Dreams and Heaven

[John Cuthber]

Show that this statement is false

"There are no philosophers"

 

 

Why are you asking me this?

Because I want you to realise that you can't.

 

And I'm wondering if you are trolling, because you repeatedly miss a point that was first made in the 17th century, even when it is pointed out repeatedly.

Edited December 2, 2013 by John Cuthber

[pears]

Because I want you to realise that you can't.

 

What makes you think I don't know that? Where have I said otherwise?

Edited December 2, 2013 by pears

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Back on topic, please and stop with the accusations of trolling. It's hardly correct or relevant.

[John Cuthber]

I find pure logic fascinating AND useful. So do a lot of philosophers, so I think plenty of people do care about it, regardless of your opinion of it.

 

 

 

What makes you think I don't know that? Where have I said otherwise?

You say logic is useful to philosophers, yet those philosophers might be a figment of your imagination.

So, you have not shown that logic is useful.

 

On it's own, logic does not get you far. You have to add empirical observations.

Yet you seek to pretend that reliance on those observations- such as the sun having risen many times in the past being evidence that it will rise tomorrow is somehow unacceptable.

Fine, but you end up knowing nothing.

 

If, on the other hand, you rely on evidence, you make progress most of the time.

[Villain]

That wasn't my position, though, and this should be clear based on the words I actually posted. You even quoted it, so it's odd there remains such confusion. Again, here's what I said:

 

" [The idea that the sun will probably rise again tomorrow morning is not faith, but is instead] a provisional acceptance of something as being likely, not a blind faith that something is absolutely correct. A scientific thinker will always stipulate that we could be wrong, only that it's unlikely given the consistency of historical observation and our understanding of the underlying dynamics of the system."

 

 

On what grounds are you provisionally accepting the sun will rise? Historical observation and our understanding, in this case, are 'All observed A's have been B's'.

 

 

 

I did not suggest that.......................tends to reduce blood glucose levels.

 

I get your point and at face value they seem at opposite ends of the spectrum but if we break both methods down, reason is not what differentiates the two.

[s1eep]

Science is not successful because it has been correct about things, because it hasn't been correct by any other standard other than it's science; what if your ideology to plunder nature is incorrect, then what science does is not successful, even if it is predicting the truth. Success, to humanity, revolves around the personality--how is it beneficent for humans? What has it done that's been successful for us and not successful because of it's own, sometimes egotistically proclaimed successful, function. It was correct that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but the Sun will rise anyway-- was the knowledge beneficent (because it was true)? And even if in this example it seems so, because it is so common, there are other questions that are answered by science that seem unlikely. Plus, the Sun rising tomorrow is a natural phenomenon that preserves anyway; it's not something that should be accredited to science, but rather the subject itself, and this is to what extent you believe humans should plunder nature.

 

And OT:

Heaven is likely because it's a good reason to live fast and die young, thus producing less waste; it would be helpful to provide this promise to everything in the form of dreams. People who instinctively think there is afterlife are more likely to be death defying individuals, and aren't afraid of death as much as others, causing them to live fast and die younger. The ones that didn't get a chance in life, who died immediately as children, they would would be more likely to have a greater hand in the next life, the ones who were evil would be dealt worse hands; heaven would make everything fair for each individual-- it's an idea that can work if we introduce waste output, and then our morals were how beneficent or maleficent we were to nature, that's how we were good or evil in our lives. If we live fast and die young it would pay us for our effort or suffering, it's a good idea. It is all shown by dreams if they are messengers of heaven.

Edited December 3, 2013 by s1eep

[swansont]

Science is not successful because it has been correct about things, because it hasn't been correct by any other standard other than it's science; what if your ideology to plunder nature is incorrect, then what science does is not successful, even if it is predicting the truth. Success, to humanity, revolves around the personality--how is it beneficent for humans? What has it done that's been successful for us and not successful because of it's own, sometimes egotistically proclaimed successful, function. It was correct that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but the Sun will rise anyway-- was the knowledge beneficent (because it was true)? And even if in this example it seems so, because it is so common, there are other questions that are answered by science that seem unlikely. Plus, the Sun rising tomorrow is a natural phenomenon that preserves anyway; it's not something that should be accredited to science, but rather the subject itself, and this is to what extent you believe humans should plunder nature.

 

 

Science is a success because it achieves its goal: describing how nature behaves. That's really the only way to define success. And as a measure of how successful it is, you compare it to other methods people have employed. It's pretty clear that science is more successful than the alternatives, such as adopting an ideology and having the ideology dictate how nature must behave.

 

How the knowledge one uncovers can be leveraged to help mankind (or harm it) is a separate issue.

[DevilSolution]

Science is not successful because it has been correct about things, because it hasn't been correct by any other standard other than it's science; what if your ideology to plunder nature is incorrect, then what science does is not successful, even if it is predicting the truth. Success, to humanity, revolves around the personality--how is it beneficent for humans? What has it done that's been successful for us and not successful because of it's own, sometimes egotistically proclaimed successful, function. It was correct that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but the Sun will rise anyway-- was the knowledge beneficent (because it was true)? And even if in this example it seems so, because it is so common, there are other questions that are answered by science that seem unlikely. Plus, the Sun rising tomorrow is a natural phenomenon that preserves anyway; it's not something that should be accredited to science, but rather the subject itself, and this is to what extent you believe humans should plunder nature.

 

And OT:

Heaven is likely because it's a good reason to live fast and die young, thus producing less waste; it would be helpful to provide this promise to everything in the form of dreams. People who instinctively think there is afterlife are more likely to be death defying individuals, and aren't afraid of death as much as others, causing them to live fast and die younger. The ones that didn't get a chance in life, who died immediately as children, they would would be more likely to have a greater hand in the next life, the ones who were evil would be dealt worse hands; heaven would make everything fair for each individual-- it's an idea that can work if we introduce waste output, and then our morals were how beneficent or maleficent we were to nature, that's how we were good or evil in our lives. If we live fast and die young it would pay us for our effort or suffering, it's a good idea. It is all shown by dreams if they are messengers of heaven.

 

We're all heaven sent, didnt you know?? But no longer.....how strange.

[john5746]

On what grounds are you provisionally accepting the sun will rise? Historical observation and our understanding, in this case, are 'All observed A's have been B's'.

Cannot offer an axiomatic proof, only confirmation. We have a model that doesn't just say, duh it happened before so will happen again. We have a model that predicts when, where, etc. It works, but can and will fail someday.

 

You are basically saying 99% = 1% If something isn't 100% or 0% true, then we know nothing. You don't operate that way. If you were a brain in a vat, maybe. But there is a reality out there, or at least that's what I'm going with.

 

 

I get your point and at face value they seem at opposite ends of the spectrum but if we break both methods down, reason is not what differentiates the two.

Logical proof doesn't separate the two, but EVIDENCE and VERIFICATION do. That's why you see all the noise about evidence. Without it, anything goes.

 

Going back to the swans, we have some idea why there are white ones and black ones and some mixture. Would you expect to find a tie-dyed swan? How about a transparent one? Is there a REASON why you might be skeptical about that? Is it only because no one has ever seen one?

Edited December 3, 2013 by john5746

[John Cuthber]

Science is not successful because it has been correct about things, because it hasn't been correct by any other standard other than it's science; what if your ideology to plunder nature is incorrect, then what science does is not successful,

No.

Only science s likely to warn you that it is wrong to "plunder nature" and only science is likely to offer you an alternative.

For example, without modern agriculture, vegetarianism would be a non-starter in a lot of places.

 

And I'm still waiting for Pears to explain, using logic alone, what pure logic can be used for.

[pears]

I've already explained why I find pure logic useful.

 

Understanding logic is useful for dissecting the things people say and working out which bits logically follow on from somethng and which bits are assumptions

I'm not sure why you want me to explain it using pure logic though. I find maths useful but I wouldn't want to explain why using maths alone. I find pots and pans useful. I wouldn't want to explain why through the medium of pots and pans alone. I have never claimed that you can prove pure logic is useful through pure logic alone so I am not sure why you keep making this demand.

You claimed nobody cares about pure logic. I stated they do which is fairly obvious given that universities run courses on it, people write books about it, people buy those books. Therefore I suggest there is good evidence to show that people do care about it. Why don't you support your claim that nobody cares about pure logic? Good luck.

Now please stop making silly demands.

If you still cannot (or perhaps as is more likely, will not) understand what I'm saying, well it's too bad. I have more pressing things to do than engage with you in this silly conversation.

Goodbye.

Edited December 4, 2013 by pears

[Villain]

Cannot offer an axiomatic proof, only confirmation. We have a model that doesn't just say, duh it happened before so will happen again. We have a model that predicts when, where, etc. It works, but can and will fail someday.

 

You are basically saying 99% = 1% If something isn't 100% or 0% true, then we know nothing. You don't operate that way. If you were a brain in a vat, maybe. But there is a reality out there, or at least that's what I'm going with.

 

 

There's really nothing new that you've added here, besides maybe the word 'model'.

 

 

 

Logical proof doesn't separate the two, but EVIDENCE and VERIFICATION do. That's why you see all the noise about evidence. Without it, anything goes.

 

Going back to the swans, we have some idea why there are white ones and black ones and some mixture. Would you expect to find a tie-dyed swan? How about a transparent one? Is there a REASON why you might be skeptical about that? Is it only because no one has ever seen one?

 

Look, you can write it in italics if you like, it's not going to change things.

 

I'm not looking for swans so I'm not expecting to find any. If I was to see a tie-dye swan I would probably be quite surprised since I've never seen one before but that is because of habit not reason.

[iNow]

^ Out of curiosity, are you being intentionally obtuse about this point, or are you genuinely continuing to miss it? Do you even know?

[John Cuthber]

I've already explained why I find pure logic useful.

 

I'm not sure why you want me to explain it using pure logic though. I find maths useful but I wouldn't want to explain why using maths alone. I find pots and pans useful. I wouldn't want to explain why through the medium of pots and pans alone. I have never claimed that you can prove pure logic is useful through pure logic alone so I am not sure why you keep making this demand.

 

You claimed nobody cares about pure logic. I stated they do which is fairly obvious given that universities run courses on it, people write books about it, people buy those books. Therefore I suggest there is good evidence to show that people do care about it. Why don't you support your claim that nobody cares about pure logic? Good luck.

 

Now please stop making silly demands.

 

If you still cannot (or perhaps as is more likely, will not) understand what I'm saying, well it's too bad. I have more pressing things to do than engage with you in this silly conversation.

 

Goodbye.

There is nothing silly about asking to to provide evidence for an assertion.

You claim that " logic is useful for dissecting the things people say "

I am asking you to prove that your statement is correct.

I am also pointing out that, to be consistent, you have to use pure logic to do so.

I'm also pointing out that you will fail because you will run into the same limit that Descartes did.

 

So saying "You claimed nobody cares about pure logic. I stated they do which is fairly obvious given that universities run courses on it,"

is pointless unless you can use logic to demonstrate that those universities exist.

 

"Why don't you support your claim that nobody cares about pure logic? "

I have, repeatedly, but you don't notice.

 

Now, tell me what you can use pure logic for?

(Since languages are not logical, you can't discuss them with pure logic; you have to include a whole bunch of assumptions and approximations.)

[swansont]

There is nothing silly about asking to to provide evidence for an assertion.

You claim that " logic is useful for dissecting the things people say "

I am asking you to prove that your statement is correct.

I am also pointing out that, to be consistent, you have to use pure logic to do so.

 

I haven't followed this part of the discussion, but: really? " logic is useful for dissecting the things people say" gets challenged? And somehow this demands that one must use pure logic to do so?

 

"A hammer is a useful tool for carpentry" is, AFAICT, a true statement. It, however, does not imply that it is the only useful tool for carpentry. Similarly, identifying logic as a useful tool does not imply that it is the only useful tool, and for it to be true, one must only observe that is has been useful on some occasions. Proof is via negation. "Logic has never been useful for dissecting things people say" is false; logic has been used to dissect discussion on this very forum.

 

What is the point of challenging such a trivially true claim?

[John Cuthber]

Swansont, you missed out a qualifying adjective.

 

Pure logic is not much use.

Descartes tried it and got to I think therefore I am, but realised that, with just logic, you can't get any further.

 

 

You need to add observations and assumptions to get anywhere.

Those assumptions (for example, that, if something has often happened before then it's likely to happen again) are exactly the sort of things that are being challenged by some people here.

I'm just pointing out that, without them, you get nowhere.

 

"Isn't it the assumption itself (that what has always been observed will continue to be observed) that is in question (from a pure logic pov) rather than the data itself?"

 

Yes, from a pure logic pov "(that what has always been observed will continue to be observed)" is not just in question, it's an unevinced assertion.

But so is absolutely everything else. For example, from a pure logic POV there may, or may not be any philosophers to discuss this issue. So, the quoted statement is true, but gets you nowhere.

 

From a practical, rather than strictly logical, pov, the idea that "(that what has always been observed will continue to be observed)" is very useful indeed.

Edited December 4, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Villain]

^ Out of curiosity, are you being intentionally obtuse about this point, or are you genuinely continuing to miss it? Do you even know?

 

So far I've questioned the legitimacy of using induction to which you've replied: evidence and historical observation, which clearly suggests that you are the one missing the point. If I've missed something else you are welcome to point it out.

[iNow]

If I've missed something else you are welcome to point it out.

I and others already have repeatedly. You're conflating use of the word faith, and disregarding the importance of evidence and verifiability. A provisional acceptance that the sun will rise again tomorrow based on our understanding of the dynamics involved in the system is not equivalent to absolute faith based solely on unevidenced belief that Brahman or Apollo or Allah float outside the universe and decide which leprechauns get to exist.

[Villain]

I and others already have repeatedly. You're conflating use of the word faith, and disregarding the importance of evidence and verifiability. A provisional acceptance that the sun will rise again tomorrow based on our understanding of the dynamics involved in the system is not equivalent to absolute faith based solely on unevidenced belief that Brahman or Apollo or Allah float outside the universe and decide which leprechauns get to exist.

 

On what grounds are they different?

[iNow]

On what grounds are they different?

We're probably too far apart on this for any of this to matter, but off the top of my head:

• Provisional acceptance versus faith-based certainty
• Based on well tested models of underlying system dynamics versus made up to suit whatever fiction or wish desired by the believer
• Consistent across all observers regardless of worldview versus different depending on who you happen to ask
• Well defined and falsifiable by observation versus ambiguous and not even testable by definition
• Dynamic and updated/refined based on experience versus consistent and static regardless of evidence, and even in the face of contradictory evidence
• Rational versus absurd
• Etc.

The idea is that there are important differences between things like a child's belief that an easter bunny is responsible for hiding eggs in spring and an adults recognition that genetics play an important role in our morphology. Treating them as if they are equivalent as you've been doing here suggests a myopic agenda, lack of practical reason and rationality, and implies that you're failing to approach the discussion in good faith.

 

If you think there is no relevant difference between fiction and non-fiction, then that's your prerogative. Have fun with that.

[Arete]

 

On what grounds are they different?

 

Would you consider legal defense 1: "We found his DNA at the scene, and the weapon with his prints on it in his car"

And legal defense 2: "We just have absolute faith that he did it."

 

to have equivalent veracity?

[Villain]

We're probably too far apart on this for any of this to matter, but off the top of my head:

• Provisional acceptance versus faith-based certainty
• Based on well tested models of underlying system dynamics versus made up to suit whatever fiction or wish desired by the believer
• Consistent across all observers regardless of worldview versus different depending on who you happen to ask
• Well defined and falsifiable by observation versus ambiguous and not even testable by definition
• Dynamic and updated/refined based on experience versus consistent and static regardless of evidence, and even in the face of contradictory evidence
• Rational versus absurd
• Etc.

The idea is that there are important differences between things like a child's belief that an easter bunny is responsible for hiding eggs in spring and an adults recognition that genetics play an important role in our morphology. Treating them as if they are equivalent as you've been doing here suggests a myopic agenda, lack of practical reason and rationality, and implies that you're failing to approach the discussion in good faith.

 

If you think there is no relevant difference between fiction and non-fiction, then that's your prerogative. Have fun with that.

 

 

- The amount of acceptance is dependant on the person accepting

- Models bring in the problem of induction, which is not validated by reason exactly the same as faith systems

- The consistency really doesn't matter, either it's right or wrong, and with induction there's no way of knowing until it's wrong much the same as faith

- Only false things can be proven/tested as false so you're suck with not knowing the truth factor much like faith

- Changing your induction because it failed only highlights the problem of induction further, there is no rule that says faith systems can't change so I don't know why you are portraying them as such

- Rational?????? Look up the definition

- Etc.

 

Would you consider legal defense 1: "We found his DNA at the scene, and the weapon with his prints on it in his car"

And legal defense 2: "We just have absolute faith that he did it."

 

to have equivalent veracity?

 

Welcome to the thread

 

Your example of a singular case really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.

[Arete]

 

Welcome to the thread

 

Your example of a singular case really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.

 

"Thanks" for the condescending welcome. I am able to read past posts, you realize, right?

 

It's an analogy, demonstrating that prediction based on observations and mechanistic explanation such as physical evidence of a crime implicating a suspect, or the sun rising is generally considered distinct from predictions based on faith, like a "hunch" or belief in a supernatural phenomenon.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

 

On what grounds are they different?

As time goes on and we learn more things one of those sorts of faith looks increasingly creaky, while the other looks more and more successful.

 

They just are not the same thing.

[Alan McDougall]

Many things are possible, however that doesn't necessarily mean they are likely or compelling or worth taking seriously by anyone with a rational reasonable mind.

 

Many very rational people do not dismiss outright the possibility of some other form of existence of "our minds or non-material consciousness" continuing to live on beyond our time moment within the vast moment of time in which the universe exists

 

Consciousness is not well understood?

Well. I'm not deluded for thinking heaven and hell exists, and I don't believe that all faith is irrational.

I "believe" in things greater than myself.

 

EDIT: By your logic, you need faith to understand the universe; you do not know it all; you only know it partially. To say "the universe" with full confidence is a lie, you are unworthy of expressing the term. You have faith.

 

Why call it faith, why not just say, there are some things about reality I cant understand?