Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baloo · 09-20-2002, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


Lastly, I know full well that I frustrate people because I ask questions that no one here wants to ask. But the result of such irritation is often beneficial to those who have an interest in learning more about the world in which they live.

Vanderzyden

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

I think I may know the source of the frustration here, from both ends. It seems to me that points you make in your posts fall into one of two categories - the first contains things you want people to address; the second, things you do not want people to address. This could be avoided if, from here on, you simply label in your posts the arguments, evidences, quotes, and questions which are so impertinent to the main issue that you refuse to waste your time defending them, thereby distinguishing them from the arguments, evidences, quotes and questions that you feel are pertinent and worthy of your defense.

You could surround such text with html tags, e.g. <Don't bother addressing> Point I am making but do not wish to defend</Don't bother addressing>.

Specifically, if you feel a particular quote supports your case, but you do not want to address anyone who claims it *does not* support your case, save everyone the headache, and put the html tags around it.

Basically, it seems that you are clear on which points fall into the pertinent category, and it also seems that you get annoyed by (or simply ignore) people who address points outside of the "pertinent category". However, I will humbly acknowledge that it just plain is not clear to me which specific points you consider to be the "questions that no one here wants to ask" (presumably questions you'd like to see addressed), and which are simply fluff points you wished to include in your post but did not want people to address in detail.

Entire threads could be avoided, accusations thwarted, etc., as anyone who might normally challenge things inside of those tags will quickly learn that not even you consider them very pertinent, skip them altogether, and focus solely on those points you place in the "pertinent" category. This saves us the time of reading and responding to such points, and it save you from the aggravation of peole (pardon the wording) completely missing the point.

I'm sure there must be an easier approach (assuming that simply leaving impertinent points out of your posts to begin with is out of the question). But, for the time being, I think this will dramatically improve my ability to avoid addressing portions of your posts which "[do] not make appealing the prospect of future dialogue with [me]."

Hoping to work towards more congenial discussion,

Baloo

p.s. As an aside, my accusation of dishonesty was not based on false quoting alone, but rather a decision to ignore completely (or at least for weeks at a time) all challenges to your use of the quotes. To answer your hypothetical, I'd say the person is fallible (who isn't), but dishonest if he/she refuses to acknowledge or defend allegetions of specific failings.

Skeptical · 09-20-2002, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

First, a clarification. In a previous post you made a complaint:

V: You are affirming my assessment. Based upon your replies so far in this thread, I would think that we should substitute "I" for "we" above. You cannot tell me where the world comes from or how your mind is empircal, and yet you say you know how it is.
S: OK Vander, I draw the line when you start telling lies about what I have said. You can say anything you want, but do not put words in my mouth I didn't say. I have _never_ said that I know my mind is empirical or that I know where "the world" comes from. That is a blatant fabrication. I have not lied about what you have said and I have tried to by civil to you, so I would appreciate it greatly if you would not misrepresent what I have said.

It is not my intent to put words in your mouth. I am not lying, or attempting to ridicule. Please accept my apologies for not being more explicit, and for the unintentional offense. If you read my last sentence, you will see that I am reiterating what I've said before: you are not demonstrating that the "mind is empirical". In fact, you are imply in your response here that knowledge of the mind is indeed non-empirical.

Apology accepted, and I agree that my experience of my own mind is non-empirical.

Quote:

Let me try again, carefully. Back on page 6, you summary your inquiry as follows:

(s)I said "No one has ever been able to articulate what a non-empirical toolset looks like. I have stated repeatedly, and you have not disagreed, that all non-empirically verifiable explanations are equally unprovable, and therefore equally worthless. If you disagree with this statement, show me how I'm wrong."

I don't think you have captured my agreement well, but let's set that aside for the moment. What I have been emphasizing is that you have an example of a "non-empirical toolset" in your very own mind. You refuse to admit this directly, though you have said it implicitly:

When I used the term "non-empirical toolset", I didn't mean that the toolset itself was non-empirical, what I meant was a way to differentiate the validity of non-empirical phenomena. In other words, a method for determining how one goes about telling which non-empirical entities may or may not be the cause of certain actions. The toolset itself, a methodology, would be empirical since one would have to explain it to others and demonstrate how it is used. I should have been more clear on this.

Quote:

(s)"Proof" is a very strong word. At most I would say it is reasonable for each of us to believe we are in control of our own minds and reasonable for us to think that others have their own minds. It is in no way proof and it may be an especially weak hypothesis if we start postulating invisible, powerful entities that cannot be detected through any empirical means who have unknown agendas.

I have not experienced other minds, but I see what can reasonably be assumed to be the actions of other minds.

Notice that, by use of the word "reasonable", you equate knowledge of the control of your own mind with the knowledge that other people have minds. If it is not knowledge, then what is it?

I thought I covered this earlier. It is a reasonable assumption, but not all reasonable assumptions are knowledge. If you don't know for a fact that something is correct, I don't equate that with knowledge. Notice my last sentence in the first paragraph where I specifically state that this reasonable assumption might be "an especially weak hypothesis if we start postulating invisible, powerful entities...".

If we assume that no outside non-empirical agents are at work, it seems reasonable for each of us to conclude that we are in control of our own minds. It is also reasonable to assume on the same grounds that other people are in control of their own minds, but I don't know it for a fact. In actuality, these assumption may not hold at all and obvious examples abound. Schitzophrenics think they are in control of their own mind as well as the rest of us, as do many other people of varying degrees of mental instability.

Quote:

Most importantly, what I take from this is that you agree that your mind and other minds are non-empirical. But you don't say how it is that you can "know" your own mind. You do indicate that it is "reasonable" to conclude that "we are in control of our own minds", but you stop short of saying how you reach this conclusion. Are you saying then, that you possess knowledge by such reasoning?

Again, I thought I covered this. I don't believe I ever said that what I believe is true about my own mind is knowledge. It is a reasonable assumption given what we know about the natural world. However, the moment we start postulating that there could be powerful, non-empirical entities, some of whom are up to no good, if we seriously consider the ramifications of postulating such entities many assumptions we make that are reasonable begin to break down. I experience my own mind and, as far as I can tell, no one is popping thoughts into my head.

It is reasonable to conclude that no one is controlling my thoughts because there are no known empirical mechanisms by which such a process could occur. Does that mean it couldn't possibly be the case that someone is controlling my thoughts? Obviously the answer is no, and if they were how would I know? Again, the obvious answer is I wouldn't. I don't believe that there are non-empirical entities capable of controlling my thoughts, so I think it is very reasonable to conclude that no one is doing so. However, I could be wrong, and if such entities exist they could obviously be controlling my thoughts, so my reasonable assumptions about my thoughts would be wrong. That is why my assumption is no knowledge.

Quote:

Now, we must be clear on what you mean by empirical. So here is your definition:

empirical= capable of being detected through any of the five human senses or through instruments that applify any of those 5 senses.
I'm not sure what could be empirical other than this.

By your definition then, non-empirical necessarily means that which is indetectable by the five senses.

You have also indicated that anything that may be called knowledge must be obtained by empirical means:

V: how can you know that you know?
S: It must be empirically verifiable. This essentially means it must be something which can be detected by others and agreed upon as data. Now, you may say that there are things which we say in common everyday practice we "know" which are not empirical. For example, I might say I "know" my wife loves me, without being able to say I "know" what goes on in her head. This is true and I would grant that I can never say with exact precision that I "know" she loves me. However, I can see her external actions and reasonably conclude that she certainly _acts_ as if she loves me, claims that she does and for all practical purposes it's irrelevant whether I "know" what's going on in her head.

I would insist that for "all practical purposes" you know that your wife has a mind, since you know that she is a person, just as you are a person. Persons have minds. Anyway, you are surely saying that knowledge must be detectable by other people. But then, does that mean that you yourself do not possess knowledge, say, of your mind?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. See my comments above regarding how I view my mind and knowledge.

Quote:

Because your mind is not directly verifiable by others, you cannot claim knowledge of your own mind. No, no. I don't think this is what you are saying. But you can see the problem beginning to present itself.

Actually you are quite right, that is exactly what I'm saying. As I said, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption for me to conclude I control my own mind and that others have minds they are in control of, but a reasonable assumption is a far cry from knowledge.

Quote:

At other times, you employ the terminology of experience:

(s)I have _experienced_ my mind, I have not _experienced_ God or Satan or aliens or any other hypothetical non-empirical entities. This is a clear difference.

You do admit that you experience your mind, but (again) you do not indicate how you do so. Please tell me by what means you have experienced your mind.

Good question, and I don't know that I, or anyone else for that matter, has a satisfying answer. The experience we believe we have of our own minds could be a trick of brain chemistry for all we know. Consciousness, the experience of one's own inner thoughts, is a very interesting area of discussion, and I will freely admit that I don't have any revelatory thoughts on the subject.

Quote:

Note that I want to focus presently on the experience of your mind, not experience of God or Satan. Let's deal first with the mind now; we can discuss other non-empirical entities later. OK, then. By the term experience, I take it that you mean that you are aware of your mind and that you have knowledge of it. If this is incorrect, then please tell me what is meant by the term experience.

Perhaps we are disagreed on the term "knowledge". To me, anything which cannot be verified is not knowledge. I may think I "know" something, but if it cannot be verified, I cannot be sure it is true. I have a personal experience of my own mind to be sure, but what if my thoughts are being controlled by non-empirical entities? Would I know? What if it's all just an elaborate ruse ala "the Matrix"? It is perfectly reasonable to believe this is not the case, but such reasonableness does not rise to the level of knowledge as far as I am concerned. It's not even that we just haven't "verified it yet", it's that any non-empirical entity cannot, as far as I can tell, even in principle _be_ verified. If you disagree with my definition of knowledge, let's call it "unverifiable information", I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.

Quote:

Perhaps you can now see the problem. You have given a definition of empirical, and you also say that you experience your mind. Then, you say that knowledge must be empirically verifiable. But knowledge of the existence of your mind is not verifiable on the definition that you have given. You cannot detect your mind empirically, and yet you insist that you have knowledge of your mind.

I do not believe I ever said I had "knowledge" of my mind. I said I experience my mind, which is quite a difference. Experiences which cannot be verified are not, in my opinion, knowledge. Since my experience of my own mind cannot be verified, it does not rise to the level of knowledge. Again, I don't want to get caught up in a semantical bog, so if you prefer we can use the term "nonverifiable information".

Quote:

Please help me to understand: How have you obtained this knowledge, if all knowledge must be empirically verifiable?

Like I said, I don't consider it knowledge.

Quote:

Now, your latest request is:

(s)So, can you please provide your methodology for differentiating between non-empirical knowledge and things which might just be cognitive error?

Yes, I can continue with the example I've been using, knowledge of the mind. I know that my mind exists. I know that I have thoughts. I know that my thoughts cause things. My knowledge concerning my own mind is non-empirical. It is indeed knowledge, though it is obtained by non-empirical means. It is not detectable by any of the five senses, and yet I can still know my mind and the thoughts it contains. In addition, I may infer that other minds exists. This, too, counts as knowledge.

Suppose I posit that in fact, Satan is controlling your thoughts and everything you do. How would you know? How can you prove to me that I'm wrong? If you appeal to empirical information, suppose I say Satan is controlling the entire world and therefore the information is of no support to you. Suppose I say that I know this information because God told me, and he only talks to me and, in fact, I am the first person he has ever chosen to talk to. To what can you appeal to demonstrate that I am wrong? How would you _know_ that God isn't talking to me? This is the sort of thing I mean by my question. As soon as one posits non-empirical entities, I can make them do anything I want, including controlling your mind, so trying to appeal to ones mind offers no solution. This is the problem I have been attempting to point out to you for quite some time now.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean precisely by "cognitive error", but an example might be to do arithmetic incorrectly. This is distinctly different from the knowledge I have concerning my mind, or the minds of others. Experience of my mind is not a cognitive error, for that would be to say that cognition, which is a major function of the mind, is itself an error. I would have to say that an error of cognition would be an anomaly in a cognitive process.

By cognitive error, I mean things like delusions, hallucinations, misattributions, etc. Again, how would you know if your mind was being controlled? As far as I can tell, you wouldn't. Again, it is reasonable to think we all control our minds, but it is quite possible we are wrong. If we truly belief that there are non-empirical entities controlling things regarding the universe, it may even be _likely_ that we are not controlling our own minds. This is the sort of problems we start running into when we begin positing non-empirical entities, any attributes whatsoever can be given to them and we cannot verify the validity of such attributions. This is, again, the problem that I have been trying to demonstrate to your throughout this thread.

Quote:

Now, what you probably want in response to this question is the admission that empirically verifiable explanations are necessary to distinguish between non-empirical knowledge and cognitive error. But I will remind you again that experience or knowledge of the mind is (one example of ) non-empirically verifiable.

Our own experiences of our own minds is non-empirical, but it's also not knowledge for all the reasons given so far.

Quote:

So, you have your example. Are you ready to move on to the concepts of God and Satan?

The mind is not an example for the reasons I have shown. If you disagree with my examples, there's probably not much point in discussing it further and in any case, I'd much rather get to an explanation for how one differentiates between non-empirical entities, so proceed with your explanation.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

Vanderzyden · 09-20-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:


If you try to play your evasive games by invoking inane superstitions like that, which is entirely inappropriate for the Evolution/Creation forum, I will slam this thread closed with great cheer and no qualms whatsoever.

...

Every morning, I open up the latest pages of all the Vanderzyden threads, and I skim through them very quickly. Then I take a shower, brush my teeth, and spit vigorously.

It seems to help a little bit. At least the twitching and other tics are under control.

Unfortunately, it does nothing to hinder my mind's progressive slide into a bleaker, blacker, more cynical view of humanity. At least I can console myself by telling myself that people aren't getting stupider, I'm just acquiring a more accurate view of reality.

You obviously have a dim view of reality, sir.

So far, this is the most insulting post I have yet to encounter here. Obviously, you see me as inferior to you, which is yet another vile consequence of the Darwinist worldview.

With such talk, how is it that you are permitted to be a moderator?

Vanderzyden

MrKrinkles · 09-20-2002, 11:07 AM

Van,

Quote:

Obviously, you see me as inferior to you, which is yet another vile consequence of the Darwinist worldview.

Christians believe that anyone who does not share their opinions are inferior to them and deserve to be and will be tortured for eternity. I am sure you would agree that this is a "vile consequence" of Christianity.

Cheers,

Brooks

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: MrKrinkles ]

Baloo · 09-20-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Obviously, you see me as inferior to you, which is yet another vile consequence of the Darwinist worldview.
Vanderzyden

Wouldn't a stereotypical Darwinist need to ask how many children you have before assigning inferiority ?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 09-20-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


You obviously have a dim view of reality, sir.

So far, this is the most insulting post I have yet to encounter here. Obviously, you see me as inferior to you, which is yet another vile consequence of the Darwinist worldview.

With such talk, how is it that you are permitted to be a moderator?

Vanderzyden

Well, no, he doesn't consider you inferior to him. What he objects to is your inane, repetitive, and absolutely bankrupt arguments that you employ.

And the "Darwinist worldview" does not hold INDIVIDUALS inferior or not--only traits and populations.

lpetrich · 09-20-2002, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Christ:

And the "Darwinist worldview" does not hold INDIVIDUALS inferior or not--only traits and populations.

Furthermore, "superiority" and "inferiority" are often relative to circumstances. What's good in one can be bad in another. Thus, being white is convenient for polar bears, because that makes it difficult for their prey to see them amidst the abundant ice of their habitat. However, being white would be troublesome for a bear that lives in temperate or tropical climates, because that would make it too easily visible to its prey (pandas are an exception, because their favorite food is rooted in place, and cannot run away).

S2Focus · 09-20-2002, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


.....Obviously, you see me as inferior to you, which is yet another vile consequence of the Darwinist worldview.

......

Vanderzyden

Naaahhhh..... he's just giving you the respect that you've earned.

Vanderzyden · 09-20-2002, 08:32 PM

Skeptical,

We shall get to non-empirical distinctions soon enough. I anticipate that very much.

However, I suggest that we must remain where we are for the moment, because it seems that you will not admit having knowledge of your mind. I find this to be puzzling, since you are always with your mind. In fact, we might say that you are your mind. Even so, you will not concede this essential point. Therefore, I will take a bit more time with my example.

First, I would like to suggest that we agree upon precise terms, so that we may advance in our discussion. In order to retreat from loose descriptions of what may be known about the mind, it is now necesary to define what is meant by knowledge. I suggest the Socratic view:

knowledge is a justified true belief.

If I believe something, I may know it. That belief may be justifiable--that is, defensible. It isn't enough to simply guess. To maintain a belief justly, a necessary prerequisite is positive understanding of the content of that belief. If this justified belief is known to be true--or is very likely true--then it may be called knowledge.

On this definition, I may strongly claim that I posess knowledge of and maintain control over my mind. Not only do I know this myself, but interaction with other persons who have minds continually affirms that knowledge.

Notice here that I stop short of a definition of absolute knowledge. To have absolute knowledge, one must know the very essence of the thing known. Such knowledge is only to be had by the creator of all things. I am not working from this definition.

In your last post, you indicate that you will only go so far as a reasonable assumption:

Quote:

It is a reasonable assumption, but not all reasonable assumptions are knowledge. If you don't know for a fact that something is correct, I don't equate that with knowledge....

If we assume that no outside non-empirical agents are at work, it seems reasonable for each of us to conclude that we are in control of our own minds. It is also reasonable to assume on the same grounds that other people are in control of their own minds, but I don't know it for a fact....

You're correct: not all reasonable assumptions are knowledge, especially where there is very little experience with a particular phenomena. But there are also strong assumptions that come with substantial experience, which lead to inferences and conclusions. These, in turn, lead to knowledge. Over several years, beginning in childhood, a human becomes aware of the justification in the belief that he has control of his mind. In fact, the most intimate knowledge he has is of his very own mind. It is verifiable to himself every moment of every day.

Yes, I see that you make exceptions for those having mental illness. Fine, but I am referring to typical people, like you and me. We know our minds and we are sure that we have control over them.

Let me make this bold suggestion: You can know nothing better than you know your mind.

Allow me to demonstrate:

-- Your thoughts are yours alone, and you often know them better than you know how to articulate them in speech.
-- Your mind is always immediately present to you.
-- You may readily survey the vast content of your mind.
-- You may continue to know your mind in the worst of conditions, even though everyone one of your five senses may be disabled.

As I wrote last time, you cannot know your mind empirically. Such knowledge is necessarily non-empirical, both by your definition of empirical and by the above definition of knowledge.

Therefore, in considering knowledge of the mind, we have a demonstration of non-empirically verifiable knowledge. This knowledge is, in fact, the most certain knowledge that a human may possess.

Please tell me precisely where you are still in disagreement.

Vanderzyden

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

NFLP · 09-20-2002, 08:42 PM

It has long been apparent to this dispassionate viewer that Vanderzyden intends to play the role of a brick.

The only remaining question is at what point do you stop being his dancing monkey?

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

09-20-2002, 08:42 PM	#410
NFLP Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Southeast Posts: 150	It has long been apparent to this dispassionate viewer that Vanderzyden intends to play the role of a brick. The only remaining question is at what point do you stop being his dancing monkey?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.