Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:36:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm trying to get a clear understanding of these two concepts, but I've found some variance in the descriptions from differing sources. (further commentary at the bottom of the post)

According to The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...):

Rationlism : (Philosophy)
- a. the doctrine that knowledge about reality can be obtained by reason alone without recourse to experience.
- b. the doctrine that human knowledge can all be encompassed within a single, usually deductive, system.
- c. the school of philosophy initiated by Descartes which held both the above doctrines.

Empiricism : (Philosophy)
- the doctrine that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience.

--------------

Excerpts from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu...

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

1.1 Rationalism
To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area.

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

1.2 Empiricism
Empiricists endorse the following claim for some subject area.

The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.

--------------

I believe that I fall into the category of empiricism, because I reject the notions put forth by the first source's and I reject the three claims provided by the second source.

Before I put forth my reasoning based on the info above, I wanted to hear the opinions of others on the matter. Does the info regarding the matter accurately reflect the issue? From what I've read, it seems that there could be some ambiguity in the term "knowledge" or what constitutes as such, that perhaps has a role in the dispute.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:18:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:36:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm trying to get a clear understanding of these two concepts, but I've found some variance in the descriptions from differing sources. (further commentary at the bottom of the post)

According to The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...):

Rationlism : (Philosophy)
- a. the doctrine that knowledge about reality can be obtained by reason alone without recourse to experience.

I don't recall any rationalist who actually proposed this

- b. the doctrine that human knowledge can all be encompassed within a single, usually deductive, system.
- c. the school of philosophy initiated by Descartes which held both the above doctrines.

Descartes might have believed that inquiry begins in doubt and the ony certain knowledge there is is obtained by reason alone. However, later he also claimed that God is no deceiver and because of that we can trust our senses.

Empiricism : (Philosophy)
- the doctrine that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience.

--------------

Excerpts from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu...

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

1.1 Rationalism
To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area.

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

I believe 2) and 3) are mostly relevant to language aquisition and similar topics.

1.2 Empiricism
Empiricists endorse the following claim for some subject area.

The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.

--------------

I believe that I fall into the category of empiricism, because I reject the notions put forth by the first source's and I reject the three claims provided by the second source.

Before I put forth my reasoning based on the info above, I wanted to hear the opinions of others on the matter.
Tell me about them and I'll try to show how they collapse into skepticism lol.

Does the info regarding the matter accurately reflect the issue? From what I've read, it seems that there could be some ambiguity in the term "knowledge" or what constitutes as such, that perhaps has a role in the dispute.

I think JTB is sufficient for this issue. Whatever knowledge is, it most likely is not going to affect this debate.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:46:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since truth and rationality are abstract concepts that cannot be observed directly, and since logic is the theory of truth, I think empiricism answers to logic and not the other way around. In order to even begin with rational discourse, we need first principles...a "logical starting point". Without that, there's nowhere to begin because we have no way to know what counts as true and the principles that lead us in that direction. So we do, I think, need and have "innate" knowledge that constrains our thinking in a logical way. In other words, the logical structure of our consciousness provided us with an implicit foundation for rationality.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:07:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:18:12 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:36:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm trying to get a clear understanding of these two concepts, but I've found some variance in the descriptions from differing sources. (further commentary at the bottom of the post)

According to The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...):

Rationlism : (Philosophy)
- a. the doctrine that knowledge about reality can be obtained by reason alone without recourse to experience.

I don't recall any rationalist who actually proposed this

Yeah, I thought that sounded a bit ridiculous.

- b. the doctrine that human knowledge can all be encompassed within a single, usually deductive, system.
- c. the school of philosophy initiated by Descartes which held both the above doctrines.

Descartes might have believed that inquiry begins in doubt and the ony certain knowledge there is is obtained by reason alone. However, later he also claimed that God is no deceiver and because of that we can trust our senses.

Hmmm. Gotchya.

1.1 Rationalism
To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area.

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

I believe 2) and 3) are mostly relevant to language aquisition and similar topics.

I would say that the innate capability of language acquisition is there, but not innate knowledge or concepts. We have a very strong affinity for associative learning (http://psychologydictionary.org...), and we can associate practically anything with anything else, including vocalizations and concepts.

Other animals are fully capable of utilizing this (obvious in training a dog), but this does not mean that the concept or knowledge was innate.Further, we have an innate compulsion to mimic the behavior of those around us, in ways like the Chameleon Effect (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). From a psychological standpoint, I don't believe that there are an Language Acquisition Theories that would qualify for these claims of rationalism.

I believe that I fall into the category of empiricism, because I reject the notions put forth by the first source's and I reject the three claims provided by the second source.

Before I put forth my reasoning based on the info above, I wanted to hear the opinions of others on the matter.
Tell me about them and I'll try to show how they collapse into skepticism lol.

You make it sound like skepticism is a bad thing...

Does the info regarding the matter accurately reflect the issue? From what I've read, it seems that there could be some ambiguity in the term "knowledge" or what constitutes as such, that perhaps has a role in the dispute.

I think JTB is sufficient for this issue. Whatever knowledge is, it most likely is not going to affect this debate.

Perhaps the issue is that empiricists are rejecting the rationalists' "J" in that respect?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:07:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
1.1 Rationalism
To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area.

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

I believe 2) and 3) are mostly relevant to language aquisition and similar topics.

I would say that the innate capability of language acquisition is there, but not innate knowledge or concepts. We have a very strong affinity for associative learning (http://psychologydictionary.org...), and we can associate practically anything with anything else, including vocalizations and concepts.

Other animals are fully capable of utilizing this (obvious in training a dog), but this does not mean that the concept or knowledge was innate.Further, we have an innate compulsion to mimic the behavior of those around us, in ways like the Chameleon Effect (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). From a psychological standpoint, I don't believe that there are an Language Acquisition Theories that would qualify for these claims of rationalism.
Well, my point was that 2), 3) are relevant to these topics, not that I they are correct.

I believe that I fall into the category of empiricism, because I reject the notions put forth by the first source's and I reject the three claims provided by the second source.

Before I put forth my reasoning based on the info above, I wanted to hear the opinions of others on the matter.
Tell me about them and I'll try to show how they collapse into skepticism lol.

You make it sound like skepticism is a bad thing...
Yes, I think it is obviously absurd.

Does the info regarding the matter accurately reflect the issue? From what I've read, it seems that there could be some ambiguity in the term "knowledge" or what constitutes as such, that perhaps has a role in the dispute.

I think JTB is sufficient for this issue. Whatever knowledge is, it most likely is not going to affect this debate.

Perhaps the issue is that empiricists are rejecting the rationalists' "J" in that respect?
I should clarify. JTB is a rather prominent though probably incomplete analysis of "knwoledge".
If I have the true belief that p, this belief is also justified and JTB is the correct analyiss of knowledge, then empiricists and rationalists alike will agree I know p.
They might of course disagree what counts as justification, but that does not affect the validity of JTB.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:26:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:19:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:07:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
1.1 Rationalism
To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area.

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

I believe 2) and 3) are mostly relevant to language aquisition and similar topics.

I would say that the innate capability of language acquisition is there, but not innate knowledge or concepts. We have a very strong affinity for associative learning (http://psychologydictionary.org...), and we can associate practically anything with anything else, including vocalizations and concepts.

Other animals are fully capable of utilizing this (obvious in training a dog), but this does not mean that the concept or knowledge was innate.Further, we have an innate compulsion to mimic the behavior of those around us, in ways like the Chameleon Effect (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). From a psychological standpoint, I don't believe that there are an Language Acquisition Theories that would qualify for these claims of rationalism.
Well, my point was that 2), 3) are relevant to these topics, not that I they are correct.

I know, I was just thinking out loud (or...typing out loud?). Anyway...

I believe that I fall into the category of empiricism, because I reject the notions put forth by the first source's and I reject the three claims provided by the second source.

Before I put forth my reasoning based on the info above, I wanted to hear the opinions of others on the matter.
Tell me about them and I'll try to show how they collapse into skepticism lol.

You make it sound like skepticism is a bad thing...
Yes, I think it is obviously absurd.

I know there's a lot more to skepticism proper than what I know; is there any particular brand of skepticism that exemplifies this impression?

Does the info regarding the matter accurately reflect the issue? From what I've read, it seems that there could be some ambiguity in the term "knowledge" or what constitutes as such, that perhaps has a role in the dispute.

I think JTB is sufficient for this issue. Whatever knowledge is, it most likely is not going to affect this debate.

Perhaps the issue is that empiricists are rejecting the rationalists' "J" in that respect?
I should clarify. JTB is a rather prominent though probably incomplete analysis of "knwoledge".
If I have the true belief that p, this belief is also justified and JTB is the correct analyiss of knowledge, then empiricists and rationalists alike will agree I know p.
They might of course disagree what counts as justification, but that does not affect the validity of JTB.

Understood.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:32:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:26:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I know, I was just thinking out loud (or...typing out loud?). Anyway...
lol

You make it sound like skepticism is a bad thing...
Yes, I think it is obviously absurd.

I know there's a lot more to skepticism proper than what I know; is there any particular brand of skepticism that exemplifies this impression?

Any view that implies I don't know/ can't know/ should suspend judgement on whether I know I have two hands when I directly look at them is absurd.
Any such implication is a reductio of the view in question. That probably encompasses all varieties of epistemic skepticism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:40:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:32:04 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:26:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I know there's a lot more to skepticism proper than what I know; is there any particular brand of skepticism that exemplifies this impression?

Any view that implies I don't know/ can't know/ should suspend judgement on whether I know I have two hands when I directly look at them is absurd.
Any such implication is a reductio of the view in question. That probably encompasses all varieties of epistemic skepticism.

Well, except for the extreme skepticism that leads to solipsism, I don't think recognizing that one can't know something 100% is that bad of a thing. Yes, in some cases it's absurd (such as with your hands example) warranting dismissal, but regarding matters of much greater uncertainty, it effectively creates a drive to "raise the bar" for the level of evidence required. Have you heard the phrase, "correlation is not causation"? Is that not born of skepticism?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 10:46:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:40:12 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:32:04 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:26:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I know there's a lot more to skepticism proper than what I know; is there any particular brand of skepticism that exemplifies this impression?

Any view that implies I don't know/ can't know/ should suspend judgement on whether I know I have two hands when I directly look at them is absurd.
Any such implication is a reductio of the view in question. That probably encompasses all varieties of epistemic skepticism.

I don't think recognizing that one can't know something 100% is that bad of a thing.

I embrace fallibilism. Indeed, it is infallibilism, the idea that only a certain belief can constitute knowledge, that lends support to various skeptical arguments to the absurd conclusion I was talking about.

Yes, in some cases it's absurd (such as with your hands example) warranting dismissal, but regarding matters of much greater uncertainty, it effectively creates a drive to "raise the bar" for the level of evidence required. Have you heard the phrase, "correlation is not causation"? Is that not born of skepticism?
That's a fallacy. Pointing out fallacious reasoning is not really equivalent to denying the possibility of knowledge.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 3:22:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with everything Dylan said.

Here's my take on it. I think that our moral knowledge of good and evil is innate. A concept of God (that which transcends space, time, and matter) couldn't have been a concept produced by empirical experience . Our ability to utilize logic and math is innate. So I believe that all 3 postulates of rationalism are correct. I'm willing to accept that without empiricism none of those things could practically be brought to fruition, but it didn't provide us with the knowledge. "Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along."

This is also another statement I stand by:

"What we know by reason alone, a Platonic form, say, is superior in an important metaphysical way, e.g. unchanging, eternal, perfect, a higher degree of being, to what we are aware of through sense experience."

Call me a whacko, but empirical reality is nothing more than a shared illusion. Quantum mechanics, psychedelic drugs, and thought experiments show that reality doesn't have a true nature to it. Metaphysical truths, like the laws of math or logic, can never not be true, so the nature of such things are fixed.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 2:07:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since truth and rationality are abstract concepts that cannot be observed directly, and since logic is the theory of truth, I think empiricism answers to logic and not the other way around. In order to even begin with rational discourse, we need first principles...a "logical starting point". Without that, there's nowhere to begin because we have no way to know what counts as true and the principles that lead us in that direction. So we do, I think, need and have "innate" knowledge that constrains our thinking in a logical way. In other words, the logical structure of our consciousness provided us with an implicit foundation for rationality.

But the logical foundation is based on experience. We use conceptual tools such as math, definitions, language, and logic to better describe, understand, interact, and predict the world around us. All of these concepts are derived from direct experience of the behaviors of natural world that appear to be constant, which are effective conceptual models of observed reality. These conceptual models (i.e. math) can be then applied to other similar, but yet unknown, behaviors of reality to enable a means of prediction.

For example, the simple mathematical equation, 1+1=2, reflects a quantitative property of a determined set of objects which can be applied to any real-word scenario that appears to be the same. This conceptual model is portable, but it could not have existed without the initial experience from which it was derived. For instance, if the universe contained no objects, then an observing mind would have no means by which to create the concept of quantities.

All of our conceptual models are founded in experience, including the laws of logic. They are molded to the experienced behavior of the world around us. p>q represents a pattern that we see in this reality without exception, and if this reality didn't exhibit such a pattern, then this conceptual model could not exist as it is. It would reflect the world that is being observed.

I had to type this quick, so please excuse typos and grammatical errors...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 2:22:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 10:46:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:40:12 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:32:04 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:26:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I know there's a lot more to skepticism proper than what I know; is there any particular brand of skepticism that exemplifies this impression?

Any view that implies I don't know/ can't know/ should suspend judgement on whether I know I have two hands when I directly look at them is absurd.
Any such implication is a reductio of the view in question. That probably encompasses all varieties of epistemic skepticism.

I don't think recognizing that one can't know something 100% is that bad of a thing.

I embrace fallibilism. Indeed, it is infallibilism, the idea that only a certain belief can constitute knowledge, that lends support to various skeptical arguments to the absurd conclusion I was talking about.

OK, I see this better, now. infallibilism appears to have problems, noticeable when beliefs that are held as knowledge (by this standard) are shown to be wrong because they turn out to be counter-intuitive or contrary to our rational thinking (like quantum mechanics). In light of this, the foundation of infallibilism appears to be undermined; if we can rationally doubt our rationality, then there is no knowledge. Perhaps I'm overthinking this, though...

Yes, in some cases it's absurd (such as with your hands example) warranting dismissal, but regarding matters of much greater uncertainty, it effectively creates a drive to "raise the bar" for the level of evidence required. Have you heard the phrase, "correlation is not causation"? Is that not born of skepticism?
That's a fallacy. Pointing out fallacious reasoning is not really equivalent to denying the possibility of knowledge.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 2:36:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:18:12 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:36:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm trying to get a clear understanding of these two concepts, but I've found some variance in the descriptions from differing sources. (further commentary at the bottom of the post)

According to The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...):

Rationlism : (Philosophy)
- a. the doctrine that knowledge about reality can be obtained by reason alone without recourse to experience.

I don't recall any rationalist who actually proposed this
Isn't that, like, the fundamental tenet of rationalism? Rationalism is based on deduction from a priori axioms alone, isn't it? Of course, such knowledge is probably vacuous, but the Rationalists didn't recognize that.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 4:04:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 2:36:35 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/12/2015 8:18:12 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:36:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm trying to get a clear understanding of these two concepts, but I've found some variance in the descriptions from differing sources. (further commentary at the bottom of the post)

According to The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...):

Rationlism : (Philosophy)
- a. the doctrine that knowledge about reality can be obtained by reason alone without recourse to experience.

I don't recall any rationalist who actually proposed this
Isn't that, like, the fundamental tenet of rationalism?
I misread, sorry.

Rationalism is based on deduction from a priori axioms alone, isn't it?
What is an "a priori axiom"?
Rationalists believe some knowledge can be obtained a priori, without reference to experience.

Of course, such knowledge is probably vacuous, but the Rationalists didn't recognize that.
Mathematics certainly is not vacuous.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 4:17:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 3:22:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Call me a whacko,
Whacko.

but empirical reality is nothing more than a shared illusion. Quantum mechanics,
Oh come on, you are better than this.
How much do you understand about quantum mechanics?

psychedelic drugs,
Take a moment and think about the statement "psychedelic drugs show that reality is X". If this does not seem problematic and absurd to you I don't know what does.

and thought experiments
Like?

show that reality doesn't have a true nature to it.
So reality does not exist?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
n7
Posts: 1,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 5:27:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 3:22:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I agree with everything Dylan said.

Here's my take on it. I think that our moral knowledge of good and evil is innate. A concept of God (that which transcends space, time, and matter) couldn't have been a concept produced by empirical experience . Our ability to utilize logic and math is innate. So I believe that all 3 postulates of rationalism are correct. I'm willing to accept that without empiricism none of those things could practically be brought to fruition, but it didn't provide us with the knowledge. "Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along."

This is also another statement I stand by:

"What we know by reason alone, a Platonic form, say, is superior in an important metaphysical way, e.g. unchanging, eternal, perfect, a higher degree of being, to what we are aware of through sense experience."

Call me a whacko, but empirical reality is nothing more than a shared illusion. Quantum mechanics, psychedelic drugs, and thought experiments show that reality doesn't have a true nature to it. Metaphysical truths, like the laws of math or logic, can never not be true, so the nature of such things are fixed.

Psychedelic drugs??? What? Someone might feel more convinced of idealism while under LSD (due to its groovy nature), but I don't see how they show anything about the nature of reality.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 5:37:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 4:17:47 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:22:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Call me a whacko,
Whacko.

P

but empirical reality is nothing more than a shared illusion. Quantum mechanics,
Oh come on, you are better than this.
How much do you understand about quantum mechanics?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu...

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck - father of Quantum mechanics
https://en.m.wikiquote.org...

So it's not some belief only held by nutcases. It's counter-intuitive but makes the most sense of certain phenomena.

I know about the observer effect and the double slit experment which showed that light behaves as a particle and a wave simultaneously until the collapse of the wave function which only happens when it is observed. Schrodinger's cat helps illustrate this. Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box. Only when the box is opened and observed is the cat either dead or alive (deterministic one way or the other). So when reality is not observed, QE shows us that it's in an indeterministic state.


psychedelic drugs,
Take a moment and think about the statement "psychedelic drugs show that reality is X". If this does not seem problematic and absurd to you I don't know what does.

It shows that reality is inherently a function of perception. Our empirical reality is essentially a construct of chemicals in our brain. All of us endogenously produce a chemical called DMT in our pineal gland so a certain amount of the compound is active in our brain right now. It's been a subject of research that near death experiences and dream states are a result of more DMT being released. If you smoke DMT your consciousness can enter a reality that is more vivid and real than this one before "breaking through" to a spiritual dimension according to dozens of testimonials. It's been described as a timeless realm, one where strange beings communicate to you telepathically, a place of immense knowledge, love, and power with no real sense of self. So essentially this reality is a really a trip, just at a lower dose, since DMT is a compound actively modeling our reality right now. There's no reason to think that a certain equilibrium of electro-chemicals is representative of the true reality whereas a higher equilibrium of electro-chemicals is not representative of a true reality.

and thought experiments
Like?

Describe to me what a candy cane, as a thing-in-itself, would look like in a universe without conscousness. Would a colorless, tasteless, shapeless, textureless, and weightless candy cane still be a candy cane? Notice that all of those descriptors only exist within the mind. None of those things even physically exist in the object. So, as an actual state of affairs, the candy cane would be colorless, tasteless, shapeless, textureless, and weightless (and indeterminant).

show that reality doesn't have a true nature to it.
So reality does not exist?

Empirical reality doesn't exist apart from sentient perception. Our "physical" reality is information from the mind of God that ours interacts with. All of reality is mental.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 6:37:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 5:37:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/13/2015 4:17:47 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:22:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Call me a whacko,
Whacko.

P

but empirical reality is nothing more than a shared illusion. Quantum mechanics,
Oh come on, you are better than this.
How much do you understand about quantum mechanics?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu...

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck - father of Quantum mechanics
https://en.m.wikiquote.org...

So it's not some belief only held by nutcases. It's counter-intuitive but makes the most sense of certain phenomena.

I don't care about quotes from big names. Give equations and tell me how to and why I should interpret them in a way that lends support to your conclusion.
A hundred years ago some founder of QM had some crazy non-testable beliefs, today we know better.

I know about the observer effect and the double slit experment which showed that light behaves as a particle and a wave simultaneously until the collapse of the wave function which only happens when it is observed.
You do realize that an observer is not a human, right?

Schrodinger's cat helps illustrate this.
Schroedinger's cat was ridicule not better illustration of Heisenberg's views.

Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box.
You might want to read up on that again.

psychedelic drugs,
Take a moment and think about the statement "psychedelic drugs show that reality is X". If this does not seem problematic and absurd to you I don't know what does.

It shows that reality is inherently a function of perception.
What? All this shows is that drugs can mess with your perception of reality. Do you honestly believe that, if you are on a trip and see a pink elephant popping out of nowhere, there really just popped a freaking elephant out of nowhere?

Our empirical reality is essentially a construct of chemicals in our brain. All of us endogenously produce a chemical called DMT in our pineal gland so a certain amount of the compound is active in our brain right now. It's been a subject of research that near death experiences and dream states are a result of more DMT being released. If you smoke DMT your consciousness can enter a reality that is more vivid and real than this one before "breaking through" to a spiritual dimension according to dozens of testimonials.
How on earth do you know they are not just hallucinating?

It's been described as a timeless realm, one where strange beings communicate to you telepathically, a place of immense knowledge, love, and power with no real sense of self.
Dude you need to check this out, its called alcohol. When you drink it it you enter a realm where you have great self-confidence and are a fantastic singer!
After some time you realize reality is constantly shaking and you will be able to tell all of yer Bro's how much you lov'em.

Loosing sense of your self is pretty easy. Disable the part of the brain responsible for proprioception, that is, knowing where you body parts are even if you don't look at them, feeling the edges of you body. If you do that and don't feel the edges of your body, you feel one with everything.

So essentially this reality is a really a trip, just at a lower dose, since DMT is a compound actively modeling our reality right now. There's no reason to think that a certain equilibrium of electro-chemicals is representative of the true reality whereas a higher equilibrium of electro-chemicals is not representative of a true reality.

Explain to me how you think a whole species of primates could have evolved for all this time while on a drug trip.

Describe to me what a candy cane, as a thing-in-itself, would look like in a universe without conscousness. Would a colorless, tasteless, shapeless, textureless, and weightless candy cane still be a candy cane? Notice that all of those descriptors only exist within the mind. None of those things even physically exist in the object. So, as an actual state of affairs, the candy cane would be colorless, tasteless, shapeless, textureless, and weightless (and indeterminant).

What are you talking about? A candy cane has the exact same weight and texture regardless of there being consciousness. These things can be expressed by physical quantities. Color and taste are of course interpretations of stimuli by the brain, so what you are asking me is to make a logical contradiction true.
Sure, if there is nobody around to taste such a cane, this cane currently has no taste, but that is trivial.
From this it does not at all follow that there are no chemicals making up what we take to be the taste of candy canes.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 6:37:16 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 5:37:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/13/2015 4:17:47 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:22:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Call me a whacko,
Whacko.

P

but empirical reality is nothing more than a shared illusion. Quantum mechanics,
Oh come on, you are better than this.
How much do you understand about quantum mechanics?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu...

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck - father of Quantum mechanics
https://en.m.wikiquote.org...

So it's not some belief only held by nutcases. It's counter-intuitive but makes the most sense of certain phenomena.

I don't care about quotes from big names. Give equations and tell me how to and why I should interpret them in a way that lends support to your conclusion.
A hundred years ago some founder of QM had some crazy non-testable beliefs, today we know better.

All I'm defending here is the notion that "reality is illusory" is not an irrational belief. Unless you want to argue that the beliefs of Einstein and Max Planck were held irrationally. There's also not "some founder of QM" there's only "THE" founder of QM. A belief is not irrational if it is untestable and it's also irrational to suppose that two extremely rational people hold beliefs irrationally.

I know about the observer effect and the double slit experment which showed that light behaves as a particle and a wave simultaneously until the collapse of the wave function which only happens when it is observed.
You do realize that an observer is not a human, right?

As evidenced by? It tickles me when people say that machines can account for these observations *only when observed by us* and conclude that our observations weren't necessary. It's like saying that if a digital camera took a photo of a blue sky but no consciousness was around to observe the screen, the picture would be of a blue sky. But "colors" are *by definition* a function of sentient observation.

Color: "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations *on the eye* as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light."

Schrodinger's cat helps illustrate this.
Schroedinger's cat was ridicule not better illustration of Heisenberg's views.

Recall that my assertion was that it *helped illustrate* another concept (the collapse of the wave function), so it doesn't matter what Schrodingers cat was intended for.

Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box.
You might want to read up on that again.

"a cat imagined as being enclosed in a box with a radioactive source and a poison that will be released when the source (unpredictably) emits radiation, the cat being considered (according to quantum mechanics) **to be simultaneously both dead and alive until the box is opened and the cat observed.**". Why did you want me to read it again?



psychedelic drugs,
Take a moment and think about the statement "psychedelic drugs show that reality is X". If this does not seem problematic and absurd to you I don't know what does.

It shows that reality is inherently a function of perception.
What? All this shows is that drugs can mess with your perception of reality. Do you honestly believe that, if you are on a trip and see a pink elephant popping out of nowhere, there really just popped a freaking elephant out of nowhere?

No, but the fact that the person saw the elephant is real. If there was a drug that permanently inverted all colors, would this be a deviation from the way colors really are? No, because the way the brain interprets varying wavelengths of light is different even among species. There's no objective, real color in the world.

Our empirical reality is essentially a construct of chemicals in our brain. All of us endogenously produce a chemical called DMT in our pineal gland so a certain amount of the compound is active in our brain right now. It's been a subject of research that near death experiences and dream states are a result of more DMT being released. If you smoke DMT your consciousness can enter a reality that is more vivid and real than this one before "breaking through" to a spiritual dimension according to dozens of testimonials.
How on earth do you know they are not just hallucinating?

We're all hallucinating. What do you think it means to hallucinate?

It's been described as a timeless realm, one where strange beings communicate to you telepathically, a place of immense knowledge, love, and power with no real sense of self.
Dude you need to check this out, its called alcohol. When you drink it it you enter a realm where you have great self-confidence and are a fantastic singer!
After some time you realize reality is constantly shaking and you will be able to tell all of yer Bro's how much you lov'em.

Certain drugs act on the brain differently. Ones that dissociate the mind from the brain like Ketamine and DMT can't be compared to drugs that don't.

Loosing sense of your self is pretty easy. Disable the part of the brain responsible for proprioception, that is, knowing where you body parts are even if you don't look at them, feeling the edges of you body. If you do that and don't feel the edges of your body, you feel one with everything.

From their testimonies they didn't even know who they were. So it's like you are an experience rather than one observing an experience.


So essentially this reality is a really a trip, just at a lower dose, since DMT is a compound actively modeling our reality right now. There's no reason to think that a certain equilibrium of electro-chemicals is representative of the true reality whereas a higher equilibrium of electro-chemicals is not representative of a true reality.

Explain to me how you think a whole species of primates could have evolved for all this time while on a drug trip.

Don't we evolve towards whatever maximizes survival? Why then think that we evolved to perceive reality as its true self? "Truth" is secondary to "survival benefit".

Describe to me what a candy cane, as a thing-in-itself, would look like in a universe without conscousness. Would a colorless, tasteless, shapeless, textureless, and weightless candy cane still be a candy cane? Notice that all of those descriptors only exist within the mind. None of those things even physically exist in the object. So, as an actual state of affairs, the candy cane would be colorless, tasteless, shapeless, textureless, and weightless (and indeterminant).

What are you talking about? A candy cane has the exact same weight and texture regardless of there being consciousness. These things can be expressed by physical quantities.

Name the physical quantities of texture and weight.

Color and taste are of course interpretations of stimuli by the brain, so what you are asking me is to make a logical contradiction true.

Sure, if there is nobody around to taste such a cane, this cane currently has no taste, but that is trivial.
From this it does not at all follow that there are no chemicals making up what we take to be the taste of candy canes.

It shows it doesn't exist as a thing in itself
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 8:11:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 7:09:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
All I'm defending here is the notion that "reality is illusory" is not an irrational belief. Unless you want to argue that the beliefs of Einstein and Max Planck were held irrationally. There's also not "some founder of QM" there's only "THE" founder of QM. A belief is not irrational if it is untestable and it's also irrational to suppose that two extremely rational
Their discoveries are a mark of intelligence, not rationality.

people hold beliefs irrationally.

To be rational is to adequately respond to normative reasons. It may or may not have been rational from the stand point of view from someone living in 1900 to hold such a belief, but it is not to hold it 100 years later.

You do realize that an observer is not a human, right?

As evidenced by?
As evidenced by the fact that a human observer does not trigger the effects you were hinting at.

It tickles me when people say that machines can account for these observations *only when observed by us* and conclude that our observations weren't necessary. It's like saying that if a digital camera took a photo of a blue sky but no consciousness was around to observe the screen, the picture would be of a blue sky. But "colors" are *by definition* a function of sentient observation.

Color: "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations *on the eye* as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light."

You do realize this has literally nothing to do with the kind of observer used in experiments like the double slit, right?
An "observer" is a detector, like photomultiplier tubes, a kind of vacuum tube that is made to detect the very short wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. An observation is made by interacting with the particle. As is any measurement, you cannot measure something without interacting with it.

Now tell me, how does the human eye make an observation? How does it interact with photons?
Exactly, they directly hit the retina.

The human eye cannot recognize a photon if it is to pass through a slit or hit a wall. But you can of course try to shine a flashlight through your head and see for yourself.

Schrodinger's cat helps illustrate this.
Schroedinger's cat was ridicule not better illustration of Heisenberg's views.

Recall that my assertion was that it *helped illustrate* another concept (the collapse of the wave function), so it doesn't matter what Schrodingers cat was intended for.
The wave function is a mathematical model. It has no physical reality.

"a cat imagined as being enclosed in a box with a radioactive source and a poison that will be released when the source (unpredictably) emits radiation, the cat being considered (according to quantum mechanics) **to be simultaneously both dead and alive until the box is opened and the cat observed.**". Why did you want me to read it again?
Because "Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box" is not a quantum event. Which is the crucial point.
Rather, having a cat both dead and alive is the conclusion, not the starting point.

It shows that reality is inherently a function of perception.
What? All this shows is that drugs can mess with your perception of reality. Do you honestly believe that, if you are on a trip and see a pink elephant popping out of nowhere, there really just popped a freaking elephant out of nowhere?

No, but the fact that the person saw the elephant is real. If there was a drug that permanently inverted all colors, would this be a deviation from the way colors really are? No, because the way the brain interprets varying wavelengths of light is different even among species. There's no objective, real color in the world.
Great. And this is supposed to conclude no physical world exists, how exactly?

How on earth do you know they are not just hallucinating?

We're all hallucinating. What do you think it means to hallucinate?
An hallucination is perception in absence of an external stimulus that is similar in some respect to actual perception.
So no, we are not all hallucinating. If idealism was true, then yes we all would hallucinate and psychedelics were probably conductive to that.

Certain drugs act on the brain differently. Ones that dissociate the mind from the brain like Ketamine and DMT can't be compared to drugs that don't.
And you draw that difference why exactly? Because people see more flashy colors?

From their testimonies they didn't even know who they were. So it's like you are an experience rather than one observing an experience.
Which for once is no response to my objection and furthermore induced amnesia is not really something spiritual or what have you.

Explain to me how you think a whole species of primates could have evolved for all this time while on a drug trip.

Don't we evolve towards whatever maximizes survival? Why then think that we evolved to perceive reality as its true self? "Truth" is secondary to "survival benefit".
Then tell me, how do you survive without veridical experience?
If you don't hear a predator approaching, you will be eaten.
If you bump into a tree because you didn't see it while being chased, you will be eaten.
If you can't correctly discern poisonous and non-poisonous animals/fruits/whatever, you die.
If you don't correctly perceive the heat from a fire you won't recognize you are burning.

What are you talking about? A candy cane has the exact same weight and texture regardless of there being consciousness. These things can be expressed by physical quantities.

Name the physical quantities of texture
Texture refers to the attributes of an objects surface. An objects surface is made of molecules arranged in various shapes, such that any sufficiently precise description of these arrangements is going to give you the texture.

and weight.
You claim quantum mechanics proves idealism, but you cannot answer this yourself??
Get your sh1t together, this should be answerable by a 6th grader.

Weight colloquially refers to the mass of an object. And I believe it should be apparent that both weight (as in m*g) and mass are subject to physics.

It shows it doesn't exist as a thing in itself

What the hell.
Your whole argument is an equivocation. The cane look exactly the same.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 10:15:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 8:11:06 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 7:09:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
All I'm defending here is the notion that "reality is illusory" is not an irrational belief. Unless you want to argue that the beliefs of Einstein and Max Planck were held irrationally. There's also not "some founder of QM" there's only "THE" founder of QM. A belief is not irrational if it is untestable and it's also irrational to suppose that two extremely rational
Their discoveries are a mark of intelligence, not rationality.

So you don't think that Einstein and Max Planck were rational people?

people hold beliefs irrationally.

To be rational is to adequately respond to normative reasons. It may or may not have been rational from the stand point of view from someone living in 1900 to hold such a belief, but it is not to hold it 100 years later.

Planck died in 1947 and Einstein in 1955. So it's closer to round to 50 years rather than 100. The age of a belief has 0 effect on whether it's true or not anyway. To say that it's not rational to hold an old belief is illogical.

You do realize that an observer is not a human, right?

As evidenced by?
As evidenced by the fact that a human observer does not trigger the effects you were hinting at.

I disagree. Are you ready for a source war or not?

It tickles me when people say that machines can account for these observations *only when observed by us* and conclude that our observations weren't necessary. It's like saying that if a digital camera took a photo of a blue sky but no consciousness was around to observe the screen, the picture would be of a blue sky. But "colors" are *by definition* a function of sentient observation.

Color: "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations *on the eye* as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light."

You do realize this has literally nothing to do with the kind of observer used in experiments like the double slit, right?

Sure it does, the kind of observer is *us*. The mechanism of observation, like the digital camera in my example, or the detected in yours, has no effect until we are the ones observing it.

An "observer" is a detector, like photomultiplier tubes, a kind of vacuum tube that is made to detect the very short wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. An observation is made by interacting with the particle. As is any measurement, you cannot measure something without interacting with it.

Now tell me, how does the human eye make an observation? How does it interact with photons?
Exactly, they directly hit the retina.

Ok, but if you're implying a retina is like a camera then try opening the eyes of a dead person to observe anything. Machines can never take the place of sentient observation.

The human eye cannot recognize a photon if it is to pass through a slit or hit a wall. But you can of course try to shine a flashlight through your head and see for yourself.

Schrodinger's cat helps illustrate this.
Schroedinger's cat was ridicule not better illustration of Heisenberg's views.

Recall that my assertion was that it *helped illustrate* another concept (the collapse of the wave function), so it doesn't matter what Schrodingers cat was intended for.
The wave function is a mathematical model. It has no physical reality.

How does this affect my point that reality is indeterministic until it's observed.

Because "Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box" is not a quantum event. Which is the crucial point.
Rather, having a cat both dead and alive is the conclusion, not the starting point.

Where did I say it was the starting point? It doesn't matter anyway, you made it sound as if Schr"dinger's cat was a concept that had nothing to do with a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box by suggesting that I "read up on it" yet there it was, word for word. If you have an argument to make, make it explicit, otherwise you can imply all day long without making arguments and that gets us nowhere.


No, but the fact that the person saw the elephant is real. If there was a drug that permanently inverted all colors, would this be a deviation from the way colors really are? No, because the way the brain interprets varying wavelengths of light is different even among species. There's no objective, real color in the world.
Great. And this is supposed to conclude no physical world exists, how exactly?

It's supposed to show that reality wouldn't exist as we currently perceive if we removed all sentient observers.

How on earth do you know they are not just hallucinating?

We're all hallucinating. What do you think it means to hallucinate?
An hallucination is perception in absence of an external stimulus that is similar in some respect to actual perception.
So no, we are not all hallucinating. If idealism was true, then yes we all would hallucinate and psychedelics were probably conductive to that.

Do you agree with this statement: the way we perceive reality is a mental construct resulting from various chemical interactions in our brain.

Certain drugs act on the brain differently. Ones that dissociate the mind from the brain like Ketamine and DMT can't be compared to drugs that don't.
And you draw that difference why exactly? Because people see more flashy colors?

No, because they experience different forms of consciousness which have been described as "realer" than the real world.

From their testimonies they didn't even know who they were. So it's like you are an experience rather than one observing an experience.
Which for once is no response to my objection and furthermore induced amnesia is not really something spiritual or what have you.

Different forms of consciousness rely on disassociation from the brain. I'm not sure where amnesia plays into that.



Don't we evolve towards whatever maximizes survival? Why then think that we evolved to perceive reality as its true self? "Truth" is secondary to "survival benefit".
Then tell me, how do you survive without veridical experience?
If you don't hear a predator approaching, you will be eaten.
If you bump into a tree because you didn't see it while being chased, you will be eaten.
If you can't correctly discern poisonous and non-poisonous animals/fruits/whatever, you die.
If you don't correctly perceive the heat from a fire you won't recognize you are burning.

I have about 3 points on this but due to the char limit I'll leave it at one for now.

(1) its philosophically impossible for evolution to be evolving "for" anything or for it to have an aim or goal. Maximizing survival is an aim or goal. True or false?



Name the physical quantities of texture
Texture refers to the attributes of an objects surface. An objects surface is made of molecules arranged in various shapes, such that any sufficiently precise description of these arrangements is going to give you the texture.

And would things have a texture without ever being felt? Is texture physically inherent in an object?

and weight.
You claim quantum mechanics proves idealism, but you cannot answer this yourself??
Get your sh1t together, this should be answerable by a 6th grader.

Weight colloquially refers to the mass of an object. And I believe it should be apparent that both weight (as in m*g) and mass are subject to physics.

Does physics feel the weight of an object?" Weight" is a feeling of heaviness. Tell me, where does that physically exist?

It shows it doesn't exist as a thing in itself

What the hell.
Your whole argument is an equivocation. The cane look exactly the same.

Wrong. Let's start with color. What color would the candy cane be?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:26:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 4:04:15 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 2:36:35 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/12/2015 8:18:12 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:36:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm trying to get a clear understanding of these two concepts, but I've found some variance in the descriptions from differing sources. (further commentary at the bottom of the post)

According to The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...):

Rationlism : (Philosophy)
- a. the doctrine that knowledge about reality can be obtained by reason alone without recourse to experience.

I don't recall any rationalist who actually proposed this
Isn't that, like, the fundamental tenet of rationalism?
I misread, sorry.
What did you originally read it as?
Rationalism is based on deduction from a priori axioms alone, isn't it?
What is an "a priori axiom"?
Rationalists believe some knowledge can be obtained a priori, without reference to experience.
An a priori axiom being a necessary truth which must be accepted for the concept of "truth" to be meaningful at all (for example, the law of identity or the cogito). From these axioms, everything else follows.
Of course, such knowledge is probably vacuous, but the Rationalists didn't recognize that.
Mathematics certainly is not vacuous.

Mathematical truths are all tautologies; all mathematical truths follow from the definitions of its basic functions and operations. They are true regardless of the state of the world. There is nothing which could make a tautology false, so, in that sense, knowing a tautology gives you no other knowledge apart from the fact that you know a tautology.

I agree wholly with Wittgenstein on this: http://plato.stanford.edu...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 10:19:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Their discoveries are a mark of intelligence, not rationality.

So you don't think that Einstein and Max Planck were rational people?
When did I say that?

people hold beliefs irrationally.

To be rational is to adequately respond to normative reasons. It may or may not have been rational from the stand point of view from someone living in 1900 to hold such a belief, but it is not to hold it 100 years later.

Planck died in 1947 and Einstein in 1955. So it's closer to round to 50 years rather than 100.
Nonsense. The develpment of QM was in the early 20th century. That is the part of their lifes where what they believed influenced QM.

The age of a belief has 0 effect on whether it's true or not anyway. To say that it's not rational to hold an old belief is illogical.
Which I have not said.

I disagree. Are you ready for a source war or not?

A source war is literaly the most futile kind of debate, because you don't understand QM at all and I don't understand it enough.

Sure it does, the kind of observer is *us*. The mechanism of observation, like the digital camera in my example, or the detected in yours, has no effect until we are the ones observing it.
Which is nonsense.
You were talking about color, but that is alos irrelevant.

An "observer" is a detector, like photomultiplier tubes, a kind of vacuum tube that is made to detect the very short wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. An observation is made by interacting with the particle. As is any measurement, you cannot measure something without interacting with it.

Now tell me, how does the human eye make an observation? How does it interact with photons?
Exactly, they directly hit the retina.

Ok, but if you're implying a retina is like a camera then try opening the eyes of a dead person to observe anything. Machines can never take the place of sentient observation.
What the hell?
I said, measurements of anything necessarily involve interaction with the particle observed. And the human eye can't do that if the particle is to continue flying at something.
Whether or not the human is alive is literally irrelevent.

Because "Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box" is not a quantum event. Which is the crucial point.
Rather, having a cat both dead and alive is the conclusion, not the starting point.

Where did I say it was the starting point?
You began with "Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box". Therefore, it is your starting point, not what you wanted to illustrate.

It doesn't matter anyway, you made it sound as if Schr"dinger's cat was a concept that had nothing to do with a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box by suggesting that I "read up on it" yet there it was, word for word.
It was not lol.

If you have an argument to make, make it explicit, otherwise you can imply all day long without making arguments and that gets us nowhere.
I made it already. You can't explain the cat with stating it is both dead and alive. Because there may or may not have been a quantum event, which we don't know until we make a measurement, therefore the cat is supposed to be dead and alive.

No, but the fact that the person saw the elephant is real. If there was a drug that permanently inverted all colors, would this be a deviation from the way colors really are? No, because the way the brain interprets varying wavelengths of light is different even among species. There's no objective, real color in the world.
Great. And this is supposed to conclude no physical world exists, how exactly?

It's supposed to show that reality wouldn't exist as we currently perceive if we removed all sentient observers.
And how is Satan's name does it do that? All it show is, again, that drugs mess with the perception that evolved to produce veridical experience.

How on earth do you know they are not just hallucinating?

We're all hallucinating. What do you think it means to hallucinate?
An hallucination is perception in absence of an external stimulus that is similar in some respect to actual perception.
So no, we are not all hallucinating. If idealism was true, then yes we all would hallucinate and psychedelics were probably conductive to that.

Do you agree with this statement: the way we perceive reality is a mental construct resulting from various chemical interactions in our brain.
After all this time do you still not realize how vague your questions are?
You yourself cannot agree with this statement because your brain does not exist.

Certain drugs act on the brain differently. Ones that dissociate the mind from the brain like Ketamine and DMT can't be compared to drugs that don't.
And you draw that difference why exactly? Because people see more flashy colors?

No, because they experience different forms of consciousness which have been described as "realer" than the real world.
Great. Because drug trips result in the most reliable kinds of experience.

From their testimonies they didn't even know who they were. So it's like you are an experience rather than one observing an experience.
Which for once is no response to my objection and furthermore induced amnesia is not really something spiritual or what have you.

Different forms of consciousness rely on disassociation from the brain. I'm not sure where amnesia plays into that.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. What are "different forms of consciousness"?

Don't we evolve towards whatever maximizes survival? Why then think that we evolved to perceive reality as its true self? "Truth" is secondary to "survival benefit".
Then tell me, how do you survive without veridical experience?
If you don't hear a predator approaching, you will be eaten.
If you bump into a tree because you didn't see it while being chased, you will be eaten.
If you can't correctly discern poisonous and non-poisonous animals/fruits/whatever, you die.
If you don't correctly perceive the heat from a fire you won't recognize you are burning.

(1) its philosophically impossible for evolution to be evolving "for" anything or for it to have an aim or goal.
My heart evolved to pump blood, my eyes evolved to see.

Maximizing survival is an aim or goal. True or false?
It is not a goal, the surviving ones are what is left. Wich is precisely why above mentioned points work.

Name the physical quantities of texture
Texture refers to the attributes of an objects surface. An objects surface is made of molecules arranged in various shapes, such that any sufficiently precise description of these arrangements is going to give you the texture.

And would things have a texture without ever being felt? Is texture physically inherent in an object?

and weight.
You claim quantum mechanics proves idealism, but you cannot answer this yourself??
Get your sh1t together, this should be answerable by a 6th grader.

Weight colloquially refers to the mass of an object. And I believe it should be apparent that both weight (as in m*g) and mass are subject to physics.

Does physics feel the weight of an object?" Weight" is a feeling of heaviness. Tell me, where does that physically exist?
That was not yur question. You asked for weight, which is is either mass*gravitational acceleration or colloquially the mass of an object. You did not ask for the feeling of weight.
How that feels to you is of course not subject to physics. Yet the candy cane "weighs" exactly the same.

Let's start with color. What color would the candy cane be?
Red and white.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 11:05:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Red and white.
Isn't this a rehash of the 'if a tree falls in the forest...' ? Was that ever settled?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 12:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 11:05:43 AM, kp98 wrote:
Red and white.
Isn't this a rehash of the 'if a tree falls in the forest...' ? Was that ever settled?

Yes and Yes.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 5:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 10:19:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:

So you don't think that Einstein and Max Planck were rational people?
When did I say that?

Do you ever make any arguments? You imply way too much dude. Here, I'll help by making statements and force it out of you.

Einstein and Max Planck were rational people. Is that statement most plausibly true or most plausibly false?

Nonsense. The develpment of QM was in the early 20th century. That is the part of their lifes where what they believed influenced QM.

No, we we're talking about what beliefs they held, which they would've held up until their deaths.

The age of a belief has 0 effect on whether it's true or not anyway. To say that it's not rational to hold an old belief is illogical.
Which I have not said.

Of course you didn't implikze. "To say that it is not rational to hold an old belief is illogical" true or false?

A source war is literaly the most futile kind of debate, because you don't understand QM at all and I don't understand it enough.

Are you implying you know more than me about QM? Let's start a tally.

Which is nonsense.
You were talking about color, but that is alos irrelevant.

I can't respond to this because it was too vague.


Now tell me, how does the human eye make an observation? How does it interact with photons?
Exactly, they directly hit the retina.

Ok, but if you're implying a retina is like a camera then try opening the eyes of a dead person to observe anything. Machines can never take the place of sentient observation.
What the hell?
I said, measurements of anything necessarily involve interaction with the particle observed. And the human eye can't do that if the particle is to continue flying at something.

I'm asking if you think a machine can cause the collapse of the wave function

Whether or not the human is alive is literally irrelevent.

Dead people wouldn't cause a collapse of the wave function.

Because "Imagine a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive within a box" is not a quantum event. Which is the crucial point.
Rather, having a cat both dead and alive is the conclusion, not the starting point.

If you have an argument to make, make it explicit, otherwise you can imply all day long without making arguments and that gets us nowhere.
I made it already. You can't explain the cat with stating it is both dead and alive. Because there may or may not have been a quantum event, which we don't know until we make a measurement, therefore the cat is supposed to be dead and alive.

The first sentence on explaining the concept starts with this: The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both dead and alive... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The cat is assumed to both be dead and alive before we open the box, just as it said. Own up on losing this pedantic argument and let's move on shall we? There are many more important things to discuss.

And how is Satan's name does it do that? All it show is, again, that drugs mess with the perception that evolved to produce veridical experience.

Because perceptions of things that you think exist independent from the mind, like colors, don't.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world. The coloring of the rainbow is nothing more than a shared (reliable, consistent, and kick-a**) illusion.
http://www.askamathematician.com...


Do you agree with this statement: the way we perceive reality is a mental construct resulting from various chemical interactions in our brain.
After all this time do you still not realize how vague your questions are?
You yourself cannot agree with this statement because your brain does not exist.

Why are you afraid to answer to the question? Is our perception of reality a result of electro-chemical interactions in our brain or not? Information about things we don't directly perceive, like my brain, is stored in God's mind.

Great. Because drug trips result in the most reliable kinds of experience.

Is it more reliable to believe dozens of testimonials about what people on a drug trip experienced or nay-sayers that dismiss them for no reason and without any knowledge of it?


Different forms of consciousness rely on disassociation from the brain. I'm not sure where amnesia plays into that.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. What are "different forms of consciousness"?

Ask your bud Sam Harris.
http://www.samharris.org...


(1) its philosophically impossible for evolution to be evolving "for" anything or for it to have an aim or goal.
My heart evolved to pump blood, my eyes evolved to see.

Oh really? Because that's impossible. Mindless objects can't be a means towards an end because in order to do so would require intent and knowledge. If the heart is a means towards pumping blood, and eyes are a means to see, then you should reconsider atheism.

Maximizing survival is an aim or goal. True or false?
It is not a goal, the surviving ones are what is left. Wich is precisely why above mentioned points work.

Two totally different things. A crack in a sidewalk collects tiny pebbles. A crack in a sidewalk is for collecting tiny pebbles. You're conflating a tendency with what something is for.

Name the physical quantities of texture
Texture refers to the attributes of an objects surface. An objects surface is made of molecules arranged in various shapes, such that any sufficiently precise description of these arrangements is going to give you the texture.

And would things have a texture without ever being felt? Is texture physically inherent in an object?

Hello?


and weight.
You claim quantum mechanics proves idealism, but you cannot answer this yourself??
Get your sh1t together, this should be answerable by a 6th grader.

Weight colloquially refers to the mass of an object. And I believe it should be apparent that both weight (as in m*g) and mass are subject to physics.

Does physics feel the weight of an object?" Weight" is a feeling of heaviness. Tell me, where does that physically exist?
That was not yur question. You asked for weight, which is is either mass*gravitational acceleration or colloquially the mass of an object. You did not ask for the feeling of weight.

No, those equations *indicate* weight to a sentience that can feel weight. If you visited a different universe that had different laws of physics could you tell the weight of an object by its physical composition? No. Maybe less mass = more weight, maybe more mass = more weight, how we would we ever know? Just like in this universe, we would have to feel the weight for ourselves first because weight doesn't physically exist.

How that feels to you is of course not subject to physics. Yet the candy cane "weighs" exactly the same.

Weight wouldn't have ontological existence in a universe without consciousness.

Let's start with color. What color would the candy cane be?
Red and white.

Not possible, there wouldn't be anything to convert wavelengths that code for white and red into white and red. All that would conceivably exist, ontologically, is colorless light. See the mathematician source.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 5:17:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 11:05:43 AM, kp98 wrote:
Red and white.
Isn't this a rehash of the 'if a tree falls in the forest...' ? Was that ever settled?

Yes, and it wouldn't make a sound, meaning that a candycane would still be red and white under that logic would be false.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:11:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Einstein and Max Planck were rational people. Is that statement most plausibly true or most plausibly false?
You missed my point. Entirely.
I never said they were irrational. What I said is this:
"To be rational is to adequately respond to normative reasons. It may or may not have been rational from the stand point of view from someone living in 1900 to hold such a belief, but it is not to hold it 100 years later."
This is as clear a response you could wish for.

If I am told that X by smart people, inquire myself and finnd something that implies X, then it is rational to believe X.
However 100 years later people find out that not-X. Therfore, 100 years later it would not be rational to believe that X.

I have no idea what's so hard to understand about this and I also have no idea how you brought truth into this.

Nonsense. The develpment of QM was in the early 20th century. That is the part of their lifes where what they believed influenced QM.

No, we we're talking about what beliefs they held, which they would've held up until their deaths.
Dude, they were idealists in their youth. That influenced their works on QM, not the other way around.
And it's not like we made no discoveries in 60 years.

Which I have not said.

Of course you didn't implikze. "To say that it is not rational to hold an old belief is illogical" true or false?
What does this even mean? Rationality and logic are two different pairs of shoes.


A source war is literaly the most futile kind of debate, because you don't understand QM at all and I don't understand it enough.

Are you implying you know more than me about QM? Let's start a tally.
Yes, I claim that. You don't know what weight is, admitted before that you are not well educated when it comes physics (b-theory and relativity) and I study chemistry.
So I am pretty sure I have to upper hand here.

I can't respond to this because it was too vague.
Your original statement was to vague.
You talkied about colors and cameras, but neither have anything to do with observers.

Now tell me, how does the human eye make an observation? How does it interact with photons?
Exactly, they directly hit the retina.

Ok, but if you're implying a retina is like a camera then try opening the eyes of a dead person to observe anything. Machines can never take the place of sentient observation.
What the hell?
I said, measurements of anything necessarily involve interaction with the particle observed. And the human eye can't do that if the particle is to continue flying at something.

I'm asking if you think a machine can cause the collapse of the wave function
The wavefunction does not collapse. Next.

Whether or not the human is alive is literally irrelevent.

Dead people wouldn't cause a collapse of the wave function.
Living people don't do that either.

The first sentence on explaining the concept starts with this: The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both dead and alive... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
You are really great at missing the point.

The cat is assumed to both be dead and alive before we open the box, just as it said. Own up on losing this pedantic argument and let's move on shall we? There are many more important things to discuss.
LOL The cat is not assumed to be dead and alive. There is an argument behind that.

And how is Satan's name does it do that? All it show is, again, that drugs mess with the perception that evolved to produce veridical experience.

Because perceptions of things that you think exist independent from the mind, like colors, don't.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world. The coloring of the rainbow is nothing more than a shared (reliable, consistent, and kick-a**) illusion.
http://www.askamathematician.com...
I have not disputed that. And again, it does not show there is no object.

Do you agree with this statement: the way we perceive reality is a mental construct resulting from various chemical interactions in our brain.
After all this time do you still not realize how vague your questions are?
You yourself cannot agree with this statement because your brain does not exist.

Why are you afraid to answer to the question?
I have said yu question is vague, as always. YOu always ask loaded question and use your own made up definitions.
People have pointed that out to you over and over already

Is our perception of reality a result of electro-chemical interactions in our brain or not?
Yes, but once again, you cannot agree to that, because to you the brain is not prior to the mind.

Information about things we don't directly perceive, like my brain, is stored in God's mind.
Whacko.
Then why would there ever be, according to you, a not collapsed wavefunction?

Great. Because drug trips result in the most reliable kinds of experience.

Is it more reliable to believe dozens of testimonials about what people on a drug trip experienced or nay-sayers that dismiss them for no reason and without any knowledge of it?
No. This nay-sayer presented an argument for why we can trust our senses if do not use drugs to mess with them.

Whatever our DMT levels generally are, they do not influence the veracity of our perception. Once again, we have evolved for quite some time now. If this level was altering our perception we we would have died out long ago.

Different forms of consciousness rely on disassociation from the brain. I'm not sure where amnesia plays into that.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. What are "different forms of consciousness"?

Ask your bud Sam Harris.
http://www.samharris.org...
Sam Harris is an idiot.
The distinction James (not Harris) draws between kinds of consciousness does not resemble the distinction you have drawn. Applying what he said to your staement makes it nonsensical.

(1) its philosophically impossible for evolution to be evolving "for" anything or for it to have an aim or goal.
My heart evolved to pump blood, my eyes evolved to see.

Oh really? Because that's impossible. Mindless objects can't be a means towards an end because in order to do so would require intent and knowledge. If the heart is a means towards pumping blood, and eyes are a means to see, then you should reconsider atheism.
But that it is possible is precisely evolution has shown.
Darwin discovered how purely causal processes, blind variation and natural selection can produce adaptions, biological structures and functions, that is purposes.


Maximizing survival is an aim or goal. True or false?
It is not a goal, the surviving ones are what is left. Wich is precisely why above mentioned points work.

Two totally different things. A crack in a sidewalk collects tiny pebbles. A crack in a sidewalk is for collecting tiny pebbles. You're conflating a tendency with what something is for.
The analogy to evolution could not be worse.

Name the physical quantities of texture
Texture refers to the attributes of an objects surface. An objects surface is made of molecules arranged in various shapes, such that any sufficiently precise description of these arrangements is going to give you the texture.

And would things have a texture without ever being felt? Is texture physically inherent in an object?

Hello?
Hi.
Yes they have. It's the same confusion as with candy cane "thought experiment".
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:30:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 2:07:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/12/2015 8:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since truth and rationality are abstract concepts that cannot be observed directly, and since logic is the theory of truth, I think empiricism answers to logic and not the other way around. In order to even begin with rational discourse, we need first principles...a "logical starting point". Without that, there's nowhere to begin because we have no way to know what counts as true and the principles that lead us in that direction. So we do, I think, need and have "innate" knowledge that constrains our thinking in a logical way. In other words, the logical structure of our consciousness provided us with an implicit foundation for rationality.

But the logical foundation is based on experience. We use conceptual tools such as math, definitions, language, and logic to better describe, understand, interact, and predict the world around us. All of these concepts are derived from direct experience of the behaviors of natural world that appear to be constant, which are effective conceptual models of observed reality. These conceptual models (i.e. math) can be then applied to other similar, but yet unknown, behaviors of reality to enable a means of prediction.

For example, the simple mathematical equation, 1+1=2, reflects a quantitative property of a determined set of objects which can be applied to any real-word scenario that appears to be the same. This conceptual model is portable, but it could not have existed without the initial experience from which it was derived. For instance, if the universe contained no objects, then an observing mind would have no means by which to create the concept of quantities.

All of our conceptual models are founded in experience, including the laws of logic. They are molded to the experienced behavior of the world around us. p>q represents a pattern that we see in this reality without exception, and if this reality didn't exhibit such a pattern, then this conceptual model could not exist as it is. It would reflect the world that is being observed.

I had to type this quick, so please excuse typos and grammatical errors...

Interpreting experience so as to establish principles of rationality and logic in a logical - and therefore, justified - way requires that we know how to think logically in the first place. The logical integrity of our consciousness - our hardwired "knowledge" - provides us with this foundation, at least implicitly.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:35:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does physics feel the weight of an object?" Weight" is a feeling of heaviness. Tell me, where does that physically exist?
That was not yur question. You asked for weight, which is is either mass*gravitational acceleration or colloquially the mass of an object. You did not ask for the feeling of weight.

No, those equations *indicate* weight to a sentience that can feel weight.
What the bloody f*ck. Take a physics course. No wonder you propose quantum woo.

If you visited a different universe that had different laws of physics could you tell the weight of an object by its physical composition? No. Maybe less mass = more weight, maybe more mass = more weight, how we would we ever know? Just like in this universe, we would have to feel the weight for ourselves first because weight doesn't physically exist.
What are you talking about????
Physics inquires the laws of this universe not some cooked up stuff you came up with. Our physics gives tells us the mass and the gravitational acceleration of the earth. That equals weight.
If in your imaginary universe m*g does not equal W, then that is all it shows. It does not not show that mass and acceleration are not physical quantities.

Weight wouldn't have ontological existence in a universe without consciousness.
I'm getting tired of your sh't.


Let's start with color. What color would the candy cane be?
Red and white.

Not possible, there wouldn't be anything to convert wavelengths that code for white and red into white and red. All that would conceivably exist, ontologically, is colorless light. See the mathematician source.
And that is the error in your thinking.
You confuse the act of conception with the content of conception.
To conceive of something obviously requires us to be engaged in the act of conception. But it does not follow that the content of our conception must be a conceived of object.

I can, without any problems, conceive that a red and white candy cane exists in a consciousness devoid universe.
"Conceiving of" and "conceiving that" is a very basic distinction in epistemology.

So while it is contradictory to say
the exists a red and white candy cane such that I am conceiving of the candy cane and the candy cane is unconceived,
it is not contradictory to say
I am conceiving that there exists a red and white candy cane such that the candy cane is unconceived.
(put it in formal logic if you can and you will see)

So yes, it very much is possible.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic