Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Descartes Got it Wrong and that Leads to A-Mat Absurdity

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at ENV Michael Egnor explains how Descartes blew it and why that has consequences.

The foundation of epistemology is not self-awareness. This can be understood by considering Descartes’s maxim, “Cogito ergo sum.” Notice that we cannot conclude that we exist unless we can conclude. That is, we must first know the principle of non-contradiction — that being is not non-being — before we can conclude that “I think therefore I am.”

“Therefore,” not “I think” nor “I am,” is the crux of the most important thing we know. The principle of non-contradiction is prior to self-awareness.

Failure to give the LNC its due leads to A-Mat absurdity (as we have seen in these pages many times):

It’s worth noting that modern atheists and materialists have a particular problem with non-contradiction. Consider a number of atheist and materialist claims in this light.

Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable. . . . Again and again, materialists and atheists hold opinions that violate the law of non-contradiction. In this sense, atheism and materialism aren’t even really metaphysical theories. They’re just self-refuting nonsense.

The whole article is worth reading.

Comments
Origenes
But my criticism on Egnor’s article comes down to this: neither consciousness nor self-awareness are arguments.
I think you are on to something. Perhaps he could improve the article by focusing on the fact of existence and the nature of argument, rather than introduce the concept of consciousness. I am not sure that the latter expression is even necessary to make his broader point, which I think is very good. A/Mats violate the law of non-contradiction and Descartes played a significant role by starting with the investigator rather than the object of investigation.StephenB
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
cmow
I caught the nominalism link between Ockham and Descartes, but I would be interested to see this drawn out more, if you have the time. Thanks.
By denying the forms, essences, and natures of individual things, he was saying, in effect, that we cannot know *what* a thing is, but only *that* it is. Naturally, he also ruled out formal causes as well, which introduces a who new set of problems.StephenB
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
@everyone
So, there are some things that we simply cannot comprehend, which are actual contradictions?
Does everyone else agree with this? I'm asking because this seems to conflict with the idea that the law of non-contridction plays some key role. If we exist in a bubble of explicability, which resides is a sea of inexplicability, then the best explanation that could be had in that sea is that "Zeus rules" there. However, since everything in this bubble supposedly *depends* on that sea, the best explanation we can have inside our bubble is that "Zeus rules" here as well, unless one carefully avoids asking certain questions. IOW, if the law of non-contradiction depends on some inexplicable realm and actual contradictions are possible there, how can we rule out them being possible here for some reason we cannot comprehend as well? For example, Jesus supposedly being both man and God, seems like one of those questions we must careful avoid asking, despite playing a key role in atonement / salvation, because it would represent an actual contradiction. Does accepting that represent logic or faith? If logic, then it's unclear how non-contradiction is a key part of logic. And, if faith, is that somehow more fundamental than logic?critical rationalist
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
You’ll have to be more specific as to which “advances” (in quantum mechanics) are you referring to and how they actually represent “advances.”
None of those quotes indicate how they actually represent advances. For example...
Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
Except, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about observers being immune to the wave function. So, you'd need to add something to quantum mechanics to reach that conclusion. What might that be?critical rationalist
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
StephenB @23
SB: I think, therefore I am, is an *if/then* proposition.
I am okay with that: if I do anything, then I must exist.
SB: As you know, all if/then propositions (or syllogisms, for that matter) presuppose and depend on the law of non-contradiction.
All acts of reasoning depend on the LNC and much more. For instance, it also depends on the ability to perceive and manipulate one’s thoughts.
SB: So the latter is more basic and comes first in the order of logic.
