KF on Proof

_{Barry Arrington

July 29, 2021

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

KF’s comment to a prior post deserves its own OP. If only people understood the simple, yet profound, point KF is making. KF writes:

Proof is a term too often used more for rhetorical impact than for humble acknowledgement of the achievements and limitations of human reasoning and deduction especially. As such, we must bear Godel in mind, truth and proof are very different, and axiomatic systems for complicated areas face incompleteness and/or possible incoherence. Even mathematics is not an absolutely certain discipline. Science cannot prove beyond such and such has so far passed certain empirical tests and may be taken as so far reliable, when it is at its best. Too often it is not and becomes a lab coat that gives unwarranted credibility to ideology. So, we end up at pisteis, rhetorical proof, where we seek to provide reasonable warrant for beliefs or opinions etc, and must reckon with the issues lurking behind pathos, ethos, logos. We are in the end, faith-driven reasoners, the issue is which faith, which set of first plausibles, why and why in light of comparative difficulties. But to get that far we must first make sure that we do not undermine the basic credibility of responsible reason through sawing off the branch on which we all must sit, the error of hyperskepticism.

Comments

Sev, no one disputes that our self-aware consciousness is the heart of our experience. The point is, the first facts of that experience are OF being embodied and in a wider world. For example contemplate consequences of not breathing for an hour, such suffices to show realities of embodiment and life in the world we inhabit. That we have senses AND what they deliver are part of that immediate awareness. Were such reduced to grand, Plato's cave style doubts, dismissals and delusions, the taint immediately discredits our rationality across the board. Sawing off the branch on which we all sit, the error of hyperskepticism. To hold that we construct a mental model of the world -- being vs appearance, with open invitation to the Kantian ugly gulch -- is to hold that at least that perception is reliable but in fact it is immediately open to level 2 doubt or delusion. And so to infinity. Far more sensible is to acknowledge our rationality and the common sense principle that though our senses and reasoning etc may err in details and have limitations, to entertain hyperskeptical grand delusion is absurd and can be set aside safely. That averts the chaos of a cascade of grand delusions and doubts, and opens the way to reasonable, responsible knowledge and confidence in finding out about our world and ourselves. KF PS: Bradley, long ago, saw off the ugly gulch:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
kairosfocus_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

I left here some months back when people were saying that "they have no duty to the truth". The "first duties" that KF refers to are in this context. That a person has a responsibility towards the truth because that's a basic measure of integrity in the person, and the fundamental, necessary foundation for rational thought, much more for rational conversation with other people. A person who denies having a moral responsibility towards the truth is just making it impossible for anyone to have a rational conversation with that person. We have to affirm as a "first duty" that we hold ourselves morally responsible (as a duty to fulfill) that we will seek and affirm the truth when we find it, speak the truth, and oppose falsehood. When there was a debate about this and rejection of those concepts, I realized, just as I said - it's impossible to have a rational conversation. Offering falsehoods, deceptions, dishonesty - have the same moral value as having a first duty to the truth, and therefore it's impossible to even understand what a person is saying.Silver Asiatic_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Seversky
My interpretation is that we create a mental model of what is beyond us based on data acquired through our senses. That model is very detailed but nonetheless still a model, meaning it is incomplete, a partial representation as there is a lot we cannot perceive through our senses
This is the classical understanding of knowledge and reality. We take in data from our senses and then interpret it. We have knowledge of causes - so, our experiences are caused by something and we recognize the causes as something outside of ourselves. We also recognize the existence of other minds that think the same way that we do, and which also receive information that we send, and are affected by what we offer.
I agree with WJM that our conscious experience is at root all we have.
I think this conflicts with your other statement however. In the other case, you affirmed that our experience is informed by data that we take in. WJM's view, however, is that there is no external data and everything is generated by our own mind. Or maybe you were saying that you lean towards WJM's view and actually occupy a middle ground (which seems reasonable to me). In either case, I agree with VL that you did a good job describing the issues at stake in this.Silver Asiatic_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

That is an excellent post, Sev. I also think, with the same disclaimers about the whole thing as you offer, that the "entangled reality down there" might also be the common ground and source for both the experience of a physical world that we have and our consciousness by which we have those experiences.Viola Lee_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus/43
AD, mental — strictly, conscious, self-aware — experience is first, foremost OF embodiment in the world. If that first experience is opened to across the board doubt or dismissal, then all other experiences carried by that are themselves under the same doubt. Think chains and links, with the first link weak. KF
I agree with WJM that our conscious experience is at root all we have. The existence of an objective reality that is not me and does not depend on my observation of it in order for it to exist is an interpretation of that experience - and one to which I generally subscribe. My interpretation is that we create a mental model of what is beyond us based on data acquired through our senses. That model is very detailed but nonetheless still a model, meaning it is incomplete, a partial representation as there is a lot we cannot perceive through our senses Yes, we can build devices and instruments which can detect what our senses cannot but the data they collect still has to be rendered in a form our senses can accept. Think of those wonderful astronomical images of deep-space phenomena radiating in the ultraviolet or x-ray spectra. We can only see them at all when they are converted to colors our eyes can detect, so it's still an interpretation. What is becoming apparent from the likes of quantum theory, however, is that while our classical physical experience is unchanged, our understanding of the nature of that experience has changed quite radically and is continuing to change. Like Dr Johnson, I can kick a stone and it will hurt my toe but if both stone and toe are made of something which is not substance nor even something that has definite form then what is actually happening? Why do I have that experience at all? I don't have any good answer to those questions as yet although I should say I feel I am beginning to move towards WJM's position. Classical materialism is plainly dead so I am properly a physicalist where physicalism refers to the nature of reality as revealed to us through the physical sciences. The problem is that our understanding of that nature is not static but changing over time. I am loathe to call it information because I think that word now has so many meanings - is so prone to ambiguity that it is almost meaningless - but I don't really have a better one. There is a YouTube video by Arvin Ash on quantum entanglement in which he speculates that something like a vast web of entangled particles may be an underlying layer of reality. It is just speculation but I am leaning towards the view that there is something like that 'down there' which could even be a common ground between WJM's position and those of us who believe in an objective as well as a subjective reality.Seversky_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

@lcd Enough with all the meaningless and snide remarks. You all have got nothing but a big mess on offer. The creationist conceptual scheme perfectly explains the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. And there is no way God is properly classified in the creation, chosen, material, objective and fact category.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Jack 1. Girlfriend 2. Fun 3. More fun 4. Led Zeppelin 5. Girlfriend Get a life, losers
:)))) Looks like your own advice doesn't work very well for yourself because you are a very unhappy and wretched person. Maybe you should change your worldview ? @Mohammadnursyamsu: You should go to school first then becoming a teacher.Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

@animated dust, spoken like a smart alecky total atheist. You are an intellectual fraud because you throw out logic. What is to be expected from someone who'se god is objective like a brick is objective.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Saying goodbye is intellectual fraudulence. Check. And a non-native English speaker lectures me on the meaning of English words. I just had to point that out. Ok, this time I mean it. G O O D B Y E. It means also, so long, fare well, auf wiedersehen, adieu. It does NOT MEAN intellectual fraudulence. :) The Irony! :)AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

AD, mental -- strictly, conscious, self-aware -- experience is first, foremost OF embodiment in the world. If that first experience is opened to across the board doubt or dismissal, then all other experiences carried by that are themselves under the same doubt. Think chains and links, with the first link weak. KFkairosfocus_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

@animated dust That's intellectual fraudulence. Obviously you cannot argue the logic of objectivity, because for you that is just a cultural issue of the English language.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

M @43, I am going to shut up wrt you. Bye.AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

I find that your description of KF's argumentation is accurate. I have never once heard him ask for clarification, or ANY questions of anyone here, ever. Not once. It's all pronouncements. Period.AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

