whatever that may be) is any one particular way or another, regardless of our ability to perceive, know, or discuss what that way might be. Epistemology is irrelevant.

If you cannot perceive, know or discuss what way reality is, how can you possibly know the truth about reality? IMO all you will end up with is your own opinion borne of your own self-satisfying definitions.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Interestingly, you make reference to "unknown (existential) facts". Does this mean that you agree that such things exist?

I can know something you don't, and vice versa. A fact is a form of knowledge and requires a "knower", I don't hold with facts springing out of the ether - whether known or unknown.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
The only necessity that is ineluctably derived from a definition is that the instantiation of "nothing" would mean that "something" could never exist. However, there's nothing in the definition of "nothing" I provided that makes it impossible for "nothing" to exist. It's only the contrafactual that "something" does exist that renders the existence of "nothing" an impossibility.

I've read the above four times and it still seems to me that last two sentences contradict each other. I think you're agreeing that nothing is actually something and that your last sentence only refers to a single point in space/time where you have defined that something, defined as not-nothing exists!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Do square circles exist? Does one have to travel to distant parts of the universe to verify their non-existence?

How do squares and circles exist in the first place? Epistemology is very important here otherwise you are jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Even granted that there may be distant regions of the universe where there is no matter, there will still not be "nothing" there. The region would be bounded by "something" and would hence have dimension (a measurement of it's volume). It therefore could not be "nothing".

This is your conception. Consider "Things can only be known to exist in the mind, for this is where knowledge is interpreted by the process of mind. To tell two things apart, be they in the mind or external reality, there should be a means of differentiating between these two things. In this manner knowledge of things comes into existence in our subjective minds."

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
You're quite correct; our thinking does not make it so. It is so regardless of our opinions about it. We couldn't have opinions at all if it were not to be so.

No, no no! It is your opinion that "it" is "so and so" regardless of our opinions. Still highly subjective.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Again, I don't see the relevance. The question is not "can we know the actual state of affairs?" The question is "is there an actual state of affairs to know?"

LOL. Can we know whether there is an actual state of affairs to know? We're getting recursive again. I'll give you that we seem to know something, even though we're not quite sure what it is.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
"Facts", in the sense in which I mean, don't "come into being". They just are.

Disagree, how do they come to be? IMO facts are borne of real phenomena. Perhaps fact is to data as knowledge is to brain?

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! (That's a fact!)

Cheers, John

John Page · 12-31-2002, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kantian
[BHow would you define the words 'reality' and 'truth,' clearly, and avoid echoing the divine nonsense of the goddess Ayn Rand?[/B]

Kantab:

Truth is the result of assuming that one part of reality is identical to another part.

e.g. There are two rabbits. We have compared them and confered identity upon them, denoted by the label "rabbit". Through our powers of observation and language we can intersubjectively agree that we mean the same or similar things when using the label "rabbit".

Thus, we store prototype definitions in our minds that may have language labels associated with them. We identify the "truth of existence" through comparison of sensory data patterns with these prototype definitions. The mind is thus the location of the Third Man in the debate between Parmenides and Socrates.

This is the truth!!

Cheers, John

Bill Snedden · 12-31-2002, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
Facts exist in the mind, I don't any conclusion as valid unless we understand how we come to know it. I don't think facts exist separately from the mind - and if you believe that a fact is an absolute truth then I vehemently disagree.

Okay, let's go with this.

How do facts arise in the mind? Are they always merely phantasms or delusions? Is there any connection between the external world and the existence of facts in the mind? If so, what word would we use to denote those characteristics of reality that have some type of causal connection to these facts that arise in the mind?

I've been using the word "facts" to refer to those characteristics of reality that exist regardless of perception. You and Hugo, apparently, don't have that understanding. Is there any word that you would use to denote those characteristics?

Or is the point perhaps that you don't believe that there are any such characteristics? IOW, that the actual state of affairs in reality is wholly chaotic and without form or the possibility of predication. That there is no relationship (causal or otherwise) between external reality and our perceptions.

Or maybe that reality is all one infinite, smooth, sameness and that we only imagine the "bumps" that we mistakenly interpret as existents?

Or is it that you don't believe that reality exists at all absent our perceptions?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

__________________
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is nothing but a short circuit, destroying the mind." Ayn Rand

Bill Snedden · 12-31-2002, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
IMO facts are borne of real phenomena.

Do these "real phenomena" exist? Are they the "things" that we perceive and that have some type of causal connection to the "facts" that exist in our mind?

Wouldn't the existence of "real phenomena" indicate that there is indeed some actual state of affairs instantiated in reality?

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
HAPPY NEW YEAR!! (That's a fact!)

And to you as well!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

__________________
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is nothing but a short circuit, destroying the mind." Ayn Rand

Bill Snedden · 12-31-2002, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
Perhaps not, but are you saying anything at all? If you want a form of foundationalism, where will this get you?

I don't "want" a form of foundationalism. As I indicated, I consider myself a foundationalist in terms of epistemological stance, but here I don't see myself as trying to prove foundationalism

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
"Existence exists" isn't saying very much, methinks.

In one sense, that's true. However, I'm really using it as kind of a shorthand way of saying, "there is some actual state of affairs that is instantiated in reality." At least that's more words...

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
... but this is no more than "existence exists". Where will you go from here, without falling foul of antifoundationalism? Is there any content to this concept of absolute truth, or is it merely a hope that there is something beyond the realm of appearances that we can appeal to?

I'm not worried about "falling foul of antifoundationalism"...

I'm not even worried anymore about demonstrating "absolute truth". If I can't even get you guys to agree that you exist, how am I ever going to get you to agree on anything else?

I'm not even looking for anything "beyond the realm of appearances." If appearances are all there are, then so be it! Either way, there is a particular state of affairs instantiated in reality and my point is made!

Also, I really would like to know your answers to the questions I posed in my last post. Specifically:

Quote:

Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the issue. By "and what if it can't be answered?" do you mean:

A) we are unable to answer it for epistemological reasons (i.e., we can't know the answer).

B) we are unable to answer it because there's nothing "out there."

C) some other reason.

Remember, I'm not talking about our ability to know "what's out there" or our ability to describe it. I'm asking if there is an it that provides even the possibility of knowing what it might be. You seem to recognize as much in your final sentence, above: "The world does not split itself into facts and truths; our descriptions of it are our own." (emphasis added).

To what do you refer by the words that I have placed in boldface type?

Thanks and Happy New Year!!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

__________________
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is nothing but a short circuit, destroying the mind." Ayn Rand

Kantian · 01-01-2003, 12:27 AM

Tsk Tsk! Spoiling the joke, Pager...

Quote:

Pager
Kantab: Truth is the result of assuming that one part of reality is identical to another part.

Is this new term "identity" a rigorous criteria or a loose one, dependent upon the perspective of the participant? Or is it somewhere between, something intersubjective, like you said, "codependence?"

Quote:

Pager e.g. There are two rabbits. We have compared them and confered identity upon them, denoted by the label "rabbit". Through our powers of observation and language we can intersubjectively agree that we mean the same or similar things when using the label "rabbit".

Then the word 'rabbit' has been in existence, and in use before we arrive at inquiring about the function of truth in language. Do you mean to shrink or limit the definition of truth to a mere semantic function? Does Tarski know you're aping him?

Quote:

Pager Thus, we store prototype definitions in our minds that may have language labels associated with them. We identify the "truth of existence" through comparison of sensory data patterns with these prototype definitions. The mind is thus the location of the Third Man in the debate between Parmenides and Socrates.

The phrase 'prototype definitions' smacks of a fearful symmetry to the Chomskyian grammar buried deep in the unconscious, doesn't it?

There's no spatio-temporal location of the third man in the debate between parmenides and Socrates cuz it's actually a disguised infinite regress argument. So i'm going to take this as your attempt at tongue-in-cheek philosophy!

Quote:

This is the truth!!

:notworthy

~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Thomas Ash · 01-01-2003, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
Well, we've already expressed doubts as to whether this "fact" is anything of the sort. Please offer me a few more that you discovered on your adventures.

OK, how about "something called me exists". We could you use that as a jumping point for the debate. Would you deny that this is a fact (where 'me' is 'you' when you're reading the statement)? I'd like to see a response to Bill's argument that even if we accept our perceptions of the external world are completely false, his existence is a state of affairs that is the case - a fact.

Thomas Ash · 01-01-2003, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
Thomas:

I believe it makes sense to divide the world into mind(s) and a common external reality, its how my mind conceives of its place in the world. I don't see how you thing this supports an argument for absolute truth.

If we think there is a common external reality, then there is something (STANDARD DISCLAIMER: whatever it's nature or our relationship to it) in which our statements about state of affairs are either the case or not the case. Here's an example, using what you said in a later post:

Quote:

There are two rabbits

If there are, then leaving aside whether anyone perceives them or makes any statements about their existence or nonexistence (assume there's no one about), then isn't it still the case that they exist, in external reality?

______________
Visit my website for essays on atheism: http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ (Actually, Bill, I don't think I'm going to bother to do this every post I make)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.