Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[R_Daneel]

I’m sorry if your English reading skills are lacking.

This is the type of condescending remark I was referring to. Not that it matters, but I have lived in the States for the last 28 years of my life, and in the office I was the only person who did not need a dictionary on my shelf, and the other guys asked me to proofread their materials. And they were not uneducated people either, rather highly qualified DP professionals. So much for your “analytical skills” and making valid deductions from my remarks.

As for your comment about “utter sheer nonsense”, you were close to saying something accurate when you wrote: “though of course the expectations and wishful thinking of some people influences the current attitude of those people.” More accurately, the expectations of each person - including but not limited to their “wishful thinking” - profoundly influences the current attitude of each person. This is obviously what the pope was talking about and your claim that it is “utter sheer nonsense” is itself obviously utter sheer nonsense.

Actually, this part is not nonsense, it is trivial. Of course everyone has goals and those goals influence our decision making process. DUH! But only an idiot believes that those goals are already realized; as the Pope said: “The fact that this future exists changes the present…” and “the present is touched by the future reality”, and also “constitutes for us a ‘proof’ of the things that are still unseen” is what I call nonsense. The future does not exist - yet. There is no “proof” that the future will turn out to be as we “hope for”.

p.s.: just for fun I’ll guess that your first language is… Polish?

No. So you guessed incorrectly again, and you are now deprived of the possibility of making some inane “Polish” joke. Too bad, ain’t it? But that reminds me of old question. Which is the only word in the English language which cannot be correctly pronouced if written in all capital letters?

 

[AntiTheist]

There hasn’t been one [demonstration that any psychic powers at all are real in any way] yet. But if you find only white ducks, this does not mean that there are no black ones.

Sure, but if there have been people for thousands and thousands of years claiming that black ducks exist and not a single person has produced a shred of sufficient evidence for the existence of a black duck – and the only people who claim that black ducks exist do it on the basis of experiences that strongly resemble techniques that people use to fake the appearance of black ducks – then I’d say we should not accept the claim that black ducks exist until some good evidence does appear. And, frankly, if there’s been no good evidence for that long, I’d be ok with tentatively concluding that there are no black ducks.

Look, let’s say that you make the claim that reindeer can fly. Ok, so we go and test it: we go up to a very high rooftop with a whole bunch of reindeer and push one off. Splat. Ok, that one didn’t fly, you say, but that doesn’t prove it’s impossible! So we push off another. And another. And another. Splat, splat, splat. Ok, you say, those three didn’t fly either, but that doesn’t disprove the claim that there is a reindeer out there that can fly. And that’s perfectly correct. So we continue to splat these reindeer one at a time. And, of course, that doesn’t prove that there are no reindeer that can fly – it only demonstrates that that particular herd could not fly.

So we test several more herds, and still no positive results. No reindeer has ever tested positive for the ability, and everything we know about reindeer suggests that it’s physiologically impossible…but hey, we do have all of that anecdotal testimony evidence of people claiming to see reindeer fly…there are even songs about it!

Back to reality now: I know that reindeer can’t fly. When I say that I know something, all I mean is that I am very, very sure of something based on evidence – I’m not claiming any kind of absolute certainty, and I’ll happily reverse my conclusion if some new evidence becomes available…but based on the evidence we do have, the only conclusion is that reindeer can’t fly.

This is a prime problem with this Matrix-mongering: once you start pretending that there’s no real world and that everything’s a matter of faith and “you can’t prove anything for certain, so it could be possible!”, you give up any ability you have to actually know things about the world.

 

[AntiTheist]

Doh! Beg the question much? You ask these general questions and give these general answers and they feel great to you, they just feel right, right?

No, they don’t “feel right” – they’re actually correct. Whether you like it or not, it’s possible to be wrong about the world. It’s possible, for example, to be wrong about your conclusion that the page in front of your face contains no typos, and it’s possible to be wrong about something that you thought you saw out of the corner of your eye, and it’s possible to be wrong about your conclusion that the nice man who took your money was really communicating with the spirit of your great-great-grandfather.

You do admit it’s possible to be wrong about these things, don’t you? When I say “The Real World,” I’m just talking about the world that it’s possible to be wrong about. That’s it – I’m not making metaphysical claims about that world.

I know it feels really good to construct your own reality where everyone can be right and everyone has their little “faith” and – hey, who knows – maybe everyone’s got their own reality and in “their reality” psychic powers are real, and it’s not real in “your reality” because you don’t have their faith or experiences. And gee golly gee whiz, nobody’s ever wrong because there’s no reality to be wrong about, and we should all just give each other a big group hug and accept that different people have different faiths and there’s no way to tell who’s right or wrong, so let’s all wander around in a fog and be equally ignorant until the end of time.

You’re free to adopt this “philosophy” if you want, but there are those of us who live in the real world, who have actual knowledge, and think that this Matrix “philosophy” is nothing more than a puerile, pre-pubescent pining for “another world” where the losers of this world aren’t losers after all.

 

[mcteague]

What is groundless about it is that what you claim to simply ‘recognize’ is not obvious, i.e., needs to be grounded. Your so-called ‘recognition’ itself is groundless. It seems obvious that what you ‘recognize’ does not apply to the argument in question.

Perhaps we are just having a problem of communication. Of course challenging an assumption or premise is valid and useful in argumentation. I am perfectly willing to accept that everything I perceive and believe to be real might not be. But it is just impossible to have a rational discussion without accepting that it is. At least for the sake of the argument. Try having a discussion where no one is willing to accept a single premise. Even for example that they exist, or there is existence. Maybe I am just dense, but it is hard to see how to engage in that conversation. As I have already said the matrix idea is passingly interesting, and it is a worthwhile conception to have. But it leads completely self indulgent speculation not argument.
Leaving aside the matrix example, which is so extreme as to be absurd (but admittedly fun), you still have to allow certain premises to engage in argument. This is true even if we are simply laying our objection on the side for the moment. So for example, if you are an atheist arguing for an action based on utilitarianism, and I am a fundamentalist Christian who believes the only true knowledge is from the bible. Can we really discuss your argument if the only discussion we can have is whether God exists?
Let me modify a similar line from Henry Drumond in “Inherit the wind”.
Its an interesting question, but it’s not the only question. The matrix argument is not sufficiently interesting to warrant extended discourse among rational persons. And it is certainly not worth getting upset over. It does have some value and it particularly appeals to undergrads and bright high school students. But after a while, it is just not that useful.
It actually kind of boring.

 

[Betterave]

This is the type of condescending remark I was referring to. Not that it matters, but I have lived in the States for the last 28 years of my life, and in the office I was the only person who did not need a dictionary on my shelf, and the other guys asked me to proofread their materials. And they were not uneducated people either, rather highly qualified DP professionals. So much for your “analytical skills” and making valid deductions from my remarks.

What’s a DP professional? Delusional parasitosis? My so-called ‘valid deduction’ took the form of a disjunction, smart-guy. If you rule out one disjunct (and I’m not sure you’ve done that), that still leaves the other.

Actually, this part is not nonsense, it is trivial. Of course everyone has goals and those goals influence our decision making process. DUH!

So long as you admit that you were wrong before, that your “utter, sheer nonsense” comment was just that (and that my observation about your reading skills apparently was in fact more justified than you care to admit)!

But only an idiot believes that those goals are already realized; as the Pope said: “The fact that this future exists changes the present…” and “the present is touched by the future reality”, and also “constitutes for us a ‘proof’ of the things that are still unseen” is what I call nonsense. The future does not exist - yet. There is no “proof” that the future will turn out to be as we “hope for”.

Ah, yes: only an idiot. Maybe you should get someone with some common sense to proof-read your posts. Perhaps only an idiot would so badly misinterpret the pope’s comments as to understand them in a sense that only an idiot would believe?

In any case, setting aside your ignorant editorializing, is there really no sense in which the future already exists? I think you’re forgetting that P-existence (‘physical existence’), as you have called in the past, is not the only kind of existence. If you keep that in mind (I’m not sure how you managed to forget it), isn’t your claim that “the future does not exist,” in the context here, obviously false? Even with regard to P-existence, most people (as in scientists!) think that the present already contains the future (that’s kind of what the notion inductive laws implies!, i.e., pretty basic stuff as far as science and scientific method goes!).

So

No. So you guessed incorrectly again, and you are now deprived of the possibility of making some inane “Polish” joke. Too bad, ain’t it? But that reminds me of old question. Which is the only word in the English language which cannot be correctly pronouced if written in all capital letters?

Sorry, I don’t know any Polish jokes (I guess you guessed incorrectly this time ). I don’t know the answer to your “old question” either. What is it? And if you don’t mind sharing, I’m genuinely interested in what languages you speak.

 

[Betterave]

Perhaps we are just having a problem of communication. Of course challenging an assumption or premise is valid and useful in argumentation. I am perfectly willing to accept that everything I perceive and believe to be real might not be. But it is just impossible to have a rational discussion without accepting that it is. At least for the sake of the argument. Try having a discussion where no one is willing to accept a single premise. Even for example that they exist, or there is existence. Maybe I am just dense, but it is hard to see how to engage in that conversation. As I have already said the matrix idea is passingly interesting, and it is a worthwhile conception to have. But it leads completely self indulgent speculation not argument.
Leaving aside the matrix example, which is so extreme as to be absurd (but admittedly fun), you still have to allow certain premises to engage in argument. This is true even if we are simply laying our objection on the side for the moment. So for example, if you are an atheist arguing for an action based on utilitarianism, and I am a fundamentalist Christian who believes the only true knowledge is from the bible. Can we really discuss your argument if the only discussion we can have is whether God exists?
Let me modify a similar line from Henry Drumond in “Inherit the wind”.
Its an interesting question, but it’s not the only question. The matrix argument is not sufficiently interesting to warrant extended discourse among rational persons. And it is certainly not worth getting upset over. It does have some value and it particularly appeals to undergrads and bright high school students. But after a while, it is just not that useful.
It actually kind of boring.

Maybe you could directly answer my questions then (as far as I can tell you’ve just ignored them):

“What exactly is groundless about recognizing that a framework where no premise can be accepted ** - how is that the case?]** is one where rational discussion is impossible?
Once this, as I said, passingly interesting, idea about the possibility of nothing being real is articulated all that can be done is repeat it in various forms.
If you think I am being anti-young; I am not. It is simply a fact that this kind of thinking appeals primarily to young people.
There is value in questioning basic premises. These ideas have some use. But they can not, by their very nature, lead anywhere ** - mightn’t they at least lead us to a better knowledge of our own basic premisses? - that’s pretty significant, isn’t it?]**.”

 

[Betterave]

No, they don’t “feel right” – they’re actually correct.

LOL! If they’re actually correct, why don’t they feel right? How DO they feel? Wrong??

Whether you like it or not, it’s possible to be wrong about the world. [BUT I DO LIKE IT! ] It’s possible, for example, to be wrong about your conclusion that the page in front of your face contains no typos, and it’s possible to be wrong about something that you thought you saw out of the corner of your eye, and it’s possible to be wrong about your conclusion that the nice man who took your money was really communicating with the spirit of your great-great-grandfather.

You do admit it’s possible to be wrong about these things, don’t you?

Of course; what a strange question to ask!

When I say “The Real World,” I’m just talking about the world that it’s possible to be wrong about. That’s it – I’m not making metaphysical claims about that world.

That’s not very informative! Is it possible that your claim, “I’M NOT MAKING METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS ABOUT THE WORLD”, is wrong? (I’ll guess: yes!) What does it even mean?

I know it feels really good to construct your own reality * where everyone can be right and everyone has their little “faith” and – hey, who knows – maybe everyone’s got their own reality and in “their reality” psychic powers are real, and it’s not real in “your reality” because you don’t have their faith or experiences. And gee golly gee whiz, nobody’s ever wrong because there’s no reality to be wrong about, and we should all just give each other a big group hug and accept that different people have different faiths and there’s no way to tell who’s right or wrong, so let’s all wander around in a fog and be equally ignorant until the end of time.*

Hmmm… What are you on about here?..

You’re free to adopt this “philosophy” if you want, but there are those of us who live in the real world, who have actual knowledge, and think that this Matrix “philosophy” is nothing more than a puerile, pre-pubescent pining for “another world” where the losers of this world aren’t losers after all.

…Oh I see: you think that the previous paragraph you wrote represents the “Matrix ‘philosophy’”? Yes, about that: How does any of what you wrote follow from the Matrix argument? Aren’t you in fact constructing your own little reality here? I assure you: you get no group hug from me. Your comments are complete nonsense.

The thing about claims to “actual knowledge” is, they aren’t reliable indicators of actual knowledge (especially if, as you say, your so-called “actual knowledge” doesn’t even “feel right” to you!).

 

[mcteague]

Maybe you could directly answer my questions then (as far as I can tell you’ve just ignored them):

“What exactly is groundless about recognizing that a framework where no premise can be accepted ** - how is that the case?]** is one where rational discussion is impossible?
Once this, as I said, passingly interesting, idea about the possibility of nothing being real is articulated all that can be done is repeat it in various forms.
If you think I am being anti-young; I am not. It is simply a fact that this kind of thinking appeals primarily to young people.
There is value in questioning basic premises. These ideas have some use. But they can not, by their very nature, lead anywhere ** - mightn’t they at least lead us to a better knowledge of our own basic premisses? - that’s pretty significant, isn’t it?]**.”

I have directly answered your question. But I will do so again

The fact that no premises can be accepted should be self evident.
Please make any statement and I will be glad to demonstrate. Well I actually do not have to because I do not concede that you exist.

It can not lead us to better knowledge, because although there is value in questioning premises, when it is carried to the extreme of the matrix argument rational discourse becomes impossible. It is mental masturbation. No argument is possible without conceding some premises. The matrix argument while fun and having some value just can not produce anything.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am definitely not in the position to make statements about the meaning of 2000 years old Greek words. Maybe you are, I don’t know.

I’m no expert, but I’ve got some experience in Greek, particularly with several of these words.

Point number #1: The NT word for “faith”, pistis, does not carry the English connotation that faith is a kind of belief. *Pistis *is NOT a kind of belief, but rather a trust, or perhaps a leaning-on. In Plato, *pistis *meant “conviction” – this is key, because it is a fact about the world that leads you to be convinced, not a fact about your own credulous psychology. In other words, you don’t trust everything, but only what has shown itself to be trustworthy. Paul doesn’t use the word as Plato does, but the externality of the cause of *pistis *is maintained.

Point number #2: The word “substance” in the passage means, in Greek, something more like “undergirding” or “foundation”.

Point number #3: To translate the word “elengchus” as “evidence” is seriously problematic. This is the Greek word for Socrates’ strategy of disarming his opponents with questioning. It is a verbal conviction or reproach, not a physical piece of evidence. “Argument” is a much better translation than “evidence”.

My revised version of Hebrews 11:1, for what it’s worth:

Elicited trust is the foundation of things hoped for, the argument for things unseen.

Once we have relied on God, and seen that He is trustworthy, we have a foundation for our hope that there is forgiveness of sins, that there is a resurrection of the body, etc. This is, interestingly, something like the scientific method: lean on one hypothesis and see if it breaks. If it doesn’t, it may very well be the hypothesis you’ve been looking for.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh, and by way of a reminder, considering where this thread is going: egos are ugly things, and they don’t make for good reading. Let’s stick to our opinions about the faith, not our opinions about one another.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So we test several more herds, and still no positive results. No reindeer has ever tested positive for the ability, and everything we know about reindeer suggests that it’s physiologically impossible…but hey, we do have all of that anecdotal testimony evidence of people claiming to see reindeer fly…there are even songs about it!

Well actually, while many people have had an experience of being abducted by an alien race of beings, not many people, if any, have ever claimed to have seen flying reindeer, and those that do, are usually found to be clinically psychotic. But when you have lots of people, who are otherwise quite rational and trustworthy, make a claim that they where abducted by what appeared to be alien, it should not be treated with ridicule and scorn, and it should not be assumed outright that these people are psychotic, even if you choose to withhold belief.To assume as a principle that any experience that takes us beyond the realm of subjective normality is the object of insanity is not a reasonable premise of rationality.That is not a reasonable scepticism; you evidently have a prejudiced against certain concepts which you hide behind the principles of scepticism. This is made evident in the way that you express yourself.

Also, whether or not one can prove something, it is evidently the case that some concepts are more likely to be true than others and are more reasonable conceptually than others before we begin to analyse the evidence for their existence. That human beings are the object of curiosity by a neighbouring race, is not necessarily impossible, and neither is it conceptually absurd in its first instance as a basic idea.

Back to reality now: I know that reindeer can’t fly. When I say that I know something, all I mean is that I am very, very sure of something based on evidence – I’m not claiming any kind of absolute certainty, and I’ll happily reverse my conclusion if some new evidence becomes available…but based on the evidence we do have, the only conclusion is that reindeer can’t fly.

I would agree that reindeer can’t fly without wings, and perhaps it wouldn’t be possible for them if they did have wings given their structure. This makes their existence highly implausible. There is no reason for me to believe in them.

This is a prime problem with this Matrix-mongering: once you start pretending that there’s no real world and that every-thing’s a matter of faith and “you can’t prove anything for certain, so it could be possible!”, you give up any ability you have to actually know things about the world.

We cannot have certainty of physical reality. That’s an empirical fact. However, we have good reasons to think that it is real given the simple fact that we have no reason to think that our experiences of physical reality is fake. However; it is still legitimate and safe to question reality, so long as we accept a practical realism.

You’re free to adopt this “philosophy” if you want, but there are those of us who live in the real world, who have actual knowledge, and think that this Matrix “philosophy” is nothing more than a puerile, pre-pubescent pining for “another world” where the losers of this world aren’t losers after all.

What is a loser? This is purely a subjective value judgement. Perhaps you think that you are better than other people; but it is really meaningless to think that you are any better than insect, if your view of reality is correct.

 

[Betterave]

I have directly answered your question. But I will do so again

The fact that no premises can be accepted should be self evident.
Please make any statement and I will be glad to demonstrate. Well I actually do not have to because I do not concede that you exist.

lol! Okay then! I have no idea what you’re talking about, but here’s a statement: Everything could appear exactly as it does, whether or not I am in fact in ‘the Matrix.’ Now why can’t this statement be accepted? Please demonstrate!

Here’s another one: If you hold an apple in the air and drop it, it will fall to the ground.

And another: Put your bare hand on that hot pan and it will hurt you.

One more: It is apparently easy to misunderstand the Matrix argument.

It can not lead us to better knowledge, because although there is value in questioning premises, when it is carried to the extreme of the matrix argument rational discourse becomes impossible. It is mental masturbation. No argument is possible without conceding some premises. The matrix argument while fun and having some value just can not produce anything.

You’re simply reasserting that discourse becomes impossible in light of the Matrix argument. This is not self-evident in the least. Why should you be unable to discourse just because you are in the Matrix??

 

[Betterave]

Oh, and by way of a reminder, considering where this thread is going: egos are ugly things, and they don’t make for good reading. Let’s stick to our opinions about the faith, not our opinions about one another.

Better yet: let’s stick to making and responding to arguments as if we were mature intelligent adults, instead of writing unconscionably gratuitous schlock such as this:

“You’re free to adopt this “philosophy” if you want, but there are those of us who live in the real world, who have actual knowledge, and think that this Matrix “philosophy” is nothing more than a puerile, pre-pubescent pining for “another world” where the losers of this world aren’t losers after all.”



Prodigal, I’m not interested in hearing opinions about the faith when they are ignorantly, arrogantly, and closed-mindedly expressed. Are you? I’m interested in hearing serious arguments from people who are genuinely interested in growing in their understanding. Isn’t that the purpose of this forum?

 

[R_Daneel]

What’s a DP professional? Delusional parasitosis? My so-called ‘valid deduction’ took the form of a disjunction, smart-guy. If you rule out one disjunct (and I’m not sure you’ve done that), that still leaves the other.

I could have said: IT - information technology. DP: data processing. Hardly a field where the people with poor reasoning, reading and comprehension skills congregate.

So long as you admit that you were wrong before, that your “utter, sheer nonsense” comment was just that (and that my observation about your reading skills apparently was in fact more justified than you care to admit)!

I have been wrong many times before, and have no problem admitting it. In this case I could have separated the trivial part of the utterance from the nonsensical one. But, frankly it is not that important. Nitpicking is always possible and you seem to be an expert in it. Who cares?

In any case, setting aside your ignorant editorializing, is there really no sense in which the future already exists? I think you’re forgetting that P-existence (‘physical existence’), as you have called in the past, is not the only kind of existence. If you keep that in mind (I’m not sure how you managed to forget it), isn’t your claim that “the future does not exist,” in the context here, obviously false? Even with regard to P-existence, most people (as in scientists!) think that the present already contains the future (that’s kind of what the notion inductive laws implies!, i.e., pretty basic stuff as far as science and scientific method goes!).

Yes, concepts about the future certainly exist (C-existence). Expectations about the future also exist. But the future does not exist YET, as an actual entity, which could influence the present. And that is what the quoted text said, and not merely implied. I have highlighted them in my reply.

Sorry, I don’t know any Polish jokes (I guess you guessed incorrectly this time ). I don’t know the answer to your “old question” either. What is it? And if you don’t mind sharing, I’m genuinely interested in what languages you speak.

Oh, I don’t mind giving you the answer. The word is “POLISH”. A nice little linguistic tidbit. If it is all lowercase: “polish”. When the first letter is captialized: “Polish”. There is no problem how to pronounce either one. When it is spelled in all upper case, one cannot know which is the way - unless there is a context around it. The point is that I am avidly interested in linguistics and philosophy, not just matematics and computer science.

I am sure, nevertheless that there will be typos, error in my posts, even if I proofread them. As AntiTheist pointed out it is very hard to proofread one’s own material. The tendency to see what we “think” we see is just too strong. If I make errors and someone points them out, I have no problem with that. But irrelevant nitpicking is just a sign of a small mind. So I suggest that you moderate your tongue and do away with your patronizing, condescending tone. When you see what you perceive as an error, give me your interpretation of it.

If you do that, we might have a conversation. But I am not really interested. I met many people on the board whith whom it is a pleasure to exchange ideas. We keep disagreeing about almost everything, and there is no hostility, attempts to “put-down” the other. You are not one of those people.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m no expert, but I’ve got some experience in Greek, particularly with several of these words.

Point number #1: The NT word for “faith”, pistis, does not carry the English connotation that faith is a kind of belief. *Pistis *is NOT a kind of belief, but rather a trust, or perhaps a leaning-on. In Plato, *pistis *meant “conviction” – this is key, because it is a fact about the world that leads you to be convinced, not a fact about your own credulous psychology. In other words, you don’t trust everything, but only what has shown itself to be trustworthy. Paul doesn’t use the word as Plato does, but the externality of the cause of *pistis *is maintained.

Point number #2: The word “substance” in the passage means, in Greek, something more like “undergirding” or “foundation”.

Point number #3: To translate the word “elengchus” as “evidence” is seriously problematic. This is the Greek word for Socrates’ strategy of disarming his opponents with questioning. It is a verbal conviction or reproach, not a physical piece of evidence. “Argument” is a much better translation than “evidence”.

My revised version of Hebrews 11:1, for what it’s worth:

Elicited trust is the foundation of things hoped for, the argument for things unseen.

Once we have relied on God, and seen that He is trustworthy, we have a foundation for our hope that there is forgiveness of sins, that there is a resurrection of the body, etc. This is, interestingly, something like the scientific method: lean on one hypothesis and see if it breaks. If it doesn’t, it may very well be the hypothesis you’ve been looking for.

Very well. I will accept your analysis and your translation. Most certainly, if one has a good foundation for trust, one can reasonably lean on that trust and follow where it leads. This is not the place to analyze if that trust in God is really well founded. Obviously in your eyes it is. Also obviously in my eyes it is not.

If that trust cannot be verified, it will be an empty “thing” to lean on. And that is precisely what is called “blind faith”. If the verification process shows that the trust was misplaced, and yet, not abandoned, that is also blind faith. The trouble is that the poor word “faith” has many meanings and it is constantly abused.

 

[Betterave]

I could have said: IT - information technology. DP: data processing. Hardly a field where the people with poor reasoning, reading and comprehension skills congregate.

The thing is, your DP or IT competency obviously does not translate into philosophical competency. My comments were obviously aimed at your specific ‘philosophical’/‘hermaneutical’ remarks here and the level of reading competency/open-mindedness they demonstrated. That is why they were philosophically relevant and not simply a general insult as you apparently mistook them to be.

I have been wrong many times before, and have no problem admitting it. In this case I could have separated the trivial part of the utterance from the nonsensical one. But, frankly it is not that important. Nitpicking is always possible and you seem to be an expert in it. Who cares?

But you’re still wrong, aren’t you? You’re still gratuitously claiming that there was a nonsensical part and a trivial part, without giving substance to either one of those claims.

Yes, concepts about the future certainly exist (C-existence). Expectations about the future also exist. But the future does not exist YET, as an actual entity, which could influence the present. And that is what the quoted text said, and not merely implied. I have highlighted them in my reply.

But that is very obviously false, RD. If I know that my plane will leave (remember: ‘will’ here indicates future) at a certain time, then that may well influence my present actions (I might pack my bags, for example). Or if I know that I *will *die, I might decide to buy life insurance. Or if I know that winter is coming, I might start to store up food (remember the ant and the grasshopper?). The real influence of concepts of the future on present reality is everywhere!
[Note that all present continuous verb forms (e.g., “is coming”) indicate the actual togetherness of present and future.]

Oh, I don’t mind giving you the answer. The word is “POLISH”. A nice little linguistic tidbit. If it is all lowercase: “polish”. When the first letter is captialized: “Polish”. There is no problem how to pronounce either one. When it is spelled in all upper case, one cannot know which is the way - unless there is a context around it. The point is that I am avidly interested in linguistics and philosophy, not just matematics and computer science.

And do you mind sharing what languages you speak?

If you do that, we might have a conversation. But I am not really interested. I met many people on the board whith whom it is a pleasure to exchange ideas. We keep disagreeing about almost everything, and there is no hostility, attempts to “put-down” the other. You are not one of those people.

Here’s how I see it: You dismissed what my papa wrote (and what I posted) as “utter, sheer nonsense” then delivered an absolutely ridiculous misinterpretation of it. You don’t see that as an attempt to “put-down” the other?! My response was an attempt to recall you from your aggressive nonsensical arrogance, to reason, and the only reason to see my response as a mere put-down is if you think your comments are in fact defensible (in which case you should simply explain how) or somehow otherwise sacrosanct (such that others have no right to honestly criticize them).

 

[polkadots]

They call it faith for a reason. I think many people who believe in God have had some kind of religious experience. That’s not to say that God is discriminating but rather that many people are blocking God out, even if they want to believe. Maybe because of fear or pain…I don’t know. But I do believe that God is reaching out towards every human heart longing to love them deeply.

I recall seeing something about M-theory or String theory a few years ago that seemed intriguing and argued the idea that this membrane permeates the whole universe. They were somehow explaining that an omnipresent being is possible, but I have to admit that physics is way too much for my brain to comprehend.

Back to the Matrix. Have you seen this guy David Icke who has written the Children of the Matrix ? He also believes that all the powerful people in the world are descended from a reptilian race of aliens. It’s totally bizarre. Sadly, he was a journalist and then developed schizophrenia. If your students are reading his books, maybe it would help to point this out.
Take care!

 

[R_Daneel]

But that is very obviously false, RD. If I know that my plane will leave (remember: ‘will’ here indicates future) at a certain time, then that may well influence my present actions (I might pack my bags, for example). Or if I know that I *will *die, I might decide to buy life insurance. Or if I know that winter is coming, I might start to store up food (remember the ant and the grasshopper?). The real influence of concepts of the future on present reality is everywhere!
[Note that all present continuous verb forms (e.g., “is coming”) indicate the actual togetherness of present and future.]

None of your examples constitute “knowledge”. They are very reasonable expectations. (Even your death is not 100% certain. Someone might come up with a cure for aging.) You don’t know any of those. You have a very good, educated guess, which should not be confused with knowledge. That is basic epistemology - and you are very proficient in philosophy, aren’t you? I am aware that in everyday vernacular we do not make such rigorous distinction. I did not do it in many of my posts, since I assumed a common level of understanding. But you criticized me for my sloppiness. So here is your medicine now, fed back to you. Does it taste good?

You are almost right when you say that the concepts about future have an influence on the present. Not quite right (and now I am doing the nitpicking) since concepts are inert, they do not do anything. The acceptance of the concepts does the “work” of influencing.

Here is the crux of the problem. The concepts about the future exist now. Their referents, the future does not exist, in reality, only as a concept. Since it does not exist, it cannot influence anything. You are so proud of your cognitive skills, how come that this simple distinction escaped you? Because that is precisely what the quoted text asserted. Cannot make it simpler than that.

Here is the quote:

The fact that this future exists changes the present…
the present is touched by the future reality…
things of the future spill over into those of the present…

This is what would have made sense:

The fact that we have expectations about the future changes the present…
the present is influenced by our (current) assessments of the future possibilities…
the hope about the future modifies our current actions…

So it is all “hope”, “expectations” and sometimes, “wishful thinking” - and mind you, this is a trivial observation.

Of course this is how the Pope defined “faith”. And I do not accept it. To put a “reasonable expectation” and totally unfounded “wishful thinking” into the same “basket” (“faith”) is not just unreasonable, but seriously confusing and misleading. About the future we can all have expectations, and the probability of those expectations to come true varies from the almost certain to the next to impossible. To call all of those expectations “faith” is unacceptable. Now there are two possibilities: 1) the Pope genuinely does not see the difference (highly unlikely) and 2) the Pope prefers the confusion for some reason or another.

 

[AntiTheist]

LOL! If they’re actually correct, why don’t they feel right? How DO they feel? Wrong??

My feelings – like yours – are utterly irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of my ideas.

Plenty of true statements don’t “feel” right and are counter-intuitive. For example, it feels wrong to say that the earth orbits the sun. It feels wrong to say that all living creatures are related to one another. But we can actually discover – once we set aside our precious little feelings and actually investigate reality – that the earth does orbit the sun and that all living creatures are related to each other.

In a similar way, a guy who has just proofread his own work may feel that it’s correct to say that there are no typos there – but actually looking at the page may reveal this feeling to be irrelevant.

Of course [we can be wrong about reality]; what a strange question to ask!

Ok. Then how do you suggest we go about determining whether or not a claim is true? Should we just consult our special little feelings some more?

 

[AntiTheist]

unconscionably gratuitous schlock

Big talk from someone who seriously thinks we can define beings into existence.

Prodigal, I’m not interested in hearing opinions about the faith when they are ignorantly, arrogantly, and closed-mindedly expressed. Are you? I’m interested in hearing serious arguments from people who are genuinely interested in growing in their understanding. Isn’t that the purpose of this forum?

I consider it a vast step in “growing your understanding” to outgrow puerile fantasy-based “philosophy” and open your eyes.

Some kids naturally outgrow the belief in Santa Claus. Others will continue to believe in Santa Claus until the bigger kids make fun of them. There are times when it’s appropriate to point out how laughable this whole Matrix-mongering is.

If I’m upsetting your delicate sensibilities, just ignore me and go do something else. After all, you could always define a bright, sunny day into existence and waltz off into a bright, new fantasy – or even better, define yourself into being a billionaire.