Epistemology 101

[tonyrey]

Really? How did you obtain your information about the brain? By using your brain?!

Don’t you get dizzy going around in circles? Where do you come into the picture? There seems to be just a brain chasing itself for all it’s worth - which is nothing, according to you.

So you don’t know what you’re thinking? Alas!

                             Only some of it, the conscious part. Not only  I explained it to you, I even provided the mechanism how that concept  can be substantiated. As if I was talking into a wall without ears and  understanding.

Well, what can you expect if I’m just a bunch of atoms! And you’re another bunch. They don’t really understand anything. Knowledge is an illusion…

Could it be that the brain is not the origin of thoughts but the instrument used to communicate them?

Any evidence? Beyond the musing of ignorant, superstitious, uneducated
goat-herders.

You could find the evidence within yourself - in your mind - but you prefer to regard yourself as a bunch of atoms. It certainly liberates you from all responsibility and obligations. You don’t even have to bother about knowledge. So why ask a question about epistemology? It seems to be rather out of character - your atomic character!

 

[Image_of_God]

The strange thing here is that you do the same things that you accuse Christians of doing. Axioms are basically various unprovable claims. The only thing that saves them from being “articles of faith” is that most people follow them. But sanity and truth are hardly based on what the majority thinks and believes.

I believe various mathematical axioms for the exact same reason that you do, though you refuse to accept it. I feel and believe them to be true because it would seem unreasonable for it to be otherwise. I know this is difficult for a person of your stature to accept, but if you wish to be honest, you must. If you can find any other way to present it other than “this is the way things are” (which is exactly what I’m saying in a more imperative manner), if you can give any good reason to believe these various axioms other than “if you don’t I can’t argue with you” or “you’re insane” (which are not good reasons at all), then please do present it. I am fairly confident, however, that there is no other way.

And if you accept this truth that I’m telling you, then it becomes even more difficult to dismiss the argument of Christianity. And I suspect that this is the very reason you refuse to accept this truth, added with the factor that it would topple your worldview.

At the heart of the matter is the simple admission that logic is founded on something that is not logical (not necessarily illogical) at all.

 

[R_Daneel]

The strange thing here is that you do the same things that you accuse Christians of doing. Axioms are basically various unprovable claims. The only thing that saves them from being “articles of faith” is that most people follow them. But sanity and truth are hardly based on what the majority thinks and believes.

I believe various mathematical axioms for the exact same reason that you do, though you refuse to accept it. I feel and believe them to be true because it would seem unreasonable for it to be otherwise. I know this is difficult for a person of your stature to accept, but if you wish to be honest, you must. If you can find any other way to present it other than “this is the way things are” (which is exactly what I’m saying in a more imperative manner), if you can give any good reason to believe these various axioms other than “if you don’t I can’t argue with you” or “you’re insane” (which are not good reasons at all), then please do present it. I am fairly confident, however, that there is no other way.

And if you accept this truth that I’m telling you, then it becomes even more difficult to dismiss the argument of Christianity. And I suspect that this is the very reason you refuse to accept this truth, added with the factor that it would topple your worldview.

At the heart of the matter is the simple admission that logic is founded on something that is not logical (not necessarily illogical) at all.

I answered this in the other thread.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, what can you expect if I’m just a bunch of atoms! And you’re another bunch. They don’t really understand anything. Knowledge is an illusion…

Since I am playing a game on my other computer and it only takes a fraction of my time at the moment, I will reply to your nonsense - again. What you keep on bringing up in every friggin’ thread (whether it is applicable or not), is the lunatic insistence on reductionism.

Take a bunch of bricks, as bulding blocks. Use them to build a gas chamber, or to build a hospital. You insist that I do not see the difference, because they are made of the same material. That is called reductionism, which is a fallacy. Get real.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Well, what can you expect if I’m just a bunch of atoms! And you’re another bunch. They don’t really understand anything. Knowledge is an illusion….

Actually nothing could be further from the truth, however in order to explain why i would need to discuss evolution which is a banned topic.

 

[R_Daneel]

Actually nothing could be further from the truth, however in order to explain why i would need to discuss evolution which is a banned topic.

Don’t worry about it, they would not understand it anyhow. It is quite funny that none of the theists want to actually answer the question in OP. It is wide open for them to explain just HOW does one gain knowledge of the supernatural, but they all decline. So far all the replies were attempts to derail the thread. I wonder why that is?

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t worry about it, they would not understand it anyhow. It is quite funny that none of the theists want to actually answer the question in OP. It is wide open for them to explain just HOW does one gain knowledge of the supernatural, but they all decline. So far all the replies were attempts to derail the thread. I wonder why that is?

That is your distortion of your denial that ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE is derived from our thoughts, intuitions, feelings and perceptions. I challenge you to produce another source of knowledge…

 

[R_Daneel]

That is your distortion of your denial that ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE is derived from our thoughts, intuitions, feelings and perceptions. I challenge you to produce another source of knowledge…

And where do those thoughts, intuitions, feelings and perceptions come from? From contemplating the external reality, of course. “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu” - sounds familiar? The question at hand is: “how do we know if our thoughts, intutions reflect reality correctly?”. In other words, how to differentiate “knowledge” from “wishful thinking”? After all this long detour, you might want to concentrate on the actual question…

Another quick question: are you ready to abandon your reductionist fallacy? It is getting pretty boring.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, what can you expect if I’m just a bunch of atoms! And you’re another bunch!

The truth clearly irritates you! The lunacy is on the part of those who use their minds to insist on emergentism - of the magical appearance of mind from matter for no reason or purpose whatsoever. Don’t forget that epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge - which cannot be isolated from the nature of the knower and the known… unless of course you think it exists solely in the realm of atomic particles…

Take a bunch of bricks, as building blocks. Use them to build a gas chamber, or to build a hospital. You insist that I do not see the difference, because they are made of the same material. That is called reductionism, which is a fallacy.

Significantly, bricks are material objects and so are gas chambers and hospitals, all of which are designed and created by rational beings. You haven’t yet succeeded in explaining the immense leap from matter to mind…

 

[tonyrey]

That is your distortion of your denial that ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE is derived from our thoughts, intuitions, feelings and perceptions. I challenge you to produce another source of knowledge…

Contemplation presupposes internal reality, i.e. a person who contemplates external reality. Many thoughts, intuitions and feelings exist and occur regardless of external reality. They are certainly not derived from external reality. How could that which is tangible produce that which is intangible? Any ideas?

“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu” - sounds familiar?

A mantra for the physicalist! However much you repeat it you cannot will it to be true… “Nihil est in sensu” cannot be known without the “intellectu”. You need to get your priorities right…

The question at hand is: “how do we know if our thoughts, intuitions reflect reality correctly?”.

Thank you for distinguishing our thoughts from “reality”, i.e. physical reality. (Physical reality would hardly reflect itself!) Very often our thoughts don’t reflect reality correctly but they don’t have to reflect our internal reality because we are **directly **aware of our thoughts. They are indisputably real and our sole form of direct knowledge.

In other words, how to differentiate “knowledge” from “wishful thinking”? After all this long detour, you might want to concentrate on the actual question…

And so might you, considering that both knowledge and wishful thinking take place** in your mind **and not in the outside world! How do you distinguish knowledge from wishful thinking? Your quest for truth does not seem entirely objective and dispassionate if one is to judge by the emotional content of your posts. You are obviously deeply attached to your brand of materialism…

 

[R_Daneel]

The truth clearly irritates you!

Actually the stupidity bores me. You keep on insisting on your double fallacy, reductionism and the goddidit fallacy. Well, I tried to educate you, but you are adamant to close your ears. Have it your way. No doubt you will chalk it up as another “victory” just like your buddy WSP does.

There is a good saying: “Don’t argue with idiots, you cannot win, since they are unable to understand you and they will try to drag you down to their own level”. I guess, it is time to listen to this sound advice. Goodbye.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Don’t worry about it, they would not understand it anyhow. It is quite funny that none of the theists want to actually answer the question in OP.

i answered it back, about post #20

Metaphysics the study of being

It is wide open for them to explain just HOW does one gain knowledge of the supernatural, but they all decline.

i answered it back, about post #20

Metaphysics the study of being.

So far all the replies were attempts to derail the thread. I wonder why that is?

i answered it back, about post #20

Metaphysics the study of being.

youve been given the correct answer multiple times. so if you think it is derailing the thread, maybe you could explain?

i noticed you still havent answered this question though
**
are you suggesting that there is only the natural and everything else is a concept or an abstraction? if so, then what would be the basis for such an assertion? **
.
hmmm…i wonder why?

now maybe you are dodging this question because you think it would derail the thread, but if you cant support the categories in the OP, which i dont think you can. then it is not derailing the thread it is specifically on target.

 

[tonyrey]

You keep on insisting on your double fallacy, reductionism and the goddidit fallacy.

You keep on insisting on your treble fallacy, emergentism and the matterdidit fallacy…

Well, I tried to educate you, but you are adamant to close your ears. Have it your way. No doubt you will chalk it up as another “victory” just like your buddy WSP does.

You obviously regard yourself as a public benefactor who does not need to be educated. Where did you obtain your privileged insight into the nature of reality?

There is a good saying: “Don’t argue with idiots, you cannot win, since they are unable to understand you and they will try to drag you down to their own level”. I guess, it is time to listen to this sound advice. Goodbye. ]

I prefer not to stay at the level of mud… Jesus said “Do not cast pearls before swine”…

I’m not surprised at your departure seeing that you have already left a trail of answered questions behind you…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I guess, it is time to listen to this sound advice. Goodbye.

good luck with that, it didnt work the last time you tried it, why do you think it will work now?

if you want to ignore us go ahead, but we wont ignore you.

 

[R_Daneel]

Metaphysics the study of being

**How **does it accomplish it?

 

[R_Daneel]

good luck with that, it didnt work the last time you tried it, why do you think it will work now?

if you want to ignore us go ahead, but we wont ignore you.

Who cares? You have one last chance to explain “HOW” does metaphysics accomplishes to obtain knowledge? In detail. Not that you can do it, but I am collecting your nonsense… it will make good material.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**How **does it accomplish it?

the application of logic. formal and modal being the most popular right now.

 

[Image_of_God]

I answered this in the other thread.

Saying that if we didn’t, we would descend into universal skepticism is not a viable answer. All that means is that I have to accept something (and I accept a number of things). It gives me no good reason to accept your particular number of claims.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Who cares? You have one last chance to explain “HOW” does metaphysics accomplishes to obtain knowledge? In detail. Not that you can do it, but I am collecting your nonsense… it will make good material.

as i just stated. by logic, formal, modal, etc.

how can you not know this? how could you possibly get 2 PhDs and not be exposed to a course in general logic or basic philosophy?

and please, collect my material, every time you thought to embarass me before, you shot yourself in the foot. i doubt this time will be any different.

p.s.

you dont actually need to collect it, the forum stores it indefinitely. yours as well.

 

[Image_of_God]

are you suggesting that there is only the natural and everything else is a concept or an abstraction? if so, then what would be the basis for such an assertion?

This is a very good question to ask and one that I’m also trying to retrieve an answer for, including a number of R Daneel’s other assertions (or rather, assumptions) which cannot be verified.

It’s kind of like: How do I know the various postulates of geometry are true? And the answer is that I don’t…that is unless I’m talking of intuitive knowledge, but that resembles a kind of faith.