Epistemology 101

[warpspeedpetey]

The concept of “definition” is not restricted to mathematics. If we would talk about a unicorn, and I would have never encountered the concept of a unicorn, I would request to be given a definition - just what IS a unicorn. Stands to reason.

as we dont divide existence this way, you will need to provide your own definition for X-existence. i cant tell you what your categories mean if you are not looking to meet a certain standard.

I have seen this demonstration before, and I remain unimpressed. But that problem does not belong here.

having seen your reply to sarpedon, this might be a more fruitful area of discussion. STEM doesnt answer a number of questions. namely

1. free will
2. self awareness
3. STEMs’ existence

I really, really, really wish you would stop this. Clarke’s 3rd law only goes in one direction. And this has been pointed out many times. Yes, I used a shocking example to show it, and you were outraged but did not answer it.

i have no idea what you are refering to unless your talking about the blasphemy. if that is what you are refering to, i didnt think it required answer because i didnt take it as an actual refutation, just inflammatory speech. but yes, if we have DNA we can make copies, thats well known technology. i dont see how that demonstrates a unidirectional quality to clarkes 3rd, im not even sure what that means in that context.

Just think: if there is no magic, if we, humans can eventually reach that “sufficiently advanced technology” - then you quickly eliminated God from the picture. Who needs God, if we, humans have God-like power or technology?

remember, im not, nor are any of us really empiricists. advanced technology, implies to the empiricist, a ‘physical’ technology like a laser, or a microwave oven. to us it only implies a process more advanced than we currently understand. which is why i try to use the word ‘process’, when speaking to empiricists.

If that “sufficiently advanced technology” is unattainable for us, then it is still magic, and will stay magic forever.

i dont think the premise follows the conclusion here, there is no quality of unattainability that makes an unknown process ‘magic’.

Clarke’s law does NOT say that anything, that “looks like” magic, must be the result of a sufficiently advanced technology.

no, it doesnt, but as i dont believe in magic, i dont see any other option.

Undoubtedly. But in a logical chain A->B->C “B” is both necessary and contingent based upon the chain we look at. The dichotomy of necessary/contingent is only meaningful “locally”.

we can, and do extend the chain from , cogito ergo sum, all the way back to the necessary being. that was only a local example.

what you point to though, is the problem with claims of a regress of an infinite chain of contingent beings. is is essentiually a claim that all beings are necessary.

Well, that is a legitimate question. C-existence is not as simple as straightforward as P-existence. P-existence is limited in space and time, it is composed of STEM. It is directly (or indirectly) available to the senses (or their extentions).

C-existence is not STEM-based …
To sum it up: “C-existence is the set of mental constructs or abstractions”. Is this what you had in mind?

it seems to me that C doesnt have a seperate existence of its own under that definition. for an empiricist, it would be empirical, only a particular configuration of matter in the brain. otherwise it would seem to be an admission that not all things that exist have physical characteristics.

and if you are saying there can exist things without physical characteristics, then we dont have metaphysical disagreement.

so it seems that C existence and P existence are the same thing. or you are admitting that things may exist without physical characteristics.

Just what is this X-existence supposed to be?

i dont know, i cant define your categories for you. you need to provide the basis for this categorization.

 

[Sarpedon]

Your probably wanted to say “principle”. Yes, the ultimate principle of existence is STEM for the materialists. Space, time, energy and matter. They see no reason to look any further. Everything is explainable - in actuality or potentially - using only the framework of STEM as a basic principle.

Exactly- that’s part of Gilson’s point. Trying to explain everything in light of something particular invariably breaks down because the particular cannot fully encompass the universal. First Abelard tried to explain everything in terms of logic, then Bonaventure in terms of theology, then Descartes in terms of math, Kant in terms of Newtonian physics, Comte in terms of sociology, and now you in terms of STEM. Gilson’s thesis is that whenever someone tries to explain everything in terms of one of these things or methods in the particular, it invariably fails (he goes over this history in his book). Gilson’s argument is that we should not ground everything in some particular thing, but rather the experience and intuition of being itself which then illumines the other disciplines as particular disciplines.

You say that everything is explainable in terms of STEM, but what you really mean is that things are explainable if STEM is and only is true. Just as Bonaventure successfully explained everything in terms of theology, you can successfully explain everything in terms of STEM. The problem is that theology and STEM are in the particular and they are not explained themselves. That’s why we need to look further for our metaphysical principal, and Gilson argues that we can only find the principal in the intuition of being itself and not in the particulated form of being. In practice, this means we should be careful about drawing epistemological constraints around ourselves unnecessarily.

Internet philosophy discussions rarely go well because a lot of people do not know that they are talking about on all sides. That’s why I’d suggest you read Gilson and other professional philosophers for a professional perspective on the Catholic philosophical tradition. At the very least, I would hope you would not form your perspective of Catholicism on an internet forum.

 

[R_Daneel]

as we dont divide existence this way, you will need to provide your own definition for X-existence. i cant tell you what your categories mean if you are not looking to meet a certain standard.

Well, that is one way to resolve the question. There is only physical existence and conceptual existence, and nothing else. Works for me.

having seen your reply to sarpedon, this might be a more fruitful area of discussion. STEM doesnt answer a number of questions. namely

1. free will
2. self awareness
3. STEMs’ existence

What do you mean by “does not answer”? Just what is the question that you say it does not “answer”?

no, it doesnt, but as i dont believe in magic, i dont see any other option.

I don’t believe in magic either. Therefore I don’t believe in resurrection, walking on water, healing with “lay on hands”… etc. These are in direct contradiction to the laws of nature (as we know them). And when it comes to believing something, I am not inclined to believe unsupported assertions - especially if they are contradicted by the evidence, that we know.

And one more time: Clarke’s law only says that to an ignorant person a an advanced technology is not understandable. It does not say, nor does it imply that “everything” is possible if the technology is advanced enough. So stop using the Clarke’s law as an excuse to “explain” the miracles in the Bible. Not even your peers accept your reasoning.

what you point to though, is the problem with claims of a regress of an infinite chain of contingent beings. is is essentiually a claim that all beings are necessary.

What I claim is that the dichotomy is meaningless “globally”.

it seems to me that C doesnt have a seperate existence of its own under that definition. for an empiricist, it would be empirical, only a particular configuration of matter in the brain. otherwise it would seem to be an admission that not all things that exist have physical characteristics.

and if you are saying there can exist things without physical characteristics, then we dont have metaphysical disagreement.

so it seems that C existence and P existence are the same thing. or you are admitting that things may exist without physical characteristics.

The concepts themselves are not phyisical objects. The concept of “two” is not a physical object. The actvity of “walking” is not a physical object. Not everything is a physical object. The distance between phtsical objects is not a physical object. There are objects, and there are their attributes. The attributes are not objects. It is pretty clear to me.

 

[R_Daneel]

You say that everything is explainable in terms of STEM, but what you really mean is that things are explainable if STEM is and only is true. Just as Bonaventure successfully explained everything in terms of theology, you can successfully explain everything in terms of STEM.

Well, first I need to amend. I was hasty when I used the term “everything”. Stupid of me, but I was still half-asleep. It is not an excuse, of course. No one can explain a nonsensical question, like “what is to the north of the North Pole?”. Then there are questions like: “what is the purpose of diamond being hard and charcoal being soft?”. Or “why is three more than two?”. There are many nonsensical questions out there, and they do not require an asnwer.

Now there might be some very interesting problems, which may be incredibly hard to crack. For example: “what is humor and why do some people lack a sense of humor?”. Or, “how come that some people are ticklish, and others are not?”. Or, “what is the reason that Joe likes tall, slim and blue eyed girls; while Bob likes short, chubby and brown eyed ones?”. There might be no answer to such questions, I don’t know. The answer may be some very complicated and elusive configuration of the brain, or some genetic cause, or something else entirely.

The point is that the materialist / empiricist will never be satisfied with the “goddidit” answer. They will keep on looking for a natural explanation. That is hardly a self-limiting attitude, is it?

The problem is that theology and STEM are in the particular and they are not explained themselves.

This is a pivotal point. What do you mean that STEM does not explain itself? What kind of explanation is missing there?

That’s why we need to look further for our metaphysical principal, and Gilson argues that we can only find the principal in the intuition of being itself and not in the particulated form of being. In practice, this means we should be careful about drawing epistemological constraints around ourselves unnecessarily.

This “being itself” is STEM as far as I am concerned. You know there is something very funny, if you compare the materialist and the theist.

Materialist: STEM needs no explanation, STEM simply exists.
Theist: God needs no explanation. God simply exists.

So similar, aren’t they? So why do I choose STEM? Because it can be observed, studied and tested. Why do I discard God? Because God cannot be observed, studied and tested. Even the idea of “testing” God is considered blasphemous. (So, who limits himself?)

And there is another reason. If I “limit” myself to STEM and find an explanation, then I gained actual knowledge. If I don’t find an explanation, I can persevere, and hopefully I will find an explanation. But the “explanation” of “goddidit” is actually the antithesis of an explanation. It can be translated to: “an unknowable being, using unknowable means, made it somehow happen”. So it goes not give any kind of knowledge. It is the admission of defeat, of not having an explanation.

No wonder that actual scientists, no matter how deeply religious they are, never use the null-hypothesis: “goddidit”. That is never an option for a scientist. There are many outstanding scientists, who are also devout Christians. In their own field of study they always follow the footsteps of Laplace, who said: “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”. (Napoleon asked him why does he not mention God in his book about the movement of celestial bodies). So, when it comes to their own field of study, all these excellent Christian scientists behave as if they were staunch empiricists / materialists. Makes one wonder, no?

Internet philosophy discussions rarely go well because a lot of people do not know that they are talking about on all sides. That’s why I’d suggest you read Gilson and other professional philosophers for a professional perspective on the Catholic philosophical tradition. At the very least, I would hope you would not form your perspective of Catholicism on an internet forum.

Correct. And I don’t want to make that mistake.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, first I need to amend. I was hasty when I used the term “everything”. Stupid of me, but I was still half-asleep. It is not an excuse, of course. No one can explain a nonsensical question, like “what is to the north of the North Pole?”. Then there are questions like: “what is the purpose of diamond being hard and charcoal being soft?”. Or “why is three more than two?”. There are many nonsensical questions out there, and they do not require an asnwer.

What about a question like this: why is it that contradictory things cannot be true, like being north of the north pole? Things are much more complicated that you are making them out to be.

The point is that the materialist / empiricist will never be satisfied with the “goddidit” answer. They will keep on looking for a natural explanation. That is hardly a self limiting attitude, is it?

But see, true philosophers are not satisfied with the “it happened naturally” response either. Philosophers are trying to get to the root of all knowledge and truth. Gilson is not saying “goddit” by any means. Gilson is pointing out that saying “goddit” and “we observed it” are both in the particular. Gilson identifies the error of trying to ground metaphysics in a particular discipline alone, whether that be “goddit” (the mistake of Bonaventure, which takes up an entire chapter in his book) or “we observed it,” or any of the other things he identifies.

This is a pivotal point. What do you mean that STEM does not explain itself? What kind of explanation is missing there?

STEM does not explain itself because it does not explain its own existence in a non-particular form . Sure, we can posit the simple reality of STEM as a particular, but that isn’t the same as answering the fundamental metaphysical question of how and why things are what they are. Gilson argues that we ought to accept the intuition of being as the fundamental metaphysical principal. Moving on from there, we then observe STEM as a distinct and particular manifestation of that being. We intuit being in several different ways, and STEM is just one of them. To stop at explaining everything in terms of STEM is stopping too soon and arbitrarily.

Theist: God needs no explanation. God simply exists.

Nothing I have said has been particularly theistic at all. Granted, I would eventually deduce God, but that has nothing to do with what I have been summarizing thus far. You say you accept STEM because you can “test” it, but why do you accept your testing ability in the first place? You’re simply substituting things in the particular. Gilson argues that the intuition of being ought to be the fundamental principal because the intution of being is something that cannot be limited to the particular. We are metaphysical creatures, and we cannot conceive of absolute nonbeing. Both the “goddit” and “we observe it” methods are incomplete on their own. They are rooted in the intuition of being, and that’s why your epistemology is incomplete. I’m only summarizing here, Gilson’s book does a much more in depth explanation of this.

No wonder that actual scientists, no matter how deeply religious they are, never use the null-hypothesis: “goddidit”.

Both “goddit” and “we observed it” fall prey to the exactly same mistake that Gilson identifies- trying to ground metaphysics in the domain of a particular discipline. Both of those approaches on their own, as the final explanation, are utterly inadequate.

 

[bdelykleon]

Actually, no. No one says that everything comes DIRECTLY from the senses. No one ever saw a unicorn. But people have seen horses, people have seen antlers, and they combined the two concepts to arrive at a new concept.

Concepts have their own hierarchy. Some are reflections on the physical world. This is the primary level. Some are abstractions and generalizations of the physical world. Others are fully imaginary. (This list is not exhaustive).

You didn’t answer my question. It is purely misleading to say that

1. since unicorns are created in an abstract level
2. anything not sensible is created in the same manner.

This inference cannot be made. Actually, unicorns DEPEND on senses to “exist”, but numbers (or four-dimensional prismas, or anything in mathematcs) do have a non sensible existence. And most philosophers (starting long ago with Kant) agree that some (if not most) knowledge is a priori. And most recently, several cognitive scientists and linguists agree in several a priori knowledges.

Math is the clearest of this examples, you don’t need 20,736 stones to prove the result of 144^2.

 

[R_Daneel]

What about a question like this: why is it that contradictory things cannot be true, like being north of the north pole?

Actually, this is not a logical contradiction, it is a physical absurdity. At the North Pole only the direction “south” **can **be defined. None of the others can.

But see, true philosophers are not satisfied with the “it happened naturally” response either. Philosophers are trying to get to the root of all knowledge and truth.

That is nice. However, the mere presumption of “truth” presupposes that there is a way to separate “true” and “false” statement. Without that presumption the whole concept falls apart. And that presupposes a method (epistemology) which can do exactly that - separate the wheat from the chaff. Without a viable epistemology there is no root, there is no truth, there is no coherent way of issuing a proposition.

STEM does not explain itself because it does not explain its own existence in a non-particular form . Sure, we can posit the simple reality of STEM as a particular, but that isn’t the same as answering the fundamental metaphysical question of how and why things are what they are.

And that is the ultimate nonsensical question. Things are what they are, and look beyond that is an exercise in fulitility - unless there is a practical reason to do so. Wheat is wheat. One can ask the question of "how to develop a wheat with better yield, or more resistent to bugs or disease. But to ask something like “why is wheat what it is, and why is it different from rice” - is an irrelevant question. Metaphysics is simply empty speculation - nothing more, nothing less.

Gilson argues that we ought to accept the intuition of being as the fundamental metaphysical principal.

I don’t understand this. What is the meaning of “being” here? Is it a synonym for “existence”? Or is it the synonym of “existing entity”? I have no idea.

You say you accept STEM because you can “test” it, but why do you accept your testing ability in the first place?

And this is bringing skepticism way too far. I am firm supporter of two very basic principles - the duck principle and the pudding principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck - then it is a duck. (This is metaphysics). Also: the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. (This is epistemology). Extremely simplfied, of course.

Our testing ability developed through trial and error. Those who lacked the ability to distinguish between a prey and a predator soon “weeded out” themselves from the gene pool. They wagered their life and came up among the losers. That is why I trust our “testing ability” - because it works, without resorting to metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. (A joke: “Scientists worked out that the size of the wing and the body proportions of the bumble-bee make it unable to fly. The bumble-bee is unaware of this discovery, and keeps on flying happily.”)

Gilson argues that the intuition of being ought to be the fundamental principal because the intution of being is something that cannot be limited to the particular.

Generelization is wonderful. But the more general we are, the less we can say meaningfully about it. Bringing it to the extreme (as Gilson seems to do) one can say nothing meaningful about it.

Both of those approaches on their own, as the final explanation, are utterly inadequate.

Well, I simply must share an old joke with you. "Philosophy is like a man in a totally dark room, chasing a black cat. Theistic philosophy is like a man in a totally dark room, chasing a nonexistent black cat. And Christian philospohy is like a man in a totally dark room chasing a nonexistent black cat, while shouting out: “I got it, I got it, I got it”. (If you feel offended, replace theistic philosophy with materialistic philosophy and Christian philosophy with Marxist philosophy. At least from one of them you will get a chuckle - I hope.)

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Those doctors said they have loads of stories of prayer working for patients.

God said, if I remember correctly, he was hidden from the learned and the wise and revealed himself to those simple souls, like little children.
Do you think, conversely, that you could test for the devils existance with a similar test. Are these subjects being tested actually superintelligences well able for puny human tests. I do not think you will back God into a corner with a test-tube and beaker.

I also notice you are drawing away from the original point R Daneel said, he would try anything we suggested to acquire knowledge. My suggestion was study and prayer. It applies to you also, you could try study and prayer yourself as it falls well within R Daneels acceptable requirements for taking action.

You claimed prayer was a method of aquiring knowledge, i am showing you evidence that confirms prayer does not work. Like i said in my first post…

People that believe in prayer are either ignorant of, or have closed their minds from, the evidence.

 

[R_Daneel]

You didn’t answer my question. It is purely misleading to say that

1. since unicorns are created in an abstract level
2. anything not sensible is created in the same manner.

This inference cannot be made.

Too vague, not sure what you mean here. I don’t even know what inference is assumed here.

Actually, unicorns DEPEND on senses to “exist”, but numbers (or four-dimensional prismas, or anything in mathematcs) do have a non sensible existence. And most philosophers (starting long ago with Kant) agree that some (if not most) knowledge is a priori. And most recently, several cognitive scientists and linguists agree in several a priori knowledges.

Math is the clearest of this examples, you don’t need 20,736 stones to prove the result of 144^2.

Numbers are the ultimate abstractions of reality. No one ever “saw” a one or a two. When one disregards all the specific attributes of a set of objects, then only one thing remains: “how many objects are there”. Yes, the positive integers are firmly rooted in the senses. Now, all the rest, fractions, negative numbers, irrational numbers, complex numbers, vectors, matrices are extentions of those positive integers.

 

[grannymh]

People that believe in prayer are either ignorant of, or have closed their minds from, the evidence.

Closed minds – opened souls.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, that is one way to resolve the question. There is only physical existence and conceptual existence, and nothing else. Works for me.

you can define it null, if you wish, but you still have the curiosity of C existence. which i will dress below.

What do you mean by “does not answer”? Just what is the question that you say it does not “answer”?

as it doesnt meet the requirement of the PSR. no sufficient reason for these things to happen.

I don’t believe in magic either. Therefore I don’t believe in resurrection, walking on water, healing with “lay on hands”… etc. These are in direct contradiction to the laws of nature (as we know them). And when it comes to believing something, I am not inclined to believe unsupported assertions - especially if they are contradicted by the evidence, that we know.

your simply equating these events with magic, because you dont understand how they may have happened. this is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of incredulity. a subset of the argument from ignorance.

And one more time: Clarke’s law only says that to an ignorant person a an advanced technology is not understandable.

as the march of science shows, we are all ignorant of advanced knowledge, in fact we can only talk about advanced knowledge, by acknowledging or ignorance of it. we right now are ignorant in view the knowledge we might acquire in 10, 100, or even 1,000 years from now.

many science based worldviews, assume that we have reached a static position to some extent, where we might say that this, or that event is impossible. yet the march off science shows that idea to be utterly false.

It does not say, nor does it imply that “everything” is possible if the technology is advanced enough. So stop using the Clarke’s law as an excuse to “explain” the miracles in the Bible.

im not claiming that it says ‘everything is possible’. im using it to show that any event we claim is ‘impossible’ by our current understanding, is possibly the result of an advanced process.

but is most definitely, not, the nonexistent magic.

Not even your peers accept your reasoning.

please. name. names.

What I claim is that the dichotomy is meaningless “globally”.

you had said locally, but ok, why do you think it is meaningless globally?

The concepts themselves are not phyisical objects. The concept of “two” is not a physical object. The actvity of “walking” is not a physical object. Not everything is a physical object. The distance between phtsical objects is not a physical object. There are objects, and there are their attributes. The attributes are not objects. It is pretty clear to me.

there are 2 issues here that occur to me.

1. by admitting that things exist without physical characteristics, what rational basis do you have to restrict them solely ‘mental concepts’? it seems to me that if they can exist without physical characteristics, then there is no way to restrict them to ‘mental concepts’
2. from an empiricist view, ‘2’, ‘walking’, and ‘distance’ are all simply configurations of matter in the brain, an electron transiting here, dopamine shooting across a neural gap there, and so on. meaning they have a physical existence, when we are thinking about them, and thats it. in this case C existence is P existence.

so, i dont see how you can justify C existence without folding it into P existence, or in the alternative, opening it to any being without physical characteristics.

for my money, P, C, and X existence, are all the same existence and these particular categories arent going to stand up to scrutiny. but we have yet to see.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Closed minds – opened souls.

have you ever heard this phrase?

'their mind was so open, their brain fell out?

’

 

[Sarpedon]

Actually, this is not a logical contradiction, it is a physical absurdity. At the North Pole only the direction “south” **can **be defined. None of the others can.

Why is physical absurdity wrong? You’re simply substituting philosophical ideas here. I am not actually asking you to answer this, I am merely pointing out that your own position is far more philosophical than you seem to acknowledge.

And that is the ultimate nonsensical question. Things are what they are, and look beyond that is an exercise in fulitility - unless there is a practical reason to do so. Wheat is wheat. One can ask the question of "how to develop a wheat with better yield, or more resistent to bugs or disease. But to ask something like “why is wheat what it is, and why is it different from rice” - is an irrelevant question. Metaphysics is simply empty speculation - nothing more, nothing less.

Metaphysics doesn’t look beyond the true nature of things. On the contrary, metaphysics is fully concerned with the true nature of things. The problem is that knowing the true nature of things is not as simple as you make it seem. Sure, you say “wheat is wheat.” Why? Because you observed it? Why is your observation a valid epistemological method? What are its limits and extents? Are there other methods of knowing? What are their extents? If we observe correlations, can we trace those correlations back to anything? Do things exist in a connected web or as individuals? You are acting as if philosophy were as simple as just saying “wheat is wheat.” It’s way more complex than that.

And this is bringing skepticism way too far. I am firm supporter of two very basic principles - the duck principle and the pudding principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck - then it is a duck. (This is metaphysics). Also: the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. (This is epistemology). Extremely simplfied, of course.

It’s also simple to say “Jesus loves you.” Such simplicity is not necessarily good. While a fundamentalist Christian might simplify things through theologism, you are just simplifying things through a blend of materialism and pragmatism, per your post. The debate is firmly set amongst and between philosophies, and there is no getting out of it. Of course, the philosophy I am arguing for condemns the fundamentalist Christian’s position as vigorously and yours.

Our testing ability developed through trial and error. Those who lacked the ability to distinguish between a prey and a predator soon “weeded out” themselves from the gene pool. They wagered their life and came up among the losers. That is why I trust our “testing ability” - because it works, without resorting to metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. (A joke: “Scientists worked out that the size of the wing and the body proportions of the bumble-bee make it unable to fly. The bumble-bee is unaware of this discovery, and keeps on flying happily.”)

This is totally based in science. I’m talking about science as a method, not the conclusions of science. Everything you said above is irrelevant to the philosophical question of the limits and extents of science as a method, and the existence of other methods.

Generelization is wonderful. But the more general we are, the less we can say meaningfully about it. Bringing it to the extreme (as Gilson seems to do) one can say nothing meaningful about it.

But we can’t say anything at all if everything is particular, because then there is nothing that unites the particular. You are taking it just as far as Gilson, but your are just substituting STEM for the intuition of being.

Well, I simply must share an old joke with you. "Philosophy is like a man in a totally dark room, chasing a black cat. Theistic philosophy is like a man in a totally dark room, chasing a nonexistent black cat. And Christian philospohy is like a man in a totally dark room chasing a nonexistent black cat, while shouting out: “I got it, I got it, I got it”. (If you feel offended, replace theistic philosophy with materialistic philosophy and Christian philosophy with Marxist philosophy. At least from one of them you will get a chuckle - I hope.)

I’m not offended, my any means However, making a joke about the uselessness of philosophy is philosophy too. Saying that philosophy isn’t useful is in fact philosophy about truth and value! That proves the necessity of philosophy more than anything else.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t understand this. What is the meaning of “being” here? Is it a synonym for “existence”? Or is it the synonym of “existing entity”? I have no idea.

Gilson is talking about our realization of being as something intelligible (knowable). In other words, we can understand that there is something intrinsically intelligible. Moving on from there, we can examine the different ways that such being becomes intelligible to us. These different ways become the different disciplines, such as science. In short, we know of intelligibility before we know of scientific intelligibility. Gilson’s point is that when we substitute a particular manifestation of intelligibility as intelligibility itself, such an approach fails to satisfy knowledge because we know of intelligibility that is not defined by the particular manifestation of that intelligibility. Through historical analysis, Gilson shows how whenever someone upholds the particular intelligible as the intuitive intelligible, people become discouraged by the resultant failure of philosophy to answer important questions and therefore people grow tired of philosophy. This cycle has happened many times, because people keep making the same mistake. Under his analysis, your disdain of philosophy is completely predicable and not surprising at all.

I feel like we can’t have an effective dialog because I can’t adequately summarize his entire argument in these posts, and otherwise we are simply talking past each other. I’d encourage you to read Gilson if you want to get a more professional view of philosophy than presented on these boards.

 

[Thing]

You claimed prayer was a method of aquiring knowledge, i am showing you evidence that confirms prayer does not work. Like i said in my first post…

People that believe in prayer are either ignorant of, or have closed their minds from, the evidence.

No, you’ve proved that 1. prayer works better than you thought, absolutely everyone recovered. and, 2. God outsmarted the scientists again.

 

[R_Daneel]

you can define it null, if you wish, but you still have the curiosity of C existence. which i will dress below.

To clarify: I don’t define it null and void. I am allowing this other kind of existence (which I called X-existence for the sake of simplicity), which is neither physical nor conceptual. I have no idea, just what it might be, and looks like that you don’t know it either. Which is cool. In that case our mutual conclusion should be: either God does not exist, or God is only a concept. As I said, this resolution is perfectly fine by me.

as it doesnt meet the requirement of the PSR. no sufficient reason for these things to happen.

That would rest on the definition of what is “sufficient”. What is sufficient for me, might not be sufficient for you - and of course, vice-versa.

your simply equating these events with magic, because you dont understand how they may have happened. this is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of incredulity. a subset of the argument from ignorance.

Actually, I admit that I don’t know a way to bring forth these events. You don’t know how to make them happen either. In a sense, this is an impasse. However, I see no “sufficient reason” to accept their existence. You might see differently. See, how fluid the PSR is?

as the march of science shows, we are all ignorant of advanced knowledge, in fact we can only talk about advanced knowledge, by acknowledging or ignorance of it. we right now are ignorant in view the knowledge we might acquire in 10, 100, or even 1,000 years from now.

many science based worldviews, assume that we have reached a static position to some extent, where we might say that this, or that event is impossible. yet the march off science shows that idea to be utterly false.

Certainly agreed. It happened so many times that scientists declared that “now” we know everything, though there may be a few, unimportant issues to clarify - and they were completely wrong. To you this means that science is not reliable, to me it means that science is flexible and keeps getting better and better in explaining the nature of the universe.

im not claiming that it says ‘everything is possible’. im using it to show that any event we claim is ‘impossible’ by our current understanding, is possibly the result of an advanced process.

but is most definitely, not, the nonexistent magic.

Now, here is the 16,000 dollar question: how do you decide that of all the “seemingly” impossible events, which are the ones that are really impossible, and which are the ones that might be possible? I will answer for you: there is no way to tell them apart.

So to say that “this” claim will be proved to be possible and “that” claim will not be - is a futile endeavor, until it happens. The best strategy in such cases: to bet that if something seems impossible, then tentatively we declare it impossible, while keeping an open mind to change our preconceived ideas, and accept the fact that we were wrong.

you had said locally, but ok, why do you think it is meaningless globally?

By locally I meant that in a specific case something might be “necessary” in “this” relationship, while it will be contingent in “that” relationship. (Grandfather, father and son. The father was contingent on the grandfather, and necessary in regard to the son.) By globally I mean that there is no “necessary” existence, unless one considers STEM as existing necessarily - which is pretty trivial.

1. by admitting that things exist without physical characteristics, what rational basis do you have to restrict them solely ‘mental concepts’? it seems to me that if they can exist without physical characteristics, then there is no way to restrict them to ‘mental concepts’

Right on the money! This is precisely what I did, when I introduced X-existence. Something that is neither physical, nor just conceptual. But you declined to define it any further. It is not reasonable to say that X-existence is not this and it is not that. One cannot define something in a purely negative manner. What something is “not” is insufficient - it has to be established what it “is”.

Continued below… the 6000 character limit bites again.

 

[R_Daneel]

1. from an empiricist view, ‘2’, ‘walking’, and ‘distance’ are all simply configurations of matter in the brain, an electron transiting here, dopamine shooting across a neural gap there, and so on. meaning they have a physical existence, when we are thinking about them, and thats it. in this case C existence is P existence.

so, i dont see how you can justify C existence without folding it into P existence, or in the alternative, opening it to any being without physical characteristics.

No, this is not correct. The actual physical activity (walking); the actual physical relationship (distance) and the actual physical property of the number of the objects (two) all are part of the physical reality - even though they are not physical objects. It would be an error to restrict physical reality to physical objects - no empiricist does that. The attributes, the relationships and acitivities are all part of physical reality - even though they are not physical objects themselves.

Now all these actual, physical objects, attributes, activities and relationships are reflected by our thinking. The thoughts themselves are the results of neurons firings and chemical activities. What they “mean” is a different matter. To illustrate this I am using the analogy of computers. In the computer there are circuits, there are “zeros” and “ones”, and nothing else. What those zeros and ones represent (what they mean) is not physical, it is conceptual. The very same zeros and ones sometimes represent a mathematical solution of a problem, sometimes represent the solution of a decision making algorithm, or whatever. The zeros and ones can mean anything, depending on the problem at hand.

for my money, P, C, and X existence, are all the same existence and these particular categories arent going to stand up to scrutiny. but we have yet to see.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

No, you’ve proved that 1. prayer works better than you thought, absolutely everyone recovered. and, 2. God outsmarted the scientists again.

Well isn’t that weird given that not all of them were prayed for. I have proven one thing… You are not very good at analysis data.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

God outsmarted the scientists again.

As for this lol, what planet are you living on. God is constantly getting licked by scientists.

God bring the plague, we now bring antibiotics.

God brings famine, we now bring the haber process.

God brings earth quakes, we now have earth quake proof buildings.

and so on…

He must be raging with us…

 

[grannymh]

As for this lol, what planet are you living on. God is constantly getting licked by scientists.

God bring the plague, we now bring antibiotics.

God brings famine, we now bring the haber process.

God brings earth quakes, we now have earth quake proof buildings.

and so on…

He must be raging with us…

When was it that you interviewed God to get this lowdown?