Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The two Empirical basis's of Rationalism

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:06:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Empiricism and Rationalism are obviously two very clashing philosophies, both of which I disagree with. In this thread I would like to argue that rationalistic principles are indirectly founded in empiricism thus causing it to be invalidated.

The first basis:

Rationalism posits that the criterion for truth is intellectual deduction and not sensory experience. However, we then have to consider how we came about to posses our intellectual understanding. For, in order to reason, we must also posses some sort of internal logical intuition. As stated, we now have to ask how gained this intuition. This is where Rationalism first appears flawed. There must be some point in time where creatures did not possess much of a logical understanding at all. However, as time grew on, beings evolved into having these intuitions. So what caused this naturalistic acquirement? I would have to say empirical observation. Through sensory abilities, creatures were able to observe reality, or at least what they thought was reality, and by those observations formulate an inward understanding of logic. How do we intuitively know a cannot be both equal to b while being unequal to b? Because naturalistic formation has heavily confirmed the fact. Not because of a priori knowledge. In other words, all our empirical abilities were used in the evolution of logical intuition. There is no other foreseeable way for us to have acquired or logical intuition. Observation allowed us to see how reality behaved. Only the sensory experiences of the past allowed us to gain our reasoning abilities today. Logical understanding is something that has neccessarily evolved. The only way it could have evolve is through the senses. Therefore, the principles that Rationalism rejects conflicts with principles that Rationalism upholds, for the rejected principles are necessary for the primary ones.

The second basis:

Unlike the above point, I have argued this a few times. In analyzing the for-front principles of Rationalism we can extrapolate that it is a self-contradicting philosophy. What does Rationalism teach? That our cognitive abilities are flawed. However, at the same time, Rationalism completely relies on them. We intuitively know that two points always makes a geometrical straight line. It is self-evident, not neccesarily requied to be proven. This was realized long ago by philosophers from ancient Greece. In fact the whole foundation of geometry is focused on these self-evident facts, or postulates. This boils down to, if we were to accept the rationalist principle to ignore or sense perceptions, we would also be required to ignore our logical intuition. However logical intuition is the source of reasoning, and reasoning is what Rationalism upholds as the primary source of truth. Therefore, Rationalism supposedly denies our sensory abilities but at the same time, completely relies on them. There is no justifiable way for the Rationalist to argue this exception.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:11:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Both are abductive claims, which can be dismissed as "possible but untrue" at best, while logical problems can disprove them anyway.

For example, the claim about geometry being true "Because naturalistic formation has heavily confirmed the fact" would be dismissed as presupposing empiricism for the statement, when a rationalist just says "no, it's true because of our rational thought".

And rational intuition is rational. I know it sounds obvious, but you've basically said otherwise in your second argument.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:37:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: false dichotomy.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:43:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool:

That is experiene is simply induction which is the synthesis of physical perception(physical consiousness) into general principle(idea/formulas)

The problems stem from only calling physical sense perception experience
when infact we experience are dreams thoughts and feeling just the same.

And so even the rationalist is experiencing this non physical experience.
And physical experience is process my concepts of pure reasion. aka rationalist principles.

Therefore they are false dicnotomies.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:45:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: What makes something a priori is that information is derived from mental intuition.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:16:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Final 1.0

The false dichotomy of rationalize and empiricism.

AP1 All experiences are from a frame work of consciousness
AC1 Thus physical is just one part of our overall experiences.
BP1 But since consciousness is experience and experience is consciousness.
BC Then it follows by necessity that mental consciousnesses are also experiences.

That also means technically all consciousness is empirical.

Therefore the rationalizer is also experiencing his self-think, and rational thinking consisted of applying pure reason to thinking. We call certain knowledge a priori, because its derives knowledge by intuiting laws of thought.(therefore they must already be from inside before experience) But as Kant pointed it out the necessary condition for processing sense information and more importantly to be considered objective is by virtue of it being conceptualized by a priori principle of pure reason. That is the necessary condition for objectivity is that when we both perceive a box it is a box to both of us because the sense data is processes be universal a priori principle of geometry. In that sense physical experience is universal insofar as things being process such principles.
Natural science is the induction that is the synthesis of a series of experience into general formulations/idea which we then use to predict the world around us.

Solved!!?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 6:30:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 5:16:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Final 1.0

The false dichotomy of rationalize and empiricism.

AP1 All experiences are from a frame work of consciousness
AC1 Thus physical is just one part of our overall experiences.
BP1 But since consciousness is experience and experience is consciousness.
BC Then it follows by necessity that mental consciousnesses are also experiences.

That also means technically all consciousness is empirical.

Therefore the rationalizer is also experiencing his self-think, and rational thinking consisted of applying pure reason to thinking. We call certain knowledge a priori, because its derives knowledge by intuiting laws of thought.(therefore they must already be from inside before experience) But as Kant pointed it out the necessary condition for processing sense information and more importantly to be considered objective is by virtue of it being conceptualized by a priori principle of pure reason. That is the necessary condition for objectivity is that when we both perceive a box it is a box to both of us because the sense data is processes be universal a priori principle of geometry. In that sense physical experience is universal insofar as things being process such principles.
Natural science is the induction that is the synthesis of a series of experience into general formulations/idea which we then use to predict the world around us.

Solved!!?
No. From this framework you cannot make claims outside the mind; bold assertion.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 6:58:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know, I studied this in a class once. If you really get down to it and read even the most rabid proponents of empiricism and rationalist, they almost universally, (Leibniz et al) say that the other side is correct to some extent.

No one other than the uneducated (or wrongly educated) are 100% empiricist or rationalist. To put it in rather flowery language, the fanatic empiricist has no means of looking inside himself, while the fanatic rationalist has no means of looking out.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:03:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 6:58:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
You know, I studied this in a class once. If you really get down to it and read even the most rabid proponents of empiricism and rationalist, they almost universally, (Leibniz et al) say that the other side is correct to some extent.

No one other than the uneducated (or wrongly educated) are 100% empiricist or rationalist. To put it in rather flowery language, the fanatic empiricist has no means of looking inside himself, while the fanatic rationalist has no means of looking out.

The Fool: I noticed the schools try and teach an exaggeration of the differences of rationalist and empiricist. Where not body is really one or the other.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:06:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: There is no real Pure Rationalist and Pure Empiricist. But is taught like that, in a of places. Not even hume would deny math and logic. The positivist give us lots of logic even though techically by thier standards it doesn't exist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:09:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 6:30:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:16:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Final 1.0

The false dichotomy of rationalize and empiricism.

AP1 All experiences are from a frame work of consciousness
AC1 Thus physical is just one part of our overall experiences.
BP1 But since consciousness is experience and experience is consciousness.
BC Then it follows by necessity that mental consciousnesses are also experiences.

That also means technically all consciousness is empirical.

Therefore the rationalizer is also experiencing his self-think, and rational thinking consisted of applying pure reason to thinking. We call certain knowledge a priori, because its derives knowledge by intuiting laws of thought.(therefore they must already be from inside before experience) But as Kant pointed it out the necessary condition for processing sense information and more importantly to be considered objective is by virtue of it being conceptualized by a priori principle of pure reason. That is the necessary condition for objectivity is that when we both perceive a box it is a box to both of us because the sense data is processed by universal a priori principle of geometry. In that sense physical experience is universal insofar as things being process such principles.
Natural science is the induction that is the synthesis of a series of experience into general formulations/idea which we then use to predict the world around us.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:14:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 6:58:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
You know, I studied this in a class once. If you really get down to it and read even the most rabid proponents of empiricism and rationalist, they almost universally, (Leibniz et al) say that the other side is correct to some extent.
I agree; however, it is tough to deny physicalism.

No one other than the uneducated (or wrongly educated) are 100% empiricist or rationalist. To put it in rather flowery language, the fanatic empiricist has no means of looking inside himself, while the fanatic rationalist has no means of looking out.
I see it as physicalism (empiricism & logic) has no need for rationalism (or it perhaps overlaps with it here it needs to.)

I just don't see how I can reasonably accept the non-physical other than from a conceptual standpoint. Just as one can conceive of a contradiction, it doesn't make it real; just like one can dream, it doesn't make it real; ergo, one cannot think something into being real. They don't call it rationalizing for nothing!

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:33:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:14:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:58:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
You know, I studied this in a class once. If you really get down to it and read even the most rabid proponents of empiricism and rationalist, they almost universally, (Leibniz et al) say that the other side is correct to some extent.
I agree; however, it is tough to deny physicalism.

No one other than the uneducated (or wrongly educated) are 100% empiricist or rationalist. To put it in rather flowery language, the fanatic empiricist has no means of looking inside himself, while the fanatic rationalist has no means of looking out.
I see it as physicalism (empiricism & logic) has no need for rationalism (or it perhaps overlaps with it here it needs to.)

The Fool: physicalism is a word what we call it has no bearing, in fact we call into illusions when we mistake the word for the reality. Kant doesn't mention physical or mental, he explains everything by avoiding that langauge all together.

Remember he called any view idealism. He even called materialism as material idealism. and duelism as Cartitian idealism. Logic/mathmatics/geometry is rationalism <(XF)

I just don't see how I can reasonably accept the non-physical other than from a conceptual standpoint.

The Fool: because you think using the "word" physicalism is attached to reality.

We could despense of both mental and physical as words. and Just use inner or outer sense. And we would lose nothing but "illusions."

Just as one can conceive of a contradiction, it doesn't make it real; just like one can dream, it doesn't make it real; ergo, one cannot think something into being real. They don't call it rationalizing for nothing!

A dream is a real dream,

Real/exist/true/1 dont' have any impact on anything As Kant proved agianst the Ontological argument.

If I have a 100 bucks and now I try to concieve of a 100 buck with Realnes. or with existent or 1. It has no barring on the conception of 100 buck.
It changes nothing. Its the same as adding 1*100=100
A 100 bucks is 100 buck. It already has such virtue already.

a dream is a dream, and idea is an idea. What is IS!!! For what is not, does not exist. Therefore nore can you know it, and nore can you claim it!!(rationally). Parmenides of Elea 480 BC
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:51:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:14:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:58:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
You know, I studied this in a class once. If you really get down to it and read even the most rabid proponents of empiricism and rationalist, they almost universally, (Leibniz et al) say that the other side is correct to some extent.
I agree; however, it is tough to deny physicalism.

No one other than the uneducated (or wrongly educated) are 100% empiricist or rationalist. To put it in rather flowery language, the fanatic empiricist has no means of looking inside himself, while the fanatic rationalist has no means of looking out.
I see it as physicalism (empiricism & logic) has no need for rationalism (or it perhaps overlaps with it here it needs to.)

I just don't see how I can reasonably accept the non-physical other than from a conceptual standpoint. Just as one can conceive of a contradiction, it doesn't make it real; just like one can dream, it doesn't make it real; ergo, one cannot think something into being real. They don't call it rationalizing for nothing!

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?

The Fool: I mean this would God intention. But what I see as the problem you are having is that you have the conception of Real attached to physical

as in Real=physical Where really what is IS! iand what IS is the Absolute Universe=all things that exist.

So we will alway fall into illusion when we start calling things real, or not real, or true and not true. Because we are then fooling ourselve by thinking such magical powers to do such thinks.

Thus if physical is just one aspect of consciousness, sense perception, Then it could never be all that IS.. What I am doing here is Rationalizing the langauge, correponde with reality, other then trying to make Reality correpond which are definition. And that is the mistake of physicalism. The positives tried to simply the universe by having it cohere with what we easlily understood rather then our langauge cohering with Reality. The Absolute Universe.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:55:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 4:06:00 PM, phantom wrote:
Empiricism and Rationalism are obviously two very clashing philosophies, both of which I disagree with. In this thread I would like to argue that rationalistic principles are indirectly founded in empiricism thus causing it to be invalidated.

The first basis:

Rationalism posits that the criterion for truth is intellectual deduction and not sensory experience. However, we then have to consider how we came about to posses our intellectual understanding. For, in order to reason, we must also posses some sort of internal logical intuition. As stated, we now have to ask how gained this intuition. This is where Rationalism first appears flawed. There must be some point in time where creatures did not possess much of a logical understanding at all. However, as time grew on, beings evolved into having these intuitions. So what caused this naturalistic acquirement? I would have to say empirical observation. Through sensory abilities, creatures were able to observe reality, or at least what they thought was reality, and by those observations formulate an inward understanding of logic. How do we intuitively know a cannot be both equal to b while being unequal to b? Because naturalistic formation has heavily confirmed the fact. Not because of a priori knowledge. In other words, all our empirical abilities were used in the evolution of logical intuition. There is no other foreseeable way for us to have acquired or logical intuition. Observation allowed us to see how reality behaved. Only the sensory experiences of the past allowed us to gain our reasoning abilities today. Logical understanding is something that has neccessarily evolved. The only way it could have evolve is through the senses. Therefore, the principles that Rationalism rejects conflicts with principles that Rationalism upholds, for the rejected principles are necessary for the primary ones.

The second basis:

Unlike the above point, I have argued this a few times. In analyzing the for-front principles of Rationalism we can extrapolate that it is a self-contradicting philosophy. What does Rationalism teach? That our cognitive abilities are flawed. However, at the same time, Rationalism completely relies on them. We intuitively know that two points always makes a geometrical straight line. It is self-evident, not neccesarily requied to be proven. This was realized long ago by philosophers from ancient Greece. In fact the whole foundation of geometry is focused on these self-evident facts, or postulates. This boils down to, if we were to accept the rationalist principle to ignore or sense perceptions, we would also be required to ignore our logical intuition. However logical intuition is the source of reasoning, and reasoning is what Rationalism upholds as the primary source of truth. Therefore, Rationalism supposedly denies our sensory abilities but at the same time, completely relies on them. There is no justifiable way for the Rationalist to argue this exception.

Rationalism is about epistemic justification - i.e. the idea that we can be justified in holding some beliefs without any essential appeal to experience - it's not (essentially) about how we come to acquire those beliefs. This objection comes up a lot but it's mistaken.

I posted some stuff about in a debate I did.

"It is also important to examine in more detail the way in which a priori justification is thought to be independent of experience. Here again the standard characterizations are typically negative. There are at least two ways in which a priori justification is often said not to be independent of experience.

The first begins with the observation that before one can be a priori justified in believing a given claim, one must understand that claim. The reasoning for this is that for many a priori claims experience is required to possess the concepts necessary to understand them (Kant 1781). Consider again the claim that if something is red all over then it is not green all over. To understand this proposition, I must have the concepts of red and green, which in turn requires my having had prior visual experiences of these colors.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from this that the justification in question is not essentially independent of experience. My actual reason for thinking that the relevant claim is true does not emerge from experience, but rather from pure thought or rational reflection, or from simply thinking about the properties and relations in question. Moreover, the very notion of epistemic justification presupposes that of understanding. In considering whether a person has an epistemic reason to support one of her beliefs, it is simply taken for granted that she understands the believed proposition. Therefore, at most, experience is sometimes a precondition for a priori justification."

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

"Kant said that a priori knowledge is "knowledge that is absolutely independent of all experience" (Kant 1787, 43). That understanding seems too narrow because, if it were correct, all a priori knowledge would have to rest on innate ideas, that is, ideas people are born with but do not acquire through experience. A more plausible suggestion is that a priori knowledge and justification must be independent of experience beyond that needed to acquire the concepts required to understand the proposition at issue."

http://plato.stanford.edu...

"First, granting for the sake of argument that our arithmetic beliefs arise from counting physical objects, is the experience that produces them what justifies them? The genesis of a belief—what produces it—is often different from what justifies it. The testimony of someone I realize is unreliable might, when I am off guard, produce my belief that different brands of aspirin do not, apart from additives, differ chemically. My belief would at that point be unjustified; but it might become justified later when I learn that aspirin is simply acetylsalicylic acid. Moreover, regardless of what produces our arithmetic beliefs initially, when they are justified in the way my belief that 7 + 5 = 12 now is, experience does not appear to be what justifies them. For my part, I do not see precisely how the truth of the proposition might be
grounded in the behavior of objects when they are combined; and I would not try to justify it, as opposed to illustrating it, by citing such behavior."

From this book (pg 118): http://www.amazon.com...

The Nature of A Priori Reasons
As I will understand it here, the concept of an a priori reason has two basic elements, one negative and one positive, the negative one initially more obvious, but both in the end equally essential. Negatively, an a priori reason for thinking that a claim is true is one whose rational force or cogency does not derive from experience, either directly (as in sense perception) or indirectly (as by inference of any sort – deductive, a Priori inductive, or explanatory – whose premises derive their acceptability from experience).
That such a reason is in this way independent of experience does not mean that someone who has undergone no experience of any sort could be in possession of it, since the possession of an a priori reason requires understanding the claim for which it is a reason, and experience, even experience of some fairly specific sort, might be required for that."

From this book (pg 98): http://www.amazon.com...

Also Laurence Bonjour deals quite ably with the second objection in this book:

http://books.google.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:14:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

I agree; however, it is tough to deny physicalism.


LOLWUT. Not really.

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?

Yes. Empiricism =/= physicalism. For one, because the former is an epistemology and the latter is an ontology.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:04:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:33:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: physicalism is a word what we call it has no bearing, in fact we call into illusions when we mistake the word for the reality. Kant doesn't mention physical or mental, he explains everything by avoiding that langauge all together.
That's nice, but I wasn't talking about the word physicalism. Please make sure to throw out your strawman when you are done playing with him!

Remember he called any view idealism. He even called materialism as material idealism. and duelism as Cartitian idealism. Logic/mathmatics/geometry is rationalism
But logic/math/geometry is an ABSTRACTION of the physical! That's why it's incomplete!
Boom!

I just don't see how I can reasonably accept the non-physical other than from a conceptual standpoint.
The Fool: because you think using the "word" physicalism is attached to reality.
Non sequitur. I was talking about non-physical NOT physicalism; please try again.

We could despense of both mental and physical as words. and Just use inner or outer sense. And we would lose nothing but "illusions."
Nice try, but from your point of view inner/outer is a false choice: there is only inner for you. Regardless, this does nothing to solve the dilemma.

Just as one can conceive of a contradiction, it doesn't make it real; just like one can dream, it doesn't make it real; ergo, one cannot think something into being real. They don't call it rationalizing for nothing!
A dream is a real dream,
And non-reality is real non-reality. ROTFL! Try again only with out the gross equivocation.

Real/exist/true/1 dont' have any impact on anything As Kant proved agianst the Ontological argument.
Non sequitur.

If I have a 100 bucks and now I try to concieve of a 100 buck with Realnes. or with existent or 1. It has no barring on the conception of 100 buck.
It changes nothing. Its the same as adding 1*100=100
A 100 bucks is 100 buck. It already has such virtue already.
See above.

a dream is a dream, and idea is an idea.
Circular reasoning, anyone?

What is IS!!! For what is not, does not exist.
This I agree with in the PHYSICAL sense, not in the mental sense. I agree with it from empiricism (law of thermodynamics) and logic.

Why not in the mental sense? Because it leads to contradictions, that's why! I conceive of a contradiction and so it then exists! If contradictions can exist hen "what ISN'T is" can exist and so ANYTHING follows. This doesn't happen in physicalism.

Therefore nore can you know it, and nore can you claim it!!(rationally). Parmenides of Elea 480 BC
What's nore?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:07:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:58:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/17/2012 7:14:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

I agree; however, it is tough to deny physicalism.


LOLWUT. Not really.

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?

Yes. Empiricism =/= physicalism. For one, because the former is an epistemology and the latter is an ontology.

The Fool: Its the argument that makes it true not the philospher. Its not bible scripture. You might as well just give book reference to every question. These are snippets from other people interpretations. Not incontext with the set of rationalist and empricist as a whole. But only focusing on one person at one time period.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:10:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:07:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 7:58:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/17/2012 7:14:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

I agree; however, it is tough to deny physicalism.


LOLWUT. Not really.

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?

Yes. Empiricism =/= physicalism. For one, because the former is an epistemology and the latter is an ontology.

The Fool: Its the argument that makes it true not the philospher. Its not bible scripture. You might as well just give book reference to every question. These are snippets from other people interpretations. Not incontext with the set of rationalist and empricist as a whole. But only focusing on one person at one time period.

O...kay....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:58:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/17/2012 7:14:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I agree; however, it is tough to deny physicalism.
LOLWUT. Not really.
Well it is for me!

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?
Yes. Empiricism =/= physicalism. For one, because the former is an epistemology and the latter is an ontology.
1) Not the equivocation that I was referring to.
2) I didn't say that Empiricism = physicalism. I said I subscribe to both and logic. Can I not make subscribe to these philosophies?

The equivocation I was referring to was: "ergo, one cannot think something into being real. They don't call it rationalizing for nothing!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:22:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:17:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
LOLWUT. Not really.
Well it is for me!


Why?

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?
Yes. Empiricism =/= physicalism. For one, because the former is an epistemology and the latter is an ontology.
1) Not the equivocation that I was referring to.

I know. I was just using it as a springboard.

2) I didn't say that Empiricism = physicalism. I said I subscribe to both and logic. Can I not make subscribe to these philosophies?


It seems you use "physicalism" and "physical" in a very idiosyncratic way; what do you mean by them?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:18:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:04:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 7:33:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Postive arguments in support of my other argument: <(XD)

But logic/math/geometry is an ABSTRACTION of the physical!

1. Argument for a apriori geometric knowledge:
The Fool: all perfect squares and triangle are derive from figures in our spatial imagination. I could create all kinds of shape in my mind and then draw then on a paper. I don't need to see the shape first.

2. Argument from best explanation:
The Fool: Kants explanation justified how science work and how logic and mathmatics can be used successfull on sense data. It also explains how we process information and how its possible for us to create computers.
It also creates a critieria for what is objective in the first place, For even to claim that something needs to be observed to be true! Is a logical relation saying that there must be a 1 to 1 corresponce of observation two people.
The best explanation is the one with the least assumption it accounts the most information, and the most predictions. Therefore the explanation I demostrated I BETTER and much more powerfull then physicalism.
Q.E.D. for like the 20th time LMFAO!!

3 Argument from realness:
Real/exist/true/*1 dont' have any impact on anything As Kant proved agianst the Ontological argument.
If I have a 100 bucks and now I try to concieve of a 100 buck with Realnes. or with existent or 1. It has no barring on the conception of 100 buck.
It changes nothing. Its the same as adding 1*100=100
A 100 bucks is 100 buck. It already has such virtue already.
That is it is only rational to speak of a Real/exist/true/*1dollar in relation to fake dollars. But even that fake dollar is a Real/exist/true/ dollar/

4. The Universal argument.
The Fool: What is IS what. and what is not is not. Therefore nore can you know it, and nor can you claim it!!(rationally). Parmenides of Elea 480 BC : : a dream is a dream, and idea is an idea.

5. Argument from dispensibility:
We could despense of both mental and physical as words. and Just use inner or outer sense. And we would lose nothing but "illusions." We could get rid of even those and create any sound to refer to any 'idea/demarcation' we want. physicalism is a word what we call it has no bearing, in fact we call into illusions when we mistake the word for the reality. Kant doesn't mention physical or mental, he explains everything by avoiding that langauge all together.

6. Argument from Creation:
tBoonePickens: ergo, one cannot think something into being real.

The Fool: When we create something we form an "idea' out of any type of sensention(any intuition) from consciousness, and we could form an indefinite types of 'ideas'. We can form any new geometrical 'idea' and then cut wood into that figure. If our idea were not/real/existence we could never create anything, However we can create things so Tboone is wrong again. because its a necessary condition of creating. We can't go from notness to real/existent. Therefore "idea" are real.

Tboone: Circular reasoning, anyone?
7. Argument from self-evidence:
sense consciousness is the necessary condition for any, recognition what so ever, it is self-evident. (see Cogito for more)

8. Argument from "word" versus reality
The Fool: physicalism is a word what we call it has no bearing, in fact we call into illusions when we mistake the word for the reality. Kant doesn't mention physical or mental, he explains everything by avoiding that langauge all together. If you never learn langauge you can s

Objections and replies.

A. tBoonePickens:But logic/math/geometry is an ABSTRACTION of the physical!
that's why it's incomplete!

The Fool: Cool. Just demonstrate the actual physical abstration process from the action potential and we are good to go. <(XD) (Bold assertion fallacy)

B. tBoonePickens: And non-reality is real non-reality. ROTFL! Try again only with out the gross equivocation.

The Fool: Contradition, what is not is not. E.g. immaterial is just non or not matrial it doesn't say what is. Hospitial time maybe.

C. tBoonePickens: Nice try, but from your point of view inner/outer is a false choice: there is only inner for you. Regardless, this does nothing to solve the dilemma.

The Fool: Demonstration? language doesn't effect reality. (semantic fallacy. + bold assumption fallacy) This happens because you think using the "word" physicalism is attached to reality. You are responding right. <(XD)

D. tBoonePickens: Non sequitur. I was talking about non-physical NOT physicalism; please try again. just like one can dream, it doesn't make it real;

The Fool: I am not just reponding to what you said but in support of my earlier argument. (Bold assertion fallacy) Non-physical=0 It is a what is not claim and what is not, does not exist.

E. tBoonePickens: Just as one can conceive of a contradiction, it doesn't make it real; I conceive of a contradiction and so it then exists! If contradictions can exist hen "what ISN'T is" can exist and so ANYTHING follows.

The Fool: what make a contridiction false is the summarization. we all can't think of the 1 -1 or (A&-A) its the summarization which makes it false. A-A=0 and zero represents what is not. The conclusion of a contradiction that does';t exist that is why they are false claim. Because they are claims of what is not. You have been refuted. again.

F. tBoonePickens: This I agree with in the PHYSICAL sense, not in the mental sense. I agree with it from empiricism (law of thermodynamics) and logic.

The Fool: That nice, who cares. What could you demonstrate? (Red herring fallacy)

G. tBoonePickens: They don't call it rationalizing for nothing!

The Fool: No infact Rational comes from the mathmatics from "ratio" But you should know that on your own. right? (argument from the ignorant)

H. tBoonePickens: Why not in the mental sense? Because it leads to contradictions, that's why

The Fool: Demonstration? Those are words reallity isn't contradicting. (bold assumption fallacy

I. tBoonePickens: That's nice, but I wasn't talking about the word physicalism. Please make sure to throw out your strawman when you are done playing with him!

The Fool: Strawmans are when you change the opponents argument. I was never reprenting your argument I was speaking in relation to my argument. I didnt say that you said that. (real strawman fallacy)
Tally
9 fallacies vs 8 demonstration. You have to start providing arguments TBoone

Straight from the Hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:22:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/17/2012 8:17:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
LOLWUT. Not really.
Well it is for me!


Why?

LoL! But am I REALLY equivocating? Am I?
Yes. Empiricism =/= physicalism. For one, because the former is an epistemology and the latter is an ontology.
1) Not the equivocation that I was referring to.

I know. I was just using it as a springboard.

2) I didn't say that Empiricism = physicalism. I said I subscribe to both and logic. Can I not make subscribe to these philosophies?


It seems you use "physicalism" and "physical" in a very idiosyncratic way; what do you mean by them?

The Fool: he is a postivist. He has been learning from me that its false but he doesn't want to say it. LOL
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 12:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:22:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/17/2012 8:17:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
LOLWUT. Not really.
Well it is for me!
Why?
Because of the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence!

2) I didn't say that Empiricism = physicalism. I said I subscribe to both and logic. Can I not subscribe to these philosophies?
It seems you use "physicalism" and "physical" in a very idiosyncratic way...
Probably because I am not as well versed as I should be in philosophy!

...what do you mean by them?
By physicalism I mean the belief that only the physical exists. By physical I mean that which is studied by physics.

**************************************

At 7/17/2012 9:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: he is a postivist.
Indeed I am...as I am many things!

He has been learning from me that its false but he doesn't want to say it. LOL
ROFL! I have been showing you the errors of your way but you keep changing positions and evading me.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 12:27:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 12:24:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 8:22:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/17/2012 8:17:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
LOLWUT. Not really.
Well it is for me!
Why?
Because of the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence!

2) I didn't say that Empiricism = physicalism. I said I subscribe to both and logic. Can I not subscribe to these philosophies?
It seems you use "physicalism" and "physical" in a very idiosyncratic way...
Probably because I am not as well versed as I should be in philosophy!

...what do you mean by them?
By physicalism I mean the belief that only the physical exists. By physical I mean that which is studied by physics.

**************************************

At 7/17/2012 9:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: he is a postivist.
Indeed I am...as I am many things!

He has been learning from me that its false but he doesn't want to say it. LOL
ROFL! I have been showing you the errors of your way but you keep changing positions and evading me.

The Fool: you right, dated understanding of undergrade physics, and physical logic. <(XD) is dasling.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 12:32:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 12:27:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/18/2012 12:24:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
ROFL! I have been showing you the errors of your way but you keep changing positions and evading me.

The Fool: you right, dated understanding of undergrade physics, and physical logic. <(XD) is dasling.
If your understanding of physics is dated, then get UP dated!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 12:38:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 12:32:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/18/2012 12:27:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/18/2012 12:24:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
ROFL! I have been showing you the errors of your way but you keep changing positions and evading me.

The Fool: you right, dated understanding of undergrade physics, and physical logic. <(XD) is dasling.
If your understanding of physics is dated, then get UP dated!

The Fool: you have to refute my arguments with logic. or you are not responding to me.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 12:39:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: all of them. lol.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 12:57:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 12:38:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/18/2012 12:32:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If your understanding of physics is dated, then get UP dated!
The Fool: you have to refute my arguments with logic. or you are not responding to me.
I have refuted may of your points but I cannot refute your arguments if you keep changing positions and evading me.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 1:06:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 12:57:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/18/2012 12:38:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/18/2012 12:32:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If your understanding of physics is dated, then get UP dated!
The Fool: you have to refute my arguments with logic. or you are not responding to me.
I have refuted may of your points but I cannot refute your arguments if you keep changing positions and evading me.

The Fool: Its a bold assertion. I have authorty of my views. all you would have to do is put the quotes together and ask for clarifycation. that is what POC is for. its not just for the opponent. Its rational. You are giving multiple fallacies with not explaintion. all my claims follow with a proof. I should even have to remind you . Its a whole different class. ANd its objectivly true by virtue of the demarcation I just DEMONSTRATED>
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL