Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

[L&FP 39:] Implication logic is pivotal to understanding how we think as duty-bound rational creatures

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In recent months we have had several forum threads, which naturally tend to throw up onward topics worth headlining. Here, I will headline some observations on implication logic in deductive and in inductive reasoning.

However, first, the core of the logic of implication.

Implication Truth Table, notice how the only case where the implication is not true is if p is true and q false (HT Wiki)

Algebraically, p => q is analysed as ~[p AND ~q]. Interpreted, for whatever reason, p being so is sufficient for q to also be so. This compound proposition does NOT assert that p, only that p is sufficient for q. Similarly, q is NECESSARY for p, i.e. if q can be false and p true, q is not implied by p.

As a bare structure, this is termed material implication, fleshing out the why of the implication brings in issues of cause, logic of being, mathematical relations, semantics, imposed conditions in a process flow etc.

As a subtlety, if we apply this structure to the classic syllogism,

A: Socrates is a man
B: Men are mortal
_____________________
C: Socrates is mortal

. . . we will see that p = [A AND B] with p => q entails that

[A => q and/or B => q ]

It turns out, yes. The propositions in the syllogism overlap and interact, one draws out and applies a meaning implicit in the other. The set, men is a subset of the set, mortals. That Socrates is a man only stipulates that Socrates is a member of that subset of mortals. Socrates is a man is sufficient for his mortality, and Men are mortal is sufficient for any particular case of man to be mortal. Syllogisms and implications interact in unexpected ways, sometimes. But that is where insights surface.

Yes, too, a similar analysis can be done on the truth table equivalent form, ~p AND/OR q; as is shown. (I here emphasise the inclusive or rather than the exclusive one [XOR], vel not aut as Latin distinguishes.)

The second form surfaces a hidden property, the principle of explosion.

A false antecedent, p, can and does often entail a true consequent q; however it is also prone to imply false ones. A true antecedent will only imply true consequents. That is a key property, truth preservation. Also, this is where ex falso quodlibet comes from: when p is [x AND ~x], it materially entails anything, becoming an expression of meaninglessness. That said, in modelling we often pose a “simplified” antecedent to derive correct results in a tested zone of reliability.

That becomes important in science and engineering. In the latter as models are a major design technique. In science as we see that hypotheses and theories are not shown to be strictly true by predictive success, only to be empirically reliable in a given domain of successful testing. Our confidence in theories ought to be tempered by the concept that a scientific law, hypothesis or theory boils down to being at best an empirically reliable, possibly true model. Sometimes, not even that. (The pessimistic induction that across times many grand theories generally taken as true failed empirically, beckons.)

With that in mind, we now may clip our comment of interest, to see how implication works out on the ground so to speak. Here, I assert that “[t]he role of implication logic is central, both as proof structure and explanation structure.” Expanding:

[Law/Duty thread, 1184;] Where, p => q, we are often tempted to reason
p => q but I reject q, so I reject p,
however, when p is self-evident, that rejection clings to absurdity:
I reject p, but p is self evident means ~p is absurd [in various ways]

However, we can arbitrarily redefine terms, manipulate opinion, play lawfare, build up corrupted systems and the like to support ~p, especially when entrenched interests and ideological agendas are at stake. History since 1789 and especially from 1917 speaks on this in rivers of blood and tears.

Such leads to a breakdown of rationality, organisations, societies and more.

Likewise, where q is a composite of observations o1, o2 . . . on
We may ask, which p currently best explains such of p1, p2 . . . pm
At an earlier stage, we may examine the set of observations to sketch out possible explanations.

This is abductive reasoning, a key form of modern sense inductive logic.

We propose criteria of ranking, typically tied to factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power [ elegantly simple, not simplistic or ad hoc]

This introduces issues of discernment and judgement as is typical of inductive reasoning

In this process, self evident first principles and duties are involved but are not generally sufficient to determine the overall decision. Prudence becomes pivotal and so the habitual discipline to build it up is vital to intellectual thriving.

Factual adequacy is an appeal to truth [and, when is a claimed fact so is material].

Coherence is an appeal to right reason and principles of logic including distinct identity and close corollaries non contradiction and excluded middle.

Explanatory balance involves discernment and the whole involves prudence including the judgement when a conclusion is well warranted.

So, when such are systematically undermined in a culture, the ability to think reliably and soundly is undermined.

For practical import, look all around.

We now see how first duties of reason pervade real world rational inference. First, in logic of implication, with p as a self-evident truth as a key special case. If you doubt the reality of self-evidence, let me add a further clip to show by example that self-evident truths do exist:

[Laws/duties, 1172:] 1] || + ||| –> |||||, symbolically, 2 + 3 = 5; undeniable on pain of absurdity and demonstrating that the class is non-empty. Split your fingers into a two set and a three set, join them as a five set.

2] The Josiah Royce proposition: E – error exists. This is manifestly familiar from sums exercises with red X’s. But it is not just a massively empirically supported truth and one that is a general consensus. It is undeniable. Let the denial be ~E. Already to assert ~E entails, it would be an error to assert E. So, undeniably, E. E is true, undeniably, necessarily, self evidently true. It is also warranted to incorrigible certainty. It is empirically discoverable and a widespread consensus. It is known truth. Accordingly, general skepticism denying possibility of knowledge, fails. So do radical relativism and subjectivism, which deny the possibility of objectively warranted and undeniably demonstrated knowledge.

3] Moral case study and yardstick I: it is self evidently wrong, willfully wicked, inherently criminal and evil to kidnap, bind, sexually torture and murder a young child for one’s pleasure. Those who deny or dismiss or evade this do not overthrow the truth, they simply reveal their absurdities or worse. This also shows that the weak and inarticulate have rights and are owed justice. Might does not make right, manipulation does not make rights out of thin air.

Next, in abductive form inductive reasoning. The evaluation of which candidate explanation best accounts for empirical observations draws on appeals to first duties of reason even more intensely than deductive forms that rely on our implicitly accepted duties to truth and rationality, prudence and so too warrant.

Yes, things are that dire. We need to go back to and start afresh from clarifying ABC first principles to sort out where we are; when as a civilisation we ought instead to have long since been a shining example and teacher to the world. END

PS: Just to make it crystal clear where this leads, first the plumb line test:

So, too, for example, we see the first truths of logic:

And, here are more, set in the context of first duties of reason . . . unlike a computer or a rock, we can choose to disregard logic, truth, prudence etc:

Inescapable? The objector, to gain rhetorical traction invariably appeals to our implicit recognition of the first duties, and the one who tries to prove them does so too. These are therefore first duties that pervade reasoning and by and large move us to acknowledge them (save when it is too inconvenient).

Comments
SA, we are looking in the context of serious candidate worldview options. Matters of evidence obtain and certain things are off the table. I emphasised the main matters in a western context, where pantheism and/or panentheism are not primary. However, monisms struggle with the one and the many and that comes out on grounding the good in distinction to evil. Here, deism is a variant form of theism. The inherently good, utterly wise eternal [as, necessary being] source and sustainer of a contingent world with a widely acknowledged start time, is credibly a personal agent, one quite close to the God recognised by the monotheistic traditions. This becomes particularly clear if one goes on to discuss a maximally great being. However, by and large worldviews analysis is not a theological exercise though it may point to and support such. KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
KF
SA, that everything derives being from and is sustained by God as eternal root with utter wisdom does not lead to the idea that the world we find ourselves embodied and participating in is dubious, or even delusional. It does not support the view that our minds, senses and general frame of knowledge fundamentally mislead us in our understanding of ourselves and our world.
Yes, exactly. My view is that once we speak of God as a part of our theory - or actually, even when we omit God from a theory that requires a reference to Him - then we're talking about theology, and therefore religion has an essential role to play. Because when we have God involved (and I've noted references to "the mind of God") then we're talking about the attributes of God, the purposes of God, the creative power (or not) of God, and the overall nature of God. If we're not talking about God, but some kind of "mind" - this is different. There is pantheism or deism that are possibilities. But in all of these cases, we have to look at religion and the religious culture of humanity. Some analysis of revealed teachings through prophets is a necessary part of this. So, an analysis of God (even speaking of "the mind of God") is not solely (or even) a question of science.
Once that sort of notion is admitted, it corrodes the basic credibility of reason, ability to perceive accurately and to know credibly. Down that road lies utter incoherent absurdity.
Right, because to hold that there is "a mind" (among many) that exists independently and from which all reality emerges, this notion competes with the idea of God, and if held in opposition to God, will lead to absurdity. The idea that God creates and "holds all in existence" is the foundation for rational thought, because "the mind of God" is that of reason itself and the perfection of all intellectual virtues. We know that only slightly from philosophy but more clearly from Christian theology.
As a general rule, any scheme of thought that creates radical general doubt or — and this is inclusive — outright declared grand delusion affecting any major aspect of our conscious self-awarenes or awareness of embodiment or awareness of a world in which we live and act as embodied creatures can be considered utterly absurd and anti-rational then set aside.
That's a significant point. One should not be ready to discard the received wisdom and knowledge of human heritage by universalizing the results of scientific experiments (the extension of which remains unknown). And as you say, that which contributes doubt only attacks reason and rationality itself -- thus unraveling science and the possibility of true knowledge.
Where, yes, this specifically includes maya, any Plato’s cave world or a matrix type world or last-week-thursdayism etc. Their name, for cause, is Legion. Kindly, apply the would you buy a used car from someone who argues like that common good sense principle.
The common sense principle would say (I think) that any kind of monism is self-refuting since reason requires comparison and contrast. With a monistic system (all is mind) there can be nothing to compare with. The second common sense view is that any worldview that must hold that the majority (if not virtually all) of human experience, knowledge and common sense itself is "an illusion" is a problem. It's common sense to know the difference between what is real and what is a human thought or imagination. To insist that both are the same really does lead to insanity and absurdity.Silver Asiatic
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
WJM
They actually represent an enormous number of very different ideas.
You seem to be taking a contentious approach as if there was one, settled idea on this. Given the "enormous" number of different (conflicting) ideas can we question the level of absolute certainty you seem to be giving to the concept? I wouldn't call holding one of an enormous number of conflicting ideas something that should be understood as "obvious". That is, perhaps your task will be to have to repeat again and again, your own idiosyncratic notions for people who don't know what you believe or why. It's different for a person, for example, who says they hold classical Christian theism. Yes, in that case, most of it is "the obvious". But if it's a question of one's own personalized view, I think some patience is required when explaining or convincing people in what exactly that is, and why one should accept it as you do (given an enormous number of people who believe something like you hold conflicting views). True?Silver Asiatic
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
KM @226: And yet, here you are, talking about "root reality" as if you know enough about it to dismiss what other people say about it as being "humorous."William J Murray
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
SA, that everything derives being from and is sustained by God as eternal root with utter wisdom does not lead to the idea that the world we find ourselves embodied and participating in is dubious, or even delusional. It does not support the view that our minds, senses and general frame of knowledge fundamentally mislead us in our understanding of ourselves and our world. Once that sort of notion is admitted, it corrodes the basic credibility of reason, ability to perceive accurately and to know credibly. Down that road lies utter incoherent absurdity. And that one may not perceive or denies that consequence makes not 2c worth of difference to the result. As a general rule, any scheme of thought that creates radical general doubt or -- and this is inclusive -- outright declared grand delusion affecting any major aspect of our conscious self-awarenes or awareness of embodiment or awareness of a world in which we live and act as embodied creatures can be considered utterly absurd and anti-rational then set aside. Where, yes, this specifically includes maya, any Plato's cave world or a matrix type world or last-week-thursdayism etc. Their name, for cause, is Legion. Kindly, apply the would you buy a used car from someone who argues like that common good sense principle. KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
KM, actually, R & B can be readily described in words [with help of numbers tied to frequencies and energy levels. Blues are spectral colours corresponding to ~ 450 - 485 nm, or 2.64 - 2.75 eV. Reds, similarly, to 625 - 740 nm and 1.65 - 2.00 eV. So, we can conceptually, quantitatively describe red vs blue. Building thereon, we can work out that we are contingent, minded creatures in a contingent world that appears to have had a beginning ~ 14 BYA, pointing onward to causal roots. Once we recognise the span of hyperreals, R* we can readily see that stepwise, finite stage causal temporal succession cannot complete a transfinite span across the past to now. That points to a finitely remote, causally adequate world root. Such, can then be assessed on logic of being, as necessary being [as, transfinite succession fails and were there ever utter non-being such would forever obtain i.e. there would be no world] . Necessary being is eternal and part of the framework for any world to be. our world shows strong fine tuning pointing to intelligent design towards life. That points to mind at the root. Life exhibits coded algorithmic information, so pointing to language using purposeful intelligence, i.e. agency. Our particular life is morally governed [even in arguments that object] pointing to a requirement that the root be able to sustain the terrible weight of ought. That is best explained on inherent goodness and utter wisdom. So, we see in ontological-metaphysical outline, a necessary being world root, with language-using, purposeful intelligent agency, with inherent goodness and utter wisdom as source and sustainer of our cosmos and any other possible or actual contingent world. I suggest that these are well worth the saying, hard-won and bought at high cost of sustained intense world class reasoning across 3000+ years of the life of the mind in civilisation. KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
Whatever the Root Reality is, it's humorous to see people talking about "it" as if they know anything worth saying. Shucks, people can't even describe in words the difference between blue and red. And yet think they have something worthwhile to say about Ultimate Reality. :DKaren McMannus
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
SA said:
Those are two, potentially, very different ideas.
They actually represent an enormous number of very different ideas. My concept of universal mind is one of them. At some point, maybe we can move beyond stating the obvious.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
WJM
We exist entirely within universal mind (or the mind of God,)
Those are two, potentially, very different ideas. If you believe the one (the mind of God), that view requires a lot of knowledge about God. In the classical view, God is a perfect union of being, knowledge (intellect) and will. The physical universe is a created world existing in God. The other view, that there's a "universal mind" out there, leaves a lot of questions unanswered (why is this mind not God?, how is it different? where did it come from? )Silver Asiatic
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
KF
God is omnipresent in reality and upholds it from moment to moment by his rationally manifest power. They also will accept that we are embodied in a world that is independent of our minds and act in that world as rational, responsible creatures. That is, such accept the general veridicality of our common physical world.
That's the standard view from ancient Christian theology. As such, it requires an understanding of the nature of God and His attributes. That God created a physical world, and at the same time, holds, maintains, preserves, 'energizes' that world continually (from His Being, not just His mind) is not inconsistent with the idea that "everything exists in mind", but it's a more comprehensive view since it speaks directly of God as "the mind" from which everything comes.Silver Asiatic
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
More on verdical knowledge: It is literally impossible to gain verdical knowledge about the existential state of something proposed to exist outside of mind. The only thing we can possibly obtain verdical knowledge about are mental states (mental experiences, mental phenomena) because that is the only kind of thing we have any direct access to. This is why many of the big quantum physicists have said that consciousness - the observer, or the experiencer - is a necessary, fundamental aspect of any comprehensive theory of physics, because the state-qualities of the fundamental qualities of the physical world are observer-dependent. IOW, it is our experience of those states that we are measuring, not the "thing" in and of itself. It is a tortured model that tries to keep separate the physical world and our physical-world experience. Quantum physics has shown that "the physical world" is our physical world experience; it has shown that a supposed "physical world" does not, and cannot, cause our physical experience because there is no "local reality" there "before" the experience that could cause it. There is only abstract information in the form of probability potential. Information and probability potentials can only exist in mind. They have found that there is no material substrate there for that information to be instantiated upon. There is no "energy" there because "energy" is a model of behaviors and/or potential behaviors. Models do not cause the behaviors they model. It's all abstract information being processed by mind into experience, and we are measuring the qualities of that experience. I don't know how this can be more clearly evidenced and supported than it already has been via quantum experimentation. We exist entirely within universal mind (or the mind of God,) this physical world experience running according to abstract rules and laws that separate and govern our experiences and provide for our capacity to exist and operate as individual, rational entities in a discoverable, knowledge-available set of mutually consistent experiences. There's no logical reason to keep insisting there exists a world beyond that, especially in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
WJM, the concern remains; there seems to be a case of a little error at the beginning. Enough has been noted for record.
And that's the problem, apparently. You're more interested in writing stuff "for the record" instead of making good faith attempts to engage and understand in a manner that might clear things up for the principles involved in the discussion.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Let's talk about "verdical" knowledge, KF. Do you have trouble acquiring verdical knowledge about entirely mental phenomena, such as knowing the difference between a memory and imaginative fantasy? How about mental equations you conduct in your mind; do you doubt you are obtaining verdical knowledge about the correct answer to that equation? How about when you are working out a logic problem. Do you have trouble discerning the correct answer from incorrect answers? Do you get your internal sense of self mixed up with the memory of other people, or people you imagine? Verdical knowledge about entirely mental experiences can be acquired using the mental facilities we recognize as tools of acquiring knowledge and applying them to easily distinguished categories of mental experience and phenomena. We couldn't function as rational beings otherwise, regardless of the other qualities of the nature of our existence, regardless of whether or not a world external of mind exists. Your claim of loss of the capacity to acquire verdical knowledge of the physical world unless that world exists external of mind is bogus.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
WJM, the concern remains; there seems to be a case of a little error at the beginning. Enough has been noted for record. KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Your difficulty, KF, is due to your vague concept of "mind." MRT has a very detailed, sophisticated and specified organization and classification system of mind with distinct parts, categories, and processes. You're referring to it as if it's some homogenous bag of non-distinct gas. That's why I advised you to try and understand more about the theory before you try to raise objections to it. But, you do you.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
KF, You don't know what you're talking about. You're conflating "mind" with "individual mind." So what if everything exists in universal mind? There is no more concern with a loss of rational distinction between self and other than accepting that our physical body is integrated in and part of the physical world. I have no trouble distinguishing my physical body from the rest of the physical world. Do you?William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
WJM, But I did, using your own words; reducing external reality to "theory" is longstanding and it is further underscored by your comment in 191 on “any supposed domain exterior to mind.”* That is enough for my concerns to be highly relevant. KF *PS: Even this phrase is further loaded, any number of theists will accept that in him we live, move and have our being, i.e. God is omnipresent in reality and upholds it from moment to moment by his rationally manifest power. They also will accept that we are embodied in a world that is independent of our minds and act in that world as rational, responsible creatures. That is, such accept the general veridicality of our common physical world.kairosfocus
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Since KF seems unwilling to specify claims of MRT his "rational worldview" template holds as problematic, I just shoot some that may or not be approximations of what may be seen as problems under that template. 1. MRT denies that there are independent, autonomous "selves." No, it does not. 2. MRT denies that those selves are physically embodied No, it does not. 3. MRT denies that a physical world extends beyond the embodied self. No, it does not. 4. MRT denies one can obtain verdical knowledge about their embodiment and/or the extended physical world. No, it does not. MRT doesn't deny any of those things. What MRT does is conceptually re-organize how and where those things occur. This is no more "dangerous" to rationality than the transition from a Ptolemaic cosmology to the Copernican, or from Newtonian physics to General Relativity to quantum. All of the necessary qualities and principles are still intact, just conceptually reorganized in terms of how and where they occur/exist.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
KF, I'll take that as your admission that you refuse to identify one specific claim of MRT as problematic, and specifically state what part of your "rational worldview" template it conflicts with and how.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
WJM, notice, I have not denied distinct identity but have pointed out that once corrosive doubt is brought in on any major facet of conscious awareness, it extends to conscious awareness so becomes self-referential across the board including on our supposed awareness of reasoning. Hence, why from 8 above I highlighted Reidian common sense. KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
WJM, your opening sentence just now reflects refusal to engage specific responses to your actual quoted claims, including that you clearly suggest that you doubt the veridicality of our sense of being embodied participants in a wider physical world. But that is enough record to show that there is reason to hold that your system does entail radical doubt and/or grand delusion, leading to the concerns on self referentiality as long since noted. Actually, denoting external reality as a theory rather than a general fact of experience was already a sign of that. And, obviously it has been subtler than direct denial all along, the approach has been by way of doubts and suggested ugly gulches. External reality becomes a "theory" and in 191, you now suggest that we are discussing "any supposed domain exterior to mind." That indicates that the door is opened to monism of mind as sole substance of reality, thence the self referentiality regarding veridicality of conscious awareness as noted. Once that general credibility is undermined, the avalanche sweeps all in its path, including awareness of supposed rational thought. KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
I'm going to point out a very blatant flaw in what you said here:
1: I of course remarked that there is no firewall between the contents of our conscious experience of being aware of self, being aware of self as embodied and being aware of embodied self as in a physical world that extends far beyond our own bodies.
If there was no firewall of some sort between those three things, you wouldn't be able to identify them as distinct and separate things.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
No, KF, I"m not going to wade through you copy-paste regurgitations. This is what I asked for: (1) State your understanding of one relevant MRT claim (2) State which specific aspect of your “formula” of what is necessary for a rational, non-self-referentially absurd, non-delusional worldview it violates. (3) Explain how that specific claim of MRT violates that necessary element. Until you do this, I'll assume you're not being serious here. Here's an example: 1. MRT denies that we are embodied. 2. A rational worldview requires that we accept that we accept this embodiment as real. 3. Therefore, MRT cannot be a rational worldview. If the above is correct, let me know. Or, use your own.William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
WJM, I first note that I long since took time to address one of your main presentations, point by point, see here. Let me clip from above and further comment briefly, for record: 191: >>The only “firewall” we can possibly have against delusion is the capacity to internally discern between categories of mental experience,>> 1: I of course remarked that there is no firewall between the contents of our conscious experience of being aware of self, being aware of self as embodied and being aware of embodied self as in a physical world that extends far beyond our own bodies. 2: My further point was general and is general, that any system of thought that puts any or all of these major awarenesses in general doubt or delusional, therefore undermines the credibility of conscious awareness as well as its contents. 3: Such would include awareness of reasoning and seeming results of reasoning. Which becomes fatally self-referential. 4: Where, we must make a Reidian distinction between limitations and errors in detail, which can be corrected through the wider system and reduction to discredit on the whole, which undermines even rational thought so correction itself falls under suspicion. 5: Dismissal or skeptical doubt on the general reliability of our conscious awareness and what it presents is self-defeating. >>because all experience is necessarily mental in nature.>> 6: Which, is to be distinguished from being solely mental in nature. 7: Conscious experience and awareness embrace our inner lives, our embodiment and our presence and participation in the world, C: (I UNION We). So, given the problem of self-defeat of rationality once grand doubt or delusion are entertained, it is common good sense to take the three-fold awareness as on the whole veridical albeit prone to limitations and errors in detail. >>You can imagine that some “hardware” firewall exists external of mind,>> 8: I asserted the opposite, that there is no firewall in our awareness C:(I UNION We) so it is unwise to generally doubt any major aspect of the whole. >> but that “hardware firewall” is forever unavailable to us to examine for fidelity,>> 9: ECF, the assessment is, once we have any main component of C:(I UNION We) in doubt or dismissed as generally delusional, that spreads to the whole as there is no partition or firewall to prevent that. 10: If I doubt consciousness as say Crick and Rosenberg have, that is fatal. If I doubt the self and its rationality (e.g. am I a man dreaming he is a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he is a man, to quote Carradine's character in Kung Fu from my childhood) that is fatal. If I doubt the external world or ability to significantly veridically access it -- Kantian ugly gulch thinking -- that too is fatal. 11: From your reaction, it seems fair to infer that the scheme you have advanced doubts accessibility and/or veridicality of We as presented to us through C:, so also embodiment. >> as is the domain it is supposed to be processing into mentally-accessible information.>> 12: This seems to support my inference at 11. >> The only “fidelity” we can actually examine is the fidelity of comparative mental experiences, (1) between experiencers, and (2) to the characteristics of that category of experiences. >> 13: At one level, obviously consciousness is a mental process, however, that process presents a sense of embodied self active in a physical world that we sense in multiple ways. It is a wholly other step, then, to suggest or invite that conscious awareness is solely mental, i.e. to open up radical doubt regarding embodiment and/or participation in a wider physical world. 14: That radical doubt opens up the grand delusion issue and becomes fatally self-referential. We are back at F H Bradley's concern on appearance vs reality, which can be extended to awareness of the conscious self C:, awareness that the conscious self presents itself as embodied, awareness that the conscious embodied self participates in a similarly physical world with various other bodies in a temporal-causal, spatial domain. 15: Common sense, instead, is to accept the general validity of such awarenes, and of its contents subject to limitations and errors in detail. >>ERT requires MRT or else it cannot even get off the ground.>> 16: That consciousness is mental is not in serious doubt, that conscious awareness and its contents are in grand radical doubt or delusion on lines of Plato's cave of shadow shows is. >>ERT requires>> 17: Your chosen contrast, the "theory" that there is an external reality, by its very phrasing, supports the inference that you are putting up a monism of mind as sole substance of reality, implying or inviting at minimum the onward inference that seeming embodiment and participation in a wider physical world are not veridical. >>requires both mental categorical and mental interpersonal fidelity and sound mental firewalls between categories of mental experience>> 18: No one seriously disputes that abstracta can hold distinct identity. 19: If embodiment is in doubt, other seemingly mentally functional bodies as part of the wider world would be in doubt. The grand doubt/delusion cascade proceeds apace in an avalanche. >>or else it has no significant foundation to even make claims about any supposed domain exterior to mind.>> 20: No one disputes that mindedness makes distinctions. 21: Your phrase as highlighted -- especially "supposed" -- strongly supports that your doubt is focussed on We therefore on bodily embodiment of the self. If one's awareness of a wider world and of one's embodiment therein are in radical doubt, then we have doubts on the right function of conscious self awareness, a general breakdown. 22: The common sense alternative is clear, accept limitations and potential for error, reject grand radical doubt or delusion. KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
SA said:
There’s no way to prove that our mind is active in every aspect of life experience.
If mind (as defined in my previous comment as observational awareness) isn't active, there is no experience. MRT accounts for other states of consciousness as well, including the subconscious and what we call the unconscious (unconscious still being a state of consciousness.)William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
SA said:
If everything only occurred in our mind, then we would only have one thing – thus, rationality would be impossible. We would have only ourself, talking with oourself.
You don't know enough about MRT to properly assess it or make objections, as evidenced by your objection here. When I refer to mind, I'm not referring to "my mind" or "your mind" or any individual mind; I'm referring to universal mind. Under MRT, there are other individuals, other selfs with free will that have localized individuality and autonomy. There are also different categories of mental phenomena with different characteristics that can easily be discerned from each other. If you shut what we call the mind off (not the body or brain; the loci of observational awareness, some might call it the soul or spirit; even in a dream, our experiences still occur there) then we have no experiences. Therefore, "all experience occurs in the mind" regardless of where that information comes from. We don't even theoretically, under ERT (external of mind reality theory,) experience the "external of mind world" at our sensory ends - fingertips, eyes, ears - because that information is supposedly being gathered and sent to our brain/mind, which then processes it into a high-fidelity mental, experiential simulation of the external world. I'd be happy to explain further if you're interested. MRT just disposes of what is an entirely unnecessary domain for this experience to occur; a physical reality external of mind (universal mind).William J Murray
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
As for "experiences only occur in our mind", it is our mind that tells us that. That view assigns "mind" to every aspect of human life, but we do not know that necessarily. A human person is body, mind, soul, emotions, memory, imagination. Can we experience something mindlessly - as in a bodily experience? There's no way to prove that our mind is active in every aspect of life experience.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2021
April
04
Apr
15
15
2021
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
WJM
No matter how you word your ERT worldview, you cannot escape the self-evident truth that no matter where the information for our experiences comes from, all experiences occur in mind.
I haven't followed this, but just from my own philosophical perspective - I think that view is not reasonable. I think KF has shown elsewhere in one of his diagrams, that in order to have any kind of rational thought, there must be at least two things. Rationality is the comparison of things. If everything only occurred in our mind, then we would only have one thing - thus, rationality would be impossible. We would have only ourself, talking with ourself. Our self-evident experience is that there is something "out there" - something external. That is why we communicate our thoughts to others. That is why we take time to receive thoughts from others. That is the baseline. To disagree with that is to render everything outside of the mind as non-real or illusory. But again, this is the kind of materialistic (not assigning that to your view but comparing) monism and is irrational. A mind cannot know anything if it only has itself. We know what "external to mind" means because that is how we learn and that is how we experience. We know what an illusion is because we know how that is different from what is real. We know what the truth is in comparison to the false. We know what "occur in mind" means because we know what "outside of mind means", and we know that because we experience it. Thus, in order to be rational, we must accept that the mind points to something outside of itself. We could object to this, but that destroys the reasoning-process. So, we want to be rational and thus accept that there is a world "outside of the mind" from which we receive thoughts of other people and we learn by experiences and the objects around us. Trying to cogitate without any object to think about is impossible.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2021
April
04
Apr
15
15
2021
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
I'll make it easier for you, KF, by telling you how to do it. (1) State your understanding of one relevant MRT claim (2) State which specific aspect of your "formula" of what is necessary for a rational, non-self-referentially absurd, non-delusional worldview it violates. (3) Explain how that specific claim of MRT violates that necessary element.William J Murray
April 15, 2021
April
04
Apr
15
15
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
WJM, I will further respond to you later, DV. I have headlined some thoughts that for cause I believe will help us to move forward as a civilisation beyond being bedevilled by hyperskepticism thence subjectivism, relativism, emotivism and deeply polarised politicisation that point to breakdown and severe loss of liberty. These are not mere academic points of the ilk of what is the difference between location and extension aka how many angels can dance on the head or tip of a pin. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2021
April
04
Apr
15
15
2021
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply