A colossal accident?

[James1215]

Objections to point 2: pure reason does not give us knowledge.

Maths does not contain any such propositions as ‘experience is required for knowledge [because…]’ or ‘the human body cannot function for long without respiration [because…]’. Is 1+1=2 this sort of proposition? No, 2 is contained within 1+1 and is not an extension but an intrinsic part of 1+1. I agree maths is certain, but it cannot be uncertain given that it is a system of self-consistent logic. How is maths descriptive or methodological? Yes mathematicians engage in complex thought processes, but that does not mean they gain anything but human insight into the elaboration of what is already given in principle; that is different from a methodology which takes one some epistemological distance. It would be done in a moment by a computer, or by a more intelligent person. I agree that the ‘knowledge’ one gains within maths is ‘beyond sense experience’ because one can go further and say there is no intersection between mathematics and the observed. The latter does not confirm the former, and the former does not illuminate the latter unaided.

That point is where I may have introduced confusion. No amount of testing is needed to show that pi=pi, but what knowledge does pi give us? Does it tell us the radius of the Earth or the circumference? No it doesn’t, because maths is nothing without our empirical observation that the earth is not actually spherical. We have to use or not use mathematical models according to empirical observation and therefore, according to experience. Pure reason does not give us knowledge.

Dubito! The reason I asked you to formulate that again is so that I do not attack a straw man. How is engaging in a project where one tries to doubt one’s existence a methodology for knowledge? Firstly, it is irrational to think that one’s senses are totally illusory (to doubt them); secondly, if one achieves doubt of everything, one has no knowledge. If I doubt everything, I doubt that I’m doubting. I doubt that I exist. What possible certainty is left?

Therefore, the examples provided to show that reason alone does produce knowledge are lacking. It remains that 1. experience is used for knowledge 2. we cannot seem to do without it.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Probably with some sort of auditory circuits in the brain, given that most thoughts seem to be expressed in language.

Puh-lease! You really think this is a lucid response? Auditory circuits in the brain? I guess people born deaf have no mind. Consciousness does not rely upon senses. You don’t experience thought, it’s an active intelluctual process involving your consciousness.

 

[James1215]

Puh-lease! You really think this is a lucid response? Auditory circuits in the brain? I guess people born deaf have no mind. Consciousness does not rely upon senses. You don’t experience thought, it’s an active intelluctual process involving your consciousness.

Deaf people may have lost any number of connections between their ears and relevant areas of the brain, so I don’t see what you’re puh-leasing about! How about the studies showing that people who have no sight actually do have some of the requisite connections, but are not conscious of them - they can answer questions as if they can see, but they cannot consciously see. I know that’s vague, but it’s true. There are many many many configurations of things in the brain, I was not reducing consciousness to hypothetical auditory circuits.

Btw, what actually is this ‘active intellectual process involving your consciousness’, but which is not experienced?

 

[James1215]

Now clearly irrelevant, but how would you prove deaf people have minds with ‘pure reason’? How do you know that you have shared understanding with someone else?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…** I agree that the ‘knowledge’ one gains within maths is ‘beyond sense experience’ .**

You just directly stated agreement with our point. Your claim that “Pure reason does not give us knowledge.” is hereby officially refuted in your very own words. You are now officially a rationalist.

*I ought to write a book called, “How to Become a Rationalist in 537 Short Steps”

 

[James1215]

notice those inverted commas?

 

[James1215]

I think there is no intersection of maths and the observable, other than when one describes reality with maths to suit what one experiences. I mean by that that looking at one does not tell you about the other.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Objections to point 2: pure reason does not give us knowledge.

Maths does not contain any such propositions as ‘experience is required for knowledge [because…]’ or ‘the human body cannot function for long without respiration [because…]’. Is 1+1=2 this sort of proposition?

Yup, the conclusion of all true arguments is necessarily contained in the premise. Basic stuff there.

No, 2 is contained within 1+1 and is not an extension but an intrinsic part of 1+1.

1…1…still no 2…still no 2…still no 2…+…Oh, 1+1=2! Knowledge gained one did not previously have.

Dubito! The reason I asked you to formulate that again is so that I do not attack a straw man.

You had to ask me again, because you ignore posts and repeat the same long refuted statements just as you have in this post. No amount of repetition saves a defeated argument. Further, most of these are still the long refuted contradiction verification.

How is engaging in a project where one tries to doubt one’s existence a methodology for knowledge?

It gives you certain knowledge that one thing exists. Dubito, until you did the exercise you did not have that knowledge. Knowledge gained, no empiricism required

Firstly, it is irrational to think that one’s senses are totally illusory (to doubt them);

There is nothing irrational about it at all.

secondly, if one achieves doubt of everything, one has no knowledge. If I doubt everything, I doubt that I’m doubting. I doubt that I exist. What possible certainty is left?

