tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8480010337167499821..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Can we make sense of the world?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger317125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21050543535426078772011-12-22T11:15:32.742-08:002011-12-22T11:15:32.742-08:00This post is a combination of bad poetry and a pla...This post is a combination of bad poetry and a plain fallacy of equivocation. I rebut it here. <br /><br /><br />http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/2011/12/edward-feser-and-bad-poetry.htmlrappocciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892286988757355695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72311668801375629012011-04-08T15:12:15.657-07:002011-04-08T15:12:15.657-07:00The “gaping holes” [of Atheism] are just its tende...<i>The “gaping holes” [of Atheism] are just its tendency to stop where we lack empirical evidence, because beyond that, we are stuck in speculation and fantasy that can appear to be solid knowledge, but is anything but. And yes, its “explanatory power” is limited by its inability to describe metaphysical truths about a reality beyond space-time. <br /></i><br /><br />Actually such gaping holes exists separate from any empirical evidence and have very little to do with science.. just like naturalism and scientism.<br /><br />Also I think that this statement is generally untrue...<br /><br />Just read a few of Feser's blog posts or his books, he elaborates on that in detail.Ismaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50737474238530540892011-03-06T09:53:29.243-08:002011-03-06T09:53:29.243-08:00Daniel:
>> Atheism is an incoherent philos...Daniel:<br /><br /><br />>> Atheism is an incoherent philosophy when examined deeply and honestly. It has gaping holes in its explanatory power. <br /><br />The “gaping holes” are just its tendency to stop where we lack empirical evidence, because beyond that, we are stuck in speculation and fantasy that can appear to be solid knowledge, but is anything but. And yes, its “explanatory power” is limited by its inability to describe metaphysical truths about a reality beyond space-time. <br /><br />>> And science is far worse. Scientific knowledge changes like the wind. Is coffee good for you or bad? What about meat? Butter? Eggs? Science is nothing to live your life by - that's for sure.<br /><br />Yes, the world is complicated, and as better data comes in, the conclusions of science change. At least there is a self-correcting mechanism to revise its claims over time. Would you prefer that it just stick with certain claims forever without any chance at revision? And by all means, reject science. That is your choice. Do not vaccinate your children, do not take antibiotics, avoid cars and planes and other scientific innovations, and for God’s sake, avoid the iPad 2!<br /><br />>> One final thing, if you are truly seeking the truth, as you said earlier, then you will find it. You must seek it diligently though - with total disregard for all that you hold dear.<br /><br />Ditto.<br /><br />Take care.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47734776426351483802011-03-06T09:53:06.156-08:002011-03-06T09:53:06.156-08:00Daniel:
>> Why 'within space-time'?...Daniel:<br /><br />>> Why 'within space-time'? You really have no way of knowing for sure whether or not your experiences are of things that are 'in the world' or 'within space-time'. <br /><br />Give me an example of an experience of something that does not occur within space or time. <br /><br />>> You assume that these experiences are of things outside yourself but how do you actually know it is outside yourself and not something like a "blind spot, which is filled in by the brain"?<br /><br />Because I experience a world outside of myself. When I move around in the world, I can see, touch, taste, smell and feel it. It is there without any doubt. That is where we all begin, whether you want to or not. It is only when someone starts using ideas that derive their meaning from within that empirical world to question the existence of that world that paradoxes and dilemmas occur. The problem is that these skeptical dilemmas end up becoming self-refuting, because they imagine away the context within which our concepts have meaning, and then pretend that they still mean the same thing. Therefore, they do not affect my naïve and common sense realism at all. <br /><br />And the blind spot is something that can actually figured out with our empirical studies. There was no need to postulate anything supernatural or beyond space-time to explain it. The blind spot is just a garden-variety example of how we can perceive something in the world that is not, in fact, there. It does not follow that because I am occasionally wrong about what I perceive, then I must always be wrong about what I perceive.<br /><br />>> Again, how do you know that? What would the specific differences be? How can you tell if you are experiencing something 'within space/time' or something 'outside space/time'? Something 'inside yourself' or something 'outside yourself'?