Plasmatic Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 Volco he was quoting the NT book of John not genesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 Our senses can play tricks on us, sure - but I'm highly skeptical of your rather extreme generalization here suggesting that they're flat out untrustworthy. As an aside to this discussion, I want to take issue with this cavalier assumption. This is simply not true. The senses, our sensory experiences, are determined, they are the given, our direct awareness of reality. The senses cannot play tricks on us. "The day when he grasps that his senses cannot deceive him, that physical objects cannot act without causes, that his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort, that the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify the things that he perceives—that is the day of his birth as a thinker and scientist." Galt's Speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 In that sense, as a group, religion is a smart tool. For a group, both religion and communism are a smart solution. For a single human mind, they might temporarily be convenient, but they can never be logical. For collectivism, for a collectivist society, religion or other anti-reason ideologies, are a "smart solution" or requirement. Such is not true for Civilization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 This is simply not true. The senses, our sensory experiences, are determined, they are the given, our direct awareness of reality. The senses cannot play tricks on us.I've never understood how anyone could seriously think that the senses can play tricks on us. Unless you believe this theory of mind and you think the little guy in the chair has a sick sense of humor, it doesn't make any sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 When someone says that their senses are playing tricks on them, I take that as something less than a completely literal statement. I consider such a statement to be saying, "My mind is imagining things that aren't real to be real." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 I've never understood how anyone could seriously think that the senses can play tricks on us. Unless you believe this theory of mind and you think the little guy in the chair has a sick sense of humor, it doesn't make any sense at all. I didn't mean that literally. The senses aren't conscious. They are indifferent. What I mean is that senses are misinterpreted all of the time. We falsely link one sensory experience to another and make faulty generalizations. Otherwise, there is no other way to explain the numerous optical illusions. When you go to a magic show, you'd never think a person was actually sawed in half, but it sure looks that way. Pencils don't bend in the water, but they sure appear to do so. We associate sensory experiences with certain actions and these associations can be false. Often, we link the senses of sight, sound, and touch and the links are false. Many white blues musicians sound "black" and we associate sad music and feelings as "blue". These connections have no objective basis. Even the emotional responses to music and art are seemingly arbitrary. There is no reason why one tune should be "happy" and another tune "sad". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 I've never understood how anyone could seriously think that the senses can play tricks on us. Unless you believe this theory of mind and you think the little guy in the chair has a sick sense of humor, it doesn't make any sense at all. Agreed. There are of course things we perceive as our eyes/ears/etc playing tricks on us but they are all naturally explained through cause and effect. The mind that knows its senses cannot play tricks on it cannot be fooled. Hallucinations, the closest thing to what you're talking about, are still not your senses playing tricks on you. They are again cause and effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 What I mean is that senses are misinterpreted all of the time.In other words, the senses are reliable and infallible. It is the inference from the axiomatic to an unjustified conclusion that is at fault. If people would actually say what they mean, and not the opposite of that, the world would be a better place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 Even the emotional responses to music and art are seemingly arbitrary. There is no reason why one tune should be "happy" and another tune "sad". The problem is you still make too many assumptions in your head based on sound bites that seem interesting to you without looking for information to back it up. Have you studied music much? Early music developed based on man interpreting and recreating natural sounds. In primitive terms "happy music" was music that duplicated or imitated sounds associated with conditions favourable to human life. Sounds associated with spring, harvest, animals bearing young, favourable rains, successful hunting, rivers running, cool breezes... original "happy" music sounds. Sounds associated with destructive storms, landslides, earthquakes, attacking predators, barreness.... original "sad" music sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) 1+1=2 Every concept used in that equation (1,+,=,2) is the result of induction. Every concept is the result of induction. All deduction is based on induction, since there are no deductive statements that do not involve concepts. An "exclusively deductive" statement (were it possible) would involve no concepts, be totally nonsensical, and so would not communicate any knowledge. This makes sense, since all knowledge is obtained through induction and concept-formation. Ok, educate me teacher. What is induction? Sorry about the typo in my statement by the way. Without any understanding of concept formation, and the role of induction and deduction in that process, any definition of induction will seem arbitrary. I recommend chapters 3-5 of OPAR to get a good grasp on concept formation and objectivity. Edited July 28, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Deduction is the act of deriving a fact by starting with a set of premises. It is a fact that the integer 2 immediately follows the integer 1. It is also a fact that the addition of 1 to another number yields an output of the integer that immediately follows it. So the addition of 1 to 1 yields the integer that immediately follows 1. That integer is 2. I'd call it a deduction. You have not shown that this is a deduction. In fact, I know that you cannot prove this deductively.On no level can I even imagine this being an example of a deductive proof. Though I do now see that you don't know what a deductive proof is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Thank you for an interest debate. If you ever played the GAME civilization IV, the one in which Religions are introduced, the earlier a Civ discovers a religion, the better the chances for winning. When one civ doesn't discover its own religion, it is pretty much doomed as it becomes culturally invaded or dependent on the adopted religion. I stopped after Civ III but I loved both Civ II and III so I'm going to pick it up and buy it now. I see that in history, the same happens: let's not go farther than 500 years to the Time of Discovery and Reformation. One half of the New Word was settled by religious dissidents. No matter how influent Jamestown was; so was the Bay Colony. Many colonists of Jamestown were also fairly religious. It looks very secular compared to Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies, but many of its inhabitants were religious by today's standards. The other half of the New World was, in addition to physically, psychologically raped by the old Roman Church. Latin Americans, in Pat Condell´s words "to this day don't know what hit them". The Church didn't want the Reformation and its bloody consequences (Germany was emptied during the 30 year war) to spread to the New World. It didn't, God save the Holy Office, and that is why people like Samuel P. Huntington consider it a different civilization than the Western: because it didn't experienced the reformation. The same way the Western (in allusion to WESTERN CHURCH) Civilization became so after the schism. The older, unreformed church developing in what is now the slavic Orthodox World. So not only in mine, but in Sid Meier's and Samuel P Huntington's opinion religion is an very important, even determining, factor for a Civilization to either thrive or stagnate. I'm familiar with Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and admire much of it, if not agree with all of it. However it is not logic. It is not reasonable and even les rational: What the first humans tried to do with Organized Religion, is to emulate that lost instinct that guided the lives of our forefathers and animals. The same way a Centralized Government tried to, just recently. It's a logical error, but religious people still attempted reason. If they didn't acknowledge the primacy of reason, why would they bother trying to rationally prove their religion or prove the existence of God? If reason wasn't supreme, a rational argument would have had no meaning. That first phrase of Genesis you quoted is wrong: Logos is a word in Greek. The original history is in Hebrew or very possibly in Ancient Egyptian. It was John 1:1 in the New Testament. Fun Fact: Did you know that "Amen" might be the name of the one god, (Amok) that the jews took from one of Egypts Monotheistic periods? Both Freud and McNall Burns back this theory. I didn't, but I'll be sure to remember it now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 The problem is you still make too many assumptions in your head based on sound bites that seem interesting to you without looking for information to back it up. Well, ancient peoples valued their senses very much and much of their mythologies was based on what they sensed and perceived. Hence, they thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that weather was caused by gods/god. The accurate interpretation of sensation required the development of more logical thought. It was this need to interpret the senses accurately that engendered logical development initially because it provided man with postulates. This is evident in the development of the Horus and Set myths, Moses and the burning bush, the tantric Hinduism, and Amerindian vision quests. So if I make assumptions based on things that 'seem' interesting to me, forgive me, I'm only trying to reason. It is a fact that if something "seems" interesting to me, then it is interesting to me. In that case, sensory perception defines the term so the senses reveal knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Well, ancient peoples valued their senses very much and much of their mythologies was based on what they sensed and perceived. Hence, they thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that weather was caused by gods/god. The accurate interpretation of sensation required the development of more logical thought. It was this need to interpret the senses accurately that engendered logical development initially because it provided man with postulates. This is evident in the development of the Horus and Set myths, Moses and the burning bush, the tantric Hinduism, and Amerindian vision quests. So if I make assumptions based on things that 'seem' interesting to me, forgive me, I'm only trying to reason. It is a fact that if something "seems" interesting to me, then it is interesting to me. In that case, sensory perception defines the term so the senses reveal knowledge. If you read the post you pulled that quote of mine from you will see the context of what I was referring to, your claims regarding music. I'm not sure what your response has to do with that....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Every concept used in that equation (1,+,=,2) is the result of induction. Every concept is the result of induction. All deduction is based on induction, since there are no deductive statements that do not involve concepts. An "exclusively deductive" statement (were it possible) would involve no concepts, be totally nonsensical, and so would not communicate any knowledge. This makes sense, since all knowledge is obtained through induction and concept-formation. The concepts are not the result of either induction or deduction exclusively, but rather use both in harmony. I'm not disputing the need for inductive reasoning. I'm merely contending that valid deductive reasoning is always correct given accurate premises where valid inductive reasoning is not always correct. Religion was part of the drive to form accurate propositions from which to reason and yield knowledge throughout civilization. Religion searched for propositions inductively and they were wrong. Organized religion resulted from specious inductive reasoning. Science resulted from valid inductive reasoning. However, both sought truth through logic so one historically shouldn't judge the beliefs of those who came before us and helped us, but rather learn from them and evolve. That's like arguing that Newton was disrespectful to his heritage by explaining why apples fall. Yes, our forefathers did great things - but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons does not create any burden or debt on those who follow to give validity to those wrong reasons. The witch doctor gave tree bark to people with headaches because the spirit of the tree would soothe the pain, so he thought. In fact, it was a drug we now commonly refer to as aspirin which is formed in the tree bark. The aspirin is a good thing - but the spiritual reasoning is bunk and there is no reason to give it respect when it's bull. Well, when Newton explained why apples fall, he was trying to predict the Apocalypse. Newton's religion, which was then heretical by the way, and and his scientific contributions went hand in hand. Surely Newton was a rational man, but he merely made logical errors by assuming The Bible to be inerrant. We still should see Newton's beliefs as part of our heritage as users of his laws of Physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Deduction is the act of deriving a fact by starting with a set of premises.You should do some more advanced research into the nature of logic, because it would help you to understand why your answer is inadequate. What does it mean to "derive" a fact? (Focus on two things -- what it means to "derive", especially in deductive logic, and what is a "fact" as contrasted with a conclusion).It is a fact that the integer 2 immediately follows the integer 1.Uh huh. I'm only interested in your claim that "1+1=2" is a deductive proof. The statement "Barak Obama is President of the US" is a true statement, but it is not a deductive proof. The statement "Drregaleagle apparently does not know how to provide an example of a deductive proof" is a true statement, but it is not a deductive proof. As I said, if you don't understand what a deductive proof is, then you cannot possible understand why it is false that deductive reasoning is the means of gaining knowledge of a fact. Deductive reasoning can only test the conceptual "contained-innedness" of concretizations of a generalization which has already been proven by inductive means. Valid deductive reasoning is correct given accurate premises and furthermore valid inductive reasoning is always correct. Moreover, you have not provided an iota of evidence that valid inductive reasoning is not always correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) The concepts are not the result of either induction or deduction exclusively, but rather use both in harmony. I'm not disputing the need for inductive reasoning. I'm merely contending that valid deductive reasoning is always correct given accurate premises where valid inductive reasoning is not always correct. Your "given" is an impossibility by your own standards. Premises involve concepts, which are formed from induction/deduction. Using your standards, how would you go about showing that a specific premise - which resulted from inductive reasoning - is actually "correct"? To know that a premise is "correct" (by your standards) requires omniscience - the foreknowledge that the premise is always true - free of context. If you were consistent with your standards, you would either say, "deductive reasoning can never be correct, nor can inductive reasoning", or "deductive reasoning is correct given valid premises, and inductive reasoning is correct given valid integrations of facts of reality." But you cannot have it both ways - claiming the former is correct in a specific context, while the latter can never be considered correct, even if it is performed properly. The former has its basis on the latter. If you understood concept formation and the role of induction and deduction in validation, you would see that all truth is contextual. Valid inductive reasoning is always correct, as is valid deductive reasoning - but that validity has a context - that context is the conceptual and perceptual information that is available to the individual. Newton was correct, as was Einstein. The latter had more precise measurements with which to base his knowledge, but they were both correct. It is not the case that Newton was "wrong", and Einstein was "right", or that Einstein will be shown "wrong" and someone in the future will be shown to be "right". Such a thing cannot be demonstrated - omniscience is not possible. And so truth free of context is not possible. But it is not necessary - all truth is necessarily contextual. Edited July 29, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Well, when Newton explained why apples fall, he was trying to predict the Apocalypse. Newton's religion, which was then heretical by the way, and and his scientific contributions went hand in hand. Surely Newton was a rational man, but he merely made logical errors by assuming The Bible to be inerrant. We still should see Newton's beliefs as part of our heritage as users of his laws of Physics. I'm sorry, why? Why do we need to make a point of remembering that Newton was a Christian when we study his theories on gravity? Do we need to remember that Euclid was likely a worshiper of a pantheon of Greek Gods when we study his primer on Geometry? No. Newtons, Euclid's, and even Aristotle's irrational beliefs need not be honored or even remembered, because they were *wrong*. All we need to do is remember why those ideas were wrong. With Aristotle, as we read his works on Philosophy, we cannot avoid those writings based on false premises - but we must dismiss them if we are to remain rational and bring consistency to his ideas. With Newton, his motivations were unimportant to the Math - they're of interest only to a narrative. They're easily avoided and wholly unnecessary to understand gravitational attraction. With Euclid, they're so irrelevant they don't even get mentioned in the body of work he's credited with. Was he a Greek God worshiper? Or was he born Greek but really worshiped Ra and Set? Or perhaps he believed in the Norse Gods while he wrote 'Elements'. It doesn't matter! The real, factual advances they all made are what matters. We stand upon the shoulders of giants - it is impolite while doing so to point out that they have head lice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) I'm sorry, why? Why do we need to make a point of remembering that Newton was a Christian when we study his theories on gravity? Newton's Christianity and fascination with the Apocalypse seems to have motivated his theories on gravity. Euler's view of God motivated his view of infinity which led to much of modern mathematics. The historical reasons for Pascal's work on probability cannot be understood without studying his belief in hell fire. Religion was their inspiration. Their religious inspiration must be reconciled with logical truths and the only way to do that is to realize that these men sought truth through logic, above all else, but their religions were logical errors. Edited July 29, 2010 by Drregaleagle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Your "given" is an impossibility by your own standards. Premises involve concepts, which are formed from induction/deduction. Using your standards, how would you go about showing that a specific premise - which resulted from inductive reasoning - is actually "correct"? To know that a premise is "correct" (by your standards) requires omniscience - the foreknowledge that the premise is always true - free of context. Perhaps I was unclear. The premise doesn't have to be known to be true if they're stated as conditionals. 1)If all cows are animals and 2)If Betsy is a cow then 3)Betsy is an animal. This is still an absolute truth; it just regards hypothetical situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) Perhaps I was unclear. The premise doesn't have to be known to be true if they're stated as conditionals. 1)If all cows are animals and 2)If Betsy is a cow then 3)Betsy is an animal. This is still an absolute truth; it just regards hypothetical situations. Those premises involve the concepts "cow" and "animal", among others. Those concepts were formed by induction/deduction. Show that the inductive reasoning that produced those concepts was done "correctly", by your standards. In fact, every bit of that statement is the result of concepts produced from inductive reasoning. So how do you know the statement communicates anything? More generally, the very concept of deductive reasoning, or validity, is itself the result of inductive reasoning - so is it the case that all knowledge hinges on something that could be wrong (and cannot be shown to be right), or is it the case that your standard of truth is not based in reality? Edited July 29, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 However, both sought truth through logic so one historically shouldn't judge the beliefs of those who came before us and helped us, but rather learn from them and evolve. And one of the things that we can learn, is that if it is truth that religion was pursuing, the consequences of being presented with some were illustrated nicely by the incarceration of Galileo. Actions, in this case, speak louder than words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Those premises involve the concepts "cow" and "animal", among others. Those concepts were formed by induction/deduction. Show that the inductive reasoning that produced those concepts was done "correctly", by your standards. In fact, every bit of that statement is the result of concepts produced from inductive reasoning. So how do you know the statement communicates anything? More generally, the very concept of deductive reasoning, or validity, is itself the result of inductive reasoning - so is it the case that all knowledge hinges on something that could be wrong (and cannot be shown to be right), or is it the case that your standard of truth is not based in reality? I don't want to hijack the thread so I'll answer this good question on another thread. Religion and the relationship of inductive, deductive, and the still uncovered abductive reasoning have historically gone hand in hand. After all, it was Thomas Aquinas who reintroduced Aristotle to the west and this was only possible because of Muslim philosophers, the Faylasufs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drregaleagle Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 And one of the things that we can learn, is that if it is truth that religion was pursuing, the consequences of being presented with some were illustrated nicely by the incarceration of Galileo. Actions, in this case, speak louder than words. The persecution of Galileo was politically motivated. I don't think they cared about the religion except as a means to suppress dissent. They didn't sincerely believe in the religion they professed. This is especially apparent because the Catholic Church actually attacked the idea of logical consistency at one point. Sincere religious believers have done much persecuting as well. Such odious actions were a result of logical errors and not of a complete rejection of logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 This is especially apparent because the Catholic Church actually attacked the idea of logical consistency at one point. [...] Such odious actions were a result of logical errors and not of a complete rejection of logic. You are contradicting yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.