That Dubito exists. The one object that we can be certain exists is the rational object Dubito. Not empirical reality, but as you are now officially a rationalist, that shouldn’t bother you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

notice those inverted commas?

Yup.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think there is no intersection of maths and the observable, other than when one describes reality with maths to suit what one experiences. I mean by that that looking at one does not tell you about the other.

Which has nothing to do with the claim you have now retired “pure reason does not give us knowledge”.

 

[James1215]

I think it’s clear now that no such ‘rational object’ as dubito exists. Doubting everything is just a paradoxical project that ensnares its practitioners, and not a provider of any knowledge other than that which can be empirically gained by asking: “What are you thinking of?”, “I’m not sure, actually, I might not even exist. Are you talking to me?”

I have not disavowed my position that pure reason gives us no knowledge, and you have said nothing persuasive against it.

 

[James1215]

1…1…still no 2…still no 2…still no 2…+…Oh, 1+1=2! Knowledge gained one did not previously have.

No, you haven’t actually. You have reiterated what you already had. 1 is 1, + is +, 2 is 1+1. It’s tautological and merely the elaboration of the given principles.

It gives you certain knowledge that one thing exists. Dubito, until you did the exercise you did not have that knowledge. Knowledge gained, no empiricism required

There is nothing irrational about it at all.

Doubt doesn’t exist unless it is thought, and is not truly thought if it is doubted. All you can say is: “Am I doubting or am I certain? I don’t know.”

Yes it is irrational to doubt one’s senses. How can we be sure they are wrong? What tells us perceptions are illusory? One perception cannot be used to undermine all perception, because it is self-contradictory. Perception is neither possible to be certain about nor possible to reject as illusory.

Empiricism is still standing…

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Btw, what actually is this ‘active intellectual process involving your consciousness’, but which is not experienced?

BTW, where are the senses being used for the thought experience?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Now clearly irrelevant, but how would you prove deaf people have minds with ‘pure reason’? How do you know that you have shared understanding with someone else?

This is simply a detraction on your part. The issue is whether empiricism is the sole source of knowledge. Stick to it!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I think there is no intersection of maths and the observable, other than when one describes reality with maths to suit what one experiences. I mean by that that looking at one does not tell you about the other.

This not clear to me. Are you saying mathematics is only used to describe experiences?

 

[James1215]

BTW, where are the senses being used for the thought experience?

Where are the chronobiological senses being used to tell your body what stage of the circadian rhythm its organs are at? Your inability to answer this definitively would not mean there are no such things, or no sense.

My suggestion is that numerous circuits in the brain interact, and consciousness is this interaction. That is how you experience your own thinking.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I think it’s clear now that no such ‘rational object’ as dubito exists. Doubting everything is just a paradoxical project that ensnares its practitioners, and not a provider of any knowledge other than that which can be empirically gained by asking: “What are you thinking of?”, “I’m not sure, actually, I might not even exist. Are you talking to me?”

Being able to obtain knowledge empirically doesn’t preclude the ability of gaining knowledge from another source. This appears to be a variant of a false dilemma, that X can’t be true because you can do Y.

 

[James1215]

This is simply a detraction on your part. The issue is whether empiricism is the sole source of knowledge. Stick to it!

It’s entirely relevant. Given that at least Warpspeedpetey thinks its wrong to credit empiricism, I’m pushing the boundaries of rationalism to see if it can provide us with reason to believe things we really do take for granted, on a day-to-day basis. It is experience which tells us other people can be understood and can understand us: they react as we imagine they would based on what we say to them, and we think we can see their implicit appreciation of the same in us. How could you possibly get to this knowledge from pure disengaged reason? It’s ludicrous. If anyone uses pure reason for knowledge, apart from in curious and dubious paradoxes (paradi?), then speak up!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Where are the chronobiological senses being used to tell your body what stage of the circadian rhythm its organs are at? Your inability to answer this definitively would not mean there are no such things, or no sense.

My suggestion is that numerous circuits in the brain interact, and consciousness is this interaction. That is how you experience your own thinking.

This is an irrelevant conclusion. I asked a simple question. Which senses are employed for thought experience?

 

[James1215]

Being able to obtain knowledge empirically doesn’t preclude the ability of gaining knowledge from another source. This appears to be a variant of a false dilemma, that X can’t be true because you can do Y.

No it is not to say that the ability to gain knowledge from experience precludes alternatives. The fact that there are no alternatives suggests that going from experience is the only way to reach knowledge.