More basic then the argument ‘cogito ergo sum’? Sure. I agree. In that sense the LNC is more basic then any argument. But my criticism on Egnor’s article comes down to this: neither consciousness nor self-awareness are arguments.Origenes
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
@EDA So, there are some things that we simply cannot comprehend, which are actual contradictions?critical rationalist
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Born again 77, it is great to read your posts again.StephenB
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Origenes, I think you are on to something when you make the distinction between *I exist* and *I am aware that I exist*. On the other hand, I don't think Egnor's argument is a strawman. It seems to me that he is saying this: I think, therefore I am, is an *if/then* proposition. As you know, all if/then propositions (or syllogisms, for that matter) presuppose and depend on the law of non-contradiction. So the latter is more basic and comes first in the order of logic. However, Descartes real error is to begin with the mind rather than the object of the investigation. If you begin with the mind, you never get outside of it--the investigator ends up investigating only himself, and doing it poorly.StephenB
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
StephenB @10, I caught the nominalism link between Ockham and Descartes, but I would be interested to see this drawn out more, if you have the time. Thanks.cmow
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
So great to have you back BA!!!AnimatedDust
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Throughout Egnor's article, cogito ergo sum is wrongly conflated with self-awareness. Cogito ergo sum is an argument for the existence of "I", which is not the same as arguing for self-awareness. To be clear, Descartes argues that one's existence is undeniably true to oneself, not one's self-awareness. Egnor seems to be arguing a strawman, by continually arguing that LNC is prior to self-awareness. And even here his arguments fail to convince. Egnor is correct when he says that one cannot make the argument 'cogito ergo sum', or any other argument, without the ability to think — which implies knowledge of LNC, LOI (Bornagain77) and more —, but this does not tell us that these things precede one's existence or even one's self-awareness.Origenes
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
of humorous note: Descartes's Maxim: “I think therefore I am.” Atheistic Materialist's maxim "I have thought about it and I do not exist" :)
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing." Francis Crick - Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (p. 3) "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9] Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html Atheist Philosopher Thinks "We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts" - Michael Egnor July 20, 2016 Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor's office and says "I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view," the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso103010.html
Also of note, although atheists deny they have free will, it turns out that free will is 'built into' the equations of quantum mechanics: In the following article, entitled 'The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics', Steven Weinberg states free will's primary role in the equations of quantum mechanics as such, “if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,,” “In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.” “Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,, The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/ Determinism vs Free Will - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPER4m2axI
bornagain77
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
CR states: "You’ll have to be more specific as to which “advances” (in quantum mechanics) are you referring to and how they actually represent “advances.”" Which is interesting since I cited this:
(Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)
and this
Also see Dr Gordon: “The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics” The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon – 2017 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-UO81HmO4
,,, but to go further,,
Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature - Bruce L. Gordon - 2017 ,,, Introduction excerpt: So does the reality we inhabit bear the hallmarks of transcendent intelligent causation, and does scientific investigation lead us to its discovery? In a word, yes. It is the purpose of this essay to show how the evidence from cosmology and quantum physics enables us to infer it.5,,, http://jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JBTS-2.2-Article-7.compressed.pdf Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE Paper https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rqqkxxQighIbyqtE0VeBZmu9D3GvUQfO5v1xwOTyp_E/edit Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
etc.. etc...bornagain77
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Seversky, I suggest that for a distinct possible world to exist, distinct identity exists. Instantly, LOI, LNC and LEM are present as corollaries. I suggest Dr Egnor may not be thinking in that unified frame but by pointing to one aspect he implies all that goes with it. BTW, from this we see numbers also and the logic that governs structure and quantity, aka mathematics. Of course, further to all this, we are self-evidently self-aware, conscious creatures of contingent character. Consciousness is our first fact, the fact through which we are aware of and address all other facts. So, it is self-evident and knowable to utter certainty that we are aware. Descartes' valid point in this context is that if one doubts, WHO is doubting suffices to show the absurdity of doubting one's knowledge by awareness of existence. I suggest, this is ONE SET, but not the only one. It is ONE place to start from in thought. But, the core SET's for the life of the mind are tied to distinct identity. Indeed, the more I reflect on it the more seems to lurk in the issue of being with distinct identity thus core characteristics. KF PS: On the attempt to put up the outdated problem of evil, post Plantinga's successful free will defense, I suggest here as a 101. PPS: Perhaps Egnor's clip from the angelic Doctor may help:
By nature our intellect knows being and the immediate characteristic of being as being, out of which knowledge arises the understanding of first principles, of the principle, say, that affirmation and denial cannot coexist (opposition between being and non-being) … (Summa Contra Gentiles: II, 83. Cf Ia IIae, q. 94, a.2.)
kairosfocus
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
The foundation of epistemology is not self-awareness. This can be understood by considering Descartes’s maxim, “Cogito ergo sum.” Notice that we cannot conclude that we exist unless we can conclude. That is, we must first know the principle of non-contradiction — that being is not non-being — before we can conclude that “I think therefore I am.”
There are two problems with this. Epistomology is the branch of philosophy which is concerned with the theory of knowledge. Knowledge can only exist in the mind of a 'knower' so the existence of such - "I think therefore I am" - is presumed in the concept of knowledge. The 'knower' precedes knowledge. A second problem is whether existence is a property of things which exist like other properties such as dimensions or color. For example, I can say that I have four gold coins in my pocket or I can say that I have four non-gold coins in my pocket and both claims can be true. However, while I can say I that have four coins in my pocket - which can be re-stated as "There exist in my pocket four coins" - does it mean anything if I say "There are four non-existent coins" in my pocket or is it absurd because it is stating a contradiction?
It’s worth noting that modern atheists and materialists have a particular problem with non-contradiction. Consider a number of atheist and materialist claims in this light.
No, we don't. We recognize square circles and stones so heavy God cannot lift them as contradictions as much as you do. We also note, however, that at the quantum level there are entities which appear to be both waves and particles at one and the same time.
Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable.
We don't claim ID is wrong. We allow that it is possible that there was some sort of intelligent designer that involved in the appearance of life on Earth but we also agree with Paul Nelson that the lack of a fully-fledged theory of biological design is a real problem for the ID community.
Materialists and atheists believe that our minds evolved by natural selection. But if we evolved wholly by natural selection, we evolved to maximize reproductive success, not to discern truth, and thus we could not trust our belief that we evolved by natural selection.
This argument is flawed because it assumes that a mind optimized for survival is unable to discern truth. It should be quite obvious that having a true understanding of the environment in which an individual has to survive is going to be a great advantage to that individual compared with competitors who have false beliefs.
Materialists and atheists believe that determinism is true and that free will is not real. But if determinism is true and we lack free will, then our opinions are determined by physical processes, which are not propositions and which lack truth value. Chemical reactions are neither true nor false, so a materialist’s opinion that determinism is true and free will is not real has no truth value
A/mats recognize that consciousness is a hard problem but there is no denying the correlation between consciousness and the physical brain. Damage to the physical brain can impair consciousness and destruction of the physical brain inevitably leads to a permanent loss of the consciousness associated with it.
Materialists and atheists believe that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God, yet if there is no ultimate Source of right and wrong, there is no evil and no good; there are merely circumstances we like or dislike. Nietzsche, unlike the New Atheists, understood this.
A/mats believe that there are events and behaviors in human history - loosely described as evil - which are inconsistent with the loving and paternalistic God as conceived by some contemporary Christians. There are accounts in the Old Testament of what would now be characterized as atrocities or crimes against humanity committed by God or His proxies which fully justify Richard Dawkins's famous condemnation. These are massive contradictions for Christians, not a/mats.Seversky
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Barry @7, Stephen @10, Occam is the father of Nominalism? OK. And a large part of nominalism denies the existance of, 'abstract objects'. These are objects existing outside, 'space and time'. How Occam squared this circle, with his belief in a divine God is an Intelligently Designed piece of masterful manipulation. Question; why should ID be fond of this particular branch of Nominalism, when ID has clearly stated that the designer may in fact be beyond space and time?rvb8
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
CR @ 13 >While were at it, can anyone here explain how >Jesus could have been 100% man and 100% God? >How is that not a contradiction? The "100%" is added by people trying to get the idea across that He was man and God, in some way. Since it is a matter that ultimately lies beyond our world, I don't expect an explanation that is fully accessible to us to be possible. -------------------- BA77, nice to see you posting!EDTA
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
While were at it, can anyone here explain how Jesus could have been 100% man and 100% God? How is that not a contradiction?critical rationalist
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Supplemental note: Advances in Quantum Mechanics have denied ‘realism’ altogether
You'll have to be more specific as to which "advances" are you referring to and how they actually represent "advances."critical rationalist
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
The foundation of epistemology is not self-awareness. This can be understood by considering Descartes’s maxim, “Cogito ergo sum.” Notice that we cannot conclude that we exist unless we can conclude. That is, we must first know the principle of non-contradiction — that being is not non-being — before we can conclude that “I think therefore I am.”
We must know the principle of non-contradiction? What do you mean by "know"? First, what about all those human beings the who lived thousands of years before Law of non-contradiction had ever been consciously conceived by anyone in the form presented? Second, there seems to be a contradiction as illustrated by this screen capture from this TED talk. These two squares appear to be to different colors, until you add the lines. And when you remove them they go back to being different colors. Is this not a concrete example of our brains literally holding a contradiction? This sort of optical illusion is a function of our ability to perceive things in three dimensions. Third, what of the examples presented?
Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable.
While testability is an important factor, anyone can come up with a testable prediction. For example, solipsism accepts everything you and I observe as external to ourselves with the one exception that these same observations are supposedly facets of one's internal self. Those are testable predictions, are they not? Should we attempt to take it seriously, in that it's true in reality and that all observations should conform to it, Solipsism presents an implicit theory that there are dream-like aspects of myself that act like autonomous conscious beings which surprise me, have different personalities and even disagree with me on Solipsism. And there object-like facets of myself that obey laws of physics like facets even though, as a non-physicist, I can’t do the math that describes their behavior. Not to mention that these supposed people-like facets of myself discover new things about myself (physics like facets) all the time, which I wasn’t aware of previously. IOW, solipsism predicts exactly the same empirical observations we observe, which means every every discovery in technology, medicine and particle physics also “supports” solipsism. They just happen to be internal to the solipsist, rather than external. The key difference is that Solipsism makes no attempt to explain *why* object-like facets of one’s self would obey laws of physics-like facets of one’s self, etc. No explanation is presented at all. Instead, the claim is based on a supposed philosophical limitation that we cannot know anything exists outside of our own minds. In other words, Solipsism consists of the theory of realty with the added exception of it all being elaborate facets of the internal self. It merely attempts to explain away the currently tenable theory of reality. Despite portraying itself as anti-reality, solipsism is actually a convoluted elaboration of reality, which can be discarded. Apparently, ID is compatible with evolution, with the added exception of "that's just what some designer must have wanted", which attempts to explain way the current theory of evolution.
Materialists and atheists believe that our minds evolved by natural selection. But if we evolved wholly by natural selection, we evolved to maximize reproductive success, not to discern truth, and thus we could not trust our belief that we evolved by natural selection.
We cannot?
William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way. According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are naïve rationalists, and thinking that their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational. Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false. By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.
So, it seems that this is a contradiction if we assume knowledge is justified, true belief.
Materialists and atheists believe that determinism is true and that free will is not real. But if determinism is true and we lack free will, then our opinions are determined by physical processes, which are not propositions and which lack truth value. Chemical reactions are neither true nor false, so a materialist’s opinion that determinism is true and free will is not real has no truth value.
Again, this is yet another example of presenting a specific conception of free will, then claiming that conception is incompatible with deterministic processes. Of course "that" conception is. But words are shortcuts for ideas. And we should be willing to accept the terms of others to have a discussion.
Materialists and atheists believe that the universe spontaneously came from nothing, and they define nothing as the laws of quantum mechanics.
See above. This couldn't possibly mean that what we previously considered "nothing" actually turns out to be a see of quantum fluctuations. is this a contraction? Atoms a contradiction? After all the origin of the word atom is... "late 15th century: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’" Yet, atoms can be divided. is this a contradiction?
Materialists and atheists believe that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God, yet if there is no ultimate Source of right and wrong, there is no evil and no good; there are merely circumstances we like or dislike. Nietzsche, unlike the New Atheists, understood this.
Is the author really suggesting there is no distinction between taking someone else's claims seriously, for the purpose of criticism, and personally holding that belief? To use an example, imagine if a bank robbery was thwarted by woman wearing a green suit with a big Z on her chest, but not before she was shot in the leg by a conventional handgun. Now imaging someone claimed this woman, now in the hospital being treated for a gunshot wound, was Superman. Would I have to actually, personally believe that Superman exists to point out that Superman is supposedly a man, not a woman, who is impervious to conventional bullets? No, I don't. So, why would I have to personally believe in "evil", In the same sense as a theist, to criticize their position?critical rationalist
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
rvb8, As Barry explained, Ockham is the father of nominalism. Among other things, he denied the existence of natures, forms, and formal causality. Would you like to know how that set the stage for Descartes or is that enough for now?StephenB
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
While I agree with Dr. Egnor that the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is very important,
Law of thought - The three traditional laws 1.The law of identity 2. The law of non-contradiction 3. The law of excluded middle ,,,,Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics – a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views, – not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, against Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was Ens est ens. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank." [From Hamilton LECT. V. LOGIC. 65-66] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#History
The Law of Identity (LOI) is also certainly very important too,,,, And in light of LOI as applied to Descartes maxim, I have to disagree with Dr. Egnor that Descartes metaphysics are the source of such profound mischief in the present day as Dr. Egnor seems to deeply believe it is. Surely I am not as nuanced in philosophy as Dr Egnor is, and may be missing something very important, yet, when using the LOI, I have found Descartes's maxim to be on the mark. For instance, one simple way of demonstrating that the mind is not the same thing as the brain comes from utilizing the ‘Law of Identity’ to separate properties of mind from properties of the brain:
Immaterial Mind - video (Law Of Identity) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720zEnzgTyM How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace - video - Sept. 2015 (5 attributes of mind that are distinct from the material brain therefore, via the law of identity, the mind is not the same thing as the material brain) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko
Dr Egnor himself employs the law of identity to "doubt" that a representation of a memory is a real memory.