<br /><br />Something within space-time would occur within space in relation to other objects and would flow in time from past to future. Something outside space-time would be the opposite of this, I suppose. Truth be told, I cannot even imagine what this might be like, which is why I would like some examples from you. That might help clarify things for me.<br /><br />>> They are not as rare as you seem to think they are. They are certainly not as rare as Elvis sightings and UFO sightings which you derisively compare them to.<br /><br />The point is that there are examples of people believing that they have seen something that does not exist. <br /><br />>> An observation: You came here with, what appeared to be, an open mind but, as the conversation has progressed, you seem to have become increasingly closed-minded. Many here have pointed out the inadequacies of your philosophy (and yes, atheism is a philosophy), yet you keep ignoring their most powerful arguments and instead keep going back to the areas you are most comfortable with.<br /><br />What are the “most powerful arguments” that you allude to? The only argument that was provided against my naïve realism was that I must believe that we only experience our subjective experiences completely divorced from the external world. The “closed-minded” posts that you referred to were of me trying desperately to say that I do not believe this at all, and to explain why. Rather than engage in my reasons for not believing this superstition I was told, again and again, that I must believe in it. I don’t know what else to do. <br /><br />It would be like someone telling you that you do not believe in God, and when you say that you do, they just keep saying that you don’t. What else could you do with such a person, except reinforce that you do, in fact, believe what you believe?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78579720457557254022011-03-06T08:57:59.779-08:002011-03-06T08:57:59.779-08:00dguller: "The world is the totality of entiti...dguller: <i>"The world is the totality of entities or events within space-time, much of which can directly or indirectly be perceivable by us."</i><br /><br />Why 'within space-time'? You really have no way of knowing for sure whether or not your experiences are of things that are 'in the world' or 'within space-time'. You assume that these experiences are of things outside yourself but how do you actually know it is outside yourself and not something like a <i>"blind spot, which is filled in by the brain"</i>? <br /><br /><i>"And there is a difference between experiences of entities or events within space-time, which are natural, and experiences of entities or events outside space-time, which are supernatural."</i><br /><br />Again, how do you know that? What would the specific differences be? How can you tell if you are experiencing something 'within space/time' or something 'outside space/time'? Something 'inside yourself' or something 'outside yourself'?<br /><br /><i>"Except that the vast majority of human beings experience the outside world for most of their conscious awareness, but this is not true for religious experiences, which are typically rare, as far as I understand, which is also why they are so salient and striking."</i><br /><br />They are not as rare as you seem to think they are. They are certainly not as rare as Elvis sightings and UFO sightings which you derisively compare them to.<br /><br />An observation: You came here with, what appeared to be, an open mind but, as the conversation has progressed, you seem to have become increasingly closed-minded. Many here have pointed out the inadequacies of your philosophy (and yes, atheism is a philosophy), yet you keep ignoring their most powerful arguments and instead keep going back to the areas you are most comfortable with.<br /><br />The conversation is almost over now and you have Dr. Feser's books in hand (start with The Last Superstition BTW, and save The Philosophy of Mind for last) so hopefully those will help you see the error of your ways. Atheism is an incoherent philosophy when examined deeply and honestly. It has gaping holes in its explanatory power. And science is far worse. Scientific knowledge changes like the wind. Is coffee good for you or bad? What about meat? Butter? Eggs? Science is nothing to live your life by - that's for sure.<br /><br />One final thing, if you are truly seeking the truth, as you said earlier, then you will find it. You must seek it diligently though - with total disregard for all that you hold dear.<br /><br />May God bless you in your search.Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78798438075493104582011-03-06T04:54:54.098-08:002011-03-06T04:54:54.098-08:00Mark:
>> If meaning and reason were not alr...Mark:<br /><br />>> If meaning and reason were not already present in the world, we wouldn't be able to find it. <br /><br />I’m not too sure if meaning and reason are in the world. They are certainly activities that we engage in, and have served us well in numerous respects. <br /><br />>> Also, thinking about whether or not there is reason in the world presupposes that we know what reason is. Now where did we get the idea that there is reason, and that it could be recognized?<br /><br />Through a combination of our innate cognitive capacity interacting in a symbiotic fashion with our surrounding cultural environment that trains us to perform various activities, such as reason-giving and meaning-making.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43868163447423572682011-03-05T23:48:36.973-08:002011-03-05T23:48:36.973-08:00If meaning and reason were not already present in ...If meaning and reason were not already present in the world, we wouldn't be able to find it. Also,thinking about whether or not there is reason in the world presupposes that we know what reason is. Now where did we get the idea that there is reason, and that it could be recognized?<br /><br />~ MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20461165505407214972011-03-05T20:16:19.116-08:002011-03-05T20:16:19.116-08:00Brian:
Nope, I’m only 32, and I hope to not reach...Brian:<br /><br />Nope, I’m only 32, and I hope to not reach a geriatric age before you address my points above about not being a classical empiricist or logical positivist. That means that I reject the idea that all I can experience is my subjective and private mental states. Thus, your criticism of empirical verification being unable to confirm the existence of an external world fails to affect me whatsoever, because it assumes the validity of the sense-datum theory, which (again) I reject. The onus is upon you to prove that I MUST accept this theory in order to be an empiricist. Good luck with that.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1534144610305470652011-03-05T15:11:51.061-08:002011-03-05T15:11:51.061-08:00No offense, but do you happen to be a bit older? I...No offense, but do you happen to be a bit older? I am noticing the same kind of pattern of naivety and stubbornness and repetition that I notice with the older people with whom I work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55770070390886364862011-03-05T11:07:15.863-08:002011-03-05T11:07:15.863-08:00Daniel:
>> If "empirical verification&...Daniel:<br /><br />>> If "empirical verification" is NOT EQUAL TO "experience of something outside ourselves" then your argument that the outside world is empirically verifiable crumbles.<br /><br />Things are a little more complicated, because we have veridical experiences and non-veridical experiences (i.e. hallucinations, illusions, etc.). Because of this, we have to be careful that what we experience is actually about something real in the world. Ideally, we need to account and control for possible confounding factors and cognitive distortions, because this maximizes our chances of getting things right. So, I am not saying that every empirical experience is of something real in the world, because this is just not true.<br /><br />>> You're attempting to straddle the fence here by saying that your experiences are empirical verification while mine are likely hallucinations.<br /><br />No, I am saying that our experience is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, which implies that it is not always wrong. What that means is that there is an external world that exists independently of us, and that we interact with in a variety of complicated ways, sometimes resulting in truth and sometimes resulting in falsehood. So, we have to be careful to make sure, as best as we can, within the limitations that we have, to have true beliefs.<br /><br />>> There is no contradiction in my position though because I accept both the existence of the outside world and the existence of God by the same criteria.<br /><br />Except that the vast majority of human beings experience the outside world for most of their conscious awareness, but this is not true for religious experiences, which are typically rare, as far as I understand, which is also why they are so salient and striking. And there is a difference between experiences of entities or events within space-time, which are natural, and experiences of entities or events outside space-time, which are supernatural. So, there are similarities, for sure, but also important differences, I think.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83098006441979967312011-03-05T11:06:31.674-08:002011-03-05T11:06:31.674-08:00Daniel:
>> What does "in the world&quo...Daniel:<br /><br />>> What does "in the world" mean?<br /><br />The world is the totality of entities or events within space-time, much of which can directly or indirectly be perceivable by us.<br /><br />>> OK, so we have evidence of God.<br /><br />Sure.<br /><br />>> Well, what I can do is find out if any others are having the same experiences as I am and - lo and behold - billions of people are!<br /><br />A few questions, please. What experiences are you talking about? What is the criterion that helps you identify these experiences? How does one know when these experiences are of God, and not the devil deceiving you? Why aren’t people always having these experiences? Why doesn’t everyone have these experiences? How does a supernatural entity generate an experience within the human brain?<br /><br />>> Well it would have to be a mass hallucination on a scale never heard of before now wouldn't it?<br /><br />No, it is not as if everyone is constantly having these experiences, but only that lots of people have them occasionally. Lots of people have seen UFO’s, Elvis, and so on, but it does not follow that they exist. <br /><br />>> My criteria is that I (and billions of others) believe it to be God. <br /><br />Why do you believe it to be God? <br /><br />>> What is your criteria for the existence of anything beyond yourself?<br /><br />My sensory experiences constantly flood me with lots of things outside myself.<br /><br />>> If "empirical verification" = "experience of something outside ourselves" then my (and billions of others') experiences of God qualify as empirical verification.<br /><br />Sure, they count as evidence of God, but there is good evidence and there is bad evidence. For example, a person claiming to see a UFO is evidence, but only as an anecdote, which is prone to numerous distortions, and should be treated skeptically, especially without corroborating evidence that ideally controls for the distorting factors. <br /><br />So, empirical verification of X is not just a one-off empirical experience of X, but rather must take into account the totality of empirical experiences of X, and empirical experiences of not-X. Furthermore, it must take into consideration that we are often prone to cognitive distortions and biases, which may result in erroneous conclusions.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53808959313376641842011-03-05T09:41:28.631-08:002011-03-05T09:41:28.631-08:00dguller: "I’m talking about experience of ent...dguller: <i>"I’m talking about experience of entities in the world."</i><br /><br />What does "in the world" mean?<br /><br />The context of the discussion so far leads me to believe that "in the world" means "outside ourselves". Would you agree?<br /><br /><i>"Just because you have an experience of X [outside yourself] does not mean that X’s existence is automatically verified, but only that the experience serves as evidence."</i><br /><br />OK, so we have evidence of God.<br /><br /><i>"Now, you have to rule out other empirical explanations for the experience of X to see if it is genuinely about something [outside yourself]."</i><br /><br />Well, what I can do is find out if any others are having the same experiences as I am and - lo and behold - <i>billions</i> of people are! <br /><br /><i>"Going back to your clever example above, if God is now an entity [outside yourself], then I suppose it is possible to experience him, but I think I would first rule out the possibility of a hallucination, for example."</i><br /><br />Well it would have to be a <i>mass</i> hallucination on a scale never heard of before now wouldn't it?<br /><br /><i>"In addition, I think one would need a set of criteria to determine when one experiences God. What are your criteria?"</i><br /><br />My criteria is that I (and billions of others) <i>believe</i> it to be God. What is your criteria for the existence of anything beyond yourself?<br /><br />If "empirical verification" = "experience of something outside ourselves" then my (and billions of others') experiences of God qualify as empirical verification.<br /><br />If "empirical verification" is NOT EQUAL TO "experience of something outside ourselves" then your argument that the outside world is empirically verifiable crumbles.<br /><br />You're attempting to straddle the fence here by saying that your experiences are empirical verification while mine are likely hallucinations.<br /><br />There is no contradiction in my position though because I accept <i>both</i> the existence of the outside world and the existence of God by the same criteria.Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2983795656363021632011-03-05T07:25:55.133-08:002011-03-05T07:25:55.133-08:00Crude:
And one more thing.
Verification is not a...Crude:<br /><br />And one more thing.<br /><br />Verification is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but is a matter of likelihood, given the evidence. <br /><br />Say I want to verify whether some state of affairs X is actually occurring in the world. I will direct my perspective towards X to see if X can be experienced directly by my senses or indirectly by technological extensions of my senses (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, etc.). If X can be experienced in this way, then its likelihood of being real goes up. <br /><br />Now, if there are confounding factors that could be distorting my perception, whether these are cognitive biases or distortions, hallucinations, or any other quirks of our psychology, then these will have to be ruled out, if possible. If these factors are present, then the likelihood of X being real goes down. X must also be compared to our background experiences and conceptual framework to see if it contradicts it in any important way.<br /><br />The likelihood never reaches 100%, because it is always possible that we could be wrong, but it is about doing the best we can, which will never be perfect. So, empirical verification is about looking for empirical evidence supporting X and ruling out empirical confounding factors that could make X an illusory phenomenon.<br /><br />I think this is important to clarify, because you seem to assume that if I empirically verify X, then it is verified for all time and can never be revised. Maybe I am wrong about your assumptions, but just in case, I wanted to clarify my understanding of this matter.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49779089725756226922011-03-05T06:52:04.462-08:002011-03-05T06:52:04.462-08:00Crude:
And one more thing.
Just because our per...Crude:<br /><br />And one more thing. <br /><br />Just because our perception is occasionally wrong does not imply that our perception itself is hallucinatory. In fact, the very possibility of right and wrong perceptions presupposes an external world. Without it, there is no way to differentiate between a veridical perception, a hallucination, illusion or delusion, and without these distinctions, the entire skeptical argument cannot even get off the ground.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32458294974377668832011-03-05T05:12:59.474-08:002011-03-05T05:12:59.474-08:00Crude:
I suppose the seventeenth century picture ...Crude:<br /><br />I suppose the seventeenth century picture of the mind really does hold you captive to the point that you take it as intuitively obvious and unassailable. The fact is I do not adhere to the assumption that all we experience is subjective experiences that are fundamentally divorced from the world. Without that assumption, you have no refutation of my empiricism. You are arguing with a straw man and figment of your imagination rather than me, I'm afraid. <br /><br />I even cited some reputable philosophers that reject this assumption as a philosophical illusion that requires amnesia of how we actually live our lives in the world, which happens when one drinks philosophical kool-aid too deeply.<br /><br />If you want to believe in this philosophical fiction, then be my guest, but just because you cannot imagine any other possible state of affairs does not mean that your imagination exhausts the possibilities. The fact is I believe in naive or common sense realism, which is what everyone happens to believe, except when they engage in the unusual and confusing activity of philosophical skepticism. And as I said, just because certain conclusions are derived from this highly unusual state of affairs does not make those conclusions binding when the unusual state of affairs has passed.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73732977897238426162011-03-04T22:37:49.477-08:002011-03-04T22:37:49.477-08:00No, we empirically verify the existence of an exte...<i>No, we empirically verify the existence of an external world when we have experiences of it. That is what empirical verification IS.</i><br /><br />And you have to assume your experiences are of the external world, because there's no getting past your experiences. And if your experiences can be mistaken, guess what? Ya ain't verifying purely. You've got assumptions at work.<br /><br />You've already been refuted on this. I think Brian's comment with the filibuster is apt here.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48129138516262375812011-03-04T20:57:24.979-08:002011-03-04T20:57:24.979-08:00>Going back to your clever example above, if Go...>Going back to your clever example above, if God is now an entity in the world....<br /><br />God <b>isn't</b> an entity in the world at least from the perspective of Classical Philosophical Theism.<br />Thomas Aquinas would toss his cookies at that suggestion.<br /><br />I hope you guys are taking it easy on dguller. I couldn't be around for while. This past Sunday my wife found her Mother dead in her apartment upstairs. Anyway I have been reading the discussion and it is fascinating.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62904967540851940812011-03-04T17:16:37.780-08:002011-03-04T17:16:37.780-08:00Daniel:
>> Well, I have empirical verificat...Daniel:<br /><br />>> Well, I have empirical verification of God's existence then. I've experienced God's presence many times in my life. I didn't realize that it was empirical verification at the time, but you've convinced me that it was!<br /><br />I’m talking about experience of entities in the world. Just because you have an experience of X in the world does not mean that X’s existence is automatically verified, but only that the experience serves as evidence. Now, you have to rule out other empirical explanations for the experience of X to see if it is genuinely about something in the world. <br /><br />Going back to your clever example above, if God is now an entity in the world, then I suppose it is possible to experience him, but I think I would first rule out the possibility of a hallucination, for example. In addition, I think one would need a set of criteria to determine when one experiences God. What are your criteria?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33472166313640044242011-03-04T17:07:02.934-08:002011-03-04T17:07:02.934-08:00dguller: "No, we empirically verify the exist...dguller: <i>"No, we empirically verify the existence of an external world when we have experiences of it. That is what empirical verification IS."</i><br /><br />Well, I have empirical verification of God's existence then. I've experienced God's presence many times in my life. I didn't realize that it was empirical verification at the time, but you've convinced me that it was!<br /><br />Thanks!Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40693769607948859982011-03-04T16:58:10.595-08:002011-03-04T16:58:10.595-08:00Brian:
I think the problem is that you assume tha...Brian:<br /><br />I think the problem is that you assume that I am a classical empiricist or a logical positivist. I am neither, because they BOTH make the wrongheaded assumption that all I can experience is my subjective experience, completely divorced from an external world. Since I do not make this assumption, I am not exposed to the inevitable criticism that I have no way of empirically verifying an external world, because I would have to get behind experience itself to do so. And since that is the only criticism you have, then you have nothing to refute me with.<br /><br />Simple enough?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16951894014885342142011-03-04T16:34:43.763-08:002011-03-04T16:34:43.763-08:00Congratulagions, dguller, you have successfully fi...Congratulagions, dguller, you have successfully filibustered me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84222022466434244052011-03-04T16:14:24.462-08:002011-03-04T16:14:24.462-08:00Crude:
>> You yourself cede as much when yo...Crude:<br /><br />>> You yourself cede as much when you speak about skeptical arguments. The difference is you think that, so long as you aren't actively contemplating a skeptical argument, you've somehow 'empirically verified' an objective and/or external world and aren't engaging in any assumptions.<br /><br />No, that is not the point at all. My point is that it is easy to think that skeptical arguments uncover flaws in our understanding of ourselves and our world, that they somehow reveal deeper truths that our superficial existence misses. If you assume this to be the case with skeptical arguments, then you will allow them to affect and confuse your understanding of yourself. However, if you see them as akin to a delirium brought on by an infection, then you will see them as illusions that do not have to be taken seriously, and thus whatever you think they affect are actually left alone. <br /><br />>> The sheer presence of possible explanations to explain your experience, and no way to get beyond your experience, shows that you're not 'empirically verifying' the existence of said world in any meaningful, appropriate way.<br /><br />No, it shows that I am empirically verifying the existence of the world in the only way “empirical verification” makes sense. You seem to think that there is a veil of appearances between myself and the world, and that in order to justify the existence of the world that I must go behind that veil, which happens to be impossible under this conception. THIS IS NOT MY CONCEPTION, and I reject it entirely. I think you are confusing my empiricism with logical positivism, which made exactly this mistake. I deny that there is an interface between ourselves and the world, but that we experience it directly, because we are embedded within it. <br /><br />>> Say "I reject that!" as many times as you like. It won't be changing the reality.<br /><br />It does change things, because you are making assumptions about how we experience the world. The biggest one is that we only experience our subjective experiences. That is a myth that became prominent since the seventeenth century, and has been the cause of a great deal of confusion. Your entire complaint rests upon this assumption. Without it, there is no sense to your criticism that my empirical experience must get behind itself to experience the world, which is impossible, and thus I must be assuming it. <br /><br />My empiricism does NOT make this assumption, and so your criticism does not affect me. In fact, you yourself reject this assumption! Since we both reject this assumption, then why do you insist on its necessary presence in my beliefs? I think that you are confusing me with classical empiricists (e.g. Locke, Hume and Berkeley) and logical positivists who all make the assumption that we BOTH reject. My beliefs are more in line with Dewey, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Putnam. If you’re going to criticize me, then at least get my beliefs right.<br /><br />As Wittgenstein wrote: “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” I think that you are held captive by a picture of empiricism that I do not share, and you cannot help but view me from that distorted lens. That is too bad, because we could have a profitable discussion about many issues rather than you trying to force me into your straw man.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40872271135926880352011-03-04T16:13:55.842-08:002011-03-04T16:13:55.842-08:00Crude:
>> What we have is "experience&...Crude:<br /><br />>> What we have is "experience". We take it to be of an external world. There is no empirical verification of this.<br /><br />No. We have experience OF something. And what we experience is entities in the world around us. The empirical verification is to interact with your environment and perceive what is there via our senses. To doubt this is to presume that there is some interface between ourselves and the world that, once postulated, is impossible to bridge, leading to philosophical paradoxes. I reject this interface.<br /><br />>> What they start with imagining is possibility, given the data we have - our experience.<br /><br />No, they take aspects of our experience, imagine away essential features and leave a fantastical product that is supposed to challenge our intuitions. Take the brains in a vat example. We have experience of brains and vats, but nothing about brains in vats. So, we have no idea what would happen to a brain in a vat, and whether it would be conscious in the same way as we are. Until scientists can perform this experiment, it is just science fiction. I can also imagine a unicorn, because of my experiences of horses and horns, but do you really think that a unicorn is something real to challenge our understanding of horses, for example?<br /><br />>> I said that people can unreflectively 'act as if' there is an external world. <br /><br />Ask anyone if they just pretend that there is an external world. Go ahead. You might be surprised by what they say.<br /><br />>> My point from the start has been that there is no 'empirical verification' of an external, objective world. <br /><br />No, we empirically verify the existence of an external world when we have experiences of it. That is what empirical verification IS. What else do you think it entails other than interacting with something and seeing if we can experience it directly with our senses, or indirectly with any of the technological tools we use to extend our senses (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, etc.)? That is all empirical verification entails. How is this possible? Because our physical bodies are interacting with the environment via our senses, which are processed by our brains into our conscious experience, which integrates the mind-body-environment into a unified whole. Do you doubt that this is happening?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92000526746170411592011-03-04T15:26:36.615-08:002011-03-04T15:26:36.615-08:00Again, why not? Why is it not enough that we exper...<i>Again, why not? Why is it not enough that we experience an external world to justify our belief that an external world exists?</i><br /><br />What we have is "experience". We take it to be of an external world. There is no empirical verification of this.<br /><br /><i>I reject skeptical arguments, because they start with imagining a fairy tale, whether that we are really dreaming, or whether there is an evil demon, or whether we are brains in a vat, or whatever.</i><br /><br />What they start with imagining is possibility, given the data we have - our experience.<br /><br /><i>That is not your claim. You claim that EVERYONE starts with their subjective private experience, and then INFERS the existence of an external world. YOUR claim.</i><br /><br />I said that people can unreflectively 'act as if' there is an external world. My point from the start has been that there is no 'empirical verification' of an external, objective world. You yourself cede as much when you speak about skeptical arguments. The difference is you think that, so long as you aren't actively contemplating a skeptical argument, you've somehow 'empirically verified' an objective and/or external world and aren't engaging in any assumptions.<br /><br /><i>You seem to think that the sheer presence of these fantasies is sufficient to cast doubt upon the veracity of my experience.</i><br /><br />The sheer presence of possible explanations to explain your experience, and no way to get beyond your experience, shows that you're not 'empirically verifying' the existence of said world in any meaningful, appropriate way.<br /><br />You keep trying to treat what I'm saying here as convincing you to doubt the external world - despite repeatedly saying that I accept an external world, and that that isn't my goal. I'm pointing out the limits of empirical verification. The limit doesn't go away just because you A) make assumptions about experience, then B) deny you're making assumptions.<br /><br />Say "I reject that!" as many times as you like. It won't be changing the reality.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60967003953012506252011-03-04T15:10:45.932-08:002011-03-04T15:10:45.932-08:00Crude:
>> But "empirically verifying t...Crude:<br /><br />>> But "empirically verifying that there is an external world" doesn't show up. <br /><br />Again, why not? Why is it not enough that we experience an external world to justify our belief that an external world exists?<br /><br />>> You yourself are admitting as much in the context of appraising skeptical arguments. For some reason you think empirical verification only fails then, but at all other times - so long as you don't think about it - it somehow is magically succeeding, especially when you don't think about it. Or so long as you feel good and don't take it seriously most of the time.<br /><br />I reject skeptical arguments, because they start with imagining a fairy tale, whether that we are really dreaming, or whether there is an evil demon, or whether we are brains in a vat, or whatever. They then take these fairy tales that are completely divorced from our experience, and try to get us to reject our experience. However, when you look at the arguments underlying them, they fail. And since they fail, there is no problem with relying upon our default state of justifying the existence of external objects with our experience of them. <br /><br />>> Stop and think about it for a moment. Do you see anything - anything at all - wrong with responding to 'How do you verify the existence of an external world' with 'Well, I'm pretty sure all the other people I know believe it.'?<br /><br />That is not your claim. You claim that EVERYONE starts with their subjective private experience, and then INFERS the existence of an external world. YOUR claim. I brought in the majority of human beings to show you that NO-ONE, not even philosophers, operate this way. We all operate on the default state that I mentioned above, and only after this default state is questioned can we imagine an alternative, even if it is poorly justified and barely coherent. If you are not rejecting the claim that I mentioned, then I withdraw bringing in other people.<br /><br />>> As Brian said, this is bad philosophizing. As TheOFloinn said earlier - you assume an objective reality to start off. Welcome to the limits of empirical verification.<br /><br />I’m sorry, but I reject the idea that there is an insurmountable gap between my experience of the world and the world. That is not based on any assumption. That is based upon my experience. These limits that you keep talking about only come AFTER my experience of the world has been questioned by skeptical fairy tales. You seem to think that the sheer presence of these fantasies is sufficient to cast doubt upon the veracity of my experience. It is YOU who puts enormous weight upon them, and not me. <br /><br />Why should I put them higher than my experience? Why should I allow philosophical fictions to take the place of reality?dgullernoreply@blogger.com