News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

Skeptical Thinking Presented by Carl Sagan

Started by SteveS, April 01, 2007, 05:44:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Squid

#15
I did acid once - saw Silvester Stallone crawl out of a TV, saw a chick's face melt off exposing a skull with flaming eye sockets (that was actually kinda cool) - the Stallone thing...not cool.

donkeyhoty

#16
was it the cro-magnon current variety of sly, or the vaguely human form he had about 10 years ago?  That freaky ass face he has now could be extremely frightening, regardless of the substance one might have ingested.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Squid

#17
It was from the old movie "Cobra"

Scrybe

#18
Quote from: "Squid"Scrybe, you say that outside of what science can quantify lay these "experiential" events.  Now, my question would be, how are we to know these are a reality and not some anomaly of mind?

In the same way we can assess the reality of a physical phenomenon.  Investigation.  The difference in investigating an experiential claim and a physical claim must lie in the tools available to us.  Though, as I said, sometimes these claims interface with the physical world in a way that allows us to utilize our scientific tools to investigate.  (The incarnation of Christ being a prime example.)  I will go into more detail in a moment, but first let me ask you this: How are we to know that bunnies are a reality, and not some anomaly of mind?  The tools we have available to investigate a claim concerning a physical entity can all be shown to be subjective and potentially flawed.  You can't prove that when you see, smell, touch, taste, or hear a bunny you are not dreaming or hallucinating.  You can't prove that everyone else who claims to have seen bunnies are not dreaming, hallucinating or lying.  What you can do is claim with relative certainty that there is a consensus concerning the reality of bunnies.  (Though, you can't prove that other people exist either.)  You believe that there are bunnies.  You are convinced that they exist.  

The only difference between your belief in a physical entity and an existential truth is a matter of degree, not kind.  It is easier to believe in something that can be sensed with our physical senses because we have the consensus of other's to affirm our beliefs.  We have the same thing in the existential realm, but it is harder to form a consensus because we are having to rely on undeveloped senses or modes of knowing.  It is almost impossible to achieve consensus in detail.  I'm sure you've heard the analogy of the blind men feeling up the elephant.  One says it's like a tree, another like a snake, another like a broom, etc.  

I'm guessing it's the conflicting beliefs and data that scare atheists away from a more open ontology.  What I'm trying to explain is that your science is full of conflicting beliefs and data as well.  Not to the same extent, but it seems enough to me to justify skepticism towards a view that assumes all of life's questions can be answered by science.  When we approach the question, "What exists?" we need to recognize that science can only answer the physical part of the question.  We must rely on the tools of philosophy to answer the rest.  To simply excise the parts that don't fall under the physical category of existence seems simplistic and heavy handed to me.          


Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Does that mean the angels were real, and trying to give me a message?
Maybe it does, damn, I better get on that holy book I have to write.

You should.   :idea: But make it with a lot of cuss words.  I've always wanted to read a religious text filled with cursing.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

donkeyhoty

#19
I find killing of non-believers and slavery much more reprehensible than saying Fuck.  So, maybe I'll take that out of my bible.

In fact, I don't find "curse words" to be vulgar.  And I find it quite amusing when they are referred to as such.

It's like when you call someone a bitch, only the real bitches get pissed off by it.

Unless you're Don Imus, that guy's just a dipshit, and everything he says should be stricken from the record.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Squid

#20
Quote from: "Scrybe"
Quote from: "Squid"Scrybe, you say that outside of what science can quantify lay these "experiential" events.  Now, my question would be, how are we to know these are a reality and not some anomaly of mind?

In the same way we can assess the reality of a physical phenomenon.  Investigation.  The difference in investigating an experiential claim and a physical claim must lie in the tools available to us.  Though, as I said, sometimes these claims interface with the physical world in a way that allows us to utilize our scientific tools to investigate.  (The incarnation of Christ being a prime example.)  I will go into more detail in a moment, but first let me ask you this: How are we to know that bunnies are a reality, and not some anomaly of mind?  The tools we have available to investigate a claim concerning a physical entity can all be shown to be subjective and potentially flawed.  You can't prove that when you see, smell, touch, taste, or hear a bunny you are not dreaming or hallucinating.  You can't prove that everyone else who claims to have seen bunnies are not dreaming, hallucinating or lying.  What you can do is claim with relative certainty that there is a consensus concerning the reality of bunnies.  (Though, you can't prove that other people exist either.)  You believe that there are bunnies.  You are convinced that they exist.

This would way of investigation leads nowhere.  If you work upon the assumption that all we know experiential or quantified is "possibly" some sort of illusion then we only spin our wheels and can never know anything.  I remember Betrand Russell talking of this in his "Problems With Philosophy" but it's been a long while since I've read it.  The problem is that we can never know anything in this view.  However, it is not without merit in an adjacent perspective which is the tentative conclusion albeit within the framework of science it relies upon observation and/or quantification.

I'm not sure if that made any sense, it could be the Canadian Hunter whiskey talkin'.  I think my point is that we must work off of some fundamental assumptions about reality otherwise we're just "spinning our wheels" so to speak.  I think that whether this reality is as we view it, illusion or not - it is the same for everyone (basically speaking) and therefore if it is the reality of which we interact, live and die then no matter if it is "real" or not, for all intents and purposes to us, it is the only reality.  The Matrix movies come to mind though.  I usually don't like Keanu but he was pretty good in those...and Bill & Ted.

QuoteThe only difference between your belief in a physical entity and an existential truth is a matter of degree, not kind.  It is easier to believe in something that can be sensed with our physical senses because we have the consensus of other's to affirm our beliefs.  We have the same thing in the existential realm, but it is harder to form a consensus because we are having to rely on undeveloped senses or modes of knowing.  It is almost impossible to achieve consensus in detail.  I'm sure you've heard the analogy of the blind men feeling up the elephant.  One says it's like a tree, another like a snake, another like a broom, etc.

Maybe I should have been more specific, how would you decide if someone was having a "revelation" or simply an epileptic seizure - for instance.

Whitney

#21
Squid, does your sig ISP thing also pick up on what was typed above it?  If not it just coincidentally said "what is 'real'? How do you define 'real?"

SteveS

#22
Okay, I'll chime in here with some small additions (I know, I said I was going to leave this conversation alone, but I guess I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut  :wink:  ).

Quote from: "Squid"However, it is not without merit in an adjacent perspective which is the tentative conclusion albeit within the framework of science it relies upon observation and/or quantification.
I took this to mean that science is very aware of the limitations that Scrybe points out.  We know we can be deceived.  We know there are limits to our senses and experiences.  This is why we are so careful to produce repeatable experiments.  We take as truth those things that everyone can reliably observe, and we quantify exactly what they are observing, so that we can be as sure as possible.  In fact, the level of error is even quantified in experiment, so that we can have some reasonable amount of certainty regarding what is uncertain.  The entire process of scientific inquiry revolves around peer review, skeptical analysis, and error correction.  It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

Quote from: "Squid"I think that whether this reality is as we view it, illusion or not - it is the same for everyone (basically speaking) and therefore if it is the reality of which we interact, live and die then no matter if it is "real" or not, for all intents and purposes to us, it is the only reality.
Exactly.  If gravity is only a dream, it is a consistent dream.  It is dreamt by everyone the same way, all the time, over and over.  We dream it when we see an apple fall.  We dream it when we watch the planets move.  We dream it when we observe galaxies colliding.  We dream it when we send spacecraft to the moon, other planets, comets, etc.  So what does it mean to say that gravity is just a dream?  It doesn't seem to matter whether it is or not, it works just the same.

So we employ Occam's razor.  What is the difference between gravity as a natural law, and gravity as a shared dream?  Nothing.  This additional qualification as a dream, or shared hallucination, neither adds anything to, nor takes anything away from, our understanding.  It is completely superfluous.  So why bother with it?

SteveS

#23
Okay, since I broke my peace, I really wanted to mention one more thing from up a few posts:

Quote from: "Scrybe"Yes, and my point is that this is an inadequate expression of what love is. Inadequate precisely because it is limited to the physical, scientific lens of dissection. In that sense it is not honest because it does not communicate what our experience as humans are. A poem is better suited to the job.
I wanted to mention this, Scrybe,  because I absolutely love the line "A poem is better suited to the job".  It probably helps that I like poetry so much, but this is absolutely right-on.  However, and to me this is important, it's right-on for the purpose of trying to "communicate what our experience as humans are".  Not how our bodies are built, what we're made of, or how we experience things.  To describe how our experiences work inside of us, under the hood, the scientific explanation is far better suited than a poem.  There is a difference in purpose between these two means of communication, right?  They both have value, but we have to understand what we are about to decide upon the best methodology for a given purpose.  Both art and science are immensely valuable to humanity.

Squid

#24
Quote from: "laetusatheos"Squid, does your sig ISP thing also pick up on what was typed above it?  If not it just coincidentally said "what is 'real'? How do you define 'real?"

Really? Haha, no it was a coincidence.  It has a list of little sayings it cycles through.  That's funny though.

Also, Scrybe, when you come back I just wanted to let you know that I'll be here only sporadically until next week - I'm taking some extra shifts at work which isn't so bad when you like your job.  So I may not be able to jump into an extended discussion over the next few days.  Gotta pay them bills  :D

Scrybe

#25
Quote from: "Squid"This would way of investigation leads nowhere.

I promise I'm not trying to be coy, but that really depends on where you are trying to go.  Are you trying to get to Certainty-ville?  Because I'm telling you the bus will always break down.  I know this bugs a lot of people, but we just can't be certain of anything.  As far as I can tell you can do two things with this fact.  You can ignore it, sweep it under the carpet, and dismiss it at philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or you can let it inform your attitude and expectations concerning your life and the pursuit of truth.  I choose the later.  I find accepting this simple premise to yield a better footing from which to consider all possibilities.  It makes me more humble than I would be otherwise.  And it keeps me from mental or philosophical stagnation.      


Quote from: "Squid"The problem is that we can never know anything in this view.

And this is only a problem if you are uncomfortable with that fact.  If you need the  psychological crutch :wink: of false certainty, then you can go ahead and pretend you know it all and that science and the physical world is all you need.          

Quote from: "Squid"However, it is not without merit in an adjacent perspective which is the tentative conclusion albeit within the framework of science it relies upon observation and/or quantification.

I have no idea what you just said.            



Quote from: "Squid"I think my point is that we must work off of some fundamental assumptions about reality otherwise we're just "spinning our wheels" so to speak.

Now here, I'm getting you.  You are right that if we just stay at square one, believing that we can't know anything, we will fail in life.  We won't be able to make any judgment calls or decisions in any sort of organized fashion without moving beyond the "know nothing" stage.  But as I said, there are two ways to move forward.  One is to pretend you actually have answered some of the basic questions of humanity with certainty.  This is what appears to be the modus operandi of both the religious fanatic and the atheist.  They take very divergent turns at the beginning, but the certainty-without-proof unifies them.  

I believe a better way to move beyond the 'know nothing' stage is to tentatively seek answers to the big questions.  Investigate the various claims out there.  Investigate how they align with the reality that you perceive.  But always keep your thread tied to the entrance of the labyrinth.  That door is the knowledge that you know nothing for sure.  Investigating claims that answer the big questions inevitably leads to dead ends.  But what I've observed in myself an others is an unwillingness to admit they are in a dead end and backtrack.  There is too much comfort in old ideas.  A community of likeminded friends or family make this all the harder to overcome.  Besides that, there is the pride of 'being right', that feeling that you are better than the unwashed masses who foolishly follow another course.  This is a lot of psychological tension to break free from.  And I think it's nearly impossible without a basic recognition of the fact that we can not truly know anything.  Sadly, when a philosophical or religious 180 occurs in a person, (such as switching from athiest to Christian or visa versa) many just hop from one extreme to the other without ever following the cord back and truly reevaluating their underlying assumptions.  

So when it comes to practical application, we have to work with a variety of truth claims to order our thoughts and opinions.  I have a world view that is comprised of many different influences, but is organized around a few basic philosophical/religious premises.  I recognize that those premises could be flawed, since I am only human and lack the time and capacity to fully investigate, understand, and choose between every possible option.  But the necessity to act forces me to make the best guesses that I can.  So I go with what is most convincing to me.  (As we all do.)  But I don't demand that everyone else be just as convinced of these premises as I am.  Nor do I find those who disagree with me to be stupid, ignorant, evil, weak, etc.  (Sound familiar, atheists?)  I understand that everyone has different tools to work with in this life.  Different emotional, intellectual and spiritual maturity levels.  And most likely I'm not at the top of any of those categories.  So I simply operate as best I can, and communicate the best I can why I find my premises convincing.  

I find that holding them up to the scrutiny of those who believe differently than I do to be terrifically beneficial in a Darwinian sense.  If they are eaten alive then they probably shouldn't be directing my life.                    

Quote from: "Squid"for all intents and purposes to us, it is the only reality.


This is only true if we are not influenced by another reality that we don't sense clearly.  If there is another reality, and our actions have ramifications in that reality and visa versa, then we had better take it seriously as a part of our lives.


Quote from: "Squid"how would you decide if someone was having a "revelation" or simply an epileptic seizure - for instance.

Investigation.  You examine how any truth claim fits into the larger picture of reality.  Obviously, if your picture of reality omits any aspects but the physical, you are going to dismiss any claims of revelation a priori.  If however, you have found a particular religious claim to be tenable, and believe it with appropriate certainty, than you examine how the proposed revelation fits into the framework of your belief system.  For example, as a Christian, (with caveats) I find Joseph Smith's claims of revelation to be untenable for any number of reasons.  Those reasons are not based on materialist grounds, (through there is plenty of counterevidence in that arena) but on philosophical grounds.  Because I find A most convincing, I will compare Y to it to determine Y's validity.  We all do this.

Quote from: "SteveS"The entire process of scientific inquiry revolves around peer review, skeptical analysis, and error correction. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

That is exactly my opinion of religion.  

Quote from: "SteveS"Exactly. If gravity is only a dream, it is a consistent dream. It is dreamt by everyone the same way, all the time, over and over.

And I would make a parallel between gravity and a transcendent being.  Both are consistently understood a certain way.  As I pointed out, there is much less clarity in spiritual matters because our senses are dull in that regard.  But the consensus can not be denied.    

Quote from: "SteveS"So we employ Occam's razor. What is the difference between gravity as a natural law, and gravity as a shared dream? Nothing. This additional qualification as a dream, or shared hallucination, neither adds anything to, nor takes anything away from, our understanding. It is completely superfluous. So why bother with it?

We bother with it because it shapes our whole perception of ourselves and our attitudes.  And our attitudes greatly impact our ability to perceive, understand, and organize input.  When we dispense with the basic admittance that 'we can not know anything' as unnecessary, we become puffed up in our opinions and shut off other views that could help us.  

I'm not saying we need to constantly reevaluate gravity, but as we tread the murky woods of less certain ideas we need to be vigilant and careful.  It is important to understand that we don't know if gravity is true because it places it on a continuum of truth claims, rather than making an artificial division between what we can know and what we can't know.  Science and philosophy, materialism and religion.  These boundaries only exist in our heads because we like to oversimplify with tools like Occam's razor.  

Quote from: "SteveS"To describe how our experiences work inside of us, under the hood, the scientific explanation is far better suited than a poem. There is a difference in purpose between these two means of communication, right? They both have value, but we have to understand what we are about to decide upon the best methodology for a given purpose. Both art and science are immensely valuable to humanity.

I agree mostly.  But again, I see an unnecessary dualism in your point of view.  You divide science from experience, and choose to examine a phenomenon from one lens or the other based on which category you feel it should fall into.  I am claiming that a thing like love (as we humans experience it) does not exist apart from the physical processes and the existential processes.  One without the other renders it as something fundamentally different.  We need both lenses to understand it.  And we need to know that when we see it through only one, it is an imbalanced image we are seeing.  

I love science.  I absolutely love the way it informs us.  The way it structures us.  The way it grows us.  But I can not fathom a worldview that sees all of life through that lens only.        



Quote from: "Squid"I may not be able to jump into an extended discussion over the next few days.

No problem dude.  I'm in no hurry.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

Squid

#26
Quote from: "Scrybe"I promise I'm not trying to be coy, but that really depends on where you are trying to go.  Are you trying to get to Certainty-ville?  Because I'm telling you the bus will always break down.  I know this bugs a lot of people, but we just can't be certain of anything.  As far as I can tell you can do two things with this fact.  You can ignore it, sweep it under the carpet, and dismiss it at philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or you can let it inform your attitude and expectations concerning your life and the pursuit of truth.  I choose the later.  I find accepting this simple premise to yield a better footing from which to consider all possibilities.  It makes me more humble than I would be otherwise.  And it keeps me from mental or philosophical stagnation.

How can you pursue the truth if you can never know if anything is a reflection of reality?  The overwhelming possibilities making anything you think is true in this framework able to be doubted with extreme prejudice.   You can't contend that we can't really know anything and then state it helps you find the truth - it can do nothing but hinder us from "knowing" anything.      


QuoteAnd this is only a problem if you are uncomfortable with that fact.  If you need the  psychological crutch :wink: of false certainty, then you can go ahead and pretend you know it all and that science and the physical world is all you need.

Negative shipmate.  I have decided to go with what works.  Does gas make allow my car to go or is it a deity willing my vehicle to go?  You can postulate an endless string of but "what if's" and "maybe's" and they will do nothing but hinder any sort of progress.  You claim to utilize this knowledge to further your quest for truth when we just established if you leave open every possibility you get nowhere and are unable to really know any truth.  Also, science never claims to have a patent on the "truth" - that's religion.  Science only goes, as I said with what works time and time again (that's why all these pesky scientists do all that testing over and over).      

Quote
Quote from: "Squid"However, it is not without merit in an adjacent perspective which is the tentative conclusion albeit within the framework of science it relies upon observation and/or quantification.

I have no idea what you just said.

The tentative conclusion is one which is based upon the knowledge at the present time - it is then subsequently revised as more evidence is presented to support or contradict the currently accepted conclusion.          


QuoteNow here, I'm getting you.  You are right that if we just stay at square one, believing that we can't know anything, we will fail in life.  We won't be able to make any judgment calls or decisions in any sort of organized fashion without moving beyond the "know nothing" stage.  But as I said, there are two ways to move forward.  One is to pretend you actually have answered some of the basic questions of humanity with certainty.  This is what appears to be the modus operandi of both the religious fanatic and the atheist.  They take very divergent turns at the beginning, but the certainty-without-proof unifies them.  

I believe a better way to move beyond the 'know nothing' stage is to tentatively seek answers to the big questions.  Investigate the various claims out there.  Investigate how they align with the reality that you perceive.  But always keep your thread tied to the entrance of the labyrinth.

This is exactly what science does.  It is not a static process - it is dynamic, in constant flux being built up in one place and torn down in another. Science never (as I mentioned before) has a rock hard, absolute answer - there are always more questions, always more to learn.  Religion is the one with the static, absolute answers that never changes no matter what.


QuoteThat door is the knowledge that you know nothing for sure.  Investigating claims that answer the big questions inevitably leads to dead ends.  But what I've observed in myself an others is an unwillingness to admit they are in a dead end and backtrack.  There is too much comfort in old ideas.  A community of likeminded friends or family make this all the harder to overcome.  Besides that, there is the pride of 'being right', that feeling that you are better than the unwashed masses who foolishly follow another course.  This is a lot of psychological tension to break free from.  And I think it's nearly impossible without a basic recognition of the fact that we can not truly know anything.  Sadly, when a philosophical or religious 180 occurs in a person, (such as switching from athiest to Christian or visa versa) many just hop from one extreme to the other without ever following the cord back and truly reevaluating their underlying assumptions.

I can't say that I disagree with what you've said here.

QuoteSo when it comes to practical application, we have to work with a variety of truth claims to order our thoughts and opinions.  I have a world view that is comprised of many different influences, but is organized around a few basic philosophical/religious premises.  I recognize that those premises could be flawed, since I am only human and lack the time and capacity to fully investigate, understand, and choose between every possible option.  But the necessity to act forces me to make the best guesses that I can.  So I go with what is most convincing to me.  (As we all do.)  But I don't demand that everyone else be just as convinced of these premises as I am.  Nor do I find those who disagree with me to be stupid, ignorant, evil, weak, etc.  (Sound familiar, atheists?)

You'd be surprised how many times I've been called stupid, ignorant, evil, weak for contradicting what someone claims to be truth from the religious side - it goes both ways Scrybe - atheists as a whole do not hold the copyright on having jackasses in their midst.

QuoteI understand that everyone has different tools to work with in this life.  Different emotional, intellectual and spiritual maturity levels.  And most likely I'm not at the top of any of those categories.  So I simply operate as best I can, and communicate the best I can why I find my premises convincing.  

I find that holding them up to the scrutiny of those who believe differently than I do to be terrifically beneficial in a Darwinian sense.  If they are eaten alive then they probably shouldn't be directing my life.

Spiritual maturity?                  

QuoteThis is only true if we are not influenced by another reality that we don't sense clearly.  If there is another reality, and our actions have ramifications in that reality and visa versa, then we had better take it seriously as a part of our lives.

It could be salient, however, if we are unable to sense or detect it by any sense of the word, then the only thing we could be able to deal with is the effects of it upon us.  Even with just effects we can still work up functional ideas.  I treat the symptoms of a disease without truly knowing what it is - physicians do this all the time, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.  Whether it is the amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles which contribute to Alzheimers or the misfolded Tau protein, a BACE1 gene or aliens from the Xanadau dimension using reality control waves to make a person exhibit Alzheimer-like symptoms - we can still do what we can to treat the symptoms manifest in our reality.  If it is the aliens causing the plaques and tangles (assuming this would be the cause of the deficits) we can still workout a way to possibly treat this and even stop it from happening even without knowing it's the aliens and their reality control waves.  Similarly if a deity were to smite me with the plague - I can still get it treated.  Even if there is no explanation for an event, this does not mean that we cannot work in any capacity at all or know anything at all about the event.

QuoteInvestigation.  You examine how any truth claim fits into the larger picture of reality.  Obviously, if your picture of reality omits any aspects but the physical, you are going to dismiss any claims of revelation a priori.  If however, you have found a particular religious claim to be tenable, and believe it with appropriate certainty, than you examine how the proposed revelation fits into the framework of your belief system.  For example, as a Christian, (with caveats) I find Joseph Smith's claims of revelation to be untenable for any number of reasons.  Those reasons are not based on materialist grounds, (through there is plenty of counterevidence in that arena) but on philosophical grounds.  Because I find A most convincing, I will compare Y to it to determine Y's validity.  We all do this.

So you're make your conclusions based on what you think by comparing one event of which we cannot ever truly know the cause of against another event which we cannot ever truly know the cause of.  Basically, you're making your own conclusion on your own experience which you cannot know isn't distorted in itself and so on and so forth as you argued earlier.  It seems you wish to engage in a systematic assessment of this claim but if you want to work in the idea that we cannot really know anything for certain, let alone find any truth, then you will never know what it is.  You are spiritual and think it could be a revelation and compare it to other claims and so forth.  I am not spiritual or religious and stick the guy in a room with an EEG or maybe an fMRI.

But hey, I'm just working off the assumption that we know what epilepsy is and what it looks like, the assumption that the machines work in accordance to rules of physics we assume we know about and the assumption that the computer will work with the rules of magnetism and electricity we assume we know well.

Interestingly, TMS has been shown through the work of primarily Persinger that it can elicit similar experiences had by Temporal Lobe Epileptics.

Scrybe

#27
Quote from: "Squid"How can you pursue the truth if you can never know if anything is a reflection of reality?  

The same way a surfer searches for the perfect wave, or a photographer searches for the perfect shot.   And I'm not nearly as cloudy as you are making me out to be.  There are shades of certainty, you know.  I'm saying we can be 99% certain about many things.  Just never 100%.    
Quote from: "Squid"The overwhelming possibilities making anything you think is true in this framework able to be doubted with extreme prejudice.

No.  Some things are more doubt-worthy than others.  I doubt what I perceive with my physical senses much less than what I perceive with my spiritual senses.  We are the same in that regard.  I only allow the possibility that such a reality exists regardless of my ability to accurately perceive it.    

Quote from: "Squid"You can't contend that we can't really know anything and then state it helps you find the truth - it can do nothing but hinder us from "knowing" anything.  

It can't hinder us at all, since the goal is impossible.  The pursuit of Truth is an ideal, not a realistic goal.  You want to "know" things.  I'm saying that is impossible, and I'm content to hold tentative conclusions about things.  If you think you can "know" anything, prove it.  I've never heard or read anyone who could.  Since we can't know anything with 100% certainty, I'm inclined to deal with the reality that we have been dealt, and will just accept the logic that I can only kind of know things.  I believe there are other minds.  I believe we are communicating right now over the internet.  I believe things more if I find the sourses credible.  My tests for credibility are biased just like everyone else's so I just live with a certain amount of uncertainty.        
   


Quote from: "Squid"I have decided to go with what works.  Does gas make allow my car to go or is it a deity willing my vehicle to go?  You can postulate an endless string of but "what if's" and "maybe's" and they will do nothing but hinder any sort of progress.

Again, you speak of progress, and I ask "towards what?".  It seems like you want certainty.  But that can not exist.  I agree that we go with what works.  But if you make that the test for ascertaining absolute truth you are limiting your options.  Life could be more complicated than you or I would like it to be.          


Quote from: "Squid"You claim to utilize this knowledge to further your quest for truth when we just established if you leave open every possibility you get nowhere and are unable to really know any truth.

Our quests for Truth can only be symbolic.  We are far too limited in our powers to make any real progress in such a quest.  (Without some kind of communication from a source that does not share out limitations.)  We live several decades in a linier time-line in an incredibly small percentage of history in an incredibly small part of the universe with only a handful of senses and tools at our disposal.  So are we getting nowhere?  Pretty much.  Sorry, I think it's the cold, hard logic of our position.            


Quote from: "Squid"Also, science never claims to have a patent on the "truth" - that's religion.  Science only goes, as I said with what works time and time again (that's why all these pesky scientists do all that testing over and over).

Well, every time Science calls me, he's drunk and blathering on and on about how he knows everything.  So maybe my impression of him is based on too few encounters.  :wink:  Of course what you are saying is correct.  But that's not the stance everyone I've ever heard who uses science to back up their view uses.  They say, "X is proven to be true because of scientific study Y."  

And if a religion is claiming to be The Truth, they aren't being the kind of religion Jesus told us about, "True religion is this: feeding the hungry and caring for the orphans and widows."              


Quote from: "Squid"The tentative conclusion is one which is based upon the knowledge at the present time - it is then subsequently revised as more evidence is presented to support or contradict the currently accepted conclusion.

Great.  This the template for how I would like to operate in my quest of Truth.  The only caveat I have is you are saying you base things on knowledge, which I can always disprove.  There is no "knowledge", only assertions.  I happen to believe many of them, just like you.                

           

Quote from: "Squid"Science never (as I mentioned before) has a rock hard, absolute answer - there are always more questions, always more to learn.

That's all I'm saying.                  


Quote from: "Squid"Religion is the one with the static, absolute answers that never changes no matter what.

Well, last time we talked Religion said that you told her that those jeans she just bought made her ass look fat, so I think you two may have relationship issues.

  Look.  People want certainty.  It's natural for us to look to some kind of authority for that certainty.  For some it's religion and its false certainty.  For others, it science and its false certainty.  I opt for ditching both.  Not to simply ignore what they have to say, but to reject their claims to ultimate certainty and Truth.  You claim science does not make such claims.  I say that the way it informs people's lives and the decisions they make shows that the assertion is implicit, whether or not it is explicitly renounced.                                                      

Quote from: "Squid"You'd be surprised how many times I've been called stupid, ignorant, evil, weak for contradicting what someone claims to be truth from the religious side - it goes both ways Scrybe - atheists as a whole do not hold the copyright on having jackasses in their midst.

Haha!  Indeed.  


Quote from: "Squid"Spiritual maturity?

Hmm… I suppose that's Christianeese.  I'll just say it's so closely related to emotional maturity that we can just leave it at that.                        
                 
Quote from: "Squid"Even if there is no explanation for an event, this does not mean that we cannot work in any capacity at all or know anything at all about the event.

Are you under the impression that I'm against finding natural causes for things?                        


Quote from: "Squid"So you're make your conclusions based on what you think by comparing one event of which we cannot ever truly know the cause of against another event which we cannot ever truly know the cause of.

Yup.

Quote from: "Squid"Basically, you're making your own conclusion on your own experience which you cannot know isn't distorted in itself and so on and so forth as you argued earlier.  

Uh-huh.

Quote from: "Squid"It seems you wish to engage in a systematic assessment of this claim but if you want to work in the idea that we cannot really know anything for certain, let alone find any truth, then you will never know what it is.

Affirmative.

Quote from: "Squid"You are spiritual and think it could be a revelation and compare it to other claims and so forth.  I am not spiritual or religious and stick the guy in a room with an EEG or maybe an fMRI.

You just hung a sharp corner and lost me...  Are you comparing how we would react given an identical hypothetical situation involving a sick person?  Or someone claiming to have a revelation?  Oh, it must be that one.  Right, now I see what you're getting at.  Yeah, there's no problem with investigating metaphysical claims with physical procedures.  I'm saying there is nothing wrong with investigating with philosophical tools either.  And as I've said, simple logic will rule out most claims real fast.  (Within a certain degree of certainty!)                            

Quote from: "Squid"But hey, I'm just working off the assumption that we know what epilepsy is and what it looks like, the assumption that the machines work in accordance to rules of physics we assume we know about and the assumption that the computer will work with the rules of magnetism and electricity we assume we know well.

And I agree with all those assumptions.                              


Quote from: "Squid"Interestingly, TMS has been shown through the work of primarily Persinger that it can elicit similar experiences had by Temporal Lobe Epileptics.

Uh... you lost me again.    :lol:

Overall, I'm getting the impression that you think I'm against concluding that there are natural causes for many things that are presumed supernatural.  I am not.  I love science.  I love that we have been given these incredibly complex minds capable of figuring out amazing things.  My only objection is arguing that because there is a natural explanation for a thing, it by necessity, can not be a supernatural thing.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

Squid

#28
Quote from: "Scrybe"Overall, I'm getting the impression that you think I'm against concluding that there are natural causes for many things that are presumed supernatural.

This was the impression I got, yes.

QuoteI am not.  I love science.  I love that we have been given these incredibly complex minds capable of figuring out amazing things.  My only objection is arguing that because there is a natural explanation for a thing, it by necessity, can not be a supernatural thing.

...aaaaand we're back to square one...where is that pesky dragon anyway?

brainshmain

#29
What a perfect metaphor he uses.  I'm going to have to use that next time someone insists to me that God exists and doesn't need proof to be believed.  Carl Sagan is brilliant.