MTG Salvation

You have to trust one over the other.

If we are agreeing to use logic, then we must follow the Law of Non-Contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
This is not to say you should never trust the other one, but it is to say when they fall in opposition, you have to trust one over the other.

If your thoughts and the scientific method are at odds, logically you must believe one over the other. Thus, they can't both be axiomatic.

Quote from DJK3654 »

The point of my argument is to justify the selection of axioms

Then we have to regress back to step 0: Agree on definitions.
Because, "An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."[1] is how I define the word 'axiom.'

Quote from Taylor »

So, -I'll stop wasting both our time- and not.

Naaahhh, changed my mind. I hate giving up on people, and I think -rereading that last bit in post #143- we are making progress.

But, in order to continue at all, we have to agree to go back on things we have earlier claimed. Indeed, we have to reevaluate based on new information, thoughts, and ideas. This should not be seen as a weakness, but as a strength. A stubborn adherence to dogma should be seen as a weakness, not changing one's mind when given new information. Moving forward, I will demonstrate good faith by doing it first. I will go back on my statement to not rebuttal. I do this because I want to help you understand. But -in saying that- I know I've put myself in an adversarial position, and -in doing so- have made you less inclined to see what I'm trying to say.

So, again, in good faith -and in the spirit of moving forward- I will ask you to accept my apology for being a dick.

Quote from DJK3654 »

And you have no definite understanding of reality, and therefore could be wrong about virtually anything. You assume reason, logic and investigation, you assume science, by your admission, out of faith, and therefore your opinion is nothing more than a opinion and has no shred of objective strength. All of your statements become greatly subjective in the absolute, and can be ignored by dismissing reason itself without justification because you assume it without justification. I could, just as fairly as you do put faith in science, put faith in me always being right- 'therefore, I win'. That's essentially the position you're coming from, one that is not based on argument. If you'd like to justify belief in science, reason and logic, go ahead, but until you provide a through justification, it's hypocritical of you to say that my opinions can be easily ignored.
I like how you continue to ignore my criticisms of your position and yet you have no problem criticising mine, quite aggressively, despite my request that you do both in the light of the thread being a general one on knowledge specifically as it relates, and not about the position I am advocating. If you don't respond to this quite reasonable request by at least acknowledging it, I'm going to start ignoring you.

Part if this is part of what you'll have to take back if you do genuinely wish to move forward. Yet, it's not as self-contradictory as some of the other stuff you've said so far.

You can, as you say, "deny logic and reason." There is no 'rule' against doing so. But, if you do, the discussion is stillborn. We need logic and reason for the same reason we need a common language: To communicate at all. This is leading us to the first step in any discussion: Agreed upon definitions.

We have to agree on something, like -for example- that the English letters 't' 'r' 'u' 'e' when put together in that order means 'true,' which represents something other than the darkened pixels you are looking at. This is something we do without really thinking about it, agree on definitions, but it's still something we have to do.

Quote from DJK3654 »

I can make claims, as long as those claims are relative. 'It seems to be true that it seems to be true that it seems to...' is no less valid of an argument than 'it is true that it is true that it is true that it...'. By their very nature, justifications are regressive. In both cases, the regress is self-forming by the establishment of earlier repetitions implying the later. The form of 'seems to be' is merely weaker and requires a more elaborate reasoning to support than the simple 'truth' version.

Here we run headlong into the Münchhausen-Trilemma. I really do recommend you taking a look at it's wiki page if you get a chance. Because, the trilemma more or less states part of what you attempt here.

If we can agree on definitions, the next step to having a sensible discussion is agreeing on a starting point. Yet, the 'starting point' is really what a debate on 'faith' is all about, which is why we have been running into problems at this step. Since this step is literally the second thing you MUST do before having a sensible discussion, we've not been getting very far.

This 'where to start' has been the sticking point for this thread. In the above quote, you use a regressive argument as a starting point (one of the 3 from the trillama). A regressive argument -as you seem to be realizing- normally presents a problem as a starting point. Of the 3 in the trillama, people normally use an axiomatic argument as their starting point.

They agree on 'assumed truths' in order to have a sensible discussion. Like agreeing on definitions, people normally do this without thinking. This can often cause problems because people can have different 'assumed truths.' This happens often when people have different mindsets and results in people 'talking past each other.' An axiomatic discussion can only really happen sensibly if people have roughly the same axioms.

As a side-note, when I debate to convince, I try to 'feel out' where the other person is 'coming from' and work from there. I have noted most people have about the same underlying axioms, but oftentimes they're trusting misinformation. This is something we all do, but it doesn't mean all information should always be mistrusted. Axioms cannot be justified. Thus, someone with a little more info than me might come in to tell me what I'm saying about them is wrong. And, they might be right. However, I am also pretty confident any such sensible debater has long abandoned this thread. (which should give you some insight into my opinion of myself)
Anyway,

Quote from DJK3654 »

Perhaps, in order to avoid having to argue this same difficult point, it is best that we go off StairC's variation where 'perceptions exist' is taken as absolutely true for ease of making the most important point about practicality as justification and not this less important one about absolute truth as it pertains to argument. As long as absolute truth is problematic, the important part of the argument stands, it need not be that absolute truth is entirely problematic. But, if you really want we can keep going, it's just that it's a hard conversation to have given how counter-intuitive the point I'm making is, and I'd rather talk about the more central point.

Here -at last- you seem to agree an axiomatic argument would be a good starting point. But, -sadly- because this is a debate on 'faith,' what axioms to use are the debate. Yet, axioms -by their very nature- cannot be justified and -therefore- debated.

Currently, there are two systems being proposed:
One is our senses are assumed as the best way to find truths, as StairC and most others seem to be agreeing on.
The other is where one assumes the scientific method is the best way to find truths.

These might seem like basically identical systems, but they're not. Certainly -at this base level of reasoning we're at- they're not.
They're not, because the scientific method claims the human brain is very very diluted. One only needs to read down a list of cognitive biases to know the scientific method claims the human brain is even very proficient at diluting itself on how good it is at diluting itself.

So, which do we trust? Well, if we trust the scientific method, then we have to question our own minds. We have to admit WE are flawed and -therefor- can't really be trusted. Many people would have trouble admitting... well.... I let Sam Harris say it: "The human mind, therefore, is like a ship that has been built and rebuilt, plank by plank, on the open sea. Changes have been made to her sails, keel, and rudder even as the waves battered every inch of her hull. And much of our behavior and cognition, even much that now seems essential to our humanity, has not been selected for at all." -The Moral Landscape


Thus, if I am choosing to trust the scientific method (as I am), I must do it over my very thoughts. I can't justify my choice, it is axiomatic. So, I must end the discussion where I started it:

Quote from Taylor »

I have faith in the scientific method.

Quote from DJK3654 »

@Taylor
And you have no definite understanding of reality, and therefore could be wrong about virtually anything. You assume reason, logic and investigation, you assume science, by your admission, out of faith, and therefore your opinion is nothing more than a opinion and has no shred of objective strength. All of your statements become greatly subjective in the absolute, and can be ignored by dismissing reason itself without justification because you assume it without justification. I could, just as fairly as you do put faith in science, put faith in me always being right- 'therefore, I win'. That's essentially the position you're coming from, one that is not based on argument. If you'd like to justify belief in science, reason and logic, go ahead, but until you provide a through justification, it's hypocritical of you to say that my opinions can be easily ignored.

I like how you continue to ignore my criticisms of your position and yet you have no problem criticising mine, quite aggressively, despite my request that you do both in the light of the thread being a general one on knowledge specifically as it relates, and not about the position I am advocating. If you don't respond to this quite reasonable request by at least acknowledging it, I'm going to start ignoring you.

I can make claims, as long as those claims are relative. 'It seems to be true that it seems to be true that it seems to...' is no less valid of an argument than 'it is true that it is true that it is true that it...'. By their very nature, justifications are regressive. In both cases, the regress is self-forming by the establishment of earlier repetitions implying the later. The form of 'seems to be' is merely weaker and requires a more elaborate reasoning to support than the simple 'truth' version.
Perhaps, in order to avoid having to argue this same difficult point, it is best that we go off StairC's variation where 'perceptions exist' is taken as absolutely true for ease of making the most important point about practicality as justification and not this less important one about absolute truth as it pertains to argument. As long as absolute truth is problematic, the important part of the argument stands, it need not be that absolute truth is entirely problematic. But, if you really want we can keep going, it's just that it's a hard conversation to have given how counter-intuitive the point I'm making is, and I'd rather talk about the more central point.

I will take you at your word from earlier posts on this thread and agree your posts contain no claims, assertions, counterclaims, statements, assumptions, proclamations, declarations, hypotheses, facts, or otherwise truths of any sort.

Therefore, there is nothing to rebut.

So, -I'll stop wasting both our time- and not.

Quote from DJK3654 »

I can, for example, still claim that something seems to be true (not as a truth claim) or make judgements on arguments.

No, you can't.

You can't even claim it's "not a truth claim," because to claim it's "not a truth claim" you have to assert that it is TRUE it's 'not a truth claim.' So -again- this is something beyond your ability.

You've stated time and time again you don't assert anything is true. Therefor, you can't -in fact- claim anything at all.

Quote from DJK3654 »

The quote you provided is irrelevant.

You don't think that's true, and neither do I. Thus, I don't need to take it seriously. It's not a counterclaim. It's a suggestion utterly devoid of anything approaching conviction. This is Debate, not the Watercooler.

You make no assertions, therefore everything you say in a debate is irrelevant.

Quote from DJK3654 »

@Taylor
Feeling cold is not a single experience, nor is it an isolated one. It is made of a series of distinct responses initiated continuously for as long as the cold persists. The realisation by the brain is part of how the experience is generated in the first place. In fact, the realisation is really the only part relevant here, as the rest of the process is established by fallible sensory investigation and not by warrant of itself as perception is being claimed as. When your body actually receive the information of a low temperature, there is no aware perception, it's not evident to you at all. It is ONLY once you are consciously aware of it that IS. So, it is accurate to say that you 'know' you feel cold right now (provided of course you accept the argument actually being made).
I would also like to note that you make an argument against one that is based on a claim to absolute knowledge using clearly non-absolute knowledge that is dependent on the very sort of phenomena that is being argued as absolutely true. Notably, you haven't proven anything absolutely false but ultimately have only validly argued that the answer isn't absolutely knowable by presenting non-absolute argument against it. A non-absolute claim cannot absolutely disprove another claim. For all you really know, time, or the processes of conscious could be quite different (unless you'd like to argue why a certain aspect or form of either is absolutely true).

""People can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves," said neuroscientist Earl Miller. And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself." Miller, a Picower professor of neuroscience at MIT, says that for the most part, we simply can't focus on more than one thing at a time."[1]


But DJK3654 -apparently- you don't believe any of what you say is true.

So, if even you don't think what you say is true, why should I care? I shouldn't, literally no one agrees with it.

If you're not making any meaningful counterclaims, then I don't need to rebuttal.

You can't accurately say "I now feel cold."

In order to KNOW that you feel cold, you need to have processed the information, which takes time. By the time you realize you are feeling cold, it is no longer "now," it was one iteration ago.

You can't even say "I now realize I feel cold." Because, by the time you REALIZE you realized, it's already passed the time you first realized you felt cold. Because of the processing time of the brain, every time you try to make an accurate statement about your current mental state, you will be one iteration ahead.

You could say "I now realize I realized I feel cold," when you're still on the first realization, but it would be a lie, you haven't realize it yet. And, lies can't be truths.
You could say "I will realize I realized I feel cold," when you're still on the first realization, but it would be a guess about the future. You don't yet know if it's true.

And, by the time you realize it's true, it won't be.

Quote from Stairc »

Wow. Of all the meaningless quibbling over definitions in this thread, despite what people obviously mean in the context, this has to be the most impressive one so far.

Sorry, I didn't know you had used your perception to calculate how much time-lag you have in the processing of your perception, and had included that margin of error in your absolute truth statement about 'right now.' (ignoring that absolute truths can't -by definition- have ANY margin of error...)

What is that number BTW? How long does it take you to feel cold, and then how long does it take from there to realize you feel cold? And, I'm sure you got this number from the base principal of your perception. You didn't use anything unreliable to find out how unreliable your...

...

...Yeah... I need to stop.

Sigh....

Quote from DJK3654 »

But it's not a definite statement.

Yet "it's not a definite statement" IS a definite statement. You are definitely stating it's not a definite statement. You are definitively claiming you believe you don't definitively claim things.

Quote from DJK3654 »

I never said you can't believe in absolutes.

Quote from DJK3654 »

our results are and always will be fallible.

I guess you just don't know what "are and always will be" means?

Quote from DJK3654 »

I don't consider anything to be true, because I consider truth (when it's an absolute) to be a flawed notion.

So, then you think it's true that you consider....
..

DJK3654, I'm done.

I've tried my best to show you that you're making truth claims every time you claim you don't make truth claims. You can't assert your uncertain without ASSERTING your uncertain. Because -even if you're unsure that you're unsure- you'd still have to be sure that you're unsure that you're unsure. A person CANNOT argue about ANYTHING -even their own ignorance- without claiming they know something, even if what they're claiming to know is that they know nothing.

You can't state anything without stating something.

Additionally, -whether you and Stairic know it or not- you are stating you are using your perception to justify your perception. Which, as I said way back in post #8, is circular. Unsurprisingly, there are physically proven flaws in using your perception to justify your perception.

Example:

Quote from Stairc »

I can actually. "I feel cold right now".

You're brain can't process information instantly. It takes finite time to process something, and more time to process that it's processed something. What you're feeling isn't being cold 'right now,' it's AFTER your brain has processed the feeling. You THINK it's 'right now,' but it's really your feeling from the recent past.
So, not only isn't it 'absolutely true,' it's not even true.

---

Quote from Highroller »

Well, actually I would tell you to apologize to Taylor for calling him a waste of time, because you clearly cannot throw stones, but as to this debate... I mean, if you're going to tl;dr a 4 page debate, that rather speaks volumes of you.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd rather he apologized to Gödel, since he clearly didn't even click on the link before talking about his theorem.
But, I think this is enough internet for me for a while. If I have to read one more self-contradictory statement... well, I don't think it will be good...

I guess not....

Quote from DJK3654 »

No, because there is no end that line that reasoning, it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time.

So, you think it's true that "it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time."
And, no, you're incorrect (which is self-evident because you're bing self-contradictory... but I digress). That line of reasoning is what brought us some of the most monumental logical theorems, like Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Quote from DJK3654 »

When searching for the best understanding of reality, too many have missed the point. In searching for an answer, they have only found questions and haven't realised how meaningless their search has become.

I would say it is 'meaningless' to try and justify contradictory statements(like "I know it's true that I can't know anything is true") in an attempt to distance oneself from something you think is undesirable (like 'belief'), but which is -in fact- a logical necessity of thought.

Quote from DJK3654 »

The simple answer to investigating reality is to stop trying to demonstrate an absolute altogether, and just follow what is most evident- merely accepting that our results are and always will be fallible.

You realize this is an absolute... saying you don't believe in absolutes... right?
...
No, of course you don't....

Quote from DJK3654 »

But is it my perception that I am suspending judgement? Yes, because that's what it seems to be- that I am making a conscious decision to not think of things as true- whether it is or is not the case that I am actually doing this.

So, you think it's true that you perceive that you suspend judgement.

"I am asserting that I perceive that I don't assert anything."


I am hoping at this point you understand iteration enough that I don't have to keep doing this....

Quote from DJK3654 »

This position being what I meant: I don't think anything 'is the case (i.e. is true)' because I don't know what is the case, so I suspend judgement.

Do you think it's true that you suspend judgement?
This very quote is self contradictory. You are saying:

"I am asserting that I don't assert anything."

Quote from Lithl »

It's not as different as you're suggesting (Greek vs. Spanish analogy). The diagram you posted puts knowledge as "true belief" and I put it as "justified true belief". The only real difference is that if you guess something and believe it despite a lack of justification, I don't count it as knowledge just because you got lucky and were right.

But that "only real difference" is more or less what the entire argument is about.

Quote from Lithl »

The only problem I have with this diagram is that my definition for knowledge is justified true belief. That would create a diagram with a third circle fully inside the belief circle, and knowledge would be the intersection of all three.

Then the issue is a definitional one. We have to have defined words to even debate. If I'm talking Greek and you only speak Spanish, we can't have a discussion. Step one (or zero) is always to define our terms.

So, again, epistemology kinda has the market cornered on what the word can mean. I would recommend looking at this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article if you have time. Pick one you like.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

So, the bottom line is I wasn't goal post shifting?

Good, that's what I thought.

Also,

Quote from DJK3654 »

But I don't believe (or at least, try not to, whether I actually can is a different question), I merely think and act.

Is pretty 'lol' on a number of levels.
I mean, does anyone NOT act and think? It's pretty much the only two things humans can do....

Additionally, I'm pretty sure at this point that DJK3654 isn't into reading links, but someone really should look into the epidemiological definition of 'belief.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief