What Am I?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2016, 10:04 PM
RE: What Am I?
(15-01-2016 09:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I opted out of Religion a long time ago in pursuit of a more logical world view.
I am still seeking to label my world view & I came here to ask for help in finding this label if it already exists or to give it a new name.

Why do you think it's "more logical" ?
You haven't examined your assumptions.

You said both :

"If the methodology used to gain Evidence is based on an assumption that cannot be absolutely proven then is it not safe to say that the evidence is inadmissible?'

AND

"someone that believes nothing can be proven to be absolutely true or absolutely exist except this "thing" we call thoughts. How thoughts exist, how you define what a thought is and who owns them doesn't disprove it's existence.
Please note I did not say "my thoughts" only "thoughts".

Those two statements are not compatible. You seem to think you don't have to play by your own rules. You have provided no evidence for thought, and you have (by special pleading) exempted yourself from defining "thought". I still say you are a Presuppositionalist theist. (That's what they do all the time). What they call "god" you call "thought", and treat the idea the same.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-01-2016, 10:21 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2016 10:35 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What Am I?
"Thought" does not arise "sui generis". Thoughts are the result of VERY SPECIFIC learned and stored experiences. Infants with no experience do not have "thoughts".
A "brain in a vat" presumes the brain and the vat. Thought AT THE LEAST, presumes a brain. Brains don't arise sui generis". They presume evolved complex (fed) biological systems, which ONLY arise under certain conditions, and only some brains have "thoughts". There is no evidence thought arises any other way, than from complex healthy molecular structures. Anyone who only assumes "thought" doesn't really know how it emerges. Normal humans LEARN to distinguish what is real and what is not. The storage system (memory .. based ONLY in specific molecular processes, so far) IS REQUIRED for thought. Without the learning and the storage, there is no thought. That is evidence that more than "thought" exists.

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
15-01-2016, 10:32 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2016 11:16 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(15-01-2016 10:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 09:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I opted out of Religion a long time ago in pursuit of a more logical world view.
I am still seeking to label my world view & I came here to ask for help in finding this label if it already exists or to give it a new name.

Why do you think it's "more logical" ?
You haven't examined your assumptions.

You said both :

"If the methodology used to gain Evidence is based on an assumption that cannot be absolutely proven then is it not safe to say that the evidence is inadmissible?'

AND

"someone that believes nothing can be proven to be absolutely true or absolutely exist except this "thing" we call thoughts. How thoughts exist, how you define what a thought is and who owns them doesn't disprove it's existence.
Please note I did not say "my thoughts" only "thoughts".

Those two statements are not compatible. You seem to think you don't have to play by your own rules. You have provided no evidence for thought, and you have (by special pleading) exempted yourself from defining "thought". I still say you are a Presuppositionalist theist. (That's what they do all the time). What they call "god" you call "thought", and treat the idea the same.

Thank you once again for your timely & well put together responses.
For now let's keep this part of the discussion between the two of us as I am directly addressing the point you just made.
The confusion lies with me assuming that you already agree that "thoughts do exist"
I did quote it twice in this discussion and no one has objected to it thus far even when I specifically stated "assuming here we both share this same belief."

Post 1: "These thoughts do exist and it would be illogical to dismiss it."
Post 6: "Thoughts do exist and we all already have the evidence for that. I am assuming here we both share this same belief."

I was wrong to have assumed this. So I will rectify this now.

Definition:
thought
noun
the action or process of thinking.

Can you please clarify your world view on the "existence of thoughts" in order to gain common ground to continue our polite discussion?
Do you believe "the action or process of thinking" is real or not?

If you do not agree with the definition of thought provided by google I would gladly oblige what you think it means for the sake of logical discussion.

Edit:
My apologies.
I do not wish to base my arguments on incorrect assumptions of other peoples views so I will do my very best to not let it happen again.
That being said; my experience has led me to believe that everyone already believes that "thoughts" do exist and there wasn't a need to verify this to make a point valid.
eg.
Do you know how long a math based discussion would be if I had to stop and ask all listeners if they agree 9+9=18. However, there is the possibility that one of the listeners come from a society that does not use the number 9 & therefore my assumption would be incorrect, but I am forced to assume they already knew to shorten the discussion.
So my apologies if it happens again, but it is inevitable.
Please correct me when it happens again Bucky & forgive me too.

P.S.
This is not a "statement":
"If the methodology used to gain Evidence is based on an assumption that cannot be absolutely proven then is it not safe to say that the evidence is inadmissible?'
It's a question!
A question requiring your approval or disapproval based on a logical test.
The purpose of the question is for us to arrive at some common factor between our world view in order for us to continue the discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2016 06:39 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(15-01-2016 10:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Thought" does not arise "sui generis". Thoughts are the result of VERY SPECIFIC learned and stored experiences. Infants with no experience do not have "thoughts".
A "brain in a vat" presumes the brain and the vat. Thought AT THE LEAST, presumes a brain. Brains don't arise sui generis". They presume evolved complex (fed) biological systems, which ONLY arise under certain conditions, and only some brains have "thoughts". There is no evidence thought arises any other way, than from complex healthy molecular structures. Anyone who only assumes "thought" doesn't really know how it emerges. Normal humans LEARN to distinguish what is real and what is not. The storage system (memory .. based ONLY in specific molecular processes, so far) IS REQUIRED for thought. Without the learning and the storage, there is no thought. That is evidence that more than "thought" exists.

Definition:
thought
noun
the action or process of thinking.

Infants with no experience do not have "the action or process of thinking"?
Can you explain what this means? I am starting to get confused. Also can you please show how you logically arrived at the statement "Thoughts are the result of VERY SPECIFIC learned and stored experiences" assuming that the we both agree that thought simply means "the action or process of thinking" as defined by google.
I did not come across the definitions you have just provided in my research. Maybe the problem is we are simply not using the same definitions of the word "thought"?

On a side note:
The name of this Forum is "The thinking Atheist".
Is this forum based on entities that do not exist by your logic?
If thoughts do not exist then how can a thinking Atheist exist?
Have you contacted the management about changing the forum name to "The Atheist Forum"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: What Am I?
(15-01-2016 07:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hello All.

My name is Shane.
I have a world view but I am unsure what others would call it.

I once thought I was Atheist & then thought I was Agnostic, but now I am not sure if these world view properly depicts mines.

It is a basic unprovable "brain in a vat or not" that haunts me.



I do not accept that anything is absolutely true or absolutely exists other than these thoughts. These thoughts do exist and it would be illogical to dismiss it.
I do not even know for a fact if the entity I call "I" is the real me or am I being forced to relive the thought process of another entity. Therefore I may not be who I think I am. For all intents and purposes I will continue to call myself "I" to keep it simple.

By process of elimination;
How can I be a Theist, an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Solipsist or even an Individual considering that I do not accept the following absolutes:

God is absolutely true or Absolutely exists. Therefore not a Theist.
God is absolutely not true or absolutely does not exist. Therefore not an Atheist.
Material things are absolutely true or absolutely exists. Therefore not an Agnostic.
Material things are absolutely not true or absolutely does not exist. Therefore not a Solipsist.
I am absolutely me & I absolutely exist. Therefore not an Individual.

I do accept that:
Thoughts absolutely exist & everything else is absolutely unknowable.
So what do you call that?

What do you call someone that believes nothing can be proven to be absolutely true or absolutely exist except this "thing" we call thoughts. How thoughts exist, how you define what a thought is and who owns them doesn't disprove it's existence.
Please note I did not say "my thoughts" only "thoughts"

Help Please?

be·lief/bəˈlēf/
noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

know/nō/
verb
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic/aɡˈnästik/
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

sol·ip·sism/ˈsälipˌsizəm/
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

the·ism/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

in·di·vid·u·al/ˌindəˈvij(o͞o)əl/
adjective
single; separate.
of or for a particular person.
noun
a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.

You're a person who has crippled his mind with arbitrary notions, just like a theist. If you are so logical, why would you even entertain these ideas?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
16-01-2016, 10:20 AM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2016 10:30 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 09:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 07:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hello All.

My name is Shane.
I have a world view but I am unsure what others would call it.

I once thought I was Atheist & then thought I was Agnostic, but now I am not sure if these world view properly depicts mines.

It is a basic unprovable "brain in a vat or not" that haunts me.



I do not accept that anything is absolutely true or absolutely exists other than these thoughts. These thoughts do exist and it would be illogical to dismiss it.
I do not even know for a fact if the entity I call "I" is the real me or am I being forced to relive the thought process of another entity. Therefore I may not be who I think I am. For all intents and purposes I will continue to call myself "I" to keep it simple.

By process of elimination;
How can I be a Theist, an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Solipsist or even an Individual considering that I do not accept the following absolutes:

God is absolutely true or Absolutely exists. Therefore not a Theist.
God is absolutely not true or absolutely does not exist. Therefore not an Atheist.
Material things are absolutely true or absolutely exists. Therefore not an Agnostic.
Material things are absolutely not true or absolutely does not exist. Therefore not a Solipsist.
I am absolutely me & I absolutely exist. Therefore not an Individual.

I do accept that:
Thoughts absolutely exist & everything else is absolutely unknowable.
So what do you call that?

What do you call someone that believes nothing can be proven to be absolutely true or absolutely exist except this "thing" we call thoughts. How thoughts exist, how you define what a thought is and who owns them doesn't disprove it's existence.
Please note I did not say "my thoughts" only "thoughts"

Help Please?

be·lief/bəˈlēf/
noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

know/nō/
verb
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic/aɡˈnästik/
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

sol·ip·sism/ˈsälipˌsizəm/
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

the·ism/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

in·di·vid·u·al/ˌindəˈvij(o͞o)əl/
adjective
single; separate.
of or for a particular person.
noun
a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.

You're a person who has crippled his mind with arbitrary notions, just like a theist. If you are so logical, why would you even entertain these ideas?
Not exactly sure how you came to the conclusion that I have somehow crippled my mind.
Would you care to elaborate?
Yes I would like to think that I have a logical mind, but how exactly do these "ideas" seem in any way illogical?
I came to my world view after logically questioning the world views of the classes I have listed in my original post in an effort to classify myself.
In the process of doing so I have come to the realization that I cannot be classed as any of them due to logical inconsistencies.

Any world view that claims absolute truth needs to unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted as an absolute truth.
To date the only absolute truth that I cannot disprove based on my perspective and maybe yours is that "thoughts exist"
I.e. The process of thinking.
Why? Because the instant you ask the question you already find the answer.
If there are flaws in my logic all I ask is that you simply point it out for me to rethink my world view.

For me to assume the anything outside of thoughts are real I will have to assume the bias belief that I am not a brain in a vat or in some sort of matrix. To start any world view based on a a preconceived notion that has yet to be proven means I am being dishonest with myself.
If I am to be honest with myself I simply cannot rule out the possibility that I may be a brain in a vat, a matrix or even a more complex entity with individualistic illusion.

Do you know what Portuguese man o war is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: What Am I?
(15-01-2016 07:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  God is absolutely true or Absolutely exists. Therefore not a Theist.
God is absolutely not true or absolutely does not exist. Therefore not an Atheist.
You just described a gnostic theist and a gnostic atheist.
You left out agnostic theists, and most importantly, agnostic atheists, which by the way, is what the vast majority of atheists are.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: What Am I?
Why are you asking us, who are your own mental constructs, for help? I mean what kind of demented brain in a vat invents all this crap like the internet and so forth, just to ask for help proving that it's not a brain in a vat?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
16-01-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: What Am I?
You're a human being, like everyone else.
What you accept about the world or even find reasonable to believe is irrelevant.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
16-01-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 10:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 09:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You're a person who has crippled his mind with arbitrary notions, just like a theist. If you are so logical, why would you even entertain these ideas?
Not exactly sure how you came to the conclusion that I have somehow crippled my mind.
Would you care to elaborate?
Yes I would like to think that I have a logical mind, but how exactly do these "ideas" seem in any way illogical?
I came to my world view after logically questioning the world views of the classes I have listed in my original post in an effort to classify myself.
In the process of doing so I have come to the realization that I cannot be classed as any of them due to logical inconsistencies.

Any world view that claims absolute truth needs to unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted as an absolute truth.
To date the only absolute truth that I cannot disprove based on my perspective and maybe yours is that "thoughts exist"
I.e. The process of thinking.
Why? Because the instant you ask the question you already find the answer.
If there are flaws in my logic all I ask is that you simply point it out for me to rethink my world view.

For me to assume the anything outside of thoughts are real I will have to assume the bias belief that I am not a brain in a vat or in some sort of matrix. To start any world view based on a a preconceived notion that has yet to be proven means I am being dishonest with myself.
If I am to be honest with myself I simply cannot rule out the possibility that I may be a brain in a vat, a matrix or even a more complex entity with individualistic illusion.

Do you know what Portuguese man o war is?

You are not required to rule out an arbitrary hypothetical like you may be a brain in a vat or the things around you may not be real. There is no onus on your part to refute something for which there is no evidence. What I mean by the statement that you have crippled your mind is that if you can't be sure that you are real and that your experiences are really yours and that the things around you are real then how can you even enter the field of epistemology? How can you think at all. What you are doing is denying the axioms of philosophy as your starting point, just as a theist does. If you can't know anything for sure, then you deny that you are even conscious, because consciousness is the faculty which perceives that which exists, not the faculty that perceives that which does not.

This is self inflicted on your part. The fact that we can imagine that we might be a brain in a vat or that all of our perceptions might be unreal does not in any way mean that we should entertain such notions as possible. You are failing to recognize the fundamental distinction between what we can imagine and what is real. You would be putty in Sye Ten Bruggencate's hands. He'd love to get you on camera. He'd ask his standard question: could you be wrong about everything you know and you'd have to say yes, Sye, I might just be a brain in a vat. Then he'd post it all over youtube and declare victory.

Start your worldview on the axioms and then proceed from that base of incontestable truth to discover as much as you can. Don't destroy your mind by considering the arbitrary as your starting point.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: