Falsifiability

[Sanoy]

Why does that conclusion have to be reached by deductive logic?

You don't have to reach it at all if you choose not to make claims about reality. But a premise that follows deductively will be superior than one that is inferred. But it goes beyond that, doubt here eats itself. When doubt enters this system, it casts doubt on the inference itself creating a dialectical loop of infinite self refutation. There must be a hypothesis that gives significant enough quality to our noetic faculties to rise out of the event horizon of the dialectical loop. Anything less than that will be sucked under.

 

[TBDude65]

My question is identical to asking if physics and chemistry describe reality, IE synthetic. If you are now claiming it does then you need to explain why you believed your prior answer reflected your beliefs, and also answer the second question.

You continue to use terms that add nothing to the discussion. I've already stated my position that the facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality and not your imagination

 

[Sanoy]

You continue to use terms that add nothing to the discussion. I've already stated my position that the facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality and not your imagination

I agree, you have already stated your positions on this. The problem is that you have stated two mutually exclusive positions. So you need to explain why you believed your prior answer reflected your beliefs, and also answer the second question if you are changing your beliefs. The second question is - "what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire the conclusion that the facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality and not your imagination?"

 

[Speedwell]

You don't have to reach it at all if you choose not to make claims about reality. But a premise that follows deductively will be superior than one that is inferred. But it goes beyond that, doubt here eats itself. When doubt enters this system, it casts doubt on the inference itself creating a dialectical loop of infinite self refutation. There must be a hypothesis that gives significant enough quality to our noetic faculties to rise out of the event horizon of the dialectical loop. Anything less than that will be sucked under.

Premises don't "follow deductively." Premises are the beginning of a deductive discourse. The only way to establish a premise is by inductive discourse.

 

[Sanoy]

Premises don't "follow deductively." Premises are the beginning of a deductive discourse. The only way to establish a premise is by inductive discourse.

Correct. What I am referring to is a premise that allows the conclusion to follow. I have stated that so many times now, even directly to you in #88, that I have become lax in its wording.

 

[TBDude65]

I agree, you have already stated your positions on this. The problem is that you have stated two mutually exclusive positions. So you need to explain why you believed your prior answer reflected your beliefs, and also answer the second question if you are changing your beliefs. The second question is - "what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire the conclusion that the facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality and not your imagination?"

Again, I don't know why your misunderstanding is mine to explain. I can't meld the inconsistency between what you see as a contradiction (as I do not see the contradiction you claim exists).

But let's move past that if we can to the latter question (side-stepping the fact that you've still shifted away from answering questions asked of yourself). "what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire the conclusion that the facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality and not your imagination?"

I use the same premises available to myself and anyone else. I use the premises that I exist (I think therefore I am) and that I am demonstrably more than just my mind (as I have a physical presence I can confirm for myself). As I and all other beings within it appear to be subject to the same restrictions and operate under the same set of parameters that vary through time, it is sufficient to ascribe to uniformitarianism as axiomatic. That is, what one person can learn through observation, rational experimentation, is reproducible in observation and experimentation, and where the conclusion can be logically deduced from the acquired evidence, I can better understand the shared reality with which I share with so many other beings.

 

[Kylie]

I agree that your nerves are part of your nervous system which encompass your body, and you know this because you learned it from someone who told you it was, and they learned it from using their eyes. As I suspected this is evidence from the external world that the external world exists.

I think you can know things about reality if you use a premise from which the conclusion follows that the perceived world is reality. If you don't use a premise you can't. You seem to be using a premise from which you can't make truth claims in regards to reality. I want to offer you a world view in which you can Kylie.

Both of us have concluded that the perceived world is reality. I think you are getting so caught up with the WHY rather than trying to find out what we can learn about this perceived world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

actually Subduction Zone said that we cant push back human to the dinos age. i showed him that its actually possible. do you agree with his notion or not?

You did no such thing. I am done. You have not been able to ask questions properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you said that we cant push back human to say 40-50 my because its too far. but i just showed that scientists already pushed back creatures in a similar amount of time. so you are clearly wrong about that. can you amdit now that evolution is wrong according to your own criteria or are you still believe in evolution even when your argument have been refuted? i want to see if evolution is religion or science.

No, you did not. What makes you think it is okay to tell such stories?

 

[Sanoy]

Both of us have concluded that the perceived world is reality. I think you are getting so caught up with the WHY rather than trying to find out what we can learn about this perceived world.

I don't agree with that Kylie. I have concluded that the perceived world is reality, where as you have told me that you are proceeding on the assumption that it is. (#290) I know this is frustrating, but it should be if we ignore a teleological end to our noetic faculties.

 

[Sanoy]

Again, I don't know why your misunderstanding is mine to explain. I can't meld the inconsistency between what you see as a contradiction (as I do not see the contradiction you claim exists).

But let's move past that if we can to the latter question (side-stepping the fact that you've still shifted away from answering questions asked of yourself). "what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire the conclusion that the facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality and not your imagination?"

I use the same premises available to myself and anyone else. I use the premises that I exist (I think therefore I am) and that I am demonstrably more than just my mind (as I have a physical presence I can confirm for myself). As I and all other beings within it appear to be subject to the same restrictions and operate under the same set of parameters that vary through time, it is sufficient to ascribe to uniformitarianism as axiomatic. That is, what one person can learn through observation, rational experimentation, is reproducible in observation and experimentation, and where the conclusion can be logically deduced from the acquired evidence, I can better understand the shared reality with which I share with so many other beings.

I asked you a YES or NO question. To call the understanding of "NO" a misunderstanding is absurd.
Original Q/A - Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts (real)? You answered NO.
Changed answer - facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality

Those are contradictions. (note synthetic truths are also analytic truths)

I am unaware of any questions I haven't answered.

I agree with your premise that an "I exist" conclusion is indubitable. However you then make a superman jump to saying that you are demonstrably more than just my mind. You can try and demonstrate that, but only in circularity, and only analytically. That things are predictable says nothing about whether those things relate to the actual world. Things were predictable in the matrix, there were people that confirmed the same events. Those things can't be used to conclude you are in the real world. You have already made this claim in #112 and we have already discussed this issue regarding the matrix TBDude.

 

[Ophiolite]

I know this is frustrating, but it should be if we ignore a teleological end to our noetic faculties.

This sentence doesn't parse for me. I don't see how our noetic faculites (whose existence I not only doubt, but deny) can have a teleological end. Unless you are trying to say "This is only frustrating if we ignore the fact that God has given life a purpose", in which case, why didn't you say that?

 

[Sanoy]

This sentence doesn't parse for me. I don't see how our noetic faculites (whose existence I not only doubt, but deny) can have a teleological end. Unless you are trying to say "This is only frustrating if we ignore the fact that God has given life a purpose", in which case, why didn't you say that?

If you lack noetic faculties it would be pointless for me to answer.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you lack noetic faculties then an answer would be pointless.

It would have the advantage of displaying courtesy.
It would have the advantage of informing other readers. (You and I aren't the only ones here.)
It would have the advantage of honouring the principle of a discussion forum.
It might even dissuade me from my belief that noetic faculties are a fanciful idea.

Of course, if you wish to be discourteous, ignore others, avoid discussion and discount at least some aspects of evangelism, then you should definitely refuse to answer.

 

[Sanoy]

It would have the advantage of displaying courtesy.
It would have the advantage of informing other readers. (You and I aren't the only ones here.)
It would have the advantage of honouring the principle of a discussion forum.
It might even dissuade me from my belief that noetic faculties are a fanciful idea.

Of course, if you wish to be discourteous, ignore others, avoid discussion and discount at least some aspects of evangelism, then you should definitely refuse to answer.

You just told me you deny having noetic faculties. I have no idea what to reply to that or even what a conversation with such a person would entail. You actually have to have noetic faculties to receive an answer. I'm not trying to be discourteous, I have no idea how to communicate with you after what you just said. That was the most shocking thing I have ever heard someone say on a forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just told me you deny having noetic faculties. I have no idea what to reply to that or even what a conversation with such a person would entail.

You could try to provide evidence that such faculties exist. Can you show that it is more than an empty claim? If you can't then their existence is in doubt.

 

[Sanoy]

You could try to provide evidence that such faculties exist. Can you show that it is more than an empty claim? If you can't then their existence is in doubt.

I could but if you don't have noetic faculties it would be the same as providing evidence to a chair. I don't know how to communicate with a chair.

 

[Ophiolite]

I could but if you don't have noetic faculties it would be the same as providing evidence to a chair. I don't know how to communicate with a chair.

There are members on this forum who doubtless believe they have noetic faculties. Just address the answer to them.

That was the most shocking thing I have ever heard someone say on a forum

Were you unaware that those professing to be atheist or agnostic are unlikely to believe they have such faculties? If so, how could you possibly be so illogical?

And you genuinely found this more shocking than those who project hate and disregard for their fellow humans, or . . . well the list isn't endless, but the announcement that there are inhabitants of the planet who don't subscribe to quaint religious notions should not be news to you.

 

[Speedwell]

I could but if you don't have noetic faculties it would be the same as providing evidence to a chair. I don't know how to communicate with a chair.

So only a person capable of direct apprehension of the divine would be capable of understanding your response?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So only a person capable of direct apprehension of the divine would be capable of understanding your response?

Yeah: "If I can't explain it, the problem lies with you."
Or, "If you believed me, you'd agree with me."