Metaphysics

[Winstonm]

you misunderstand... by method of knowing i'm speaking of that which allows you (us) to make sense of our experiences

 

I understand - again I am not totally happy with the terminology. I am also not against metaphysics or logic - but I have trouble with conflicting argumentation styles where one person is arguing metaphysical and the other is offering a different perspective.

 

So bear with me if I am ignorant.

[helene_t]

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing.

I suspect the question is meaningless (since if one insists of some threshold above which an organism is deemed "self-aware" in an absolute sense, that threshold becomes arbitrary), but maybe one could ask how self-aware the most self-aware organism was (say) 100 million years ago, or how self-aware our common ancestor with (say) squirrels was.

 

The common test for self-awareness is if an animal, exposed to a mirror, realizes that if its own mirror image has a red dot on its forehead, it means the animal has a red dot on its own forehead. Orangutans and dolphins pass the test, so the obvious question is how much of this ability evolved before the split-up of their ancestral lines. That can be studied with the usual techniques of evolutionary biology.

 

It doesn't tell us how self-aware extinct animals were, but we can get an idea of that as we get to know more about the evolutionary advantages of self-awareness.

 

This question doesn't matter to me, personally.

Ditto.

[helene_t]

Kant was active when Euclid's postulate of unique parallels was an active topic for discussion. As I understand it, and with Kant one is never sure if one does understand it,  this became one of the Synthetic A Priori statements in his Critique of Pure Reason, meaning that it was a factual statement about the world whose truth could be deduced from proper reasoning, no experimentation required.

Maybe I misunderstand but I thought it was known long before Kant & Co. that the parallel axiom, as applied to a model for physical space, is a non-trivial assertion.

 

Anyway, it makes me think about your first post, about Fermat's last theorem which you say is true no matter which axioms one starts with (I suppose you have the continuum hypothesis, and the axiom of choice, in mind). I always thought of those as choices motivated by the mathematician's convenience only. Is it possible that we will one day ask a physics question which can be translated into the question of whether to "believe" in, say, the axiom of choice?

[hotShot]

The common test for self-awareness is if an animal, exposed to a mirror, realizes that if its own mirror image has a red dot on it, it means the animal has a red dot on its own forehead. Orangutans and dolphins pass the test, so the obvious question is how much of this ability evolved before the split-up of their ancestral lines. That can be studied with the usual techniques of evolutionary biology.

I think there is some kind of crow or raven that passes this test as well.

[luke warm]

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

 

so when you say that what a person believes is not the same as knowing, it's possible that you've never really thought on whether or not that's always true... for example, can you make a case for evolution that remains internally consistent (iow, that doesn't reduce to absurdity) with the rest of your view?

 

also, i asked for your opinion - what you believe to be true - on several topics... these opinions (beliefs?) may or may not be true - this truth itself being another component of knowledge

The common test for self-awareness is if an animal, exposed to a mirror, realizes that if its own mirror image has a red dot on its forehead, it means the animal has a red dot on its own forehead. Orangutans and dolphins pass the test, so the obvious question is how much of this ability evolved before the split-up of their ancestral lines. That can be studied with the usual techniques of evolutionary biology.

it might can be studied using those techniques, helene, but it can't be answered that way... now it's possibly true that answers aren't necessary to all questions in a worldview (for example, even you think this one is meaningless), but for the non-theist to denigrate the belief of a theist as the answer to these and other questions seems hypocritical when the non-theist says something like "your (the theist's) view that the answer is God is simply faith, even though i (the non-theist) have no answers"

[PassedOut]

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

Not sure why you are squirming so on this one. As you well realize, I did not say anything about "*no* beliefs."

 

I said that believing is not the same as knowing. (That's why we use different words.)

 

I expect that most of us here have studied epistomology to some extent (although a math major, philosophy was one of my minors). If your view of reality equates believing and knowing, it would be the first such view I've heard of (outside of church).

[luke warm]

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

Not sure why you are squirming so on this one. As you well realize, I did not say anything about "*no* beliefs."

 

I said that believing is not the same as knowing. (That's why we use different words.)

 

I expect that most of us here have studied epistomology to some extent (although a math major, philosophy was one of my minors). If your view of reality equates believing and knowing, it would be the first such view I've heard of (outside of church).

squirming? i'm not the one who, in post after post, steadfastly refuses to answer any question put to him... as for having no knowledge of a study of epistemology which has belief as a component (outside of church, that is), maybe you didn't take your minor as seriously as you did your major (not a criticism, merely an observation)

[Winstonm]

Trying to get a grasp on this stuff, I ran across this which seems to have created a rather large difficulty for the definitions of epistemology.

 

In 1963 Edmund Gettier called into question the theory of knowledge that had been dominant among philosophers for thousands of years[4]. In a few pages, Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge. That is, Gettier contended that while justified belief in a proposition is necessary for that proposition to be known, it is not sufficient. As in the diagram above, a true proposition can be believed by an individual but still not fall within the "knowledge" category (purple region).

 

According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all of the above conditions are met. Gettier proposed two thought experiments, which have come to be known as "Gettier cases," as counterexamples to the classical account of knowledge. One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job." (see [4] p.122.) These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true in virtue of luck.

 

This seems to conflict somewhat with this statement.

there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

 

I don't know for sure but belief appears to be trickable and therefore unreliable to knowledge.

 

for example, can you make a case for evolution that remains internally consistent (iow, that doesn't reduce to absurdity) with the rest of your view?

 

And a last point. This is somewhat lawyerly, but it seems to me the better exercise would be to (seriously and thoroughly) adopt a premise different than your worldview and then see if you can create a worldview that stays consistent. A good attorney can argue the case from either side - a reasonable person I would think would do the same for his own held beliefs. If two worldviews can be consistent in themselves, then neither can be eliminated as invalid.

[maggieb]

When words have no meaning

You say what you want

You simply cannot be wrong

 

What it lacks in rigor

We make up with vigor

Containing all beauty, so strong

 

We can wiggle and babble

Scribble and scrabble

Nonsense, it may seem to some

 

But the joke that you see

Is science to me

Oh metaphysical, here we come

 

 

Maggie B.

[Winstonm]

When words have no meaning

You say what you want

You simply cannot be wrong

 

What it lacks in rigor

We make up with vigor

Containing all beauty, so strong

 

We can wiggle and babble

Scribble and scrabble

Nonsense, it may seem to some

 

But the joke that you see

Is science to me

Oh metaphysical, here we come

 

 

Maggie B.

Exactly. And well put. :P

[PassedOut]

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

Not sure why you are squirming so on this one. As you well realize, I did not say anything about "*no* beliefs."

 

I said that believing is not the same as knowing. (That's why we use different words.)

 

I expect that most of us here have studied epistomology to some extent (although a math major, philosophy was one of my minors). If your view of reality equates believing and knowing, it would be the first such view I've heard of (outside of church).

squirming? i'm not the one who, in post after post, steadfastly refuses to answer any question put to him... as for having no knowledge of a study of epistemology which has belief as a component (outside of church, that is), maybe you didn't take your minor as seriously as you did your major (not a criticism, merely an observation)

I now regret using the word "squirming" because it has more of a negative connotation than I intended.

 

To be specific, I was referring to your habit of misrepresenting the posts of others and then responding to your own misrepresentation rather than to the original post. This might work in oral conversation, but is less effective when the conversation is written.

 

You have (as you must know) done the same thing here:

 

as for having no knowledge of a study of epistemology which has belief as a component (outside of church, that is), maybe you didn't take your minor as seriously as you did your major (not a criticism, merely an observation)

Nowhere did I say that belief was excluded from a study of epistemology. I simply said that believing is not the same as knowing. mikeh made that point in another thread, and I don't recall that you disagreed there.

 

Saying one knows something is a stronger statement than saying one believes something. You cannot know something that is unknowable, but you can believe it nevertheless. (In fact, the set of unbelieveable propositions must be pretty small, given all the different beliefs people actually hold.)

 

In my opinion, it's a waste of time to contemplate the unknowable -- such as when self-awareness first occurred. That's why I answered you so directly, as is my habit.

 

Accepting your term, I agree that we all have a "worldview." Most of us like to maintain a worldview that is consistent with reality as well as being consistent internally. If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality. A worldview that does not permit such adjustments is too brittle.

 

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness (I'm not saying you believe that). We can reject that worldview because it conflicts with reality, as demonstrated by experiments such as those Helene mentioned. One's worldview should be able to accomodate new information.

[Winstonm]

If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality

 

Here is where it seems some types of theists have difficulty - if the worldview cannot be altered then the evidence must be attacked.

[luke warm]

Nowhere did I say that belief was excluded from a study of epistemology. I simply said that believing is not the same as knowing. mikeh made that point in another thread, and I don't recall that you disagreed there.

 

Saying one knows something is a stronger statement than saying one believes something. You cannot know something that is unknowable, but you can believe it nevertheless. (In fact, the set of unbelieveable propositions must be pretty small, given all the different beliefs people actually hold.)

i won't quote winston's post re: gettier, since this can take care of both... you are correct that to say "i know" is different from, and stronger than, saying "i believe"... if i misread you, i apologize... i did not expand on this because i wasn't sure of your stance on belief as it relates to knowledge (this post clears it up, thanks)... what gettier leaves off, and what takes literally volumes to argue/explain, is the fact that belief must be true to count as knowledge - and that statement *greatly* understates this school of thought... as mikeh similarly said in another thread (concerning pinker), it's impossible to do justice to a whole school of thought with snippets of posts

In my opinion, it's a waste of time to contemplate the unknowable -- such as when self-awareness first occurred. That's why I answered you so directly, as is my habit.

that's fine, different subjects take on different measures of importance to different people

Accepting your term, I agree that we all have a "worldview." Most of us like to maintain a worldview that is consistent with reality as well as being consistent internally. If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality. A worldview that does not permit such adjustments is too brittle.

absolutely true

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness (I'm not saying you believe that). We can reject that worldview because it conflicts with reality, as demonstrated by experiments such as those Helene mentioned. One's worldview should be able to accomodate new information.

correct... our worldview is made up of our experiences in which we form our ideas of reality

If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality

Here is where it seems some types of theists have difficulty - if the worldview cannot be altered then the evidence must be attacked.

and here is where some a- and/or non-theists have difficulty - if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency, others must be attacked

 

winston, any of us can say "this is my worldview" and stop short of fully examining what it is they believe... it's my opinion that you have done that repeatedly by saying "i don't think metaphysics have any part in this debate" (paraphrasing) and similar things... i can account for things like ethics and morality (and many other abstracts, such as laws) from within my worldview... the materialist can't... the materialist will say things like "you can only account for those by invoking God" while saying "i might not be able to account for those things but at least i don't have to believe in God to not account for them"... hardly a convincing endorsement

[Winstonm]

and here is where some a- and/or non-theists have difficulty - if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency, others must be attacked

 

Sorry, but I simply don't follow this. Who is to say that their worldview reduces to absurdity?

 

winston, any of us can say "this is my worldview" and stop short of fully examining what it is they believe... it's my opinion that you have done that repeatedly by saying "i don't think metaphysics have any part in this debate" (paraphrasing) and similar things...

 

I do not necessarily argue this point - you could well be right.

 

 

i can account for things like ethics and morality (and many other abstracts, such as laws) from within my worldview... the materialist can't...

 

You obviously have great knowledge in the area of metaphysics where I certainly do not - but again simply the wording throws me off. "I can account for things like ethics - materialists can't".

 

I don't think that is accurate. I think that the method that materialists use doesn't make sense to you - as a metaphysical explanation doesn't make sense to others.

It doesn't mean the materialist can't - but perhaps it is true he cannot do so to your satisfaction.

 

the materialist will say things like "you can only account for those by invoking God" while saying "i might not be able to account for those things but at least i don't have to believe in God to not account for them"... hardly a convincing endorsement

 

You are right, there. I don't see either argument at all convincing.

[helene_t]

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness

hmmmm ... I thought "worldview" was a rather big word. Should such details be included in a "worldview"? Who cares if mice are self-aware? Heck, ethology is a hobby of mine and I can get excited about many ethological issues, but this one leaves me cold. But maybe that's just me.

[PassedOut]

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness

hmmmm ... I thought "worldview" was a rather big word. Should such details be included in a "worldview"? Who cares if mice are self-aware? Heck, ethology is a hobby of mine and I can get excited about many ethological issues, but this one leaves me cold. But maybe that's just me.

Yes, but I'm trying to get a better sense of what Jimmy's idea of a worldview really is and why holds the views he does. I gather that he does consider his worldview to function at a very detailed level, as he made clear in this exchange:

 

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality...

I can grasp what other posters say even when I disagree completely, but I often have a hard time following Jimmy's arguments. I'd like to do better.

[luke warm]

and here is where some a- and/or non-theists have difficulty - if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency, others must be attacked

Sorry, but I simply don't follow this. Who is to say that their worldview reduces to absurdity?

have you ever taken part in, or even witnessed, a debate over (for example) the existence of God? (and i mean by two knowledgeable men or women, not necessarily people like us :D) when i use the word 'absurdity' i probably use it in a narrower sense than you do... i mean by it that if a person cannot argue a subject in a manner that maintains an internal cohesiveness, the argument itself reduces to absurdity

i can account for things like ethics and morality (and many other abstracts, such as laws) from within my worldview... the materialist can't...

You obviously have great knowledge in the area of metaphysics where I certainly do not - but again simply the wording throws me off. "I can account for things like ethics - materialists can't".

 

I don't think that is accurate. I think that the method that materialists use doesn't make sense to you - as a metaphysical explanation doesn't make sense to others.

It doesn't mean the materialist can't - but perhaps it is true he cannot do so to your satisfaction.

ok then, take morality for instance... how do you, from within your worldview, account for it?

the materialist will say things like "you can only account for those by invoking God" while saying "i might not be able to account for those things but at least i don't have to believe in God to not account for them"... hardly a convincing endorsement

You are right, there. I don't see either argument at all convincing.

neither has to be convincing... but to be sound, one (not both, impossible where two opposing worldviews are concerned) needs to be able to show where their existence is consistent with the view

[Al_U_Card]

But believing is not the same as knowing.

 

You cannot know something that is unknowable, but you can believe it nevertheless.

Knowing the unknowable is knowing something about it; therefore... :D

 

ie to define or describe something unknowable is best left to our divine spark :rolleyes:

[Winstonm]

have you ever taken part in, or even witnessed, a debate over (for example) the existence of God?

 

No. But you have to understand that I have no problems with a concept of a god, but my concepts of an entity that sparked the Big Bang is that if that did occur then everything thereafter was strictly hands off. For this reason it makes little sense to me to concern myself other than intellectual gratification on whether morality is a product of a god entity or whether it evolved. It doesn't matter to me because I am not trying to prove a binary worldview.

 

Here is my worldview in a nutshell: the only thing anyone has any power over is his ability to alter his own thoughts and actions, and thus serenity lies in continual adaption of self and acceptance of the external environment.

 

if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency

 

if a person cannot argue a subject in a manner that maintains an internal cohesiveness, the argument itself reduces to absurdity

 

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

[PassedOut]

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

[Winstonm]

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

Thanks.

 

Then it seems to me that to say, "A worldview is valid because its argument is internally consistent" would be an example of begging the question, would it not?

[PassedOut]

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

Thanks.

 

Then it seems to me that to say, "A worldview is valid because its argument is internally consistent" would be an example of begging the question, would it not?

Sure. A valid argument produces the correct conclusion only if the premisses are true. There are all kinds of ways that folks justify the premisses that produce the worldview they prefer to hold.

 

For example, one might say, "Only a fool would disagree with this premiss," discouraging others from disagreeing. Or one might say, "Accepting this premiss is warranted or justified for this reason that I find compelling."

[Winstonm]

ok then, take morality for instance... how do you, from within your worldview, account for it?

 

I gave you my worldview. It is fairly simple. The answer to your question is that I have no answer - but neither does anyone else - even with an internally consistent argument.

 

It is really unclear to me whether or not the entire concept of morality isn't a human adaption of a greater universal Law of Actions and Consequences - morality being a term or concept invented by humans to grasp and deal with what is really a natural occurence, the results of actions/consequences.

 

(As a side note, notice how actions/consquences is not a binary concept as is morality's right/wrong. A determination of right/wrong requires a judgement of the person, whereas actions/consequences is based solely on actions taken, hence no judgement.)

[luke warm]

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

i didn't say it couldn't be wrong, but it wouldn't be wrong because it is absurd

ok then, take morality for instance... how do you, from within your worldview, account for it?

 

I gave you my worldview. It is fairly simple. The answer to your question is that I have no answer - but neither does anyone else - even with an internally consistent argument.

assuming you're saying that you can't account for morality from within your worldview, this statement is obviously incorrect (the "but neither does [can] anyone else" part) - i *can* account for it... i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

[Winstonm]

assuming you're saying that you can't account for morality from within your worldview, this statement is obviously incorrect (the "but neither does [can] anyone else" part) - i *can* account for it... i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

 

Again, I did not say what you claim I said.

 

What I said is that it is irrelevant to my worldview - my worldview may or may not be able to account for it BECAUSE my worldview is flexible and adaptable.

 

You say you "can" account for it - but at the same time you agree that a consistent internal argument can be wrong. So the "account for it" part of your worldview sounds simply like a semantic game to validate to yourself that you are right.

 

If your argument can be internally consistent but still Wrong, then IMHO nothing has been "accounted for" - it would be like saying I can "account for" the quarter under my pillow and the missing tooth I left there by introducing the concept of the tooth fairy.

 

i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

 

Well, Jimmy, we certainly have trouble talking to one another on this subject (but that is OK) as what I am arguing is the reason I think irrelevant what to you is critical as logical proof.

 

It is not that I believe and don't care but I don't believe because I admit to myself how little I know - I only know for sure that my thoughts and actions alone are all that is within my control. All else - even with internal consistency - is speculation.