Epistemology

[jeremiah175]

@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.

James stop. Your debate with Imp is completely devoid of the potential for progress. Not only are you speaking completely different languages, but you are speaking those different languages from completely different spheres of thought. Consider the citation of Hume in this debate:

Humean epistemological thought, when disentangled reveals itself to be a kind of solipsism, or even nihilism. Hume believed that there is no way for the mind to get beyond it’s sensory ‘impressions’ and the ‘ideas’ that they produce, and so, he believed that there is no rational reason to believe that an external world exists apart from our subjective experience of it.

How does one disprove such a position? How does one get beyond oneself and ones experience of the world so as to prove that the world exists? It is impossible to disprove a negative, and so the very merit of the debate is dubious. Why do we feel compelled to pay any mind to such positions and, in paying them mind, validate them? Let them sit and eat at their empty banquet of solipsism and their nihilism; we shall feast upon knowledge and enjoy the fruits of knowledge. No mean skepticism launched us into space, exploded the power of the sun, or spun a web of thought around this celestial sphere.

The world and we are one; the ocean that surrounds us splits into streams and flow through us, and we flow into that self same ocean. Yes, yes, this all may be a dream, but does this reveal philosophy in oneself or betray a penchant for idle speculation and petty disputing?

JVS

[adolpho]

@jeremiah175

@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.

James stop. Your debate with Imp is completely devoid of the potential for progress. Not only are you speaking completely different languages, but you are speaking those different languages from completely different spheres of thought. Consider the citation of Hume in this debate:

Humean epistemological thought, when disentangled reveals itself to be a kind of solipsism, or even nihilism. Hume believed that there is no way for the mind to get beyond it’s sensory ‘impressions’ and the ‘ideas’ that they produce, and so, he believed that there is no rational reason to believe that an external world exists apart from our subjective experience of it.

How does one disprove such a position? How does one get beyond oneself and ones experience of the world so as to prove that the world exists? It is impossible to disprove a negative, and so the very merit of the debate is dubious. Why do we feel compelled to pay any mind to such positions and, in paying them mind, validate them? Let them sit and eat at their empty banquet of solipsism and their nihilism; we shall feast upon knowledge and enjoy the fruits of knowledge. No mean skepticism launched us into space, exploded the power of the sun, or spun a web of thought around this celestial sphere.

The world and we are one; the ocean that surrounds us splits into streams and flow through us, and we flow into that self same ocean. Yes, yes, this all may be a dream, but does this reveal philosophy in oneself or betray a penchant for idle speculation and petty disputing?
JVS

My point all along. Talk about effect and efficiency, not about truth and truthiness. Imp was merely pointing out that, I guess.

[Impenitent]

@JamesShrugged

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

no, I objected to your repeating of errors. you don’t have an argument, you have an article of faith…

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

enjoy your ignorance… but you might want to understand some philosophers before you who have put your arguments to rest centuries ago…

-Imp

[thezeus18]

James, you have essentially, repeated the same error about five times.

Here’s what you have said: A requires B.

Now, how do you know that A requires B?

[JamesShrugged]

@thezeus18

James, you have essentially, repeated the same error about five times.

Here’s what you have said: A requires B.

Now, how do you know that A requires B?

I’ve explained it, including given evidence, repeatedly in this thread.

If you would like a fuller explanation, I refer you to “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” by Ayn Rand.

[thezeus18]

For the sake of this discussion, please restate how you know that a requires b.

[Mad_Man_P]

@JamesShrugged

Properly it is,

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

let me see if I understand this correctly…

X happens and then Y happens… every time… and from that you conclude that X is a necessary condition of Y?

Let’s replace X with “throwing a rock in the air” and Y with “gravity pulls the rock towards the ground” and see how that holds up…

it becomes… “Thorwing a rock in the air is a necessary condition for gravity to pull the rock towards the ground”

is it me or does that seem a bit off?

so far as I know gravity works independently of us throwing rocks… they are constantly pulled towards the ground whether we throw them or not… so it seems your reasoning is flawed somehow…

IF X then Y (is what we observe)
If Y then X (is what you conclude)

this is not valid…

or perhaps I have misunderstood you?

furthermore… from your examples of physicle reality effecting the mind you seem to conclude that ONLY physicle things can effect the mind… for which you have no basis… all you have is thaty physicle reality can effect the mind… not exclude other things from effecting it as well.