AD, There is no "cause" for it. The uncaused cause is consciousness, and the only thing "other" than that which fundamentally exists is infinite informational potential which, as a logical necessity, must exist. We understand cause and effect from a linear time perspective; under IRT, time is understood as something else: individual or group sequences of experience. There is no universal linearity to it. Ultimately, the only "cause" under IRT is consciousness.William J Murray_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

An example of how to conduct a good faith discussion can be found in how I interacted with BA77 about geocentrism theory, and in how I interacted with KF about his concept of "first duties." For weeks I asked questions, came at it from different angles, restated what they said and asked if that was a correct interpretation or assessment - not in an attempt to "defeat" their perspective, but to understand it. I understand this can be a long, often exasperating process for those trying to explain themselves to someone else. Communication is difficult even about normal, every-day things, much more difficult when we're dealing with concepts and difficult to understand evidence. However, my conversation with BA77 ended with me finally understanding the evidence and agreeing with his position that the actual, current evidence better supported geocentrism than non-geocentric models. With KF, it ended up with me saying that KF must be experiencing something that I do not experience, or that I'm incapable of understanding what he means when he talks about "first duties." I wasn't trying to defeat it because it made no difference to me, and my personal beliefs, if he was right or not. I was trying to understand it, and I failed. Honestly, I couldn't make any sense out of it whatsoever; but I chalk that up to us just having very different perspectives. However, KF makes no effort whatsoever in attempting to understand IRT; he doesn't ever ask "do I understand you correctly?" or "what do you mean when you say X?" or "How is this arrangement not indicative of a delusion?" He instead insist that I mean what he says I mean, even when I try to correct him. He claims sovereign rights over words, definitions, uses and meaning. He insists his interpretations are the only possible ones, and that anyone that differs is either being deficient or deceptive. That's not how a good faith discussion operates. I mean, if he's just not interested in understanding IRT, that's fine, but to arrogantly pass judgement on something you've been told over and over you are mischaracterizing and misinterpreting, is just not what I consider a productive interaction. I would LOVE for someone to come to some level of understanding of IRT and raise valid valid questions and criticisms. Mike did that for a while in one of the prior threads about it, the one that has "Checkmate" in the title. A few others have. But, again, I understand that it's not really worth the time and effort it takes to gain understanding in the eyes of most people, and that's also fine. There are other places I discuss this with people who do understand it to a large degree.William J Murray_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

@animated dust If it is gibberish, then make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of what fear consists of for example. Or make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of God. Put up or shut up. You can only make 1 to 1 corresponding models of creations.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

WJM, have you postulated the cause/effect of IRT as to origin of it in entirety? Clearly can't be material, but do you postulate a designer of unknown identity, at least? Thanks for your kind words. IRT as to how we experience "the world" came to me pretty easily in terms of getting what you're arguing.AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

M @39, you are speaking gibberish now. Please stop. You're not an outrage, but a pretty complete annoyance.AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

AD @38, Thank you. Well said. KF is, once again, translating what I said into what it would mean in his "external physical world" paradigm, then criticizing it from that perspective. Apparently, he is incapable or unwilling to actually understand IRT on its own terms, which I have said is a difficult thing to do. I just don't think he is capable of stepping outside of his own paradigm at all, even arguendo, it is so deeply rooted and such an intrinsic aspect of his self-identity.William J Murray_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

KF, you cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of what is on the side of what makes a choice. You cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of emotions, personal character, or God. You can make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of all chosen things, creations. And that is the real meaning objective, to make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation, forced by the evidence of it. If we follow your horriffc ideas, than the police will not make 1 to 1 corresponding reconstructions of what occurred anymore. Then instead the police determine as objective fact the evil or goodness of a suspect. It's just total rubbish, a complete outrage.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

I can see why WJM asserts that you're still not getting it, KF. Everything you just asserted as to his position, you got, necessarily, entirely from your mental experience. Full stop. Apparently, that's why you're still jammed up. I don't begin to claim that I understand all of its ramifications, but I do know that my sensory apparatus is set up to give me an experience that is, before anything else, subjectively mental.AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

MNY, our subjectivity is error-prone. That imposes all sorts of challenges requiring warrant. When a claim is warranted, reliable, credible, we recognise it as objective. Even beauty follows objective principles so it is not merely a perception, there is a reason for informed consensus of judgement regarding beauty. KFkairosfocus_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

WJM, for record, I note the opening sentence of your article and highlight points where it becomes agenda-loaded and question-begging:
By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view, we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality.
We are conscious, minded, self- and world- aware creatures and experience is mediated through that consciousness. That is worlds apart from the assertion that "our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature." A first fact of our experience is that we are embodied in a world with many other bodies some similar to our own (other living people), others quite different, e.g. the island I am on, with a volcano some miles south, etc. It is question-begging to assert logical necessity and entirety. Experience can embrace the reality of the distinct other even as it is a conscious process. The assertions you make directly entail that the experience of otherness is delusional and that embodiment where mind and body can be in key part distinguished is likewise delusional as opposed to your asserted logical necessity and entirety. Given tendency to see word disputes I am using words in normal senses readily seen in dictionaries. As for claimed scientific support, that is not accurate summary. For example I have long noted on the Smith model cybernetic framework and the two tier controller. Grey's Anatomy is a grand study of embodiment familiar from medicine. And while there is a London Force, molecular and atomic substructure to solids, liquids and gases etc, that does not invalidate the realities of solid bodies, liquid ones or gaseous ones or even complexes such as our bodies. Atoms in turn have sub sub structure and many particles. All of this is part of a world which is studied as beyond and independent of our mental states, perceptions, opinions etc. I note for record, so it can be clear precisely why I have expressed concerns regarding plato's cave, shadow show grand delusions. KFkairosfocus_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

KF, subjectivity is not the same as fantasy. To state a painting is beautiful is subjectivity, it is not fantasy. Subjective statements express what exists in the spiritual domain, the domain that contains all what makes choices. To say a painting is beautiful, claims the existence of a love for the way the painting looks. You previously altready threw out the logic of fact. It is only fitting that now you also throw out the logic of opinion. What you do is total heresy, and you've got no logic. You can have all the feelings of absolute certainty that God is real that you would like, with the subjective and correct idea of God. However, in no way can you be forced to conclude God exists. Forced by some philosophical trick of axioms or whatever. The belief in God must be chosen, or it is wrong. Basically your belief in God is the same as someone who is forced to state as objective fact that a painting is beautiful. It is not a valid belief.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

ET, please don't encourage a spiral into the gutter, that is part of trollishness. KFkairosfocus_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Why won't you just answer my question? You don't even properly understand my position, much less logically pass judgment on it. Comprehension precedes accurate logical conclusion.AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

@animated dust, That you consider subjectivity and objectivity to be a matter of English language culture, and not logic, shows your position is a shambles.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

WJM @29: greatly appreciated. M: you didn’t answer my question. Is English your first language? You are assigning a different meaning to subjective and objective than is done by nearly all. That’s why I ask. Therefore, you are accusing me of something I’m not doing.AnimatedDust_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Jack Off (nice last name BTW), Buy a vowel. I never said that you are an atheist. I said that you are ignorant. Thank you for proving that point. And I said that the people who don't believe in a Creator don't have a scientific explanation for our existence. That happens to be a fact. IOW I was responding to what YOU posted. You are an embarrassment to humans.ET_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

AD @11: Here is a variety of articles I wrote here on the subject: https://uncommondescent.com/author/william-j-murray-2/ Here is one where I gave a basic, overall outline: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/outlining-a-functional-mental-reality-theory/ I have since changed some of the terminology I use as I've refined the theory and how I describe it, such as, now I call it Idealism Reality Theory in order to better situate it, initially, against solipsistic interpretations, and I refer to the "data" now as informational potential to move it away from the idea that I'm describing some sort of computer simulation.William J Murray_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply