Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Indoctrination


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 5:42:10 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

If we're going to have this discussion, can we please conduct it in English? Evidence is not proof. Now look, I've debated priests before and I know the feeling well. I am not interested in listening to you recite your catechism, or in redefining English words to suit your agenda. If all you want to do is preach, we're done here.

K.


You're just involved in sophistry. Jump off a sky scraper and use your faith that the world is made of sponge cake. I won't jump because all the evidence tells me I'll splatter on the tarmac. I would not give you proof by jumping but you may give me proof of your faith by jumping.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 501
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 5:59:11 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Tweakabelle is right if her reasonable assumption is based on probabilities as is the atheist assumption that dead is dead and that there is no supernatural intervention in the laws of physics.

Tweakabelle is not right, and neither are you. Faith may be either reasonable or unreasonable.

K.

My original post asked people not to conflate reasonable assumptions with acts of faith. Mr K wishes to disupte this.

Well now Mr Kirata, I have a reasonable assumption that you exist (but no proof). There's no way in the world that that assumption will ever become an act of faith for me.

There is a difference.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 12/7/2012 6:00:33 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 502
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 6:00:22 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

If faith is based on evidence and probability, it is hardly faith...

If we're going to have this discussion, can we please conduct it in English? Evidence is not proof. Now look, I've debated priests before and I know the feeling well. I am not interested in listening to you recite your catechism, or in redefining English words to suit your agenda. If all you want to do is preach, we're done here.

K.


Sure, evidence is not proof, but enough evidence could constitute proof.

Now, one person's standard of "proof" might be different to another's. So from a personal perspective, there is enough evidence to provide proof, by my personal standard, that we all exist. In fact there is enough of the stuff to meet the very high level of proof required for me to state that I know that I exist. Not having met you in person, I cannot know that you exist, although I believe that you do.








_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 503
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 6:09:33 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		FR

It seems to me that this conversation could use some sense of degree rather than just one of 'either/or'. At one pole there's 'blind faith', at the other is 'absolute proof'. The sociologist Anthony Giddens deals with this in terms of the difference between faith on the one hand, and 'trust' on the other. Pps 16 onward.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 504
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 6:15:03 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

My original post asked people not to conflate reasonable assumptions with acts of faith
.

Giddens carefully avoids that in the aforementioned book with his idea of faith versus trust. It's quite a good book, IMO.


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 505
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 11:33:58 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
And what's my conspiracy theory?


He explains that the evidence is invalidated by his conspiracy theory and then explains that his conspiracy theory is validated by the lack of evidence.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 506
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 1:24:47 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

It seems to me that this conversation could use some sense of degree rather than just one of 'either/or'. At one pole there's 'blind faith', at the other is 'absolute proof'.

In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science.

K.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 507
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 2:45:01 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

It seems to me that this conversation could use some sense of degree rather than just one of 'either/or'. At one pole there's 'blind faith', at the other is 'absolute proof'.

In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science.

K.

How is your observation different in kind from the observation that a tree falling in the forest makes no noise if there are no ears (auditory receptors of any kind) to record it? Serious question.

ETA: Science is a human activity so obviously it is dependent on consciousness. Faith is a human activity so it too is dependent on consciousness. So, what is your point? Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/7/2012 3:03:30 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 508
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 4:07:26 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?

the operative concept here is proof. Nobody is saying that there isn't an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness, only that we cannot prove it

Link: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4317115

K.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 509
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 4:24:48 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?

the operative concept here is proof. Nobody is saying that there isn't an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness, only that we cannot prove it

Link: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4317115

K.


Your level of proof is the equivalent of saying only a lethal bullet in someone's head is proof that a bullet in their head can be lethal. It is like rejecting the evidence of millions of dead from countless wars which for any reasonable person would be evidence that the probability of a bullet in the head, never mind in any other vital region, would be lethal.

Even for French philosophers who advocates that the world disappears when you close your eyes will accelerate at 9.81 sec per sec when they jump off a tall building before going splat on the tarmac, even if they close their eyes and the world disappears.  

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 510
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 4:27:24 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Have it as you wish, but even Karl Popper would not go as far as being dragged along that line by the likes of you.

Just so you know.

"That line" (in the post to which you're replying) being: faith is belief not based on proof. And Popper would hardly have to be dragged, because it is precisely his position that the truth content of scientific theories cannot be verified by scientific methods. He was deeply dissatisfied with classical empiricism. In Hawking's words:

Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them... Instead we adopt [a different view]

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4298645

Just so you know.

K.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 511
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 4:47:53 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Your level of proof...

I've never said anything whatsoever about a "level of proof."

I'm talking about a type of proof. The apparently obscure clue to this was a statement I made a couple posts back from one to which you replied.

In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof.

In other words, the same type of proof typically demanded of those who believe in the existence of a supraphysical reality.

