John could I talk to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I`m not John but try this to warm up with....

​

I see no evidence that intragalactic magenta gerbils exsist, I see no evidence that your God exists, why do you think I should believe in your God and not the aforementioned vacuum dwelling rodents?

---

you aren't john and i'm not funky, but i'd like to know something if you don't mind... i don't think i've ever actually asked this... what *do* you believe? iow, do you flat out deny God's existence or do you just say the door's open if and when you become convinced? also, do you insist on empirical evidence for something before you can believe it exists? thanks

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Now I`m sure some would term that agnosticism but personally I consider it *weak* atheism (weak in that new evidence could change my opinion)....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-14-2002]

---

ok, fair enough... so you only believe that which is, or has been, empirically verified and all else goes into your bin of disbelief... i'm not quite clear on the depth from which metaphysics has yet to be dug re: hume... before i say anything on that maybe you can flesh it out for me

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
It can be a bit hard to get a handle on Hume. One's intellect tends to revolt at the thoughts he thought. That said, Hume wrote his A Treatise of Human Nature in 1739-40, and as far as I am aware no one has been able to clean up the mess he made.

​

Imagine a TV screen and playing on it is a sitcom or National Geographic Special or whatever. For the time being, imagine that the only sense we have is that of sight. There is an image on the screen but it isn't substantial. The images are illusory flashes of light on a screen. Imagine that screen to fill your entire field of vision wrapping around on all sides. Now imagine this screen capable of producing the appearance of depth. At this point it becomes impossible to infer the existence of the television that is producing this image. It is impossible to 'go behind the scenes' and infer a substrate upon which these images play. Thus, all we have is the illusory flickering images. This is the vision Hume had. Just add that not only vision, but all of the senses included.

​

Hume then attacked causality. Look at the screen, there are no real connections between any two items any more than a billiard ball on a TV screen actually strikes another ball on that screen. We can't infer a substrate, remember. There are no identifiable connections, nothing solid upon which to pin the ideas of matter or motion or energy.

​

Hume then looked for the self. And never saw it. His thoughts turn out to be more images on the screen.

​

Have a nice day.

---

yeah i understand that part, it's just that i never really thought that his philosophy dug *that* deep a hole... do you find him to be inconsistent?... iow, don't his arguments utilize the very metaphysicality he denies? i can't quite understand how he can doubt even his own existence (maybe i'm going a little far here), being a proponent of "illusion," without that very doubt being inconsistent a la descartes

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Cogito ergo sum is a circular argument. I know you like Descartes, but he was wrong-- very very wrong.

​

Basically, HE wasn't doubting HIS existence. There is no HE to do the doubting. This is the point Hume made. The assumption that there has to be a thing that thinks or a thing that sees is unfounded. What is a thought? It is a picture or a sound which appears to be inside our heads. Just like any other image or sound. You cannot infer behind the screen to a substrate. Emotions are in the same boat.

---

i grant the circularity of descartes... however, it seems intuitively true that it requires conciousness to either affirm or deny conciousness, as it requires reason (or logic) to affirm or deny either reason or logic...i will look for it at the library when i go to get the one chara recommended... the one by frances schaffer

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i grant the circularity of descartes...

---

​

Hey!!! Progress!!!!

​

quote:

---

however, it seems intuitively true that it requires conciousness to either affirm or deny conciousness, as it requires reason (or logic) to affirm or deny either reason or logic...

---

​

Careful. This is exactly what Descartes did. Don't you just hate those intuitive truths?

​

You, like Descartes, are assuming an agent or a self, right off the bat. But where is the evidence? The more you look, the more you find images -- memories or imagination-- or sounds -- voices in you head. But no self.

​

When you 'get' Hume, your jaw will drop. I promise.

---

hey!! i've already admitted to circularity... but john, hume or no hume we can't toss out our whole packet of experiences... it comes back to what exactly can one consider evidential and how one approaches epistemology... besides, i see a healthy doss of circular logic in hume alsotake his 'on miracles' argument as an example... he seems to beg the very question when he says something like (and if i've misstated this premise, please correct me) "a miracle is a violation of natural law"... this may or may not be the case, and it may or may not be the case in *every* case, but regardless it should be discounted imo... why? because of the premise preceding "natural laws are inviolable" (again, my paraphrase)... he seems to rely on probabilities based on observance and experience while refusing to acknowledge that probabilities alone can't speak to what has (or will) occurdoes that not seem to beg the question? but more troubling to me is his reason for affirming natural law as inviolable while elsewhere attempting to show the illusionary nature of materiality... but i could have this all wrong where but in the philosophical realm would probability evidence be allowed a priori? iow, if we were putting hume's philosophy on trial, with judge and jury, what would be the verdict?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Hume didn't say we should toss out our whole packet of experience. What he said is that we've made way too much of our experience. Hume re-analized the inferences we've made from experience and concluded that most of those inferences are invalid.

---

yes but what vehicle did he use to arrive at this conclusion? it just seems to me that he argues against the same things needed to form the arguments... dunno if that makes sense

quote:

---

f:
it comes back to what exactly can one consider evidential and how one approaches epistemology...

---

quote:

---

J:
Ok. But care to elaborate?

---

i touch on this below, but "evidence" in the sense of what would be acceptable in a courtroom.. it seems that his very view of what constitutes 'knowledge' is on trial, eh?... the 'probabilities' thing below touches on this, i'll try to elaborate there

quote:

---

f:
take his 'on miracles' argument as an example...

---

quote:

---

Is this in Treatise? If so, can you tell me what chapter?

---

i'm going on memory, years-old memory lol

quote:

---

quote:

---

he seems to beg the very question when he says something like (and if i've misstated this premise, please correct me) "a miracle is a violation of natural law"...

---

​

It is hard to comment without having the context. He could be merely making a definition, or using a common definition of the time.

​

quote:

---

because of the premise preceding "natural laws are inviolable" (again, my paraphrase)...

---

​

Again, I need the context. It would be very Hume-like to pick on a particular metaphysic.

---

sorry, i wish i could help here but it's been a long time and i don't have his book here... plan on reading it again when i make it to the library

quote:

---

quote:

---

he seems to rely on probabilities based on observance and experience while refusing to acknowledge that probabilities alone can't speak to what has (or will) occur

---

​

What? I don't recall Hume ever relying on probabilities. And probabilities can't account for anything unltimately. The probability of rolling a one on a die doesn't ACCOUNT FOR the result.

---

doesn't he (again speaking of miracles) say something like (as way of example only) "Jesus rising from the dead would be a miracle... miracles are a violation of natural law... natural laws can't be violated... a dead man rising would violate a natural law, ergo Jesus did not rise from the dead".. this is based on observance and probability only (hence my use of that word) and also begs the question in a big way

quote:

---

quote:

---

f:
where but in the philosophical realm would probability evidence be allowed a priori?

---

​

Like I said, I don't recall Hume ever relying on probability.

​

quote:

---

iow, if we were putting hume's philosophy on trial, with judge and jury, what would be the verdict?

---

​

Two hundred fifty years and he is still ahead.

---

my 'probability' statements were based on the above, maybe its usage was ill-advised but i hope you see what i meant

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
doesn't he (again speaking of miracles) say something like (as way of example only) "Jesus rising from the dead would be a miracle... miracles are a violation of natural law... natural laws can't be violated... a dead man rising would violate a natural law, ergo Jesus did not rise from the dead".. this is based on observance and probability only (hence my use of that word) and also begs the question in a big way

---

​

This doesn't make sense as something Hume would have argued for the simple reason that Hume ended up denying that natural law exists.

---

i looked and the only references i could find deals with hume's Enquiry where he argues against miracles on the basis of them being incredible (in principal and in fact)... you can correct me, but the argument goes something like: now i could be all wet but that's my understanding... if he did make an argument against miracles based on natural law, while at the same time denying their existence, maybe he was just doodling out loud

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I don't know if you saw my other post asking you to elaborate on a point or not but I (or rather my wife) just thought of something interesting.

​

What is the average IQ rate for most people, lets try and think globally? I would venture to guess most of the population (again my scope is limited I don't live everywhere in every culture) is really not all that brilliant. Would you agree with that?

​

---

i have a theory... well i actually have *tons* of 'em, but one that pertains to this... the higher a person's iq (however it's measured, whatever it means), the more grace it takes to believe

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i have a theory... well i actually have *tons* of 'em, but one that pertains to this... the higher a person's iq (however it's measured, whatever it means), the more grace it takes to believe

---

​

Don't you find that to be a bit of a disturbing admission? I mean, equating high IQs with disbelief? And the converse?

---

i don't think i did that, john... see, God's grace is limitless and "where sin abounds, grace abounds the more"... and i see chara responded also, and she can tell you firsthand that i am *the* most simple person she's ever met... not dumb, exactly, but simple

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
It looks like exactly that to me, even after reading your response.

---

ok... well i didn't say it

quote:

---

f:see, God's grace is limitless and "where sin abounds, grace abounds the more"...

---

quote:

---

j:
So... are we equating high IQs with sin now? Otherwise, I can't figure out why this is relevant.

---

the higher the iq, the more likely one is to appreciate his own wisdom... that's all it means

quote:

---

f:and i see chara responded also, and she can tell you firsthand that i am *the* most simple person she's ever met... not dumb, exactly, but simple

---

quote:

---

j:
Does that mean God chose you to confound the wise?

---

God chooses lots of things for lots of reasons...edited to fix quotes[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
So, basically, what zipzip said is accurate? That makes a lot more sense. You aren't talking about IQ, but pride. Pride tends to increase with IQ, but it isn't a direct correlation.

---

yep, zip said it better than i... i was a tad cryptic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
Fools come in all shapes, sizes, and IQs. Anybody who 1) thinks they know everything 2) refuses to listen to others and discuss things and 3) thinks much more of ones own capabilities and importance than they ought is a fool. That makes everybody a little foolish. But what I think is that big fools come along just as frequently among geniuses as among idiots.

​

Arrogance is another matter for another day.

---

​

This is perhaps a testable hypothesis and there may actually be data on these characterstics. Though I doubt there would be a behavioral study comparing self impressions between geniuses and idiots, I could imagine a study of say high IQ versus average IQ people for a host of different social characteristics...anybody know if this has been done academically?

---

yes, i think someone posted such a study here not long ago

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Granted that education does not necessarily mean high IQ, but I'm willing to bet money / limbs there's a correlation.

​

PE

---

i agree...

but isn't that statement only true if your premise, "the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind" is true? in other words, isn't it only true if the material universe is all that exists?what if such a thing as metaphysical (or transcendent or supernatural) entities exist? what if there *is* a God and what if he has created us with attributes he possesses, attributes that may or may not have natural {material} explanations?fwiw, the 10 commandments don't really play a role in christianity, at least not in the christianity i practice

hi schraf,

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

forgiven:
but isn't that statement only true if your premise, "the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind" is true? in other words, isn't it only true if the material universe is all that exists?

---

The second statement doesn't follow from the first.

​

It could be true that the laws of physics could be used to explain and predict the human mind.

​

It does not follow that, therefore, the material universe is all that exists.

​

God could have created the laws of physics and set the universe in motion, but does not intervene.

---

you left out the original question concerning morality and free will, so my quote above is slightly out of context.. however, what sayeth you? is the material all that exists?