Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John could I talk to you?
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 92 (26646)
12-15-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
12-15-2002 1:23 AM


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 also
take 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) occur
does 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-15-2002 1:23 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John, posted 12-15-2002 11:28 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 92 (26648)
12-15-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by forgiven
12-15-2002 10:29 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 10:29 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 1:25 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 92 (26655)
12-15-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
12-15-2002 11:28 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 12-15-2002 11:28 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 12-15-2002 8:03 PM forgiven has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 92 (26677)
12-15-2002 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
12-14-2002 2:49 PM


quote:
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.
John would you do me a favor and give some examples to support this assertion that the old testament is just a massive race war. I may have an idea of the sorts of things you're talking about, but then I still don't see your argument. So I would apreciate some examples of what drew you to this conclusion. thanks
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 12-14-2002 2:49 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 92 (26678)
12-15-2002 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by forgiven
12-15-2002 1:25 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 1:25 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 9:22 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 92 (26682)
12-15-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John
12-15-2002 8:03 PM


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:
(i) the certainty of our belief and/or knowledge, since both are founded upon experiences, is directly proportional to the uniformity of those experiences
(ii) the affirmation of natural laws (and here i guess is where you and i have different memories, but yours is probably more correct), being established by these uniform experiences (read, observances etc), is the greatest knowledge or belief we can have
(iii) therefore proof of natural laws (as described above) is the greatest (maybe the only) proof of *anything*
from (iii) we get:
a) a miracle is a violation of natural law
b) evidence (as argued above) favoring a natural law outweighs any evidence of a miracle, since natural law is premiere
c) one measure of intelligence is ones ability to adapt beliefs to evidence
d) therefore, the more intelligent one is the more likely one is to deny the existence of miracles
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John, posted 12-15-2002 8:03 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-16-2002 12:26 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 92 (26689)
12-16-2002 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by forgiven
12-15-2002 9:22 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 9:22 PM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 3:39 AM John has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 92 (26702)
12-16-2002 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
12-16-2002 12:26 AM


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?
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-16-2002 12:26 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by joz, posted 12-16-2002 8:57 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied
 Message 26 by John, posted 12-16-2002 11:44 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 27 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-16-2002 12:26 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 29 by forgiven, posted 12-16-2002 7:00 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 92 (26718)
12-16-2002 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 3:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
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?
If certain objections are vald i.e,
quote:
From What's Wrong With Standardized Tests? | FairTest
Do IQ tests measure intelligence?
IQ tests assume that intelligence is one thing that can be easily measured and put on a scale, rather than a variety of abilities. They also assume intelligence is fixed and permanent. However, psychologists cannot agree whether there is one thing that can be called intelligence, or whether it is fixed, let alone meaningfully measure "it." Studies have shown that IQ scores can be changed by training, nutrition, or simply by having more friendly people administer the test. In reality, IQ tests are nothing more than a type of achievement test which primarily measures knowledge of standard English and exposure to the cultural experiences of middle class whites.
I`d say that most of the global population would do rather poorly....
The whole question assumes that IQ can be measured by tests that are completely objective, I personally don`t think they are.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 3:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 9:08 AM joz has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 92 (26721)
12-16-2002 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by joz
12-16-2002 8:57 AM


True maybe I should not have used IQ as the measurement system. How intelligent do you percieve the population globally?
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by joz, posted 12-16-2002 8:57 AM joz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 92 (26758)
12-16-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 3:39 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 3:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 92 (26769)
12-16-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 3:39 AM


I think the IQ scale was defined (1950s?) s.t. the average would be 100. But then, I agree with John and Joz as regards their validity, as the tests are not culturally independent (at least not the ones I've seen), and no-one quite knows what exactly its supposed to measure.
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 3:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 12-16-2002 12:40 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 92 (26776)
12-16-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Primordial Egg
12-16-2002 12:26 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-16-2002 12:26 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by graedek, posted 12-16-2002 7:22 PM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 92 (26873)
12-16-2002 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 3:39 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 3:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John, posted 12-16-2002 7:23 PM forgiven has replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 92 (26880)
12-16-2002 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by John
12-16-2002 12:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
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.

this reminds me of being 16, having just moved to the city and seeing an ad in the paper for 'free IQ testing'
Of course my buddy and i decided to check it out for fun, and scored above average. She got 135 and i 130.
We soon realized (amidst all the boasting) that it was an 'outreach' of the local scientology group
and wondered at the 'accuracy' of our test results. They tried to set up 'orientation' meetings for us as we were leaving, but we were annoyed at having been lied to from the minute we walked in about their real intentions for us.
If i was to take the same test now having not been in school for some time, i would probably score 90 or 100 (my memory isn't so tip top)
despite the learning i have done in other areas.
I was thinking that your own intelligence is defined in relation to your experiences, and changes every time you are faced with a decision.. (first and third def's below)
from prescience...
Main Entry: intelligence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions
------------------
[This message has been edited by graedek, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John, posted 12-16-2002 12:40 PM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024