Shoe on the other foot, get it?

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 12/7/2012 5:30:23 PM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 512
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 5:15:11 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?

the operative concept here is proof. Nobody is saying that there isn't an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness, only that we cannot prove it

Link: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4317115

K.

For the sake of syllogism I take it you do not deny the existence of human consciousness. Neither do you deny the existence of reality independent of consciousness. You conclude we cannot prove it.

Why not? Where is the disconnect between the two elements?

ETA Nevermind. You can pass this by if you are taking Hawkin's position above. I understand what you are saying. I can't say I agree with it.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/7/2012 5:29:22 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 513
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 5:40:13 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

For the sake of syllogism I take it you do not deny the existence of human consciousness. Neither do you deny the existence of reality independent of consciousness. You conclude we cannot prove it.

Why not? Where is the disconnect between the two elements?

Ahhh, there's the rub. We can't know for sure that there is one, yet a disconnect is inherent in our subject/object view of the world.

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 12/7/2012 5:47:15 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 514
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 6:06:46 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

For the sake of syllogism I take it you do not deny the existence of human consciousness. Neither do you deny the existence of reality independent of consciousness. You conclude we cannot prove it.

Why not? Where is the disconnect between the two elements?

Ahhh, there's the rub. We can't know for sure that there is one, yet a disconnect is inherent in our subject/object view of the world.

K.


Well wait. You say that we can't know for sure, yet a disconnect is inherent in our view. Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 515
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 6:09:01 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You say that we can't know for sure, yet a disconnect is inherent in our view. Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

Our view could be wrong, or at least less than entirely and fundamentally correct.

K.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 516
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 6:46:14 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You say that we can't know for sure, yet a disconnect is inherent in our view. Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

Our view could be wrong, or at least less than entirely and fundamentally correct.

K.

Yes, of course. If our view (theory) is wrong, or some element of it is flawed, we search out another theory. Karl Popper championed "falsification." From what I read it was his position that if a theory was falsified the inquiry should turn to the least likely theory, the one with the greater number of uncertainties, and work from there. But, he did not say to abandon the search for a more valid theory.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Your Hawkins quote in part:
quote:

"Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them... Instead we adopt [a different view]"


What is the "different view" may I ask that leads from Hawkins to your position:

"In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science."




(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 517
RE: Indoctrination - 12/7/2012 7:39:56 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

But, he did not say to abandon the search for a more valid theory.

Well, neither have I. Did you get that impression?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

What is the "different view" may I ask that leads from Hawkins to your position:

"In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science."

The "different view" is quoted at the link in the post.

Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them... Instead we adopt a view that... a physical theory or world picture is a model... it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only where it agrees with observation.

Hawking agrees with Popper, who takes the position that all human knowledge is irreducibly conjectural. We can neither prove nor falsify the proposition that an objective world exists independently of conciousness because consciousness is what we employ to examine and understand it.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 12/7/2012 7:57:14 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 518
RE: Indoctrination - 12/8/2012 2:43:06 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Tweakabelle is right if her reasonable assumption is based on probabilities as is the atheist assumption that dead is dead and that there is no supernatural intervention in the laws of physics.


What probabilities, exactly?

You might want to acquaint yourself with the criticisms of Pascal's wager, as they apply to your notion of probabilities.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 519
RE: Indoctrination - 12/8/2012 3:24:46 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

And therein lies the problem of your god-like self delusions.


No, actually, therein lies simple recognition of the fact that my thoughts don't work in a very normal way, a fact that's been established by others than myself, at that. And, to go with the evidence thing, it's been established by scientifically sound experiments and repeated for confirmation. Such doesn't constitute a "god-like self delusion", but you're welcome to discount science, of course.

As a very basic, simple and down to earth example, in primary/elementary school, I considered it self evident that Germanic strong verbs are conjugated by ablaut, and that the pattern is regular, which nobody else agreed with, and the teacher objected strongly to it, insisting that these must be memorized instead of learning the pattern. Later, it was confirmed to me that my original observation was correct and well known among linguists; indeed, the conjugation pattern is wholly conserved in Norwegian and its dialects. It allowed me to accurately conjugate dialectal forms I hadn't encountered back in grade 4 or so, while none of my peers learned to do this until grade 9, and then only a few.

When you recognize a pattern instinctively, it's self-evident to you. When you don't see it, but can be shown that it exist, it isn't self-evident to you, but neither is it self-evidently absent to you. When you can't even be shown the pattern, it is self-evidently absent to you. The trick is to remember that there will always be some people to whom the patterns you see will not be visible, and some people that see patterns which aren't visible to you, and of course that for all of us there will be some patterns we see that are actually illusory.

I know people that make me seem like an idiot child; so, no, not particularly god-like, and your posited delusion is false.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 520
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109