Epistemology

[JamesShrugged]

@jeremiah175

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

Here are a couple of examples of how existence is independent from consciousness.

The planet had to exist before a consciousness could be developed on it, and also all the other elements that support life (the sun, moon, etc), therefore existence preempts consciousness.

how do you know this?

do you have any empirical (existing) evidence? or are you making a fundemental (metaphysical) assumption about the nature of the universe?

-Imp

"the existing evidence is that life cannot survive in a vacuum; therefore it follows that the conditions of the existence of life, preempt life itself.

The process is called induction.

which begs the question and is invalid.

so you are making a metaphysical assumption about the universe.

-Imp

Do you care to qualify your assertation that my statement begs the question?

Stop. You’re making a HUGE mistake by validating your opponents position (i.e. biting the bait of the charge “begging the question”). So what if you’re charged with “begging the question”! Some positions are attained by reference to such obvious facts that no further evidence is needed. Here is a thought experiment: argue against solipsism without “begging the question”. You simply can’t; does that mean that solipsism must be true? Forget the fact that you were asked for empirical evidence that the planet existed before consciousness developed and then cited that we have such empirical evidence, and so in reality did not “beg the question”. What would the correct answer have been if not the one you gave? You were set up.

“Do you have X to provide evidence for Y?”

“Yes, here is X.”

“X begs the question and is invalid.”

“But didn’t you just ask for X?”

etc, etc, etc.

We, as civilized human beings attain knowledge and ratify that knowledge as truth, ultimately, by empirical correspondence, the rational version of which is coherence . It is by this method that man has exited the caves of pre-history and erected for himself the towers of modern life; run with it. Don’t get caught up in sophistic word plays and mind games that muddy the waters of progress. A square has four sides…period, even if to cite such a fact is a kind of tautology.

Thank you for your support. I did realize that his argument was invalid; I was wondering what he was trying to get away with.

[Impenitent]

@JamesShrugged

@jeremiah175

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

Here are a couple of examples of how existence is independent from consciousness.

The planet had to exist before a consciousness could be developed on it, and also all the other elements that support life (the sun, moon, etc), therefore existence preempts consciousness.

how do you know this?

do you have any empirical (existing) evidence? or are you making a fundemental (metaphysical) assumption about the nature of the universe?

-Imp

"the existing evidence is that life cannot survive in a vacuum; therefore it follows that the conditions of the existence of life, preempt life itself.

The process is called induction.

which begs the question and is invalid.

so you are making a metaphysical assumption about the universe.

-Imp

Do you care to qualify your assertation that my statement begs the question?

Stop. You’re making a HUGE mistake by validating your opponents position (i.e. biting the bait of the charge “begging the question”). So what if you’re charged with “begging the question”! Some positions are attained by reference to such obvious facts that no further evidence is needed.

such “obvious facts” that are neither obvious nor factual…
evidence is always needed. taking it on faith doesn’t work, yet that is exactly what your “science” does. it assumes that the universe will behave a certain way when there is no evidence to support that claim. the fact that it happened in the past is no guarantee of it happening again in the future.

Here is a thought experiment: argue against solipsism without “begging the question”. You simply can’t; does that mean that solipsism must be true? Forget the fact that you were asked for empirical evidence that the planet existed before consciousness developed and then cited that we have such empirical evidence,

no, there is no empirical evidence that the planet existed before consciousness and that is exactly what is required to claim it is so without taking it on a wild leap of faith.

and so in reality did not “beg the question”. What would the correct answer have been if not the one you gave? You were set up.

“Do you have X to provide evidence for Y?”

“Yes, here is X.”

“X begs the question and is invalid.”

“But didn’t you just ask for X?”

etc, etc, etc.

[b]that’s not at all how the question begging occurs.

X happened in the past.
Y happens after X every time in the past
X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen

but there is no guarantee that Y will happen next. to claim that Y always will follow X because it has always done so in the past begs the question and is fallacious. hume 101…[/b]

We, as civilized human beings attain knowledge and ratify that knowledge as truth, ultimately, by empirical correspondence, the rational version of which is coherence .

alas, there is no empirical evidence or correspendence of future events that have yet to occur.

It is by this method that man has exited the caves of pre-history and erected for himself the towers of modern life; run with it. Don’t get caught up in sophistic word plays and mind games that muddy the waters of progress. A square has four sides…period, even if to cite such a fact is a kind of tautology.

a square has four side is true by definition. the sun will rise in the west tomorrow begs the question and is invalid…

Thank you for your support. I did realize that his argument was invalid; I was wondering what he was trying to get away with.

no, my argument is not invalid. yours is as I have demonstrated.

-Imp

[JamesShrugged]

Impenitent: it is amusing to me to note that you attempted to combat my argument, by referring to another’s post. Straw man, anyone?

Now, down to business.

You gave the following syllogism to represent my argument:

“X happened in the past.
Y happens after X every time in the past
X happens [/i]and it is assumed that Y will happen[/i]”

This is an incorrect representation. Properly it is,

X is required for Y (not follows, as you claimed, but rather,is a necessary condition of)
-X thus -Y

Further, the example you provide is not an example of “begging the question.” It is an example of the post hoc fallacy.

In further support of my argument I would like to submit the follow examples of how consciousness is necessarily dependent on existence.

1. consider the effects of alcohol and “mind altering drugs,” which are physical entities, on consciousness.

2. consider the effects of trauma to the brain on consciousness, (the brain a physical existent, is responsible for the existence of consciousness)

3. consider that the mind depends on existence for its Object. The mind is a tool of perception. A tool of perception with nothing to perceive is a contradiction.

[Impenitent]

@JamesShrugged

Impenitent: it is amusing to me to note that you attempted to combat my argument, by referring to another’s post. Straw man, anyone?

I used the argument that you endorsed.

Now, down to business.

You gave the following syllogism to represent my argument:

“X happened in the past.
Y happens after X every time in the past
X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen”

This is an incorrect representation. Properly it is,

X is required for Y (not follows, as you claimed, but rather,is a necessary condition of)
-X thus -Y

no, the “required” bit isn’t there. that is a bit of metaphysical sophistry that you threw in but has no empirical foundation

Further, the example you provide is not an example of “begging the question.” It is an example of the post hoc fallacy.

correct, I should have added “X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

In further support of my argument I would like to submit the follow examples of how consciousness is necessarily dependent on existence.

1. consider the effects of alcohol and “mind altering drugs,” which are physical entities, on consciousness.

2. consider the effects of trauma to the brain on consciousness, (the brain a physical existent, is responsible for the existence of consciousness)

all you have suggested is that the brain and the mind are intimately connected… you have not proven that a correlation between states or operations of “mind” and status or qualities of brain activity exists. ever hear of out of body experiences?

3. consider that the mind depends on existence for its Object. The mind is a tool of perception. A tool of perception with nothing to perceive is a contradiction.

I take it you have never seen a mirage…

-Imp

[adolpho]

Nope, Impetinent is ‘right’ as long as we take only truth in factor…

Science stopped being about truth a long time ago.

Imp: Do you have anything against Post-modern philosophy (some would call virtualism, on which Baudrillard is the best in my opinion)?

[Impenitent]

@adolpho

Nope, Impetinent is ‘right’ as long as we take only truth in factor…

Science stopped being about truth a long time ago.

thank you

Imp: Do you have anything against Post-modern philosophy (some would call virtualism, on which Baudrillard is the best in my opinion)?

I have nothing against any kind of philosophy. I have serious objection to claims of scientific “truth”…

-Imp

[adolpho]

As in anything against, I mean, any argument, objection, disagreement or such.

[Impenitent]

I would have to see the particular position suggested…

-Imp

[JamesShrugged]

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

Impenitent: it is amusing to me to note that you attempted to combat my argument, by referring to another’s post. Straw man, anyone?

I used the argument that you endorsed.

Now, down to business.

You gave the following syllogism to represent my argument:

“X happened in the past.
Y happens after X every time in the past
X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen”

This is an incorrect representation. Properly it is,

X is required for Y (not follows, as you claimed, but rather,is a necessary condition of)
-X thus -Y

no, the “required” bit isn’t there. that is a bit of metaphysical sophistry that you threw in but has no empirical foundation

Further, the example you provide is not an example of “begging the question.” It is an example of the post hoc fallacy.

correct, I should have added “X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

In further support of my argument I would like to submit the follow examples of how consciousness is necessarily dependent on existence.

1. consider the effects of alcohol and “mind altering drugs,” which are physical entities, on consciousness.

2. consider the effects of trauma to the brain on consciousness, (the brain a physical existent, is responsible for the existence of consciousness)

all you have suggested is that the brain and the mind are intimately connected… you have not proven that a correlation between states or operations of “mind” and status or qualities of brain activity exists. ever hear of out of body experiences?

3. consider that the mind depends on existence for its Object. The mind is a tool of perception. A tool of perception with nothing to perceive is a contradiction.

I take it you have never seen a mirage…

-Imp

Surely you don’t mean to state that when one “see’s” a mirage, it actually exist’s. That of course, is a contradiction in terms. If the “vision” actually existed, it would not be called a mirage

Again it is an interaction between consciousness and existence, which would not be possible, if either where not present.

[JamesShrugged]

@adolpho

Nope, Impetinent is ‘right’ as long as we take only truth in factor…

Science stopped being about truth a long time ago.

Imp: Do you have anything against Post-modern philosophy (some would call virtualism, on which Baudrillard is the best in my opinion)?

Thanks for submitting your unqualified position on the matter; it was very helpful.

[Impenitent]

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

Impenitent: it is amusing to me to note that you attempted to combat my argument, by referring to another’s post. Straw man, anyone?

I used the argument that you endorsed.

Now, down to business.

You gave the following syllogism to represent my argument:

“X happened in the past.
Y happens after X every time in the past
X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen”

This is an incorrect representation. Properly it is,

X is required for Y (not follows, as you claimed, but rather,is a necessary condition of)
-X thus -Y

no, the “required” bit isn’t there. that is a bit of metaphysical sophistry that you threw in but has no empirical foundation

Further, the example you provide is not an example of “begging the question.” It is an example of the post hoc fallacy.

correct, I should have added “X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

In further support of my argument I would like to submit the follow examples of how consciousness is necessarily dependent on existence.

1. consider the effects of alcohol and “mind altering drugs,” which are physical entities, on consciousness.

2. consider the effects of trauma to the brain on consciousness, (the brain a physical existent, is responsible for the existence of consciousness)

all you have suggested is that the brain and the mind are intimately connected… you have not proven that a correlation between states or operations of “mind” and status or qualities of brain activity exists. ever hear of out of body experiences?

3. consider that the mind depends on existence for its Object. The mind is a tool of perception. A tool of perception with nothing to perceive is a contradiction.

I take it you have never seen a mirage…

-Imp

Surely you don’t mean to state that when one “see’s” a mirage, it actually exist’s. That of course, is a contradiction in terms. If the “vision” actually existed, it would not be called a mirage

as far as existing in the mind it certainly does… but existence in the mind does not necessitate a physical existence as you have just admitted… the thing-in-itself is never observed…

Again it is an interaction between consciousness and existence, which would not be possible, if either where not present.

ever had a dream?

(and I take it you have no response to the rest of my objections concerning your arguments…)

-Imp

[adolpho]

@JamesShrugged

@adolpho

Nope, Impetinent is ‘right’ as long as we take only truth in factor…

Science stopped being about truth a long time ago.

Imp: Do you have anything against Post-modern philosophy (some would call virtualism, on which Baudrillard is the best in my opinion)?

Thanks for submitting your unqualified position on the matter; it was very helpful.

Science can’t tell if in actual truth this world as we perceive is just a temporary condition in which we live in or we could be living on something compared to a grain of sand in a much larger universe; that amongst an infinity of theories that science simply can’t prove wrong.

What science searches for is efficiency. As long as it has a use it’s valid.

[JamesShrugged]

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

Impenitent: it is amusing to me to note that you attempted to combat my argument, by referring to another’s post. Straw man, anyone?

I used the argument that you endorsed.

Now, down to business.

You gave the following syllogism to represent my argument:

“X happened in the past.
Y happens after X every time in the past
X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen”

This is an incorrect representation. Properly it is,

X is required for Y (not follows, as you claimed, but rather,is a necessary condition of)
-X thus -Y

no, the “required” bit isn’t there. that is a bit of metaphysical sophistry that you threw in but has no empirical foundation

Further, the example you provide is not an example of “begging the question.” It is an example of the post hoc fallacy.

correct, I should have added “X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

In further support of my argument I would like to submit the follow examples of how consciousness is necessarily dependent on existence.

1. consider the effects of alcohol and “mind altering drugs,” which are physical entities, on consciousness.

2. consider the effects of trauma to the brain on consciousness, (the brain a physical existent, is responsible for the existence of consciousness)

all you have suggested is that the brain and the mind are intimately connected… you have not proven that a correlation between states or operations of “mind” and status or qualities of brain activity exists. ever hear of out of body experiences?

3. consider that the mind depends on existence for its Object. The mind is a tool of perception. A tool of perception with nothing to perceive is a contradiction.

I take it you have never seen a mirage…

-Imp

Surely you don’t mean to state that when one “see’s” a mirage, it actually exist’s. That of course, is a contradiction in terms. If the “vision” actually existed, it would not be called a mirage

as far as existing in the mind it certainly does… but existence in the mind does not necessitate a physical existence as you have just admitted… the thing-in-itself is never observed…

Again it is an interaction between consciousness and existence, which would not be possible, if either where not present.

ever had a dream?

(and I take it you have no response to the rest of my objections concerning your arguments…)

-Imp

I didnt address the rest of your argument, because your still making the same mistake.

Here is your new formula, which is still incorrect:

“X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

Again, this is a straw man, i never said that Y will happen. I said that X is a necessary condition, IF Y is to happen.

[Fent]

Jamesshruggs wrote

I take “Objective” to denote a certain class of concepts, specifically concepts whose referent is reality, or that which exists.

So if you use the concept “tree” and define it as a type of plant with a trunk, leaves etc, and then use it to refer to such an object in existence, when the definition of the concept and the referent are the same, then that is an objective concept. However, you you define the concept in such a way, and then use it to refer to, for example, what we have denoted as a rock, the concept loses its relationship with reality,and because subjective (that is, the concept has relevance for the subject using it, not the object it refers to.)

If I understand your position here correctly, I still disagree with you. You seem to be arguing that there are concepts “out there” that exist independently of the human subject. That a tree has a trunk, leaves and is a particular type pf plant, is the human being’s way of attempting to make sense of his surroundings. The ‘tree’ as object has no meaning, classification, or description, without the human being cognizing it to have such attributes. Without the human being to give names and descriptions to tress, or any other object, they are nothing, just ‘things’ or ‘stuff’.

James shruggs wrote

“The idea that “concepts” exist is a human invention…” I take this to mean that you think that “concepts” exist independent of the functioning of mans mind… like the absolute “Forms” of Plato? If that is or is not the case please clarify, then I will follow up further, because if that is or is not what you meant, of course, i dont want to waste either of our time discussing it in an inappropriate context

No, sorry, that’s not what I mean. The word and meaning behind the word “concept” is a human invention. The “concept” doesn’t exist until the human mind cognizes there to be such a thing as a "concept.

[Impenitent]

@JamesShrugged

I didnt address the rest of your argument, because your still making the same mistake.

right

Here is your new formula, which is still incorrect:

“X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

Again, this is a straw man, i never said that Y will happen. I said that X is a necessary condition, IF Y is to happen.

you are saying that Y must happen because X happened even though you have no evidence for Y… you continue to beg the question and assume unobserved events on the basis of (the constant conjunction of) past events when you have no logical reason to do so…

mirages and dreams…

-Imp

[JamesShrugged]

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

I didnt address the rest of your argument, because your still making the same mistake.

right

Here is your new formula, which is still incorrect:

“X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

Again, this is a straw man, i never said that Y will happen. I said that X is a necessary condition, IF Y is to happen.

you are saying that Y must happen because X happened even though you have no evidence for Y… you continue to beg the question and assume unobserved events on the basis of (the constant conjunction of) past events when you have no logical reason to do so…

mirages and dreams…

-Imp

This will be the last time that I correct the mistak ethat you have made for the third time here. Obviously you continue to misrepresent my position, intentionally, because you can not argue against it as it stands. Fair enough: noone can do that, because its true.

I am NOT saying that Y must happen because X happened. ie consciousness must happen because existnce happens. This is a straw man that you continue to prop up

I am saying that consciousness requires existence, to exist. ie one can not have consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, with no brain to develop it, with no sensory organs to gather content for it.

[Impenitent]

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

I didnt address the rest of your argument, because your still making the same mistake.

right

Here is your new formula, which is still incorrect:

“X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

Again, this is a straw man, i never said that Y will happen. I said that X is a necessary condition, IF Y is to happen.

you are saying that Y must happen because X happened even though you have no evidence for Y… you continue to beg the question and assume unobserved events on the basis of (the constant conjunction of) past events when you have no logical reason to do so…

mirages and dreams…

-Imp

This will be the last time that I correct the mistak ethat you have made for the third time here. Obviously you continue to misrepresent my position, intentionally, because you can not argue against it as it stands. Fair enough: noone can do that, because its true.

as an article of faith. not as a logical argument. logically, you are begging the question. period.

I am NOT saying that Y must happen because X happened. ie consciousness must happen because existnce happens. This is a straw man that you continue to prop up

that’s all you have said.

I am saying that consciousness requires existence, to exist. ie one can not have consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, with no brain to develop it, with no sensory organs to gather content for it.

existence requires existence to exist…
consciousness requires consciousness of the consciousness to exist…
you have been making some elaborate circles and calling it truth…

your assertion that consciousness is a function of the brain is not a problem…

your suggestion that sensory organs gather content is flawed… I would suggest that you put down the rand and pick up descartes, hume and kant for starters…

-Imp

[illativemindindeed]

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

I didnt address the rest of your argument, because your still making the same mistake.

right

Here is your new formula, which is still incorrect:

“X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

Again, this is a straw man, i never said that Y will happen. I said that X is a necessary condition, IF Y is to happen.

you are saying that Y must happen because X happened even though you have no evidence for Y… you continue to beg the question and assume unobserved events on the basis of (the constant conjunction of) past events when you have no logical reason to do so…

mirages and dreams…

-Imp

This will be the last time that I correct the mistak ethat you have made for the third time here. Obviously you continue to misrepresent my position, intentionally, because you can not argue against it as it stands. Fair enough: noone can do that, because its true.

I am NOT saying that Y must happen because X happened. ie consciousness must happen because existnce happens. This is a straw man that you continue to prop up

I am saying that consciousness requires existence, to exist. ie one can not have consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, with no brain to develop it, with no sensory organs to gather content for it.

I agree that consciousness requires existence, but I dont believe that one has precedence over the other, or that one is even primary over the other.

I do think its important that we define what we understand to be consciousness in our particular contexts, otherwise we will almost invariably be misunderstanding each others position. I for instance define consciousness as qualia or experience. It is feeling and experiencing at its most fundamental level all the way to the way we feel and experience.

It makes sense to me that this consciousness exists just as existence exists. For something to exists, it vibrates as matter is and can be converted to be understood as energy. Ask yourself, what is vibration? It is a disturbance in equilibrium. If all things vibrate, nothing is static. If life was static, it would not be felt. But through disturbance or osccilation, there is feeling. A natural resonance between interacting vibrations occurs providing rudimentary experience or feeling. And since all of existence has this vibration, all of it feels to some extent.

Of course Im assuming, but all propositions are assumptions.

[illativemindindeed]

@jeremiah175

Epistemologically we must recognize that our rational minds and the empirical world are interconnected and mutually affecting. The world shapes the mind though its agencies and the mind, through its own agencies, in turn shapes the world. We must put away the notion that we and the world are somehow independent entities; in doing so we can more readily discover the truth that the process and product of the universal evolutionary process is one, a polymorphic monad, a diamond with many facets. Our epistemology ought not be a matter of exclusive either/or, but rather an inclusive also/and understood as interconnected parts of one whole. We receive the world as it is, inasmuch as our capacity for perception is developed. The world receives and is shaped by us inasmuch as our capacity for action is developed. We are neither as weak and enslaved as radical materialism would have it nor as powerful and free as radical idealism would have it, though in ages past we have been more of the former and in ages future we will likely be more of the latter.

JVS

I wonder whether you think the mind shapes an objective world, or just the experience of the world?

[JamesShrugged]

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

@Impenitent

@JamesShrugged

I didnt address the rest of your argument, because your still making the same mistake.

right

Here is your new formula, which is still incorrect:

“X happens and it is assumed that Y will happen” +because it always has done so in the past"

Again, this is a straw man, i never said that Y will happen. I said that X is a necessary condition, IF Y is to happen.

you are saying that Y must happen because X happened even though you have no evidence for Y… you continue to beg the question and assume unobserved events on the basis of (the constant conjunction of) past events when you have no logical reason to do so…

mirages and dreams…

-Imp

This will be the last time that I correct the mistak ethat you have made for the third time here. Obviously you continue to misrepresent my position, intentionally, because you can not argue against it as it stands. Fair enough: noone can do that, because its true.

as an article of faith. not as a logical argument. logically, you are begging the question. period.

I am NOT saying that Y must happen because X happened. ie consciousness must happen because existnce happens. This is a straw man that you continue to prop up

that’s all you have said.

I am saying that consciousness requires existence, to exist. ie one can not have consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, with no brain to develop it, with no sensory organs to gather content for it.

existence requires existence to exist…
consciousness requires consciousness of the consciousness to exist…
you have been making some elaborate circles and calling it truth…

your assertion that consciousness is a function of the brain is not a problem…

your suggestion that sensory organs gather content is flawed… I would suggest that you put down the rand and pick up descartes, hume and kant for starters…

-Imp

So in summary, you cant actually object to my actual argument, and in addition you make unqualified assertations, which you then do not support.

If this is what hume, descartes and (ugh) kant have to offer in the way of philosophic debate, I’ll stick with Rand.