Brains on Fire: Dr. Steven Novella Explains, "The Mind Is the Fire of the Brain" - Michael Egnor - December 18, 2014 Excerpt: The difference between a memory and a representation of a memory is obvious. Right now I remember that I have an appointment at noon. I'm writing down "appointment at noon" on my calendar. My memory is my thought that I have an appointment at noon. The representation of my memory is the written note on my calendar. A thought differs from a note. A thought is something I experience; a note is something I write. My memory is a psychological thing. My note is a physical thing. My memory is represented in my note. My memory is not the same thing as my note. A memory is not the same thing as a representation of a memory. I hope that's clear. I'm not sure how I can be clearer. - Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/brains_on_fire092151.html
Dr. Michael Egnor again, via the law of identity, 'doubts' that the brain produces the mind:
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor - 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: - Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
Thus, although Dr Egnor has been fairly harsh to Descartes overall line of thinking in regards to the Law of Non-Contradiction, in his argumentation utilizing the Law of Identity, Dr. Egnor himself, none-the-less, seems to traveling much the same road as Descartes did in establishing the primacy of mind. Supplemental note: Advances in Quantum Mechanics have denied 'realism' altogether,,, (realism is the belief that there is a reality 'out there' that is independent of whether or not a conscious observer observes it).,,, I suspect Descartes would be very pleased to know that.
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
Also see Dr Gordon: "The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics"
The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon – 2017 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-UO81HmO4
bornagain77
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 6. Yet again ontology is confused with epistemology. From an ontological perspective obviously self awareness is prior. From an epistemic perspective the LNC is prior. As explained in the linked article. Which you obviously did not read.Barry Arrington
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
rvb8, Ockham's razor may be the only snippet of Ockham's thought with which you are familiar, but that does not mean Stephen is suggesting that principle leads to madness. If you knew more about Ockham, you would know he is the father of nominalism. And then you would be able to trace the progression outlined @ 3.Barry Arrington
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
"The principle of non-contradiction is prior (meaning, before??)to self awareness." Did I get that right? Before you can be self aware you must be non-contradictory? Who or what must be non-contradicory, before you can be aware that you yourself can think, and therefore exist? This is very philosophical and completely above my meagre thought. I, following Occam's razor believe this: 'A selfaware being must have a metabolism, if not its brain, and by extension self awareness, won't function.' You appear to be putting the cart before the horse. And worse adding, unsupported guesses to what is quite a simple formulation; birth>>selfawareness>>death. You'll notice the complete lack of philosophically multiplied obscuritanism.rvb8
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
rvb8:
Broadly; Among competing ideas, the one with the fewest unsupported guesses should be assumed to be correct.
That would be ID when compared to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, which is all about unsupported guesses.ET
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
StephenB @3, Occam and following his principle leads to madness? Really? I use it almost everyday, as do you too probably, without knowing it. He merely described what already existed, much like Darwin. Broadly; Among competing ideas, the one with the fewest unsupported guesses should be assumed to be correct. That sounds emminently sensible, both back in the 13th century when it was first uttered, and even up to today. And also into the long distant future. Basically, don't fill 'gaps', with guess work.rvb8
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Ockham >> Descartes >> Kant >> MadnessStephenB
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Folks, I incline that all first principles of reasoning are necessary and framework to reality. That's why I tend to speak of distinct identity and its immediate corollaries, LOI, LNC, LEM. No world can exist without distinct identity. Consciousness is immediately intuited from self awareness and is just as undeniable for one who is conscious. As in if you try to deny or doubt your consciousness, who is denying or doubting? KF PS: Several other self evident truths fit in with this. For instance, distinct identity leads to numbers. I suggest too that if a thing A is or is not, we can simply ask or inquire as to why and that power to ask is directly tied to consciousness. If you doubt this, WHO is denying and couldn't you just as easily be asking? From this weak form principle of [inquiry into] sufficient reason, we can go to inquiry into the logic of being and causality.kairosfocus
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
How dare he attempt to oppress us with his patriarchical, white-supremacist logic!William J Murray
January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply