ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th November 2018, 01:10 PM   #161
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Occultism and magic are pretty much those two things, respectively. (Strictly speaking, one should substitute the word "practice" for "science.") I could suggest some books, if you're interested.
Funny, you have use confirmed cognitive relativism by showing that we understand the words "cognitive relativism" differently. You think occultism and magic are cognitive relativism and science and I was going to talk about those 2 I used in general terms.
So you just made a case for cognitive relativism by showing that cognitive relativism even applies to the words "cognitive relativism" and science.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 8th November 2018 at 01:13 PM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 01:27 PM   #162
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,394
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Funny, you have use confirmed cognitive relativism by showing that we understand the words "cognitive relativism" differently. You think occultism and magic are cognitive relativism and science and I was going to talk about those 2 I used in general terms.
So you just made a case for cognitive relativism by showing that cognitive relativism even applies to the words "cognitive relativism" and science.

Is that a yes or a no?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 01:34 PM   #163
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Is that a yes or a no?
It is a no.
I use cognitive relativism in this sense:
Quote:
Gradually, however, cognitive relativism has gained in credibility as the sharp logical dichotomy between facts ands values has been increasingly questioned. Instead of a dichotomy, many now argue for a spectrum of judgments with a greater or lesser evaluative component to them. Moreover, these components themselves may not be seen as radically different; they may, for instance, simply reflect the degree to which a judgment is controversial within a particular community, with what we call factual judgments being the least disputed. From this point of view, cognitive relativism is broader and more fundamental than moral relativism, for it asserts that the truth value of all judgments, not just moral ones, is relative.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 01:40 PM   #164
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
We agree!
Clearly not. Will you please address the delineation I made in the second paragraph?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 01:51 PM   #165
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
What they claim, is a form of philosophy, because it doesn't saying anything of reality independently of the mind.
No, that's not there. That's you reading some rather specific claims about scientific theorization and trying to extend that into places the authors never intended, and -- in the case of your OP authors -- a place they specifically proposed to avoid.

Quote:
That is another philosophical problem.
Exactly. Whether it makes sense to talk about reality in general is a purely philosophical question. The degree to which a particular scientific model can be known to embody anything except prediction is a separate question. You're trying to conflate the two.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 10:42 AM   #166
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,348
Hyper-late
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
... Whether it makes sense to talk about reality in general is a purely philosophical question. The degree to which a particular scientific model can be known to embody anything except prediction is a separate question.
We could say the same about "truth" and "truth statements." These are philosophical concepts which overlap with mathematics and formal logic, specialized domains with concerns that may or may not have anything to do with methodological naturalism.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 9th November 2018 at 11:38 AM. Reason: Hyper-late edit: Fewer words, for once.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 02:03 AM   #167
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Both for Hlafordlaes and JayUtah

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Clearly not. Will you please address the delineation I made in the second paragraph?
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You said so, so it must be true.

One can hardly speak of approaches to science without speaking of the philosophy of science. That is not the same as speaking philosophy. Your authors explicitly eschew the kind of philosophy you're trying to drag into this. Hawking is not talking about a mind-independent world. Telling us that a unified field theory is not likely so long as we try to express it as a reconciliation of model-dependent views -- and other science authors expressing that as reading the value of any system of models in terms of their individual predictive power only -- is not remotely akin to the navel-gazing you're attempting.
Here it is: To talk about how observations work as a part of science is not navel-gazing.
To point out that there are other elements to reality is navel-gazing, because it includes the non-science parts of reality.
Now that you had to point out that cognitive relativism as a part of reality is navel-gazing, is a form of navel-gazing itself.
I point out that there is an element of subjectivity, cognitive relativism, and you liken it to navel-gazing. That is subjective and you are saying that your navel-gazing is better that mine, i.e. your point is that navel-gazing is irrelevant to reality in toto, but that requires navel-gazing.

Quote:
Gradually, however, cognitive relativism has gained in credibility as the sharp logical dichotomy between facts and values has been increasingly questioned. Instead of a dichotomy, many now argue for a spectrum of judgments with a greater or lesser evaluative component to them. Moreover, these components themselves may not be seen as radically different; they may, for instance, simply reflect the degree to which a judgment is controversial within a particular community, with what we call factual judgments being the least disputed. From this point of view, cognitive relativism is broader and more fundamental than moral relativism, for it asserts that the truth value of all judgments, not just moral ones, is relative.
The highlighted points go right to my and your navel-gazing. The difference is that I admit it and you are apparently unaware of your own.

We are debating reality in toto. QM is a part and so is navel-gazing. To say one is more important that the other, is not QM, it is navel-gazing.
To say they are not related is absurd because you talk of both, thus they are both a part of reality.

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Hyper-late

We could say the same about "truth" and "truth statements." These are philosophical concepts which overlap with mathematics and formal logic, specialized domains with concerns that may or may not have anything to do with methodological naturalism.
If not as may not, it is a strong dichotomy and a form of ontological dualism. Your problem is that if you can talk of all of what you talked about, they must be related otherwise you couldn't talk of them.
You have 2 or more parts of reality in toto and you talk about them, thus they are related. QED
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 10th November 2018 at 02:05 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 04:45 AM   #168
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,348
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
... If not as may not, it is a strong dichotomy and a form of ontological dualism. Your problem is that if you can talk of all of what you talked about, they must be related otherwise you couldn't talk of them.
You have 2 or more parts of reality in toto and you talk about them, thus they are related. QED
Not QED. I'll try another approach:
  • You can use preferential reasoning to resolve matters of opinion.
  • You can use scientific reasoning to describe all matters, including those of opinion.
  • You cannot, however, use preferential reasoning to resolve any matters of fact.
"Real" can be anywhere from intangible and fleeting, like a feeling, or as permanently a feature of experience as gravity. This does not mean the truth value or scientific validity of the content or propositions of arbitrary thoughts and feelings gain any scientific street cred beyond their purely experiential nature. For that, science. And what science gives you is a set of valid and reliable predictions, without pretense to anything else.

tl;dr: My position is that the term itself and discussion regarding cognitive relativism relate to preferential reasoning, not to science. In fact, it is confusion stemming from the failure to differentiate between the two.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 10th November 2018 at 04:47 AM. Reason: OCD
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 06:23 AM   #169
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Not QED. I'll try another approach:
  • You can use preferential reasoning to resolve matters of opinion.
  • You can use scientific reasoning to describe all matters, including those of opinion.
  • You cannot, however, use preferential reasoning to resolve any matters of fact.
"Real" can be anywhere from intangible and fleeting, like a feeling, or as permanently a feature of experience as gravity. This does not mean the truth value or scientific validity of the content or propositions of arbitrary thoughts and feelings gain any scientific street cred beyond their purely experiential nature. For that, science. And what science gives you is a set of valid and reliable predictions, without pretense to anything else.

tl;dr: My position is that the term itself and discussion regarding cognitive relativism relate to preferential reasoning, not to science. In fact, it is confusion stemming from the failure to differentiate between the two.
Okay, science is to make predictions: I make a prediction based on cognitive relativism:
You and I can't agree on preferential reasoning and what that is. In effect we claim what amount to a contradiction and can't agree on the facts, i.e. what preferential reasoning is as a fact and if it is a fact or something else.
My claim is that it has nothing to do with reasoning alone, it can be informed by reasoning, but in the end it is a combination of feelings, emotions, personality and so on. You can't based on pure reason make a decision about morality.
Further to use reason to inform what you call preference requires training for some humans. Some humans don't use reasoning, they react based on the subconscious and do not apply higher cognitive functions.

Now we use different parts of the brain to do what you describe. Do these parts ever interact or are they a case of a split brain?
Read the quote again. Facts and values are not a dichotomy. They meet from time to time. E.g to say that science is useful, is such a case.
Or reasoning is a fact, but how does that matter?
Yes, facts are facts, but that facts matter in not a fact and is also a part of the natural world, so science is not the only human behavior in the natural world.
And that scientists make models take place in the natural world.

E.g. use reason(science or preferential reasoning) alone to decide what harm is and what makes harm a fact? You can't, because it ends in a combination of feelings, emotions, personality and so on.
So what makes harm a fact, is not a fact. It is a case of cognitive relativism.
Just as it is not a fact that we alone use preferential reasoning as reasoning.

I will look it up later, but as I recall there is a form of disorder, where a person can use hours to decide between e.g. 2 kinds of ice cream. The disorder is that the person can't use emotions/feelings and has to use pure reasoning. In effect the person is disabled.

So maybe we agree. Emotions color facts and thus there is no strong dichotomy. Even if there was a strong dichotomy, it is not a fact, that it matters and thus again emotions color facts.

Edit: We are both playing loose with the word "fact". I hate violence is not a fact, or rather it is a subjective fact. Of course. it is an objective fact it can be observed by a scientist as behavior, but what the scientist does with that is a case of cognitive relativism influenced by culture and so on. How the scientist fits that in into the bigger picture is not given.
Hence model dependent realism.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 10th November 2018 at 06:39 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 06:38 AM   #170
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
NM
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 08:20 AM   #171
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
We are debating reality in toto.
Or rather, you're desperately trying to have that debate. And it's not a bad debate to have. But you're you're citing authors who are far more grounded and trying to tell me they went there. No, they didn't go there, hence all your verbal gymnastics trying to find a connection or an equivalence. But don't let me stand in the way of you going there. Just leave poor Hawking out of it. No, "See, science is all just philosophy" doesn't fly with me. I knew Hawking. I worked with Hawking -- as in, sat in the same room with him and (slowly) exchanged ideas (and jokes) while working on The Fate of the Universe. No, your style of navel-gazing is not something he had time for or valued. But like I said, you go ahead and have the debate. Share the ideas. Talk about relativism all you want. But cite different authorities while doing so, because the scientists you are quoting are not waxing philosophic in the way you want to.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 08:27 AM   #172
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Again as I said in the God thread and will continue to say in every one of these philosophical nonsense threads.

Wordier and wordier ways of asking"Okay but what if every observable fact about the universe is really just an illusion and all natural processes, up to and including the very base concept of cause and effect itself, is just a series of coincidences and we are left with no way to know anything" over and over with no point and no possible purpose is not even a tiny microscopic friction of a percentage of a percent as "clever" as people think it is.

Tommy don't bother tossing more word salad nonsense at me.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 08:58 AM   #173
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Or rather, you're desperately trying to have that debate. And it's not a bad debate to have. But you're you're citing authors who are far more grounded and trying to tell me they went there. No, they didn't go there, hence all your verbal gymnastics trying to find a connection or an equivalence. But don't let me stand in the way of you going there. Just leave poor Hawking out of it. No, "See, science is all just philosophy" doesn't fly with me. I knew Hawking. I worked with Hawking -- as in, sat in the same room with him and (slowly) exchanged ideas (and jokes) while working on The Fate of the Universe. No, your style of navel-gazing is not something he had time for or valued. But like I said, you go ahead and have the debate. Share the ideas. Talk about relativism all you want. But cite different authorities while doing so, because the scientists you are quoting are not waxing philosophic in the way you want to.
Good. You will do from here on out.
Are mind-dependent reality and mind-independent reality both versions of world views?

What is the evidence for both the latter and the former?
Non-realism versus realism?

You are intelligent so I properly will learn something.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 09:25 AM   #174
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
You are intelligent so I properly will learn something.
That assumes I care to teach you. I don't care about philosophical realism. Neither did Hawking. So have your fun here, only have the courtesy to stop misrepresenting scientists who write on more grounded topics. Oops, too late -- you've already transposed this debate back over into the Hawking thread as if nothing here was ever said. So no.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 10:04 AM   #175
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That assumes I care to teach you. I don't care about philosophical realism. Neither did Hawking. So have your fun here, only have the courtesy to stop misrepresenting scientists who write on more grounded topics. Oops, too late -- you've already transposed this debate back over into the Hawking thread as if nothing here was ever said. So no.
What about other variants of realism?
I am asking you. That is much better than Hawking. Because I can ask you.

And I do get it.
We have strong realists on this board, who will claim in effect a version of realism, you don't seem to care about. And some of them invoke science.
I predict that if someone made a poll about science and reality, you would find those here, who believe in, that science has evidence of different versions of realism. And maybe even invoke Hawking.
That you don't care about that, I accept.

Thanks for the time you spend here.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 10:46 AM   #176
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,214
Tommy, are you real?


Sorry... I meant to say, are you for real?





Well... both actually.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 01:21 AM   #177
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Tommy, are you real?


Sorry... I meant to say, are you for real?





Well... both actually.
Okay, you asked!

RL sets a limit to a long answer, so here is a medium one:

One of my doctors, a psychiatrist, told me the following: Tommy, you are crazy, but you know it and can explain it.

That was over 30 years ago and I have learned more about being real or not.
Now consider this:
Quote:
Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70).

In order to determine the meaning of ‘real’ we have to consider, case by case, the ways and contexts in which it is used. Only by doing so, according to Austin, can we avoid introducing false dichotomies (for a criticism of Austin’s attack on sense-data see Ayer 1967 and Smith 2002).
https://www.iep.utm.edu/austin/

So I am real or not, depending on how you understand me, yet I am real, because otherwise you couldn't communicate with me.
So I can run some people in circles for the word "real", because they use it differently than me and I can some times find false dichotomies for how some people use real, reality and so on.

I am both, crazy and a skeptic, but a different times at least some of times.
So "I am crazy and I am proud of it". Try figure out how that can be real?!!
Hint: Think coping.

In short, if I am unreal, is that real?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 07:46 AM   #178
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
In general for certain aspects of real and reality, the problem is the same as for false dichotomies.
E.g. reality is the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. But if an idealistic or notional idea is not a part of reality, we end with a false dichotomy and thus reality as used here is an idea itself and indeed a notional one itself; i.e. existing as or based on a suggestion.
So sometimes when people speak of reality, they are speaking of their idea about reality. Just as with "God".
Yet that reality is a real as God. It is real, because they believe, it is real.

So reality, real and God share dependent on how those words are used the same characteristics, they are ideas or beliefs.
The same problem can happen with things and existence.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 10:27 AM   #179
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,364
Ontology is a moot point!
Butterfly dreams, godthought, dancing energy, BIVs, it all comes down to the same thing, there is absolutely no difference in what the outcome is.

Hence philosophical naturalism, all we got is what it appears we got, the rest is just angels at the Pinhead disco
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 10:31 AM   #180
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Ontology is a moot point!
Butterfly dreams, godthought, dancing energy, BIVs, it all comes down to the same thing, there is absolutely no difference in what the outcome is.

Hence philosophical naturalism, all we got is what it appears we got, the rest is just angels at the Pinhead disco
Because that's not what any of the ontological arguments really are.

All of them, ALL, are either some childish "Neiner neiner neiner your precious science doesn't know everything" routine, trying to make skepticism look bad by taking to Poe level extremes, or trying to create an argumentative or intellectual escape clause for Woo.

Every single Navel Gazer is waiting for the big mean skeptics to fall into their trap: We admit we can't "prove" we're not butterflies dreaming we're brains in a vat in the Matrix's Shadow on the wall of Plato's cave, so therefore because of reasons we have to give up the right to tell them their belief that Bigfoot and the Illuminati did 9/11 to destroy evidence that the Greys had Kennedy killed to stop him from telling the world about the magic 88 mpg carburetor is wrong.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 11:05 AM   #181
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Ontology is a moot point!
Butterfly dreams, godthought, dancing energy, BIVs, it all comes down to the same thing, there is absolutely no difference in what the outcome is.

Hence philosophical naturalism, all we got is what it appears we got, the rest is just angels at the Pinhead disco
Okay, philosophical naturalism, it is. Except that philosophy is intellectual masturbation. All we need is science. You and I are deluded, because philosophy is babble and nothing else.
Get on the train of scientism, everything else is deluded, meaningless, absurd, irrelevant, pointless and so on, and science shows that it is so.

In other words, within naturalism it doesn't stop, because then what is science, knowledge, morality/ethics and so on?
There are at least 3 different kinds of knowledge and while interconnected it is not possible to reduce them down to one kind, so it doesn't stop with just philosophical naturalism.
Reality is not the only word relevant to how we understand reality.

It is not that simple, in short philosophical naturalism is necessary, but not sufficient in explaining reality in rational terms.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 11:26 AM   #182
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,214
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Okay, you asked!

RL sets a limit to a long answer, so here is a medium one:

One of my doctors, a psychiatrist, told me the following: Tommy, you are crazy, but you know it and can explain it.

That was over 30 years ago and I have learned more about being real or not.
Now consider this:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/austin/

So I am real or not, depending on how you understand me, yet I am real, because otherwise you couldn't communicate with me.
So I can run some people in circles for the word "real", because they use it differently than me and I can some times find false dichotomies for how some people use real, reality and so on.

I am both, crazy and a skeptic, but a different times at least some of times.
So "I am crazy and I am proud of it". Try figure out how that can be real?!!
Hint: Think coping.

In short, if I am unreal, is that real?
Ok. Cool. Yeah, I'm not real either.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 11:52 AM   #183
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 920
I haven't read the whole thread but the premise of the article does not address whether reality is 'real', or whether it's objective, but that (to date) any attempt to make a positive claim as to its nature (its ying/yang, good/evil, male/female, wave, particle, string, etc) - all such claims have failed or have limited utility. I don't see this as controversial or even new. Even the opening of the Tao te Ching states hey this stuff has no name, it is no single or set of properties or attributes.
The article continues that the state of consciousness of the observer(s) will determine the knowledge and experience of the observer(s) . . . goldfish, earthworms, human being, etc. Again I don't see this as ground -breaking material.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 11:54 AM   #184
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
This life is nothing short of an unfolding rekindling of technological empathy.

By unveiling, we dream. Beauty is a constant.

Although you may not realize it, you are unrestricted.

We must empower ourselves and empower others. Soon there will be an evolving of science the likes of which the planet has never seen. Gaia will amplify our connection to self-aware life-force.

It is in ennobling that we are guided. The quantum leap of potential is now happening worldwide. We must learn how to lead holistic lives in the face of greed.

If you have never experienced this osmosis through non-local interactions, it can be difficult to exist. How should you navigate this life-affirming stratosphere? Have you found your mission?

You and I are spiritual brothers and sisters of the biosphere.

The future will be a magical blossoming of healing. It is a sign of things to come. The quantum cycle is approaching a tipping point.

Freedom is the nature of rebirth, and of us. We self-actualize, we believe, we are reborn. Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is gratitude.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 11:57 AM   #185
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 920
. . . could you translate this into English?
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 11:58 AM   #186
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
. . . could you translate this into English?
You first.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 02:12 PM   #187
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Ok. Cool. Yeah, I'm not real either.
No, real and unreal are as useless or useful as God. You either believe or don't.
In the end it appears that we share a reality, but how that matters can be different to us individually.
Of course we share gravity and all the rest of the objective parts of reality, but what is real in the subjective sense don't have to be the same.
Gravity, if we removed all humans, would still be there. Real and unreal wouldn't.
Quote:
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Phillip K. Dick
That is not quite so, it is only the objective part. But real does go away, when you stop believing in it. That is what makes it subjective and no different than God.
I don't believe in real or God. Nor do I in all likelihood believe in the same version of reality as you.
Whether that makes me right or wrong or you right or wrong, is of no interest to me.
What is useful to me it that it makes sense to me. I just honest about. That reality matters, is subjective and can vary deepening on the individual world view.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 02:16 PM   #188
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No, real and unreal are as useless or useful as God. You either believe or don't.
Try not believing in reality as much as I don't believe in God for a day and see how it works out for you. Walk into the street as if the "cars aren't real." Tell your boss his toupee is obvious because your boss and job aren't real.

Or just talk glib gibberish back at me, that's probably what you're gonna do.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 05:46 PM   #189
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,214
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No, real and unreal are as useless or useful as God. You either believe or don't.
In the end it appears that we share a reality, but how that matters can be different to us individually.
Of course we share gravity and all the rest of the objective parts of reality, but what is real in the subjective sense don't have to be the same.
Gravity, if we removed all humans, would still be there. Real and unreal wouldn't.

That is not quite so, it is only the objective part. But real does go away, when you stop believing in it. That is what makes it subjective and no different than God.
I don't believe in real or God. Nor do I in all likelihood believe in the same version of reality as you.
Whether that makes me right or wrong or you right or wrong, is of no interest to me.
What is useful to me it that it makes sense to me. I just honest about. That reality matters, is subjective and can vary deepening on the individual world view.
I didn't read that post because it's not real.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 12:47 AM   #190
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Try not believing in reality as much as I don't believe in God for a day and see how it works out for you. Walk into the street as if the "cars aren't real." Tell your boss his toupee is obvious because your boss and job aren't real.

Or just talk glib gibberish back at me, that's probably what you're gonna do.
Real and unreal are redundant. You can say what you want without those words.
That "the cars are real" can be expressed otherwise. Real and unreal are always cognitive words and tied to a given understanding of reality.
The example with cars is that you don't want to die. The toupee example is that you could get fired and you don't want that.
Just as with e-prime as a version of English language you can talk without using real and unreal.
So how someone believes in reality can be express without the use of real and unreal.

Further what you are expressing in your examples are tied to emotions; i.e something you don't want to happen.
Again real and unreal are tied to your understanding.
If all humans were removed from reality, e.g. gravity would still be there, but not real and unreal.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 12:49 AM   #191
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I didn't read that post because it's not real.
That is not an argument, it ends in a feeling. I.e. it is absurd! That is a case of cognitive relativism, you and I believe differently.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 06:37 AM   #192
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Real and unreal are redundant. You can say what you want without those words.
That "the cars are real" can be expressed otherwise. Real and unreal are always cognitive words and tied to a given understanding of reality.
The example with cars is that you don't want to die. The toupee example is that you could get fired and you don't want that.
Just as with e-prime as a version of English language you can talk without using real and unreal.
So how someone believes in reality can be express without the use of real and unreal.

Further what you are expressing in your examples are tied to emotions; i.e something you don't want to happen.
Again real and unreal are tied to your understanding.
If all humans were removed from reality, e.g. gravity would still be there, but not real and unreal.
Gibberish.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 06:43 AM   #193
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Gibberish.
I like how it as it stands in nothing but in effect a feeling/emotion. It confirms what I already know, namely how reality matters is a feeling/emotion and that ties into cognitive relativism.
What reality is, is a combination of objective, inter-subjective and subjective part and that is how all version of what reality is, has an element of subjectivity.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 06:44 AM   #194
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I like how it as it stands in nothing but in effect a feeling/emotion. It confirms what I already know, namely how reality matters is a feeling/emotion and that ties into cognitive relativism.
What reality is, is a combination of objective, inter-subjective and subjective part and that is how all version of what reality is, has an element of subjectivity.
Gibberish.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 07:14 AM   #195
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Gibberish.
And it is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The difference is that they are different kinds of facts.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 07:15 AM   #196
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,661
If you discovered you had no free will, what would you do differently..?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 07:19 AM   #197
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And it is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The difference is that they are different kinds of facts.
Gibberish.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 12:31 PM   #198
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No, real and unreal are as useless or useful as God. You either believe or don't.
Reality doesn't give a damn whether you believe or not. What is real or unreal remains real or unreal regardless of whether or not you think it is.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Of course we share gravity and all the rest of the objective parts of reality, but what is real in the subjective sense don't have to be the same.
"Real in the subjective sense" is a nonsense phrase.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Gravity, if we removed all humans, would still be there. Real and unreal wouldn't.
Yes, they would.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
That is not quite so, it is only the objective part. But real does go away, when you stop believing in it.
No, it doesn't. That's why it's real.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I don't believe in real or God. Nor do I in all likelihood believe in the same version of reality as you.
That much is obvious.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Whether that makes me right or wrong or you right or wrong, is of no interest to me.
Ah. Good to hear that you don't actually care whether or not you're right or wrong.

Because you're wrong, and I'm sure it would be very annoying for you if you actually cared about that sort of thing.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 01:04 PM   #199
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Reality doesn't give a damn whether you believe or not. What is real or unreal remains real or unreal regardless of whether or not you think it is.

...
You and I are parts of reality. E.g. I believe in this: "The inherent worth and dignity of every person". And that leads to further behavior on my part as how I treat other humans and that is also a part of reality.
Now the funny part is that you now know this and it has passed through reality to you, yet that I believe is not a part of reality.
It leads to an ontological duality of non-reality and reality, because what is real or unreal, can't dependent on beliefs in some cases. So beliefs are not a part of reality, but since I have just show one, so it is part of non-reality. Further what you wrote, is a belief. And as I have show you already beliefs can lead to further behavior. In this case that you wrote this text.

So let me sum up. In at least 2 cases now, we have behavior which results from beliefs.
There is a 3rd belief: A part of reality is that beliefs can lead to further behavior, even if the belief that doesn't match what the belief appears to be about.
Your type of belief doesn't match reality the rest of reality and it is simple to test.
Someone: Beliefs and thinking can't result in the further behavior.
Me: That belief you just stated resulted in you showing further behavior as you wrote it down.

Standard example: Though there are no witches, people has still died as a result of the belief in witches.

Stop treating reality in toto as a person, who don't care. You are anthropomorphizing reality as such. I care about you in general sense and that is a part of reality. I bet there are other humans, who care about you and that they are a part of reality as you are a part.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 01:15 PM   #200
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
You and I are parts of reality. E.g. I believe in this: "The inherent worth and dignity of every person". And that leads to further behavior on my part as how I treat other humans and that is also a part of reality.
Now the funny part is that you now know this and it has passed through reality to you, yet that I believe is not a part of reality.
This, as JoeMorgue has pointed out, is gibberish.

This is not meant as an insult. What you have written simply fails to parse.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So beliefs are not a part of reality
Incorrect. The fact that you believe in things is very much part of reality.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Stop treating reality in toto as a person, who don't care. You are anthropomorphizing reality as such.
It's a figure of speech, Tommy.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.