John could I talk to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I`m not sure I *believe* anything, I pretty much assume a priori a material universe, as we discussed earlier nobody has yet managed to really dig metaphysics out of the hole that Hume dug, I guess you could call that a form of belief if you include tentativity in your definition....

​

Following on from this concept of the universe I assume that matter/energy and its interactions can be observed and models of how these interactions occur can be constructed....

​

All else follows....

​

As for things I have no evidence for I stick them in a holding bin of disbelief untill such a time as evidence of interstellar chartereusse rodents, semitic tribal deities etc becomes available to assess....

​

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]

---

Pretty much how I view the issue as well, with maybe a tweak or two which I'll bring up if it ever becomes important.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Let's start with your most major beef with Christianity.

---

Ok. Fair enough.My major philosophical problems with Christianity are different from the major reasons I care, so I'll start there just for clarity. I care because the dogma permiates most of the world I inhabit. For the most part, this isn't a problem. There are large portions of that dogma which are functionally necessary to a society, any society. Things like prohibitions against theft and murder, for example. The problem is that the dogma goes far beyond functionally necessary. It reaches into areas like sexual preference, family life, medicine... pretty much everywhere. It permiates the legal system in the form of, say, marriage restrictions. Christians invariable don't see this, in my experience. It also permiates the social structure at other levels. For example, it effects the funding of science. It effects the funding of arts. In effect, this equates to censorship of knowledge and speech. It can be dangerous to not be christian, or dangerous to violate christian principles. It can be dangeous, even, to be the wrong kind of christian, just read some history. On the subject of reaching far beyond functional necessity, the OT can be and has been used to justify all manner of things. You likely don't want to admit it, but slavery is condoned. Instructions are given as to how badly one can beat a slave. Instructions are given as to how to sell your daughters. Racism is condoned. The sum total of the OT is an account of a massive race war. I think the religion promotes warped values such as blind faith and a perverse ethnocentrism. It takes the responsibilty for ones actions off of the individual and places it on GOD or the devil-- holy war or demonic intervention.Anyway, that should give you something to chew on. I know that your first objection is going to be that I can't blame the religion for the actions of the people, so you might as well go ahead make your case.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
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

---

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. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
yeah i understand that part, it's just that i never really thought that his philosophy dug *that* deep a hole...

---

Then you aren't getting it, no offense. Hume's Treatise is a huge book and honestly, it is about ten times longer than it has to be. But Hume was smart enough to know how people would react, so he wrote case after case after case to illustrate his point. He took every angle he could think of taking. You really should read the book.

quote:

---

do you find him to be inconsistent?...

---

He made some errors in Treatise, but none that are critical. Actually, I think he wasn't as radical as his premises demand.

quote:

---

iow, don't his arguments utilize the very metaphysicality he denies?

---

The only snag I see is that Hume was logical, and it can be argued that logic is derived from the idea of causality, which Hume undermined. Thus, the argument defeats itself. It is internally inconsistent.The other side of the coin is that Hume perhaps wasn't reasoning, just looking.

quote:

---

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

---

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.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
but john, hume or no hume we can't toss out our whole packet of experiences...

---

As I said in the beginning, the intellect revolts at the thoughts Hume thought.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.

quote:

---

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

---

Ok. But care to elaborate?

quote:

---

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

---

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

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.

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.

quote:

---

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. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
yes but what vehicle did he use to arrive at this conclusion?

---

Perception.

quote:

---

it just seems to me that he argues against the same things needed to form the arguments... dunno if that makes sense

---

I assume that what you refer to here is the logic, or reason the Hume used. If logic is said to be derived from perceived causality, as I think it is, BTW, then Hume may have a problem. But it doesn't help the metaphysical state of affairs.

quote:

---

i touch on this below, but "evidence" in the sense of what would be acceptable in a courtroom..

---

The rules of evidence used in a courtroom don't apply to most other area. The rules of evidence are strongly weighted for the defendant in order to prevent the imprisonment of the innocent.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, keep me posted. If you find the argument, or feel you can make one you wish to discuss, let me know.

quote:

---

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.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
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

---

I think this is tied into moral philosophy. Hume concluded that we could know nothing physical with certainty. He had, however, what I consider a peculiar opinion of morals. My hastily constructed nutshell synopsis is that morals aren't really a problem because, well, they are all our opinion anyway. They are all made up. Our consensus is all that is required. I found a copy of Enquiry online, but haven't had a chance to read it-- don't remember if I've read it before or not.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
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?

---

Yup. Most people are average... duh!!! I do agree with joz though, that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
and no-one quite knows what exactly its supposed to measure.

---

It seems to me that they measure one's exposure to facts and ideas, and the quality of one's memory. I'm sure both are factors in intelligence but the two are not sufficient as a measure of intelligence.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]

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?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i don't think i did that, john...

---

It looks like exactly that to me, even after reading your response.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Does that mean God chose you to confound the wise?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
ok... well i didn't say it

---

Hey, chill man. Just trying to figure out what you did say.

quote:

---

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

---

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.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

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

---

​

I disagree. I have met far more arrogant idiots than I have arrogant intelligent people.

---

I have to agree.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I'd have to disagree, I'd say it's just about even both ways. I think most of us are too arrogant to see our own arrogance. Intelligence aside.

---

No way man. I quite see my arrogance. Maybe it works like insanity? If you think you are insane, you're not?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]