Its the nature of the beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Printable View
Its the nature of the beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Peru
So your "whattheism" has a pinch of pragmatism.
Is this common for denizens of Yurp?
One doesn't need to prove God's existence. It's like someone challenging someone else to prove santa doesn't exist. It's a stupid argument to begin with, IMO. If there really was a god and wanted us to believe him he should give us more modern proof of his existence. Something we can all grasp and say "God did this".
And we shouldn't jump into conclusions about the creation of the world either. There's no way we can ever accurately potray what hapened over those billions of years.
If you want to believe in God that's fine with me. But it's a leap of faith i'm not willing to take with you.
Or maybe just not everyone get a kick out of word masturbation..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
I disagree. The current impact of religions and their thirst for power require serious research in the subject. The approach should be serious and it should be seen as a road to better understanding as well as reconciliation between everyone. If you can prove a fundamentalist wrong, he would stop being a fundamentalist and peace would walk earth....... :book: ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
That´s the problem of mystical claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I think the reasoning I´ve given above applies to all forms of experiences. You don´t need to call it science, but without a systematic method one shouldn´t speak of reliability.Quote:
I don't think mysticism is science. I think it is a mistake to apply a scientific regimen to a decidedly unscientific arena. There is no standard by which one who claims ineffable knowledge can then make it effable which is what science would require. Still, mystical systems are not completely closed. Zen, Sufi, various Christian mendicant orders etc. all espouse a method whereby one can "know" with the charge: now go and do likewise.
That said, I don´t think because of that are mystical systems devoid of wisdom. I think there is wisdom outside reliability.
But with "no contradiction", you have a negative as axiome.Quote:
Deductive models cannot prove a negative either without first assuming a negative premise.
Yes, I do. It´s much better for my teint.Quote:
Do you like being free of the moderator's robes?
If one insists on "knowing" whether or not God exists, the solution is quite simple. Kill yourself and find out. Even then, the answer might not be conclusive. The cause of your disappearance into total oblivion with no afterlife could simply be that your timing was off and it was God's poker night with Saint Peter. Too bad. Not that you'll know; because you'll be dead.
Not the most charitable of responses or particularly compelling for any advocate.Quote:
Posted by Pindar
I understand, but I don't know if a proper reading of mystical fare can be given without a coherence model. It seems to be the basic thrust of mystical claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The mystical systems I can think of all have a method of sorts, but may or may not be bound to that method. They also all seem to recognize as vital the comportment of the subject: as in the state of the knower impacts what can be known. Reliability as it is tied to experience would seem to depend on the experience.Quote:
I think the reasoning I´ve given above applies to all forms of experiences. You don´t need to call it science, but without a systematic method one shouldn´t speak of reliability.
That said, I don´t think because of that are mystical systems devoid of wisdom. I think there is wisdom outside reliability.
The beauty of assumptions is they can appear without any justification.Quote:
But with "no contradiction", you have a negative as axiome.
Actually quite a few people claim they have talked and meet with him in present life.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
How to get reliable information about God:
1. Smoke a joint (then think).
2. prostrate yourself face down; or cross your legs and get in the "lotus" possition. (after smoking a joint)
3. begin a mantra ... Aaaaaahmmmaaaaaaaaa, etc - is better to consult a disciple of the Lama to find your mantra to reach enlightenment (god), but Aaaaahmaaaaa may work. (after smoking a joint)
4. If you hear voices in your head - and they are coming from your neighbors dog - you might have a problem. Talk to Mommy before actually carrying that axe down the hall to kill her. It may not be god - might be the other guy (er, other god?)
5. All true Christians know that God lives in their hearts - where else would one look for information about God? (still, smoking a joint won't hurt)
6. If you are really interested, I have his personall cell phone number and am willing to share it for a small fee - say $10,000 (after all what is it worth to have a direct line to God?). Rev. Robertson gave it to me - honest.
7. Die, and test your faith. A good place to do this without having to commit the sin of suicide is Iraq - run out and join today. Do not pass goal - just go! [smoke a joint before going]
8. Say something against the new religious right - they'll haunt you 'til you believe in their information on god - and if you really learn to believe as they do, will introduce you to him. You maybe a bit surprised as how much he looks like Rev. Robertson - but, what did you expect? A perfect being? That allows the innocent to die (or doesn't pray for then too).
9. Believe as you will. Oh, wait - that's not right. oh, I know - it's believe as the church (regardless of domination) allows and when you die, you will see the face of god - which will blind you and you will live all eternity in darkness (as you have your life).
10. There is no ten. As there is no ONE. For a person to ask such an ambigious, and yet, biased question is to challenge the existance of a supremebeing. For this, you are going directly to hell. I spoke with God on your behalf, and he is still PO'ed. Bringing up a challenge to his being in any manner is considered a breach of one of the commandments (his words, not mine) - he's really upset about this and i doubt I can talk him out of it. Again, if maybe you give me $10,000 - I might be able to persuade her thatyou were just screwing around (I don't mean really screwing .. as we both know you are totally incapable of).
Yep. God is great, God is all. Sound familiar, yet? ~D
Not being able to meet a standard isn´t an argument against that standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Reliablity is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. Nor is comportment.Quote:
The mystical systems I can think of all have a method of sorts, but may or may not be bound to that method. They also all seem to recognize as vital the comportment of the subject: as in the state of the knower impacts what can be known. Reliability as it is tied to experience would seem to depend on the experience.
But not without cause ~;)Quote:
The beauty of assumptions is they can appear without any justification.
False or contrived standards have no force.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Experience would say otherwise: the sun rose in the East again today.Quote:
Reliablity is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability.
Including this post no doubt.Quote:
But not without cause ~;)
There's too much and too little of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The same goes for principles.
At least that's true for the corner of Yurp called Noway.
It's being highlighted because we'll have a parliamentary election in less than 2 weeks.
That´s trivial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That´s not a counter-example. The observation that the sun rises always in the east is intersubjective and statistically testable. It is reliable by scientific standards.Quote:
Experience would say otherwise: the sun rose in the East again today.
If discussion is concerned with a system that appears to follow a coherence model and your only rejoinder is based on a correspondence schema: that is a false standard and not very compelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The sun rising in the East is not dependent on intersubjectivity. Neither is tasting salt. Recall what your wrote: "Reliability is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. " Experiencing the daily sunrise is sufficient to set a reliable standard. This applies for Robinson Crusoe as well as for any other man.Quote:
That´s not a counter-example. The observation that the sun rises always in the east is intersubjective and statistically testable. It is reliable by scientific standards.
That depends whether discussion is there for discussions sake or whether it has a use. You can demand that the obviously false assumptions of a system are not doubted, but then the whole discussion is pointless. You cannot simply "follow a coherence model", it´s not a matter of choice. The Coherence Theory of Truth is nonsense and all truth claims made under it pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That´s an absurd claim as it denies the induction problem. If that were so, we would not need science and we always could trust our senses. It is a fact that some of our experiences are deceiving, that´s undeniable. We and also Crusoe can trust the sunrise because it has such a high statistical significance. An experience alone is not enough for reliability. If you claim otherwise you have a very strange definition of reliability.Quote:
The sun rising in the East is not dependent on intersubjectivity. Neither is tasting salt. Recall what your wrote: "Reliability is dependent on experience but experience is not sufficient for reliability. " Experiencing the daily sunrise is sufficient to set a reliable standard. This applies for Robinson Crusoe as well as for any other man.
False assumptions?, Nonsense? Pointless? Your hyperbole aside, given that coherence models have had standing with a number of thinkers of note and have even marked entire schools of thought i.e. German Idealism. Your chevalier dismissal is a little too provincial. This attitude should be checked all the more when the subject matter is metaphysical by definition. A coherence model where an Absolute is part of the paradigm does not seem so outlandish.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Now I don't know if a coherence model is the best way to understand mystical thought. There seem indications that move in that direction. Regardless, I am happy to entertain any and all notions to better understand it along rational lines. You should do the same.
Reliability and necessity are not the same thing. When someone says X is reliable it means that it is generally the case that the conditions will apply. This does not preclude error nor is it meant to. But, if experience demonstrates some standard ("reliability" seems to suggest a history and thereby multiple exposure) it is not "absurd" to rely on that condition to be the case. If someone has ice cream and knows its cold and says so to their friend. It doesn't require scientific investigature or intersubjective reinforcement to guarantee the ice cream was in fact cold.Quote:
That´s an absurd claim as it denies the induction problem. If that were so, we would not need science and we always could trust our senses. It is a fact that some of our experiences are deceiving, that´s undeniable. We and also Crusoe can trust the sunrise because it has such a high statistical significance. An experience alone is not enough for reliability. If you claim otherwise you have a very strange definition of reliability.
But the sun doesn't rise ...... Everyone knows that.... :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Sounds very much as religion to me. The preacher has a belief that the ice cream is cold and he preach this to all his friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
If the idea is someone reporting his experience then yes. The same would apply if someone was telling you about their car or a movie they saw. The focus is the experience, not the evangelism or report per say which may very well fall short in the telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
The focus of mystical experience is the experience. This is not transferable.
If so, then the ice cream experience is not transferable either...... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The same could be said about communism. The fact is that the coherence theory of truth contradicts the common language understanding of truth and it can be used to defend obviously absurd position. I think I could show a coherent system in which I´m the emperor of china.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Now I don't know if a coherence model is the best way to understand mystical thought.
If the focus is to understand a system, I am willing to accept coherence. But understanding is not justification.
Reliability and necessity are not the same thing. When someone says X is reliable it means that it is generally the case that the conditions will apply. This does not preclude error nor is it meant to. But, if experience demonstrates some standard ("reliability" seems to suggest a history and thereby multiple exposure) it is not "absurd" to rely on that condition to be the case. If someone has ice cream and knows its cold and says so to their friend. It doesn't require scientific investigature or intersubjective reinforcement to guarantee the ice cream was in fact cold.
Your counter-examples do not apply well because they are trivial and part of every day life. The experience that ice cream is cold fits into the common understanding of the world. It´s nothing special. What needs to be explained are extraordinary experiences. If suddenly all ice cream tastes bitter, you need to investigate whether something´s wrong with the ice cream or your senses.
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Certainly. The systemic problems with dialectical materialism stem from a deterministic stance that did not turn out to be correct. History flowed differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I thought you were the Emperor of China? Hmmm...Quote:
The fact is that the coherence theory of truth contradicts the common language understanding of truth and it can be used to defend obviously absurd position. I think I could show a coherent system in which I´m the emperor of china.
There are a number of coherence schema and arguing one cannot divorce himself from his own set of beliefs is not an absurd position. Further, if mystical experience involves some kind of entailment with the Absolute: then a coherence paradigm is not an absurd conclusion.
I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.
Understanding is not justification, but I have found that it is generally better to understand before placing judgment.Quote:
If the focus is to understand a system, I am willing to accept coherence. But understanding is not justification.
Referencing the "trivial" or mundane as a basis for understanding more extraordinary fare seems exactly the stance one should take given both are considered to fall under the label: experience. If Ice cream shifted to tasting bitter then one would expect the subject to wonder why. But a shift in the object of experience is not what we have been considering. A Burmese refugee given ice cream for the first time who notes its cold doesn't have to wonder what's wrong with the ice cream or his senses. He accepts the experience for what it is. One would think that the more ice cream he had the more confident he would be in discussing flavors as well as the base sensation. Whether other Burmese refugees are so lucky to get ice cream does not change the subject's experience.Quote:
Your counter-examples do not apply well because they are trivial and part of every day life. The experience that ice cream is cold fits into the common understanding of the world. It´s nothing special. What needs to be explained are extraordinary experiences. If suddenly all ice cream tastes bitter, you need to investigate whether something´s wrong with the ice cream or your senses.
I guess asking you for advice on ice cream is a waste of time.... :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Believes do not make truth and truth is always concrete. A coherence paradigma cannot even be a conclusion because - obviously - no paradigma can be proved. You assume a paradigma in order to reach a conclusion. But whatever the conclusion, the coherence paradigma is a bad one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.
I guess that´s the reason why logicians tried to find a better model for the last 50 years. Are you familiar with the Kripke-Feferman Model?
Understanding is not justification, but I have found that it is generally better to understand before placing judgment.
I didn´t judge mystical appeals. Again: I´m discussing reliability here.
Referencing the "trivial" or mundane as a basis for understanding more extraordinary fare seems exactly the stance one should take given both are considered to fall under the label: experience. If Ice cream shifted to tasting bitter then one would expect the subject to wonder why. But a shift in the object of experience is not what we have been considering. A Burmese refugee given ice cream for the first time who notes its cold doesn't have to wonder what's wrong with the ice cream or his senses. He accepts the experience for what it is. One would think that the more ice cream he had the more confident he would be in discussing flavors as well as the base sensation. Whether other Burmese refugees are so lucky to get ice cream does not change the subject's experience.
It still doesn´t apply. Even for the Burmese, experiencing ice cream wouldn´t be extraordinary. It is normal to apply the easiest explanation to any new fact. In case of cold ice cream, that is that the ice cream is cold. This explanation does not require any new concepts and can without any problem be implemented into a standard view on things.
Anyway, the Burmese could not claim to have reliable information about ice cream after just tasting it. The practitioners of occult magic have centuries of information over the working of it. None of that is reliable.
It's funny that Pindar uses words the way he does to express ideas that so irrelevent to anything talked about. It always gives me a laugh. Keep up the good work Pindar!
It works pretty well though, it gives him a name in the hall of fame..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
He might get elected mayor next year..... ~:cheers:
"Sensations void of concepts are blind" - KantQuote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Believing the subject impacts experience while not being the source of that experience is not a bad paradigm given the amount of theoretical and scientific work that makes appeal to it. There has being no reverse of Kant's Copernican Revolution.
Perhaps you should have used the present progressive instead of the past tense when referring to the search for a better model. Whether one notes Kripke or Tarski or anybody else, my point stands: there is no definitive account. Each model suffers from serious critique. This applies to both deflationary and stronger truth models.Quote:
I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.
I guess that´s the reason why logicians tried to find a better model for the last 50 years. Are you familiar with the Kripke-Feferman Model?
An experience is an experience whether it be mundane or no. The same dynamic applies. This is so whether one tries ice cream, discovers elephants, flies to the moon or tastes salt for the first time.. The reliability of the experience may rest on exposure (i.e. repeatability) but the ability to relate the experience to others effectively remains a separate matter. Further, the potency/value of the experience does not dissipate because some other doesn't believe in ice cream.Quote:
It still doesn´t apply. Even for the Burmese, experiencing ice cream wouldn´t be extraordinary. It is normal to apply the easiest explanation to any new fact. In case of cold ice cream, that is that the ice cream is cold. This explanation does not require any new concepts and can without any problem be implemented into a standard view on things.
Anyway, the Burmese could not claim to have reliable information about ice cream after just tasting it. The practitioners of occult magic have centuries of information over the working of it. None of that is reliable.
As far as the reliability of magic goes: I guess that depends on whether you're the Witch of Endor or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Back to the shallow end of the pool. Those who can barely spell Nietzsche don't meet the minimum height requirement.
Those who don't know what they don't know are a hazard to themselves and others.
So a possible re-run of an experience would make it more reliable ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
For some reason this thread made me think of this quote:
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
~;)
I can spell Nietzsche fine, and it's not even an english word! See what I mean? You just did what I described right here. What does someone else's spelling have to do with you using complicated words to describe things that have no relevence to the main point? Even if I was as stupid as you thought my ability to spell would have no relation to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Also you can't mask a clear insult to my intellect with some clever words.
What hazard? Oh man, you are so much funnier then you people here realize! ~D
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
It may. Something repeatable or experienced by others would seem to add more as a opposed to less credence to an experience. Experience is not transferable, as I noted earlier with the ice cream example, but that doesn't mean others couldn't have their own similar experience which one may be able to make comparisons with.
You missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
So a soap opera aired in enough re-runs would have a larger reliability than a flash news program aired once ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
One might be more confident about the details as well as the actual experience of a soap opera they saw over and over as opposed to something only seen once.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
As with historical manuscripts or even plain old everyday advice, the wheat has to be sorted from the chaff.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Many magickal techniques are perfectly reliable at achieving their purpose if implemented correctly. Quite often, though, the casual armchair dabbler has an incorrect assumption about what that purpose is.
So we are actually talking about learning here. Repeated experience will create a sense of "truth". The experience doesn't really have anything to do with reality and will become something by itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
With modern technology you can experience things which in older times was impossible. This would mean that you can make re-run on experiences made by others and then share them over a modern media.
The repeated experiences will become the way of life and create a new set of knowledge among the individuals that experience it.
I think that we here have caught the religions. You are served repeated experiences until you accept them as truth and a part of your reality. This enables the "leadership" use the experience process to form the individuals it need most.
In the end, experiences are transferred and are actually becoming the accepted truth. So I must say that we actually can transfer experiences and have done so for thousands of years through the use of religions......
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
The question is focused on reliable information, or more specifically reliable information about a metaphysical object: God. Experience is often taken as a standard for reliability. I have been using that same standard and applying it to God as understood through the general mystical tradition. Reliability is not necessity nor is it truth. Rather it is a standard by which and through which judgments can be made about some X. Mystical experience therefore would be a vehicle for the subject to make judgments about the Absolute.
Now Saturnus and I have been focused on epistemic models, particularly concerning coherence theories. Saturnus rejects them as deeply flawed, seeing such as assumptive schema that can only feed on themselves. I have been arguing that the entailment of a coherence model may be the appropriate way to understand mystical experience. If that is right, it would mean such experience would contain a level of surety normally denied experience claims as the subject/object distinction would be crossed in many ways.
That´s out of the question, but it affects only the experience, not the truth. The truth is out there and any serious theory of truth has to reflect that. If our convictions are not congruent to the truth out there they are false. Coherent or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Perhaps you should have used the present progressive instead of the past tense when referring to the search for a better model. Whether one notes Kripke or Tarski or anybody else, my point stands: there is no definitive account. Each model suffers from serious critique. This applies to both deflationary and stronger truth models.
I don´t deny that, but some models do better than others. The truth predicate of a model should at least try to resamble the common sense understanding of the term. The coherence model doesn´t do that.
An experience is an experience whether it be mundane or no. The same dynamic applies. This is so whether one tries ice cream, discovers elephants, flies to the moon or tastes salt for the first time.. The reliability of the experience may rest on exposure (i.e. repeatability) but the ability to relate the experience to others effectively remains a separate matter. Further, the potency/value of the experience does not dissipate because some other doesn't believe in ice cream.
An experience is an experience but reliability is different whether it is mundane or not. A mundane experience is uncontested, extraordinary ones never are. Cold and bitter are both experiences but if you claim that ice cream is cold, anyone will believe you instantly. On the other hand, that ice cream tastes bitter, will be met with suspicion. Thus, there must be a difference in reliablity, otherwise you would have to call that irrational.
If reliablity would only need experience, magic would be reliable for anyone, not just the Witch of Endor.
Oh, and don´t feed the troll.
But isn't everything that we document based on experience ? The written word, test results and knowledge taught through life are nothing absolute. With this point of view, nothing is certain and nothing is really true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Saturnus is only defending scientifical views and rejects any assumptions based on experience.....
So you guys are still at it. Any reliable information about God yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
:coffeenews:
He was banned from the Org for saying everyone was going to Hell.
Man He knows how to start a flame war.
:angel: :devil:
So he was the guy who got banned for using multiple accounts? Go TosaInu!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
~:cheers:
Yeah 3 of them.
We figured one was a ghost account and nailed a second to him while the third threatened to turn us into salt and send us to hell with a case of lime and tequila.
So God fits the profile of a high-school dropout with a credit card, no job, no GF and absentee parents. I knew it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well describes Jesus after he ditched his job as a Carpenter... :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Did he have a credit card?
A Girlfriend?
He didn't have much of a role model, that is for sure. :balloon:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Something being "out of the question" means that thing is an impossibility. Judging from the full sentence I think you meant the opposite. If I'm right here then I think we can agree on a epistemic model. Admitting the subject informs experience easily lends itself to an entailment paradigm which I am putting forward as the standard mystical model. Further, I thought we were working with an empirical approach so the "truth" if it applies to something beyond experience (i.e. the nouminal) can be bracketed.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Contesting an experience, as you've described it, occurs from an outside element. Such cannot and does not add or distract from the experience proper which remains subject dependant. For example: if Moses comes down off the Mountain and says he has conversed with the Lord. This may appear an extraordinary claim and people may draw a variety of conclusions: 'Moses is the Lord's prophet' or 'Moses is a loon' are two possible choices. Regardless the conclusion people draw, those sentiments do not change the truth value of Moses' claim. The same applies with the ice cream example. Other refugees may or may not have ever tasted ice cream, but our subject's statement that the ice cream was cold stands as an independent claim. Experiences considered mundane are usually thought so because so many have a similar touch stone. Whether ice cream was truly a first for our refugee and his fellows may determine whether it falls into the mundane or extraordinary slot, but it will not determine the truth value of the statement or its reliability. The reliability may be based on the subject's memory and access to more ice cream. Recall that reliability is necessarily tied to the perceptions of the subject and therfore can be constrained by the same.Quote:
An experience is an experience but reliability is different whether it is mundane or not. A mundane experience is uncontested, extraordinary ones never are. Cold and bitter are both experiences but if you claim that ice cream is cold, anyone will believe you instantly. On the other hand, that ice cream tastes bitter, will be met with suspicion. Thus, there must be a difference in reliability, otherwise you would have to call that irrational.
If reliability would only need experience, magic would be reliable for anyone, not just the Witch of Endor.
You are quite right. :bow:Quote:
Oh, and don´t feed the troll.
Both of us are following a empirical approach. I think talking about reliability may require it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Yes. :coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
We are getting worried here. He doesn't answer his phone and his E-mail bounce back...... :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
What do you think? His mother was a virgin for crying out loud !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Why ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
As I mentioned in a previous post, reliability implies a history for the thing indicated. Through this history, this exposure, the confidence to make a claim is determined. Reliability also implies its opposite, 'unreliable' as an option which again is subject to a past. History is not a category of analytic or formal appeals.Quote:
by Pindar
Both of us are following a empirical approach. I think talking about reliability may require it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
That's because of all the nonsense you have spouted about Him and the demise of democracy. So there!Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
~;)
Are you cunning christians finding anything out yet? ~;)
Have you finally finished that Nietzsche book? :mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I've finished 5 and I've thought about them in depth thank you very much. ~:)
I'm worried about you guys. Your heads are going to hurt after all that speculation. ~:eek:
I recognised Nietzsche in your cunning* reference. It's been a while for me though, so what book is that from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
* = 'Ihr schlaue Christen' -- this specially for Kaiser...
If you make a scientifical experiment a repeated amount of times, you would call the history of the experiment reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
If you see an occurance happen repeated amoung of times you would the history of the occurance reliable.
What is the difference ?
Both of these statement appeal to experience. That is where the discussion is focused: experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
It doesn't matter how many times god or jesus have performed their miracles, because I'll never see any of that, therefore it's about as believable as ancient greek mythology. You can't prove either existed.
You talk of experience in terms of theology I take it. are you refering to our experience as individuals or in terms of humanity's experience?
How do you prove that Nietzsche existed?
Which is not transferable according to you ? Or ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
It seems to me that you don't see human experience as reliable and actually don't trust the very foundation of our modern society.
Individuals. We have started with revelations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I meant the reversal of Kant´s Cartesian Revolution. Sorry for being unclear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I´m not willing to bracket anything. An empirical aproach makes only sense if we start with the assumptions that the empiry is a reflection of the world outside us. We do not want to understand our experiences but their causes. The Because of that, coherence is insufficient. If two systems of believe disagree, at least one must be wrong. Truth is not tolerant.
Wether an experience is mundane or extraordinary doesn´t affect the truth value but the reliability. Those two are quiet distinct. If I have the experience that Elvis is taking me to a space trip, it is reasonable to assume a hallucination since the actual happening is so unlikely. The reliablity of that experience would be low. Even if it is repeated.Quote:
Contesting an experience, as you've described it, occurs from an outside element. Such cannot and does not add or distract from the experience proper which remains subject dependant. For example: if Moses comes down off the Mountain and says he has conversed with the Lord. This may appear an extraordinary claim and people may draw a variety of conclusions: 'Moses is the Lord's prophet' or 'Moses is a loon' are two possible choices. Regardless the conclusion people draw, those sentiments do not change the truth value of Moses' claim. The same applies with the ice cream example. Other refugees may or may not have ever tasted ice cream, but our subject's statement that the ice cream was cold stands as an independent claim. Experiences considered mundane are usually thought so because so many have a similar touch stone. Whether ice cream was truly a first for our refugee and his fellows may determine whether it falls into the mundane or extraordinary slot, but it will not determine the truth value of the statement or its reliability. The reliability may be based on the subject's memory and access to more ice cream. Recall that reliability is necessarily tied to the perceptions of the subject and therfore can be constrained by the same.
One thing should be clear by now: this is not about the reliability that I had the experience, but the reliability of what the experience is telling me about the things I experience. Reliability is a quality of information.
I don't think experience is considered transferable by anyone. Subjects are distinct. Even individuals who exeprience the same event can come away with radically differents takes: crime sceens, food eaten, movies etc. are simple examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
I don't understand why you drew this conclusion.Quote:
It seems to me that you don't see human experience as reliable and actually don't trust the very foundation of our modern society.
I see. Very interesting. What is your vehicle to clarify the cause of a correspondence schema. There is the phenomena itself, but unless you defer to a Ding-an-sich framework, how are you going to avoid a solipsistic conclusion. If you do make such deference then, you have posited an extra-phenomenal reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Another question: do you reject the idea the subject impacts experience? If so, are you arguing for a naive realism? If not, your critical position seems compromised.
I agree.Quote:
Wether an experience is mundane or extraordinary doesn´t affect the truth value but the reliability. Those two are quiet distinct.
What's our definition of reliable? I think the standard is trustworthiness and may be expanded to include notions of function. Now not all experience is immediately functional or the function may be discreet, but both ideas reflect back on the subject itself. Thus, reliability is ultimately determinable by the subject: whether other persons recognize the same is a separate issue.Quote:
If I have the experience that Elvis is taking me to a space trip, it is reasonable to assume a hallucination since the actual happening is so unlikely. The reliablity of that experience would be low. Even if it is repeated.
One thing should be clear by now: this is not about the reliability that I had the experience, but the reliability of what the experience is telling me about the things I experience. Reliability is a quality of information.
Quality of information is also rather open ended. If Elvis gave the grand tour of the space ship, which one could apply the whole of their sensual faculties toward: sight, touch, dinging for sound and even tasting I suppose (this is to distinguish from simple hallucinations which I believe are only visual) that would seem to move the experience up on the level of credence. If this is right then more sensory access heightens the quality. Further, if the experience were repeatable and/or others confirmed similar Elvis space tours then again the reliability would seem to further heighten. Still, I don't think such is required to determine reliability: Moses on the mountain or our refugee being the only one of his mates to actually taste ice cream may still consider their experience very reliable irrespective of outside or limited confirmation. It may be the larger community locks both Moses and the refugee up for their claims about Deity and ice cream, but institutionalization does not impact the truth value (as you noted) nor does it determine reliability. Now people as social creatures may be influenced by their peers, so perhaps Moses could be convinced he didn't have any grand experience on Sinai, or our refugee convinced that his ice cream actually tasted bitter, but that simply means Moses, the refugee and those around him have agreed to a certain set of conditions and reversed one accepted standard for another, in which case, the determination has moved beyond the experience itself.
If so, how do you document results and experiences to move science and society forward ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Experience ?? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
It gets written down and others attempt to replicate the result. Science is based on the notion of symmetry.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Of course I posit an extra-phenomenal reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Another question: do you reject the idea the subject impacts experience? If so, are you arguing for a naive realism? If not, your critical position seems compromised.
Now you have me confused. I thought that my position in this thread is that experience is compromised by the state of the mind of the subject. If the subject would not impact experience, all experiences would be reliable. It seems rather that you argue for naive realism.
What's our definition of reliable? I think the standard is trustworthiness and may be expanded to include notions of function. Now not all experience is immediately functional or the function may be discreet, but both ideas reflect back on the subject itself. Thus, reliability is ultimately determinable by the subject: whether other persons recognize the same is a separate issue.
Reliability may be seen as the chance that the certain outside circumstances cause the expected experience. It can be linked to predictability. Reliability is determinable by the subject, but feedback from others increase reliability. It´s not that relaibility would be a dualistic notion. It is dimensional. Whether others recognize the same is not a seperate issue. Objective information is always more reliable than subjective one.
Of course, people can be mistaken about the reliability of information.
You´re mistaken. Hallucinations can involve all senses. The information you get from an experience must be matched with other information. If information is conflicting, reliability is reduced. If Moses says he talked to god, while others say that he didn´t, it is necessary to question both the reliability of Moses´ experience and the reliability of the others (even for Moses himself!). It is not possible that both reliabilities are high. Generally, if sensation can be enough for reliability, why can´t hearsay?Quote:
Quality of information is also rather open ended. If Elvis gave the grand tour of the space ship, which one could apply the whole of their sensual faculties toward: sight, touch, dinging for sound and even tasting I suppose (this is to distinguish from simple hallucinations which I believe are only visual) that would seem to move the experience up on the level of credence. If this is right then more sensory access heightens the quality. Further, if the experience were repeatable and/or others confirmed similar Elvis space tours then again the reliability would seem to further heighten. Still, I don't think such is required to determine reliability: Moses on the mountain or our refugee being the only one of his mates to actually taste ice cream may still consider their experience very reliable irrespective of outside or limited confirmation. It may be the larger community locks both Moses and the refugee up for their claims about Deity and ice cream, but institutionalization does not impact the truth value (as you noted) nor does it determine reliability. Now people as social creatures may be influenced by their peers, so perhaps Moses could be convinced he didn't have any grand experience on Sinai, or our refugee convinced that his ice cream actually tasted bitter, but that simply means Moses, the refugee and those around him have agreed to a certain set of conditions and reversed one accepted standard for another, in which case, the determination has moved beyond the experience itself.
You both realize that this could go on forever and neither of your opinions and views on the subject would change one bit, right?
As I said in another thread this dialectic form of communication is not meaningful. As long as you write down your opinion in a concice and relevent way, you will have the impact that you meant to have, but debating everything over and over is quite pointless.
LOL. I know I'm late with this, but I havent noticed this topic for a while. And boy, this is the best heading for a topic I've seen in a while! Its just contradiction in itself. ~D
Now the question left to answer is: Does God believe in atheists?
So you admit a reality beyond the realm of experience but nonetheless tie knowledge to the empirical and agree that the subject impacts experience. You sound like you are within bounds of a Kantian framework which is a coherence schema.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Good, a base reliability is subject bound.Quote:
Reliability is determinable by the subject, but feedback from others increase reliability.
I see.Quote:
You´re mistaken. Hallucinations can involve all senses.
This matching or informational coherence remains ultimately an internal dynamic bound to and determinable by the experiencing subject. This remains the case regardless of any reinforcement, or its opposite, brought to the table by other sources. I assume you agree given your statement above. Now, let me illustrate this point. In the New Testament, Acts 7 the Christian Stephen is brought before the Council of the High Priest and the following is recorded:Quote:
The information you get from an experience must be matched with other information. If information is conflicting, reliability is reduced. If Moses says he talked to god, while others say that he didn´t, it is necessary to question both the reliability of Moses´ experience and the reliability of the others (even for Moses himself!). It is not possible that both reliabilities are high. Generally, if sensation can be enough for reliability, why can´t hearsay?
"54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55But (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. 59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Stephen claims to have a heavenly vision while in the presence of others who see nothing it would seem. Either Stephen saw the Heavens opened or he didn't. Regardless, he considered the experience reliable enough, irrespective of others present, to sacrifice himself because of it. Reliability, as previously stated, remains determinable by the subject and that is the point.
Good thinkers know how to ruminate. You should know about chewing cud as a self described Nietzsche aficionado.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
"Thus passes the day to the virtuous. When night comes, then take I good care not to summon sleep. It dislikes to be summoned- sleep, the lord of the virtues!
But I think of what I have done and thought during the day. Thus chewing the cud, patient as a cow, I ask myself: What were your ten overcomings?
And what were the ten reconciliations, and the ten truths, and the ten laughters with which my heart enjoyed itself?
Thus pondering, and cradled by forty thoughts, I am overcome by sleep, the unsummoned, the lord of the virtues."
-Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Do you want me to bring up what he says about Socrates and Plato and dialectics? That would crush the little excitement you get out of your little debates.
If you state your opinion correctly and elegantly any other debate is quite pointless since it'll basically be you and the other guy saying "you are wrong, this is why...". Don't you recognize that pattern?
As for Thus Spoke Zarathustra you can't take something like that and try to prove something. There are entire chapters in that book dedicated to making fun of people with virtues and how important they think they are. Nietzsche's philosophy teaches against ideals and idealism. If you want to be your own person you should make your own ideal and then enforce, not of the groups.
Here's one of my favorite quotes from Twilight of the Idols. I think it proves some of me previous points.
Ahhhh, if only nietzsche was alive to post on this website.... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
He would have no trouble demonstrating his notion of an eternal recurrence of the same, Byzantine Prince.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Pretty big If... considering the limits of words and the way both the writer and reader will interpret the words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
From my point of view a debate is like a dance in which both will whirl around covering ground together that alone one would be left beside the wall.
It gives more perspectives and with the greater understanding of the nuances of the debate, the language and the object of debate a greater understanding of the person you debate with is gained.
I often take an opposing point of view not to win an arguement but to gain greater insight into my fellow debator. Do they believe in something because it is fashionable or because they do believe in it? Do they have a fiery temper or do they stay cool under pressure.
There are many things of interest that are revealed in a debate which often have little to do with what is the point that is being chewed upon.