Theistic Evolution Questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2017, 06:24 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 03:46 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I agree that bringing up brains in vats is indeed a red herring. That was the point I was making, in case it was unclear.

It's only a valid counter-argument to people who are trying to make statements of certainty about reality. It's a way of showing that certainty is beyond our grasp.

Exactly.
"Epistomology" provides nothing, especially certainty.

Epistemology can provide certainty at your foundation. You know you exist with epistemic certainty. Epistemic certainty is fed by necessary ontology.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 03:46 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I agree that bringing up brains in vats is indeed a red herring. That was the point I was making, in case it was unclear.

It's only a valid counter-argument to people who are trying to make statements of certainty about reality. It's a way of showing that certainty is beyond our grasp.

I don't think it's a complete red herring because Alla has no response to the BIV hypothesis or any other hypotheses from skepticism. But I do think we can have certainty at the foundational level. In fact it's imperative that we do. Else when we make probabilistic assessments that are based on our foundation, the probabilities would be skewed because even our foundation is merely probabilistic in truth. But I could create another thread on certainty later. The main point is that Alla seems to have no working response to the skeptic because her worldview doesn't allow for one.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2017 06:56 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 06:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Epistemology can provide certainty at your foundation.

No. It cannot. Your assumptions could be faulty.
YOU yourself have admitted your foundations have changed.
They will change again.
Epistemic certainty is an illusion for the insecure who deny their own journey.

Quote:You know you exist with epistemic certainty. Epistemic certainty is fed by necessary ontology.

Meaningless drivel.
I could be a psychopath, (and so could you), suffering from any number of psychotic disorders.

There is no such thing as "necessary ontology".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-02-2017, 06:51 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
----------

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 07:22 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 06:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Exactly.
"Epistomology" provides nothing, especially certainty.

Epistemology can provide certainty at your foundation. You know you exist with epistemic certainty. Epistemic certainty is fed by necessary ontology.

Define "certainty".
Define "foundation".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 09:01 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 07:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 06:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Epistemology can provide certainty at your foundation. You know you exist with epistemic certainty. Epistemic certainty is fed by necessary ontology.

Define "certainty".
Define "foundation".

Sure. Your foundation is the collection of beliefs you have that ground every other belief within your epistemology. These beliefs are ingrained and grounded in your ontology. Here's some further reading on Foundationalism and epistemology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

Certainty, in this context, is an epistemic principle rather than just a psychological consolation. It's a full awareness of a truth. I used the example of knowing you exist. You could not be wrong about your own existence. Even claiming "I was wrong" would contradict itself. A similar belief is the reliability of your cognitive faculties. To say you conclude that your cognitive faculties are compromised is to say you used your faulty cognitive faculties to come to a conclusion. That conclusion is not reliable if the source is not reliable. The statement contradicts itself. These beliefs are inherent in every mind. It's a property of the intellect to know these things inherently. They are self-evident axioms grounded under doxastic basicality. Here's some further reading on epistemic certainty: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 02:10 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2017 02:28 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
You can have as much a certainty as you want about your artificially constructed abstract systems by which you attempt to model reality. That's all you are discussing.

I don't know if you watched my video last time I posted it, but I cover this in detail.

Your quest for certainty about reality is inherently flawed, I'm afraid. You can state with as much confidence as you like that such and such is certainly true about reality, but you can simply be wrong. I think it would really help if you could admit this to yourself. Even to simply say that you are "experiencing reality" is at best tautological. You don't know what you're experiencing, you don't know what "you" are, and you don't know how accurate anything you experience is with regard to anything that might be "out there", if there is anything at all. Maybe all that exists is you.

"Truth" is another red herring. We can't ever be certain that what we think we know about reality is true. Ever. Again, dropping the certainty allows for practical, evidence based probabilistic conclusions which actually have applications.




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
16-02-2017, 07:49 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2017 08:43 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(15-02-2017 09:01 PM)Naielis Wrote:  These beliefs are inherent in every mind. It's a property of the intellect to know these things inherently. They are self-evident axioms grounded under doxastic basicality.

Every psychotic thinks what they think they know inherently is real and true.
Your definitions and assertions are flawed.
Every psych ward is full of proof you are totally wrong.
What goes on in human brains is the result of a LEARNING process. How does one know the process is complete, and true ?
You're asserting something that is demonstrably false. Repeating a falsehood, does not make it true.
There is nothing "inherent in every mind", nor are there "properties of intellect" that are not learned. You know nothing about Psychology, Neuro-science, or learning.
Define "ingrained". Define "grounded" and tell us how they got there, and how that state came about.

Oh well.
Back to the drawing board.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(16-02-2017 02:10 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You can have as much a certainty as you want about your artificially constructed abstract systems by which you attempt to model reality. That's all you are discussing.

I don't know if you watched my video last time I posted it, but I cover this in detail.

Your quest for certainty about reality is inherently flawed, I'm afraid. You can state with as much confidence as you like that such and such is certainly true about reality, but you can simply be wrong. I think it would really help if you could admit this to yourself. Even to simply say that you are "experiencing reality" is at best tautological. You don't know what you're experiencing, you don't know what "you" are, and you don't know how accurate anything you experience is with regard to anything that might be "out there", if there is anything at all. Maybe all that exists is you.

"Truth" is another red herring. We can't ever be certain that what we think we know about reality is true. Ever. Again, dropping the certainty allows for practical, evidence based probabilistic conclusions which actually have applications.




Hmm I'll make a video response and link it when I'm done. Might be a little bit before it's done though. Lots of stuff to respond to.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(16-02-2017 07:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 09:01 PM)Naielis Wrote:  These beliefs are inherent in every mind. It's a property of the intellect to know these things inherently. They are self-evident axioms grounded under doxastic basicality.

Every psychotic thinks what they think they know inherently is real and true.
Your definitions and assertions are flawed.
Every psych ward is full of proof you are totally wrong.
What goes on in human brains is the result of a LEARNING process. How does one know the process is complete, and true ?
You're asserting something that is demonstrably false. Repeating a falsehood, does not make it true.
There is nothing "inherent in every mind", nor are there "properties of intellect" that are not learned. You know nothing about Psychology, Neuro-science, or learning.
Define "ingrained". Define "grounded" and tell us how they got there, and how that state came about.

Oh well.
Back to the drawing board.

I'll include a response to this in my video for Robvalue.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: