The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

Hey, I passed five years of spanish courses, but yo no habla el espanol for shit.

That's "Yo no hablo español por mierda." I believe... Don't quote me on that though because I can't speak a lick of spansih.

But I did a little research myself actually, and it appears that we are discussing a simple logical construct called a categorical syllogism. To clear up a few things, the construction can be valid without the conclusion being true, but the conclusion can not be true unless the construction is valid and both premises are true.

To sum this whole thing up, the purpose of logic is to find truth, and not to create a functionally proper though pointless argument. So the argument that a categorical syllogism can be both valid and untrue as a means to disprove logic is patently absurd.

Now that I think about this, what was the point? What was to be proved through all this?

Logic allows us to discern what is not true, and by that process allows us to come closer to truth. It does not exist in a vacuum, and for a valid statement to have any merit it must be true, and in order for it to be true it's premises must be true and follow the rules of a logical argument. That's as simple as I can put it.

By the way, I totally just finished a shitty correspondence course on philosphy and I got an A. I flunked out of high school though and haven't had an opportunity to go to college yet. I wonder if that has any bearing on any argument I've made...

ha, no I don't. :P

[ZAKtheGeek]

That is nearly text book nihilism and nihilism is frankly stupid.

At this point, I'm going to have to ask that you present more of an argument other than that what I'm saying is "stupid." I know, I know... It's such a fundamental assumption that it seems ridiculous to even bother questioning it. But it's an assumption nonetheless. I'm not saying assumptions are bad (necessarily), I'm just saying that there have to be postulates in a logic system it order for it to go anywhere. Go ahead and look it up on Wikipedia or something if you don't believe me.

Additionally, you can construct some sort of instrument that will measure an objective quantity and always come up with the same answer. That is the same answer no matter who uses the device, who made the device, or where they use the device. That is objective fact.

You're still trusting the observers' senses. Don't get me wrong, that seems like a fine definition for a fact, but it still bases itself on the assumption that our observations present us with reliable information.

Now that I think about this, what was the point? What was to be proved through all this?

That's it's important to examine our assumptions, as well the the assumptions of opposing arguments. That we can all be logical yet still disagree because our assumption sets differ.

I'm not throwing my arms up and saying, "Fuck this, it can't go anywhere." We can still debate what postulates could be appropriate and which couldn't; or which set of assumptions is generally preferable (there are rules to this sort of thing, like "complex postulate BAD!!" and whatnot). But looking purely at the logic of an argument could be fallacious.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

At this point, I'm going to have to ask that you present more of an argument other than that what I'm saying is "stupid." I know, I know... It's such a fundamental assumption that it seems ridiculous to even bother questioning it. But it's an assumption nonetheless. I'm not saying assumptions are bad (necessarily), I'm just saying that there have to be postulates in a logic system it order for it to go anywhere. Go ahead and look it up on Wikipedia or something if you don't believe me.

Think carefully about what you are saying for a minute. Your saying that there is a highly significant probability that human senses lie. Not only that though. You would have us belief, in the absence of proof, that every single person's senses lie to us in the same way. Not only that but our instrumentation that does not actually depend on our senses lies in exactly the same way, or that our senses lie in such a why that we are essentially reading what we want to read from our instruments.

To write this in the form of a logical statement:

All of our senses lie
Everything we experience through our senses is reality
Therefore, reality is a lie

All lies are false
reality is a lie
Therefore, reality is false/fake

Everything is effected by reality in a real physical way
Reality is false/fake
Therefore, the effects of reality are false/fake

Its pretty clear that if you see the sun explode the effect is has on reality is not fake. Therefore there is a logical inconsistency in there.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

You're still trusting the observers' senses. Don't get me wrong, that seems like a fine definition for a fact, but it still bases itself on the assumption that our observations present us with reliable information.

Present me with a viable provable theory as to why every person's senses would lie in the exact same way. Then extend it to explain how our instruments, whose observations are disconnected from us, happen to be effected in precisely the same way.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Your saying that there is a highly significant probability that human senses lie.

No, I'm not. Show me where I wrote that. You're obviously misunderstanding.

I reiterate: assumptions are not bad! Just because you have to assume something doesn't mean you have a weak argument or something like that!

Present me with a viable provable theory as to why every person's senses would lie in the exact same way. Then extend it to explain how our instruments, whose observations are disconnected from us, happen to be effected in precisely the same way.

Coincidence for the first part. For the second, the only way we receive input from our instrument is through our flawed, flawed senses.

Of course, it's a ridiculous premise. There's, like, no chance that our senses are giving us false information. That's what makes it a very safe assumption.

As for your derivation, it's flawed. I never claimed that every single thing we sense is a falsehood (actually, I never even implied that our senses are not to be trusted...). A more appropriate first line would have been "Our senses can produce false information." Can. You make it as though they constantly do.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Zak

Coincidence for the first part. For the second, the only way we receive input from our instrument is through our flawed, flawed senses.

Mind giving an example before you completly discredit the billions of years of evolution that lead to us?

[ZAKtheGeek]

Yeah, no, we're flawless. There can be absolutely nothing the least bit suboptimal about humans, biologically. Also, not having a perfect perception of reality would obviously be nothing short of a detrimental trait.

And of course, the entire concept of evolution, as well as the passage of those billions of years, is in no way dependent on us sensing what's actually going on around us.

[Mesden]

Humans have TERRIBLE senses. We just have a good brain that processes reality very well with the horrible information our sensory organs give us.

Since what we see as reality is actually just our very hard working brain constructing the most senseful schema, everything should actually vary from person to person, depending on how our brain's shape what our horrible sensory organs give us.

Eye Witnesses are not reliable. Any Psych teacher will tell you that. =P

It's why we're so easily fooled into believing faulty things when they seem to make sense.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

No, I'm not. Show me where I wrote that. You're obviously misunderstanding.

Ok maybe not a high probability. However:

Example: our observations are consistent with reality. This is an assumption.
[and later]
Confirm how? With their senses? How do we know that sensory information is accurate? And what exactly is a "fact," anyway?

Indicates you believe there is a statistically significant probability that our senses lie. At the very least it indicates our senses are somehow capable of creating a false, for lack of a better word, sensation that is apart from any human action that can be simultaneously experience by any number of people while being recorded by an instrument, and further that for some strange reason all these records match exactly.

Coincidence for the first part. For the second, the only way we receive input from our instrument is through our flawed, flawed senses.

That's barely a theory, no where near viable, and not provable in the least.

Of course, it's a ridiculous premise. There's, like, no chance that our senses are giving us false information. That's what makes it a very safe assumption.

There isn't "like' no chance. There is in fact no chance that your senses are giving you false information if that information is confirmed by other people and instrumentation.

As for your derivation, it's flawed. I never claimed that every single thing we sense is a falsehood (actually, I never even implied that our senses are not to be trusted...). A more appropriate first line would have been "Our senses can produce false information." Can. You make it as though they constantly do.

That doesn't exactly change much but here we go:

Our senses can produce false information
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
Therefore, Some external reality is false information

All false information has no physical effect(external to the human perceiving it)
some reality is false information
Therefore, some external reality has no physical effect

Everything is effected by external reality in a real physical way
Some external reality has no physical effect

... and right there we have to contradictory premises that should both be true but are not. Therefore, there exists a logical inconsistency in those statements. Since All false information has no physical effect is true. No one would argue that because a person hallucinated spiders on a wall there should be verifiable traces of those spiders on the wall for example. Further, Everything is effected be external reality in a real physical way and All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality by definition. Also, since the two of the three remaining premises were derived using the first stated premises the first stated premises must be false.

Also, not having a perfect perception of reality would obviously be nothing short of a detrimental trait.

One need not have a perfect perception of reality to gain valid observations.

Take the three blind men in a room with an elephant. One feels the trunk and observes that it is long, round and muscular much like a snake. The second feels the leg and observes it is rough, solid, and also roundish as well as immobile. The third feels the ear and finds it thin and leathery like the wings of a bat.

Without further observation any conclusions they draw about the nature of the elephant are erroneous because they haven't bothered to shift their perspectives so as to observe another piece. In the process they do give up there ability to perceive the first . However, by returning to it many times they can be sure it doesn't change in the short period of time they need to observe the whole elephant. (Or if it takes them a long time they can slowly chart the changes and come up with a pattern for the change.) So eventually the can form the complete picture of the elephant. This is what science does for us. It allows us to take piece meal bits of reality that we observe through senses and instruments and put it all together into a more holistic view of actual reality. Is it always perfectly right? No. Does that mean our observations are flawed? No. It means we haven't made enough observations yet.

Originally Posted by Mesden

Eye Witnesses are not reliable. Any Psych teacher will tell you that. =P

That is a problem with the storage of the information, and slightly perspective. Not actual physical shortcoming in our sensory organs. Further, any Psych teacher will tell you that if you put enough eye witnesses reports together, without letting the people talk to each other, you eventually get a set of consistent facts.

Also note that I've also added that generally for a fact to be objectively proven it needs to be measured by some non-human sensory means in addition to several humans.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

Mind giving an example before you completly discredit the billions of years of evolution that lead to us?

Our senses are flawed practically by definition.

Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com

flaw 1 Pronunciation (flô)
n.
1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness

Originally Posted by http://www.dictionary.com

1. a feature that mars the perfection of something

Flaws are the absence of perfection. Are our senses perfect?

But the big thing is evolution has nothing to do with this. Evolution has been altering our ability to percieve the world for all that time. It has not been improving our ability to percieve the world. At least, that's not the point.

One evolutionary jump may improve or not but the issue is being more adapted to ones environment, not being some classification of 'better'. Generally, it involves being more adapted to the current situation, but that's not necessarily better.

And evolution always settles for what it's got. Evolving systems do not inherently approach perfection or self-improvement. They seek survival and adaptation. Good enough -- not perfect.

And to speak more to the topic, the logic goes something like this:

• To percieve the world, it is necessary to filter one's perceptions through one's mind.
• One's mind is inherently flawed.
• Ergo, one's perceptions are inherently flawed.

And, I mean, we do know our mind is filling in, modifying, and essentially falsifying our perceptions all the time. Optical illusions are the most amusing everyday effect of such things. But there is a reason psychologists have been seeing problems with eyewitness testimony.

Here's a thing about False Memories. Now this may not be dealing with the sensory organs, but the brain is the sensory organ. This was what René Descartes was expressing an inability to trust in his Discours de la méthode.

Anyway, I'm bored of searching out things to link, so the point is: we cannot logically trust the human brain completely, but we must to completely trust our senses.

Though, to get back to reality, there's little to be gained by walking down that road but madness and impediments to progress, but that doesn't mean the thought is any less valid.

[ZAKtheGeek]

I'm starting to understand why Swordchucks left...

Indicates you believe there is a statistically significant probability that our senses lie. At the very least it indicates our senses are somehow capable of creating a false, for lack of a better word, sensation that is apart from any human action that can be simultaneously experience by any number of people while being recorded by an instrument, and further that for some strange reason all these records match exactly.

No, not a statistically significant probability; any chance would do. In a purely deductive, logical system, "very likely" isn't good enough.

That's barely a theory, no where near viable, and not provable in the least.

That doesn't matter. Is there any logical reason it can't all be a coincidence? No, it's just super unlikely.

There isn't "like' no chance. There is in fact no chance that your senses are giving you false information if that information is confirmed by other people and instrumentation.

Okay, now this just doesn't make sense. If all our senses are flawed, it doesn't matter who else corroborates your story; no one really is able to sense reality consistently.

One need not have a perfect perception of reality to gain valid observations.

Yeah, I know. In case you hadn't realized it, that entire post was sarcastic.

Everything is effected by external reality in a real physical way

Here's a confusion of terms. Up until this point, "external reality" meant reality as we sense it, not actual reality (the one we're trying to sense). This statement is false, as the hypothetically flawed "external reality" is unable to accurately reflect actual reality, so changes in it will not necessarily echo physical changes in actual reality. Unless the actual reality to which I'm referring is what you meant by "external reality," in which case the flaw appears much earlier:

All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality

This contradicts the very premise you started with; that our senses produce false information. It follows, then, that not all the information we gather from them is of the external reality; some of it is simply falsehoods. This statement as a whole is basically what you've been trying to assert all this time. I assure you that assuming it does nothing to help you prove it. Not logically, anyway.